>> 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 on around 3% or 4%. they will not unfortunately get to their goal. but we are finding out if they are under reporting or not reporting some of their trucking dollars. something has gone as you in the process, so that as part of the closeout we are doing with them and some final reporting on material recycling, items like that. >> is their opportunity in the sidewalk work to set aside that work for dbe's and/or --

>> it is very minor, but i will talk to the contractor about that. anything else? >> i really empathize. everybody has seen the cartoon with the disney name "contract" hanging behind a yacht named "change order" -- the dinghy named "contract." there was asbestos in it and we did not know that, but that does not mean that the contractor should not have done some things, but i am glad that those things are steering around in people's minds. that is the real question -- who bore the risk of something not being foreseen -- unforeseeable is different. unforeseen does not answer the question.

>> good point. specifically on these buses, there was a report that the contract had at the time, and there were line items in their bid corresponding to what was anticipated, but for instance, in the asbestos-containing material area, there was significantly more than what the initial reports that they had at the time showed. including this popping material that no one anticipated. then, one of the other larger change orders was the fremont street shoring wall. we have the demo contractor do some of the preparation work that was necessary for that follow one but does work. the majority of the transit center demolition, they left in place the basement lab. we got the subsequent footings underneath it in preparation for the contractor did come in and remove the wood contractors, and

it also included adding a temporary shoring wall along fremont street. it was a change in scope that came about after the initial information for big time. >> ok. any other questions? we have a motion for approval. is there a second? ok, motion and second. any objections? >> item 9 is approved. >> all right. thank you very much. >> we will go ahead and move into item 10, authorizing the executive director to execute amendment two to the intergovernmental agreement with the san francisco public utilities commission to provide of sillery water supply system valve services for an amount not to exceed $550,000 for a total amount of the agreement not to exceed $1,150,000 for a term not to exceed eight years for the effective date of the agreement. >> by way of background for the

new directors, we have a number of intergovernmental agreements with a variety of san francisco city departments that work with us very closely on the project, and the san francisco public utilities commission is one of them. >> good morning, directors. as mentioned in an earlier part of the presentation, we are nearing the end of our utility relocation for the first phase of the project. relocation of the of solar water supply system on mission and howard is the last package, and it is slated to start in january 2012 and finished around may. this amendment to the agreement with the puc covers the puc's procurement and installation of the valves. this is the scope of the agreement, and that number to a wheel. happy to answer any questions. >> i just have one question on this. when we see on the agenda that

the "not to exceed" price goes up when there is added scope, does that mean that the prior "not to exceed" for each of the two or three parts, each of the three things -- that those can utilities commission no overrun on one and make it up and under run on another? >> in a sense, and the initial agreement and second amendment should be approved. once it gets approved, we issued a task order or a series of task orders to the puc for specific items. the puc then is obligated to provide those services within the task order budget amount. in effect, -- >> so those subcaps still hold. >> yes, but we do that here strictly to the budget.

>> any questions? motion for approval? second. >> no members of the public wanted to address you on item. >> no objections. approved unanimously. >> item 10 is approved. item 11. appointing sara gigliotti to the position of chief financial officer for the tjpa. >> we created the tjpa in 2001. i stayed with the city and county from 2001 until 2003 running the tjpa. december 1, 2003, i severed from the city, the tjpa moved to a separate office space at mission where we are currently located it was myself and all of the transbay documents until march

of 2004 where i hired my first staff person. that person was sara dilaudid. sir worked at our office manager from 2004 through 2007 where she was then promoted to our contracts compliance manager. -- sara gigliotti. prior to that time in march 2003, because it was just myself, i entered into a number of agreements with the city and county of san francisco to provide staff. we entered into an agreement where dennis ferreira was our general counsel. we entered into an agreement where ed harrington became our chief financial officer because of increasing duties over time we then hired our own chief financial officer who had worked with the city and county of san francisco for many years, fred clark. he came on board after ed harrington. he has continued to be our chief

financial officer and he created all of our finance controls, internal accounting procedures. he set up everything with us and has been working closely with sara over a number of years. fred is now getting ready to retire in two years or so, so we need to bring on board a chief financial officer that can take on those duties. sara has been leading a staff of four people working in the finance controls. as directors know that have been sitting on the board, we have excellent audit reports over the years. our budgets have increased from about $10 million when i started in 2001 to today over $363 million. she has done an excellent job as a our contrast -- contracts compliance manager. fred will continue in a more advisory role