the mechanism presented focused on so-called pop-ins that were evident in two of the fractures, but not evident in the third. and that needs to be explored a little bit further. what explains the crack that happened in the third fracture. the micro cracks and hardness that were reported were similar in the whole region and on the cut surface, the outer surface of the flange. so there is -- those things alone do not explain the initiation of the crack and it is that in combination with the stresses in the detail that needs to be investigated. and finally i appointment out that 1st street is currently short and there is discussion of a retrofit for 1st street. so, if the mechanisms that were discussed with respect to the cracks at freemont street, those conditions are not present, most of those

conditions are not present at first street. and that was my final point. thank you. >> if i could address maybe the board. we've asked the subs if they have any comments or reports that they want to submit to the peer review. we welcome that and we'll submit them to the peer review. if you have any comments you want to make? give it to us and we'll consider an analysis. that affects all team members, including bob -- that includes herek as well as steve humphreys who is here. yeah. ok? >> thank you. >> thank you. >> all right. my name is lynn -- >> oh. we have another member of the public that wants to comment on item nine. >> thank you. what i'd like to talk about is what's missing from the conversation and i was going to give you the [inaudible] at

least your answers. this whole structural health monitoring s.h.m. and it is a system that you install on the building that [inaudible] to save in realtime and we'll warn you of any developing cracks a long time before the cracks actually happen. it's very simple. you essentially look at the structure. you have all the steel elements and you need between two and three microphones per [inaudible]. that's your number of microphones and then you plug this equipment into your communications backbone. i have a major advantage than anybody else. the only question is whether the backbone has sufficient bandwidth to do this. at that point in time, you will know that the building is safe and we can use it. and as far as i'm concerned, if anybody's pushing back on this, it is because they are afraid

that this system may actually discover issues with the building that nobody is currently aware of. thank you very much. >> all right. i think that concludes members of the public that wanted to comments on the item. >> we have a couple of board member questions. >> yes, director. >> following on the first few items of public comment, some of the previous discussion, it sounds like the scope of work for the peer review panel does not determine culpability which i think is ok for them to focus on what we need to do to fix this so we can re-open the building. but in parallel, there is significant costs that transit agencies, the agency are incurring as a result of this issue. so ultimately we want that accountability as well with suggestions that perhaps it was the design that tolls were

added, subsequently not in the drawings and added through an r.f.i. or some of the other issues mentioned. that is going to be an important thing for the agency to determine. so i just wanted to make sure that that process is happening in parallel somewhere as the technical work is being done. >> director, absolutely. absolutely. and i think that the peer review will inform us, even if it did not specifically site -- it will give us an [inaudible] on what the --what should have been done differently. or what should have been done to prevent it. and that would tell us who the responsible party is. >> it sounded like that might not be the case. that the example of the sharpie v-notch test determining that there was adequate strength relative to design whether the design was adequate relative to the actual conditions. it didn't sound like -- i'm not sure that anybody was looking at those kinds of questions.

so just maybe if you can continue to work with the peer review panel or whoever the appropriate folks are. we need know those things ultimately so that the public can be made whole for what's happened here. >> absolutely. yeah. >> director riskin, i can assure thank you that all of these elements brought up are in discussion and we'll be following that thread as the data indicates where we need to look. so we're not ignoring any of those aspects that were brought up. it is a bit of a deep dive for this forum given the level of data that we have. but all of the above has been brought up and discussed and will continue to be investigated. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> all right. go ahead and call your next item, item 10 is approving a resolution to certify the final up supplemental and

environmental impact statement and environmental report to the previously downtown rail extension component of the 2004 transbay terminal redevelopment promise and the transit program. >> directors, this presentation will be done by rodney dong and meghan murphy. rodney is the environmental lead for us. he is with aecon and so is meghan murphy. >> good morning, directors. and happy holidays. as the executive director said a little bit earlier, this is milestone meeting for us. we really appreciate being here. it was a very noteworthy event when f.t.a. signed the final environmental document and before i begin, i do want to thank the c.a.c. chair -- is he still here? for their endorsement of the environmental document. so, tonight -- ?onlt this morning, i'm very pleased to go

ahead and present a series of topics. primarily to provide you with a whirlwind tour of the journey that we've been on and to discuss the various actions that are before the board. the dading has five particular topics covering the environmental review process. they have been evaluated as part of the supplemental environment document. the impacts that were aye fied in the environmental analysis, some of the major comments that were received during the course of the public review of the draft document and then the recommended board actions and i'll be covering the first -- fourth and fifth items and meghan murphy will be covering the refinements. the environmental process, which i'll go through rather quickly, consisted of four distinct phases. the first phase kicked off with the notice of preparation and essentially covers scoping. the second phase was the preparation of the various technical studies and culminated with the release of

the draft environmental document. three years ago in december 2015. the third major phase has been to respond to the various comments to coordinate closely with the federal transit administration to receive the various environmental approvals that they require in order to issue their record of decision. and the final phase is really the approvals and the certifications of the documents. so, as previously noted, the federal transit administration has already gone ahead and approved the environmental document, they signed that on november 20. that was posted to the federal register on the e.p.a. federal register website last friday. and sdwoenlts that, the f.t.a. will be issuing an amended regular decision. on the ceqa side, on your part, we've gone ahead and released all the public comments and

responses to those public comments. on november 26 and the tgpa is taking action today. those actions include certifying the final environmental impact report, adopting the findings that go with the ceqa requirements, adopting and incorporating the mitigation measures, along with that, adopting the mitigation monitoring and reporting program that describes who's going to be responsible for implementing the mitigation measures when that is going to happen, how implementation is going to be verified. and then hopefully approving the project. the agencis that have been participating heavily in this -- and in leading the effort has been the transbay joint powers authority as a ceqa leave and the federal transit administration as the federal leave. because of the keen interest of the federal railroad administration in having high speed rail come into the transit center, they have been dubbed a cooperating agency and

have been involved actively in all of the decisions and reviewed the documents throughout. as required under the federal environments at the outset of the program, we invited all public agencies with the potential interests or stake in the proposed project. this long list that you see on the slide are all those who participated and accepted the invitation and most notably are the sitting county of san francisco and the office of community investment and infrastructure. so, each of these various agencies were provided with copies of the documents early on and actually the federal transit administration would not review the environmental document until each of these had commented and provided their input to the federal transit administration. so, with that, i'd like meghan to talk a little bit about the refinements which have been the focus of the supplemental environmental document. >> good morning, directors. as rod said, these are refinements. the program was approved in 2004. so i'll be going through them

from north to south, so bear with me. this is a good overview, though. you can see in pink, the elements that were added in the supplemental and in yellow are the elements that were just modified in the supplemental document. to starting up in the north, you can see market street up there at the top. we have three elements that are included in this orange box. the first is an underground pedestrian connector that connects the embarkadero stations to the lower concourse level of the train box. this is under beal street. there is an extented train box which will extend the train box from the eastside of field street to beal street and on top of that at grade, there is an inner city bus facility proposal. the next element as we work our way south is a widened throat structure. the original throat structure in gray has been shifted and

slightly widened as is shown in green. this does have the effect of infecting two new properties, 589 howard and 235 second street. both those properties are proposed to be underpinned and will not be otherwise affected on their facades. just underpinned. s the benefit of shifting the throat structure as we did is you see this building in yellow in the upper left hand corner. that's 171 second street which is a historic building and in the original environmental document, it was slated for just demolition. however, do to the shift in the throat structure, we're able to save that building and underpinning a small corner of it so we're pleased to save that historic building. the next element that is added is the ventilation and egress structures. theres one located at 2nd and

harrison on parcel q, a state owned property that is currently a parking lot. the other is at 3rd and townsend street and that is currently a one-storey liquor store. there are also ventilation structures at either end of both underground stations. next, at the request of the city, we have realigned the fourth end townsend station into public right-of-way under townsend street. previously it was a skew through the cal-train yard. so, this will alow for any future development that the city and cal train agree upon at the yard and will values fewer impacts to caltrain's operation during construction. working you are way to the southern portion of the alignment, there is a new maintenance of way track which simply means that's where the railroads store their equipment that allows them to maintain

the track work. there is also turn-backtrack which will allow for off peak, not during peak hours a.m. or p.m., movements between the existing surface yard at 4th and king and the d.t.x. and transit center. these movements will be off peak and will allow cal train to source some trains at the yard or require any movements during an emergency scenario. the last refine suspect what we're calling the tunnel stubbs. this will alow for future connection to that pennsylvania avenue extension which was recommended by the mayor in a letter on december 4. this will allow for a more fluid connection between bringing the trains in earlier to the transit center through what we call a u-wall and then putting in this tunnel stub which will allow us to build the tunnel without disrupting those train operations that are

ongoing into the transit center until such time that we have the pennsylvania avenue extension up and running. i'm going to hand it back over to rodney now. >> thank you, meghan. one important thing i want to stress is that the supplemental environmental document focused slowly on those specific refinements that meghan just described. the intent of the supplemental was not to re-examine the entire d.t.x. and other elements of the transbay program. it was to look at the refinements that have come about since the 2004 approval and the subsequent addenda that went through 2011. so, when you look at those specific refinements that meghan just described, there are only five resource topics for which new, significant impacts were identified. or we felt that they needed to be further examined beyond these were examined 2340904

environmental document. so, those five topics are outlined on this chart. the first topic concerns transportation and that primarily came up because of the turnback tracks that meghan described. there is an at-grade crossing at 16th street. there's a lot of concern about the amount of congestion, how it might conflict with the muni forward improvements along that stretch and so we worked very, very closely with the city and county of san francisco to fashion a mitigation measure that was accept tonight the city and involves cal-train and involves the cpuc. so, for that reason, we've identified that particular impact as being mitigated to less than significant. in terms of land use and socioeconomics, meghan described the widened throat structure, but the project also includes an extended train box and it also includes vent structures which will require additional land acquisition. there are standard mitt investigation measures, state

and federal relocation laws that have to be implemented and for those reasons that impact was identified as being less than significant with mitt investigation. in tomorrows of water resources, the issue really had to do with climate change. and so climate change is going to have two effects. one, it is going to increase the surge, storms and the elevations and the 100-year flood. that type of impact can be mitigated and it can be mitigated through the amendments and review of the d.t.x. design criteria to ensure that the system is not vulnerable to that type of inundation. however, climate change introduces concerns related to sea level rise and in the environmental document, we use very conservative assumptions going out to the year 2100. at that point in time, there is considerable inundation in the waterfront area in san francisco. this is not an impact that pgpa alone can resolve.

it's something that requires a regional solution t sea wall protection along san francisco. so there is a climate adaptation mitigation measure that has been concluded in the tgpa document, but there is also recognition that it needs a larger set of agencies to participate. for that reason, it has been identified as significant in an unavoidable. in terms of noise and vibration, there was the likelihood of nighttime construction. it makes stones avoid distroupesing businesses and access to properties and businesss who might otherwise be adversity affected during construction during the day. there were five or six mitigation measures that were recommended in that environmental document. those same mitigation measures have been incorporated into the program here. however, because there's so much more residential development now within the vicinity in the corridor, that has been identified as a

potentially significant unavoidable impact in spite of some of those mitigation measures. and then finally, there is the potential now for electromagnetic fields to affect some of the sensitive equipment in medical facilities in mission bay. and this again results from the turnback track which has the effect of shifting the cal-train overhead electrical lines, when electrified, to be closer to some of those medical buildings. we don't know how far it is going to be moved but we acknowledge that there is a potential for some interference with some of their equipment. there is a very detailed engineering solution that is included as a mitigation measure and for that reason, that impact is also identified as mitigated to less than significant. around as the executive director mentioned earlier, we received a letter from ucsf, they acknowledged that that particular mitigation measure and look forward to coordinating with the tgpa. now once the draft document had

gone out in 2015, there were a number of comments received and i won't stay on this particular slide because i'll go into them in more detail. the first one had to do with the amount of new development that's occurred in the mission bay area. primarily things like muni forward, things like the warriors arena, the u.c.f.s medical center, the south bay mission redevelopment plan. so all of those documents, all of those projects had come online or approved subsequent to us beginning the environmental document for the tgpa. what we've done sin corp rated all of that information, it's all been acknowledged and in particular it's helped inform some of the traffic analysis that was updated in the final environmental document. cut and covered construction is something that was very, very closely evaluated and examined in the 2004 environmental document. if i didn't say it before, i'll underscore it now. all of the mitt investigation measures that were identified

in 2004 and were adopted by the tgpa have now been incorporated into this project. and for that reason, when i showed earlier, only five new impacts, that's because all of those mitigation measures apply now. so things like geology, things like cultural resources that you might have expected, they're not expected to have significant impacts because of those previously adopted mitt investigation measures, because of the d.t.x. design criteria and because of things like the memorandum of agreement with the state historic preservation office. so, in this case, cut and covered construction has been examined and there are -- one way to present that impact is the amount of cut and cover that is currently showed along the corridor represents the worst case scenario. it has the greatest amount of cut and covered construction that is anticipated to occur. if there is an opportunity in the future that the tgpa wishs

to explore, where they can reduce the amount of cut and covered construction, that's just going to reduce in lesser impacts than currently identified. we mentioned the circulation at 16th street as being a concern that continued to surface during the course of the response to comments period. the notable thing about this is that cal train specifically sent a letter indicating that they would not be using the turn backtracks during the a.m. or p.m. peak hours. previously they had not made the statement so that all of the trains were expected to pass at grade along 16th street with revised information regarding the ability to restore cal-train trains at the transit center. they were able to commit to no a.m.-p.m. crossings. as a result during the course of the entire day, there's only

28 crossings of the at grade crossing of 16th street and the duration of each crossing at most would be 70 seconds which for those of yous who are familiar with traffic analysis, that would be the equivalent of waiting for a red light at a busy intersection. so, we don't see the impacts as being substantially significant. and requiring additional litigation measure. nevertheless, in working with the city, we did craft a mitigation measure, the tgpa and the city worked out a measure to monitor the events that were occurring at the intersection and then in the future, if cal-train does elect to use the turnback track during the a.m.-p.m. peak, then there's certain performance metrics that need to be satisfied. a number of comments were received regarding the inner city bus facility which would be cruxed atop of the extented

train box. the inearp city bus facility -- actually there were two sets of comment. one had to do with the bus plaza that was cruxed and the second had to do with the inner city bus facility. those comments concerning the blaus >> sandra: we essentially explained in the final environmental document that that is an existing condition. that was something that was constructed as part of phase one and doesn't have any bearing on the supplemental environmental analysis being prepared now. so, the focus really was on the inner city bus facility and so the concern was to what extent might that affect traffic circulation along beal, along freemont and particularly for egress and ingress along businesses on beal street. when you look at the driveway configuration and the street configuration, the inner city bus does not line up opposite any other driveway for any of

the businesses or residence denlszes. so, there's not going to be any conflicting turning movements that might create some congestion. even if the alignments were such that the driveway exits for the inner city bus facility did align with a residential or business driveway, the number of buses that would be exiting the inner city bus facility during the a.m. or p.m. is only going to be 10 buses per hour. neither the volume nor the alignment configuration was going to result in any adverse effect. meghan has already explained this pretty thoroughly. so i'm not going to belabor the impacts associated with the widened throat structure. but one of the concerns was whether or not we needed to look at other alternatives. could it be possible to consider a tighter curve because it had already started that 900-foot curve and then

through the negotiations between the tgpa, high speed rail and the federal administration was a variance granded to a 650-foot curb. so if we even tried to adjust the curbs, the analysis showed that there would be greater impacts than what would be -- than what would occur with the current curve. so we kind of hit the sweet spot, if you will. and timely in terms of other construction methods, in response to the public comment the tgpa on its own took the initiative to go ahead and start a studies option report back in 2017. the f.t.a. was interested in understanding what other methods could be deployed to reduce some of the impacts for cut and covered construction. so, all of the information from the option study has been incorporated into the final

environmental documents and has met with f.t.a. satisfaction. the actual preferred solution is something that will occur after 30% design and other factors have been considered. [please stand by] [please stand by]

action if approval, a notice will be submitted to the county clerk down stairs, and we'll also do that at the state clearinghouse in sacramento, and we'll be expecting the m.t.a. will be issuing their amended memo of decision. thank you. any questions ? >> questions from board members? >> not a question, but this is a pretty important milestone. advancing d.t.x. is a huge step forward in bringing high speed rail to the salesforce transit center. i just want to congratulate mark and the team to getting these steps done, and looking forward to the next steps in the process. >> thank you. >> i just echo the comments, thank the staff, thank the team. much effort went into this work.

i think we were happy to contribute in some small way at the transportation authority. we're hoping that the resumption of the design process will help to continue to refine those plans so we can minimize the impacts on the adjacent stakeholders and property owners. i think in some cases that's part of the challenge, so i just want to thank everyone for their hard work. we are also keen to ensure that we minimize that cover, avoid as much of it as possible. i think the e.i.r.-e.i.s. supplemental work does a good job of ensuring we have the right path forward. thank you. >> clerk: all right. you do have members of the public that wanted to comment on the item.

we have daniel krauss and james tomlin. >> good morning, chair nuru and members of the board. my name is daniel krauss. i'm a principle planner with caltrain. i just want to say that caltrain supports this action to approve the seis and seir for the downtown completion project, and so we urge the body to move it forward today. this is very integral to caltrain's future plans and increasing the capacity in our service. so we really see great value in the project. it will also help meet the regional and state goals to reduce traffic congestion, also greenhouse gas emaission, so

caltrain looks forward to continuing or collaboration with tjpa, with all the other agencies in the city, high speed rail, m.t.c., and all the other agencies that are involved in this process. thank you very much. >> clerk: we'll have jim patrick, followed by roland lebrun, and then bob finebaum. >> i'm jim patrick, patrick and company in san francisco. we talk about mitigating factors. may i suggest a mitigating factor, ka-ching, ka-ching, ka ching, how are we going to pay for this. i see we developed the first phase one with the federal government making loans. we're going to pay them with tax dollars. now we have another opportunity to rethink the way we did project a, if you will, which is the transit center. clearly, what we did ended up

being delivered to us with some problems. we've articulated those clearly. what can we do to prevent those in the future. now, we have another project about to be approved. i suggest we get a public-private partnership and pay for this improvements with the revenues that will be generated. let the private contractor, whoever that might be, let him get the revenue, let him build it, and forget this buy american. i like buy american, but it's very expensive. forget a lot of these joint labor agreements. another thing, why should we buy into that? we've paid the highest price possible for all our labor. i figure it's cost us $200 million. do you like paying $200 million? we've delayed this at the transportation joint power

authority for two years. come on, guys, step up to the plate, ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching. we need to understand the costs and containment practices. we need to do this, but limited practices and limited amount of dollars. >> okay. roland lebrun. >> okay. with your permission, i'd like to back up to slide 17. >> clerk: uh, so it's not active. >> so i would respectfully disagree. let me just start with something else that came out of the tunnel option study. there was this idea that somehow we're going to dig up three tracks with starting with

three tracks on the outside and then going with the third track in between. i've got three international firms that i conferred with that all told me the same thing. if you start digging the third tunnel in between the two, you will compromise the integrity of the two outside tunnels. now, the train box extension is actually under the bus facility. if you look at the plans, the train box extension actually goes all the way over to the other side of main street, actually, right against the building foundations. and then, the next question is okay, that's great. now you've got your 1400 foot platform. somehow you managed to squeeze them in there, but how do you have to go across the bay? all you've got to do is go up in the study and look at the leak impact.

you've got numerous buildings that are going to have to be taken downtown. now, the last thing is a turn-back track. the thing that you have to understand is just the existence of that is going to impact every single train, not just because when you're turning trains, because to accommodate it, you have to increase the distance between the gates. you're going to increase the distance by approximately 20 feet -- sorry, 30 feet. if you do that, you will increase the warming time by 20 seconds, and the reason that happens is because -- warning time by 20 seconds, and the reason that happens is because somebody with disability neats to cross, and they cross at 1.5 feet per second.

the pennsylvania avenue alignment, if you do that, the turn back goes -- the trains are moving over to the tunnel number two, which is the tunnel that will be abandoned, and basically, pennsylvania takes care of all the problems. basically, i took care of it seven years ago. thank you. >> clerk: mr. finebaum. >> i am mr. finebaum. we urge you to accept this supplemental e.i.r. it's been well done. it's taken a long time, but the results are great. i want to talk to you a little bit about something else. as tilly well knows, the c.t.a. has suspended the funding, the

$9.6 million of funding for the continuation of engineering drawings on the downtown extension. they've coupled that with a study that is going to be bid out for contract to study the management and operations of the transbay center. these two have been linked, but unfortunately, they are really not linked. the study of the operations and the future project delivery is a good idea at this time, and i think it should go forward, but i also think that funding should be released now because it is extremely destructive to

that. if it is not going to be released immediately, that you empower mark and the tjpa staff to find funding elsewhere as a bridge loan to continue the engineering work. as i said, it is extraordinarily destructive, and it's a terrible idea to couple the two. i think perhaps naively, that our friends at salesforce may come through with a bridge loan, and i urge you to have mark to talk to salesforce and others, maybe boston properties, to come through with that money until the c.t.a. will release its funding so that the engineering can continue. thanks. >> clerk: all right. that concludes members of the public that wanted to comment on item 10. >> okay. >> motion to approve.

>> motion. >> second? >> second. >> motion and multiple seconds. roll call. [roll call] >> clerk: that's seven ayes, and item ten is approved. go ahead and call your next item? >> yes, please. [agenda item read] >> director, if you have any questions on this item, ron alameda can answer them. >> director reiskin? >> just to the earlier point of accountability, i saw some of the reasons for the need of this extension, i -- which i think is pretty modest, about 2% of the total value.

but some of the reasons include dealing with the webcor lawsuit, and the fact that we've diverted resources to the temporary terminal and the fix of the new terminal. is it safe to assume that we are -- our errors and omissions were also listed there. is it safe to assume that the costs of this contract that are associated with dealing with errors and omissions or the webcor lawsuit that we will be seeking compensation for ultimately from the designers or for webcor? >> i think it's a little premature to assume that kind of as a baseline? obviously, we'll be uncovering what transpired in that respect in terms of the design. this is just really focused on the fact that it's protracted out to deal with closeout, the temporary terminal, as well as, you know, modifying or

recalibrating the staffing plan to address the lawsuit, wherever it may take us and reflective of that new forecast of staffing with the institutional knowledge that we had. back at amendment four, we had to add a little dollars, and we are already starting kind of to destaff a bit and were on our downward wind. for myself, i was starting to focus a little more on public works, and with the events of september compounded by the lawsuit, we realized our staff forecast needs to be recalibrated. >> this agency, through your contracts, through your services, otherwise, are incurring costs because of the lawsuit, because of the issues with the new center. and i thought i read in the staff report and chasing down errors and omissions issues,

ultimately, i believe this agency should be made whole for. >> actually, and we're tallying all costs related to the fix of the girder, and whatever's in this report that pertain to see that, we -- pertains to that, we will tally that up. other costs are because of the closure itself -- not the closure, but the pushout of the -- of the -- the project completion. so whatever that is that's related to the fix or the closure, that we will tally that up in one column. other items, the lawsuit, and other things will be in another column. so whatever we can recoup, we will. >> just to follow up on director reiskin's point, not to jump to any conclusions, the agency wants to be made whole wherever the path leads us, so

whatever hours and tasks are being spent on need to be tracked separately so we do have the opportunity to be made whole wherever this journey or journeys take us. >> no, that's the approach. not to say the e.i.o.s are off the table. they certainly are on the table. going into it, it's to make ourselves whole and hold accountability for those that are responsible. >> so moved. >> second. >> and a second. call the roll. >> clerk: okay. first and second, no members of the public wanting to comment on the item -- [roll call] >> clerk: seven ayes.

item 11 is approved. call your next item? >> yes, please. [agenda item read] >> and we'll have a presentation on this item. >> good morning, directors. i'm relieved to bring you an item that has no lawsuits or claims related to it. this contract with bus storage facility has actually been a very good project and clean and it's almost wrapped up. and truly, we are at a closeout stage, but request authorization for a time and dollars modification.

just quick location, it's between second and third street, stillman and perry streets between the transit center and the bus ramps and to the bus storage facility utilized. we're up to approximately, i believe, 53 buses can park between second and third street. access over second street is in green and third street is your street-level access, as well. scope of work is essentially the facility for the buses and also an a.c. -- the transit admin building and various other items that went into that particular facility. bid summary, ghilotti construction, it was awarded to them may 9, 2017. award amount was $21.6 million. our -- per the board rules, 10% delegated authority would get us to $23.769 million, as

authorized to the director of design and construction to sign change orders, but our anticipated final completion is 24.7 million, it does exceed our delegated authority. and also included the base substantial completion was june 30, 2018. and we have actually awarded a substantial completion of august 1, 2018. and an anticipated final, with just some minor change orders that can proceed with today's anticipated action. february 1 would be -- essentially we'd just close out the project as was noted and marked in the staff report, there are no claims, and this is an extremely clean project. ghilotti construction has been

very good to work with, has been very cooperative to do various items that are necessitate -- that were necessitated for various reasons. cost droppers, i've tried to drop them into the six buckets that are first. first one, relatively self-explanatory with the contaminated soils. we encountered a lot more contaminates soils than were expected. when you go in there, and you retest, and you find that you have more than the soil samples that were taken preconstruction, so that actually was the largest pot out of this was contaminated soils. 975,000. the a.c. transit editions with that, i think the biggest one would be merge. we talked about that significantly with the merge. this includes other items that would include all the various items from the additional striping to delineators to all the other items to make the facility work well for a.c. transit. those are in those dollars. differing site conditions, where the miscellaneous, as i

would call them, the lost city of san francisco pieces, you know, old buildings, things that were just unknown as we were excavating. site requirements, this includes items such as the third street improvements to -- which was street lighting and site work to ut lite the additional signalization to get out of third street with the new signal that was added at perry time from the time of design to the time of construction, there were some additional modifications needed. also, the bike lockers that were added at the west end are an example of what's in this bucket. caltrans requirements, can't look at tony for this one. so these are items when they go through safety reviews, impacts to their facility that were

required, and fencing, safety items specifically around their substation. and then, the rest is e&o's, errors and omissions which add up to the $21 million. i will say that is a conservative number at this point as we have handshakes on everything. just need authorization to signed the change orders. -- sign the change orders. so i'm requesting from the board an authorization to increase up to $24.7 million for the various reasons identified and also the time modification as well to the dates noted of august 1 for substantial and february 1 for final recommendation to the board. >> directors, questions. yes, sir. >> actually, if i could move the item, i would be very happy to do so. i would remind everybody in the room this makes working conditions better for your operators, but more

importantly, it allows us to not drive empty buses back over the bridge. we impact the environment in a significant positive impact in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, so thank you, and i'm happy to move the item. >> second. >> okay. call the roll. >> clerk: okay. first and a second, and no members of the public wanting to come ment on the item -- [roll call] >> clerk: that's seven ayes, and item 12 is approved. go ahead and call your next item? >> yes, please. [agenda item read] >> directors, there is no change proposed to investment policy, but brad jenkins is here from stray capital if you have any questions. brian, if the board has any questions? no? >> move for approval.

>> second. >> thank you. there's no -- if you accept it, we're good. just a review, per policy. >> clerk: okay. that does conclude the business before you today. >> okay. so i will adjourn the meeting. thank you, everyone. >> clerk: thank you. >> happy holidays. i

didn't o- >> sound familiar do you keep on getting up there's an easier way. >> of course there's easier way get rid of of mosquito they breed whatever this is water no water no mosquito mosquito feed on good blood the eggs hatch and stay near the waters san francisco to breathe

and the adult underlying mosquito waits on the as many until it's sexuality hardens water pools in any areas and creates places you'll not normally think of budget and any container that holds water and hidden in bushes or else were dump the water and do it over soil not into a drain the larva can continue growing in the pooled water is sewage disthe first of its kind the area if the sewage is two extreme have a licensed plumber assist water pools in rain gutters and snaking and cleaning out the water when keep the water from pooling and keep in mind that mosquito breed in other waters like catch balgsz and construction barriers interest

crawl spaces with clmg is an issue you may have is week to cause the water to collect this is an sour of mosquito so for buildings just fix the clean air act drains and catch basins can be mosquito ground it will eliminate it as a possible location keep shrubbery and growths estimated any water to can be seen and eliminated birdbath and fountains and uncovered hot tubs mosquito breed but it is difficult to dump the water out of a hot top can't dump the water adding mosquito finish rids the source of mosquito there are also traditionally methods to protect you installing screens on windows

and doors and using a mosquito net and politically aau planet take the time to do the things we've mentioned to eliminate standing water and make sure that mosquito are not a problem on your property remember no water no mosquito

>> good morning everyone pick i want to welcome me to the final budget and finance committee. the final year for 2018 and the final for me as the chair of this budget. i have enjoyed serving san francisco in the capacity as the budget chair. i want to thank sandy fewer for serving with me as a vice chair and recognize catherine stefani who stepped in as soon as she joins the board and it has been a pleasure to serve with you. i have to give so much love to linda wong. i had an opportunity to love on her every day. it has been tremendous to work with you in keeping this committee focused. i have