environment in san francisco. and the roof top view, once again. let me just go into a little bit more detail about the design of the tower and again, i want to under score the fact that we are really just at the beginning of our work. it is going to sound more resolved than it actually is at this point. we do know a great deal with the technical performance of the building, so we know exactly where we are going. the tower is a tapered form, the largest floor plate at the street level is a little bit over 26,000 square feet, the smallest is 18,000 square feet. and the tower is 1,070 feet tall and has three levels of parking below grade and below that supporting the tower are 42 eight-foot diameter piles that go all wait to bed rock, and so in a way conceptually the structure of the foundation of the tower is quite similar to the foundation of the

transit center itself and we are very, very careful about the interaction of the two buildings structurally, one with the other. the elevator core is also part of the structural system. it is four feet thick, at the lowest level and tapered in size of the tower and goes up and so it allows an enormous amount of stability to the tower's structure. and in a building this tall, it is very interesting, obviously seismic design is critical but at this height of 1070, it is really wind that one has to design for primarily over seismic, if you design for wind, appropriately you have designed to seismic. that is the key to the very robust central core that has a concrete box surrounding it.

you see the three exit stairs and you see the great number of elevator and this happens to be one of the lowest floors and that is the low, rise, elevator core that is colored in. this is the mid point of the tower and this is about a 20,000 foot square plate and then the top plate of the tower, 18,500 square feet. at the middle part of the tower's exterior, there is also still the middle, shading that is surrounds the entire building access of sun shade and access of architectural defining advice giving the building a great deal of texture. it is anticipated to be painted in a very beautiful, white, metal metallic color that has a resonance and glow in the sunlight and also even in doctored conditions will feel rather light and inviting. you see, that from inside we have been careful to keep the large columns away from the

corners, so that the curved corner creates this beautiful panaramic view from the plate out to the views in the distance and at the tower's top we have since we began to work with city planning, we have introduced a vertical facet that is some 160 feet tall. very large scale. urban gesture that allows us to make an impression on the san francisco sky line, very elegant, and very understated which also allows us to create quite a beautiful effect with the lighting in the evening and i will show you a bit more of that later. >> here are some invoices from various vantage points from around the city. the city staff was concerned that we look at the building from a number of points of view and i will take you on that tour quickly. this is the view from the end of pier 7. and this is the ramp near harris center and you see the vertical facet in the top, how

it will appear in the final building. and a bit more distant because it is from potrero hill and very important view. from deloras park, not only is the building the tallest in san francisco, but i think in many ways it takes on the responsibility of being the tallest in a very stately, and elegant fashion. and finally in the evening you see the effect of the vertical facet, we intent that light that much more brightly than the rest of the top. this allows us to create a unique image for the tower at the same time being careful about how we are using energy. and i think that it creates a wonderful counter point in balance to the transamerica pyramid. thank you. >> are there any questions for our presenter? >> seeing none, thank you very much. it was very, beautiful. and it was great to see the full design, and i appreciate

actually seeing it from multiple perspectives from the city lines. thank you. >> okay. >> we will go ahead and move into your next system. >> item 8 is approving an amendment authorizing to award a subcore contract in an aamount not-to-exceed $9 million over four years. personnel and material services increasing authorized costs by 9 million 250,000 and increasing the authorized construction services,. >> directors, dikes will report on this item. >> good morning, directors. brian dikes, principle engineer. this trade package is to provide four personnel and material lift hoists one for each section or zone of the construction, so that you always have a quick safeway to get people out if they are hurt and equally that it is all to

supply the materials provided for all shifts and all shifts not just eight hours a day. and one of those will be a certified mechanic as well and so any instant repairs can be done. they will conduct all maintenance and inspections on a regular basis. including certifications and dismantle all of the equipment at the end. we started with... we received a cost estimate independent one from webb corp in july, and for duration of four years starting

in january, for $12,000,000. >> three proposals received on december the 14th and anvil builders was selected on september the 20th. and notice of intent to negotiate was issued but this is an as-needed, or you need each piece of equipment and so it is therefore as need and we need to negotiate rates and an appeal was received from one of the other bidders and it was concerning licenses it was reviewed, the licenses were checked and the appeal was denied. we then entered negotiations on the contract, which was completed on october the 25th. what we did basically was to negotiate the labor rates, in fact, not really a negotiation, we insisted that they were all in according to the pla that we

have now signed. so those labor rates will vary as the union agreements change over a four-year period. and we have allowed for that, but we negotiated with the contractor of a mixed overhead rate throughout for the whole four years, as a percentage on the labor. and all of the monthly equipment rental rates were fixed and anvil builders, in fact, sbe certified and also have a disadvantage of veteran's business, who actually will be supplying the design and the electrical connections. and they have an agreement with usa hoists to provide all of the equipments which is leased to the project. so the contract will, in fact, exceed the 80 percent sbe.

and we agreed with the negotiation of 9.25, approximately a million under the next lowest bid. all of the three proposals were inside of the original estimate. so the staff is really quite comfortable to recommend that the board authorizes the contract for 9.2 million to anvil builders. are there any questions? >> i just have one quick question. and so, being that you had three applicants but two were not responsive, because they didn't submit all of the required documents? did we get an understanding as to why that happened during the process? >> it would appear that that would, pure laziness, frankly and it was obvious in the documents and they signed off the check as to say that they had done all of this and

provided it and yet it is like fly america, all of these documents which were required, were just not signed and submitted. a successful one has every single piece and i considered the longer one than any of the others. >> thank you. >> any other questions? >> okay. >> move approval. >> yes. >> the first and second and members of the public, wishing to address you under this item? >> director harper? >> aye. >> lloyd. >> aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> kim. >> aye. >> that is four ayes and item 8 is approved. >> thank you. >> could we call item number nine. >> authorizing the executive director to execute a professional services agreement with acom services to provide a envier impact statement, preparations service for the transbay center program for an amount of $1.3 million and a two-year term. >> directors brian dikes will

also report on this item. >> this contract is to provide, supplemental work, supplemental to the previous feis, eir which was certified in march of 2004. and the reasons for this is that there are changes of a little more small things, and there are changes to accommodate, high speed rail requirements as we have designed the project and we are now at 30 percent of the structures. to make it easier, here is a picture of what is involved. the first thing is that the approach radius were increased from 500 to 650. it is still, but, we wanted to keep as close as possible within the existing right-of-way and we do, of course, with these larger, do effect a couple of properties that were not in the original

documents. we also needed four and longer lengths of the platforms, hence what was agreed as when we get the high speed rail in we will in fact face to extend the platforms from bills street to main street underground and so that is the rail extension part of it. in addition to that, the original, the final designs of 30 percent design, has revised, smoke, exhaust plants, ventilation structure, in fact, with the secondary access. so, while we always had a ton of... down at fourth and king, and we always had an open excavation as we turned the corner so that we could work from there, we are also using two other properties along the way, for secondary access

during the construction and we will in fact have the shaft excavate from and we will put in those shafts all of the vent equipment and structures at the top. and while we do own one of these properties it is different from the original documents where the intention was in fact a vent in the city streets which is what they used to do in the old days in new york and it is not acceptable any more. and the other property down on the corner of third and towns is in fact a new property. and it currently is owned by mcdonald's. we will also do one of two other minor pieces that were not fully covered in the previous document and really being out dated and one of those is the underground pedestrian tunnel which will now in fact we have decided to be a straight shot down beal street to embarcadero station and you can see where you are

going. it would be underground, people-mover, with remarkable on either side. and we issued an rfp for this work in august of this year. we received a single proposal on september the 28th. briefly this proposal was from a large company, very well qualified and when we checked up afterwards. we found that small companies found that there was too much scope of work within this and too many things to do that any one small company could not do it by themselves and the other major companies could have done this. are really already conflicted out because like urs, pass and transportation group and already heavily involved as designed on this project all for high speed rail. so we do need an independent company doing this.

we had technical evaluation and the proposal was extremely well presented. and we interviewed them. and they had the right staff. and we completed the contract negotiation after the interview this month. just by way of saying it, on themselves is a well qualified company and could have done all of this work or nearly all of it themselves. but they conducted to ten small sbe companies to cover specialized work and they are all in fact, companies five of them in san francisco, that we worked with before, with specialized knowledge on and can use that without having to reinvent and have done the traffic counts for other projects for the city planning and they have done, hazardous material inspection and they have down archaeological and historical building works all for us. and so it is a very good team that acom has put together and no need for a learning cycle

and they actually propose a schedule of 14 months which was less than what we would advertise. so we look forward with all of this experience that they have and some of the individuals on it worked for other companies and another company which did in fact some of the high speed rail. so really, you can go in and you have one proposal. we got the best one, and i would have wanted in the first place and so i have no hesitation in recommending the board of directors to authorize this contract for a two-year period just in case we get into many questions, which sometimes happens in environmental work. >> thank you, any questions from board members? >> yes? >> director harper? >> i probably showing my ignorance here lack of not being here for a while. but there is a lot of construction work, i understand

that. but i can't think of a significant environmental impact saying, yeah they better check for this or that. has anybody run through an initial study of what they are looking at? >> yes, we have done initial work through the transportation group. the additional construction work which makes noise and so on, and i don't think that it is huge, and it is underground most of it. but, the extension from beal street to main street effects a property that was never in the original environmental documents. to have it take to build station under. fortunately, we are in that building, that is where our office is and we have already met with the owners. but, there is always... because you are going to do something with the land above it and we are actually going to put an inner city bus terminal there for the long-distance carriers.

so, that is a change to the environment in that area. and you do need to go out to the locals. the other thing is because of the... there are two properties that we were not even going to touch now we have to work either to preserve one of them is got a historical significance, and we will work underneath it to protect it. but again, this has not... the owners of these properties need to have a chance for a say. the vent structures we want to make sha clear and because they are above ground structure and they vent smoke. they may never vent smoke. we may never have a train fire. i prefer that to be the case. but certainly a lot of transit projects and other cities have had problems with vent structures and people, and we have done our best to provide some preliminary designs which we think will get rid of those concerns. >> those are good examples. i was just curious, thank you. >> director metcalf?

>> i am really glad that we are talking about the extension of the cal train i am hope thating we spend more time as a board on this. i have no concerns whatsoever about ecom or the price. i am concerned about the scope of what is in this and what i know from talking to other people in the community is that the various partners that will be necessary to connect cal train to the transbay terminal do not agree about the alignment. the san francisco mayor's office and i am the mayor's appointee to this board does not agree with this alignment. i don't believe that the san francisco county transportation authority does.

getting agreement between the various parties in addition to the high speed rail authority and cal train is the task ahead for us. the, i believe, i have a great concern about opening a supplemental and then locking ourselves in and then telling ourselves that we can't reopen it. i know that we have to do a supplemental eir but i don't think that we yet know what should be in it. >> i just add on that that question. because i had a related question. and so i was actually curious because i know that we are also in discussion and this is largely around how we fund, high speed rail and dtfs in the long term and that there has been conversations about kind of a much, much ambitious project that involves development and undergrounding and lots of lots of other things and i was curious as to whether that might be part of a different phase and that is why the scope of this face two was

so limited? >> if i could respond to that. we were asked by the federal rail administration as a continue of the 400 million that they allocated to us that they extend the platforms and the radii. we applied to the federal transit administration for a grant specifically to do that and that is all we were... the money we were given was to do just the specific work that the fra asked us to do as a condition of the 400 million. so we cannot add more to the scope because there is only, so much money. because that is the first point, the second point is that to my knowledge, cal train and high speed rail are supportive of our alignment and the work that we are doing as art lloyd can attest to. we can certainly have a discussion director. but at this point, we have a

cleared environmental document. and we are in the new starts pipeline. we have got only so much time, to get the funding that we need in order to start construction under the new start schedule and we are proceeding along the cleared environmental document that we have and we are do what the fra asked us under this very specific scope of the money that they granted us so we can't add to the scope that does not preclude doing what you indicated about reopening things but we were given a grant to specifically comply with what fra asked us to do and that is what we are doing. >> which of the various things that you proposed that could be part of the scope, which are the ones that the fra requires the gpa to do. >> the increasing of the radii at the structure and the lengthening of the platforms. >> yes, and the fta, who in

fact, funded this required us to put the vent structures in because of the programs that they have had on other projects. >> and >> yeah. i would very much endorse what the director said. we are not ruling out what might happen separately to the downtown extension. what the discussions that i have had with the city have not been to realign downtown extension, it is what to do with the yard and four and this what for do with the approaching for the south, which was never thought of dtx or any extension. we were extending from the existing station, to downtown. >> right. >> and that really does not take on the responsibility for the south. >> right. >> and we would put them as partners. >> thank you. >> director lloyd wanted to comment as well. >> thank you. >> just a comment that we at cal train are moving forward with the electricitifiation

and so we are moving forward and we are going to move forward regardless on what happens on the high speed rail. we are working with them to possibly not do additional track work other than separations other than grade separations which i believe in holely as one of the big things to get down. but that is our procedure. we are moving forward and we will cooperate completely with your staff. and also installing the old coast daylight and i am on the board that and and that is moving forward and we will be getting close to getting that done. so that we will have a direct

train service from san francisco and los angeles. >> and i can accommodate the director, we work to make sure that that happens. >> there are any other questions or questions specifically to this item? >> director metcalf. >> in the long run i do not think that it is clear if the fourth and king cal train station will remain a station or if there will be other alignments that we all end up believing would be preferred. i think that we need to be undertaking a process, with all of the partners. that will be necessary to pay for and get this project completed. and try to see if we can come up with an alignment and a design that everybody can agree to. i have concerns about spending money on ir that has a

likelihood of having to be redone. i know in the scope of the project, a million dollars may not be that much. but there is... i wonder about the wisdom of proceeding. >> four and this king will be... will stay as a station. however, maybe not all trains will stop there. because, and that whole mission bay area is very important to the cal train right now and as far as the yard, only looking at it as someone who has been in the business all of his life. we will have to have some storage. because you are not going to have storage done on the transbay terminal. >> the trains during the rush hour, especially may have to dead head back and be stored at fourth and king. i don't know the answer, i will find out. >> and director, we have to as a condition, of the 400 million dollars that fra gave us do this supplemental work. >> correct. >> we have to do it otherwise you are saying fra take the $400 million back. >> and that is part of our...

i agree. >> so, what i am hearing though, is that this is something that we do have to move forward with, regardless. but we do want to have a larger conversation, because we do know regionally that there are conversations about dtx and cal train and what that also mean for the fourth and king rail yard as well as the 280 and a number of other kind of larger more complex issues around kind of the full, kind of development. and director metcalf i am hearing that you are concerned that maybe some of the scope of that work should be included in this extension as well. >> i think that it would have been potentially more efficient for us to do it that way. if i may just make a concluding comment >> sure. >> i will vote for this with the strong expression that i would like us to begin a multistake holder process to try to resolve the questions about phase two, in a way that

all of the major funding parties, can be on the same page. >> and so, maybe potentially, in december, january and we can agendaize something on the calendar to have a broader discussion and i think that outside meetings will need to take place in between them. >> yeah, it is my understanding the mayor's office is julianne is leading that effort already. >> yeah, she is. >> okay. >> i move authorization. >> we do have a motion. we have a motion and a second. but we have public comment on this item. >> we have a member of the public adina leven who would like to provide comments to you on this item. >> good morning, directors i am with friends of cal train and so, we are a community advocacy group with a goal to have

stable funding and successful modernation of cal train and we were very glad to cecal train moderization be funded via the high speed rail project. we are looking to see the trains arrive to transbay, as soon as possible. and we are happy to see the blended system move forward as something that has the best balance of costs appropriate, capacity, and meeting the needs of the corridor. so, that said, in terms of the environmental work going forward one of the things that observers have noticed, is that the old plan for transbay, there are some significant miss matches between that plan and the actual capacity of the blended system and also, the value to san francisco and to riders and cal