van dewater, we have winter fest starting on december 8th, we hope to see you out there in the lighting ceremony, with have more lights that we need to show up. something we look forward to during winter fest. just a quick look at how we're doing with traffic trends in san francisco specifically at the sale force transit center. on the positive we're seeing over 30% increase from last year. but whaifs looking for in tracking, was the increase, assumed from the post labor day return to work and dream force. we had some slight up ticks but nothing significant and i just want to make shower that we highlight some of those things and ensure that we're tracking things. while it's not the best for

retail, it's quite good for real estate and other things that we may be talking about later. i just want to highlight how we're doing in the area. retail leasing, update, we got four tenants working on their spaces, mody slipped back a little bit, due to some electrical and kitchen exhaust type of issues, slight delays and we have bare bottle by the time the weather turns a bit colder and wet. that wraps up my presentation and happy to answer any questions. >> all right, thank you. directors any questions? not seeing any. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> any public comments on the report? >> go ahead and check for public comment in the room. i do see a member of the public, mr. patrick. >> speaker: thank you, jim

patrick, i'm sorry, i millsed the director's report on the prevailing wage issue, but i wanted to point out and read from your, from your document which is the minimum wage that any person performing labor for this provision and project work should be paid not less in the highest wage. we're working on, an 8 billion dollars project and we're bidding it out at the highest possible wage and that's our policy and i know, i had a conversation with the, with my friend with the attorney here, that's a federal restrictions, that's requirement, maybe we should suggest that's not a good requirement. maybe we should renegotiate. how can you stand by and spend

8 billion dollars and agree to pay to the highest wage. it's bananas, i don't know what to say. how about adding some a apprentice to the job? houblt make iting a ski list affair rather than a tunnel affair? let's think outside of the box, 8 billion dollars, we cannot do this. thank you. >> thank you, mr. patrick. any other members of the public in the room? seeing none, any members online? seeing none. that concludes members that wanted to speak on that item. moving on to the next item. director's item 6 is the advise' committee update. and we have cac chair brian larkin with us to address you.

>> good morning, chair gee, i'm brian, i'm here to report on our cac meeting on this past tuesday, the 7th. staff report facility operations, downtown work plan schedule and plan update. lilly gave an update since our october meeting and it included the plans for next week's apac conference which you already heard a little bit about. and rodney harris gave report with transit center including apprehending a murderer coming from the east bay using public transit, good for him. there were no questions other than that. there were no questions for rodney. his report was comprehensive. ari walsh gave his reports and

the date of this year's tent lighting ceremony, i think you already heard that but i think it bears repeating, i missed it last year. oh and natasha patterson made the comment that there is no audio announcers in the elevators and she requested there be. natasha is site and visually impaired so she would like to have that. and question on opening doubts, john who is a consultant to the tjpa, gave an update on it. one of the questions he got is how store and residents are reacting to having relocate. the answer was intuitive as you would expect most people, don't

behavior the idea but they're going to have to live with it, just the same. alfonso gave the work plan, update in response to cac, that he provided more detail about the separation of the station fit outs into two separate contracts. and finally, you're own adam vande water and gave update. we ended our general public comment with a review for upcoming presentations, paul who was a new member of the committee asked for a comprehensive presentation on the project. so we'll have that to look forward to. that is all i have for this month. i won't be here next month but i'll be supplemented by the younger brian, brian shaw. so until next year, i hope you have a happy holiday season. and if there are any questions. >> any questions?

thank you for -- ~>> the lighting ceremony. will you be at the lighting ceremony? >> the lighting, yeah. >> it was premature to wish us happy holiday. >> it's going to be festive. >> any other questions, directors? any public comment on the item? kh he can for public comment in the room? seeing none, checking online. seeing no members of the public wanting to comment on that item. >> thank you so much. >> glad to see you, look forward to seeing you next year. >> yeah, winter fest. >> as noted earlier, we are going to be moving ahead and calling item 8, your consent calendar. >> do we any public comment before on items not on the agenda. >> we're moving 7 and 11 to the end. >> my apologies. >> is that okay? >> yes.

>> okay w that, i'll move into your consent calendar where all matters listed are considered to be routine and will be acted within the vote. in which the matter would be removed from the consent calendar and considered separately. at this time, we will check to see if there are members of the board, or the public that wish to have any have any comments in items considered separately. we do have a member online, none in the room. moderator, would you please let the caller in. >> caller: good morning. >> good morning, roland. >> caller: good morning. thank you for the opportunity. i'm wondering through the chair for somebody to very briefly

state the red lining for item 8.3, thank you. >> okay. thank you public. thank you mr. labron we noted your public comment. with that, i do not see any other members of the public wishing to comment. so your items for consent calendar, 8.1, 8.2, solutions to extend the one year up to 160,083, 8.3 approving updated versions of the following financial policies. and item 8.4 approving board policy number 023 civil rights

policy. >> so moved. >> second. >> with first and second, director chan. >> aye. >> director syed? >> aye. >> and chair gee. >> yes. >> the consent calendar is approved. with that we'll call item number 9 on the regular calendar. san francisco peninsula rail program executive steering committee update and status of the downtown rail extension the portal work plan scheduled. >> good morning, chair gee, and directors. i can't believe wore in the cusp of thanksgiving, so i will wish you a happy thanksgiving. we've been discussing

approaches to maintaining the partnership created by the san francisco peninsula rail program m.o. u while a successor agreement is being developed and implemented for this as a result of the board adopted blueprint. the csc is going to be taking this item up and will likely take the bulk of our november meeting. also now the contract rfq has been releads, that was released in late october. that is actively engaged, the team recently held, a successful rfp development workshop with all the members of the imp, addressing various aspects of the evaluation process as well as contract development. i understand that that session was intense but very successful and ipg it's going to lead to a really good document. risk management remains at the

for front of the proj pekt delivery team and on today's agenda, the board will consider various modifications to the contract approach as discussed at the imt and supported by the stirring committee. i would like to point out that some of the delivery modification were developed by gpla and cal train addressing cal trains requirement for maintaining safe and operations, while delivering the portal within its identified scope cost and schedule. both teams are working as one with a-line objectivity and a common goal. and i may point out here, it's people in relation ship that's lead to successful project delivery and while we had been on a two-year sprint to get to the point where we are today, with my cal hat on, i a appreciate adam's leadership

and i do see a strong relationship between cal train, t.j. p a and i think we're well set up for the next phase. with that, i would like to introduce alfonso. thank you. >> all right, so this is our look ahead for actions that will be presented to the board in the coming month. the first one was referenced by executive director bacharred and it has to do with our governorance memorandum of understanding. it was only a month at at&t that we had a good information on how we should approach this. to operations, and so it was in that in that discussion that we came back and recommended, and you heard about it just a moment ago, that they give an

extension to the mou, which gives us a lot of time to complete our perm pit documents. and i think that will let us come back with a recommendation to you with something that every one feels is appropriate for that duration. the next idea is a continuation of an item that you're fwg to hear today, that's the relocation plan. in december, we'll ask the board to take action on that. today is informational. as you heard, we released the rfq for the built package. in january, we'll be asking the board's consideration to release for track and systems contract. in february, we've got a couple of items, we'll be asking the board to formally adopt a base line budget and schedule. it's not our tension to change the values and revenue anticipated date, rather to give more precision to the

budget and scheduled which becomes a document that we manage our document by. the pmc contract, the program construction manager contract which is the successful agreement to our current control contract which expires in june of next year. we expect to bring that item for your board's consideration to award, of course contingent upon successful negotiation that's we're present' engaged in. following, also in february, i'm sorry in march, we do plan on bringing the request for proposal to the board to release and that's for the heavy civil work through the contract. and then following, either in march or shortly therefore, we show it in march, we plan on bringing the request for qualifications and relief for stations set out. these are the actions that you can expect to see from the

portal team. oh, we have another slide before we take questions and that's a funding slide. and i'll turn it over to our executive director to cover this. >> so director, this is the same slide that we presented last week and we'll look for updates on the funding plan. i'll note here, is 60 million dollars project development funds that we received from the state, from the tircp program have been authorized from the first tranch, and we'll come back for the balance of those funds at a future date. there are not other funding awards, i did mention at the top of the meeting that we're awaiting word from our active applications. so while we think about the schedule ahead, we're anticipating a project waiting and hopeful entry into the

engineering phase with fta as soon as december. announcements of the two grant awards in december, january, maybe february time frame prior to bringing some of these items to authorize the continuation of the process. just wanted bring together the funding with the technical planning for you. >> and hooer to answer any questions you may have. >> director chang. >> thank you for that that presentation? >> would it make sense, i appreciate the slide and i think that the timing may be right with all the positive actions and hopefully good news from the feds for the coming legislative session in particular. where we may want to have a discussion at this board.

>> through the chair through the director, i agreed i think we're anticipating some preenabling works one that is facilitate fromed rm3. the another is to do the preconstruction work at the rail yard and relocation which is the subject of one of our grants. and the thurd is the on boarding of the contractor, which we would only authorize on a limit noticed to proceed notice, and do things like constructive ability that will inform a lot of our right-of-way and alignment. >> thank you, director chan. any other questions from directors? not seeing, any public comment? >> public comment in the room? seeing none, checking for public comment online. we do have a member of the public moderator, please let the caller in.

>> caller: hello again, i'm pleased that okay, i'm hearing this background noise again. i'm extremely pleased that through the leadership of the executive committee, we have an approach where common sense prevailed. on the next slide, i want to bring your attention to the next two slides. and the bottom right. if you have two cases when we are matching, with several funds. i'm not sure how that is going to fan out. last comment that i would like

to make is i would move, i'll come back to you and explain to you, how we can potentially eliminate all the --[indiscernible] thank you. >> thank you, caller. that concludes members of the public that want to a tres you under that item. sorry, we have another caller? >> yes. >> caller: hello i'm office administrator in joint powers authority. i'm calling to give public comment and test the communication line, since i need to continue speaking for a while. i would like to reiterate xek i have director laoes van de

waters about winter fest activities that are taking place december 8th through the 10th at park. on friday, december 18th, we will have our lighting the park ceremony from 5 to 7 p.m. and we'll have a ugly sweater silent disco that evening. and on sunday december 10th, there will be a wreath making workshop. >> thank you. >> caller: bye. >> any others? >> there are no other members of the public that wish to comment. >> continue to next item?

>> item 10, [reading item] with metropolitan commission as necessary and appropriate to implement the purposes of the resolution and receipt of rm-3 funds. and we have mary with us. >> good morning, board. i'm mary prior with nwc partners as mentioned, this is first allocation from arm three funds for the project. both mtc and tgpa will need to take action. the committee met yesterday on the item and the full commission is scheduled to see this item on november 15th. the mtc report does note several items related to this allocation. the first relates to transit or

gented communities policy. so this policy requires local jurisdiction to submit a better to mtc with policy. and the san francisco planning department has provided such a better and mtc sfaf has said that that satisfies the requirement. the second item relates to security to wr, m3 funds. reimbursement is conditioned on investment to ensure that if the project does not proceed to construction, the funds would be returned to mtc. we had a similar agreement for phase 1 and details are under way for mtc and general council. and the third item relates to governorance. the staff reports notes that before future allocations, they're expecting to see on the

successor agreement to the rail m.o. u and the implementation of the blueprint. mtc could recommend that this be a condition of future allocations. if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer. >> mary, thank you. directors any questions? any public comment? >> all right, checking for public comment in the room? seeing none, checking for public comment online? seeing none. >> mary, i would love to see what a $100 million check look like so when you, anyway, this is item for action. is there a motion. >> so moved. >> second. >> director chan, thank you, director forbes and motion and a second. >> with that, director chang. >> aye.

>> director forbes. >> aye. >> director babtiste. >> aye. >> director syed? >> yes. >> chair gee. >> aye. >> moving to item 12, portal delivery and alfonso director will present the item. >> it's going to be projected on the screen but i don't see it. >> it will come up. >> okay. >> i'm really going to speak to one slide, it's at the end of the staff report and i'm sure it will come up onscreen momentary. proposed to the project delivery approach that was adopted by this body last july

but only for select project elements. and i'll briefly go over there in the slide in your packet. i should point out that these recommended changes were developed by the delivery team by includes cal team and after risk and ticking new account the input that we're able to get from the construction industry that we held during our procurement out reach, these recommendations were developed and discussed and supported by efc. so why don't we go, it's really tiny, through the first three rows. fight preparation at the cal trains and king rail yard and demolition of 7 buildings, mainly located at the northeast corner of second and howard streets over the throat area which is that area just west of the transit center.

now no change is recommended to the advance utility, relocation approach. however we do recommend creating two separate contracts. our coordination with cal train which by the way is going very well, coupled with the further out reach that i mentioned, with industry and other transit projects, with similar situations that extend live passenger service in a new project, clearly points out that there are two distinct requirements in this location. the first is site preparation at the north and northwest end of the rail yard and that's the part that has no electrified or not planned. it's got a few buildings, structures, it's just not part of the passenger service area. and that's, site was identified in our environmental document to be used as contractor

occupancy and lay down area for the work to built and the townsend under the street. that element is set different from the second element and that is the rearrangement of the electrified track work to make the connection as it underground to the transit center. now we're presently engaged to finalize the tlifr' method and implement on this onsite element of work, but we're suggesting the board adopt this for the reasons i stated. another element that we're asking for your consideration is approach forfeit out work to be conducted at both station locations. the earlier approached identified fit out for both station location to be delivered through a single construction manager general contractor tlifr' method. as part of this assessment and

delivering our delivering package accounts, we look at the contract interfaces and retirement at the location, the location of the lay down area adjacent to the townsend area. and it became apparent that we could better manage the risk without having three different contractors occupying that same space for a good amount of time with the suggested change. so that coupled with the differences in the station requirement plan for the fourth and townsend station and transit center station. the fit out work for the 4th and townsend station for the contract. and that will reduce the number of conflicts by only having two contractors working on one site, there will be some overlap but in a more logical manner. we also concluded that it's better to keep a station fit

out scope at the transit center separate from the track and station work, if you recall the recommendation adopted by the board, we left that decision to a later date on whether we had two contracts or one, this recommendation says that we should just have the contract for station set out at the first transit center. so this concludes my presentation of the suggested changes. this is an item for your consideration and action. and i'm available to answer any questions you may have. >> alfonso, thank you very much. directors, questions and comments? i noted in the report, alfonso there is still a conversation about who left the contracts at the rail yards. >> that's right. >> how is that going? >> it's going, at present. we do plan on concluding the conversation wz cal train and coming back to an item to this board with the recommendation,

we recognize what cal train is, in our discussion wz cal train, we recognize the risk to transit operations over on their side and i think we have a solution that we're, pret owe close to presenting to this board, respective boards. >> very good. >> and how is the coordination with sfmta this is not an isolation by it self, as director noted in the previous conversation, runs around presites of the rail yards. so there is coordination that has to happen there too. >> good morning, thank you. >> how is that going? how is the coordination going? >> coordination with. >> sfmca. >> so if you're talking at the coordination at the rail site. we got the interface at the new crossing, on third street, yeah. we are, they are part of our project development team where

we're looking at the under crossing that of track word further complicated by some sewer work. i believe that coordination is going well, if somebody feels otherwise, i would like to know. >> i would agree that the coordination is going well. i think as the project further develops and we did this with phase 1, there may be our traffic routing team and our streets division. i have not heard any issues to date and i think, you know, we run projects all over the city with private developers and other city departments and we will provide

any comments from the public? seeing none, we do have a speaker online. >> caller: me again. the issues that we're experiencing is very clearly, i can barely hear the director, it looks like the director audio has been picked up by alfonso's microphone.

on the repackaging, i'm extremely pleased that you split the way, the two separate contracts. basically, your--error between 6th and 7th. i'll explain to you why you don't need to do any cal train modifications, for and. contractors can find the same space, just does not work. i'm happy to provide you with multiple examples where this will join the development and how they are addressed. but in closing out, i think smda, is a issue. --especially if you deal

with--not only are you going to make it impossible. i don't know why they're considering it. but right now, the cal train tracks are block two lines. is that the second mark? the end is permeating and the fee, the 16th street is also perm natured the lines. if you move the station to 7th street, it can come in these two lines together. my hope is to have this conversation as soon as possible. thank you. >> all right that concludes members of the public that wants to address that item. >> thank you. this is item for action, trekers is there a motion or a second. >> i make a motion. >> oops. >> or a second. >> there is been a motion and a second to approve. >> with that, director chang.

>> aye. >> forbes. >> aye. >> baf taoeft >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> and gee. >> giovanni ortega aye as well. item 12 is approved. call the next item. >> yes please. >> item 13, [reading item] not to exceed amount of 1,055,000 to reallocate 801,000 to accommodate the contemplated cal train services. and we have ms. ana harvey our deputy director to present. >> good morning, chair gee and directors, ana harvey for engineering here to present this item.

the title is very lengthy, i'll try to make it clear, there are a number of acronyms, with cal train which is in place prior to the overall presentation of a master agreement to this board and then as an amendment to our budget in order to facilitate the funding of that amendment. that's two parts and i'll go through them in order. so as mentioned in the coordination and kind of excellent cooperation that is going between our two agencies in order to codify that, we're developing a master agreement or mca that outlines to deliver the portal with an expected execution date of fall of next year. so before the mca can be fully negotiated and present today both agency board, back in february of this year, they authorized to enter into a rail

program enabling memberium of agreement or moa. for tjpa for consultant resources assisting planning and managing the complex work. as you mentioned and ensuring safety and the continuity of operations paramount and cal train ask for some additional resources in order to help them project manage that work. not to exceed 595,000 as a budget and a term expiring no later than march next year. separate low, the parties have entered into an interim agreement in august of this year. part of the scope that covers reimbursement for staff time in supporting this king rail yard planning. the i--the mou which is under discussion is specifically for construction.

so the integrated design team from our own project management staff from cal trains, we've been working very closely together for many months to advance design for what we have termed the fourth and king yard operation of portal program. the integrated design team cults, we immediate by lateral multiple times a week. we've done sidewalks and et cetera, and the cal train resources and operations utilities and other disciplines have been made available. as alfonso and director bouchard have mentioned, this coordination is going well. we made progress in reaching an undering with the author and budget for the 4ky work. combining in two packages and

deliver and responsible agency. this work has been very complex and is required a lot of time from both our staff as well as cal train staff and their oversight consultants. because of that significant effort, the existing 595,000 budget under the moa is expected to be expended in the fall of this yes, sir. they recommend increasing by 430 to allow cal train and consultant to continue this valuable coordination. on the integrated design team through the end day of mou in march of next year. we anticipate an overall agreement on the rail yard, anticipated to be executed with cal train in march of april of next year. the board has already authorized the proposed amendment on their end. in order to provide mechanism in this amendment, we worked

closely with our finance amendment for expenditures on staff and consultant on the rail yard as well as outside of that. so we bring to you a proposed amendment to the, to the tgpa of 801,000 which includes the 460 which we just discussed and additional 341 based on discussion and review of cal trains, expenditures to date. this is due primarily to an excelration and speeding up and--t.j. pa staff by reducing planned expenditure in other line items in the current fiscal year. we recommending approving amendment number 4 by reallocating 801,000 and

increation the inner agency line item. i hope that, it's not particularly concise but clear which, the budget and the reason that we believe it's necessary to advance this very important work in spring of next year and overall nca. with that, that concludes my verbal presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> just illustrate the complexity of the project, thank you. directors any questions? is there any public comment? >> we will check for public comment in the room, seeing none, we'll check for public comment online. while we're checking, you will note that directer forbes has departed as she had another engagement to get to. no public wishing to document. --comment. >> thank you.

and alfonso, we need another glossary with all acronyms, i cannot keep up. it's a little challenging, but we'll get there. directors this is item for action. is there a motion? >> so moved. >> thank you. >> second. >> second by director chang. >> chang. >> aye. >> babtiste. >> aye. >> brewers. >> aye. >> syed? >> aye. >> chair gee. >> i'll abstain. >> abstained 4 aye sxz item 13 is approved. >> thank you. with na, we'll move back to take item 7 and then 11. for folks, item 7 it's an opportunity for folks to address the board with items--and we'll check to see

if there are members in the room. seeing none, we will check online. we do have a caller online, please let the caller in. >> thanks again for the opportunity. i hope you can hear me clearly. i had issue with the public speaker a while ago. what i would like to do is last week's presentation on the l.a. union to anaheim segment, to the rail board of directors. and listen carefully to lin chang when she learned that the consultant were planning to add an additional high speed station between l.a. and anaheim in violation of prop 1-8.

vice chair chang with a very same objections, to go to about the additional high speed rail. i think you're to listen to the point she made. because in our case, the element of this platform will eliminate all impact on the job, and the underlining promoted assets. thank you. >> thank you. caller. any other members of the public wishing to comment, moderator, i see none. that concludes public comment under item 7, we'll move to item 13. >> please. >> excuse me, i mean item 11. item 11 is a presentation for

draft relocation plan on november 3th and we have our real estate manager consultant to present. >> good morning, chair gee. >> good morning. >> directors, good to be here back. so this is very brief informational item regarding the relocation plan that will come back to you in december meeting for final review and hopefully adoption after consideration. so the draft relocation plan has been posted on the t.j. pa website. we have provided notice by certified mail to all owners and tenants who are potential

lea februarieding by this project regarding a possible acquisition. and that public comment period runs now for 30 days until december 4. we will make adjustments to the draft that is in front of you now and then turn that around for you in december for final review and adoption. so let's talk about what this relocation plan, is required by california law offer the board to adopt it. it really is an precursor, we want to be able to show that we have a clear path forward to address relocation issues in a fair and equitable manner. what the plan speaks to is a schedule, the financing, to show that there is capacity to

both acquire and handle relocation costs obligations that we might have. identify the impact of the project that it could have on occupants. identify the potential relocation sites, so this has a updated fresh look at the marketplace, around and near, those potential displacements that show there is, not surprisingly, added capacity in the marketplace for relocations. and explains the relocation assistance program. that program is really driven in a couple of parts. one is the relocation act in 1970 as amended, that's the main driver that we will follow. and then also, following the, caltrans manual for right-of-way that's also a guiding light for how we will proceed in our acquisitions and

our relocations. so we have two comprehensive guides to lead us through this process. so as i mentioned public comment period is now open. this is being handled by our very capable consultant team at associated right-of-way services. they are taking all the comments in, so that's why comment right side directed to them directly. also available for review in the office at tjpa at the transit center. and as i mentioned, we'll be back then on december 14th with a review of this. what i want to note in terms of the impact that you will find in this report, to spare you going through the entire report, there are just slightly over estimated 50 businesses or

occupants that could potentially be affected by either total or partial acquisitions that may result in relocation. the majority of those businesses are tech base office businesses,. the good news is we have plenty of room in the financial district to secure locations for them to move to. our obligation under the law is to cover moving costs for such businesses as long as that move is within a 50 mile radius. we feel confident, there is confidence that we have available space for these folks to remain in the financial district. and i think that's an important point that should be a take away from this. there are a few other operating occupants that are non office,

less than a handful. there also appears plenty of ground floor service space available in the marketplace. and likely they may be at these rates and price points. the, relocation payment process is really guided by three words, actual, necessary, and reasonable. those are the touch points that are in the relocation act and in the guide. some expenses as well as they meet the three criteria with certain caps that are placed on the amount that are paid by category by federal law, reasonable, actionable and it moves forward. if there is a concern about a decision that has been made, there is a relocation appeal process that is clearly outlined in this plan and we go

into more in more detail in december, it may be commented on that, but we have, chosen to use the process that is worked very well for the city and county of san francisco that i've been part of in my past that we used in treasure island and that we use at central subway, we utilize that same path forward in terms of reallocation appeal body. that is all i have today. happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, john, nice to see you, thank you for the briefing. director any questions? >> thank you, john, great to see you again. i have one quick question, this is been posted now because it's a requirement for the funding process, is my understanding but in terms of when the actual acquisitions may happen and relocations may happen, what is the time frame for that? >> i'm sorry?

time frame for the acquisitions, assuming that the rm3 is processed, that will allow us to move forward with the trench 1 which are total before we move to partially acquisitions. our goal is to move forward with those acquisitions and relocations by the, end of june of 2024. rock penetrations, and potentially utilities related easements that would follow in the following fiscal year. >> you bet. >> thank you, director chang. >> hi there, john, thank you very much for this update. can you talk a little bit more

about the past that you were referring to as far as the city's path for other projects that you've worked on? when how this project will be consistent with or utilizing guidelines from the city. i assume you're also incorporating and being consistent with the -- ~>> i was trying to refer to the appeals process. >> if there is a dispute with a claim, and a challenge to a decision made by tjpa, there is a relocation appeals process that we have elected to follow. appeals for central subway and

for fridayer island, we'll follow that same course of action. i don't know if debra may want to add anything to that. underfed ral and state law and regulations, relating to acquisition, also, caltrans has detailed guidelines relating to caltrans, relating to right-of-way acquisition and planning so that tjpa plan follows those materials. and then the tjpa had a successful a lo racing, for phase 1 properties and the, the procedures that the tjpa is following here consistent with phase 1. i'm not familiar with the city of san francisco having its own set of guidelines relating to relocation planning or right-of-way acquisition

separate from the federal and state regulations mentioned. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> did you want to add anything? >> no no no, i was going to say, are consistent with the guidelines. >> thank you. directors any other questions? not seeing any public comment? >> okay, we'll check for public comment in the room? seeing none, we do have a member of the public online, moderator if you can please let the caller in. >> caller: thank you, again. directors. i'm going to respectfully, audio again, this is irritating. i'm going to request that you talk about the relocation plan until you at least receive the fda and you resolve any

potential conflict between the current and the 21 alignment across the base. i'll give you more details on the specific example on what could go. the initial alignment for the high speed line between london and tunnel, would require 2400 homes. a month later, came in from arab which realignment. we were with the alignment to--at which point, the 2400 are no longer required.

i respectfully request your any action on this plan. thank you. >> that concludes public speakrs on that items. >> this is an item just for information only. i believe that concludes our business for today. >> it does. >> wow, thank you directors for your expeditious attention and processing today's agenda. executive director? >> directors if i can end on a positive note, we did have a member of our staff complete the app to leadership and harvey has been a great team connecting our team through apta and has learned and through other partner organizations doing similar construction projects. so i just wanted to take a

moment to congratulate her and what that does for them. >> thank you, that's great. [applause] on that note, that concludes the business of tjpa today, thank you all and we hope for a successful apac summit here in san francisco. >> thank you.

meeting of the san francisco health commission. secretary will you call the roll. >> yes, i'll start with commissioner chow. >> present. >> commissioner how. >> present. >> prept. >> present. >> and commissioner christian. >> wonderful, and commissioner chow will be reading the land acknowledgment. >> thank you. it's my pleasure to read the land ak novemberment, acknowledges that we're on the unseeded homeland of the ramaytush