needed a second that is probably the only increase on that side. but the inspection costs is something mark i think will address and dennis shortly but they have higher than usual because of the quality assurance level we have been putting into this and the multiple fabrication schedule that is something that should be discussed further. anything else? >> thank you. this con collides my report. >> thank you. we will go to item six. the advisory committee update. >> thank you very much. it was such a pleasure to welcome director lee to our cac meeting she let her team discussing with our new members the boarding situation for both trains and platforms. this was particularly

critical because half of our board now are new members so it was very interesting to see all of the ripple effects and the issues that have to be con frokted the complexity of the project as well as cost time and other factors that need to be considered but cannot always be anticipated ahead of that. executive board cap lin joined us as well we welcome all the board members she explained to them in the beginning at our next meeting we will indeed have an orientation for them to the entire background of the project. this one was particularly consumed with that. i really appreciated steve humfries presentation as well as the entire cac committee on the safety issue as you know bruce

and i are both involved in the task force i apologize for misinforming the board several times before they had seen the video as you hear they're waiting the video they have taken a lot of efforts on that toward that i'm also inviting the police commander and medics to meet with the staff and cdac to see how the staff did the planning and preparing for the opening when it's the periphery we are concerned about for this most dense traffic and transit-intensive location. and with that that concludes my report if you have any questions. >> directors? than. >> thank you ted. >> we will move to next item which is item seven public comment to address matters not

on the calendar and the public wants to address under this item. >> >> go onto calendar. >> calendar. [reading]. >> sara j will be reporting on this item. >> for the temporary terminal it escalates a small amount each year we're up to $4.5 million request. this item is serving to the presentation to the draft operating budget for the fiscal year it's not tied to the

capital budget we wanted to present it to you this month before the start of the fiscal year it's a $5 million operating budget proposal. half o that is operating support for transit we did consult with ac transit staff developing that as well as looking what actuals are running a quarter of it is abm management particularly security you can see there are smaller amounts for traffic control during the peak community and allocation of the insurance cost to operations and the operating reserve fund. anticipating that all of the operating expenses would be covered by the rm two grant that allows us to put the income and the advertising income into the reserve fund and save that reserve fund when we

go into terminal i'm happy to answer any questions. >> i have a question on the -- who are we renting and advertising to in the next year? >> greyhound and amtrak. >> that is off the terminal books correct? >> correct. >> the advertising. >> at the terminal we have a contract with fuel outdoor. >> thank you. i know my staff was very you know impressed with the organization of getting this together. >> good. >> so do we have any speakers? >> no members to address you. >> motion. >> second. >> could you call roll please? >> director lee? >> yooi . >> vice chair.

>> aye. >> item eight is approved. we have three contracts we have time issues and things to go through toward the end of the agenda is there any objection to handling all three at the same time? okay. >> item call all three items 910 and 11 together nine is to approve amend; webcor subcontract with the [inaudible] company in the amount of $1,156,400 for tgi 63 terrazzo and therefore increasing authorized direct cost by one

mill 156 thousand 4 hundred. and the authorityized construction service fixed fee by $40,474 the. and item ten. [reading] and item 11 is approving an amendment in contract. with contracting services in the amount of $16,620,770 and the authorized construction services fixed fee of $581,725,000. >> i will go quickly. for the terrazzo project. our 1.95. so

by ordering this contract to the lowest bidder associated throughout the company we're saving $1.6 million for the signage graphics directing systems package we have proposals design package. proposals were the lowest proposal is below our estimated based on the lowest proposal we yield the savings of approximately $1 million this total price is most proposal total price is $7.6 million our budget is $9 million so the savings is $1.1 million the design assists so according to design services amount then we would work with a contractor to

design a budget which is $2.3 million so our recommendation to the board is the lowest responsible bidder for $18,750 . for the third package which is the waterproofing we have six qualified bidders we received four bids $2,016,600,000 and $7.1 million our budget is $13.1 million and $16 million the lowest bidder is [inaudible] they're on site going the waterproofing for the box parts our recommendation is to lower the contract for $16.6 million between our budget and the lowest bidder our recommendation for program reserves. to do that

our program is $6.7 million the balance will be $1.8 million. >> director? >> two questions the first the third package the roofing with the very wide disparity with the bids one being quite a bit below average that is part of the advantage. any concerns about that kind of range of bids and the low bidding so much lower than the rest? >> yeah. the true cost of the package is probably $19 million we had a high bid of $25 million on 16 between the high and low were a $19 million range so it's a -- million dollar package we got it for $16.6 million there was a discount we received on

the job sites. >> because they're on the job sites? >> that's what i believe. >> okay. >> looking at the spread of high bidders the middle bids were most likely -- the cost of the work. >> okay. the second question is if the first two packaging are $2.4 million below budget why do we need to draw from the reserve for the little bid that the packageses over it's like the three of them are below budget so we shouldn't have the job we should be contributing back to the reserve. >> yeah the $6.1 million we can put back in the reserve the second one is design built by assisted we have a budget of

$2.3 million to do the actual work we realize the savings until we [inaudible] after it's completed now the contractor figure out the actual cost we keep that amount in the budget and issued for the approval for the second package. >> even if we put aside a design to build the contract the savings for the first could more than pay for the difference needed for the third right? >> no the savings is $1.6 million that is the difference between our budget of $3.8 million. >> how much are we off from the reserve by that 1.3? >> yeah. we can do that we would assign the savings to next year's package below budget. we can put it back in reserve. >> the savings and the over ages

are the same. >> could it be prudent to have a policy in that kind of event whatever factors go into how that is sorted i think that say reasonable question we're almost at the end of the package. wouldn't that be establishing the policy at this point not much effect. as we're looking at the contingency draw down i know we're about to have a budget discussion it would be easier to keep track when we go over we take from the reserve when we go under we put back in the reserve. >> yes. we can do that. >> thank you. >> i will to director reiskin's

concern it's a valid question. >> they have done a good job so far they have done quite a bit of work on the sides and the bottom now they're going to be doing the park but they're on the job sites and they're performing. >> excellent. very good. [inaudible]. >> just for all three it says anticipated to be funded by land sales i wanted confirmation i was looking at the budget materials there is money with the existing sales and the money to come. so this is from within the budget you have collected the land sales? >> yes that is correct the notice on these packages is from landfills that have already been recognized. >> okay public comments.

>> no members of the public to address any of the three items . >> unified motion? and a second? did you call roll on the three items. >> items 910 and 11 director kim. >> i. >> lee. >> yooi. >> reiskin. >> i. >> bijan sartipi. >> aye. as well as -- >> in accordance with the

process and subject to certain terms and commissions to the sales budget to approval by the pjpa board of directors . >> i wanted to start off by acknowledging john ram from the planning department. we have a really exciting once in a lifetime opportunity to auction one of our last remaining properties as a reminder we have the celeste and where the terminal is located the last property the tjpa has to sale because the market is hard because of the overwhelming number of inquiries we received in the states and abroad on our property we recommend to sell the auction to the highest dollar amount is what we will be looking for. parcel is extremely value for a number of ones first

it's the last property in san francisco that i know is that has a 7 hundred 60 foot tower it's connected dreektly to our park and transit center you will be walk out of parcel s and enjoy restaurants cafes theaters art and retail of course the public transit that will take you to the nine counties and amtrak and greyhound across the united states and cal tran to the southern part of california. in addition. there will be a pe detreeian mall with a calffe. how -- value this property is now to

give more details i should say we're offering the parcel in dlab raegs with the city of san francisco the mayor's office as well as community investment infrastructure sara will give a little more information now. >> so if you have the slide -- there we go. this is the 10 thousand foot view or rather the 5 thousand foot view ing you context of where parcel is. you can see it south of the transit center. zooming in a little bit gives you a little more context where it is between howard and natoma street here it is zoomed in further the closed line going through the parcel indicates where the train box will be underneath the parcel that would be the northwest corner. then the remainder of the parcel could have 7 hundred 50 foot

tower on it now. we mentioned mentioned zoned 7 hundred 50 foot tower that is approximately 7 hundred 50 square feet potentially under the district center it has to be no more than 1/third residential 2/third commercial and it will be a bridge to the park one of the three buildings to have that the terms of sale will be included in the bid documents that will be releasing before the end of this month including a minimum bid price the term that closing occur as soon as possible but no later than december 2015 and in order to bid any potential bidder will have to sign the purchasing sale agreement and provide us with a $10 million deposit it in advance at the start of the auction. it is an as is sale. the buyer will be

responsible for all entitlements any remediation anything thats to occur in order to build on the site there will be an easement for tjpa for the train box underneath and the vent shaft up to the north eastern corner the property will have to participate in the cfd and the cbd both and we have security agreements with them appropriate building to the transit center. via to the park. and for long term debt that construction start in first quarter 2018 or by first quarter 2018 and construction complete by 2022

oohs the buyer will be responsible for the taxes on that schedule. here's the schedule we will have the notice and documents available this month we will do site tours next month and accept qualification submissions from potential bidders we will be accepting questions from them all through the summer posting answers throughout the summer with any final addendum before they auction itself in early september coming back to the board before september 10th close before the end of the year then the parcel will be open to them at the conclusion of bus ramp station which right now is projected to be by the end of december 2016. we have set up an e-mail. auction@transit base

center.org. with that i can answer any questions. >> ed? >> what are the restrictions that come with the easement? what can the developer do on the portion of the property that has the easement? >> i will ask deborah to answer that. i believe there are height limitations on that portion of the parcel. >> yes director reiskins because the train box will be under the portion of the property that will be weight limitations translated to height so a podium low rise on the building -- >> they can't build the podium just the tower cannot be over that portion of the parcel? >> athat is right. they will also have the train box for inhale and exhale of air. for

the shifts. >> so they can build on it limited? >> correct. >> okay. the planning director question is if somebody wanted to do something that was outside of what the current zoning provides for what would that process look like? >> that would be a question for director ram. we're not prescribing anything so i will refer to director ram on that. >> thank you. good morning directors the current zoning buzz allow for 750 feet in height because of the growth of the transit plan requires under zoning 2/3 of the site be nonresidential so office or hotel that would require changes to any of those items would require board action would require legislative change that would have to go to the board and be signed by the mayor. >> i have another planning question. i saw in the memo that

when a discussion about -- i think it's 536 howard the one that is wrapped around by parcel s which is zoned at 450 feet. in the memo it was stated that tpja if there was a property ownership with the owners they raise the height of the parcel to 750 feet as well there would likely not be a lot of operation. i'm curious about that because i know the shadow studies was part of the transit center and impacting parks north of the city. so i'm curious if you have thoughts on that i know i'm jumping the question on you but it's something that i immediately -- you know -- >> and i just want to clarify it's 546 howard if you are looking at the more detailed

diagram you can see the dotted diagram around the corner. so it is pretty far pjpa owned we have to purchase it for the bus ramp construction you are thinking of the adjoining popt but this is what pjpa owns and ago gri gate -- agrigate. >> sorry i thought it was owned privately so this is 450? >> yes that is currently 450. >> to answer your question i think that we would have to take a look at it. i also would be concerned about the shadows through a detailed process my sense is this small parcel in this location given where shadows are falling would not change that shadow diagram we have to take a look at it. >> thank you.

>> i have i guess -- the only real property auctions i have been involved with are on the courthouse steps of alameda county i take it those are different than what we're going to be doing who has had experience in ever having done this. >> actually when i was on the school board we did. >> we would be working closely with the city and the city's real estate department on this and conducting it jointly together. >> there auction houses? the 50s doesn't do this i presume. >> no we don't. >> if we get 155 million for the picaso we should hire them. >> we should. >> is there a firm? we do it ourselves? >> we will do it ourselves. >> wow. >> if i might add the government does the land options the bureau

of land management the state also does auctions cal trans and detailed procedures city of county of san francisco does auction for defaulted property some city property as well so there are examples for us to look to . >> glad you are helping us. >> yeah this will be a public auction. >> i will be bidding [laughter]. >> i wanted to make a comment i appreciate all of the work that went into it. clearly very detailed and exhaustive. i'm glad we will be moving not quite with an rp process but a process that will allow multiple bids to see what we can get the highest value for this land i know there is different discussions on how to sell parcel f this say good way to move forward i appreciate

a ton of work that went into preparing this process. >> okay. any commentses? >> no members of the public wanted to address on this item. >> is there a motion for authorzations? >> so moved. >> motion and second call roll. >> director kim? >> yoor. >> lee. >> eye. >> reiskin. >> here. >> harper. >> i. >> five i's i testimony 12 is approved and approves the minutes from the april 9th. 15. meeting. >> take roll on that. >> all those in favorite of the minutes? >> aya. >> the minutes are approved. the

next is the budget outlook for tjpa fiscal year 2015-16 annual capital and operating budget and the phase one program budget. >> i will be here with the construction matter with jilati in this presentation. this is our eupdates on the budget for your recommendation to put a budget for adoption. today, we have awarded a three packages we consider today o word would be $954 million. $822 million is for the transit center plus the

18 million we are awarded to fix. our total budget for the remaining trade packages and that includes the savings from the [inaudible] is $156 million. the remaining packages is $163 million there will be additional funding needed $173 million with the packages if they come in higher we will need more if they come in lower it will be less than that. left to receiving last year that is above budget. cng cost need to be augmented. the cng budget fee $700 million based on an award of