district primarily to the west along mission street to take in more buildings that are really historic resources that were not captured in the conservation district adopted in the 1980's. the plan does propose to designate a small number of additional buildings as landmarks. that would be a separate process moving forward. the hotel, one of the only wood- frame single occupancy hotels. an art deco commercial industrial building on first street. last, the plan, as i mentioned, does seek to make sure the district is a model of environmental sustainability. we all know that this will be the case because this is sort

of a preeminent examples of transit-oriented development. very high, mixed views densities adjacent to world- class public transit will make this just a model of non-auto commuting and greenhouse gas responsibility. in addition to that, we have sought to, with the help of our consultants and other agency partners, see what other opportunities might be afforded by the fact that there is an incredible amount of new developments being built in this small area. we have been investigating with consultants and the redevelopment agency and department of environment whether we might be able to create a new combine heat and power system in this district that could potentially generate power as well as use waste heat to heat and cool buildings. this is a model use all over europe and in certain places in the u.s., and we think that this is potentially a possibility here. we have also been talking with

the public utilities commission about implementing recycled water delivery system in this area. buildings already are required to be dual-plumbed for eventual recycled water service, we will be exploring ways to do that in a shorter time lines of these buildings could be saving water sooner than later. in terms of the revenue and the cost of all these improvements i have been talking about, the street and open space improvements and sustainability improvements, these all have fairly substantial price tags. the street and sidewalks improvements that i have been talking about, with the addition of the proposed underground pedestrian connection from the transit center to one of the market street bart/new stations -- bart/muni stations.

a transit center itself has an additional price tag with the plans proposed to improve capacity at the embarcadero and montgomery bart stations. the plan would seek to help fund the rooftop parking as well as the second and howard proper -- park. these are rough estimates of what it would take to produce those. in order to help try to pay for these, the plan proposes essentially two new financing mechanisms. one would be a new set of additional impact fees that would go primarily for streets and transportation, including the transit center, as well as open space. we are currently in the process of financing the legally required nexus analysis studies required by state law to justify these impact fees, and working

with the city attorney's office closely on that, and we hope to have it completed in a few weeks so we can essentially set those at the announcements, what you see here, in terms of and acting revenue is very hypothetical and sort of illustrative of what we think we can achieve, but once we complete the studies, we will know for certain what the fees can be set at. again, this would be in addition to the existing fees that exist today room. those would continue to exist, and this would be in addition to that. on top of that, the plan proposes to require major developments availing themselves of the up-zoning, for dissipating in a special tax district, which means that all these major buildings would be required to essentially vote themselves in to a supplemental property tax that would get levied every year, and that money could be bonded against or

just spent as it comes in and could potentially, over 30-plus years, bring in a very substantial amount of money. once we have all these fee and tax projections done, when we get closer to adopting the plan, we will have a citywide discussion on adopting those revenues, but it will be safe to say that providing additional funding to the transit center project is a major objective, and the tjpa would be receiving a sizable amount of this money. that concludes my presentation. again, the fall plan is available on our website -- the full plan is available on our website. four directors that you're not have a copy of the printed plan, we would be happy to deliver it to you, and be happy to meet with directors who have

additional questions, but i am happy to answer any questions. >> it would be hard to improve upon this, i think. >> great presentation. a lot of really good stuff in this plan. while you are on the money question, i just want to make sure i understand. it looks like you are saying $1.8 billion comes in, but if you want against that and get the money up front, it is $366 million -- if you bond against it and get the money upfront. >> the money that would come in in actual dollars in the year they would come in -- this is projecting out 30 years. some of the money is coming in 30 years from now. in today's dollars, it is a lot less because of inflation and so forth. in today's dollars, these payments over time would be about $366 million.

when they actually come in, it is more dollars. it does not represent bonding. it is strictly pay-as-you-go money that comes in. bonding capacity could potentially be larger. >> ok, so i guess i am interested in getting a handle on what that number is. not just for the tjpa terminal and -- not just for the transbay terminal, but a lot of the things you want to do our capital projects rather than ongoing maintenance projects, so you do want to get the money up front and understand if you want it, how much money is available is one of the things i would like to understand. i guess the second thing i would say is what is the process by which -- where do we have the food fight about how much goes to transbay terminal compared to

other potential uses? >> i believe that would be through the plan adoption hearings. i think ultimately the planning commission would be setting policy priorities when they adopt the planning code changes and other of lamenting ordinances. there would be a series of hearings leading up to the adoption. we will have a proposal in advance of the hearings -- >> do you have a proposal? when will you have a proposal? >> prior to the adoption. some time over the next three or four months. >> i guess on behalf of this body, i would say we would probably like to be part of the conversation before reading about it in the papers.

>> also on the money, two questions -- with regard to things like widening sidewalks, are you assuming in your planning that that is all done with public dollars? i imagine for many of the large parcels that are to be developed, that that kind of work would just be included as part of a street improvements permit that we would just be getting. wondering with the assumption is. >> at this point, the assumption is this price tag is if we had to pay for all of it. you are correct that many of the major developments would be required as a condition of their approval and existing requirements to build those. given that there are a relatively limited number of new development that will be built in the area covering a small minority of the linear footage of these blocks, it is a small percentage. the transit tower is a big development that has several for

outages. a lot of the district is already built out, so we will do that calculation before this is all said and done about how much of the streets we think will be built by developments. we will definitely do that and get that out, but ultimately, even with the developers, there will probably still be a shortfall, and we will have to prioritize these improvements and probably seek additional funding at some point to complete everything. >> ok, and then, related, how would what you are proposing differ from an infrastructure financing district? >> it is similar. i am not an expert in those. i believe they are very similar. i think they are enabled under different state laws, so there might be limitations.

i think that is the primary difference. >> when you come back, it might be helpful for us to understand what the relative merits of either would be. >> they are substantially almost identical. the allowable uses of the funds are slightly different, and potentially, it might be an isd, especially if the law gets reformed to deal with redevelopment going away. they will become easier. >> i think the basic concept with districts are more or less the same. >> i guess it cannot be used for maintenance. >> or affordable housing. >> i know it is limited to publicly-owned infrastructure. >> i had a question, i think, maybe for you. to what extent does the tjpa plan assumed that zoning and

other things that are proposed in this district plan? >> nancy, i think it would be great if you could respond to director reiskin on this. currently, our plan does not assume the impact fees, primarily because we do not know yet how much of that will be dedicated to the transbay project. before you joined our board, a working group was created to study different ways to help fund the rail extension of the project, and one of the recommendations was that the city family put together this plan, and the whole idea of zoning and creating revenue for the projects that was originally envisioned and put together on -- and developed to fund the project, but to date, since we do not have the details, we have not yet allocated it, but we are currently assuming the increase

heights on both parcels t and f for a landfill component of our revenue. am i think you have covered all of it. there are two parcels that are part of the sales we are considering in our financial plan -- >> i think you have covered all of it. as the executive director stated, we do not have any revenues assumed from the impact fees being contemplated here largely because we include only those that are committed. as you know, we have a little ways to go before we have commitments of those funds. >> thanks. did the tjpa bodies of any plans? >> we have been funding most of this effort. so we have been meeting -- the

planning department invites us to weekly meetings now to discuss the plan and go over the plan. the my i am looking at the height that -- >> i am looking at the height maps. from a skyline perspective, the city would look a lot better at 1,200 feet than 1,000 feet for that one tower. if you think of this as the analog to the church steeples in medieval europe, the symbolic high point of the city, what we are trying to do is commemorate basically the value of ecology by making the transit center the tallest building in the city. when you think that this will probably set the maximum height of buildings in san francisco for all time, you would leave

open a lot more options for future alterations if you bump it up a little bit, at least visually. even if you are putting a windmill on top of it. , two, related. if the city does not a land, the city cannot dictate which sites will actually be developed. the specifying in such a detailed way which sites are too good to 750 feet and right next door is less than half of that height, it may not work out that way. the other way to get there is to zone the heights in broader swaths but have tower separation rules so you ensure that you do not try to outguess in the future which landowners are

going to develop, but you still ensure the appearance of tower separation. i have some concern that the sites will not manage to get it down for whatever reason, and and other potential willing owners of land will not have the upzoning to get it done. >> in principle, we would agree with you. proposal is based on a detailed assessment of what are realistic development sites in the area, and they are actually very limited. if we sat down together and looked at it, we would probably not find other major development sites in this vicinity that would potentially have billings of this scale, and i think we are pretty comfortable that this represents the best opportunities, even if some of them are delayed for a certain

time because those particular owners cannot build for a certain amount of time. we anticipate that this is a long-term plan. the horizon of this plan is 20 or 30 years, so we do not anticipate all of this will happen in the five years after the plan is approved. i think, you know, we see that is the case in rincon hill and other places. everyone gets entitled to live thereafter, and it takes a while for everything to get bill. >> i found opportunity sites. does the eir allow for total -- greater f.a.r.'s then allowed on this? >> i see allows for a certain square footage and distribution.

hoping there can be minor variations in the program that ultimately will be consistent with it. whether a building -- the 700 feet is filled immediately on the parcel adjacent instead of where we are showing it, that is the conversation that has to be had with our environmental planning division. ultimately, there's always minor variations. it just depends on how closely they are being analyzed. >> ok, final comment. the heights on folsom street are very low, given its proximity to the transbay terminal. is there any possibility of that? >> you are referring to the hype that range from 165 up to 350? those blocks are all part of

zone 1 of the redevelopment area. the planning department does not have control over those parcels. and that is there an opportunity through a separate process to revisit the heights in that zone that redevelopment controlled? >> good morning. senior project manager with the redevelopment agency. you know how long it takes to go through a process like that. of course there's always an opportunity to do that, but we are in the process of selling those processed -- those parcels right now. i do not think it is within the tjpa's plan to go through a separate rezoning process. if you think it is too short, i see where you're coming from, but it is pretty tall. one in particular is zoned for

that height because it is adjacent to a new public park we are building. they were not put there because they are some magic number. they were put there as a result of an analysis that showed wanted to get a certain amount of sunlight on the new open spaces we are creating, and that is why they are zoned that way. >> i like your vision. transit center is achieving the cultural prominence that medieval churches had in europe. that i like. we will have succeeded if that can happen. i have one question. you talk about, as part of this $4.2 billion transportation -- transit and other transportation budget, expanding board capacity -- expanding our capacity in montgomery and embarcadero stations here the last time i had conversations about those prospects, there was

a lot of head scratching and people looking at their shoes. nobody could figure out how that could be done. has that changed? >> the improvements that would be included would be modest. when we sit down with our staff, they indicated that they have some concepts for some vertical circulation improvements and variegated improvements that are not actually extremely large price tags. they are in the $10 million or $20 million range that would provide more capacity to hold people on the platform so it would stave off hitting capacity by a few more years and. >> i cannot recall the

specifics. i think maybe there was an additional vertical circulation, but i cannot recall the specifics. >> thank you. any other questions? >> thank you, directors. from all right. go ahead and move into your next item. item nine is authorizing the executive director to execute modification 5, city agreement with evans brothers for additional construction services required. it would increase the contract some were a total contract some of $15,602,208. >> steve will report on this item. >> this is basically made up of two packages of miscellaneous changes. one of them is what we call change order 19, which picks up

a lot of miscellaneous items that occurred during the project, including some expediting of some early work, additional asphalt where we felt that additional sidewalks need to be placed at the location of some fire hydrant evolves. some additional hazardous waste removal. there was additional time spent on helping the artist doing the rough shaping of his artwork. some overtime work to avoid disturbing the neighbors during the work hours. additional poll foundations for some street lights that were relocated. the second part were related to the demolition of the added building. on the initial change order, the hazardous waste removal aspect had not been determined. that is now covered in this change order. we have not had access to the buildings ahead of time to assess the level of hazardous material. in addition, because of the lack

of access to one of the buildings, we were unable to determine exactly what the existing condition of the building, the type of materials used, and it came back. when they started taking it down, it was more difficult to separate the debris. there was more wood than what we thought was concrete. it required extra time to take that are part and separate it. some removal of appliances and trash removal that was required, things left behind by the tenants, also made the decision to offer all the concrete on this particular case because we already noticed that there was a surplus of recycled concrete on site. that was an alternate included in the original proposal that we did not execute with the initial change order, and it was originally $67,000. we negotiated and down to $61,000 on the ultimate -- on that alternate. if there are questions, i would

be happy to address them. >> this originally came in at $10.5 million, and we are now coming up to $15.5 million. that is nearly a 50% jump from where we started. i guess one question is -- what was the original budget for this work? presumably, it did not have a 50% contingency. where is the balance coming from? specifically, why do we have such a high number of change orders? i understand that the alternates was a relatively small piece. >> difficult for me to address the first question. a lot of the changes during the course of the project were unforeseen additional conditions. once we start taking it down, a lot of additional asbestos- causing material that were not picked up in addition of -- initial surveys, issues like

that. as we went through the building, for example, the topic of the bath debt was not believed to have contain any asbestos material, but the actual topping material was asbestos, so all that material had to be hauled off site to a separate land fill. issues like that that came up during the course of the project. then, the addition of the four buildings at the end of the project was, as i recall, just around 900,000 for the last change order, so that was nearly 20% of that increase as well, so that was the additional buildings necessary for the change in the radius of the design. >> most of the change orders -- we do not take those lightly, and i will not sign them unless it is really an unforeseen conditions. that is one of the reasons we brought early so we have the benefit of a general contractor working with our architects so

that we can build what is being designed, but i can have jim kaufman speak to the original budget. when we put out the baby, the bids came in under the engineer 's estimates. we were fortunate in that way, and again, most of the chain orders -- change orders came in as a result on forseen, and we voted to demolish when the city voted to condemn them. >> i am with the transbay program management team, and i take care of the budget. a work in total is around $16 million. the contract it came in underneath that. the balance of that money is held in contingency to cover these kinds of events. for delivery this kind of work, you are going to run into unknowns, the ability for the

contractor to estimate accurately from day one is suspect. we recognized a sufficient contingency to cover these changes. in addition to that, actually about $1 million for the additional properties that were required for eminent domain, we cannot include in the original bid documents because at the time, tjpa did not own the property. we knew we had that chunk of work that had to be added later to the contracts when the properties were acquired. even though the contract, if you look at the contract itself, it did show an increase in growth, it did not really affect our overall budget. >> do we expect more modifications to the contract to come forward? >> no, they are done. >> there is one cleanup. they did some overtime in the final months.

we did not get into this just because of the board calendar and everything. there is some sidewalks that need to be replaced that we are looking at having them do as well. we are working on that, and that, hopefully, is a final and will be in front of you for the october board meeting. they are minor compared to these. >> the work has already been completed? >> the overtime was completed as part of getting the archaeologist started as quickly as possible, so as not to delay the follow-on work. it is, like, $1,700. it just did not make it into this item for the board. >> last question -- i noticed that you said dbe or sbe actual were significantly under the goals. >> we are working on that. i think they are working n