Transcripts For SFGTV Board Of Appeals 2817 20170211

The San Francisco board of appeals. The presiding officer is commissioner honda and we are joined by tonights by our vice chair commissioner Vice President fung and commissioner lazarus and commissioner bobby wilson and commissioner rick swig to my left is brad the deputy City Attorney and provide the board with legal advice at the controls is gary hes the boards legal assistant im im Cynthia Goldstein the boards executive director. Were going to be joined as by were joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. Sitting in the front right now is amanda representing the bureau of mapping and shes joined by her colleague raul shaw i believe chris buck is here in the front right now with the bureau of urban forestry and Scott Sanchez will be here shortly and representing his office and the Planning Department and Planning Commission Electronic Devices are prohibited. Please carry on conversations out in the hallway. Permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. Have up to 3 minutes no rebuttal. To assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or Business Card to the clerk. Speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. If you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. Dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. Thank you for your attention. Well conduct our swearing in process. If you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. Please note any of the members may speak without taking please stand now do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Thank you commissioner president honda and commissioners one keep up the good work item item 5 a jurisdiction request on 139 Market Street that case has been withdrawn and will not be heard then on the calendar item number one general Public Comment the opportunity to address an item within the jurisdiction not on tonights calendar my general Public Comment seeing none, item 2 commissioners questions or comments anything commissioners item 3 the consideration of the minutes important january 25, 2017, unless any additions, deletions, or changes. I move to adopt. My Public Comment on the minutes. Then on that motion commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig thank you that that item passes. Item number 4 is a rehearing request the subject property at 1590 sacramento street mitchel is requesting a rehearing the appeal kemp versus mapping decided january 11th voted 4 to zero with commissioner president honda absent and on the basis that was properly issued the project sponsor is with the construction of a Wireless Service facility. I watched the tape. Thank you, mr. Kemp starting with you 3 minutes to present to the board. Good evening and welcome. I request a rehearing for two reasons. Im sorry citizenship speak up is that better. Once again with good evening i request a rehearing for two reasons more information that came to my attention on the 10 of january the day before the board of appeals hearing these two items consisted of the following number one item number 4 in the Health Conditions seemed to indicate that a device or mechanism would be provided to general Public Comment if requested permanent it is not what it means what it means none was sure until i got calls the representative on the evening of january 10th explained to me what that really means is that i should call them if i have problems and no device thats fine number one and thats academic because im buying my own device and install it and as a memo to the gentleman is not really a Little Black Box with a red white it is a beige it is number one and number two this is not been addressed in either the mckenzie or the brief from the department of public works thats the whole question of control and monitoring during the operational life of the system when i asked about the installation of this facility i received an email from the department of public works saying i should call extra net a little bit like having someone say call the restaurants and talk with the owner or have his cousins from san rosa call you back and looking at this deeper i contend from the time the item the facility licenses to the time the license is are you in custody no operational monitoring, control, inspection and no recourse for a simulate citizen that feels he has an issue that needs to be addressed not by calling extra net but the department of health or the department of public works and if they cant explain and should be called a rehearing they cant explain what operational controls they have. Sir please finish our sentence your time is up. Then the appeal should be upheld. Okay. Thank you. Thank you well hear from the permit holder now. Sir. Good evening and welcome. Again. Outside for verizon we would ask you not grant the rehearing we dont think this is new materials facts or manifest injustice in the decision you made this condition number 4 has been in documents for that application ore 18 months and reflects in the dpw reflects mr. Cuttingedge had if time to review those issues and the dpw resealed in any testimony on january 11th raised this issue of mechanism that was used in order to provide ongoing testing and reminded that mr. Cuttingedge so you get to have that done its been used on facilities and other facilities and at t there are hundreds of facilities and mr. Kemp had an interpretation it is a mechanism that works and bill is here that conducted those tests either through the department or through the consultant or others we feel it is something that serves the city and the department and the condition that was written and there is again, no material fact it is new a new and certainly no manifest injustice. I have a question counselor this has been before us 4 times whats the mechanism for the extra net for the general Public Comment is closed. Wants to know what it is. They can email dpw they can moma e email or call extra net and third parties will come with permission and enter into the apartment who wants the testing with the resident present and show him the measurements for the operation of the facility these facilities are operating at low level no systems near close to the fcc guidelines. Is that only dpw or the department of Health Public Health Department. I dont know whether dpw has received those kinds of questions but there are other mechanisms for all other wireless facilities in San Francisco my resident within 25 feet of antenna that goes to the department of health they are a mechanism with a request to test contact i believe they contact mr. Kemp directly. Thank you well hear from the department now. Once once again. Amanda representing public works were asking the board to deny the rehearing the request on the basis that the request is not based on new facts and circumstances with that with that said, i want to provide two clarifications the request for clarification in his rehearing the request but first is that the appellants ask to the public works and department of health clarify two conditions in the permit the department of health is also in attendance at the hearing the first condition the platelet e meddle wants the mechanism for taking radio frequency measurement from the public to the intent of this condition if requested extra net should packing take reading within the residents and that is a mechanism in the unique for achieving results there is conditions the appellant wants clarification if extra net it responsible for paying one and ti dollars to the public Health Department for the intent that the Public Health should be paid for theyre just like 6 to review and determination this application could comply with the Public Health in earlier 25 this fee is authorized in public works code section 1527. The appellant asks that public works and public Health Department should explain what the radio frequency theyll make during the term of the permit so the radio frequency mentioned after the approval of the permit the first is after the installation of wireless facility and the second from the permit holder requests the rule of the permit 10 years and eligible for an additional one year term and what this basically looks like the First Reading within thirty Business Days of installation facility the permit holder musculomust file a statement registered engineer that the facility will comply with the public Health Department standard and also those 4 for the rule have statements that comply if we find the application or the permit didnt meet the 3 requirements or well issue the applicant the permit holder niece e fees and revoke the permit if it is not complied they request a monitoring if dpw and they can contact myself and we dont have it available it is to be done by engineers with calibrated equipment ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. You went through all 3 clarifications. Pardon me. Did you run through all 3 clarifications. The question the mechanism involved so if someone has a property next time to extra net and want the rh1 conditions met. We put them into contact with the permit holder they contact the company they hired to provide the radio frequency study and do that email or through phone calls i dont hear back under the permit holder i followup to make sure that is made. Thats the first question and the 10 year permit is that standard for all department of health stuff. Yeah. So like i mean give me another idea massage parlors are those ten years as well. Perhaps you want to ask dpw dph. The question is that a Standard Practice to issue and 10 year permit from the department of health. Im Principle Program manager and we have the responsibility of for massage prom we have a case coming before you. Im sure you do do massage to answer your question their annual permits that get renewed annually and the Health Department has a role to play the article 25 gives a role to play but the permit is a dph not a public permit. I heard 10 years i didnt think that a standard permit for anything is 10 years is there a representative if from filipino is there a dpw permit you guys give for 10 years. Public works in terms of the permits for renewal their traditional annual but for us the 25 wireless permit is standard 10 years other permits that may have longer durations are a project like a street light Improvement Project for permanent improvement of the sidewalks or roadways but in terms of the situation encroachment permit that be occupying public rightofway dont have a time their longer durations either removed or revoked. Thank you thats an article 25. Exactly. Thank you any Public Comment on this item . I see no Public Comment. Commissioners. If i may a briefly thats a state law requirement for antennas. Commissioners, the matter is submitted. Im sympathetic to mr. Kemp but not heard any new fog that represents manifest injustice. I concur the bar for manifest injustice is high the items that mr. Kemp has noted in the rehearing the request have all been thoroughly vetted to this process so i would agree with commissioner Vice President fung. Care to make a motion. Move to deny the rehearing no new information has been appropriated and manifest injustice has not been dreementd. Thank you on that motion from the Vice President then to deny the request commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda commissioner wilson commissioner swig that motion carries with a vote of 5 to zero. Item 5 withdrawn and call item 6 raintree 2051 3rd street, llc versus public works of urban forestry the the subject property on third street street with the denial of 2016 a of a tree removal and a denial for removal of 3 street trees start with the appellant 7 minutes to present. Good evening and welcome. Good evening thank you, commissioners appreciate how time this evening on this issue we are naomis a rick with raintree 2051 3rd street were the sponsors the project on raintree 2051 3rd street which is a through lot on third street and illinois the project was approved in 2014 and under construction 2, 3, 42014 we came before you for an appeal of the application to remove and replace 3 eucalyptus trees dpw supported it appealed by the neighbors we requested removal and replacement of street trees on those frontages that dpw supported the board uphold the 20162017 order allowing us to remorseful them but for 48 inch box the eucalyptus are not the subject of this hearing, however, the process weve become warn of the conflict in light sidewalks along the frontages that effect our ability to plant the number of trees that was approved this information couldnt have been common it requires feedback from multiple agencies not occurs until the review stage the conflicts uncoasted is a large at at duck a fire main and junction boxes and the port has jurisdiction along illinois street didnt allow utility expansions we work closely with puc and agreed because of the modifications and to return to the misdemeanor the Tree Planting we submitted a new removal application to dpw they denied and weve appealed we worked with dpw and puc to identify to options for Tree Replacement along illinois and third street and asking you to approve that under appeal to allow for the implementation of those two options since the filing of the brief in october additional conflicts with puc and waterline they didnt support the root barriers and above grade barriers so we presented Many Solutions it is worth noting and dpw did in its belief it is common for briefs to not plant the trees often do to utilize clfltsz we evident up agreeing on two final options as shown in the projector and we believe both are viable final Solutions Notice they showed a proposed Tree Plantings as well as several known utility conflicts which i do have a larger copy if necessary but several conflicts along third street and illinois and i can get into more detail on those it is worth noting both options would assume were responsible for my in lui fees associated with trees we cant plant so first in opposition one our solution at the illinois frontage is the same under both options as a result of transformer and splice box that constrains the footage we ask one tree to be removed well plant 4, 408 inch box and 60 inch box along the frontage as well as a planter strip which will otherwise not be required if we can accommodate those 60 inch box trees that are deemed near specimen trees theyre provided a nice pedestrian street along illinois the tree removal along third street frontage has not been one of public controversy and it is calculated as that relates to utilities on third street are federal, state, and local in opposition one a partial relocation of a waterline that runs the length of the property in order to accommodate a clear area from my waterlines that puc requires this will allow is to plant a total of two new 24 inch box trees along third street it is not vetted by puc or other effected utilities but we feel there is genuine support to explore this requires other puc were not sure we can accommodate this but in ongoing discussions with puc and other utility providers in opposition two if one is not achieveable well plant the strips along the west side this option provides so the two existing trees to the north will remain and this option provide a landscape buffer for pedestrians within the sidewalk and third street could sure traffic buffers experienced by pedestrians one of the front doors were very interested in making sure as longterm owners this is a nice frontage for the property 2, 3, 4 conclusions were awaiting feedback from the utility provider we have enough information to approve those options key points to consider are first both the options are supported by puc and second we as a developers are committed to planting the maximum number of trees feasible and rain trees at dpw and pucs discretion we respectfully request the board of appeals amend the permit to allow for those two other peoples money as a final noted we request due to the construction schedule that moving forward dpw and puc be given jurisdiction on that matter we anticipate this work will need to be approved over the next 45 days and appreciate the maximum flexibility with respect to the jurisdiction thank you. I have a question sir, i mentioned longterm ownership are you planning on holding. This is a rental well own in perpetuity. In terms of the difference the two trees to the south i guess versus option duo two is that the change that the size of boxes and species in terms of this root bulb is changed. In terms of could there be more of the species no in my xraerns the answer a new i can let chris opine weve not studied with respect to the species the species has been out laid as a box but i do believe that a change in the break downs species will change the count along this frontage. Thank you mr. Buck. Good evening mr. Buck. Good evening chris buck with uttering public works ill followup the appellants presentation ive got some photos of the site just to refresher everyone memories can i have the overhead . The original subject would be two red iron eucalyptus trees theyre significant trees that are trees on private property one 10 feet of public rightofway and this is the focus of the appeal and the concern among the immediate neighbors on the illinois frontage the original approval from the board was to approve them on the condition of the project eventually all approvals on the condition that the replacement trees be 48 or 60 inch box size container to be determined by public works so the issue along illinois there are room for 4 trees not 5 thats a change in the permit the total count was not a true focus of the appeal but that is certainly in our permit thats something we wanted to bring to your attention the third street frontage heres a brown photo of the subject trees we number them with the flow of traffic tree 1, 2, 3, 4 those are approved for removal without protest were you not subject to the appeal that evening theres one tree is too close those liquid amber trees are planted too close together and a fourth tree the removal replacement of 4 no room to plant 4 spatial because of underground utilities the current site looks like this and as you can see that the two existing trees are preserved the goal to preserve two planting sites at least two trees along the third street frontage just a back up a little bit the applicant appellant in this case has been in touch with our department from day one at the first sign of controvertible that was not a regular line under the sidewalk but the main is under this narrow sidewalk they brought if to our attention 4 trees replanting on third street down to two those are in question the puc said no, we cant have those that close to our water main even though those two existing trees are that close as well as a brand new project one block away a water main i dont know that never came to our attention ill say in this case the appellant has been in contact with us every step of the way a very real possibility that the puc may allow them to locate the water main in the roadway so two trees can be planted along the third street frontage thats our preference other the puc bans the number of tieins and wouldnt be necessarily based on preserving the tree sites but a preference of the imp as well based on the number of times so we have the item before you is a change in the total number of trees that will be planted but also on the third street frontage there really is no way to get a 48 inch box sized tree based on currently conditions that is realistic to try to fit 24 inch trees along third street at this point, id like to is that we all projects Development Projects are subject to in lui fees at the end of the project separate from my removal our code requires 11 trees to be planted every tree cant be planted an in lui fee of fees abnormality of separate tree process at the moment the plan was as approved to plant 9 trees it is looking closer to replacement or total number of trees to be 4 on illinois, two exist on third street and plus two more a total of 8 trees short 3 trees well assess the in lui fees the key reason to be before you the board placed conditions on the permit about 48 and 60 inch box trees and also the number of trees replacement trees wasnt the subject of the hearing but the change before the public and for those two reasons you know we feel the appellant we can only discuss this to come back before you and bring to your attention and see what we can do to problem solve that i like the flexibility i think there is still going to be more theres a lot of moving parts to determine illinois there is a commitment to plant 60 inch box trees in the last day or two you know maybe we could move it and get a 5 tree but installer like a 36 or whatever i like to say one option we dont typical ask for a jurisdiction but theres a lot of moving parts this particular project sponsor is looking at the possibility and not coming before us and saying oh, by the way, there are problems so looking for flexibility and looking to you to talk through some of the facility issues. Question can you touch on the project sponsor mentioned planters and yes both the Property Owner project sponsor and the puc asked about the initial ask above ground and puc feels we dont want to allow trees above ground they pop out but sometimes because the ongoing drought despite. What drought. The long term drought prognoses for california remains. Yeah. What drought. The puck the puc is requiring water that is what they require above ground for the life the tree were not supportive of above ground planters one idea along third street and that is to require above ground there is no parking on i will all that will be i mean, the chase center going up across the street will be a heavily traveled walkway i believe if when the center is completed and thats true there are considerations regarding the nature and how much landscaping will fm fit into this space based on the anticipated going out but certainly along illinois this is opportunities to require landscaping we say if you cant plant the 11 trees or whatever you can plant 75 feet of Square Footage of landscaping and make up for the loss of tree in lui of the assessment fees those are some of the considerations we are talking about. Thank you, mr. Buck you can you answer the same question. The species along third street is not an issue that is more can that waterline be relocated to allow for my trees to get back into third street wed like to see two trees is an third street if so waterline it move forward 37 inch box trees can be moved if not well be require landscaping along third street to changing the species wont impact the number of trees available to be planted. Two additional points one is an opinion im not highly supportive option two in terms of the process the building inspection and Fire Department stayed the demolition of building waiting for permits weve had that issue come up a number of times now perhaps we should do the same thing excuse me our department should do the same thing so the Decision Making can be more comprehensive. It is challenging to carve out and sure that adequate space you know can be provided for replacement trees it certainly more acute when someone been before you the board most projects have no trees to begin with no kind of you know immediate neighbors focused on the number of trees proposed it is something that we there have been improvements over the years used to be revolved at the end of the project and new planning requires folks to come up first, we review the plans in advance and can provide feedback at the start of their process so if there was a removal and that is contentious we are getting more involved to the front now a requirement that planning dbi will not precede until more the tree questions have been discussed optimally with the tree permit not required just a few years ago that can be done at the end of the project with the full approval is granted and now holding up the project not wanting to talk about the project until the tree issue is resolved even with the number of trees we try to review that i see your point i agree we dont want to be up here we want everyone to be able to commit to planting what theyve committed to planting and looking way to try to make sure that happens with more regularity for landscaping. Youre in agreement with the project sponsor on allowing the flexibility in terms of the two options. Yes. Our preference certainly to have 2 new street trees planned on third street it is a busy road i think the tenant in the break downs building deserve street trees was on a conference call. Im sure theyll appreciate the screening. Exactly a busy street sow we are that part of the you know advocates to say to the puc what can be done . The been to the board of appeals were not involved unnecessarily and need in information in terms of the illinois street you know losing one tree will have four trees 48 are 60 inch box trees this is a good compensation for the loss of two those two trees public works approved and didnt believe they were going to be an asset to the site a native oak their from the trees will or that will be Long Term Assets another determination why were not saying uphold every single condition on this permit but certainly will make sure that as many trees that can be planted will be planted and as large of size as possible i dont know if he get to the point we know there is room until all the utilities and jurisdictions have vetted the case. I know this case i dont know it was you or carla. Carla led from staffs recommendation and certainly strong sentiment about the lose. A quite a few of the numbers of the public it spoke that night. Thank you, thank you. Thank you any Public Comment on this item . Okay. Seeing none then mr. Price anything further to say you have a few minutes. Oh, yes, a couple of quick comments just initially like to reiterate there have been countless hours spent on this issue by myself and our Consultant Team and the bureaucracy of urban forestry and puc more recently and there is an intent on behalf of all parties to do the right thing here and more hours we get to insure that all the departments needs are met weve appreciate very much the time your time and the time that chris and his team put into this issue and we ask that the board approve the modification for the deny and approve into options one and two which will include the one removal of one tree an ill i will and on the third street venue and want to reiterate what chris mentioned as far as jurisdiction i realize that may not be a common request but nicole where construction is often a day to day activity and your you have to remain nimble and constantly uncover issues this is one issue when you open up the sidewalks their undoubtedly be a condition were not aware of for that reason want to reiterate our deserve to have the jurisdiction fall under dpw Going Forward to we could quickly react to any new conditions thank you, again. Thank you. Mr. Buck anything further. No additional feedback just available for questions. Thank you. Commissioners, the matter is submitted. Im sorry, i remember this case we have a lot of members that felt strongly hence, the reason for a 48 and 60 inch box at the same time as my Vice President has mentioned we had developers that came to us and intentionally came in at the last minute saying were not putting in trees on 9 and Mission Going on over the briefs and hearing the testimony from the department leads me to commend the developer an working with the department as soon as they found out a potential issue so i personally dont have a problem letting them to change and let the department because the trees are in the departments best interest not sure how the commissioners feel about our control to the department. I dont know exactly what that means if we approve the permit with the two options it seems to me that is giving them the flexibility to work out what they need to. Were conditioning the permit if it didnt fall within the permit theyll have to come before the board theyre asking for the department to have im not sure i want to relinquish that much but whether the Department Finds some in lui determines of strip larpd of some type of to replace it a general Public Comment first before we start my projects we usually make sure there is a certain know what the utilities are and as part of the initial design you know where your utilities are so thats not always something i buy hazard to be analyzed, however, were in a situation with remedial force can we find a solution to this. I will reiterate that i dont care for option two. Im prepared to allow the department then to extract what we can out of this. My further comment. It was very refreshing to. And the developer. To hear that both the developer and the Department Still working closely together proactive proactively initiative and the proactive with regards to the future considerations of what might happen and didnt we dont get that very often so my compliments as well to both working together i have no problem with the recommendations before us. You have a motion youd like to put forward. Would you like to try. Ill try. Im going to need you to and we would uphold the denial grant the appeal and overturn the denial. Make a motion to grant the appeal and condition the permit on the implementation of one or two options as presented by the appellant and the department. That would not achieve the request that there be flexibility in case neither of the options workout so one option for you to consider that you continue this case to let that play out and then bring it back quickly from the board would like certainly bring it back quickly and or perhaps a way to craft the motion to have the discretion to make changes to public works. I dont know how my ill see what my fellow commissioners have to say ill not have a problem to grant the discretion to the department if necessary other changes. I have no problem. There is. Yeah. For the same objectives so okay okay. Okay . Lucky permit holder be able to capture that madam director. Only option two not a copy that have in our records i assume option one is exhibit a to your brief. You want to step forward one or two neither options were in the brief there was changes when the brief was submitted to i i have copies of both option one and two and i can hand over right now if you want that for the record. We need that in the file part of motion im understanding that the motion will be to grant the appeal and overturn the department and issue the permit on the condition that either option one or two be adopted as the planting plan i assume in that order and maybe not i mean, if theres discretion. I think discretion is fine. And then if neither of those options if you shared if other conditions arises and necessity other discretions this will be the discretion of the department. Thats correct. And the basis for that. On the basis that the plans will meet the desired objectives of both parties will it work. laughter . The plan. Yes. Okay. On that motion then. If i can add a little bit. I dont know. Proposed that we dont leave is to open the determination of opposition is at the direction of department accept the direction of the department. That goes without saying didnt it theyll not get their permits. But there is. Okay. Do you want to take out to say that the tack out the reference to the options and. No, im saying do the two options the final determination and those occurred with the acceptance. To clearly state it. Okay. I was thinking theyre getting cart blafrn. They may windup negotiating something else. With that amendment accepted by the motion maker on that motion commissioner Vice President fung commissioner president honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig that motion carries and those two options have been submitted moving on to item 7 appeal bonforte and leung investments on divisadero street appealing the issuance of 2015 of a letter of determination regarding whether a professional serves as defined in the planning code section is a permitted use in the existing ground floor commercial space in the subject building. Good evening and welcome. Im the owner thank you guys for hearing our appeal im here to appeal reheard a letter of determination we received from the Planning Department i believe that there is a fundamental error in interpretation in the planning code id like to request that the board remove the conditional use for my company give you a little bit of background were a Design Studio in 2009, we began and we dont logo and draft designs in 2010, i was hiring my first employee before i did i rented a space at the Current Location at divisadero street and the employees walk or bike to work in the break downs neighborhood par 2348d we decided to expand to the neighboring space take over the entirety felt ground floor when the tenants left we had our plans approved by the city and started construction planning reviewed the plans well talk about that im sure in january of 2016 we actually became aware of a complaint that was made to planning we reached out to start a dialogue in 2016 we received a notice of enforcement that is the dated of construction project waltz completed that this permit was closed since we received the notice of enforcement we work closely so resolve that our experience Work Together the planting has been great theyve only been professional and curious in my interactions the two allegations that came up in the notice of enforcement i wanted to talk about 24 it came up in the break downs brief there are two one we again offer the services to the public and the second was that planning didnt review our change of use or approve our change of use in the Planning Department brief this came up again, im surprised we went through that with the Planning Department we were working with the notice of enforcement our architect is a here and she can speak to this if you have questions about the permit approval process and the permits sorry those issues in the notice of enforcement were resolved this can i have the overhead . This is actually an email i received or sorry i sent after we met with them and highlighted here sir, you have a lot of time go ahead and read that i cant. I highlighted departments the part we met with the enforcement and basically, it sounded like you guys have no questions about the review process we that was listed in the notice of enforcement but sounds like it was not resolved if it is this case the response from planning was actually this. Can you bring over the mike, we, hear. Sorry about that thank you for followup we will have a responded by wednesday morning followed by this email we find in in lui the actions the department thinks the best action to file a conditional use authorization application to legalize the space you occupy to business or professional services this is required per planning code well pub talk about that code in a bit as far as were concerned we went forward with the conditional use authorization it was based on the planning code and not actually nothing in the n o e and not bans those issues in the review of the change of use plan so when we started the conditional use process i had meetings with different staff and planning i got different interpretations of the planning code at this time and i think was at one point it was a land use i requested a lexy want to walk you through the code we went through the letter of determination this is actually, the Planning Departments brief can i have the overhead . Im sorry as you can see were actually permitted use 746 professional services is a professional use on the first floor the Planning Department said, yes that is true but theres additional requirements in 746, one through b weve got the ground floor commercial a table called which ill jump to that has includes additional requirements the first part i want to point out is an ability b it lists the areas that that employs to not to divisadero street where we are loejd located we point out that the Planning Department says thats an omission theyll update but that table one 45. 4 that listed the permit use were actually were not im sorry Business Professional Services is not listed there and in that omission the Planning Department has said were therefore required to do a conditional use hearing my point i have a couple of points ill assume 0 well have a conditional use requirement but from the beginning this is not an question of code for me this is actually what we did when we reviewed the code and very clear were a permit use although no one is here your time is up. Finish that thought. Weve gone through planning theyve reviewed the plans and we will will expect them to bring this up and earlier we were reviewed the code didnt seem like the interpretation of the code is logical and not match up with the what the code actually says i think that is very clear so we would like to have the board review the letter and as that pertains to my company or our use. Okay. Thank you all have time on rebuttal thank you. Is your construction finished. It is been finished for a year plus now. Thank you. Is there anyone here on behalf of the the subject property Property Owner if not. Thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department. The the subject property on the draft eirs commercial Zoning District previously within at the mc2 a generic Zoning District and would have been that way since the creation in the 80s in 2012 supervisor initiated the legislation to create this is as a neighborhood commercial district we have in north beach and noah valley and parts of castro and with specific controls unique to draft eirs drifrts the initial legislation that was put forward by then supervisor president breed didnt have the requirement for the ground floor commercial use but through the process commissioner london breed was for the record informed of that and requested that be added to the planning code thats why it is added it does i know can be confusing because there was a contradiction in the code language in the table is listed in the section it says required ground floor commercial thats because the neighborhood commercial district is a bit broadly this applies to parcels on divisadero that dont front on divisadero thats why not a seed throughout a specifically control for the street it is correct that there is an omission not included in the applicable streets in one 45 point the legislation that is moving forward with the board of supervisors that is very clear from the record it was the intent i think from the table this control applies so that was the basis of letter of determination whether or not this requirement applies to tell you the truth we believe it does the record is clear the legislative record is clear thats the supervisors intent and thats how it shall be carried forward now a separate issue with the individual use here we first received the complaint about this change of use in the beginning of last year there was a pit stop on the corner and a complaint came in this changed without a permit and weve been seeing a lot of conversions to tech office and i think that was one of the initial concerns working through is trying to learn brown more about the business within the Service Category or General Office we looked at there were recommendations made theyve obtained permit Building Applications we reviewed that and we have concerns because it appears when staff had reviewed that and bans our records what we input we create a record at the office and put in there it is listed as an Office Remodel that was a storefront improvement and no change of use was not our staffer looked at the and approved that after that time i dont know it was clarified and initially dated after the approval for the initiative that was changed from retail to office which that was not i believe reviewed by our department this has been raised that the appellant in the break downs past and not provide that answer we dont believe that properly authors the change of use that is a cf c last february after the complaint was created but before we got to throw the investigation on the use and the appellant has been responsive we appreciate that after being made aware the visitation had offsite visit with the staff and learn the business and filed the conditional use application and shortly after filed the letter of determination request and now before you they dispute the fact that it is required to go to the conditional use process those are the main points i wanted to address you know we appreciate the sponsor has been responsive and look forward to moving through the process undergo the Commission Hearing it is being required because if so not a professional service is not listed on the table of the uses that are active uses this is to a conditional use process in the section and that the application they applied for we ask you uphold the letter of determination and then theyll continue with the process to legalize the use im available to answer any questions. Ive got a question and bingo the first. Can i second. I apologize you said the First Construction as you look at the statute; right . You said that it was not listed ; right . So it is listed in the table for the divisadero commercial district it states it ground floor commercial uses are required and crossreferences Additional Information and details. Or the but, but clear in the break downs planning code and the tables for the district it ground floor uses ground floor commercial uses are required. Where is it listed. It is listed in specific districts should be cross referenced in there but omited clear the intention of the board of supervisors this requirement apply and clear from the table this requirement applies from the use table that that district it applies. And the amount gut should be construed against and approving or disapproving. Construed in the intent of board of supervisors when they passed this legislation. It was clear had they intended that that implicit applies. It is usually something that was omitted not presumed it applies; right . In this case not omitted from the use tables this is requir required. Batter up. So just to put it in simple language i think i drove by the corner i drive by that corner a lot and familiar with the neighborhood and ive seen the neighborhood over 65 years of my life go from all sorts of directions and now it is probably the best its a been in a long, long time and it would seem im asking you for your interpretation of my view is that it was the intent of the board of supervisors to really make sure that retail was placed in every storefront along that street because retail would serve the neighborhood the immediate neighborhood and retail would provide vibrancy and street traffic all the good things that bring special dynamic to a neighborhood is that correct . Absolutely at the beginning of every table they kind of give a brief synopsis of the intent and promoting continuous business. On face value given that point of view we see commonly you dont want any business or nonretail at all anymore on that street it is that they may be allowed with going to the conditional use process and if they can demonstrate theyll not have an adversely impact on the retail frontage i mean it would be cases existing nonconforming building that may not be well suit for retail uses this is an exception process youre right the goal to insure and prompt and protect a vibrant ground floor. With all due respect you respect the appellant and very much respected the Small Business and youve built the business so successfully that is a pretty important corner to you know to the retail vibrancy and the whole spirit if it was a mid block and a 15 or 20 foot you know space that was kind of low key thats a hefty corner that really goes flies in face of retail not criticizing but supportive of our situation at the same time, we have a loss you know so what makes me in if point of view that business from my point of view should grow a conditional use shouldnt have been allowed in the break downs first place can i ask how this man a Small Business owner built it from scratch doing well, im assuming and now has built this building out and probably done it nicely how did it get so far. I mean what and i mean, why wasnt is stopped in the first place. Our staff reviewed did permit the permit or the description was not listed as a chance of use from retail to office it was listed as a remodel of an existing office use it was clear from retail how you can put that on plans an Office Remodel no history there would be much confusion and if if was corrected unfortunately corrected from we we can tell after staff had approved that that and clear from the plan that we have a copy in the break downs brief that they crossed off the description and changed the description and dated post approval from the Planning Department. Is one to assume that again i dont want to invoke the appellant but you know take a hard view and softer view two choice a choice of misinformation the appellant was illinformed by someone that was okay to build there or did the appellant say oh, it was meant for retail but it is a thats where i want to put my business ill take my changes. I dont know, well have to ask the appellant kind of how their went through the thought process and again, the architect is here may have more to add it completely could be unrelated i nodded in the break downs brief this building has a history of violations for shortterm rentals going back to 2012 at one point filed a conditional use authorization to legalize well recommend disapproval they came into compliance in preparation for the hearing last week he staffed our enforcement staff could take into account this and make sure theyre not out of compliance theyll actually out of compliance and doing shortterm rentals thats again, the Business Owner. Are they intertwined. No, but i dont know if the appellant got information from the Property Owner there is certainly we have an issue an ongoing issue with the building at large that it is quite concerning. Is that possible was misinformed by a Property Owner that didnt care about upholding the rules. I have a question when you talk about legislation and you know this brief was kind of hard to go through i didnt get it i wrote notes and didnt understand there is Public Health fingers but everyone is being nice youre a a, in fact, and buckled i think that bobby hit the nail on the head is that the equity or you know when was that addressed london breeds legislation come through and the actual law on the books that. It was effective in 2012 and a multi year planning process i think we had our hearing on that when supervisor was in office and in 2013 and didnt complete the board review until the end of 2014 which is when became effective. Im on the old block my old office on divisadero i believe there is a lot of change metropolitan and car washes going to be gone a lot of retail on that block make sure; right . Two questions when was the emission noted. So the Planning Department reviewed the permit on i think may 22 is the day we approved that and about four or five days later nodded on the plan the project description was changed from what we can tell not brought back for review no record reviewed after that description was changed. Actually, i miss stated my question i apologize not your fault the omission that of street in the relevant planning code section. You believe that was uncovered as part of 24 process. So that was i mean, if you a neighborhood planner and you look at here and say has a ground floor use that is clear it is less critical on a separate section that concludes many under and i euphony. Moved to the board of supervisors to get it part of a much larger piece of changes to the neighborhood commercial district but it would modify with that. And my other question is the appellant allowed to continue users it in that fashion until the matters are resolved. Thats our standard policy theyve been doing so you mention penalties have not been accruing through exhausting this process period of when we filed their application last may theyll complete that process would have been done by now but, yes and okay. Thank you. Sorry to. Ive got a question and go ahead. The what is michaels pit stop. That was a liquor Grocery Store a general retail formula or retail use. The planning code their tables establishes different information in different parts what you indicated was clear its been a building standard portion whereas the zoning portion didnt have my of the information is there a reason for this. There is the controls apply to narrowly to those properties that front in the divisadero but the divisadero commercial district the table applies is broader some portions the divisadero mtc the required ground floor portion will not apply and a use per the table. I understand that but the fact is that you indicate ground floor needs to be commercial there are awnings. I understand weve highlighted this to the board of supervisors it has you know been represented as angle issue in other cases that is more straightforward to regulate the use itself but given they want to treat it more in a refined fashion it is an excellent point to better tie together the codes but not heard anything in the project sponsor, please. Or the appellant theyre saying this is this shouldnt apply to them this issue here theyve not said how they relied or given information based on what was in the table based on that ive heard. Thank you that was my question and thank you commissioner Vice President fung the question is as commissioner Vice President fung pointed out enforcement from planning is being enforce on a Building Code not on a planning code. This is a planning code requirement it is called under the building standard. Okay. Because a i didnt understand that. It is a planning code requirement. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any Public Comment on this item . I think are you architect maam. Youll need to speak in the break downs rebuttal opportunity my Public Comment if not well have rebuttal and however you want to use your 3 minutes. You have 3 minutes use your times or relinquish part of your time to the architect. Hi, im the project architect for the project so i want to touch on two things can you hand me the table i actually building hes in onramps i understand the planning code has you know become concerned with not being able to clear with the Tech Industry companies the people can walk if and get designs and christmas are cards a car wrap or anything so christmas cards i mean a number of things 746 says professional services are permit in the break downs divisadero mtc only runs from haight street to 0farrell on the top too this is professional services is clearly listed as being defined sorry can i have the overhead . When you go the table this is a section that says sales and services and retail not professional services when you take the section of the code and the existence what 790 says a commercial use that provides good and or services directly to the consumer my provide services to t to the general Public Comment ill paraphrase Light Manufacturing or wholesale for Administrative Services this is a graphic not Light Industrial so i still feel and building that his use is fully in conform and about the documents we started the permit process on may 12, 2015, we opened the permit and went to the planning counter and met with a planner im sorry i dont know who it was they wanted more details of elevation to show demolition and the construction of changes to the windows and pulled up the use it is on there and my cover page says right on that it says office model sorry overhead it says Office Remodel that can be confusing it says it over here too when you look out the page by page on the floor plans we converted the market space and later when we contact by the planner that was stamped on may 22nd of 2015 the again having the planner looking and siege were removing the pit stop signs it the implications were not making clear to expand into the corner space is a misleading a note about a in the permit process so and change the use has been cried i dont say that it is open to a general Public Comment from a liquor store i believe theyre in the same category under the planning code i dont consider that a change of use but the Fire Department asked us to change during the fire review of the year or f to a b or m to a b not correct but not in the planning code in any way. Thank you Zoning Administrator. The sure. Approving or disapproving come to the podium. How many people a week from the general Public Comment walk into our place asking for christmas cards or my retail use please. We are its per week were similar to an architect that is defined under businesses and professional services thats what i wanted to point out not a stream of people trying to make your place a retail. No, but we have gotten neighborhood business morris has taken over that corner and working with the Neighborhood Association to logo and working with folks to redo the website they walked in and asked us. The representation of the Business Owner with regard to the use of space with Business Owner give you my information related to any deterrent that might have deterred you from operating into the space tell me the satiations six. We predated the Building Owner we were there originally with permitted use for our space 295 on the corner and whether michael the owners were they were leaving we were working to expand we approached them a asked them about the space and relied on the architect we did preliminary work and in compliance our full intention to be compliant and if someone said time out we would have stopped and we would have looked at the use and our plans. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else have my questions. You were prepared at one point to start the process and then why did you stop. We it wasnt clear if we could precede when we met with staff with the conditional use hearing someone met with staff it was a land use on or about and couldnt do a hearing we didnt say an answer on the code itself thats why we did did letter of determination. Im not sure i understand all conditional use are man use issues. I cant speak to that. laughter . All right. I had a question for the Zoning Administrator i think you know the breakdown of the usage. He has rebuttal. I completely forgot Scott Sanchez Planning Department maybe just a few items on rebuttal can i have the overhead, please . This is the zoning map of divisadero mtc so theres the main spine of the divisadero but it branches off like fallon oak a bit deeper there are frontages not subject to this requirement then in regards to the Building Application im looking at the demolition i dont see my notions and it says the architect noticed a remodel just to be clear i think when was presented to our department it is a chance of use thats why we have a planning code and the builders understand we have a refined set of extinctions and this is a change of use from a retail use and the argument i understand that the architect has put forward about that general retail category that is for uses which are not otherwise defined such as as this a business and professional service the line of argument that the architect has one that was put forward with the formula retail use there is similar language in the formula retail use provisions that has references that catch up all categories this board found that if didnt include all that are listed under the sun this was not the boards intent to include the professional services here in regards to the confusion thought maybe about the use initially one the concerns and questions we had is that a professional and business use are a General Office use i think as demonstrated from the email from staff we advised them to file the conditional use authorization they can move forward with that think of that probably met the minimum standards for the business and professional services recommended the used to be to us but have the conditional use process and by the Planning Department whether or not they felt that was what proper use for in location maybe thats part of confusion but in the letter of determination they didnt seek and letter of determination of who the use was a business and professional service use bans a letter of determination about who a business and professional service use been permitted or conditionally be permitted based on this required active commercial use requirement so im available to answer any questions. Yes. One minute. Take a break for a second if i need to. Okay. I forgot to ask if my of the public so i have a question mr. Sanchez just looking at the briefs i didnt see really the highlighted portion of plan but coming to the current and theyre doing a remodel and it says mikes and joes liquor store it shows a liquor store in comparison didnt that raise a flag for a planner. They didnt. Oh. It shows this liquor store. No motion on the plans that was listed as an Office Remodel it is i mean a fair point there is a photo. Well, thats what im getting at a liquor store and says mikes liquor store and as built reflects a liquor store rather than a professional business and professional services. It is shown on the as lists conditions no reference to retail of new kind. I agree a picture shows a thousand words. The planner was relying on what was written. There is a valeted argument why the Planning Department planning code should rely on what was submitted and ask for questions and never approve anything overthecounter it was a high volume and can be at times working at the countered and this is imperative the project sponsor provide clear and accurate fox we can touch when prepare catch when people are representing not accurate that was approved as an office model. Mr. Sanchez this was an overthecounter permit. Yes. Okay is this similar to the supply store the issue one it was a Mission District where dave wanted to put a childs Educations Program in a storefront retail and was not allowed its not allowed and put the Pirate Supply store in the front and the kids education in the back. Thats what all the pictures of the tools. Theres been cases where the requirement calls for the first 25 feet to be active use so proposed to have a nonuse that dont comply at the back and the code allows that. So my point is this is really i think this is very important to point out it is. Do you have a question. Okay. Whats the question because go ahead ill wait for a conversation. Go ahead, please. Im not go ahead. Does the fact that they were there predivisadero change from a mtc have my impact on the permit in the sense there expanding into another space but they already had quite a bit of space. Their subject to the current controls. Ill wait for deliberation. Deliberate. Thank you commissioners, the matter is submitted. And again, just a reminder a letter of determination not the permit. This is about a letter of determination. So let me continue i think that is really im tremendously sympathetic to someone starting a Small Business and trermgs sympathetic to someone who is successful and sympathetic to someone that spent money building out a space and then gets a big surprise, however, i think that is incumbent on the board to be responsible to the legislation that is there and responsible to the spirit of that legislation which demands to retain the retail character of those specific areas if we are easy he agree with nevertheless, i say take the side of da on this and if we are overly sympathetic id like to be it then i think we undermine the spirit of the legislation in place and we should require that that it go to planning for a change of use an appropriate change of use request so i kind of in the deny the appeal mode. Either and as is director mentions this is a letter of determination an l l d the question whether everything in his rational were in agreement with you know, i think if you look at what bodies have done this post rationaltion it is clear right away so if i look at the 3 pertinent portions the planning code forms the decision the two more critical was dealing with zoning allows business and professional uses the one portion that deals with building standards didnt allow and so if i was to look at it in light of this i dont see intent and if they want to change it they should change it but in terms of what the code sections says not clear in my mind to anyone on the public and by the way, the architect your definition of land use are not with the planning code says so i think that is pretty well defined so but in terms of the whether i agree with the l l d i dont as. As i stated before or during we see a lot of briefs it is ill material to go through this was difficult not that it was lengthy or long brief just as my fellow commissioners said that was unclear which way it was to fall on and to have it on intent only i think that harm to the public as stated if thats the intent it should be on the website and in writing tonight i could go either way but leaning on you know theres no statute that says their permitted or entitled to go to the former location even if their, their prior there was a good attempt on both parts and you know my thing a picture says a thousand words if i see a picture of a liquor store if it impacts like a duck it is a duck not a cat i think there is a gray area and is that worth to put the permit holder into that area im familiar with the neighborhood. It looks like a duck and quacks like a duck if im at the considerate and see office renovation. If you show you a fare ray and put the word pinto it is not a fearingy. You have to find the abuse of discretion and make a decision. I dont find here a abuse of discretion. Someone want to make a motion. Letter of determination be i find no error or abuse of discretion ill start with that house is that. Boom. Want to make your comments. We have a motion from commissioner swig to deny the appeal and up to date the letter of determination on the basis the Zoning Administrator didnt error or abuse his discretion. That motion commissioner Vice President fung no. Commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda no then commissioner wilson. No okay. So with the vote of 2 to 3 that that motion carries absent my further motion the letter of determination will be upheld by that proclamation of law. Ill make a motion it will probably fail im going to move to grant the appeal on the basis that the da erred and that with respect to the critical portions of the planning code which is the table 746 and the corresponding section 14. So the motion then to grant the appeal and overturn the letter of determination go on the basis the Zoning Administrator erred in the interpretation of those two okay. Interpretation of planning code table 746 and the corresponding section 145. Thats correct. On that motion by the Vice President commissioner lazarus. No commissioner president honda. Commissioner wilson no commissioner swig. No. That motion fails with a vote of 2 to 3 again baring my further motion the election is upheld by the determination of law no other motion no other theres no further business before the board adjourned. Were adjourned next. clapping. in 2013 San Francisco legislators newsom agreed to allow the reciprocate of our soft story buildings those building house one and 20 thousand resident a program of that collect requires extensive outreach and this continuation of that process who is here and bill graham the perfect venue so in 2014 we have the first earthquake retrofit a huge success were repeating this model what weve done it put together venues that are time professionals and contractor are financing institutions a other services that help people comply with the retrofit and as you can see the thousands of members of the public their assessing over one hundred vendors to comply with the ordinance or make improvements on their property i came to get specification information and puck h picking up information if you dont know what twaur doing i take it overwhelming. Were pleased a Critical Mass of people are keying into knowing their relents and understanding what had are the next steps to take and theyre figuring out who to talk to not only the contractor by the mustards and the architect and the Structural Engineers and getting the full picture of what options are necessary and being proacti proactive. So im very pleased to see the soft story buildings 99. 9 percent complies the highest of the program of this scale of the history a citywide effort high Blood Pressure in every stretch of San Francisco to understand real risks associated with earthquake and those are universally agreed on. At some point you need to gather information ill be talking to another engineer to come out and take a look at it and basically get a Second Opinion im for second and third opinions it is inspiring to see all the Property Owners that want to do the right thing and for proactively figuring out what the solutions to get them that. What is amazing to me here we are over two years of first retrofit fair and at the time we are rh2 out to contractors to help us and reaching it out to Design Professionals that soft story buildings is in any and people understanding how to comply now it is different an industry that springs up as a result of the their professed and gotten the costs down with lower Financing Options and these are defined and now the gene progression and have the buildings are buildings and the compliance we understand the 2020 one and 20 thousand San Franciscos 15 messenger of our population will live in a retrofit building those people buildings or lives in buildings with 5 or more residential building is soft story and wood frame and built before 1978 that house that one and 20 thousand san franciscans. San francisco is being the leader in getting in done and as you may know los angeles passed their retrofit law two months ago at the sort of taken San Franciscos lead on the one and tenth anniversary as the residents San Francisco this is a road map to the city and going to give us us plan are these to keep folks here on a disaster and steps to build a resident waterfront by 2020. This involves more than one and 80 individuals and over 60 nonprofits and other companies this is a huge plan and what are the challenges we realize that people are concerned about climatic change, Sea Level Rise and not only the affiliated hazards but things hike youre our amp infrastructure and consumed by social and other things we see this in society everyday and how we try to mitigate those are ultimately a direct result how resident we are after earthquake other issue out of the strategy of the concept after a major earthquake of keeping 95 percent of population here in San Francisco thats the single best thing to help a equitable recovery to keep people here keep people back to work and kids in school and a residents of normal after a disaster. Alliance energy in our partner undertook comprehensive bid process we interviewed a halfdozen of folks who wanted to have a part of our soft story buildings are ordinance so Alliance Energy project programming is a clean assess energy a special financing that is done using the taxed authority of local multiples and one of the interesting features the loan is tied to the property not the vital if an individual didnt have good credit but it is another option for people not able to comply to find another avenue the assessment is actually places on the property and the builds for in that come literally a line item on the tax bill thats how you pay off the segment and tax. 20 or thirty years is all paid up front there are advantages your property tax well it is important to give people on option and many private banks that provide loans over a are shorter term we wanted to create a longer pay back term. I think the next step for Property Owners after at the create themselves to take the plunge and quit the working downey done and have works of work done right of the right rest of the Property Owners can understand this process across the city. We need to do it. It is safety you know thats the bottom line safety. Earthquake safety a everybodys responsibility that is providing the resources that people need to get done if you want to know more of the resources as a san franciscan please visit the neighborhoods in San Francisco are as diverse and fascinating as the people who inhabit them. Today were in the sunset, where well join supervisor tang for the inspiration of this show, where we explore San Francisco, one neighborhood at a time. Hi im katy tang the district 4 supervisor in San Francisco, which is comprise of sunset and parkside neighborhoods. I think what makes district 4 unique is that we have so many different cultures here. We have so many different generations of people. Different experiences and that makes it a vibrant neighborhood. For example, which you go down urban street you can do to a japanese restaurant, chinese restaurant, american restaurant, and the Cultural Diversity is just what makes it so amazing my name is ching le, and im the owner of the kingdom of bounty. 17th San Francisco, 94116. We make the most authentic and different kinds of dumplings and dim sum. Recently more and more popular because they are vegetables and meats that we use fresh vegetables and meats in the business. Its really inspired to start discover your district series, because i wanted to find a way for neighbors to come and get to know our Small Businesses and our neighborhoods. Get to know each other, get know our office, and do so in a setting that was unintimidating and fun. So i launched this idea call the discover your district, where we go every month to one or two Small Businesss in district 4 and we have done things such as learning how to make dumplings that were learning today and there are so many different activities that we have exposed our residents to. Today is the very special day, because the city of San Francisco hosting this for San Francisco city. Learning how to make dumplings and knowledge of dumplings. They love to do it and all enjoy it. This is definitely not my first time making it, so i have definitely improved a lot. The first couple of time s i tried to make dumplelings they looks inedible. They have definitely improved. There is a special dumpling eating contest, which is amazing. Everyone those eat the dumplings that they made and see how many they can do. Im curious as to how many they going to be able to down today . Dont forget to write down what you are eating today. We make all different kinds of dumplings and enjoy what they made. So after that, well have contact how many pieces of dumplings they can eat and announce the winner today. Call this meeting for Transbay Joint Power Authority board of directors to order. Would you call the roll, please. Gee, present. Kim, here. Reiskin, here. Nuru, present. Sartipi, present. Harper recollect present. Mr. Chairman you have a quorum. Next item. Next item item 3 and 4 chair harper requested to move those items to the end of the regular calendar agenda. If there are no objections, that will be communication and board of directors new and old business. Thank you. With that your next item is executive drether report, item 5. Good morn ing director. January 19 the California Transportation Commission approved the 25 year lease for bus Storage Facility with 85 percent reduction in lease rates for fair market value. We have provided ac transit based on lease terms. Ac transit board is expected to approve the sublease later this month. We also expect to be receive bids on the bus Storage Facility later this mung. We plan to bring the caltrans lease, ac transs and bus contract to the board for approval in march. Follow tupe last month discussion regarding the boards desire to invite the california highspeed rairl rail to join the board. Morales appreciated the invitation and agreed adding added highspeed rail is a benefit now that phase one is complete and [inaudible] cal tran highspeed rail. Given the highspeed Rail Authority is one the largest operators when phase opens and expected to make contributions to funding phase 2 inclusion on the board is a porent step. Morales informed to discuss with the board and get back with next steps. As i reported last months meeting our allocation request was included on thujepda fl the january 4 24 transauthority meeting. The commissioners felt they needed more time to understand and dejust detail thofz re ques so the items was continued to the february 25 commission meeting. We have briefed commissioner fewer on the project and scheduled meetings with commissioners [inaudible] sheehy and [inaudible] before the february meeting to brief. We are doing so with staff so we are doing it together. We hope to invite the new commissioners before the Transit Center february 28. Request of 6. 8 million will allow to move next steps we highlighted including the events and design to 30 percent. Updating Risk Assessment and right of way analysis to minimize impact to the property ies. This will help produce a fair cost estimate for phase two that will [inaudible] experiencing in phase one. On the direction from the board the december meeting i met with director john ram and his team on january 31 to discuss the development ofant grated schedule for phase 2 and citys study go frgward. The existing director, ken rich director och development with economic and Workforce Development and [inaudible] director of transportation [inaudible] joined the meeting. We Exchange Schedule information for our project jz discussed the parameters frl next steps for both the [inaudible] schedules. Based on the discussion it is agreed more time is needed. We exchanged for both projects so will continue discussion and hopefully update the board in the near future. The team also provided director ram and team with update on the progress of the supplemental document study and the [inaudible] report and shared the responses to city comments. Director ram and team are reviewing our responses and will provide with input. They also provided preliminary input we are considering at this time. We continue to advocate the engineering and design work we propose to [inaudible] produce information that is useful for all [inaudible] in consideration and allow the policy makers to make better decision based on that information. We will continue to work on the planning in the Mayors Office to invest studies for successful completion. Joined staff from the Mayors Office of planning on a trip to sacramento to meet with california [inaudible] we presented with state of San Francisco [inaudible] delegation and staff. The purpose of the trip is discuss the potential to reducements or deuce leases for the caltrans own parcel for [inaudible] that we expect to have next to the transit sent squr other parcels located under freeways the city wish tooz turn into parks. Caltrans informed for them to be anal to provide discount leases for areas under freways requires new legislation so will work with them and city folk tooz make that work. With that, that concludes my remarks. Any questions, comments . One question. You made reference to city feedback that you received on supplementing eis draft, is there other feedback that tjpa received and thats i guess of substance and shaping the final . Not that i know of. Not sure if mark did we receive anything . The only feedback we received is from planning. We think we can address it. Thank you. Next item. Item 6 is construction update. Good morning director. Ron [inaudible] will give our monthly construction update. And yet another stormy day. Despite all the rain we had so far we are reporting we are still on schedule. Thankfully to a good part moefs it work is under cover at this point and roof elements work mostly in the rain so it is a good thing. Our graphic here shows that the progress is continuing well. On the roof park the biggest element that is different is we have a lot of mcguire and hester rooftop park elements. Bus deck just all the concrete for the bus deck isle is done and will be done by the end of the month. They have to do a lot of overhead work. When you get to the ground level and the second level, most is like glass is going in and a lot of build out of the rooms, so it is starting to take shape. And below grade these levels focus on getting the important electrical rooms. The west end or upper left area just about whether the rooms are done and will finish up at the east end after those as we progress through. Showing pictures and bullet points in the western zone. Working the skylights. Has all the grass in. The restaurant is starting to take shape, a lot of walls are being poured and mep throughout all levels is progressing and then the concrete masonry unit or a lot of walls for the rooms are just about done. And then our rooms are all getting ready for energy. The last vehicle bike ramperize coming along. In the central zones in the picture that is the biggest change. Trees show aed up. We have 20 of hundreds that will show up but learning turns like Monkey Puzzle and horn beam that are beautiful trees that will all start taking shape as it starlts progressing throughout the year. Also in the central zone mep is the focal point as well. It is really a lot of element and focus is on the electrical and continue to build out the rooms as well. The first street temporary bridge is progressing well and just about up and finished. They will finish most the work this month and progress to beale shortly. In the eastern zone, the like home skylight has the glass in it so thankfully for the storm weez had this week we have glass that is helping tremendously keeping water running or having to deal with drainage issues. Bus deck drive is complete and eastern zone is just as critical and really more taking off the western and central zones have been the focus as we work from west to east. All the cmu walls as well are all must done. The cmu is coming close to completion. The bus ramp, all the concrete is pour frd the viaduct and frame work. They are finishing up the Southern Area near harrison street and also at the Transit Center frame 5 that gap is where most the work happening at this point besides all the clean up as we focus towards the march 30 completion date. Items working on is the railing on the cable stay. Also, the drop in span that is a 50 foot section next to that they are smalling that. There will beonce that is smalled they can do a lot of final work on frame 4 which is cable stay and cut cap the cable squz do the lift off and make the cable stay in the final configuration. We are doing under ground utilities and drainage and final connections needed to complete that particular part of the project. One item i want to note is we have a upcoming close yrb, beale street. Beale street is different than first and fremont in the sake that beale has ocs lines. When we remove the first and fremont we are able to do that on a stage construction element, but because of the major disruption to ocs we started a process of asking about the removal of the ocs linesx leave them down for a period of time to doall our work and get the ocs lines back up and do everything we possibly need to do in this limits of work area and its working through the process and believe we are moving forward with the march 4 closure. It is close thd month of march. Ocs. The over head lines. They dont have in the least bay. What we have done through various elements of the project, impacting the muni system in piece meal which we if we did how we do first and fremont it would have impacted the muni service over a 7 month period because of the operation. We are onlt going in and out in a 28 day period. Do it in the month of march and get it over with and it is lot less pain and wriping the band aid off faster is less impactful to the system and will be from march 4we have april 1 a 28 day period and developing a hour by hour schedule. Now we have high level and will get to day by day and hour by hour to insure that we beat april 1. We have internal goals to insure we are done by april 1 and there will be no hick ups to insure the lines are back up for muni to be back it normal operation by the end of the month of march. Regarding safety and labor, we got recordable and recording is zero. There was no lost time incident. Yesterday we found out that one of our january 1 days got reclassified as a recordable particularly gentlemen had his thumb identified a continued to hurt and wnt to medical and found out it was fractureed so had to reclassify as of yesterday. He is on modified duty so we will report next there was one recordable in january. We have surpassed 3 million craft hours by far now. We are at 3 million 59 thousand with 104 thousand just january alone. With that, i will turn it over to ron to complete the rest of the presentation. Thank you. Good morning directors. Thank you dennis. It is good to see the progress in the field despite the weather we made a Great Strides particularly seeing trees arrive and believe the bus deck is all but done in terms of concrete and all, so good progress. Moving or focusing on budget overview, our estimated cost of completion is staying steady at 2. 146 billion and our Current Program expenditure has reached 1. 64 roughly about a 26. 3 million uptick over the month. Committed fund had 19 million uptick having the arrival of the city funding and nob nub come in allowed to free up a bunch of ntt so well be minimizing or diminishing the practice of a hand to mouth ongoing work. That brings the budget to 72 percent and contract time at 86 percent. With respect to contingency cost expenditures relatively light month with 2. 3 million overall draw. Something to do with complicationwise [inaudible] and a good measure of it for the buy ouft the gas and emergency raid radio system infrastructure. In forcast we got about 300 k on the horizon, so fairly low on the contingency piece currently. Schedule, blissfully boring t. Is pretty much steady state. Eager to see the lease finally lapd with the bus storage and the bids come in so we can start getting some traction on the bus Storage Facility. And the bus ramp we saw the post substantial completion work at the bus ramp, which is beyond april of this month, has a littleit is reflecting catch up work below the ramp. Street lighting and utilities that we anticipate will be punch list activity but all in all it is pretty much reflecting the last few months of schedule stabilization. In terms of risk, we have moved out of the challenge zone and more of a risk zone as relate toog schedule. We continue to look ahead and treat everything as if its on the critical path. A culture of seeing what as i call it rocks in the road ahead of us to insure we tackle problems before they become insur mountable. Examples of that, dennis mentioned the beale street removal. Some clever resequencing and compression of time there and in fact we were geared to do fremont street ahead of beale and recognized constraints with neighbors activities so leapfrogged over that and also bought us time to remove some of the columns below the bridge prior to disrupting traf recollect. We are always looking for opportunity to readdress our approach in the interest of addressing the issues own the horizon. The last topic as i have been doing the last few months is operational readiness. Still eager to see the arrival of the master lease e. We raffted up the transition planning meetings to weekly basis. As i noted last month, we are still kind of on our trufjectory of ac transit starting opraigdss march 2018. We did meet with muni recently. They reiterated their training timelines of 45 to 60 days, which bumps up close to march as well. I did start getting some dialogue about what i mentioned last month about a measured migration or a soft opening. Starting some discussions around focusing on the weekend routes. Maybe a few weeks ahead of the bulk of it to start teasing out issues with a as i call it a measured migration. I havent moved the needle too far away from march as of yet. Um, and i thought i would start to encourage discussion and thought and maybe future discussion. What does this all mean or where is it taking us . Stepping back and looking at clearly there is need for ramp up with the operational staff as well as the transit staff. I think realistically december well have completion. We will probably get some done prior to that but all intensive purpose i think january and february are the fwo months prior to march to focus on what it looks like, what are the expectations in terms of onboarding the operations as well as what are the opportunities to start celebrating the arrival of the Transit Center. We met with ac transits communication arm as well in terms of talking about what is the Public Relations or the public messaging so people are ready to arrive when we arrive and understand whats coming. You know, i think we need to further discussions around soft opening among the stakeholders. I gonet what the boards vision is, is there a public open house or a art reception . A lot of things have happened usually prior to fully opening, so i encourage some thought from the board on that and maybe in the future have discussion on communication on expectations on what this rollout will like look like in about a year. That was discussed last night at the ac transit board extensively. Their notion and question wasthere is going be a celebration. Do you want it as buses running then and there or later or buss about to run because of this end up being very important in terms of what kind of service we will have given the date the city and think the city is really in the driver seat here determining when will be the big opening and what capability do they want ar transit to be showing at that point. So we start planning because we have to do our driver sign up in march will control a whole lot and if we dont have the celebration just before that, its going to a celebration with full blown service and that may be good. Who knows, but we have to decide. I want to encourage it had discussion because distinction being the odd ball arch tect in the group i recognize transportation is used to cutting the ribbon and having a stack of vehicles flowing, where us folks with buildingstened to slow walk to it, tease out the issues, take moments to celebrate various components of open house and education. I mention once before, i dont know if i have given mark the contacts but the pacific bus History Museum wants to have interesting vehicle thrz and celebration and everything because they got a lot of history of the terminal on wheels, so it is just to add that in there. That will be good. Lots of coordination to be done. That is the intent of the transition planning meetings are to start encouraging that. Any other questions i might address . Just to that last point, i suggest rather than asking us what do we think the opening should look like, i think it is good to get toort with maybe the commune ication staff from the various operator agencies and city to come up with suggestions for heres what it could look like. I think there are people much smarter and expert than i. Well bring in others. I just want to get preliminary feedback from the board what you are expecting . I dont want to be too presumpative. Muni wouldnt be ready to march [inaudible] [multiple speakers at same time] we poured so much money and effort into the facility i feel we should get the benefits as soon as we can. One question on the in terms of your concerns with master lease onboarding impact, what assumptions do you currently have in the schedule in terms of when we would be issuing ntp to run . The last articulation is february or march so we are on the brink. I dont think zee approval item today so it wont be february. We are very close to concluding the negotiation so it could be later this month or march at the latest, but we areilate already. So what is the impact ofthe best we could possibly do is have something for the board to consider at the march meet ing . You may be able to do a special session between now and march. And then there is time after that to ntp so i knress guess my question is that is the best case and you are saying we are already late. What is the impact of if that continues to slide past march into april . I think we have done a good job having proxys at the table to tease through the issues. It is really just diminishing the length of the run way if you will to educatehave them educate themselves, be participant in the commissioning. The last transition meeting i was looking at some plans on kind of when will certain segments of the building be needed or available in terms of diminishing of web core activity to afford a opportunity to bring in master lease with tenant improvement said to get ready for gray hound and amtrak or retail, so there is a lot of those dimensions that when we prefer a longer run way than a shorter. If i can clarify, there is a component of them knowing what the systems in the building we have and how to opwrait the building and that is probably the most pornl component. Turn oen the light jz systems and we are belined there already. There is the improvement said that will take a long time and more we delay the less revenue the sooner we want because [inaudible] take their own path. And there is activating the [inaudible] and activating the tenter center. The most component is know what systems we have and how to operate it and ewoo will screez them hard to get that done and be comfortable doing it in [inaudible] we want them to take over the bimding. Again to the point we spent a lot of money and effort to get the center completed and feel to the benefit the public put to use as soon as we can it is helpful for the board to understand at what point can we not start operations upon completion of the building project because of delay get thg operator on board . Well bring in more information next meeting. Hopefully we will be able to award a contract and show you a schedule. A squej of all the details of different people and when you think some things will happen. Okay. Thank you. Following up own director reiskins comment in your schedule chart here you dont have the master lesee coming on board and one of the concerns that director reiskins comments brought to mind is someone still needs to oversee the master lessee tenant improvement work and by the absence in the chart it implies it isnt you and your team so it has to be somebody. Im glad you brought that up because there was a piece of that i meant to mention while going through the presentation. I expect and have been stepping in where i can to get the process keep going in terms of the transition planjug what have you. We anticipate developing a comparable and did a rough draft of a more granular schedule and overview schedule with respect to standing up to facility. Im still bringing people to the table. I didnt run too fast with too many proxys still needing to put input for what that schedule might look like, but fully expect to begin to articulate that stream of activity in a scheduled slide soon as well. Im hopeful for earlier rather than latter. I think realty is within the first half june to at least roughed out schedule high level schedule on those different components. We started to initiate those, i didnt want to trot it out too premu churly. The other part, if there is a gap between the master lesee and operations, there is a financial component that goes with that. Right. Whether it is no revenue or oversight cost or the longer that gap is, the more cost it is to the organization so that needs to be part of that mix also. I want to add my voice ron as a architect in the room. Im not used to finishs a project completely before someone moves so encourage phased occupancy and working backwards or whatever. It would be very disappointing situationthe hard work of the team to bring this on board, online and meet the schedule and just have empty buses running for three months. There are a lot more moving parts and well enrich the circle of Public Relation folks and different departments because i kind of see the public open house as a education opportunity so people understand what to Transit Center is all about and preplan their move in to the facility in terms of their daily routine or commute and give them a run way as well. Lots to tease out in the next coming year. Thank you. Thank you. Iletm 7 is Citizen Advisory Committee update. Bruce [inaudible] chair unable to be present but he asked the agency to read comments into the record. We have a liaison. Good morning. Bruce had minor foot surgery so hes in recovery and our cac coshare loren post isnt able to attend today as well so give their apologies and asked us to read a statement. As our cac was canceled my comments are brief and limit today two subjects, number one, cac cochair loreen post atrnded a meeting january 19 promect team member jz jeff cukinsky and sam dodge from department of homelessness and supportive housing. We were pleased with the discussion and possibilities identify frd the groups to Work Together to ready the Transit Center and neighborhood frz the opening to support the Homeless Population which will be etrauckted. It would have been advantages to have the discussion earlier. There is a sense of urgency and potential opportunities and next steps were identified. The cac looks forward to the presentation on elementoffs a plan and schedule within the next few mupth said. Iletm tworks we continue to encourage and look forward to seeing a argument between the tjpa project team and San Francisco Planning Department on a fully funded roadmap tocomplete the Planning Efforts for phase 2 of the project. The downtown extension. This includes phase 3 of the study, which provides the Decision Maker with a complete analysis and recommendations on preferred alignment for the dt x. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the update and look forward providing update in person next month. Next is Public Comment. Opportunity for members opthe public to address you with matters not on todays calendar. Patrick. See someone. Good morning jim patrick with patrick and caempt in San Francisco. I argued in front oaf the board quite a wile ago we needed to move briskly with onboarding of the master leeee. We chose not to do that and now i will argue we need to compress that time as much as we can to make this be a successful opening. We have opportunity costs that sit vacant for a period of time. Dont allow that to happen. We got to do what we need to make it happen. Number tworks i was disappointed that we didnt get the funding from the Transportation Authority in San Francisco for the completion of the Environmental Impact report. What a tragedy. This is the same scheduling that is putting the dtx down the line. Well forget about it in 4 years, i dont question that, but these are critical items and need to be funded and moved along and board and other people need to support that and i will hopefully appear before the board and try to support that at the nest next meeting february 28. It is a shame so we need to be more aggressive getting these things done. Thank you. Thank you. That conclude members of the public that wanted to be under that item. Move to consent calendar. Yes. Consent calendar. Matters are listed to be routine. There will be no separate discussion. The matter will be removed and considered separately. We havent received [inaudible] to have items severed. Your items are 9. 1 approvaling the minutes of january 12 meeting and 9. 2, authorize the executive [inaudible] to extend the term of agreement to december 31, 2018. Is there anymove approval . Motion and second without objection the consent calendar is approved. Next item. Moving into your regular calendar. Item 10, presentation by Boston Properties of interest and capabilities with respect to managing the terminal. O cay. I must preface with a disclosure this presentation is a result of my initiative. Our staff has not been involved. The modal chosen by the board and specified in request for proposal is true master lesee which in exchange will bear most of the risk of the expense of operating and maintaining the terminal. Because mow respondent to the rfp would agree to be a true master leeee, we have been forced in a negotiating based on Asset Management model fully bears the liability for operation and maintenance costs. Because under the terminals operating agreement, 60 percent of the near term operating and maintenance loss must be paid by ac transit and 30 percent by the city. This issue is of critical importance to ac transit. If ac transit must hold for example even 3 million back to each year as a reserve to pay its portion of these losses, 36 fewer buses can be allocated to serve the weekly commute to and from the terminal. Probably no entity will agree to be a true master lessee negotiating with a assect manager that does vpt a steak in the neighborhood is to allow profit maximaization by that entity to be the controlling factor. Loss and properties, owner of the Sales Force Tower, and 535 mission, indicated because of their vested interest in the immediate neighborhood, and their existing inhouse expertise in building operations, maintenance, leasing, and dealing with homelessness in the city of San Francisco, their profit is comparatively of little importance to them. For that reason, they are 234r9 interested giving limit jz guarantees the entities we negotiate with are entirely reluctant to do. They like to at least meet once with our staff to see if both our staff and they can very quickly determine if there is a mutual interest in their long term role in that capacity. I see no reason why staff cannot have one such meeting while continuing on the course of present negotiations with the other parties. And i am asking the board to so direct staff prior to the end of this meet ing. Athank you director harper. Im steechb coleven senior Vice President boston property said in the greater bay area and incharge of praurj opraigdss. Let me preface my comments. Boston Properties Fully understands you are in the middle of procurement process and actival rfp. We understand and respect that process, but as director harper said, my remarks will be along the line what we can do to help you and as a neighbor of the Transit Center. A little about Boston Properties, we are rel Estate Investment trust. Little over 47 million square feet managed and owned and 164 office properties. I have folks here i want to briefly introduce which is our Service Delivery team that director harper referenced. First of all, just order, if you can stand up, this is john loftus is no stranger to city hall. Prior to Boston Properties served with station for 30 years with Police Department retiring as deputy chief. Next is Kevin Fitzpatrick who is our expert in Regional Property manenment. Next is aaronmic numarrow who does the retail leases for the region and then helen is our director of marketing. A year ago helen looked very stressed and that is because helen was work wg the super bowl city and she is much happier working on the Sales Force Tower project and thank goodness the super bowl was a Great Success but thank god it is over for us. Boston properties watched with great interest the progression of the transitsent squr as director harper says we have a vested interest in the success of that center not only from a local community standpoint about the fact we have significant investments adjacent to the property. Sales force tower the largest of the investments but also the property at 535 mission street. We also have a easement agreement with you and a Security Agreement with you that ties Sales Force Tower to it Transit Center qu have been working on these issues really since early 2012. We have been hopeful a world class operator will emerge for the management. Somebody that maintains the center like boston property. We look at our tenants not as customers but guest. We believe that and live it every day and feel it is very important that the Transit Center and park maintained with that type of mindset. Boston properties has a long history maintaining high profile public spaces. If you have been to boston the Prudential Center and town sent squr dc and probably the most iconic building in new york, that the gm building where we have the flag ship apple store occupying space in that building. We utilize as folks that i introduced amoment ago a cod rea of inhouse expertise, so security, marketing, leasing, development, construction services. We got probably the expert on facility engineering in the market. We do this in a seamless active expeditious nation. Aerfblg we do we feel we do with quality but get things done quuckly. We also do it in San Francisco with union labor and have a excellent relationship with all the unions, trade and Service Unions in San Francisco. So, as i mentioned from the outset, we are hopeful that a Owner Operator manager with capabilities similar to ours would be involved in operating and managing the Transit Center. We feel that there is no better opilator than Boston Properties given our proximity ohad project and what we can bring to the table. Again, we fully recognize that you are growing through a active rfp process with a master lesee component and read all it documents and we understand that and we respect that. We only ask that you consider sitting down with us and examining what we can do and bring to the table to do that would be to cancel the rfp. That is bhaut we request and we would respectfully request that we open a dialogue on next step and what we can do for the Transit Center. Thank you for listening today. Thank you. Next item . Any questions . Any comments . Seeing none next item. Item 11. Authorize a site lice agreement with Concourse Communications group, subsidty to boinging wireless for 20 year term with upfront payments toteying 1 millions additional payments tolet aelg 2. 5 million and up to 25 percent of Gross Revenue or 125,000 whatever is greater. Good morning, sarah [inaudible] this is a a ward of a contract and have to say it is a strange but not unpleasant experience to be standing before you asking not for approval to spend or borrow but to award a contract that will bring in revenue to tjpa and provide a service to the public. So, the distrebted Antenna System insures there is cellular coverage in the Transit Center and while there are a few diagrams slides and technical slides i wont pretend to explain the technical aspects of the contract to you. My understanding is this will insure people are not walking through the Transit Center saying can you hear me now. When i conclude my prezen tailgz we have prebs from the design time that can address that. We are recommending a ward to boingo wireless and will market to the major Wireless Service providers and under the 20 year term of the agreement keep the system updated as Technology Changes and improves. Well provide Operational Revenue to the tjpa. These are the diagrammatic slides i mentioned. Again, if you have questions we have member thofz Technical Team here but you can see the coverage areas within the Transit Center. Full coverage on all levels and then the agreement would allow for when phase two operations begin for expansion of the system to make sure the train passengers have service as well. To summarize the procurement we put out a rfp last summer. We received 9 proposals, interviewed 7 firms and narrow down to 3 firms for further discussions with and then based primarily on the financial offers because all the firms are able to provide the services, base ond the financial terms we did narrow the negotiation down to boingo wireless. The proposal from each team are summarized in the staff report as well as here but i like to go into boingowhat is called for in the agreement. There would be 500 thousand paid within 10 days o. Execution, another 500 thousand within 45 day squz 30 days of finding agreement with the first carrier or 270 days of execution paid another 2. 5 million 2. 5 million. By the ochbd the year we put that into Operational Reserve and that is available to help cover operations moving forward. Then they will continue to market the system to carriers and within 30 days of the second area signing would be another 3 quarters of a million payment and half Million Dollar payment when the third carrier sign squz those are garen teed payment and there are folks from boingos team and believe there is strong interest from the carriers providing coverage in the center so dont think they or tjpa will be anywhere near 5 year tooz get 3 or 4 carriers to sign but if something happens and not signed within 5 years the payments are garen teed and receive the 1. 25 million at the 5 year mark. If a 4th carrier signs another 5 year mark. If a 4th carrier signs another half Million Dollar payment so the garen teed payments are 3 and a half million 4 million potential total and addition they collect revenue from the providers that they sign agreements with and well get a 25 percent share of Gross Revenues or 125,000 minimum annual guarantee if the revenues are below 125,000. With that, we have members from boingo here and member thofz design team here and i can answer any questions. Just clarify one thing, infrastructure would be paid by boingo, not us . We are not paying for infrastructure . My question to uis this any of this income calculated as part of the revenue for operating or this is all new . This is new. Included in my numbers last month. Last month you have this . Yeah. Okay. Two questions, one, is this wifi or just cellular . Just cellular, not wifi. And then i guess a question, i think what are we doing about wifi . The greater demand for wifi and when phase 2 st. Complete does the mag increase . We have not had specific discussions about the mag in phase 2. The agreement of phase 2 that open certainly does something that we can look and address. The wifi question i will ask a member of the can zine team to come up. Dave. The overall system thats being discussed here is primarily introduce yourself. David [inaudible] Engineering Design firm associate would the phase 1. 5 Technology Deployment for the overall systems mpt the cellular reinforcement is part of the 1. 5 technology implementation. Under the base contract thats recently been procured under the previous trade package which is aural awarded and wifi deployment is a system owned qu operated by the master lesee. This system is primarily for cellular reinforcement but it also encompasses the master lessee radio from a operational perspective and accounts for the future rail component as well. It is not just the cellular aspect there are other things embeded ipthe boingo responsibility said. The wifi is owned by tjpa. Owned and operated by tjpa. Whatdize that mean the wifi network is part of our correction contract and owned and operated by us. Tjpa is installing the wifi system . Yes. Part of the construction contract. 1. 5 contract deployed the active network components. This will allow Cellular Services on the bottom levels as well . Yes. Potentially in the train box . That is correct. I have a question how it will work. So i know how boingo works in a airport which is kind of remote as compared to downtown San Francisco just in terms of area. So, if im coming in on a bus from the east bay and on a bus and i pull to our bus deck and using verizon or at t or any of the usual biggies from my phone call, and i get on to the bus deck of the terminal, now what will verizon or at t have to have done withwill are i have to deal with boingo or will i have depend on verizon or at t cut a deal with boingo to continue my phone call . You have to be dependent on a deal between the wireless carrier and boingo and as those deals are signed, thats the revenue share portion that goes back to the overall project. As mentioned by sarah, there is extreme interest associate would the carriers participating in this project. There are several Business Models you deploy from a cellular perspectives. Some are associated with tjpa owning and operating similar to wifi. There are other Business Model wheres the carrier can install that equipment and own and operate that equipment themselves and in this model you have a third party who is a neutral host that will engage with the carriers to install their equipment and boingo pits in the infrastructure and operate and maintain that equipment. The bus deck is underneath the park. I presume on the park anybody in the park if they have verizon or at t they probably have coverage . Due to increased capacity of south 67 a of market area, the overall carriers are also look frg additional infrastructure to support the over monopoly all growth of the city and their networks cannot accommodate the current gloget let alone once the majority of the buildings under construction now are fully occupied by their tenants, so i would envision as we work through the engineering shop draw jgz overall design that solicit to the carriers because at t and verizon will review and comment and design team and outcome of that will be coverage throughout. I dont know how it fits inour buses are going to have what i call wifi on them. Phone calls i always presume if you had a carrier you can make a phone call on the bus, but if someone is making a phone call on a bus or phone call on a bus through whatever we got, i dont knowi guess there is phone over internet but when comes to portable woy that isnt applied. I dont want a break. So eve n a break saying you have to deal with this polk around and sign up with here or switch carriers and that shouldabout shouldnt have to happen. When you are at the airport and launch a page squou see the boingo complimentary internet, that wim not happen hence the reason we felt best interest of tjpa to own and operate the wifi system themselves and then the cellular aspect will be completely seamless. If you are on the phone talking on the bridge coming to the city you get on to the bridge and get on the bus deck there is seamless coverage throughout. Okay. No more questions. Alright. Motion for approval and second. To address you on item, director gee, aye. Kim, aye. Reiskin, aye. Nuru, aye. Harper, aye. Item 11 is approved. Item 12 is authorizing the executive drether to execute amendment to the professional Service Agreement withu Rs Corporation to accommodate interest. I like to bifurcate as to the amount required for them to continuing and finishing up and the amount for getting into dtx so we could do that. To havebecause my position is i dont want to have the tjpa project the image that the dtx is already been toll held and put their foot in the door and the chances of somebody coming in because that is a big thing that i think should be isolated and should go out on a rfp and we should do the whole thing on dtx and specialize on what we need from the company from who ever helps on dtx so why i want to bifurcate it. People can vote the way they want. But my vote on the dtx will be no, lets go on a r frkts p and do that rather than have them start dtx engineering now particularly given where we with the city and county of San Francisco where we are supposed to be in a Holding Pattern that we can use this to go out for a rfp and do it right instead of giving this image of a continuation that we dont need. Y if i can make a comment. That isnt the image we want to project. What we need is a transition period. This is for project control, not for design. So and we need a transition period between the existing team and dtx team and this allows us to do that is give the transition period and will look for a new rfp for project management and control. At this stage what is there in project management and control with respect to rks detx because we are not in the design phase . We need the money to do the 30 percent. Unless we get the money to do the 30 percent . Yes. The report we are not committing really but why are we bothering . We want enough money in the contract to be able to go with the study. Be able to our estimate of construction estimates and so forth when the 30 percent comes in. After that we go after the rfp for project measure and control when we decide what the next steps are. Dont want 2 teams together, one for the remainder of the dtx and phase 1 and after that we do go out for project measure and control team. The same people are doing [inaudible] work. Dennis tur sean and will go through my presentation and to your point, chair harper, i have separated it into phase 1 and 2 element and that is for this situationism in 2014 we did selectu rs to a formal procedure to get them on board as our Program Management program, Program Control consultant rchlt they proposed a fee of 38 2014 we did selectu rs to a formal procedure to get them on board as our Program Management program, Program Control consultant rchlt they proposed a fee of 38 million and cut to basically what fsh the absolute necessary. It agreed at 21. 7 million duration with 4 year Duration Contract which basically puts through june 2018. Also negotiated is reduction in fee similar to the turner dropping from 9 to 7 percent. So, after that negotiation now we got to this point in time and very close to near the completion and much clearer picture where we are at. There are a couple elements that we are part of this request. The prose polls are and purpose is in three buckets. Two are phase one and separated out the phase 2 element of this clearly. Phase one is when we negotiate td we only held to 3 and a half years of those 4 years back in 2014. It was fair amount of unknowns at that point and felt why should we negotiate more than necessary back in 2014. Steel hadnt started yet so why we held the 21. 7 million and negotiated amount only for the first 3 and a landfall of the 4 years. Now, where we are in space and time today we do request that the original scope be extended for remaining 6 months and that is trending at what we need them for their day to day original scope is 2. 1 million of the request. Another element is other phase 1 scope necessary and essential to deliver the program and can go through the details of that quickly on the next slide. The fird third bucket is phase 2 element which is identified as mark said as consistent with board direction in june 2016. Phase 1, so the phase 1 additional scope beyond the original scope extension of 6 months as ark logical and qaqc, it, dealing with procurement process, the project and master lesee start up and scope transfer of the last item is specific to the it system procurement under the shop that was under web corp previously and took that back from them. You took back theright from web corp. My question is if you add those up it is 3. 2 million. Correct you are saying additional activities are only 2 million. Which of these things put on hold. The 3 million there are credit so all we need is additional 2 million because there are other items in the orig fll scope that showed a credit. We saved items. The net is applied to this and why the ask is solid 2 million. What is the additional Security Consulting . The additional securityly had to do with the rpa dealing with rfp and manage with con ops and design guidance criterias utilize the pmpc staff for their program and then the safety and Security Management plan. Safety and security safety plan needed to be developed and where the staff helped coordinated and bringing to what was needed. Does that answer there was 2014, 2015 timeline and they helped with the managing the concept of operations. We hired [inaudible] to produce the report but [inaudible] experts help manage that effort. We also updated the [inaudible] as we went to construction we encountered some conflicts in construction and needed to make adjustments and we went back and we find [inaudible] requirements so money well spent. I thought the ark logical was the most interesting, are we still digging . [inaudible] it started with the Human Remains Found back when that was beyond so additional work at the bus ramp and bus storage that will start next week. We have to dig for the bus Storage Facility we expect something . Well, we anticipate the areas in the bus storage are limited because a significant portion sthof work was already done 10 plus years ago but there are items that this project will touch that were not touched in previous activities. They wont be the archeologist or the diggers . They have archeologist on staff . Let me explain. We have the project machbjure and control as a contract and if we need subcontractors they do it so if they dontthey have a large team with other firms so archeology will be done by somebody else. They will pay for the archeology . Yes. And even the cost estimate update. Some is other firms under them. They are part of a team, we just use themit isnt just one company, it is a team. Im sorry, i couldnt understand your response to director nurus question on there risk and vulnerability consultant, so who is that going to and what is that covering . That money went to you said went to that sound like past tense. Some took place in 20s 14 kwr 15. It was a line item weep went over. We had it in budget and [inaudible] in the overall budget. You are asking to approve the overage . The effort that went over and above what we expected. We saved some items i dont feel comfortable with that line item and cant support that today without more information. I guess the board approved a contract withto do several items who . Project manageru rs to do several items for us. Who did the risk and vulnerability consulting . U rs. Their team. And they wnt ovabout half a million . For what we [inaudible] their efforts when we developed the budget i dopet feel comfort supporting that until i gelt more information. Just so i can understand because i didnt get from the staff report that this was a reto active approval, so and maybe it is not. Is the authority that the board gave director and approving the contract, did that give you as the director the ability to move money between line items or are we actually approving ret roactively over expenditures in line items . I have to say i think the contract you approvaled a contract with a total over all budget not specific line items so as time has gone on and services are required as noted there are credits, i caept speak to what the credits are but where money wasnt needed money was moved to the Services Like Security Consultant that was needed but the board hadnt previously approved a specific budget. For work to continue budget augmentation is needed because of the additional 2 million net and so thats what we request approval for today. Increase to the contract for work moving forward because of overages in certain line items ovthe past couple years. The 4. 1 we ask for we havent spent that money. Creth. We are asking for that money to do the what we need to do moving for ward. Within the ovall budget the board approved there were line items that savings and [inaudible] i thought that was within myyeah to be able to manage the day to day operations. I guess i need to understand this better. So, i agree that within the 4 corners of the agreed contractim open to flexibility moving money back and forth but now you ask to increase the contract because of the overages so you maxed out the contract . And asking for additional funding . The contract isnt maxed out yet, but to continue work until june 30, 2018 the increase is required so you are asking to increase the contract . Correct, not sulely due oo overages though. Im not sure if this is clear. We tried to explain this in the staff report, but at the time the amount was negotiated, we were very aggressive negotiating and it was a significantly lower amount that had been proposed, but because we didnt know how long servicess would be needed until, the contract wasthe term went to june 30, 2018, the contract was sized through june 30, 2017 budget wise. Now, the construction schedule is clear and we are on schedule thankfully. We do need the services through close out of the construction contract so to june 30, 2018. Part the increase is making sure there is funding for that extra year that wasnt included in the original amount. I think that is a problem. I dont have a issue with money getting moved within a contract, but if you are moving it around to such a extent you run out of money before what the board approved timeline is, then i dont feel comfortable supporting this additional funding. I think that you have to stay within your means within the time line you expect so if you know the contract isnt running out for a year you have to come to the board then. You are over spending i understand within the budgetary constraint but spending down the money very quickly and early and asking the board to supplement at the end so dont feel comfortable with that Decision Making. One thing i like to clarify, when we executed the contract [inaudible]u rs, the timeline was 4 years but we funded it for 3 and a half years because of the time completion of the building was august 2017. Not december 2017. So, at the time when i negotiated the contract and did not know past in the 2018 timeframe what efforts we needed from them, so yid did not fund work beyond december 2017 for that work. Now that we know what we need, we want to add that teerflt the contract. That effort was never includedthat work wasnt included in the original contract. Any scope changes . 2. 2 million is for serbs between december 2017 and june 2018 for closing out the construction contract. That was never part of the contract executed in 2014. The funding. So, if we dont give them the 2. 1 million they will pack up and 11 december 2017 and have nobody from project Management Help closing out the construction contract and maybe ron can elaborate more on that. Sure. There is a lot of history and why we had historic background introduced, but if i can step back and give context to the nature of this contract was a overall budget pretty much time and material, having knowledgeed team at the ready to respond to things that happen out in the field so we can be agile much like surprising with arch logical or surprises or rethinking with the rav. It worked in that context of having a Knowledgeable Team readily available to respond to realtime needs and circumstances, so i think that worked out well and as these contracts occurred periodly we have to reforecast knowing what we know now and that is this moment in timet. U rs will hold the masterer contract but not sure we will use all the money . The current modeling oror forecast needs adjustment. This is a extension ofwe only have 3 engineerfelt i dont think thats the problem. I dont think anyone is questioning the need for the pmpc service. We are very much a outsoersed operation. I think maybe the concern and what i didntmaybe i missed but didnt see in the staff report is how much of this budget augment ation is because spending at a higher rate anticipated which is director kims concern versus we need to keep them up i running for 6 more months to clous out the contract and thought i understood it was a compation of both but i dont think we have visibility fl to that distinction and think there is concern over the former. If the burn rate was higher than anticipated, we fund it, but i think probably everyone understands we need to have them on board at some capacity through close out and even close out and june 2018 seems ambitious so not sure that seems like we will be back. It may benefit from if the current funding and contract is good to the end of the year it may benefit from more time so we can better understand this. The staff report says one extension is 2. 1 million so take us from december of this year into june 20s 18. Thats the extension amount. The 2 million for additional activities that have taken place are going to take place and that is the archeology, the additional efforts we did with security and there are other things. The additional effort chs 3 million but we saved in some Million Dollar so the difference is 2 million and various line items, some over and some under. Just to respond to director reiskins question, we are always gauging what the trend is. There are highs and lows. I might suggest and there is concern with the board that perhaps we provide a little more rel time forecasting information and we are always watching this. Horse race on whether one line item is running long or short and periodically doing an adjustment and that is what this is. I might suggest from here to the end that we maybe drill down a little bit more periodically to inform you as to what the trending is happening. The direct question is, we are watching a number of line items that were coming in with surplus and some trending otherwise and it is a question of when do you raise your hand and say it looks like it is going long or going short. I might suggest that as a balancing act. I do want to highlight that when i develop the budget, i accounted for the money and put the money in the program reserves, so by using that money, we are not change thg estimate of completion. We still have the numbers that [inaudible] total exposure, so that does not change at all. I just did want nt want to augment the budget because at the time still didnt know the efforts we needed so set aside 4. 4 million and we are asking for today is 4. 1 million. There will be 800 thousand in savings. I have some of the same concerns. It looks very much like they were close when they said it is 38 million to get us to the end of the road and we for some reason were such brilliant negotiates we said it was 21 million. I remember what the budget was like in july 2014 and it was extremely fragile and sure there was a lot of concern to stay within a very old budget that we had when we knew that the budget was so old and cant issue a contract not in accord nss so it does have that flavor of catch up to it and like the risk and vulnerability consulting supervisor kim brought up, we are at a stage that was completed 2 or 3 or 4 years ago that cost 1 hell of a lot of money, now has to be additional work on that. This is just stuff that you know, there is a smell factor to this that is just hard to kind of get fl into. I understand that is a big driver. I i dont know what to do with it but think the questions are valid in terms of this extending these additional lines. Extending the contract, extending the contract, i they think thats 2 million 1 is fine, but maybe we need to get as you say additional stuff and next month come back and say here is the really have to do on the e risk and Vulnerability Assessment and this is additional and not pay back for i think you are right. Most of that is behind us. One of the blow out line items as opposed to one of the line items managed to a lower number. If i could add to the strategy of funding 3 and a half years instead of 4. I find myself when i have time and material contracts trying to meter that as well and there is a sense of money is on the table they burn it all. Something to say about active Management Strategy to meter out some of the availability, so we could try to manage to the lower number, which i believe is probably what was going on at that time. As the high jz lows shook out, managing to the lower number didnt seem to be achieve able and there is a lot of drivers and the rva is one big glaring piece of what drove that. When you negotiate a 4 Year Contract on work to be done it is very hard to nail down every line item correctly so you will always have variationssome take more effort and some less effort statedment you always hope to land with a even number at the end. In this particular case our [inaudible] is like 600,000. 400 thousand is [inaudible] so the net of the overerages and the credits is positive or negative . 2 million negative. So i think the concern wasnt about getting every line item exactly right, i think the overerage on the rva feels like salt in the wound. That work that we are paying for feels in ret row spect cost 60 million of additional Construction Cost which the board was very frustrated about. 360 million tfs a it was a lot of money. But the concern isnt over on some under on some you cant predict that perfectly. The concern is if there was a net overage and we are coming in towards the end 3 years into a contract to adjust for it, thats i think the concern you are hearing. It is not we need a little more to keep them going for another 6 months which i cant imagine 6 months is enough so may want to revisit that too but it is the former concern i think is what is giving folks pause. I justthe overerage isnt spent. That money has not been spent. But it is the projection of the overage . Yes. I want to make sure because i understand director kims concern that you over spend qu come to me. I get that. It is just thethat money you may as well have spent it if you spent all the money within the contract and come and say there is nuthding less and only way to extent is give more money. You put us in a bad position where we have to give you more money because we know we need to extend the contract so that is what im unhappy about. I know you havent incident overage but you clearly spent all the money very quickly and that should have come to the board sooner. I think this whole thing gets back to the frustration of having to go hat and hand to the city and county for 300 million some time ago when we just could have gibbon the lot more for warning. Was it things like that this that contributed to that and enabled that and made those numbersthey worked then, but then we had to pay the price and it was a embarrassing price to pay, have to go to had sate qu say we didntthis is especially and embarrassing because these people are budget consultants to too. That is the frustration. I dont know what to do about it but it just it is a little bit i appreciate the fact that they worked longer and harder back then for less money than maybe they would have liked but thats they started with us in 2004. They had a very good long innings with us, so just say that now we should just make up for that. So, i dont knowthe extension is fine and ill drop my objection on phase 2 activities but i think maybe say the additional activities should come back with details exactly where we are going and get specificity on that. I dont know, that st. Is just my suggestion. I think coming back may be the right thing to do. We agree with it but think we need tothe way it has come is not the way it should have come to us. Is that second orim just talking 2 million additional 1234 yes, 2 2 million any objection doing that . Essentially 2. 1 million for extension and 1. 3 million for phase 2 activities but with hold the 2 now and come back in a month with more detailed information on what justifies the additional activities. Fair enough and well bring very detailed spreadsheets what and when we went over each one. That alright . If i may add to your comment. A forcast of consulting needs are for the rest the program. You think what it will be spent on based on trend. I think it may be wise to look at that projection of june in terms of close out too and maybe recalibrate on that one. Director reiskin pointed out the bus Storage Facility shows july completion so just doesnt quite line up. And i trust that you understand most of that is dialed in but i think dont want to sell too short too soon. Given that i think it might be simp ll to just continue the entire item because we wont negotiate two separate steps and extension so it may be make sense. And to the chairs initial comments on the phase 2, the other benefit of pushing the whole item out is get better clarity on what the funding picture looks from a Transportation Authority commission. It may make sense to authorize only a segment of that because if to the extent the concern is there are different alignments and dont want to respond a bunch of money on alignment that we wont choos but there is work common it may make sense to advance the work on common wurks. It doesnt seem there is urgency to the item and suggest pushing the whole thing off. You accept the amendment . That is just a continuation. Just a clarification to mark, i believe the meeting is on the 28, is there enoughdo you need services to get to the 28th meeting or okay with that . Do you needthere is a presentation to be made and the consultant says im out of fee and wont make a presentation and that dozen help us either. [inaudible] they do assist in it background on phase 2 work but the phase 2 portion of the contract actually is one area of the contract that is okay for now and dont see a issue pushing out a month. Thank you for the clarification. Alright. Thats just a continuation and dont have to take a vote on that so that will be next month. You take votes on continuation . Okay. Take a vote on continuation. Motion to continue and second. Motion to continuewanting to comment on the item on that motion to continue the item to next month gee, aye. Kim, aye. Ciscon, aye. Nuru, aye. Harper, aye. 5 aye and item 12 is post pones to next mujt. Item 3, authorize the executive drether to execute with carpi and clay for two years and compensation of 320,000. Directors, scott [inaudible] good morningism as you recall november we brought forward option to extend the existing federal contracts. That meeting was a couple days f afterthe election so uncertainty about the transition and decision was made to do a 3 mupth extension going to january 31. In the interim we decided rathing than seek the additional 9 month option that now is the right time to put out a rfp and make sure we have the strongest possible team in dc for the current political environment and particularly make sure we have the Strongest Team for the federal funding and financing programs that will be essential for phase 2. These are programs we talked about in update tooz the boards. Things like new starts. As you know the dtx identified as a regional priority for the new starts plan. There is commitment to seek 2. These are programs we talked about in update tooz the boards. Things like new starts. As you know the dtx identified as a regional priority for the new starts plan. There is commitment to seek a billion dollars from the federal government. We also have fundsing like the tax increment that flows to the future so the ti go tooz 20 20. If we get passenger fustillty charges that will be collected when the dtx begins operation so flow out to the afuture so a challenge is capture the funds and bring forward so we will look for the most favorable financing possible to do that and believe that will be through one of two federal programs. One istypia which are familiar with because we have a phase 1 tiffia loan and transportation infrastructure innovation and finance program. And then the other is a program called riff, the Railroad Rehabilitation and improvement financing program. This is a program that we have targeting for a long time. The dtx is available and finance rare infrastructure. A big part of the work in dc over the past many year is making change tooz the program to make it more favorable to phase 2 to make sure the dtx is eligibility to have the spaungest chance and at the point to submit a application and move forward with getting a riff loan. So, we want to make sure that we got a team in dc that has the strongest possible speerns experience with those three programs and in particular another challenge that we see is Northern California we have a heavily Democratic Congressional delegation and with the roont election and new administration the new congress is republican majority so need a team with bipartisan reach so we put out a rfp in december and got 4 responses and had a review review and three moved forward to interview jz at the end of the interview process there was 1 team that scored well above the other squz related to the magnitude of their experience in those three programs that will be essential for funding and financing phase 2. They were the only team with all three of those programs with riff in particular, the team we are recommending has negotiated and executed 4 riff agreements. They also participated as a independent financial reviewer for the federal department of transportation on three additional riff loans because they are recognized as having substantial experience with the riff program. So, on the measures associated with those funding streams slsh for phase 2, they really stood out. This team also has strong experience with tiffia and new starts. One team work would app tuon Advocacy Coalition to coauthor a hand book to help the constituents navigate the new starts pipeline. In all three programs they brought really strong and uniquely strong experience. We also have members from the team who worked for dem ocratic member jz republic members of congress. So, the team we are recommending from carpi and clay similar to the approach with state advocacy that come observe you in november. We had twoe contract jz consolidate into one contract and so cut the cost Going Forward to half relative to what we have before. I have jewelry [inaudible] from carpi and clay and happy to squr any questions you may have. Could you state what the contract was prior when this came to us in november . The contract amount, i couldnt remember . The contract amount was recommendation was for 1 year option to extend, so was monthly retainer of 750 and there was a 2500 twavl allowance. We modified that to cover 3 months so it was modified for 3 times 12, 750. The retainer is 12, 500 and one of the ingathize that we talked about is having more regular hopefully quarterly updates from the dc team coming before the board sofe worked in a travel allowance that would allow to reimburse if we decide to go forward with those visits. So the travel portion has been reduced but the monthly retainer has gone up . The opposite. The monthly retainer went down in the current extension which is 12, 75 0 so it is 12, 500 for the first 2 years and one option to extend and will go up 250 a year eech of the 4 years. We increase the travel budget to allow for regular visits from the dc team to update the board. That is reimburseable so all discretion how much was the total recommended amount in nrfb and how much now for one year . If we moved forward with two contracts like we had previously the sabeingsover the 2 years is 312,000. The 3 month weez extended from november to january is 3850 but just for 3 months this is a two Year Contract so 300 thousand 12 months row tainer and 20 thousand travel allowance for 2 years. You mean 300 thousand of 2 years of retainer . 2 years, 24 mujts. Still not clear to meyou say there is a savings in the contract versus what you had previously proposed so what is the save lgz . With our previous contracts prior to november we had two contracts how much did they total . 612,000. That isnt including the travel so 612,000 versus 300 thousand and understand. Move approval. I appreciate the went back and resolicited because the world is a little changed november 8 and think it was a wise move to solicit in the new environment so i support the contract and think it will very much be needed. I omhave a problem with what in the world are they going to do for the next 3 or 4 months. Every i seethe guy from washington came to ac transit. I much prefer written stuff. I dont find it very helpful when they stand in frontf ous qu tell us what is going on in washington dc. I have no back fp ground and that is when thingerize sane. Given where things are if i were these folks i would just pocket the 12 kthe first 3 months and say as soon as i find someone to talk to i will talk to them but that will be swept away and rfr is had gone. I emphasize the new administration and congress including both sides of the isle talked about putting together a infrastructure package with under way in dc snow and part of our goal over the next 3 months is to make sure that whatever is proposed is as favorable as possible to phase 2, so for example making sure multimodal projects are eligibility and favored to the maximum extent and projects like ours that have a unique amount of non pral funding to make sure that is favored. The president s talked about infrastructure package that folkishes on financing ask haveic private sector investment. All the fiscal year 2017 is already not awarded but itemized for fta i fra. And you are talking about the appropriate aigdss process but the negotiations for fiscal year 2018 appropriations are starting now. Those hearings start in the next few months. The other thing is as soon as we have our supplemental hopefully approved that is like a starting gun firing because it allows us to submit our application to enter the new start pipeline and allows to move forward with the riff apperation and hope that will be done in the next 3 months. Dont hold your breath. Alright. Ill go along with it. It just seems we put a lot of trust here and a lot of money into lobbyist and lawyers and consultant and sometimes when they go into a situation that is the way washington is for the next few months you just wonder what is the hurry but ill vote for it i guess. Maybe hear from the firm real quick. Sure. Good morning, a pressure to be here. Juraly mu nerve partner with carpi and clay. I was born and raised in Northern California, parents from San Francisco so this has always been more than a contract to me, this is a great effort to work on, so thank you for letting me a part of it. Your are right there is a lot of uncertainly in washington but the formuless othe plans are on going and on going at a very rapid pace. Already just three weeks into the the new administration we have seen the president issue a executive order on high pry orty projects to streamline the permitting kw regulatory side of projects but it is also indicative how he may try to move big infrastructure projeblths flward so focus on environmental quality, which is a agency not used in the capacity in the last 8 years so something we need to have conversations cex once a new director is identified. More porent leif we have a opportunity to identify you as a high priority project that can enhance our capability moving forward. I also like to add in the new administration scaert chow is in place at the department of transportation. She was one of the very first nominees to move forward so beelding her team. There will be a lot of new people to meet but suspect they are people we already know, people who worked for senator inhauf on Environment Public Works Committee and need to reintroduce the project to them to advocate for high priority projects and understand the parameters of what you accomplish here. Looking back at the yearly review i believe in january and had the new chart of 41 states where you pulled in your manufacturing and parts, that is significant to what we have Going Forward in washington dc now. That chart dislaid the value the region the project will accomplish on a dlailly basis but the value the nation. Aerfblg we hear about the administration talks about the manufacturing and you are the only project that can show a direct tie to manufacturing and transit in the country so that is very very good starting point that we can go into specific offices and say we created x amount of jobs in kentucky and ohio and really tie st. Back in and that is something that will resinate a lot. I agree that what will happen in the next three months but we are having hearings, house transportation and infrastructure held one last week and Senate Environment and publuck works held one yesterday so how to formulate a infrastructure package and component is a part of that is happening right now and we do not want to miss that opportunity. Thank you. Can you give a month warning before you come out so we can okay it in the previous month and say have them spend their travel allowance . Absolutely. Thats all reimburseable. Only at your direction. We had a motion and second. No members want to address you on the item . Gee, aye. Kim, aye. Reiskin,i rir. Nuru, aye. Harper, aye. 5 aye and item 13 is approved. Next item. Item 14, election of chair and vice chair pursuant to tjpa joint powers agreement. Which you want to do first . Go in order. Nominate director nuru is chair. Second. Any other nominations . Call the roll. Nomination for chair tjpa first and second of nuru as chair and no members want to comment on the ititem. Gee, aye. Kim, aye. Reiskin, aye. Nuru, aye. Chair harper, aye. That is 5 ayes and our new chair. Vice chair. I like to nominate director gee. Second. With first and second. Any other nominations . You bow i didnt call you to ask. I didnt want to hear no. First and second nominating director gee as vice chair no members wanting to comment on the item and no other nominations. Gee, yes. Kim, aye. Reiskin, aye. Nuru, aye. Harper, aye. 5 ayes and director gee is vice chair. With that i want to say thank you very much for the honor being chair for the last 2 years. I have gotten into it as you can tell. I believe in very active chairmanship and really as i said when i took over the job the idea is to find out what it fs we need today know and hope and havent disappointed you and that is a task of the chair and sometimes that involves digging. That isnt always appreciated but i think it is the job, so i appreciate your tolerance of the occasional disruption caused by the digging. Moving on to the next item we had earlier your cur curance moved item 3, communication. Any communications . No. I was going tomy communication is the reason i like it at the end is because i just noticed we never used it but the other bodies i sat on them douous them and they are at the end and one thing i use them for when citizens come before to be heard on items not on the agenda mostlyit is discouraged all the around to get into any kind of stuff with who ever speaks because you dont know where it goes, right . But, on the other bodies i sat on, what happens when it is at the end is the people that are talked to can say okay on that i like staff to do this or that i would like this and it is more encouraging and you get to think about it the whole meeting. You get to think what that person said and what it is that you might want to do and cant do that right away. That is just one thing i use it for at the end of the meetingthere are other things i think that occur throughout a meeting and the bigger perspective i think is something that you get to maybe by inund of the meeting sometimes that you may want to comment on and so thats why i like it at the end. I wont be the chair so it can be where ever the chair wantsment. It is up here because that is how San Francisco works it and that st. Is the way it is. Okay. Seeing no others item 4 new or old business. Seeing none, you are now scheduled to go into closed session and havent received a indication the member of the public wishes to address you on any items. [returning from closed session]. Board of directors meeting of february 9 is back in open session. Item 17, conference with Real Property nogessation regarding the transbay Transit Center negotiating partners tgpa, hrna advisors shepherd mull end, crushman kwr wake field under negotiation for master please of transbay Transit Centerment nothing to report. Item 18, conference with Legal Council existing litigation, three matters. Name of case, ang versus mu lynneium partners bora lee him versus transbay joint powers. Pamela burterly versus sean jeffries. Nothing to report. Item 19, conference with Legal Council anticipated litigation significant exposure tolit igation per sunt to paragraph 2 of subdivision d of section 549 nive 6. 9 for potentialications there is nothing to report. That concludes our business for today. Adjourn the meeting. [meeting adjourned] we love our parks, but we love. And the community who is really the core of it all, came together and said what we need is a place for our teenager to play, not just play grounds for the kids and soccer fields but we need a skate park that will keep the kids home in the neighborhood so they can play where they live. The children in the neighborhood and it will be a major boone. And we have generations, the youth generations that will be able to use this park in different places. The best park in San Francisco right here. Creating place where people can be active and lead, active, healthy life styles that are going to just stay with them for life. El commissioner melgar and commissioner moore seismic and commissioner johnson are present we sxheptd o expect didnt commissioner fong it to be absent first proposed for continuance 214 states street discretionary review is proposed for continuance to february 23, 2017. Further commissioners under our regular calendar on item 13 added clayton conditional use authorization we received a request from the project sponsor to continue to april 13th under our discretionary review calendar commissioners item 172855 filbert street