minimum of 20%. some contractors are still low. the operating engineers, the apprentices, but that is also a unique operation, and the contractor has told me time and again, it is not a real safe place for apprentices better not train jet in the drilling process and are trying to contribute -- trained yet in the drilling process and are trying to contribute. with that, i will ask -- i will answer any questions. >> are there any questions from directors? >> no, thank you. director kim: thank you. >> we will go ahead and open up item 6. director kim: yes. >> one member of the public

wishes to address you, victoria munn. director kim: if there is any other public comment, please to let our clerk no. -- clerk know. >> hello. and i have a comment about the design of the building. i have seen pictures of strong, super strong -- the shape of it looks like a fish bowl. are you pouring goldfish? it has that shape to with. -- it has that shape to it. the park is teetering on the back. it is completely aesthetically,

ok? i think it is a poor design, ultra poor design for the city, ok? i am san franciscan, ok? it is like -- it looks like it is from the past, 1. two, it looks like a goldfish bowl. you know, ok? physically, it looks like it is all about the money. it is ultra modern, ok? there are two catchwords, ok? "new" and "dream." i thought this was a building,

ok? not flying? it has a like a flight look to it, ok? with this around it, the windows, ok? it is completely like a glass fishbowl, with the pipe on top of it. the pipe is nice, but the fish bowl crushes it all. [chime] >> thank you. thank you for attending our meeting and giving us feedback. is there any other public

comment at this time? >> there is not. director kim: seeing none, public comment is closed and we moved to the consent calendar. >> at the question of -- at the request of the director, we will be considering the items separately. item 7.1, not approving the minutes of the march 8, 2012 -- approving the minutes of the market, a 2012 meeting. director kim: we will take a roll call on the minutes. [roll call vote] >> 3 ayes, 1 abstain, and the menace are approved.

new members of the public at anything to speak on the next item. director kim: are there any questions from the directors on item 7.2? we have a motion and a second. can we passed without opposition? >> all in favor? director kim: all in favor -- i am sorry. >> item 7.3 -- adding the executive point to the architects, the transgendered bay project to require the -- not holding the tjpa liable for negligent on missions. director kim: we need to get a brief update again talking about this. i think some directors have comments or questions. >> absolutely.

>> good morning, directors, andrew schwartz, counsel tjpa. this amendment to the contract would insert "negligent" and address ommissions, which would be the geotechnical engineers. under state law, an engineer cannot be liable for errors of omission that to not fall below a standard of care from the community in which the design professional operates. also state law cannot be

required to indemnified the owner of the project for services where there is no allegation of negligence or a concept that falls below the standard of care on the part of the professional. there was the potential for confusion if an allegation of error and a mission -- and omission was on the part of a design professional, there was the potential be insurers or the design professional would not provide a defense for the owner or the tjpa for an error or omission in design. in order to avoid that confusion, because the tjpa was

not relinquishing any rights because the design professional could not be liable unless they were negligent, then they thought it was prudent to insert the word "negligent" for errors of omission so there could be no dispute if there was a claim against the tjpa. then the design professional insurers and will defend to the tjpa. director kim: thank you. director harper? director harper: that answers some questions. this was absolutely clear to me. i am voting for it on the basis that, in my opinion, there is no

substantive change to the operative effect of the language as it was. >> your correct. we agree there is no substantive change. director kim: thank you. i am also happy to see this amendment coming before us. this is in alignment with our state law, and i am happy to see that we can put that into our contract. thank you. >> numbers of republicans indicated they want to address you on the item. -- no members of the public have indicated they want to address you on the item. [roll call vote] 4 ayes on item 7.3. the item is approved. director kim: thank you. moving to item number 8? >> item #8 is approving the design proposal for the 2013

development. >> if we come to you three times in preparation for each fiscal year budget. in april, it is an outlook, made the draft budget, and june, the final budget. today, we have items for public comment, your comment, and in june, we will look at the final project. the fiscal year budget is a little different than what you're used to dealing with at your other agencies. this is in place of our overall capital budget, which we are managing the project, too, so we look at the projected cash flows and previous history and where we expect to be with the project and make an estimate of what the fiscal year expenditures will be for next year. our grants do not expire, so

what we do not spend this fiscal year will roll over into next fiscal year, and if amendments are needed throughout the year, as long as they're in line with the overall capital project budget, then we handle those. the budget next year will largely look the same as this year in terms of the majority that will be for specialized services, primarily construction, as we move up further along in the project. we will also have an operating budget again for probably a little over $4 million for the december 8 terminal that is largely grant-funded. the grant did not roll forward and is reallocated each year. i am happy to answer any questions. next month we will be coming to you with actual numbers to go along with this. >> are there any other questions

from board members? >> i actually do. this is not something you have to answer today, but in coming months -- our funding streams for construction, i am curious how that is allocated, and particularly we have a block in the seventh, because we got a slightly higher than expected did -- higher than expected bid. we know as we continue to take over the land sales, i am curious how that fits into our budget. i would like to see our revenues impact our budget in the coming year, especially how that will impact construction in the budget as well. >> sure. director kim: thank you. >> any other questions? director kim: thank you.

>> and numbers of the public wanted to comment on that item by their. -- no members of the public wanted to comment on that item either. in no. 9 -- a new total contract amount of $13, 693, 340. >> good morning, directors. our project manager -- from jacobs engineering. as a reminder, they provide storage so buses will not have to expend fuel going back to the east bay. the project is on the west

approach in the upper and lower that's. the design is to be completed early next year. we forecast construction to proceed thereafter with the bidding process. the construction value is projected to be over $20 million. for this amendment, a design amendment for jacobs engineering. there are three basic components. the first one is to enhance the design and increase the capacity for bus storage. at this in all -- additional bus space underneath our current lot and to enhance the aesthetics and also to provide studies for caltrans, because this is an underneath caltrans facilities.

the second is a more complete analysis of the column impacted by our design and construction. we will be excavating 2.7 feet throughout the area. over 60% will be in this range of 5 feet to 7 feet below grade. if you walk up from third street to second street, you will notice is quite a climb. the third component, the construction documents. we will be improving the structural mitigation. we saw that we take away from the sites. we will be able to forecast a thicker slab, perhaps tie downs. we looked into the sb

percentages. we have over 30% spe. the original award was 7%. director kim: from 7% to what? >> 30%. we get them updated monthly. 9 of them are spe certified. with that, i will be happy to answer any questions. >> are there any questions? director harbor? -- harper? director harper: it looks like we are at 90% construction costs for design and engineering? >> that is right.

>> that seems high to me. is there something that makes it extraordinarily hide? >> the extraordinarily high is the additional structural analysis that has to be performed underneath the west approach. our initial assumption, and the initial amendments, were to reduce the west approach structures, but those were not feasible. this amendment -- instead of looking at the worst case column as all of the column impacts, so it is a more in- depth analysis. because the west approach is a very important to a structure in terms of connecting to the bay bridge, we are not risking safety in terms of design assumptions. the west approach was designed

over 10 years ago using updated seismic analysis from the past two years. and we're going the extra mile with caltrans to make sure we are not impacting their facilities. this is not representative of all our design and construction processes. director harper: this does not include the wrap itself? >> it connects to the bus ramps of the new transit facility. director harper: i did not completely understand that. director kim: just to follow up, how likely is it we make amendments if we are basing our cost and contract on a 10-year

old analysis? >> the initial contract was issued in 2007, about five years ago. was approached design was from 1999 -- the west approach design was for 1999, 2000. the design has to be updated. we were originally going to use parts of the west approached. those are not feasible because the temporary structures are only good for five years instead of the stated lifetime for our structure, which is 50-plus. director kim: that i understand. but in 2007, we are basing it off and 1999 analysis. speaking as a layperson, could we not have anticipated that analysis would be old and we would have to make amendments to the contract? >> not by the -- typically, the

process is an outside agency or private agency has an encroachment permit and the analysis is part of the caltrans process. there has been more scrutiny and we have assumed a one-step review with an encroachment. we have a more detailed analysis and partnership with caltrans than anticipated. director kim: just one more question. i was wondering what the impetus for the additional change was, too? >> there was a request from the san francisco planning departments to further safer

streets in terms of slowing down traffic at intersections. this is from the sfmta. this is the west corner of 30 and -- of third and stillman. the west approach added an ankle corner, -- an angled corner, so we are making it safer. director kim: so, you are doing this for pedestrian safety and traffic calming measures? >> yes. director kim: i am happy to see that. >> there is no further public comment. [roll call vote]

4 ayes, and item 9 is approved. item 10 is authorizing the executive director to execute an agreement for. of five years. >> good morning, directors. this is a contract for the temporary terminal. in your packet, you can see what they are advertising and what it is projected to look like. it would be advertising space on 48th on the windscreen panels in the temporary terminal. there would be additional space in the future. they think it would be cost- effective or produce more revenue to use more locations. we would negotiate additional revenue at that time.

there will also be space reserved for the transgendered bay project on this flight. all the advertising -- for the transgendered bayt -- ransbay project. the agency has reviewed the proposed advertising and give their approval. the amount tjpa will be $50,000 annually escalated by the cpi, or 44% of net revenues, whichever is greater. we anticipate those revenues will go into deep future transit center. my colleague is here to answer any questions and i can answer any questions as well. director kim: do you have any questions? director metcalf: $50,000 does

not sound like very much? to even be talking about. >> it is better than zero. it is a small advertising contract compared to the muni advertising contract. but you have to remember the one-block space does not include space son of vehicles moving throughout time. is really geared to the temporary -- it is really geared to the temporary terminals. we did put it out for competitive procurement. we actually issued it twice. there does not seem to be a lot of interest in the industry. director metcalf: that is fine. there is a downside to this.

is somewhat degrades passenger experience. at some point, it may not be worth that. i do not know at what point it is too little to be worth it. that might be worth considering. >> i was curious how we would fit 48 4 x 6 panels in the small terminal? >> they are the existing terminal space is. 48 is what they think would be the most effective in terms of advertising. it is not over-saturating. they are not competing with the transit information by placing them on alternating panels. only areas where there is not information like that posted. director harper: in your

opinion, it is clear that the 42% is on gross revenue? >> it is on it net revenue. it is taking out their costs for installing the advertising and marketing the advertising. >> so it is a lot of internal costs that are deducted to them? >> correct. >> i hope you stay on the audits. >> i had a discussion with someone about that yesterday. director kim: how did you determine the portion of revenues? >> that was actually a field proposal. director kim: ok, is there other discussion or questions on this item? >> one other, the five-year contract. this will just fit within the

timeframe of the temporary terminal. them that is correct. this is not for advertising with in the transit center. and of other questions? -- seeing no other questions, do we have a motion? we have a motion and a second. >> and no members of the public wishing to address you on this item. [roll call] item 10 is approved. director kim: thank you. we have now gone through the consent calendar. are there any other items? >> no, that does conclude your business before you today. director kim: seeing no other announcements or items, this meeting is adjourned.