item 10 is approved. item 11, approving the updated initial project report dated june 14, 2012, and a resolution of project plans for the allocation of regional measure 1/ab 1171 bridge toll funds in the amount of $73,700,000 for the transbay transit center program. >> this is our second submission to mtc. this is for capital funds. it will be either ab 1171 bridge toll funds or a combination including regional measure 1/ab. it has various pieces of the scope, including continuation of design on the transit center in the bus ramp. the structural consultant, which is contacted on your agenda today. continuation of the pre- construction services. it will allow us, in combination with the fra funds to certified the contract was awarded later in the year. the total allocation would be $73.7 million. this is also calendar for this month, it contingent on your approval today. director reiskin: two quick questions. you have a table that shows the needs of the projects and then the amount of bridge tolls going fo

item 11 is approved. next item, number 12, authorizing the executive director to execute a professional services agreement with cast connex corporation to provide engineering and administrative services for architecturally exposed structural cast steel notes for the transbay transit center. >> good morning, board. just to describe this, cast steel knows the connections between all the tubular steel members that you see in the building, and they occur at the bottom at the ground level, the middle at the bus level, and at the roof level. this is connecting tubular steel pieces together. that is what a cast node is. this shows the three different sites along the side rendering. and going to blow up, top one. what we did with this one, because it is near the very top and is not entirely visible, we look to alternatives and came up with a combination were the top part of this connection is fabricated steel, welded plates, and the only casting is the shoes a the bottom. so these items, in fact, are now repetiti

both of these will be completed by the approved project schedule. however, during construction, we discovered an extensive archaeological burial site in the vicinity, which is on the peninsula, and it was determined it would be most cost-effective and efficient to deal with it by my " tunneling under the site using separate construction contracts -- by micro-tunneling under the site. i wanted to point out that back in july -- since july 2011, this commission also approved a significant increase of $13.9 million for the construction of this overall project due to issues related to the east bay contracts and that additional money was needed to address unforeseen side conditions. there were a lot of impacted properties. the treatment and disposal of groundwater as well as the need [inaudible] finally, the third project has been affected by a number of issues as well. we have encountered the current site conditions related to the added bills related to the existing facility. there needed to be some design modification to meet some specific criteria for

following the unanimous approval of the commission, the project was approved by a different neighbor, who had not previously made any comments. there were a number of speakers with a number of concerns, and impacts to the feral cat population living in the existing building. bowing to the lengthy public process and notifications that had already taken place, and the compatibility of the project with the neighborhood, the board denied the appeal and upheld your approval of the project. the second case was 3139 goth, which involved four requestoers. the commission unanimously approved the project with the addition of the privacy buffer on the roof deck. this was in november. one of the original requesters appealed. the board granted the appeal and also of health department and asked that new windows be frosted and a privacy screen be provided along the roof that. with that, that concludes my report. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here to give you the report. there were no planning or land use related items, but tomorrow, there will be an official hearing on for the it

the minutes are approved. item number 15, review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of january 18, 2012. >> move to approve. >> second. >> public comment on this item? all in favor? the minutes are approved. item 16, review and approval of the minutes of the special meeting of february 2, 2012. >> move to approve. >> seconds. >> thank you for catching up on these minutes. >> you are welcome. public comment on item 16? all in favor? the minutes are approved. item 17, commissioners questioned on matters. 17 and a comet increase to staff. at this time, commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices, and procedures, which are of interest to the commission. any comments? item 17 b, future meetings or agendas. at this time, the commission may discuss and take action to date -- to set the date of the special meeting and were determined those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings. the next meeting is scheduled

we recommend you approve this legislation. chairperson chu: why don't we open these two comments up for public comment? are there members of the public that wish to speak on items three or four? >> good morning. i have graphics. this is what it needs. another $1 million. [laughter] another $1 million. ♪ maybe you did not improve it quite as often ♪ as you could often ♪ maybe i should have helped its ♪ ♪ all those lonely broke days ♪ little things you should have said and done ♪ ♪ you just never took the time ♪ but it was always on general hospital -- on my mind ♪ ♪ general hospital was always on my mind ♪ ♪ won't you please give it some more time ♪ ♪ would you please give it some more time ♪ ♪ tell me, tell me, that is going to really shine ♪ ♪ and you are going to fix its fine ♪ ♪ fix it great and find ♪ chairperson chu: thank you. it are there other members of the public that wish to comment on items three and four? seeing none, public comment is closed.. do we have a recommendation to send this out? we have that motion and

so why is it that we need to approve these revisions to the program? whenever a project encounters significant issues in the field that have an impact on cost and/or schedule and that' -- tht we can at mickey d's impact, that is when we need to consider revision to what has been approved to these projects -- that is -- that we cannot mitigate impact, that is when we need to consider revision to what has been approved for this project. it allows us to have a more realistic base line against the measure performance. if we try to measure performance and give unrealistic baselines, then the measure of these performance indicators is pretty much meaningless. finally, the california water code requires will identify any project behind schedule and that we provide either a plan or timeline for making up the delay or for revising the schedule. the last time this commission approved official changes to the program was in july 2011, and at that point, these changes involved only very minor project levels. the most significant change a a

these include state plan's approval of the trust's exchange agreement, approval by the board of supervisors of the lease, purchase and sale agreement, exchange agreement, made this agreement, the issuance of building permits that allows construction to permit. beginning with the 2008 request for proposals, on the poor, working with this development partner, the city, regulatory agencies, and numerous stakeholders, has diligently pursued and shepherded the development of seawall lot 351. because of the importance of this site to the port and city, agreements before the port commission and public contained particular provisions to ensure excellence and integrity of design, construction, and management are part of it for this highly valuable location. through the provision of market break and affordable housing, knew parks, expanded open space, retail, and inappropriate amount of on-site parking, seawall lot 351 project completes the vision for the ferry building waterfront area carefully delineated in a plan in the waterfront land use plan and so well expressed by the public- private investme

bill approval. so consistent with those definitions and those spiskss is how that's done. >> finally, -- has not been asd to meet as part of the implementation of the executive board. do you know -- has that happened? >> mr. chairman, i anticipate that to happen. this is the early stages. we'll be collaboratively working with the department of education, dod and so forth to work all these issues. the executive order, as you know, directs each of those institutions to, in some cases, lead a particular provision or task, others to co-lead or collaborate in consultation with. so that work is to be done and we'll be working with all those agencies. >> okay. thank you. mr. schatz, in addition to your suggestion to restore the s.a.a.'s role in approving schools and courses, what specific ways can the saas assist the va in preventing predatory practices? >> i'll be happy to answer that, mr. chairman. contrary to the general statement and with great respect, compliance surveys do not necessarily look at tha

the minutes are approved. item 11, approval of the minutes of march 21, 2012. >> call the question. >> to approve? >> a second. >> is there any public comment? are all in favor of approving the minutes? >> aye. >> any opposed? the minutes are approved. item 12, discussion on a-b appointment, hiring of the interim director of the department of building inspection, and confirmation for transition purposes, persuant to 1.1d with the annual salary ordinance. 12-a, public comment on the closed session. is there public comment? seeing none -- item 12-b, possible action to convene a closed session. is there a motion? go ahead. >> i was wondering if we could discuss this in open session. i get up this morning at 6:30 nd and read about this in the "san francisco chronicle." we are deciding something the mayor and h.r. knows about, but we don't. why do we need a closed session if the "bay-guardian" knows about it. we may as well discuss it in open session. let the discussion happen. >> i tend to agree. i think that find

approval of minutes for the may 8, 2012 meeting. >> so moved. >> seconded. the approval? all in favor? >> item three. public comment on executive session. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> executive session. conference with legal counsel and real property negotiator. >> i move that we reconvene in open session. all in favor? i move that will not disclose anything discussed in executive session. >> second. >> all in favor? aye. i would like to move public comment on all items on today's agenda be limited to two minutes each. >> second. >> all in favor? aye. the motion has been passed, thank you. >> please be advised that the ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. please be advised that the chair may order the removal from the meeting room of any person(s) responsible for the ringing of or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound-producing electronic device. please be advised that a member of the public has up to two minutes to make pertinent public comments on each age

we need to consider revision to what has been approved for this project. it allows us to have a more realistic base line against the measure performance. if we try to measure performance and give unrealistic baselines, then the measure of these performance indicators is pretty much meaningless. finally, the california water code requires will identify any project behind schedule and that we provide either a plan or timeline for making up the delay or for revising the schedule. the last time this commission approved official changes to the program was in july 2011, and at that point, these changes involved only very minor project levels. the most significant change a year ago was an extension of the program from december 2015 to july 2016. the overall program budget remained the same, but we have some savings that the project level that we were able to consolidate and create a program management reserve. that reserve at the time was $161 million. as part of these revisions, we also move 5 water supply projects from the wsip to the water enterprise cip. thes

we made a motion to amend the resolution, which was approved, and now we're going to vote to approve the amended resolution. >> first and second. any opposed? seeing none, all in favor? ok. >> item number 9. >> [unintelligible] >> we did not receive any members of the public that wanted to comment on the item, did you wish to comment on that item? >>> i did not come up, but now i do wish to comment on it. >> we have already voted on this item. we usually take public comment on the boat. but just come up and speak on item number 8. >> thank you. i'm jim patrik with patrik and company. i have observed a lot of these board meanings and i find that this board does not pay any attention to the community. i have seen actions taken their that die in the board. i would strongly recommend that this board, as part of their activity, evaluate or make notes on the minutes of that meeting, so that we know that what they're doing is landing on this board. from an outsider looking in, i do not think it happens. i think it's a charade. i have no comment about the particular nominees. but thank you f

we recommend you approve this legislation. chairperson chu: why don't we open these two comments up for public comment? are there members of the public that wish to speak on items three or four? >> good morning. i have graphics. this is what it needs. another $1 million. [laughter] another $1 million. ♪ maybe you did not improve it quite as often ♪ as you could often ♪ maybe i should have helped its ♪ ♪ all those lonely broke days ♪ little things you should have said and done ♪ ♪ you just never took the time ♪

a motion to approve? a motion in the second. -- and a second. >> we will go ahead and do a roll call vote on this. [calling roll] five ayes. item seven is approved. next item. item eight, authorizing the executive director to execute with conditions of of random of understanding with the california high-speed rail authority, the metropolitan transportation commission, and six other local and regional entities to establish a funding framework for a high speed rail early investment strategy for a blended system in the peninsula corridor. >> good morning. thank you for the opportunity to present this morning. i am here to present good news related to phase ii, dtx. as you are aware, the high-speed real recently revised their business plan, and that vision relates to funding for theseii an phase ii and the memorandum you will be considering today. this is the full build up scenario to what is referred to as a blended system approach. with the full bbuild up a scenario, dedicated tracks up and down the state a

approve modification #to decrease the contract by $37,707. with a total contract duration of 240 consecutive calendar days and authorize final payment to the contractor. approved modifications as needed annual paving contract for services and main breaks. extending the contract duration by 210 consecutive calendar days. authorize the general manager to execute a change order to increase the contract amount by $110,000 for a total contract value of $3,320,770. bayview hunters point rehabilitation and pavement renovation in the amount of $2,535,027 of which over $1.7 million is funded by waste water enterprise. to the lowest qualified responsible and responsive better, -- bidder, shaw pipeline. energy efficiency for san francisco peninsula for an amount not to exceed $3 million to the lowest qualified responsible bidder. an amount not to exceed $3 million for the lowest qualified and responsible bidder for emcor services inc.. do ratify the declaration of emergency made by the general manager and approved by the president of the commission for

i wholeheartedly approved of the warriors coming here and the giants. as you know, i supported them from the get go. that is where your money is. it is not on this little part of washington that you are making a big deal of which is going nowhere. i agree with korean. you should listen to the people in the community. they know better than you what fits. as a matter of fact, as a creator of open space parks, i had the vision and leadership to know that we needed open space here. we do not need development that is deleterious to the port and the neighborhood. please listen to the people, look at the amount of people here trying to help you do the right thing. i told willie brown the port is where the money was years ago. that is how we got all this development. pleased to listen to me. that is where the money is. concentrate on seawall lot 337 and tier 70. that is a gift that you cannot replace. thank you. >> thank you. is there any further comment on item 90? -- 9b? commissioners, any comments? >> i do want to point out, as was noted earlier by director

you know the planning commission has approved it and the board of supervisors has approved it and i asked you to approve it also appeared -- it also. you know this project is good for the city and for the port. it brings as long needed revenue. it excludes a nobody from the city. it brings affordable housing to the city. it actually provides an alternative that might prevent displacement of neighborhoods by getting rich folks to buy here -- a place to buy here on the waterfront. it is time to approve the project. thank you. >> dick gloomack. if he is not here, that we move to shea emily. and after that, cameron steel. >> good afternoon. i'm here on behalf of equity office properties. for 10 years, eop has been restored of the building and has been dedicated to the waterfront. when eop entered into the release for the ferry building, it entered into a parking agreement, parking dedicated to patrons now on lot fief -- 351. the waterfront development is inconsistent with that covenant. a cabinet reserving 90 spaces for waterfront visitors were not satisfied -- satisfy the agreement. further,

it says, please approve 8 washington. let's move forward by approving a vibrant waterfront community with housing and restaurants and retail with parking. i will read quickly some of the businesses that have signed onto this. quis ceramics, pebble donuts, mcevoy meat co., farm fresh to you, stone olive oil, lamarck, pier 23, hotel the tiley -- hotel vitali. thank you. >> thank you. any further public comment? >> ssu hester. it -- i am speaking on behalf of falk. in a widening of embarcadero, you are narrowing the sidewalk 1 ft. from what exists now. no one bothers to check these things, but we have measured it. it is being reduced along your site. this is one of the first project that has the level rise. you do not address who bears the financial burdens when the sea level rise happens in your parking garage. are you willing to have wiped out positions? who will lose in that one? the entire design of the recreation facility is up and -- up in the air, and this is the replacement of the tennis and swim club, but the resolu

so why is it that we need to approve these revisions to the program? whenever a project encounters significant issues in the field that have an impact on cost and/or schedule and that' -- tht we can at mickey d's impact, that is when we need to consider revision to what has been approved to these projects -- that is -- that we cannot mitigate impact, that is

let's say eight gets approved, -- let's say it gets approved, they are still facing the purchase agreement, which has this clause in it. for some reason, if that does not pan out, they cannot move forward with the project. >> there is a board of supervisors ordinance that required the economic justice covenant be in the purchase and sale agreement. the wrappers and the desk from my office can confirm they have already entered into -- the representatives from my office can confirm the a party entered into the agreement. >> -- they have already entered into the agreement. >> there will be no building permits issued until this is done? >> to echo the deputy city attorney's point, that is correct. entrance into an economic justice covenant is a required condition before closing. q >> just prior to closing, they will not have ownership of the property. >> correct. >> i have one final question. a number of speakers came up to talk about on-site affordable, but my understanding is based on the palm our decision -- palmer decision. since this is rental, that is not allowable unless there is some d

we have recently approved authorization of the board of funding without additional board approval, so we are presenting to you today this refunding authorization and we will not need to bring this to the board for their approval. the forms of agreement are almost identical to what we showed you a month ago. unless there are questions, i will take your questions. president moran: any questions? any public comment? can i have a motion? it is moved. and seconded. all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. the items 15 and 16. >> authorize the general manager to enter into separate agreements with the following commercial paper dealers for the waste water enterprise commercial paper program. a u.s. bank, city grew, wells fargo, and morgan stanley. the agreements combined include annual costs not to exceed $150,000 for a duration of three years with a couple of additional extension times for one year each. the the general manager is further authorized to select the next lowest cost, if negotiations are otherwise not successful. item 16, authorized the general manager to enter into se

we encourage the commission to approve the eir. the parks alliance believes this project will be -- will do significant public good. the project represents an uncommon opportunity to ameliorate the city's document a shortfall of available playing field recreational hours. the city has adopted synthetic turf standards that requiring recycle turf materials. with the implementation of storm water collection and testing requirements, the field would not contribute to degradation of ground water quality. the are also fines proposed lighting is unlikely to spillover the boundaries substantially enough to impact the surrounding neighborhoods. because weather conditions create on known variables, the alliance proposes that the city monetarist one state are installed. -- monetarist once they are installed. the parks alliance is aware of other recreation agencies that have addressed this question with creative funding mechanisms that pay for that sort of replacement. we encourage you to examine these funding models and if applicable, to adop

or we were aware when the permit was approved and with health we acted correctly in approving the permit. >> anything? >> good evening again, commissioners. the department of building inspection. let me touch on a couple of code issues that were raised. under the co, the rooms used for sleeping purposes are also required to have an emergency and escape rescue opening located below the fourth story of buildings. that opening needs to lead to the public way. in addition, the location of the stairs or any structure is the requirement for the one hour fire resistive walls. the series of permits issued we reviewed in the department and feel they are valid permits. the permit under question is one that should reflect the total of valuation of all the work. i read the description on the scope of work and the value does appear low. in discussions with the applicant, they validated this $5,000 valuation. what will happen is that there'll be a requirement for addendums of metal for the actual construction at that time. the second check will be upon field inspection once the permit is issued. a fie

the thinking is that if arena's drug is approved, competitors, the drug will also get approved by theest. back over to you. >> thanks for watchi ining it f us. >>> let's talk with rbc. management will need to execute with near perfection and cutting meaningful costs across the board. he doesn't buy that. what do you think about this one? >> they have problems with the cost cutting but the biggest concern is overseas growth, specifically india. colgate has the jump on them. these are products we all use and need. from tide to dawn to jill let and charmin. there's value here and it could go lower. >> market perform. you don't seem to disagree particularly with that? >> no, no. >> nicholas upgrading dreamworks animation to hold from sell. benjamin, a movie mogul, says "madagascar 3" is performing better than expected and we believe that the ruling of the rationale is incorporated in the valuation. what do you think of that one? >> adhering to the mind-set. i think they're doing a great job and like to see them continue before i buy it. you're right. that channel is tight for -- >> to hol

item number 10, a resolution approving the san francisco children and families commission expenditure plan for the public education enrichment fund. item number 11, a resolution approving the expenditure plans for human services care fund for fiscal year 2012-2013 and 2013- 2014. item number 12, resolution retroactively approving the contract between the city and county of san francisco and conrad house to provide master lease house under its housing first program to formerly homeless single adults and money management services to frail and elderly senior citizens. item number 13, resolution improving the administration of direct aid payments to clients of the san francisco human services agency. item no. 14 car resolution approving the contract between the city and county of san francisco episcopal community services to provide various safety net services to homeless, formerly homeless, and frail and elderly senior citizens for the time of july 1, 2012 through june 30, 2013. item number 15, resolution approving the contract between the city and county of san francisco and st. vincent