Skip to main content

tv   Transbay Joint Powers Authority 51216  SFGTV  May 15, 2016 2:00pm-4:21pm PDT

2:00 pm
>> call to order this meeting of transbay joint power authority board of directors of may twev.
2:01 pm
>> director gee, present. kim, present. kim, present. harper, present. you have a quorum. item 3 is communication. seeing none item 4, board of directors business. >> we are going to start with new old business. over the next couple months we'll pivot into phase 2 and have to start working on that now, so we got an item on the agenda and next month mark will be presenting the work he has done on this and we'll probably if i'm unless i'm mistaken about half of the work from now on is doing that.
2:02 pm
that is the planning and there are lot of complications with respect to phase 2. i'm also in this agenda i'm pulling item-let's see-approval of holser contract and will switch items 20 and 21 with each other, but other than that, proceed. >> next item, >> item 5 is executive director report. >> good morning. i like to start by thanking the board to serve as interim executive director and look forward working closely with the board to make sure phase one is on the
2:03 pm
schedule and advancing stage two. i'll work closely with [inaudible] the board appointed director of design construction to make sure [inaudible] completed by [inaudible] the budget for phase one the board will consider-have a program with at least $100 million left when the construction is completed so that money can go to phase 2. for phase 2 i worked with stakeholders and funding partners to make sure a funding plan is developed. i will update on the work we have been doing and draft a plan and funding plan based on the funding sources that we are currently updating. for the short term financing, the board approved the package at the april meeting and [inaudible]
2:04 pm
approved it and boferd supervisors approved it. i want to see staff in [inaudible] for hard work making this work and also special thanks to the controller office in particular [inaudible] and controller ben [inaudible] for working with the board to make sure the agreement is and most importantly make she we secured approvals from the entities that need to be approved. aprov the financial package because it was a lot of work. yesterday we were pleased to hold the [inaudible] called the [inaudible] temporary terminal. this group is highlighting the proper 25 project in the state and transbay terminal was one of them. the speakers were [inaudible] director of policy research. [inaudible] cal
2:05 pm
trans and executive director for [inaudible] nob on the national front [inaudible] visits the transbay site and did a presentation on the project. he was very impressed. he-the project control team to present to project at the [inaudible] smart city summit april 29 and they are very impressed how the project was a example for urban [inaudible] very impressed with what scott provided and how the funding sources and [inaudible] were developed and be able to fund phase one and two. i want to thank director nuru for supporting the meeting between
2:06 pm
me and sheriffs department. we will continue discussion on security and how to imp lment that and also will be visiting union station in los angeles to see how they are managing security needs and hope to report back to the board how we can implement security at the transit center. the rfp for the [inaudible] is due the end of this month. i will provide a update at the june meeting. you have the monthly transaction report for your approval and can answer any questions you have. >> next item. >> moving to item 6, construction update.
2:07 pm
>> good morning board members andstaff and public. ron [inaudible] with public works and i'm pleased to report that it has been a active and productive month out on the job site. if i can move to the presentation. as we have been structuring in the past couple months we have 7 topics to cover, 1-3 are field conditions and i'll ask dennis to speak in detail and get up and speak to budget and schedule and challenges. overall i think you will see there is a lot of visable progress on the site over the last month that you will see dennis will present. i just want to un
2:08 pm
derscore or note the intangible. the at mississippi sphere and elevation of issues and advancing the project i think has gotten smoother over the last few months. i think all of us sensed project fatigue going on and malaise and think we are pulling out of that and starting to see some good energy out advancing the project. with that, i'll ask dennis to present some the details of the field work and address budget and schedule. >> dennis [inaudible] it has been a very active month out there. the picture looks similar than the last month, on the inside it is a tremendous amount andile i'll go through
2:09 pm
that. we have 500 workers day time shift and 5 oplus in the evening and night shift so when you include saturdays we have all most 600 people working on the project, great progress going on. regarding recent activities this is a graphic we rolled out a few months ago, green is good and green has-there is a lot of green on this graphic here. it has been a lot of concrete poured, we have one to two concrete pours a day. that is what it is showing in the graphic when you look at the different levels throughout the transit center. breaking down into western and central and eastern zone. western zone is all about concrete. it was releases from steel work it is concrete. concrete will end from decking pours.
2:10 pm
we removed the bracing on the western zone so that allows for follow up. good progress in the western zone. from the lower concourse bottom left and hanging [inaudible] that is where the focus is going as woe get outf the structural concrete. central zone had some of the most dramatic changes. we have the awning is hanging on the structure on the south side. there are 3 more panels in place, about 160 feet is hanging. it is beautiful. we have a glass ground level curtain wall systems are starting to show up too so a lot of features and paint as well for the barriers, all is happening in the central zone. on the eastern zone structural steel is done and
2:11 pm
signed off. that happened since the last month i reported. now it is on to structural concrete like the western zone. [inaudible] and metal decking pours will continue going forward. installation of escullilation. to me it was exciting to see the escalator going in. to the left we see [inaudible] pouring as we head toward beale. the bus ramp activity is near harrison near climen tina and can see various different elements of stages progress happening on the bus ramp. focus is the pylon 9 which is the center support for the table bridge. we started removing the forms for that. 125 feet above howard street and see what the structure will look like and see the graphic in the upper
2:12 pm
level that will have 11 cables hanging from that. other things happening on the bus ramp are harrison street we had deck pours and [inaudible] a lot of activity on the bus ramp. looking at what will happen for the next month, upcoming work continuing the central zone awning will continue will be installed. all the plum rring and masonry blocks will continue. the eastern zone we will have the welding and bolting complete. continue to rebar, concrete, it will be all about concrete. hopefully early gene we'll have a last deck pour and early august is our last train box led under beale. thereat is what we are looking at the last concrete
2:13 pm
pours early august and will keep you updated, western zone mep going on every concrete. fire proofing will be going in soon. the bottom left is bearings for seismic design that goes into the bus ramp has a two part system. spherical bearings is the one part and will add the second part when we are done. regards to safety, we did have one reportable in the last month, it was particular iron worker that had a injury it his neck and required meds but no lost time and returned back to work immediately and that was our only incident in the last month. that put us as 4 for the year this point. we are 2.2 million craft dollars
2:14 pm
with 104 thousand added last month alone. i'll turn it back to ron for the rest the construction update. >> thank you, dennis. moving on to budget. the estimate to complete hasn't changed since last mupth. we are doing a deep dive and update on a quarterly basis so that is fairly static. the program expenditures sit now at 1.37 billion up by about 62 billion last month. committed to number is 6.9 million since last month. it is at 1.52 billion. overall the program budget is at 66 percent expended, but 2 percent change from last month and 1 percent change in the
2:15 pm
contract time sitting at 76 percent. we will be over time following our fore cast line and see how well do with the efforts and adjusting when need be. in terms of contingency draw sins last month, there is a $7.1 million on contingency. over $5 million of that is buy out on the roof park, the fountain and some the concrete and restaurants. it is playing a little bit of catch up in terms of dealing with the park. moving on to schedule. the overall kind of main streams of activity with the transit center, since last months forecast we gained
2:16 pm
about a day so had t is holding stead y ft the bus ramp lost a little time. i was surprise jd hope that's aberration because my gut feeling is the bus ramp stream of activities is going rather well from my vantage point. again, it sits in the middle of stream of activity so it is less than critical in respect to its relationship to finishing the transit center in a little over than 18 months. the bus storage as i mentioned last month is pretty much slipping along. it is ready to go out to bid but still need resolution between cal tran jz ac transit on their lease terms see we can move to the next stage the project. unfortunately we will see that one slide until that comes to rest on the commercial terms of that piece. again,
2:17 pm
we are underscoring that they operationalize those scenarios, one of having a bus storage ready when we open and a suscenario where the bus storage arrives at a later date so have to keep the dialogue going on with those parties. taking a deeper dive on schedule streams of activity. most activity held steady. the exterior [inaudible] and water proofing gain #d a month. that is where we put the empsis on mitigation and overtime so start to see it bear fruit and think we will see more and more of that as well a gain on permanent power as well. another point of emphasis with
2:18 pm
the biweekly meetings with the contractor to energize thinking about substantial completion in just over 18 months. good energy there. moving on to highlighting in the challenges i think rise to the board level. day in and day out we have lots of construction issues, that is why it is called construction. we have been able to kind of move through those items fairly swiftly, but i did want to highlight a few things. schedules i mentioned is always a challenge and putting a focus on that. i think the strategic ovtime is starting to bear fruit as i mentioned on the schedule slide and working on commissioning and putting emphasis on substantial completion to a certain degree is constraining
2:19 pm
our gains because i think more fear factor is creeping in as we start seeing what it takes the commission as well as to achieve substantial. again, i think good energy and good dialogue and positive focus on it. moving to buy america, that is a reoccurring discussion among teen members. the volume of [inaudible] deminshed. most of the trades have worked through those issues with the exception oof the electrical trade which seems to have a reoccurring theme of trying out the notion of effective drawings and such. particularly with voting management, prior management, public address and audio visualment those are the focus of
2:20 pm
discussion now. challenged my team to help me by friday to send out a response to some of the letters regarding buy america to underscore the gravity of the certification offered up by that contractor and also underscore research we have that will dispel the myths proliferated out there on this topic. i think this topic will continue for a while. lastly, change management is always a challenge on long term projects. as i mentioned last month, ac transit requested a bus deck reconfiguration. over the last month i think we advanced the thinking and engaged design team and think we have a strategic plan on how to
2:21 pm
address their needs and most of the focus is on a post substantial completion strategy as to not expose ourselves to contract delays by trying to rejigger the bus deck. as you saw in the photo's or may have seen, the bus deck progressed rather well so do continue to encourage ac transit to come up with a operational solution to the challenge but we are ready to react or accommodate their needs at the appropriate time with the appropriate amount of funding. i think it is trending to 3 quarters a million. one thing i learned with this projis numbers are big, with 4
2:22 pm
city blocks every design effort seems to be a 6 digit effort and every change seems to be a 7 digit effort so it is our task to manage that and not allow for design changes and to manage through the concerns thoughtfully, but with organization. with that, i'll take any questions. >> so, one question. dennis mentioned we have a order of 500 people working during the day, 50 working at night. it makes me wonder given the schedule challenges we have if there is a opportunity to beef up the second shift to get schedule acceleration. >> um, i think we can look into that. i have-we have a swing shift and night shift so we are doing 3 shifts. evening, are a lot of
2:23 pm
deliveries and positioning for productive -production, if you will in the field during the day. a lot of the set up is going on, so i think we can explore that a little more as well. >> thong for update. following up on director reiskin's comment about swing shift, i was out there monday and thank you for the tour. as the building is incluzed i hope the security beefs up. a lot of opportunity for non construction workers to get in there so need to make sure the site is tight. on the change management comment, 66 percent spent is that number increases the inpact of change will amplify in
2:24 pm
terms of money and time so encourage all of us to be mindful of changes going forward because they will just cost most and also impact time. >> absolutely. and time is getting shorter as i keep underscore, we are just over 18 months to fulfill the contract with web corp to deliver the transit sent squr there is focus and energy moving towards phase 2. i want to underscore the thing between that is the master [inaudible] which i'm eager to see arrive soon because the difference between being handed the keys as mark or i put it and having the building ready for intended use and operational ready, sthra sizable gap we need to fill in the next 18 months. >> with respect to that one of the things i hope to get out of the
2:25 pm
master discussion you can plan for is obviously we will open the place and it may have some tenet build out, but not a lot. it won't have a lot of tenet build out. maybe something will be opened that is simple and maybe not. in the mean time we got passengers going up to the bus deck and coming down so there has a be at least a plan how those two things-shouldn't be too difficult. so we don't have people wandering around checking out as they are trying to do build outs because the passengererize a curious lot. >> most definitely and brought it up more than one time with mark and we are looking forward to have a master [inaudible] look at the incremental activation of the building to recognize those type of activities.
2:26 pm
>> thank you. >> very good. >> next item, please. >> item 7, citizens advisory committee update and believe we have a newly elected chair, bruce [inaudible] >> thank you so much and good morning directors and board chair harper. i first want to say that i'm honored and humble to be elected by my colleagues as the chair of the cac. this is such a challenging project as the majority of complicated infrastructure projects are, when phase 1 and 2 are completed it will be such a show case that i know that we will all be so proud of. i look forward to the ribbon cutting ceremony for phase 1 at the completion. before i move on with a update i want to express my thanks to several people for their services and
2:27 pm
leadership. first, of course maria [inaudible] for dedication and leadership over the past 18 years on the project and also want to thank ted olson, who has just-he was the chair the cac and just termed out after service 6 years. i got to know ted over the last 3 year jz appreciate his passion and leadership about the project and his contribution as a member of the cac will be missed but know based on my e-mail his contributions will continue. as this is my first report i will keep it short and at a very high level but there are a few things that i wanted to note. first off, on behalf of the cac we want to thank you for the interim
2:28 pm
appointment of mark to executive director position. we feel that is very important to have a seamless transition at this time in the project when there is 18 or 20 months left to go for completion for phase 1. it is critical to have a seamless transition and with mark we know that will move forward. we also want to thank you for the appointment with ron alameda. the additional leadership he provides in various areas of focus are so much appreciated and only target. as seen on the construction report that is the vehicle used from a communication perspective so all of us, several items have been restructured and added on the
2:29 pm
project that communicate as clear clear picture. in particular some of the improvements around schedule, critical path issues, issues, risk and mitigation measures. as we just saw in the presentation, very robust and clear going forward. we also like to note actions taken to manage cost. we saw a few things that were changed over the last month. some services were brought in house taken from consultants and other contractors brought in house and those are very small measures but very indick tv of the focus on cost management going forward and the cac sees that and congratulates folks on making that happen. several items i want to note from the past meeting, the other day tuesday, we received a presentation on the disability access
2:30 pm
at the new transit center and our members were very much pleased and very much appreciated that presentation. in particular the curb side wheelchair access in and around the transit center is very well done and hope as the cac all the streets in the surrounding neighborhoods and transit center district play out that say way. there was a item brought up by one of our cac members, a resolution that came for discussion purposes and one of our members bob finebalm brought it forward and it was really focused on phase 2. the resolution looked at phase two alignment, funding, timing the current rad study and we appreciated him bringing that forward. it created a opportunity for the cac to have
2:31 pm
a robust discussion, it was 20 minute item which turned into a 40 minute discussion so have to manage that better from the facilitation perspective however it was important because we have 3 new mb tooz the cac. everyone on the e cac has a different level of understanding of phase 2 and the rab study but we are all on the same page that the time leness moving forward is of the essence. i think what we came to conclusion as a cac is we need more information to be better informed as we take this basis of a draft resolution which really was the basis for discussion purposes and get better informed, get everybody on the same page and get more information into the cac and we agree to do is
2:32 pm
set up a temporary ad hoc working group that would respond our time and focus on phase 2, the rab study, alignment and so on and put together information to bring back to our cac for possibly a resolution-advisory resolution we would like to put toort so we'll keep you posted on that. two other quick items and then i'll wrap up. the cac is pleased that our board, the boardf supervisor jz mtc approved the additional $268 million in funding for phase 1 of the project and pleased to note the project team is working to complete phase 1 under that amount and looking at the construction update. i know in talking to ron what the estimated the eac is target to come in $100 million under and that is the
2:33 pm
focus and pleased to see that is a spirit of the project moving forward in phase 1. one last item to note as we talk about funding, the cac, several members are disappointed of the nar tv in the media around the overruns. nobody is pleased from the overruns from the project. the cac included but the message of being $1 billion, i think we know that was based on $1.2 billion starting point for the project, but very early on in the project the train box was approved to be done as part of phase 1 and with that came funding of $400 million so the starting point was $1.6 billion. we know the narrative in the media is the narrative in the media, however, as a cac what is more important to us that we talk about is that the lessons learned
2:34 pm
from phase 1 are critical and that those lessons learned are brought into phase 2 that is the narrative that gets out and really helps to rebuild the confident of the public as we move forward in the project and into phase 2. so, with that, i'll wrap jup thank you so much for the opportunity to provide this update from had cac and open to any questions you may have. >> you looking for a media job? very good way to put things and hadn't thought of it with erespect to the 400 million for the train box. i have a real question. how is the cac going to be involved in selection of the master lesee if at all? >> well, um, chair harper, from our persperktive we had informational presentation and i would have to differ
2:35 pm
to the project team and scott if you would like to address that. >> we are in the process forming a evaluation committee to review the responses after they come in after may 26 and intended to have one member of the cac on the evaluation committee and will have two because one of the other members is from the greater rincon hills [inaudible] and also a member of the cac so will have two members. >> i was part of something a couple months ago that was new to me, the city of emmoryville was looking for a new captain and had a select-how to evaluate them of the police chiefs. prior to that, she met with a community group, just to sort of say, well, here are the people that are out there and
2:36 pm
she had-actually we interviewed them too, but which we wouldn't do in this case but the idea there is a selection panel that will come in and give a remation what they do with the whole thing is one thing, but if the entire cac can see here are the people, what do you think, is that a problem? >> no, i don't think that will be a problem. as the process moves forward we will give update tooz the cac similar to presentations the board will be receiving. >> because they have to live with it quite a bit so would like to use their neighborhoods expertise. >> any other questions? thank you so much. >> public comment. opportunity for members to address matters not
2:37 pm
on todays calendar and have [inaudible] not aware of anyone-it looks like jim patrick will be after him. >> good morning directors and thank you chair harper for the segue because what i would like to talk about today is funding for phase 2. specificically what i want to talk about is how we work with a team with san jose and [inaudible] unlock $3 billion in [inaudible] bonds which are locked by the court. the third thing i think yee we need to look at is our guiding principle is what the judges ruling was and the judge said 3 things, it say first of all and you'll be happy to hear this, is the terminal in san francisco is a transbay
2:38 pm
terminal isn't [inaudible] we got that settled. the second thing the judge said is that we have to achieve a non stop trip time between [inaudible] and transbay terminal of 30 minutes, currently 35. it is a issue. the third thing the judge said is that we need to support a minimum of 12 trains a hour in and out of the transbay terminal, not 10. so, what i'm going to suggest is a couple ways how we get there, but will speak specifically but the transbay terminal. we need to increase approach speed to the terminal from 25 hours which takes 3 minute to 80 miles a hour so closer to 1 minute. we will [inaudible] two minutes out of the 5 minutes we are looking for between san jose
2:39 pm
and san francisco. the second thing is regards to the 12 trains. this design for the [inaudible] on second street won't cut it. we need to revisit that. it is basically a bunch of [inaudible] over there. the other thing we need to look at is really good [inaudible] track design, we have to make it possible to have [inaudible] tracks at the other end of the terminal which will not only make it possible to achieve to 12 trains a hour but also the foundation for the future transbay terminal and hope to have good news in that direction later. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. patrick. >> jim patrick. i echo that notion of get across the bay and put that in the design criteria and should be a leader not a follower and so far we
2:40 pm
have been wer on the bigger picture and hopefully can be a leader. i like to ask the board to move the 9 consunt item off. i have a change i like to make to the minute which i don't think is correct and rather have that on a consent calendar i would like to have it on another kind of calendar, whatever you choose to call it. >> that concludes the public that wanted to address you. we can move that off the consent calerden. >> that is what we do. we'll do that. >> i want to clarify which-- >> [inaudible] >> we'll call the consent calendar items 9.1, 9.2, 9.4, 9.5 and
2:41 pm
9.6. we haven't received indication a member have any other items severed other than mr. patrick stated. we have a motion and second. >> kim, aye. riscon, aye. nuru, aye. harper, aye. that is 5 aye's and consent calendar minus item 9.3. we can call that item when we get fl to your regular calendar later. >> that is fine. >> you are scheduled to go into closed session. we haven't received indication a member oof the public wishes to address on the itom in closed session. they have a opportunity to do so now or go ahead and clear the room.
2:42 pm
clear the room. >> board of directors meeting may 12, 2016 is back in open session. two items held. [inaudible] versing [inaudible] there is no action to report. >> item 14 is approving operating assistance proposal and implementing amount not to exceed $4,691,868 of the transbay transcenter program. >> move approval. >> second it. >> good report. >> thank you. [laughter].
2:43 pm
>> first and second and no members wanting >> student address you. gee, aye. riscon, aye. nuru, aye. harper, aye. call the next item. >> item phrenis phase 1 program budget update. >> i'll report on this item. i want to make sure the powerpoint, it is working? okay. this is just a quick update on the budget that we'll present to you next month for approval. this will be the final budget includes the
2:44 pm
total $360 million budget augmentation to july 2015 budget the board approved. to date we awarded approximately $1.3 billion in work that includes awarded work through bids and change orders. we have approximately 67 and $67 and a half million. $42 million procure through bids for rfp's. it network. $22 million, but storage $21 million. we have smaller scope of work we like to procure to contraction contract for total $15.5 million. that will complete all the work that we need to procue for the project. this is
2:45 pm
breakdown of the budget. the board approved interim budget of 2 billion 64 million at the november board meeting and transferred [inaudible] to program reserves. most is buy out [inaudible] intended procure at existing contracts. the june board meting we willprint budget augmentation of 192 [inaudible] 22 million goes to [inaudible] 20 million for the bus storage facility. 3.3 million to [inaudible] $14.9 million for program wide casts and 134.8 $134.8 million is augment the program reserved and contingency. after approval we will have
2:46 pm
$216 million and $117 million is [inaudible] ron showed in the presentation so phase 2 could use that money. this is a breakdown of the budget included 1.44 billion for construction, [inaudible] and $215.9 million for program reserves and contingency. this is the same slide as ron shared with you. 2222 billion [inaudible] total. the goal is [inaudible] to complete the projeblth with that budge. key are trending 2 billion 154 million. this concludes my
2:47 pm
presentation. >> mark, thank you the update; on the proposed budget adjustment is that scope we will add to buy out or- >> the cmgc contingency restricts that focus to awards, so the 1.9 entails the amount of award that basically the amount of awards we intend to make for change orders or [inaudible] as we issue change order or award any contracts, we set aside on the [inaudible] to be used to resolve conflicts in the field >> the starting at the top, are we adding scope to the cmgc? >> no. [inaudible]
2:48 pm
it is basically [inaudible] the fee and [inaudible] and performance bond based on the awards to date basically. it is percentage. >> so, if there is-just so i understand because i wasn't here in the beginning, if they do a buy out it is over budget they get additional fee for that difference and if they get additional cmgc contingency for that difference? >> yes, we still set aside 4 percent of the contingency and 3 and a half for fees that is above $910 million, 1 percent for payment performance bonds and 1 percent for [inaudible] >> remind me what is their incentive for not managing? [laughter]
2:49 pm
don't get me wrong, i started cmcg in a prior career and that was a biggest criticism if i get 3 percent i get 3 percent of x and 3 percent of x plus. no skin off my nose, i get fee no matter what. this is a legacy issue, i understand, we may not be able to fix that, i just need to understand. >> the only thing i can say is the contract itself as it was initially executed set aside 71 million $71 million for the first $910 million of buy out, which is 8 percent. c plrks cg could argue 3 and a half percent is [inaudible] >> so, just from lessons learned as the chair said, we will switch our focus from phase 1 to phase 2.
2:50 pm
lesson learned. i started cmgc at university of california system and the biggest criticism is fee percentage, fee of x-there no skin off my nose so what university of california has done is there a fee set and there are a range of costs you don't get fee. so at lease there is incentive to manage within that range. we put that in the lesson learned bucket as we begin conversations withifies 2 if we go down the cmgc model >> you have one member of the public that wants to address you, mr. finebaum >> good morning. i'm a member of the cac but not here speaking for the cac. when you make a mistake, it is
2:51 pm
not only good practice, but it should be required that you correct the mistake. as bruce has so ableling pointed out in the report concerning the discussion at the cac, the start point of the phase 1 budget has been widely misinterpreted as $1.2 billion approximately. then as you heard, the ask $1 budget has been widely misinterpreted as $1.2 billion approximately. then as you heard, the ask for $400 million that came in for the train box isn't adequately included in the budget so the real start point was $1.6 billion and that is important because of the fact that harvey rose,
2:52 pm
the well respected budget analyst for city of san francisco came out with a claim that the increase in the cost of the transbay center had been 90 percent and that is incorrect. he used the $1.2 billion to make his calculations from. so, what i want to suggest to you is that you clarify the record that this bord send a letter to harvey rose to clarify that issue and tell him that the start point is 1.6 and that his figure of 90 percent plus which was picked up by the press is incorrect and he should amend his report to follow the facts of this matter. thank you. >> thank you. >> that concludes members that want to
2:53 pm
address you. mr. [inaudible] >> my name is gerald [inaudible] just to add 2007 the budget 1.879 billion and 4 million transferred from phase 2 to 1. the staff took advantage of that and built the whole first. it is easier to build a hole first. if you divide mtc's rate you discover it isn't 90 percent, it is 40.5 percent. as it just said, that needs to be corrected. >> that concludes members of the public that want to address you. >> to be absolutely pure in this respect we started out originally with the train box as part of the
2:54 pm
project. then we took the train box out because of budget issues so there was a iteration of, this is what the whole thing will cost and don't remember the name for that. then we took the train box out and redid the budget and then people said without the train box we are not sure that you will follow through with bringing in cal train, so put it in, put it back in and we put it back in so don't know how that fits in. the very carnation the terminal included the train box, it did not include the park, which is also another issue, but did include the train box and it was taken out and then with public came back and said, no, do it. there was great cost savings to doing the train box first. building the building and then constructing the train box underneath a working slab of a building was extra cost so
2:55 pm
there is a lot of complexity to the history. >> item 16 is presentation for capital budget not to exceed $480,222,300 and operating budget not to exceed $5,187,168. >> i'm happy to answer questions and can give a brief walk through of the budget. >> had one question or maybe a suggestion. this ties back to both the chair of the board and chair of the cac's discussion about focusing more on phase 2. i think that there is line item where bundling planning that is both planning for phase 1 and phase 2 and i would recommend a operating budget if we can we fully separate the
2:56 pm
phase 2 cost so we have a clearer picture of all the phase 2 activity. >> sure, when i present the final budget next munt we'll add a column. i can point out basically in the engineering and design service line items downtown extension which are approximately 2.3 million proposed, those are the phase 2 costs included in the capital budget. >> there was somewhere in the report there was reference to a line item thatd seemed to include planning for phase 1 and phase 2, so just if there are anywhere in the operating or capital budgets where we can separate to make the phase 2 budget more transparent and stand alone i think that will be helpful. >> sure. any other questions? okay. >> no members the public have indicated they want to address you on this item but have a opportunity to do so
2:57 pm
with it being a public hearing. we'll move into your next item and note item 17 was chair harper announced he continued the item to a future meeting so we'll call item 18, approving the draft disand vantaged business enterprise. authraise of release of the draft for 30 day public review and 30 day public comment process. >> again, mine as well stay where you are at for a while and answer any questions you may have. >> happy to answer questions or give a presentation. >> is there motion for approval? >> move for aprovel. >> motion and second and no members want to address you. gee, aye. kim, aye. riscon, aye. nuru, aye.
2:58 pm
harper, aye. item 18 is approved. calling item 19. authorizing executive drethinger to amend the professional service agreement by increasing budget autheration by $5 million for legal service for bench of law firms providing services in their respective practice areas on an asneeded basis. >> i like to point out request for authorization is [inaudible] completion for legal services and it is 2.7 million below the budget set in july 2013 and we are not changing it. we are lowing than the budget and intend to keep it that way. >> that is good to hear. legal services are something that--that is good to hear and think the agency has been well represented by the various
2:59 pm
bench firms, the last time this issue came up discussed pursuing work from the city attorneys office for no other reason they are a lot cheaper. there was a general council many year uzgo and who left and feel that history is keeping us from reengaging because when i talk to the city attorney he is aminable per foruming work the agency may need. i don't bow if we made those effort and you may not know but i think we should continue-if we are under budget that is great but if we are more under budget that is greater. since the inside council is so much less expensive we should take every opportunity to avail ourselves to the lower cost to legal service.
3:00 pm
>> i'm more than happy to do that and reach out to them. >> i had the exact opposite. whenia proached the san francisco city attorney and he said yes i'm interested in this, i said great, that is what the board seemed to indicate and i never heard from him after that which indicates to me i'm not sure what i want to do. jessie indicated to me that the attorneys office would not be interested in it and it was overridden by city attorney so i'm not quite sure they really do have a interest. fine, the potential for conflict is higher than ever given we have dpw involved to a extent but still like to do that. san francisco city attorney isn't very
3:01 pm
cooperative with my efforts to bring him back in. >> all i can tell you is i spoke to city attorney and chief deputy city attorney and i understood their willingness to do work. it needs to be areas where they have competency and capacity and think there are many areas of legal service that are specialized that make sense to go outside for. our first stop should be to see if they have capacity and interest. >> i'll communicate and reach out and talk to them and have the conversation and see what caw pacity they have. >> [inaudible] san francisco city attorney does this in their sleep with some of those contracts and does them and there is no reason not-that is a very good example of when the san francisco city attorney could hand it to one of their young attorneys
3:02 pm
and do it fl san francisco art commission all the time and save us the money. that is a good example when we could use them >> i recommend we check with the city attorney because in my conversation he said he is willing to help. >> he seems to have free time so more than happy to contact him. >> okay. is that it? alright. motion? >> i'll move, whatever we need to move. >> this is the 19 author to amend. so moved. >> first and second i hear and no members want to address you on the item. gee, aye. kim, aye. reiskin, aye. nuru, aye. harper, aye. before we call item 20, i did move to
3:03 pm
the minute of the april 14 meetings 9.3 the member of public asked removed. approval the minute of april 14, 2016 meeting. we had a member of the public that wanted them considered separately. >> jim flaub nob i reviewed the minute particularly from april 14 i believe it was. two things, if you look at the minutes themselves you find no date reference on the minutes. i believe that is a strategic error where ments should have the meeting called to order on such and such date and believe that needs to be corrected. i believe it sin the computer file but asia look at them on paper they are not there.
3:04 pm
number 2, if you make reference to items 8 public comment it talks about a statement i made in the minutes and said i quote, he said he is unhappy with executive director is leaving. that is true but also unhappy with the method the executive director was leaving and that was left off of that. i like to apened that or review the record to show that is what was said. thank you. jrfx >> what is the procedure on that? do you review and amend and put it on the next agenda after you see that was said or just? >> the minutes are the comments made. we can do-i can tell you [inaudible] >> if you remember that we can
3:05 pm
do that now. >> we can add the correction and take a motion to hear the minutes as amended. however, in his first suggestion of adding the date to the time the meeting was called to order, they have been characterized this way for 15 years. i don't see a need to add the date to the roll call time. >> i don't--leave that up to your discretion. >> the date is on the cover page the minutes. >> one hof the things a point of clarification, at ac transit we pass add resolution the official record of the board of directors of ac transit was the tape. >> right. >> and in essence the minute don't have to be considered-is that the same here? >> correct. >> the minutes are nice, but
3:06 pm
>> the minutes are mainly- >> any ishi they go to the tape. >> correct. >> i move as amended. >> i'll second that. >> item 9.3, approving the minutes of april 14 meeting as amended, director gee, aye. kim, aye. reiskin, aye. nuru, aye. harper aye. the minutes are approved. we can call item 21. presentation by san francisco planning department on the rail yard and i 28 [inaudible] >> thank you for take thg time today. i'm going to make a short presentation on the project or this study
3:07 pm
that has a cumbersome name, the rail yard alternative and i 280 study. i prefer to call it lucy but this is the name we call it and call it the rab. i want to talk about why we are doing this and get fl to the various component of the study. first of all, it is a study and want to emphasize that. there is concern decisions have been made and have not. we are looking at a number of transportation projects in this quaunderant of the city and look at the impact and hol istic view of the part of the city. the options i'll talk about today are ideas presented and analyzed in phase 1 and some in phase 2 of the study. i'll talk about that in a moment. go back one here. i
3:08 pm
want to get into why we are doing this now and then what the component of the study are. fundamentally in this very small part the city there are $3 major multibillion dollar investments that are enter related. cal train, high-speed rail and dtx phase 2 of your project. the total sum of just this expenditures in this part of the city is on theorder of 6 to $8 billion. so, obviously the other important factor of course is high-speed rail is coming and announced they are coming sooner than we originally thought. get toog san francisco by 2025. their business plan was changed to reflect that difference. the connection between los
3:09 pm
angeles is san francisco is being scheduled for 2029. we all like to see that happen sooner, but that is the current thinking of high-speed rare authority. other aspects of this part of the city that are concern that prompted us to do the study the thinking of high-speed rail and keep the trains at grade requiring depression of 16th and 7th street under the rail tracks. we think this has serious consequences for the city and not good urblen planning and designing and clear in the comments to high-speed rail this is #1347ck we would like changed over time. the train should go under the streets rather than the streets under the train. we have been saying that and think that is a important part of the study. you can see potential
3:10 pm
impacts when a depression happens and think this isn't a great way of building cities and like to work with high-speed rail doing a different system. so, what we do have now is series of project well under way. i'll talk towards the end of the presentation about the concerns about doing this now and why we think we should still move forward. we think we can coordinate partner efforts and improve local and regional connections and look broadly at the benefit and impact of the systems and also in much of the reason why the planning department is taking this on is looking at place making and issues of building and lan use in this part of the city so we look hol istically at the land use considerations in this part of the city which we think is desperately
3:11 pm
need ed. we want to understand coordinate the project hog isticly and as we do that and come up with the best transportation for this part of town look at public benefits that will accrue as a result of that. so, the study has 5 components. these are those 5 component. first looking at the rail extension alignment, taking a fresh look at that alignment. considering all of the studies underway to date but also considering advances we have in technology and other methods of construction. the second is a potential loop for the transit center to create operational efficiency and look at potential regional connections cross bay as a result where that may happen and how. thirdly, look
3:12 pm
at the rail yard configuration. it is 20 acres or more in the middle of the city and look at what the potential for what that should be used at in the future and where it could be relocated if possible. looking at component i realize has a fair amount of controversy which is the potential removal of i 280 or a small portion of i 280. we realize this isn't without controversy and concern. this is being done only to look at potential of creating a better transportation system in this part of town. finally, in light of all the transportation improvements that result in this looking at potential for public benefit. the area is no surprise to yous l is the southeast quadrant of the city going from cesar chavez to
3:13 pm
the transit center. as you know, this is the current alignment of the dtx as proposed and environmental cleared. the current alignment the cost of that has risen to about $4 billion and about 7 years of construction in a cut and cover methodology. we think that we need to-given as i said earlier, given advances in boring technology we think it is wise to take a fresh look at this in light of the construction and timing impacts and long term connections between the various systems. we looked at 4 alternatives, 3 including the baseline alternative. we looked at-phase 1 is looking at physical possibilities and the idea was to weed out those that were physically not possible to carry into a phase 2 analysis. we looked at the
3:14 pm
current alignment and tunneling under existing alignment and pennsylvania avenue alignment which is closely adjacent to the existing alignment and alignment along 3rd 3. this is the line on the map looks the same, it is basically-this is baseline alignment. this is the second option which looks at the tunnel under the existing alignment. it is basically the same on the map but tunneling under existing tracks and under and through the highway. the next alignment is slightly shifting alignment to pennsylvania avenue which is just to the north of the existing alignment along pennsylvania. the third alignment which is a very different approach would be to look under
3:15 pm
3 rd street and connection to 3 rd can happen before or after potrero hill tunnels and continue up 3 rd and aroun att park and match with the existing alignment on 2 nd street. it veers in a different direction towards 3 rd street. what we found is that two of the options would-just to be clear, two of the options which is baseline and pennsylvania avenue use the dtx as the environmental cleared option as it is currently designed. the mission bay alignment using the last turn of the dtx mainly 2 nd street. 3 rd
3:16 pm
street veers off and connections to 2 nd street. second component of the study is looking at a loop. we looked at 4 potential options for a loop, main street, spear street, steward street and in the bay itself to look at potential physical impacts or physical possibilities i should say. after we looked at this and you see on the map and if you look carefully, part of this analysis is look at potential future connection tooz the east bay. one of the important components of our work on this study is better understand how to best create a system that can evaerch eventually create a second tube and think there are a number of possibilities and carry intoer futher analysis but think it is important as we make 100 year decision on these investments. of these 4
3:17 pm
alternatives we took out 2, main and spear street, the blue and gold line because the turning issues for high-speed rail, they don't work. we are carrying the possibility of going steward street and into the bay itself if that remains a physical possibility if not a possibility in other forms. thirdly, is looking at the rail yard itself. all most 3 years ago now, the cal train did work on a study to look at the possibility of reusing all or part the railyard and working with them on that still. there are a number of different configurations that may be usable. we are continuing to work with them on this issue and like to continue to work on them and carry to
3:18 pm
refinement. also looking at the possibility of relocating the railyard to other parts of the city recognizing the operational needs to be in a fairly close proximity to the terminus. we thipg it is important to look at alturn atives due to changes in the yard and [inaudible] benefit toot other parts the city. the rare yard does represent a fairly large amont of lands in a part of city that is growing rapidly. we are looking-working with both cal train and high-speed rail to loork at those alternatives. the boulevard i 280 idea, we look at the possibility of what will happen and help the transportation system if we were to remove part of 280 north of mariposa street or 16th street. one of the challenges with the street system in
3:19 pm
that area are there are only 2 places to cross under the highway. it separates mission bay from the rest the city and west part of the city to the bay. we think it is important to look at this clearly and have done this in the past but it doesn't make sense to do it if it doesn't lead to a better transportation system. you can see where you can cross 280 down to cesar chavez. we have done this before in the case of embarcadero and central freeway. it doesn't make sense unless it results in a better transportation system. it is also important to note and to be clear that the alternatives we have on the table, do not
3:20 pm
physically require removal of the freeway accept for the ones that go under the existing tracks which we think is a problem and why we take it off the table. it is important to note 3 rd street align lt or pennsylvania won't necessarily require removal of 280 but we look at it as part of a larger look at transpor taishz. we are carrying forward to the next phase of the study, 3 of the 4 alignment options including baseline option. we removed the idea of tunneling under existing alignment which doesn't seem physically possible. we are carrying
3:21 pm
forward 2 of the 4 loop tracks. we removed main street and spear street. we are carrying forward the idea of looking in more detail at the railyard configuration or relocation and work more clously with cal trans, mta and others on the possible removal of 280. given all that we want to look at what is the result the physical environment given such changes and is there tupt for park space for affordable housing for development to meet cities other needs as we move forward. finally, i just want to talk about outreach and what we are doing. we completed phase 1 which is reliminary analysis. we are well into phase 2 looking at the other -short list of alternatives as i mentioned. we are creating a
3:22 pm
citizen works group in the next few weeks to have a working group of people with direct interest in the project to advise as we move forward over the next year or so. phase 3 of course would start in about a year and create a preferred alternative which we would assuming larger acceptance of the idea move into environmental clearance. another way of looking at the schedule, looking at possibility of public meetings, we had a series of public meatings earlier this year and anticipate a meeting in the fall and winner those are the large scale meetings. we have a number of smaller scale meetings and been out to organization squz willing todeso in the future as we move forward. finally, i want to close by mentioning that we are fumly aware that there areinose
3:23 pm
who believe the study will delay the implementation of the dtx and acknowledge the dtx is mostly environmental cleared project. we believe we can move forward in a timely way and not delay the implementation of the project but believe it is important to look hol isticly of all the systems in the city to look when you talk expenditures or 6, 7 or 8 billion dollars it is important to look at the system and regional connections and land use result that will happen as a result. given those conditions and the fact that the way high-speed rail is kejed scheduled it is scheduled to enter the terminal 2029 and believe we can do that sooner but believe it does want represent a substantial delay in what would happen in this part of town. i close there and offer answers to questions and thank you for
3:24 pm
your time. >> questions? >> thank you for the presentation and probably will make comments after hearing public comment. just a question, we are expecting and hoping the federal government will be a significant funding partner with regard to phase 2. can you explain what extent they are involved in this process? >> maybe i'll ask susan [inaudible] quhoo is project manager to answer that. >> susan [inaudible] from city and county of san francisco planning department. fta and fra aware of the project and briefed them quarterly on the project. it is not their [inaudible] stay neutral on local plan decisions but are intrigued and they are generally supportive of the efforts
3:25 pm
of the city and county of san francisco in this regard. again, we are not modifying anything right now and we are not delaying the movement of any particular project going through in federal process. we also understand that if we do decide as a city to change the direction of any of these projects, that we would have to reenter or redo some of the environmental work that is already completed. at this point there is a big question if we change something would we luce our place in line. from a regional standpoint. getting high-speed rail to transbay transit center along wlaurfb alignment whether downtown rail or whatever t is still going to remain one of the top tear items to get-to move the region through the next
3:26 pm
system, so i think we got time. it is the perfect time to do the study. 6 months later and think we would be having some bigger issues. if we don't look at this now we will make decisions for a century decision and if we don't do them right we will screw the city p royally. the federal government is aware where we are and what we are doing and supportive in the efforts and not delaying any projects within any processes they are going forward through at this period of time. >> and then my other question is talked about if we were 6 months later that would be a challengeism phase 2 shows 9 to 12 months. are we going to have initial feasibility results earlier and is there anything this abady can do to
3:27 pm
help expedite this process? the train is moving on dtx and moving on high-speed rail and cal train electrification so waiting 9 to 12 months before we know whether the company we are considering seems like those trains will be a year further on. >> when i said 6 months i meant when we started the projec we are in a perfect spot now. as high-speed rail is coming to the city faster than we anticipated, if we tried to start this project to decide how to effectively and efficiently bring it to the city we would be in trouble but we already started the process a couple years ago so had we started the study 6
3:28 pm
months after we started we would be in a lot more difficult position. there are decisions but the study is slated to have the information available for decision makers within the period of time that we are anticipating those decisions to come to you. does that answer your question? >> how soon will we know something? >> sorry. somewhere in the fall we will come back with the alignment-all the alternatives so each component we have the options and combine those options into alternatives and do additional environmental work and cost estimates and doing schedule implication and doing a full benefit cost ratio matrix and we'll have that some time around the end of this year in draft form and a final version of that a couple months later. i
3:29 pm
wish i could get it to you sooner but working as hard as i can. >> thank you for the presentation. i think a fresh look at what the train coming to the station and how we get there is important and i say that because the station was planned we really didn't get a sense what was happening in mission bay or new developments and the opportunity to look at alignment. i agree if we don't look at it now we will miss a opportunity for serchries centuries to come. my question is now that we see this presentation and how you take that out to neighborhoods or the groups and how are people reacting to these ideas? i heard them in bits and pieces and never seen it presented today in a hol istic way in planning terms and all the
3:30 pm
various impacts and how will that happen? >> it is very good question. we had-we did a lot of background work to get through much of the first phase to understand the range of options to analyze and took that to the public. we had hundreds of people show up at the meetings. there is mixed reaction. there is concern about the 280 component and the issue about delaying the potential connection to the terminal of course. what we look to do moving forward is get out to neighborhood organizations in that area so putriro hill and mission bay and south of market and having citizen works group to sit down and roll their sleeves up and work more diligently and freak quently and think that is
3:31 pm
the best way to engage people in the process. >> second question is our city is taking a huge step with sea level rise and the concerns with climate change, is there discussion about looking at some the ideas presented that tie with new ilinement? >> i think the next phase will get into more understanding of the implication and connections with the work that we are doing with sea level rise. the planning department and public works are heading a task force looking at sea level rise issue squz making recommendation tooz the mayor about future actions. we obviously need to look at that and actually with the sea wall itself which is another issue the port is facing and city is facing as well. i believe it is important for us to look at the potential
3:32 pm
connectiveness of these projects, the synergy that can happen over time between addressing sea level rise and sea wall and transportation ish oo as mpts i think there are ways these projects can help each other but have to look at that as we move forward. >> thank you for the presentation. from my standpoint i'm focused how fast-hold the timeline the trains downtown. can you step back for a minute? my understanding is the transbay center has been a project in planning and now it is construction for a long time. at least 18 years, if not more. why now? why wasn't this study started last year or 2 years ago, why today? >> the study was started about
3:33 pm
a year but why didn't we do this 5 or 6 or 8 years ago? i think as we understood more about the current proposal and as the cost of that proposal kept rising and as the funding became more challenging for phase 2, we wanted to take a fresh look at it given the fact that we were concerned the funding would not be possible or first of all, that the funding might be even more challenging in the environment moving forward given the cost increases. secondly, because of advancing in boring technology. the current technology is cut and cover tunnel which takes 7 years of construction and think it is a timely to look at that and see if boring technology can do a faster and less expensive construction method aology. y what is
3:34 pm
important is look at the overall cost and benefits that may accrue and if there are ways to generate revenue through this project as well. i think there are a number of ways that-number of reasons to do that now. in a ideal world we would have done this a couple years ago, but we felt getting the funding to together to do now and timing was right to do it now and given investments and other issues i mentioned. >> i know this is just the beginning so when the study comes back it is mentioned several times in the presentation new boring technology under current alignment- >> say that again. >> you said no boring technology but
3:35 pm
also say boring under the current alignment has been ruled out, so i would like to see that reconciled in the study at a future point. don't center to do it this morning but here is great new technology but cant do it because of the alignment >> part the reason is highway columns. >> it is just concrete, you can move them. just reconcile that issue. as director reiskin mentioned, how engaged or other partners? there is a piece looking at alternative yards for the train and in contact with the mayor, [inaudible] and city manager and said they had a seat at it table but don't know what that means. are they fully engaged as a partner for consideration because that isn't always the case. >> i understand we had a
3:36 pm
difficult history a couple years with bris bane and tried to amend that relationship. they are cautious about the relocating and have other options within the city. >> the study about the loop, i appreciate looking 50 years ahead, are we going to walk into a situation we started is adding kope into phase 2 to build that loop and also 20 years we are sitting here and say it was 8 billion and now it is 16 if they ignore that loop addition to the bay? >> those are issues we have to grapple in the next phase. obviously there are components of the study that are more expensive but those are issues we have to look at as we move forward. >> is it planning effort or intent to add the loop to phase 2?
3:37 pm
>> the analicize of the loop is looked at in phase 2 in more detail including the cost. >> just to clarify, planning is phase 2 of the planning department study. i don't think there is any determination or maybe much thought given to whether it part of phase 2 of this project or future phase. >> thank you director reiskin. >> i have a few other comments but will wait for public comment. >> we have mr. finebaum. followed by mr. lubrin. >> wood burn and burn steen said it best, follow the money and you you will find out what the truth is. follow the money. where is the money here? it is in the railyards, that is the hottest development area in san francisco. to get a hold of the railyards you
3:38 pm
have to move them and move them who cares where but you got to move the downtown alignment as well to ird 3 rd street. as a consultant for 30 years, when i was a young guy i got involve in what they call the trade of cook study. a cook study means where you got the conclusions and you are just going through a lot of motions, a lot of statistics to come to those conclusions. this one isn't cooked, this is baked, bbq and royal. it is 3 rd street alignment. john was honest with you and hope you picked up what we said, we are in negotiation with cal train. that is the key. if the mayor and developer buddies can get cal train to give up the yards, then that
3:39 pm
is their objective. all the rest is covered and they can go through lots of motions, but that is what they want. if cal trains holds firm and since we ain't giving up the yards they center have to go up to 3 rd street align: the loop in the bay is silly. that is just stupid. i am appalled though by the lack of imag nation and creativity in the planning department. they will change the current alignment because they don't want to go under 16th street and 7th street, what are they crazy? why don't they study how to do that in a smart attractive way? why dopet they hold a comp tension for design of underpassing or going under a train track? there are lots of examples throughout the world and
3:40 pm
throughout this country of where that has been done very well and very successfully. we don't need to hold up the current alignment of the dtx. thank you. >> mr. lubrun. >> so, thank you. [inaudible] what i want to do is to go back and turn the clock back 10 years and basically explain to some of the [inaudible] more recent to the board how be-where we are. the camera could full up the slide for you. so, what i want
3:41 pm
you to do is focus on the transbay terminal in this yellow box at the end and that is key. what you got to remember is the initial plan 10 years ago is follow the exact alignment of the old transbay terminal which was a loop and plat forms that were [inaudible] that is the plan and that is the reason why the 2 nd street was designed the way it is. in 2009 when the high-speed rail authority came on board said when we got the opportunity they said we'll give $400 million is two foundationsism first of all, you must have straight platforms and second, the platforms got to be 1212 feet long not 700.
3:42 pm
why the decision was made at the time they said okay, we do it with 2 street, we push the box out towards it bay. that was the wrong decision and when the whole thing fell flat on its face because at that point it pretty much becomesible possible to go across the bay. so, what should have happened and what i think you should do is rethink it and it is approach on 2 street. do we want to approach the box from 2 street? i'm out of time, but 4 years ago i started looking at this because i said there is something seriously wrong here and there are lots of studies before and the nob [inaudible] was trying to look at this from the south and going into transbay terminal and said we don have the room, we cant do this. what was wrong with the [inaudible] is
3:43 pm
no nobody [inaudible] idea having two separate tunnels, a north and south bound tunnel. once you start looking at this and go back to what i said earlier, do you want to [inaudible] if you don't want them you can do whatever you like. if you want [inaudible] this is the only way we get there. thank you. >> we have mr. coffin. >> as director gee said, this gtc has been going for a long time, over 20 years. lots rr has been done as you know. i want to point out a few things said today. there is talk about cal train and high-speed rail operational efficiency and may be good to get direct testimony from the people as you did early this year, effective
3:44 pm
set of questions that came from you to high-speed rail and cal trains staff and maybe ought to do that again. as far as the feds are concerned we have been in contact with the feds and may be intrigued and also skeptical so shoulden asument the feds are on board at all. trains under the street is fine but it is let thg tail wag the dog. you should look how to do creative things about that underpass. cut and cover versing tunnel is a very interesting oneism you have on your staff your consultants includes park and transportation group an engineering firm and jacobs association who are experts in tunneling and parsons has a tunneling section, so if we are
3:45 pm
talking about modernizing the tunneling techniques from cut and cover to tunnel boring machine, you already have the horses there, you have more horses than people in the city staff to modernize your construction techniques to make the best and most efficient way of getting there and ins dependentsly there is no way it can be entirely done by tunneling. anybody who doesn't believe that look at stockton street today. half of it is completely torn up with stations. stations have to be cut and cover. if you move to [inaudible] it has to go under the columns of the left bridge and under mission creek and talking about putting a station half way between the
3:46 pm
two sports facilities pushing it way down and that is all cut and cover so you have a station at 800 feet long, 10 stories below grade in bay mud that is consistency of i say corn meal soup. >> that concludes members that want to address you that i'm aware of. >> mr. mayor you want to continue? >> i appreciate the study and i have been challenged to keep a open mind and will but also have a hethy degree of cept skepticism because i don't know enough to say yes or no. we have environmental clear alignment and funding challenge but from the organization that appointed me to represent them here, my goal is make sure we get the trains downtown on the scoje with the numbers we currentsly have and capacity that has been
3:47 pm
shared with the public. as you move forward you look at it as you heard me and my time here a high and detailed level to make sure it is there. i haven't heard enough other than a envisionary stands point what is in it for san francisco. how we meet the requirement jz stay within the funding requirement jz meet budget and timeline and have a lot more questions than i have shared this morning. my priority for cal train is get downtown by 2029 if not sooner at it capacity we and numbers we are talking about from our partners so far and we will need more, i understand that. >> thank you chair harper. i want to thank the planning department for all their work on the presentation.
3:48 pm
i'm still not convinced in terms of some of the alternate plans and tear down of 280 but open to here other proposals. they are very interesting and glad to hear the full presentation with the powerpoint today. i am interested and excited to learn moreb. i'm glad we are studying this. i know the timing is not ideal. i concur i want to see dtx occur as soon as possible and know everyone in the room want to see that and any complications changing the environmental study, additional funding i think is scary. that being said, i do think it is important to think bigger and explore and think there is a larger regional problem we are try ing to solve including additional tunnel into east bay as well. i am glad we are looking at it so look forward to
3:49 pm
continuing to hear what the process even as i have said that i have my doubts. i am glad we are doing this and think it is pornts for our neighborhoods and communities to way in orthe process as well. >> i would just join thanking john and the planning department for this. i would say i share both open mindedness and skepticism about whether there is a different or better way to do this, but as others have said, this is decision we will make for the next century and think it is worth spending the time even if it is later than we should have started thinking about this to see if there is a better way to get to the transbay transit center. i don't see downside in that and people come up with all kinds of conspiracy theories and motives but i can assure
3:50 pm
you speaking as a board member and cities tran portation director and think i can speak for the mayor the top regional transportation priorities for the city and county of san francisco is to get cal train and high-speed rail to the transpay transit center. any suggestions otherwise are just plain wrong. if through alternatives this initiative of studying we find a better way to get to the transbay transit centereter for cost performance or operations that is something we should study. somebody made reference to the tail wagging the dog and if you look that current alignment we are threading the needle through the existing railyard placed 150 years ago. i think the study gives a opportunity to see if
3:51 pm
that funky double s curve which is there because we are trying to thread the needle does it make sense today? we can look at all the pieces independently, the i 280 generated a lot of controversy. the one alignment that required removal is gone or proposed it be dropped from future consideration. i think it is okay to continue studying that and that is fronts and center of the study, that is the least important. finding the best way to get the train tooz the transitsenter is something irresponsible not to do so very supportive of this work. it may come to be the conclusion is the current dtx alignment is the best way to get there and in any case whatever the answer is we need regional and state and
3:52 pm
federal consensus on the bath but getd thg trains to the transit center is absolutely the goal of this projects and mayors projects and board of supervisors priority and this board and cac priority and think this study will help us get there. >> i want to echo the bus guy for this project. i learned day 1 what was important and it wasn't me. it was we got to get cal train downtown. when i hear things about the city of san francisco is trying to delay this, uh-huh. whatever is going on in the city of san francisco does have huge priority in doing that. no question in that. my upbringing, i grew up arounds chicago and you want to see what rail does to a city in terms of the
3:53 pm
planning opportunities, just go to chicago. there are neighborhoods in chicago totally-they are controlled by rail. you can't do anything. oakland is not like chicago but their railyards [inaudible] defined by rail yardss. look at emeryville. completed separated water gate and separate the town. i emphasize to the city saying we have all this stuff here and there needs to be connectivity and not just theoretical connectivity, it has to feel like connectivity to do that. what has been upsetting me for the last year is the tgpa is
3:54 pm
unofficially taking opposition position with respect to staff and that is something that has ended and that is important. what i want to know is when it is that we are-i want to know on this board when they are getting in our way and we are getting in their way and don't want to get in their way unless we have to and presume the feeling would be the other way too. this is really primarily a cal train and the city issue and high-speed rail. people pointed out, the way to get to 2 and brinen in the terminal is the same no matter what happens and don't have enough money to start that. we don't have enough money to get to 2 and brenen and probably won't have for a while. of course there are other things, so as we go through this we need to be cognisant of staying out of the way. trying
3:55 pm
to figure what is the best thing because rail does have a long term impact even when it is underground because you can't do things above it you otherwise could. i'm very much aware of that and think we need to be but at the same time we do have try to raise money and if we can raise it without having to commit to a particular think that is good. if it is money you lose unless, then i think that is where the rubber will meet the road as far as the board is concerned. when we are out there saying this money is dependent on this rather than whatever can be done. i think that it is-we had a fine project with the city of san francisco may say you can make it better and if that is the case i don't want to get in
3:56 pm
the way of doing it on time because we don't have $600 million we would have to start on it when we finished. that makes a big difference in my mind. we don't know where the federal government will be after november and it just ridiculous to be bureaucratic and say this is our road that we are marching on and you will not stop us for either of us. i think we have to be flexible here. >> the last item up is bus storage facility update. >> directors [inaudible] project manage [inaudible] present this item. >> good afternoon. phil [inaudible] program management team. i have a brief presentation on the
3:57 pm
status of bus storage project. this image shows where the bus storage project is circled in the red line. it is located under the west approach structure at street level between 2 and 3 street. you see the transit center at the top of the screen to the north and bus storage project will be linged to the the projectfelt this is a site plan of the bus storage project. the green stripe at the top is the bus link ramp, which joins our projict with the bus ramp. it is ramp over 2 street and tucked adone the west approach structure and brings the buses to the storage facility. 3 street is to the left, 2 to the right and then depicted in the red circle is, we have
3:58 pm
ac transit administration building, modular structures and a small support building that housing our electrical panels as well as the garbage and trash recycling. the 4 fingers you see are basically retaining walls around the existing columns for the west approach structure and the area in yellow is the area that we need to excavate in order to provide head height for the buses to park underneath the bridge structure. as it is currently configured we have space for 49 buses. this image shows the connection between the bus storage project and bus ramps, so to the right is the freemont street off ramp and that is how the buses coming
3:59 pm
from east bay make the transtigez the bus ramp jz head north to the transbay transit center at the top of the screen. buses coming out head south and then go through a signalized intersection to the lower deck of bay bridge and buses out of bus storage come across the bus link ramp and circle around the cal trans substation and head north to the transit center via bus ramps. proposed budget as presented today the current budge is 20 $20 million. 100 percent engineer estimate came in at $20 million and that is updated to reflect current marketing conditions. we are in good shape there. design status, we have worked with cal trans and
4:00 pm
received approval on the type selection support, structural mitigation analsis, all the facts sheets and project study project report. items in progress we are working on hot holing for high risk utilities. there is a high mass light structure we need to pot hole kwr identify the feed. we are through right of way certification, there are a few last items we need to work on. cal trans is finishs review of 100 percent plan. we received most of their comments already and our design team is addressing those. then we also have a submittal to state fire marshal and state architect. we coordinateed with sfmta and sftw on a number of
4:01 pm
different items including clearance on 2 street. potentially the temporarily reproval of ocs lines on 2 street. our understanding is those lines are planned to be removed by mta so may be gone by the time we get there but still carry that as a item. also we coordinateed with mta on the traffic signal lanes on 3 street. design mime mile stones, completed the 65 percent [inaudible] 95 percent was completed last august and 100 percent came in at the end of february. procurement wise reprepared to advertise and bid in june through august and that is contingent upon having the agreement with ac transit in place and that is
4:02 pm
also driven by ac transit giving the acceptable lease with cal trans. there are a number of discussionwise cal trans and meeting earlier this month in sacramento with cal trans and ac transit and those discussions are continuing. if we stay on that schedule of completing the buy out in august we look at going to construction this september, which pult u put us in completion the project april of 2018. as this pushes out with the lease negotiation we look at 5 percent cost every year so roughly a million dollars, 5 percent of $20 million budget. operation, if lease negotiation impact the procurement we looked at a short term and long term
4:03 pm
scenario with ac transit. ac transit is continuing negotiation with legislative bodies to secure a lease that they can afford. so, in the short term 0-5 years ac transit might be able to use limited portions of the bus deck for staging because we have 37 bus beys now. the majority the buses would probably still have to head back to east bay. the long term 5 years plus, they would continue to work on obtain ing the lease and hopefully get the bus storage built in the 5 year term but as it pushes out 5 years and beyond and bus deck becomes more crowded all the buses have to dead head back to east bay so there is operational impacts to ac transit if that scenario
4:04 pm
happens. that concludes my presentation. >> i can rent and sh the railyard. we are half way there with the bus yard. tle is definitely a problem. this comes about cal trans and ctc has state owned cal trans property and leased out at 80 percent of market value and the market value of a parking lot in that location in san francisco is high. the problem is the first numbers cal trans is throwing out, sorry bijan isn't here, when thegeneral manager ran them
4:05 pm
through said it is cheaper to dead head buses back to east bay than to pay the lease. that isn't carbon neutral at all about you have to realize our-the one time our yards are vacant in the east bay is during midday. that is the one time we have storage for buses. the rest of the time at night we have storage problem. that is one of the reasons we want this facility because at night we want these buses here. same thing during the day. we really need to-it is political problem because the negotiations in sacramento indicated there is no rule or law or regulation, nothing is written down about this 80 percent. it is just like that is what we want to do. we have been pushing on that because it makes so sense for us not to on the dead heading which is extreme but
4:06 pm
just the fact that the more we pay for rent, the fewer buses we can afford to run. you want to keep your money for drivers and buses and i don't believe we should think of opening up without having the bus storage facility and done and on time. i think the second operational thing is not producting, it is just not going to work. what i'm trying to do is get some sort of-get mtc involved, maybe get a group of people, politicians locally to mediate the thing and see if ctc or somebody can come in and come up with a deal. it doesn't effect our own fund agreement, that is set anyway. the lease is up to us. that is a ac transit
4:07 pm
expense and ac transit our deal is we will pay for that property lease. >> i want to clarify that once we advertise a project we have to agreement with cal trans [inaudible] they require agreement on funding the lease for that. >> that building >> we have to havea grument with ac transit but fund whatever lease and that is whaul is stalling us at this point cht we are ready to go, hopefully we can revolve this quickly. i was at the meeting with cal trans director [inaudible] general manager from golden gate and general manager from ac transit and the path forward is reach out to ctc staff from cal trans perspective and general manager
4:08 pm
for golden gate and reached out to the commissioners and see whether-what type of relief they can get on the 80 percent. maybe the 80 percent isn't 0 but hopefully between 80 and 0. may take a little time to do that and that stalls from being able to advertise the project and that kicks into escalation. i want to highlight that to the board. >> ron could you come up and put your slide up about the schedule so i can see how these all get tied together? is that too much to ask? the schedule where you have the transbay and bus ramp and bus storage facility. there you go. >> the bottom green line is quickly
4:09 pm
approaching theened of the top green line to put it simply. we are running out of time. >> based on that chart is there is a drop dead date to go out to bid so we don't open the bus storage facility after the transbay center is opened? >> um, >> so chair harper has that knowledge so he can facilitate those meetings with a urgency. >> i think we are there. maybe a month or 2. >> we are there. >> i thought i was reading that so we are at that point where if this isn't reconciled soon there will be disconduct betweenopethening bus storage facility and transbay or at least the operational aspects >> we bring it back into
4:10 pm
baseline it is already too late and how to you incrementally adjust these moving parts is-- >> once we go to advertisement one of the methods we use on the bus ramp is ask to bid the number of days and limited the number of days and can do the same with the bus storage facility. right now we need to know-we'll do mitigation measures and could be 2 or 3 months using the bus deck, the first 3, 4 months of storage and go into full operation. >> basically the decision point is we are here. >> the short is yes. >> our plan was award this in
4:11 pm
february ore march this year. >> we did calculations on the bus deck, didn't we? can you come up and indicate where that is at? >> linda [inaudible] i present today the board last year some time about mitigation with the bus [inaudible] that were not operational day 1 and have concerns about storage space. phil mentioned in the drawing we got [inaudible] work out where we could have that space on the bus deck. in terms of the operations, our biggest concern is pm staging. now we have 20 spaces on the street p.m. peak so buses come in from the east bay and coming in early so need to stay somewhere
4:12 pm
before they can go back out and will have ish oo as on the bus deck. for the first couple years we may be able to work through that but looking at service increase within 5 years of opening so we'll get bus problems in the bus deck if we don't have it p.m. staging. >> one thing i want to ask on the ramps, the bus ramps, mtc is getting warmer and warmer on the notion of a [inaudible] flow lane from what i hear. it may be part of their final recommendation as a midterm. have we at least figured out where that flow ramp will fit into the ramps we are building now? >> i think that was something eric was undertaking separately and
4:13 pm
coming through a property on harrison street near the [inaudible] offramp and envisioning close to the freemont street offramp but nothing beyond that. >> it would be good to know the part the concrete we are knocking out i guess to connect the new ramp because that will probably happen-probably be a counter flow lane before cal train or high-speed rail get there so that will be the next change to configuration what we are building will be that ramp for the counter flow. >> that would have to go through-sorry, go ahead. >> i think that is-in the spirit of not adding scope to change substantial completion of this phase that is something that is probably best discussed as a later phase. we in san francisco have significant
4:14 pm
concerns for that proposal but that is for a different time. to talk about what director gee was saying and helping clarify, we are on critical path of not beyond critical path. we don't want to go past the marine bar. that is past the schedule and want to bring that back. what i thought i heard you say mr. chair is the lease deal with cal tran is separate with transbay. i signed the letter along with general manager thooz urge cal trans to give ac transit a better deal and happy to reach out to [inaudible] or members i can on the lease side. what i heard the executive director say is the o and m agreement on the path for
4:15 pm
bus storage. in the case that they are separate, is there something and maybe a question for ac transit staff, is there splng in the way of getting that agreement so we can advertise and get the storage built? >> our general manager want tooz insure we get a sustainable o and m contract and now the cal trans lease is not going to be a sustainable lease so doesn't want to commit to anything at this point when we dont know what it will cost the agency and that will cut into operations cost so can't make that commitment at thistime with this big unknown. >> meanwhile the tjpa is in the process building the ramps that will
4:16 pm
get to the bus storage facility we budgeted for this bus storage facility so it seems we are at a stalemate. i don't know how quickly it ctc will play out, but it doesn't sound like it is tomorrow process and we are on critical path for construction of the storage not to mention the escalation factor so it isn't just a operational issue but a cost issue. it seems we need to deassociate those 2 and break that stalemate. >> one more thing is the lease is the last piece the right of way certification that we need for cal trans. >> it is on the critical path also? >> they are all interconnected because we have to enter into lease with cal tran tooz use the facility and need to guarantee with ac transit they
4:17 pm
pay the full cost of the lease and cal trans right now is receiving more than 1.6 million a year for parking fees at that location and 1.6 my understanding is 80 percent hair cut because it is a public agency to use the facility. ac trabzt cost to dead head is less than 400 thousand. there is a big gap that is going to bridge. >> my offer still stands. [laughter] >> we had a good meeting with director [inaudible] and director [inaudible] in sacramento so hope movement will take place there. >> can store in the bay for a
4:18 pm
why. think we have pumps on the ramp. we done? what is left? >> that concludes your business for today. >> okay. we are done. [meeting adjourned]
4:19 pm
4:20 pm