tv Government Access Programming SFGTV February 19, 2019 12:00pm-1:01pm PST
approved. go ahead and call your next item? >> yes, please. >> clerk: okay. [agenda item read]. >> director, this item will be presented by andrew fremier and dr. engelhart. >> good afternoon, director does, andrew fremier. we were asked to provide an independent peer review of the beam failure and strategy at the salesforce transit center. in november of last year, we convened a chair of experts chaired by michael engelhart of
a panel of experts, including brian cozy, bridge expert from the fhwa in steel bridges. the team is rounded out by thomas sable and robert shaw. we have also provided expert technical advice and support in that area at the peer review's request. i'd like to thank steven wolf of the m.t.c. staff who has really shepherded the communication of review between the jtpa contractors and the independent review panel. we designed a very specific set of tasks to study and comply with the mayor's request. we have continued to provide updates to the two mayor's on the status of the work as it progresses. i'd like to mention that in order for the review to be
ex-predishes, the review panel that's given verbal approvals of various stages of work while minor details of work goes on. each task will be closed with correspondence from the peer review panel declaring the completeness and closedness of each task. in terms of the review, our study primarily focused on the failure of the fremont street location, but the panel is following leads that have been determined from the preliminary cause of failure and followed leads on where those presented. that path includes the familiarity of work at first street. in order to complete the investigation, the panel has asked the j.p.a. team to examine the contract drawings for locations that might have circumstance characteristics of
the two main crossings. in the next few weeks, the panel hopes to identify any additional areas that my merret further investigation and potential remediation work. until that work is complete. we can't really forecast a full scope of the work to be done on the structure, but we are in sync with the presentation that was done by dennis. i'm also served that the tjpa team has been very responsive in terms of the request of the panel and the work has been very collegial in terms of advancing the efforts of both parties. we look forward to issuing concurrence and reports that do not impact the schedule of the opening of the terminal, and with that, i'd like to introduce dr. michael engelhart who will provide a more detailed scope of the panel's
review in scope and in progress. >> good morning. my name's mike engelhart. i'm a professor at the university of austin. we met back in december, and i'm serving as the chair of the peer review panel. what i'd like to do is just give an update of where we see things stand from the peer review panel point of view. this is a slide similar to what we had in december, just kind of outlining our process. so our marching orders are to be independent, expeditious and thorough, and we've been doing that, continue to try to continue doing that. we continue to interact with the tjpa, the design consultants and their team. we have many meetings every week, so every though we're not leading the investigation, we're peer reviewing it, and trying to be active in every step of the way so that we can
keep moving things forward quickly. it's been a great working relationship. we've been getting great cooperation from all involved. this slide lists the major items that we were deelg with. one is to look at the temporary shoring systems on fremont and first street, to look at their structural integrity. the second was the sampling and testing plan of the material taken from the fracked fremo fremont ---fractured fremont street girters.
girt and looking at other areas that potentially may be concern for brittle fracture. so in terms of where we stand, the first item shoring, that's been finished. the sampling and testing plan, that's been finished, and we've concurred. because of failure, i'd say we have a broad understanding and a -- and a concurrence with the cause -- the technical cause of the failure, and injure looking at this point to wrap up some final things from the tjpa consultant, l.p.i., on some of the analysis they're doing, but we feel we have a very good understanding of the cause of failure in that the cause the is he appropriate. the impact of the fracture on adjacent elements, that's still ongoing, but that should come to a close reasonably soon. we don't see anything major coming out of that, but we
still have to wrap up that particular item. the repair of the fremont girters, that's essentially -- we're complete with that, so we concur with all the details, the plans. and there, we've been, like many other things, interacting with the tjpa team. we didn't look at okay, what's your repair plan, there's been a review, discussion, concurrence, so that's complete, and then, search for other areas susceptible to brittle fracture. one other item we've thrown in there that doesn't quite fit in there was the retrofit of the first street girters. we didn't have to search for those. we knew they had been out there from the very beginning. our understanding of the cause of fracture on fremont also caused us to understand why it did not occur on first street, just some of the differences in
how they were built did not lead to the same conditions that would cause brittle fracture. but i think everyone felt it was just prudent to go ahead and retrofit those as -- just to be very cautious. and so the details on first are slightly different than fremont because the middle of the girter's still there. we're at the 99% concurrent stage. we're still working on some of the very fine details, and that should be wrapped up within days at this point. the last major item which is still an unknown is the work, looking at are there other possible locations in the transit center that may have similar conditions susceptible to brittle fracture, so that work is on ggoing.
we had a lot of input from the tjpa so we understand what has occurred and what was going to be done about that. the repair lead by thornton thomasetti. the other items are either done or are closing in to be done, but the search for other items is the one that's sort of still very active and ongoing, and we'll have to see where that takes us. so that's, i think, all i had, and i'd be glad to answer any questions. >> director reiskin? >> yeah. thank you for the report. thorough work, and very helpful. two questions. you say that you're close, just pending the final report, to understanding the cause. will the finalization of that
determination lead to an understanding of culpablity and accountability? >> so our panel is not tasked with addressing that issue. our goal is to understand the fracture, not who caused it or what caused it. will our determination lead to some determination of who was liable? that's difficult to say because our focal is purchasely technical, not legal. >> can i direct that question to our executive director, then? >> i think what -- director reiskin, once the report is out, we'll be able to interpret and find out what should have been done differently, and that will tell us what happened, and that will tell us who's
responsible for us. so we think the report will have enough information for us to be able to determine the responsible party. >> okay. and it sounds like that is soon, to have that determination. >> we expect a report to be presented to the board at the march 4 meeting. and at that point in time, we'll be able to share with the board what the -- our conclusions based on the -- once the peer review concurs with the technical findings on the reports. >> okay. >> i will add a comment to that that as part of your scope of -- our scope of work, trying to determine who's responsible is not within that, but something the m.t.c. has asked us to do when we're all finished with this, is to make recommendations to what the industry should consider for improvements to cogent standards to prevent this type of failure in the future to reduce its likelihood from occurring, and so that we will be. we will be pointing to where we think there are weaknesses in our current code standards and
practices that might prevent this sort of issue in the future. >> okay. thank you. and then, the second question has to do with the review beyond fremont and first, and i think what this board was intending was kind of an overall review of the integrity and the ultimate safety of the building. and it looks like your task seemed maybe a lot narrower than that, that it's just looking structural and one potential failure mode of structure, but is brit -- which is brittle failure. so am i interpreting that right, that you were just ta tasked with looking at potential other areas of brittle failure but not the structural integrity or overall integrity of the building? >> you're correct. our task is to look at issues related to the failure on fremont street and are there other similar conditions
elsewhere? we are not under taking a complete, you know, foundationed roof structural review. that's not within our scope of work. >> okay. then i guess my question may be to executive director or to dennis or ron. what i think this -- i guess my first question, is there something that tjpa or staff is doing something beyond this brittle fracture review? and if not, should there be something? because as you know, what the board has been seeking is kind of an independent review that kind of gives us a seal of approval so that we and the public know that the building is safe to reoccupy. >> absolutely. and what i've been speaking of kind of the wider view has both been structural and nonstructural. you'll recall that we had a full peer review prior to the
original peer review, and that was revisited and looked at again, and they were made available, and some dialogue, i believe, occurred with the current p.r.p. so we haven't seen or heard from any of those parties issues to take further. >> so director reiskin, we went back and consulted with that original peer review, the peer review design before construction started and during the design process, and they've given us insurance that they feel the -- assurance that they feel the design is solid. we went back and looked at the concrete founders. we wanted to make sure that the concrete that was placed in the transit center reached the strength that was acquired in the specifications, so we went through all the concrete tests to verify that everything was done per specifications.
ron and the team went and looked at the fire life safety elements, as well, to make sure they were done proper. really, we just went through a comprehensive review and made sure that was done again. even though we had a quality control process, we know from the quality control process that things were inspected. we went back and looked at the inspection records again, just to make sure that things were done correctly. we were assured -- by going back to the design, we were aassured by the design review that the review was proper, and we'll be able to stand behind it. >> so we'll be able to say with full confidence, a recommendation at the time of opening that we've rereviewed all the aspects of the safety integrity of the building such that we can say with confidence that it's really for opening? >> yes. once the peer review panel with m.t.c. under the direction and
chairmanship of director engelhart concludes on the review of the building, we will be happy to bring back the review panel -- we can bring them back for the -- on the ones that did the -- the ones that did the original review of the design to give a presentation to the board. but we're confident at this point that the only thing left is to finish the investigation. >> okay. just on the point of relying on the initial peer review of the design, i think what happened here, as we don't have the final cause, is things that happened after design, whether it was fabrication or installation or things that happened even after the peer review folks saw the initial design drawings. so i think reliance on that initial peer review, which may have been done 100% in accord
with industry practice, and it may have been fully sound, i'm not sure how relevant that is. if they say it's good, i think that's fine. we don't need to bring them back, but now, we have an as-built building. i think what we need to be able to convey to the public is as it has been built, after design, but after fabrication and installation and testing and inspect, that it's fully safe to operate and occupy. >> yeah. i think what i wanted to convey is we wanted to go back and rereview any way. it's hard to explain. we went back, we wanted to look at the design, as well. so we did that, and we're looking at the inspection records. so when we're done, we're going to be able to determine what was designed, what's bid out, what's constructs, and that's the call that we're trying to make.
>> i'm quite confident of that. just to put a finer point on that, we're seeing the perceived gap. the original rephrase was based on design, and they also informed the p.r.p. on certain elements of design. we're taking so much time to retrace those steps and have dialogues with the inspectors and the special inspectors so we can understand what areas of concern or controversy or conflict may have occurred during that period, and we do see information about a lot of chatter and dialogue around access holes or not access holes, so that was an ongoing controversy since 2014.
other than that, there really hasn't been any other, say, crawl -- you know, something that's just burning at the craw of an inspectors. and again, we've retraced those steps with the individuals as well as the inspectors, so i am confident there are no other identified issues to take action with. >> all right. thank you. >> i'd like to add to that if i could. >> yes. >> i'm sorry to beat the horse, but what was -- what we were told was that there would be an independent review for the structural integrity of the building. bullet .1 on your slide 12 --
bullet -- i would request a review on the building, what's happening, who's doing it? >> again, it's just slow going through the reports that we've been speaking of, i've been going of the last two months. it's the design team, the inspectors, and our team members, and informing the p.r.p. where questions arise. so we can address that at a further detail, as well. >> thank you. >> director lipkins? >> sounds like you're going back and reviewing some of it along the way and then focusing in on some of the coninfluences of circumstances -- confluences
that happens on fremont street to make sure this doesn't happen again. is that an -- >> let me -- we've gone the design plans. we made sure -- went back and made sure that everything was correct. everything was inspected before it was placed. so we know the bolts in the design plans were in place in that building. we can go back and look at torque records of the bolts. that's fine. we went back to all the concre concrete cylinders. what were there, 34,000? we went back -- they've already been inspected. we went back to another round just to make sure the records made the p.s.i. that were requested in these specifications. we know the girders that were released, the size of the girders in the shopping
drawings, that was done. we are going through the records, but at some point in time, have you to rely on the record -- you have to rely on the records, and move forward. i'm not sure what other path we can do. i'm looking at director gee. you've looked at a lot of records on buildings. can you shed some light on what else we can do? >> director gee, yes. >> no. i mean, i was just going to kind of, from a high-level standpoint understand where we are and where we are headed. for a high level, the structural engineering team, tjpa formulated a level basis of design. that design was peer reviewed to make sure that was correct, and that exceeded building code because of the uniqueness of the facility, building code, seismic, the whole nine yards.
the design team was selected, engineering was scheduled to start. another peer review panel was convened to review that design of that design team to make sure that dine adhered to the basis of design, and they said yes. the engineering drawings were formulated, approved, put out to bid. and if i recall, there's something like 200,000 tons of steel and millions of bolts and 50,000 concrete cylinders. so the issue that's in front of us right now is not the design, but the execution of that design, and was it executed and with the quality consistent with what the design and specification said? and that's what you're doing right now, is starting with going through the records, and there's probably on this particular project, thousands of pages of records from mil shirts to welding certificates
to concrete samples to compression tests to verify that the quality of the design and quality of materials were executed. and until that's completed, there's nothing else to look at. >> exactly. that's well articulated, and as i said, we've revisited all that document. we've just touched about every document. in terms of third party, do we want toen list another party to peer review the peer review or rifle through the drawings? but we've got our c.m.o. out there, reviewing everything, underscoring the controversies. there was a confluence of
circumstances that brought us to what happened where it happened. and the other thing we're not seeing is a similar confluence of circumstances. and what would inform us of such a confluence is if the records and the meeting minutes and the q.a.q.c. of where they're reviewing is were there other points of contention or stress points between inspectors or various fabricators or contractors? do the records show difficulty along certain lines of activity with q.a.q.c.? those are the things that we're looking at and trying to validate? again, we do see a line of record that speaks to the confluence of circumstances, i think began to swirl around, if you will, as early as 2014. this exercise is informing us to what occurred in that
confluence, and it is also informing us that there are no kind of overarching systemic problems out there to kind of follow those threats. >> to follow on -- or director hursh, i want to let you finish your comments. >> no, i would just like to get the reports that finish the entire structural integrity of this facility. i'm not diagnose for nasa to come -- asking for nasa to come in and redesign this facility. >> if i heard your presentation or update today is that -- let me back up. when i look at the project and when i walk the building, the situation confronting us is rather unique, long span, a hanger column, that is not typical of the rest of the building. let me just start there.
is that -- >> correct. the conditions at fremont and first are unique to those four locates, two girders in each. they are not a -- there are not a similar set of circumstances from our perspective anywhere else in the center. >> that was my opinion walking through the building. the second piece is did i hear you correctly when you said the fabrication of the girders are different in those two locations, where the coninfluence of one was not repeated at the other. >> correct. there was a very slight difference on how things were put together, and that slight difference was one of the things that contributed to fremont fracturing and first street not fracturing. >> but in an abundance of caution, we're doing some comparable work just as an abundance of caution. >> when you say other location, are you talking about first
street or other -- >> first street, just in an abundance of caution. >> let's just not say in an abundance of caution. we all felt there were certainties, but it's very appropriate and prudent to do that retrofit. >> and in your work so far under i think it was the brittle fracture, that we will receive a full report on in march, are there signs to anywhere else in the building to date -- i know the work's not complete yet -- to suggest there are other problems in the building at this point? >> well, it's too early to say because that work is -- >> still ongoing? >> -- not far enough along. it's not far along enough to say. >> and then, my last question is not meant to be offensive. i'm trying to be p.c. -- i'm just going to put it out there. as we've talked about different peer review panels, and you
know some of the engineers on those peer review panels like i do, they're very reputable engineers. but at the end of the day, if your peer review panel concurs with all the work, it says the building's okay, why should we believe you? >> that's a very good question, and i'll just say we have very good people doing their level best, and we understand the importance of what's going on and, so we're putting tremendous energy and effort towards it. but -- but at the end, we're all humans, right? and so why should -- you should believe us? because -- i don't know how to answer that, other than, like i say, we have some of the top technical talent in the world working on this both on our team and the tjpa team. everyone is taking this 100% serious. everyone is being extra picky
on something you might not look at in a typical design. that's what i mean, we're doing our best. >> i didn't mean to offend you, i just was playing devil's advocate because there are devil's advocate. >> no, no, i understand. >> when you say at the end of the day, we concur, and we -- there's a lot of opinions concurring with your piers on the p.r.p. >> correct, and we don't want to be here in another five years, explaining something. >> i don't think anyone does. >> i'll just say we'll be extra cautious in everything westerly he doing. >> directors, i'd just like to add one point, they are independent, so they are brought in by m.t.c., totally independent. >> any other questions from directors? i think it's been a healthy
discussion. i mean -- i mean, from my point of view, i think -- and i'll ask you, this seems like an isolated situation, but we're doing all the checks and balances. is -- would that be accurate? >> correct. well, no, this was very much an isolated incident, but we're doing our due diligence to make sure there are not other isolated incidents. >> yeah. thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> all right. we'll go ahead and move into your next item? >> yes. [agenda item read]. >> good morning, directors.
here for the amendment, number six, for construction management oversight. i'll go through some of the contract information to orient you to this contract with turner construction with the various subcontractors, such as l.p.i. and i.s.i. on their -- under them. they were awarded back in june 2010. it's -- the current term we have is nine years, through basically june 28 of 2019. we had -- original contract amount was 38 million. we've had amendments that have brought it up to 75 million, which is currently where it's @thit's at at this point, and the delta for today is a $3 million request. i've identified on this slight the three main drivers to why this request has come in at this point. i'll especially bring it up at this point because we have incurred a significant amount especially from l.p.i. that have exhausted the funds, but
back in april when i was bringing amendment five before this board, there was a certain -- certain conditions that were contemplated at that time. it contemplated a completion, a substantial completion in summer of 2018, and it also had a 90-day tail contractually for final completion that would have been in fall of 2018. and that's what the blue bar is showing. there's -- the three next items are showing the items of what has changed since the april amendment number five. the first one is the -- the -- now the anticipated final completion is april 1 of 2019, and that shows a significant longer period of time. that hits to the base contract scope that c.m.o. has to do to
support the closeout of all the -- you know, the web core obiyashi contract. the third one is the girder, and that blue diamond is september 25. and i have an ongoing on that for the main reason is we have certainty with the repair element now, which was just reported, but the unknown of the rest of the building. so that's in there, as well, too. and then, the last one is the webcorobay obayashi lawsuit th was filed. that was not contemplated back in amendment five, which thought we were going to bring it home this summer. a couple items to note as part of that justification, the base contract work, still ongoing.
probably the biggest one is ceiling panels. with the anticipation of all that work now done by april, and then, the bottom two are girder related, some examples of the samples that were taken out of the girders at fremont street were done by l.p.i.s subcontractor. l.p.i. is -- to keep them as not on the design side, not on the contractor's side. they have been contracted through the tjpa through the turner contract, and so l.p.i. has been doing all of this with their subs, and this particular case is in-place machine. a small business that indicated they needed to be covered for the work that they've done out there. and then, on the right-hand side, shows you some of the items that -- the tremendous amount of machining that went into all those samples that were taken out of the girders
at fremont street. so to breakdown each one of these three into a dollar component of the 3 million, the overwhelming majority of it is the girder remediation. the majority of that is l.p.i. there is a person of the i.s.i., as well. i.s.i. has also been doing some additional nondestructive testings out there that have been required and some welding inspections out there. that's $1.8 million. that $1.8 million is currently identified in this that it would be a -- when we get to a point, there is the compencibility of that is the responsible party, so we would be pursuing this amount at that point in time, when we found out who's the responsible party for the girder repairs and everything are identified. so a majority of this request
is -- would be looked at as a reimbursement element at this point. the other item is the extended contract close out. building's not fully commissioned yet. base contract work's still proceeding. this is -- about 800,000 of this final completion model has been pushed. we are currently assessing liquidated damages, and that would be how this element is addressed. the final one, the webcor lawsuit, there is definitely an element that the c.m.o. is required to assist our legal team with discovery elements and support for our legal team, so this is about 400,000 that's been identified of that. these numbers are what we know today. in my schedule slide, it does show that there's an ongoing element at this, so i have identified numbers only that
are what is identified with some contingency, but there is an anticipation that especially the girder remediation and the lawsuit proceeds, there would be an anticipated amendment seven at some point. i'm covering the time on this particular request to extend the turner contract for a year to june 2020, but there would be an element at some point in time i would anticipate when those items are realized or are actuated, that i would come back at that point in time. with that -- so as of right now, we've identified the $3 million, which would add to a $78 million contract for turner. so at this point, the tjpa staff does approve to amend the c.m.o. contract for $3 million to $78 million, plus a contract extension for one year to
continue these -- this support to allow that -- those requires contractual duties that turner has been providing dutifully to us. so with that, that completes my presentation and request. thank you. >> questions from board members? >> move on professional. >> second with a comment. >> second with a comment. >> director, two comments. the slide you showed at the very end with the different buckets is very important for the agency to potentially be able to attribute cost recovery, so i just would encourage everybody to be accurate on that. just to illustrate your other comment, liquidated damages are being kpluaccumulated at this point, so that's very important to position the agency with other issues that are ongoing, so that you for that. >> clerk: all right. there's been a first and a second and no members of the
public wanting to comment on that the item. [roll call] >> clerk: that's seven ayes. item 11 is approved. >> calling the next item. >> clerk: the next item. [agenda item read]. >> directors, this item will be provided by mayor prior. i would like to note this item was continued from the last board meeting. since that time we have met with a.c. transit and sfmta staff, and we have met with a.c. transit and sfmta directors, and this reflects the discussion with them and we've up dated accordingly. mary, please. >> hi. i'm mary prior, coordinator
with the sfmta. this slide reflects a projection completed in 2018. several items have changed, and there's savings in several categories, including the transit center operations and maintenance, the asset manager and park administration, and security line items. these savings offset projected items, and as martha mentioned in her report are based on schedule changes, so this is not an overall cost increase to the program, it's a timing issue. there are increases in i.t., cyber security and actuals c t
costs. there are also two new line items here. under the landlord services contract, a.c. transit will reimburse tjpa for security services at the bus storage facility that are provided by tjpa's contractor, and there's also a way finding gap analysis that was requested by m.t.c., and we will be looking for a new funding source for this work. this slide shows the changes to the revenues. there are decreases in the retail revenue due to changes in the leasing schedule, again, as martha discussed in her report, compared to the original projection through year 20, and this is again a timing issue and does not reflect an overall decrease in rents at full occupancy.
there are also decreases in rents due to the closure which needed a restart of the ramp ups for these amounts to become mature. the c.b.d. park payments that fund park related expenses, including park ambassadors. we're anticipating a third carrier to sign in fiscal year 20, which would bring additional neutral host licensing fees. we also anticipate that due to changes in the fiscal year '19 budget, we would have additional o and m costs in fiscal year '20. this slide shows more details. so under the lease and use agreement, a.c. transit and sfmta provide the balance of the needed operating funds for each fiscal year.
tjpa staff has identified naming rights revenues that could be included in the operating budget for fiscal year '20 as a means to reduce the funding needed from a.c. transit and sfmta. the staff report indicates that we would need to talk to the c.r.c. and get their approval to get city funding to replace the naming rights revenue. we originally intended to use the naming rights for tenant improvements, but in discussions with city staff, we're going to be looking at an alternate source, but we will be providing the c.r.c. with a possibility of improvements. at the request of the funding managers, we are including three funding scenarios in the naming projection, which are based on three different naming rights revenue. the first includes 4.9 million, which is the balance of the naming right revenue we anticipate to be available at the start of fiscal year '20. scenario two includes 1 million in naming rights revenue, which
would maintain the original projected levels from a.c. transit and sfmta. and scenario three includes no naming rights revenue to demonstrate the potential impacts if no operating funds are found. this slide shows the next steps for the budget approval process. a narrative budget approval will be presented in april. you have any questions? >> yes. i have a question. i have a question on the naming rights already. is there -- is this an additional ask or an additional -- >> no, this was -- >> or is this moving money?
>> exactly. utilizing money for -- >> some of the things that we had before, how we're going to move it -- thank you. >> yes? >> you first. >> director -- >> thank you. following up on the names rights, we have a certain balance, and according to the naming rights, it's supposed to go to the t.i. the entirety of it? i'm trying to understand what it is for the c.r.c.? >> we set the 4.9 in last year's only but -- annual budget that the board approves, we set aside some for annual discussions. we are proposing that we use all or some of that naming rights for operations, and we
will ask the c.r.c. for money for tenant improvements. we think -- we think at a minimum we should at least use a portion of that to alleviate the operators from some of the costs. as you know, the costs this year probably are the highest to-year as we start ramping up and we start acquiring leases. this is the highest year. >> so the ask today is to approve this? >> yes. >> and -- with the -- >> operating -- >> -- sorry. with the operating, assuming what version or pending c.r.c.'s blessing of the use of naming right? i'm just trying to understand, because there would be a next step -- >> the ask right now is based on the 2008 agreement we have with a.c. transit.
it's for the board to approve the preliminary operating projection, okay? the budget will be approved in june. the actual budget will be approved in june. we'll bring that in june, and the draft budget in may. this is to get the board's blessing so we can move forward. >> any other discussion? >> i have a comment. >> yes, director hursh. >> i wanted to thank staff for meeting with my staff and me and bringing us up to speed. i also like the fact that the presentation was paused allowing us to dot our i's and cross our t's. i appreciate the comments to work to lower -- diligently work to lower the operating costs. these are just costs that we cannot afford going forward long-term. but i'll vote to approve this today, and i appreciate the staff's efforts to bring these
costs down quickly. >> i think it shows why we have a good diverse board, and this item information helps. >> move approval. >> second. >> second. >> with a first and a second -- and no members of the public wish to comment on this item. [roll call] >> clerk: that's seven ayes. item 12 is approved. at this time, you're scheduled to go into closed session. we've not received any indication that a member of the public wish to address you on the item listed. they have an opportunity to do so now, or we can go
neighborhood for seven years and before that the excel see your district. 20 years a resident of the city and county of san francisco. i am the executive director of a local art space nonprofit that showcases work that relate to the latino community and i have been in this building for seven years and some of my neighbors have been here 30 year. we were notified from the landlord he was going to sell the building. when we realized it was happening it was no longer a thought for the landlord and i sort of had a moment of panic. i heard about the small sites
program through my work with the mission economic agency and at met with folks from the mayor's housing program because they wanted to utilize the program. we are dealing with families with different needs and capacities. conversations were had early in the morning because that is the only time that all the tenants were in the building and finally when we realized that meda did have the resources to buy the building we went on a letter writing campaign to the landlord and said to him we understand you want to sell your building, we understand what you are asking for and you are entitled to it, it's your land, but please work with us. what i love about ber nell height it represents the