And so i think that that condition asserts that that board as a condition of the appeal wants care taken. Yeah. So thats why were doing it. But you have a well, im not sure we have to comply with civil code section 832 and an additional about monitoring not sure. How does that work. multiple voices . For the system for the two adjacent properties. Settlement quote please sorry were our lots okay. Lets do that. Yes. The adjoining lots. All the adjoining lots any Vice President knew that he wanted to see me flaurnd. Is there a motion . Yes. Thank you. Did you understand that. I understand that im talking about how it gets enforced im not sure that is something that the department what enforce or dbi can enforce yeah. Okay so the motion by the point is to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition is comply about civil code section 832 that a permit holder will have a separate Monitoring System and any fencing or gene no higher than the appellants windowsill and. This project is code compliant and add at no cost to adjoining neighbors. The Monitoring System. Correct. We should add that as a multiple joint motion. Okay. On that motion then commissioner fung commissioner lazarus and commissioner swig. That item passes with a vote of 4 to zero theres no further business. Thank you, everyone for your patience and alright, good morning, everyone, welcome to our plans and programs meeting of the San Francisco tran por transportation thortd, today is tuesday january 17, 2017. Our clerk is steve stamos and today we are joined by two new commissioners, commissioner jeff sheehy and [inaudible] safai, with that, mr. Clerk, lets call the ro l. Iem tem 1, roll call, commissioner breed, absent, commissioner farrell, absent, commissioner safai, present, commissioner sheehy. Er prenlt. Sheehy, present. Commissioner tang . Present. We have a quorum. Er thank you, item 2, please. Er item 2, Citizens Advisory Committee report, this is an information item. Alright. Thank you, we have chris [inaudible], our cac chair here. Good morning, commissioners, welcome, new commissioners, good to see new faces and current faces, good to see you all, we only had one item thats on your agenda this morning, item number 4, the allocation of 653 thousand in prop k funds to bart for balboa park station. Very minor in a lot of ways but we had some concerns over the et thet ix of the glass head house in comparison to the brutality earn design that is at glen park and balboa park station. I spoke with the architect and he said that the designs were to honor and complement the existing designs so the glass head house was mostly the issue, so the glass versus [inaudible] was something that people on the cac had issues with. Regarding Cost Increases, we wondered why the engineering estimates were as low as they were in comparison the the ultimate contractor bids, increase ins the scope and change order with also of concern so, nr the end, we wondered whether it was the bid environment or staff engineers and contractors not scoping a project budget or a combination of all of these things. This item passed 2347 favor, one abstention and three members not present. Great, thank you so much. With we get to that item, im go to literally play around with chairs here, one second. Thank you. So, when we get to the staff presentation, im going ask them to address the concerns you raised, thank you, so are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item 2 then . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed and item 3. Item 3, approve the minutes of the december 6, 2016 meeting, this is an action item. Alright, can we get a motion to approve the minutes . So moved. Alright, thank you, and well do that without objection then. Sorry, do we have to go to Public Comment, yes, item 3, Public Comment, minutes, seeing none, Public Comment is closed and we had a motion and well do that without objection. Roll call. Were a mess here, sorry, so item 3, lets rescind that and lets do roll call vote. Er item 3, commissioner fa tsai. Yes. Safai, aye, commissioner sheehy . Frjts aye. Er commissioner tang . Aye. The minutes are approved. Alright, thank you t minutes are adopted, im supposed to be the veteran here but im messing up, item 4 . Recommend allocation of 653 thousand 101 in prop k funds with conditions to the Bay Area Rapid strans sit district for if ball bow ka park station eastside connection, additional scope project subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule, this is an action item. Er im mike pick flooder, we have one request as you know this morning, bart is requesting prop k funds to exercise a contract option which is not relate today the base projts but and expand the scope of its existing project, the balboa park station eastside connections project and that is kurntsly under construction. So, the base project will create better connections between muni and bart station by constructing a new accessible muni platform and walkway and head house that would connect to the bart station. We have an illustration of the base project here, so the Transportation Authority has allocated 2. 2 in prop k and 1. 9 in Program Transportation funds to the project since 2010. The work that bart is requesting funds for today would improve the appearance and comfort of the station by refitting glass window ins the clear storey, as you can see illustrated, where theres currently deteriorating opaque panel, this will increase Natural Light nr the station as the original design intended. The additional scope will also construct a new ceiling and light ining the concourse of the station. This work package was a contract option in the contract to do the base project and was authorized by the bart board subject to finding availability, so now prop k is able to leverage other sources including measure rr bond funds that were passed by the voters in november and some state funds to get it done and the entire project will be open for use by june, 2018. And with that, i can take any questions. Great, can you would you miepd addressing some of the comments that chair wad ling addressed through the cac and Cost Increases or at least i guess the bidding, he had a question around that too. We were hoping bart staff would be here but i dont see any at the moment, one thing i will say is the request under consideration today is a contract option that is separate from any of the costs involve ined the base contract itself. I think what weve referred to in the scope in terms of the cost of the overall project was the last time that the Transportation Authority saw a request related to this eastside project, so it was less well developed at that point, you know, i cant get into details about every single element of the cost but i know that the budget was less well developed at that point and as youve seen with other Construction Contracts around the city, this is a very competitive time to be building anything here and if [inaudible] would like to add anything to that. Good morning, commissioners, welcome, im anna law ford, director for policy and programming with the Transportation Authority, apologies on behalf of bart staff, they are stuck in a bart delay, but [laughter] so ill pinch hit for the this was also brought up at the Citizens Advisory Committee meeting, the original contract was put out to bid over a year and a half ago and may have been longer before because the project is well under construction and this is a contract option that was originally bid on when the contract was originally let or issued if you will. We did follow up with bart staff about the reason for the overall project cost increase a portion of it is due to this additional scope, a portion was due to the bid environment at the time of the contract being out on the street. It is typical of what we have been hearing from some of the sfmta projects on the transit projects, sometimes there is a single bidder for several contracts so were left to negotiate with a single bidder or reject a bid and take a risk that youre going out to a more favorable bid environment. I dont know for sure if the number of bidders on the original scope of work, we can find that out if the commission is interested in that, and then so there were so, theres the additional scope, there was the contracting environment and then theres corresponding contingency amounts and projts management costs that go up when scope increases as well, so naoez are the corresponding costs that go along with the scope increase. Okay. Great. And then in terms of i cant recall, did you have an issue, mr. Wad ling, about design as well. Im not sure if bart can address the design. This was also brought up at the Citizens Advisory Committee meeting and bart staff replied that there had been many, many discussions about the design at the time that the head house was being designed and one of the including with the architect that was involved with the new features so there was the sentiment that the station needed a front door, if you will, some kind of an access and entry point, there was also the sentiment of wanting to stay away from the concrete that existed now, so not setting up more concrete, to put up light and glass and recognizing that it was a contrast but that that was where it ended up with the then bart director and with the conversations that took place at the time. Okay. Alright. Well, thank you for your presentation and answering those questions, colleagues, do you have any questions or comments on this item . No . Mr. Safai . Frjts yes, i think this is an important step in helping to really open up and redesign a poorly designed station that gets a tremendous amount of use, particularly from people that are pedestrian nas are trying to connect to the other side, i commend you and this is a great project for our part of town, thank you. Alright, okay, great, so with that, then lets open up item 4 to Public Comment. As i mentioned, chris wad ling, cac chair, i spoke with the architect who helped design the head house, i wanted to enter into the record what he communicated to me. He was basing his designs off of one of the brutality architectures by the name of james sterling, sterling design, crystalline glass forms with rough concrete, it was from their varied works, because his environments were overcast, he designed more glass forms into his architecture, similar to barts beginnings and the main reason is function, the groan house is compatible with many overcast days of marine environment, roof format is the existing v over the station, it and its glass walls differ from concrete and are a complement to the heavy forums, the head house incrude thing v that looked like too much v, they considered the passions of the original Design Architect who was earnest born and he was more into a medievalist type churches, he f you figured he would introduce [inaudible] those were his design comments and as commissioner safai mentioned, the community agreed those were well worth it. Any of the members of the public who wishes to comment on item 4 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. I do agree that i think probably almost any change under the Current Conditions will look way better so, with that said, then can we get a motion to approve item 4