them to what the available resources are up here in the bay area, so it continues a tremendous effort out to veterans. in regards to what was reported from the individual unions, the electricians reported one of their best interview processes where over 600 new candidates came on board, they see no issues in keeping track of our labor needs that will be on our 10.4, the electrical package with fisc as that starts ramping up in the field in the next few months, the pipe trades also are thinking ahead and have been working with desert mechanical who is our mechanical and plumbing contracts, to work with them to see that they can meet our needs, and the carpenters, even to address all the concerns, not only at our facility but also all the way from san francisco to san jose, there are many projects, carpenters

are moving people throughout the state and areas that are don't have as much of a workload and moving them to bay area, so they have a lot of their carpenters now on the list that are available, so they see no issues as well. then the laborers are working with webcor, in a few slides, you'll show the fruit of that effort in the diagram. showing back to a slide with steve, bringing us back to the hours of apprentices, we have over 231 thousand with the majority from san francisco and of that showing our meeting our goals of taking out the operator s and laborers.

this is a grap we've shown here, you can see the last corridor how we talked, there was a dip in the labor apprentices, you can see the red, orange aish area has shown some fruit to that effort and it will continue going forward. and with the operators, the operators continue to have very good numbers on their apprentice front and then this is a graph of all the -- as you roll them all for all crafts, so to wrap up my presentation, i just show a quick slide of what's coming for award over the next few months, two of these are on the agenda today and the rest will be for may and june, so with that, that concludes my presentation, if there are any questions. >> the helmet to hard hat where they go and just darkly -- is

there any kind of training before they step foot on the job site? >> there is an apprentice program, absolutely, each one of the unions have their off-site training, they have a facility, then they go through an atrent -- apprentice program before they ever get to a job site, absolutely. thank you very much. >> and speaking of our unions, they were promise featured on this edition of the operators engineers magazine as well as the carpenter's magazine, and i want to in reference to the transbay project read one of the quote tings from louis battiste, he says it's the greatest project i'll ever work in my lifetime and it's a great work site, that makes it all worth it and with that, i end my report. thank you. >> thank you. >> you have one member of the public that wants to address you under this item, jim patrick wants to comment on the

pla. >> good morning, directors, i appeared before this board in 2011 and i argued against this pla agreement. one of the reasons i argued against this is because i'm quoting for this, will pay not less than the highest prevailing rate of wages for the labor so performed, so we can even pay higher than the wages before us, so we made a commitment to pay the absolutely top dollar for this whole thing by signing that agreement. this is the way i see this report should be analyzed or glow out, we go out for bidders we don't find enough bidders for the job, lots of people don't want to pay the high wages but we forced ourselves to pay the highest wages so we're short on bidders, we have an elaborate estimating system we went through, yet every time a bid package comes through, it's higher than what we thought it would be, are we

surprised. number 3, we developed a signature park idea which was a great idea, absolutely support, no money for it. number 4, we've done a lot of value engineering, we should be doing some of that, we've given up some of the quality in our project, why, save some money, we're paying the merges price, i understand that. the end of the process seems to me is we're going to get a high cost building, an overbudget structure, an incomplete structure, an inferior product. i subjecting that as we go through to look at the ctx, we abandon this labor agreement and be smarter in the way we handle our business, thank you. >> moving on to your next item is item 6, the citizens advisory committee update, i learned ted olson is not able to make it and there will not be an update.

moving to item 7, public comment which is an opportunity for members of the public to address you on matters that are not on today's calendar. (calling speaker names). >> mr. lebron. >> thank you very much, directors, actually, what i would like to do today is follow on the director lee's remarks, but i would like to approach it from a different angle, which is capacity. and as a background, if you go back to three years ago, cal train did something the capacity analysis and that analysis we're [inaudible] and i and others, we looked at the numbers and i come from europe, i know how blended systems work and sharing plat floppers and the number spanned out and i became a strong advocate for the blended system and for the

[inaudible] mou, but unfortunately as soon as [inaudible] things started changing, the first thing that happened is high speed wanted 40% of the capacity, but [inaudible] single deck trains, we lost 20% of capacity right there, 20 thousand seats, the next thing to happen is they told us you have to raise the floor two feet, you can do that with a single train but you cannot with a double deck trains because you cannot raise the height of the roof because you can start hit k stuff like tunnels and god knows what else. when that happens, you have to drop two rows of seats upstairs so you can have enough room for people downstairs which we lost 20% capacity right there, but what finally broke the camels back was last month's meeting when we were told we are not going to be losing between 78 and 188 seats per train, okay. at this point now, we're going

to be running 10 trains with less capacity than we currently have with the five trains so you can try to puz a positive spin on this and say look, we just spent 6 million dollars on the bay ridge, we're going the reduce cal train capacity by 2 billion dollars, you have to settle with a 4 billion dollar bargain, you could be looking at this at a different angle and say that's enough, we're going to defund the entire project and reroute these two billion dollars to the construction of a new transbay tunnel which is going to give high speed rail authority to [inaudible] and i suggest you start blending with bart, union pacific, capital corridor and see how that goes. anyway, i'm going to leave it at that for now, thank you very much. >> okay, kim maxwell.

>> i'm going to be joining the last two gentlemen, i will say i'm very much in favor of this project, but i have some difficulties, i gave each of you a document or -- so i'm going to be short. i'm going to appeal to you to not use sponsorships and the retail program to fill in the budget gaps. i think both are too early to make decisions on in june. let me talk about the retail first. this is proposed in i think december, there were some questions from you aobt why this board didn't have any control over the inline when it went out, there was a question of how many percentage of local should be done, i think someone suggested 70%, the person making the proposal was 30%, i believe you made this observation, the model used for

the retail was transit centers and they retail people here are going to be primarily resident and is employees which would require a totally different model than the one in the rfq, particularly for example of where is the anchor gross stror, a transit model would not produce a grocery store, a residential model would produce an anchor grocery store. there was a question raised about a master plan, you only have authority over the transit center, there are 6, 7 other buildings going up, tens of thousands of people and at least i don't think there is any general plan of what services that have to be provided that are absolutely required if the project is going to succeed and realizing the circumstance without cars. i don't know what's going to happen when you get these proposals in june, but it seems

to me that there's a lot of thinking that still should be done about how the retail works out, even though it would be lovely to get retail in here and have them paying money so that the deficits that have been accumulating over the last few months can be resolved. on the sponsorship question, supervisor or famous people, they're not named after corporations. i think to name it the google transit center or the twitter

terminal would be bad in many, many, many respects. i think the term limits if you expect to get money from philanthropy, you can't put terms on it which is not a particular good idea, and i don't know -- i talked to the gentleman who gave the proposal afterwards and he had no idea how much money was required and he acted like he hadn't talked to anybody yet and two months is not a very long period of time to go out, go in the neighborhood and find millions and millions of dollars for sponsorships. it seems to me unless something comes back, it's really great, you're much better off waiting until this project has the kind of visibility of what people actually see, particularly the park. you should be able to raise 30 million dollars from philanthropy to fix the park problem, you really should but

it's not something you can do in two weeks with an rfq. it's a lot of work and i would suggest you will get a very suboptimum report if you take what you get on the 23rd of this mother and sign it off in june and i know you need the money but i appeal to you that these two areas are in great need of a lot more thinking than has gone into it. thank you very much. >> are you by any chance on the citizens advisory committee? >> i am not. >> okay. >> i am not for a reason, one, it's hard for me to get o the meetings but secondly, the work i'm doing, you'll see the -- there's a group of us that are start tog do this for the transit center is to take the whole thing into account. we're interested in the 7 buildings, the transit center, the total package and the citizen advisory committee is basically only responsible for the transit center, it also has

an agenda and it's also very large. thanks. >> that concludes members of the public. i wanted to address you under that item, we'll go ahead and move under the consent calendar. all matters are considered to be reteen, will be no separate discussion of the items unless the board or the public requests, the item would be removed from the consent calendar. i have not received any indication that a member of the public or the board wants any items severed, 8.1, approving the minutes of the march 12th meeting and 8.2, authorizing the executive director to amend the professional services agreement for community benefit district formation assistance services with mjm management group. >> we have a motion and a second, without objection, it passes unanimously, or do you want to take the roll. >> ewe unanimously, none opposed. >> item number 89 is approving an amendment to the contract

number 08-04-cmgc-000 authorizing webcor/obayashi joint venture to execute a trade work subcontract with pacific erectors inc. as the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsive bid in the amount of 19 million 553 thousand for tg08.4, metal panels thereby increasing authorized direct costs by 19 million 553 thousand and the authorized construction services fixed fee by 1 million 486 thousand 28 dollars. >> do we need a presentation on this. >> you're up, mark. >> we received -- we had four prequalified bidders, we received three bids ranging between 19.455 and 28 million

dollars, [inaudible] in this amount of 19.55 million dollars, pacific erectors bid was [inaudible] but 5.4 million dollars above our budget of 14 million dollars, and we're commending to award it to pacific erectors for the point of [inaudible] and fund the balance from the reserves. >> this isn't the skin, right? >> no. >> this is other panels. >> these are panels and closures around the staircases, the elevators and escalator areas, i tried to put some photos in there. >> okay. motion? second? >> i'll second. >> without objection. okay, it pass passes unanimous. >> no matters of the public

wishing to address you, now it passes unanimously. er >> moving on to item 10, approving an amendment to contract number 08-04-cmgc-000, authorizing webcor/obayashi joint venture to execute a trade work subcontract with olson and company steel, the sole responsive bidder for noshed amount 10 million 323 thousand $242 miscellaneous metals thereby increasing authorized direct toss by 10 million 323 thousand 242 dollars. >> so, as we open bids for it in january, we received only one bid and the board authorized the executive director to negotiate with the sole bid which was olson,

[inaudible] our budget was approximately 7.9 million dollars. we entered into negotiations and we discussed several items that we discussed with olson regarding there's any valuable engineering opportunities or cost reduction opportunities and we identified approximately 1.2 million dollars in value engineering and cost reduction. this is the five item that is we discussed and we agreed upon. the first two items are rail, handrails on the park for a total amount of 740 thousand dollars. these items should not have been bid by olson, they're part of the landscaping contract that's already issued to bid. in discussions with olson, olson realized it was not part of their scope, so we asked olson to hold the price for 6 months and we're going the exclude this from the bid price. we will open the landscaping

and compare the prices and if the landscaping is high e we will come back, if not, we will use the landscaping, but just to make sure. the third item listed here is we have security fence screening in the rooms to secure the servers and the computer systems, olson suggested a standard fencing design versus what we have speck as a custom design so, that will be a valued engineer item of a savings of 230 thousand dollars. the fourth item is again column protection covers, aluminum checkered plate come lumps in the back of the house, we expect custom aluminum covers, there will be a savings of 115 thousand dollars. the fifth item is a detail that we have for steel plate

detailed attaching the waterproofing, in discussion of olson, olson suggested this detail could be much simpler if it was part of the waterproof lg, the design team reviewed it and said they could do it much simpler as part of the waterproofing, that's a savings of 120 thousand for this particular trade package, it would cost probably 20 thousand in the waert proofing addition, so we're recommending to award the package to olson for 10 million 323 thousand dollars. >> how many firms were prequalified for this work? >> we had five prequalified bidders, we've contacted all of them and they basically informed us they were very busy and they couldn't bid for the project. >> so i have just a question

on -- i'm glad it seems like you're sensitive to it on these top two items with respect to the rooftop park. there is -- still if we can find out when it goes to the alternate trade package, they could still be built out, right? is that what you're saying here? >> yeah, we have them listed in the landscaping package as above the deduct alternates, when we open the bids, we would see what they bid, if they bid lower than olson bid, we would exercise that option, if not, we will reject that and olson would buy the two items from olson for that total. >> the rooftop park is essentially a community amenity, so i think the board's particularly sensitive to value engineering there and making sure we can preserve the

possibility of doing it as planned as long as possible. >> yeah, so these two elements will be part of the transit center, it's a matter or of what trade package would be bought from it, that's the issue. >> and you see that going out within the next six months? >> the rooftop park has been advertised already, and we -- the current bid opening is june 30th. we're doing our best in order to communicate and attract bidders for it, we have four prequalified bidders and cm/gc is engaged with them, so we're hoping to get a healthy pool of bidders and we're trying our best for that. >> and the scope for that is the whole park? >> the scope for that would be the landscaping, the hard escaping for the park, the electrical and the mechanical elements nr the park are being negotiated with the current bidders to see if we can get a fair and reasonable price with them as a change order, if that doesn't happen, we will bid them out separately.

the entire scope of the park is being negotiated either with existing bidders or the landscape contract has been advertised. >> so, i understand -- i thought that you had taken those elements out of those existing mep contracts deliberately? >> yes. >> so, now after taking them out, now you're negotiating with the winning bidders to see what kind of price they would give? it's less likely to get us a competitive price? >> if we don't get a fair and reasonable price, we will bid them out separately. because of the budgetary purposes, we couldn't award it as part of the mechanical piece. >> we didn't have those elements as alternates in the bidding process. >> no. >> how will the timing work if you're not able to get a

reasonable price in terms of the timeline for initiating a new bid process. . er we expect to get the prices at the end of this month, early next month for the mep's, the mep's were awarded late last year, we've been nesting the scope with them, making sure they understand what the scope is, we expect to get prices end of this month, early next month. if that doesn't work, we can turn around and bid them out in the august timeframe, we're hoping to come to a conclusion with the existing bidders. it's a matter of we won't be able to execute the change orders until after the budget has been updated. >> what time of exclusion does that caoe -- create >> the total cost of the park, our estimate is 38 million dollars. the estimate for the landscaping package that's currently being advertised is

24.5 million dollars. so, there's about -- i want to say 5 million dollars, there's probably more than that that we're negotiating with them, but i don't want to tell them how much we want to pay for it. >> is there a motion for approval? >> move approval. >> we have a motion and a second. is there any objection to the motion? seeing none, it passes unanimously. >> and we'll note for the record that no members of the public want to comment on this item. item 1 is authorizing the executive director to execute an amendment to the office lease for 9685 square feet of office space to 201 mission street in san francisco for a term of five years and four months with ca mission street limited parlt ner ship. >> and sarah is here to give a brief report and answer any

questions. >> good morning, sarah jelati, i can answer any questions that you have on the staff report and our broker tony from dtz is here if you have any specific questions that i can't answer. >> first i appreciate the shrinking of the footprint, i know that's not always easy to do, i appreciate you keeping the cost down by doing so. my question is how you arrived at five years as a desired extension. >> i'll probably have tony come up and speak to what typical terms are. we were asking for three years and our understanding

[inaudible]. >> five years from now, three years from now, i don't know if that will be the case because there's a lot of space coming online, so it may not be as easy as we think, all we can do

is hope it sounds like, if the landlord's insistent, then we have to do five years. >> and why wasn't -- did we -- who -- did you do the original brokerage or was it then cassidy and turly, they did the original one. >> correct. >> so, did we have the opportunity to lease longer initially than we did? the project was never intended to be online this early, so i was wondering what our thinking was, not to get a longer lease from the beginning? >> if you recall, phase 1 was originally before we added the train box would have been done by now, 2014, so the original lease was 2003 and it was an 8 year lease i believe and we negotiated the extension early because we needed larger space, we had more people