main street and that is a couple of serious issues where first of all that eir has been approved for the board and it is whether it will be approved by the board in october or later. but the main issue, is first of all, after the design, it will be impossible for cal train to (inaudible) period, and it will not be possible. and the second issue is, that, design with the region's long term intention to connect the transbay terminal to the east bay and the final ramification of that, if you make it impossible, to the term to the east bay, you are compromising between the 150 and 300 million dollars of our (inaudible). and that is my final comment and i hope that you will pay this in mind thank you. >> thank you, mr. lebron.

>> seeing no other public comment on for item five, could you call item 6, which is our newist item to report back from our citizen's advisory committee. >> yes. >> and i see our vice chair. >> good morning directors and executive director i am honored to have this opportunity to present this citizen's advisory committee report, and my name is bruce aget and i am the vice chair of the tjcac and it will focus on four items. and first, i just want to, also, congratulate everyone on the proposed deal between the city and the developers regarding the formation of the special district tax for the transbay transit center district and on all accounts it appears to be a win/win, and so

special congratulations for the board director and chair, kim, and supervisor kim, and the mayor's office and all of the involved, negotiations. and secondly, although, we applaud the efforts of the executive director, and the project team to effectively manage the costs associated with phase one of this project, we remain concerned with the costs for two reasons. and first, based on the passed trend of higher than anticipated amounts for awarded bit packages to this point in the project and it reserve eand with that said, we are cautiously optimistic which you will hear later on today's recommended awards for the plumbing, hvac and fire sprinkler packages which came in, approximately, at ten million dollars under cg

estimates in specifically, since these awards are 1.12 million under the estimates from the july, 2013, and why this is so important, is that these are the estimates which make-up the authorized 1.89, billion for the project. and we hope that the approach is used to achieve these gains can be replicated which evaluating and awarding the remaining bit package and in addition, not only to secure the bids, but to find the additional savings and this could help to offset the higher than antase participated award of the bit packages and all of these savings will be needed to ensure, the sufficient funding exists in continuecy and reserve to address any anticipated risk associated with the project of this magnitude. >> and third, it is my

understanding, with the upcoming leadership changes at cal train, and with high speed, rail and amtrak canceling their plans for a joint bidding process that this is the appropriate time to revisit the opportunity for uniform heights, and level, boarding for cal train and high speed rail. and it is critical to insure that we make the right decisions now, to insure the maximum operational flexibility, capacity, and passenger accessible. and with the wrong decisions today, or the wrong decisions today, will inpact transportation options and in our economy for decades to come. with this said, i really have a question here, is it the correct path forward to ask this board to write a letter to the funding partners, of the high speed rail mlu to put these issues particularly with the upcoming decision on cal train, emu and train procurement, front and center?

>> and then fourth, regarding planning for phase two, although, we need to focus clearly, we are all on the same page that we need to focus clearly on phase one to bring the project in on and he would and on budget, i know that we will not lose sight on planning for phase two, unfortunately the staff has provided several updates off various aspects of the plans for phase two, and the citizen's advisory will be asking in the months to come, a comprehensive highly leveled phase two update, including the train yard study and the i280 study and the supplemental, and the project delivery methods and the funding strategies what is important for us to understand are the key milestones and time lines and the benefit and issues, risks, and trade offs, on the various options and alternatives.

so that will wrap up the citizen advisory committee report and i don't know if you have any questions for me. >> thank you. any questions? >> director reiskin? >> i want to thank you for revising it, and think that it is a voice that important and we have not been hearing from them and i think that it was a great report, and i guess that on the item that you mentioned about some potentially incompatibility between the high speed rail and cal train is not something that i think, that we really discussed here and i am not sure what the issues are, but perhaps that is something that we could i don't know, if it will be appropriate to bring it forward as an item for our discussion, but, if there was an issue there, and we are building this, facility that is meant to serve both high speed rail and cal train, that is something that we might want to surface, sooner rather

than later and i do agree with the final comment, and i know that we have done this before, of continuing to focus on phase two for this board. >> actually i was going to request that this item be schedule, either hopefully in october, because it is time sensitive. and i know that cal train will be issues an rfp on the trains and there are some concerns about what he had brought up with the 25 inch platform verses the 50 inch and making sure that we are compatible on the line with the high speed rail because you know that is the goal, i mean for the city and county, we expect the high speed rail to end at transbay terminal and so i think that it will be good to have that discussion before things become more difficult to make sure that that alignment exists. >> we are happy to bring that to you, we understand that mtc, has been taking the lead and our position is that we certainly support the level boarding heights and the question is, which of that be,

with the cal train's requesting or supporting or high speed rail? and i know that is taking the lead and we are happy however to convene that the parties have cal train and high speed rail to come and present to you. with the various ideas are. >> director lee? >> so, i guesses this topic has been going on for quite a while and it is timely to bring it to the tjpa and we have offered to come to the caa and the staff people at cal train, and we issued a request for information from the vehicle makers, the potential vehicle makers, several months back. and the purpose, that rfi was to be informed about this, and ongoing conversation that we are having with can we have this same floor threshold as high speed rail and i mean that

it makes sense, why wouldn't you? and one of the struggles has been with both agency and we have been having the ongoing discussions with the high speed rail and it is, it is really, understanding, what vehicles are on the shelf. and meaning the vehicles that are out there, and available. verses, levels of customization or how many that you build the vehicles from bottom up which has a huge impact on the cost for the vehicles, it is not the only factor but it is important factor. and so, with the understanding, what we desire, and being informed about what the industry can pursue, we are right in the middle of a public discussion process. and we kick ited off with our board, at the settlement board meeting, and over the we are in october, right? >> and i forgot what month we are in. >> we are in september.

>> so the meeting before, is i don't know what year that we are in. >> any way, we kicked it off at the last board meeting and we have about a two or three month out reach process and we just had a two public meetings, just a few days ago. and we have several more public meetings to come. but the team will also going where people asked and so we more than welcome the invite from the people at tjpa and that is great and we are supposed to be housed at the tpj. and so i hope that conversation can happen and the sooner the better because it is our target to issue our rfp, for january, of 2015. and so this, dialogue will inform and shape that rfp. >> and also i wanted to recognize that members of the transbay cac including bruce himself came to spaoeng at

public comment last tuesday and this tuesday to speak of the importance of the (inaudible) and so i just want to appreciate the neighborhood ad volunteer casey on this issue and i want to recognize the mayor's office who really was holding firm the entire year on this issue. and it really did not, you know, stray from his position, that we deserve to get every single dollar, for this project. thank you. >> thanks again. >> so, we do have public, general public comment coming up but before we do that, is there any public comment on item 6? >> seeing none, we will move on to general public comment. >> and you do have a member of the public that wants to address you under this item which again is the public to address the authority on matters that are not on the calendar and you have jim patrick. >> hi, i am jim patrick with patrick and company in san francisco and i also agree that it is nice to hear from the

board and a tend those board meetings as well and this is the second time that i have seen them give a report to this group that is the right thing to do. and the reason for speaking today is i notice that our name is transbay, starts with transbay, and i have seen a number of editorials, designed, and recently about the new transbay tunnels. i detect absolutely no position of this board about what the future of the transbay is, and focusing on getting it built and the dtx and well done and, what is phase three, as near as i can say the board is not dealing with the phase three issue. should we build four tunnels two for bart and two for cal train? across the bay? should we build two tunnels across the bay, one for cal train and let bart do its own thing and should we build, nothing? and right now, i believe that the policy is to build nothing.

and do nothing. and i think that an error that the board is making, we need a phase three analysis and, we need to move in that direction and we need to move quickly. >> thank you. >> seeing no other public comment, could we move to the consent calendar? >> yes, all matters are voted on a single vote, and there is not discussion, unless the member of the board requests and in the event the matter will be removed and considered separately and i have not received any indication that a member of the board or public rishes to have an item severs, 8.1, approving the minutes of the july 10, 2014, meeting and to authorize the executive director to amend the professional agreement, agreement, 09-01 app-000, to extend the agreement to a maximum term of six years with

no change of maximum compensation under the agreement. >> move approval. >> we have a second. >> could we take roll call >> director lee. >> yes. >> nuru. >> aye. >> reiskin. >> aye harper. >> aye. >> and five ayes and kim. >> aye. >> and that is approved, could we call item nine and ten together? >> yesapproving an amendment to contract no. 08-04-cmgc-000, authorizing webcor/obayashi joint venture to award a trade work subcontract to desert mechanical, inc. as the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsive bid in the amount of $15,782,188 for tg10.2: plumbing, thereby increasing authorized direct costs by $15,782,188, and the authorized construction services fixed fee by $1,199,446. and number

ten,approving an amendment to contract no. 08-04-cmgc-000, authorizing webcor/obayashi joint venture to award a trade work subcontract to desert mechanical, inc. as the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsive bid in the amount of $12,059,025 for tg10.3: heating, ventilating and air conditioning, thereby increasing authorized direct costs by $12,059,025, and the authorized construction services fixed fee by $916,486. >> could we take a motion to recuse director lee? >> so moved. >> okay. >> don't have to. >> no. >> just... >> so we do have a motion and we will take that without opposition. >> directors savan, in a moment will present on this item. >> good morning, directors. >> good morning, directors i

have a short presentation on the three items of the status of the obayashi. >> today the board aworded, the construction for phase one and we received the three bids in august. and the total amount of the awarded today, and the three bids that we received in

august, are 800 million. and the budget of the remaining, set up and to get the package and including escalation, is 27.8 million, and the estimates for the taxes including the (inaudible) escalation is 284.6 million dollars. and the it includes the cost of the lift park elements. (inaudible) the difference excluding the roof top park and elements are $36.81 million. and the cost for completing the roof top park is 38 million and we continue to work with the mayor's office to identify the funding to fully full the park

above the slab and so that we can ultimately control with the transit center and however, we are procuring some of the trees on the roof top park that requires, the long time for the growth periods and we expect to bring that package to you in december, or in january. and the remainder of the roof top park should be awarded by the end of, or the middle of 2016, june, 2015 in order to stay on schedule. >> the board awarded 50 million in construction, and since the may board meeting and that includes the award and elevators and escalators and the roof top and the facilities the difference between the amounts and the cng estimates was $2.5 million and as i mentioned, they did in august, for the plumbing and (inaudible) system. and we see five bids for the plumbing and trade packages, and with the distance and excluding it, and raging

between 68.7 and 25.4 million, (inaudible) and the back in 15.69 million dollars, and the cng estimate is (inaudible). and the recommended award, amount is $15.7 million which includes a deduct for the clear water, system for the wetlands, and accepted, the proposals and the optional deduct, the credit for doing both of the plumbing and the mechanical, which is the hvc system and it is the amount of the 15.4 million and that is 8.55 million and, delivers the estimate and 96,000 above the budget, and the scope of the plumbing package does not include the elements on the roof top park. >> and we received the bids for the hvac trade packets from 12.4 million and 18.5, and these bids excludes the

alternates. and with the budget amounts for the trip and the package for 13 million, and it is 12.3 million and the amount, of 12.06 million and, that (inaudible) and offshore, and the credit for submitting the lowest bid. for the system and in that amount. of 6 million dollars. and it is 260,000 below the estimates and approximately, 1 million dollars below budget. for the pressure system we received four bids and, ranging between 6.8 million, and 10.74 million, and the supply is 7 million and the estimate is 9 million and the award of 6.8 million and it is 2.1 million, below the estimate and approximately, 230,000 dollars below budget and in total, in the amount of the construction and since theed abouter meeting

and it is approximately, 84.7 and which is 8.45 and that was completed in february. and this is a break down of the status and reserves based on the budgets that we received today. and the board approved budget of july 2014, 224.9, of program reserves, and current balance, is $171.5 million, and the plan in may, $82 million, and programs, and reserves and to bid out the rest of the packages based on the estimate that was completed in february. and based on the bids that we received today and assuming that the reminder of the packages will be within the cng budget, and our need for program reserves and litigation, is 73.5 million and

this con taouts a reduction, to 24.5 million dollars. and the last come um here (inaudible)..., and (inaudible) and 47.7, for the construction, and 21.4, for the and 15.1 million for the program reserves this concludes my presentation. >> thank you. >> director reiskin? >> yeah, thank you. and i agree that with the cac and it is encouraging to see the awards now coming in, and not just for all, good relative to the cgnc and relative to the budget and just a few points and one just to remind, that the roof top is part of the program and it seems that the staff is considering that to be

outside of the scope and i want to remind that the board has not taken any action to remove it from the budget, or the scope of the project. within the 1.899, question, on the slide that showed that the budget numbers, for these particular packages, did, did those budgets include at least for the ones that are relevant, that the plumbing, for example, does that include, the plumbing necessary for the roof top park? i understand that the award does not? >> yes, the budget, yeah, the budget, includes it. >> this is why we presented it in may, to the budget and the gap in may and it was completed in february. >> okay. >> and i am outside and i think that what is relevant to us is from the board is not how the

dollars compare to the estimate but it is good that they are favorable but how they compare to the budget that we approved. and it sounds like the scope of the award is not the same. and the incomplete picture of what is with relative to the roof top park out and, so, i am just going forward and it will be helpful to have kind of the better apples to apples to show the comparison to the budget and that is where ultimately we are managing to. and in terms of the first, or twot awards that are for the items that have been called, already. just, one question, it seemed that they were quite a bit, the low bidder was quite a bit below all of the other bidders, and what assurance do you all have that they will be able to

honor that price, and if it is calls for concern that they were so much below any of the other bidders? >> yeah, it reviewed the bids and confirmed the price with the lowest bidder and recommended these for the bids. that is kind of wide and part of the reason and not all of the reason, when you received the four or five bids, you do get a larger spread, and but for the lowest bidder, cngc did receive the bids and they did confirm that they are cap able to work and they are standing behind the price. and so this recommend that they work to it. >> okay. that is good news. >> and i do want to commend the inclusion of the deductive and the alternates and the requests for the proposal and yield a lot for these three, but there were some things in there that were good. and so i think that it is great, that you, and that you

are doing that systematically and all of these, but there is one, however, that i would rec mepd, that we don't accept and that is the removal of the gray water system. and the first item, and i don't remember if it is a ve, or a deduct. is it correct that you are accepting the elimination of the $80,000. >> yeah, we are rejecting it. and this system is for the wetlands, that was approved by the board to start of the 2013 july budget. >> okay, and so you are rejecting that proposal and so the gray water system will be included. >> it will not be included. >> it will be included by rejecting it. >> and so we are not buying that. >> so i would recommend that we accept that, proposal, and it is 80,000 on the 1.8, or 1.9 billion dollar program or in the midst of a drought and this is a one time investment and it

will save the water for the facility over the life of the facility and so i mean if i am understanding what this is. >> and i think that it will be helpful for, it, to explain what this item is. >> and okay, mark. >> my name is wane core and i am with the project manager for the mechanical engineering, and electrical and plumbing and design consultant and so just to expand on the gray water systems they are made up of mechanical components that are based in the building that do the majority of the cleaning of the gray water to reuse it in the building and the element at the park is a structure that does the final polishing and that is an educational element to where the public can actually see part of the process and it is not a necessity to the gray water posses rocess.

and thes an additive and but all of the elements that we need for the gray water treatment are in the building in the lower levels and so it is a mechanical process that we are doing. the policy is that necessary to use it on the roof top park. >> the polishing is what is occurring in the wetlands. >> and so the water is treated below grade by a technical process. and it is a final polishing that happens and then it goes back down into the lower level and pumped in for the use and then so the wet line is not a necessary part, and after that we do another level of treatment where we add a residual, sterilization before it is pumped throughout the building, if we don't spend this 80,000, we will lose, zero

functionality of the gray water. >> we he we don't lose the function of the water, it is just an educational component to the gray water process. where the public can actually see, and or understand the treatment process. >> and that was the $80,000. >> and why did we decide to delete that. >> i think that it was $80,000. >> i guess, and i understand that it was to save $80,000 in comparison to educational component which will be cool what was the cost benefit analysis? >> yes, the $80,000 is a component of the total system if we build and paid the $80,000, and we have to build the wet land itself, also and so during the july, 2013,

budget, it was presented to the board to deduct zm *f and that the budget was in 1 point and the (inaudible) and in the elimination. we will not have the wet land feature on the roof? >> yes. >> and you need it for the wet land feature, and that not including that you will also not include the feature and if you include it, you will have to have the feature also. >> and am i correct? >> yes. >> so that we will not include the option of having the wet land feature in the roof top. >> okay. >> we are happy to include it directors, and we have just been asked to look for savings and i