MMinutes

A

RAIL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (RCC)DECEMBER 7, 1992 MEETING

MEMBERS PRESENT

ROBERT KRUSE, CHAIRMANDAVID ANDERSONERNEST CAMACHOJOHN ~YMAS NAGAMI

STAFF PRESENT

EDWARD McSPEDON, PRESIDENT/CEOJOEL SANDBERG, PROJECT MANAGER, METRO RED LINE, SEGMENTS 2MAUREEN TAMURI, MANAGER, FACILITIES ENGINEERINGLES DURRANT, MANAGER, SYSTEMS ENGINEERINGLARRY KELSEY, MANAGER, CONTRACTSDAVE SIEVERS, PROJECT MANAGER, METRO GREEN LINELINDA FORD McCAFFREY, MANAGER, CONTRACTSROBERT CLEGG, CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR, CONTRACTSCHARLES STARK, PROJECT MANAGER, METRO RED LINE, SEGMENTS 2 & 3JESSICA CUSICK, DIRECTOR, ART FOR RAILSTEVE LANTZ, DIRECTOR, WESTSIDE AREA TEAMGIL SALDANA, PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICERLES PORTER, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FINANCE & INVESTMENTSSHEILA WALKER, CONTRACT COMPLIANCE ANALYSTLINDA MEADOW, MANAGER, SYSTEM SAFETYAL FRISCH, PLANNING COORDINATOR, SAFETY & SECURITYBONNIE VERDIN, BOARD SECRETARYMERCY MENESES, ASSISTANT BOARD SECRETARY

OTHER

AUGUSTIN ZUNIGA, COUNTY COUNSELMARTY RUBIN, EMCDON MINER, PARSONS DILLINGHAMJAMES OKAZAKI, LOS ANGELES DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATIONJESS DIAZ, SCRTD

~ Rail 818 West Seventh StreetConstructionSuit~ 1100Corporation Los A~0elee, CA 9001

~ a Subsid~a y ol Tel 213 623-1194the Los Ange~#s County

Leading the Way to Greater Mobility

RCC BoardMeeting MinutesPage 2

~2/v/92

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at i:i0 p.m.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the November 8, 1992 meeting were approved assubmitted.

CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS

Mr. Kruse reported the following:

Several Board members recently toured Metro Red Line,Segments 2 & 3 and were excited by the impressivenessof these public works projects. Some very, very diffi-cult mitigation measures were required at the portal ofthis very large tunneling job.

The RCC Board has been, and remains, actively involvedin the MTA merger process.

PRESIDENT’S REMARKS

Mr. McSpedon reported the following:

¯ The Board’s High Technology Procurement Subcommitteemet for the first time last week. The Subcommittee

will meet again in January, 1993.

The Administrative Subcommittee also recently convenedto work on improving the format of Board agenda items.

On Friday, the RCC met with SCRTD staff to review theMetro Red Line, Segment 1 start-up readiness. Therewill be another meeting this Friday at which time anassessment will be made to determine if an adjustmentto the January I0 opening date will be necessary.

December 15 is the projected date for the hole-throughof the tunneling on Wilshire Boulevard into theWilshire/Western Station. This is a milestone eventrepresenting the completion of all the tunneling exca-vation for Metro Red Line, Segment 2.

Next Sunday, December 13, subway rides will be given toall employees (and their families) who worked on MetroRed Line, Segment i.

RCC BoardMeeting Minutes - 12/7/92Page 3

The Joint Development Committee did not meet earl~ertoday as had been planned. The committee had beenexpected to act on Item 19 of today’s agenda. It isrecommended that any action the Board takes today onthis item be contingent upon the Joint DevelopmentCommittee’s confirmation that they wish to proceed withthe specifics of the item. The Committee intends tomeet prior to the 12/16 Commission meeting.

There was an incident last week where Caltrans had afalsework failure on the freeway during the removaloperation. RCC has cast in place concrete guidewaywork on the Metro Green Line that is of a similarnature to that which Caltrans had in place. RCC hastaken a look at what happened to determine if there wasapplicability to our work and two items are of note.One, the contractor on the Metro Green Line has submit-ted a falsework removal plan which we have reviewed andapproved and the contractor is required to follow theplan during that operation. Two, the safety departmenthas required our contractor to submit a safety hazardanalysis for that operation which provides specificdirection as to how the falsework will be removed in asafe and satisfactory manner. RCC Management believesthat these additional measures it has implemented plusthe lesson learned from the Caltrans incident willminimize the possibility of a similar accident occur-ring on our project.

It was suggested that Item 17 be moved to RegularCalendar. Mr. Kruse added that Item 6 on the ConsentCalendar is informational only and requires no Boardaction.

There has been some recent press discussion about newlyidentified earthquake faults that traverse some of ourprojects. RCC is studying whether these faults haveany impact on the design or construction of our facili-ties. All Metro Rail tunnels are designed in compli-ance with the current seismic standards which includesthe ability to withstand the maximum credible earth-quake on the San Andreas faultline. Any significanceresults will be reported back.

RCC BoardMeeting Minutes - 12/7/92Page 4

CONSENT CALENDAR

Mr. Camacho moved, Mr. Anderson seconded to approve ConsentCalendar items. Motion was approved.

However, the motion was later amended to defer Items 9, 15 & 16until the 1/4/93 meeting or until such time as the MBE/WBE goalshave been established. Mr. Murray requested that, as a matterof procedure, staff not bring forward any report that does nothave established MBE/WBE goals.

FORECAST OF UNEXECUTED CONSTRUCTION/PROCUREMENTCONTRACT CHANGES OVER $200,000

The RCC Board recommended that the commission receive theabove captioned status report.

FORECAST OF UNEXECUTED PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCONTRACT CHANGES OVER $200~000

This item was for informational purposes only. No RCC Boardaction was necessary.

METRO RED LINE, SEGMENT 1 - CONSTRUCTION/PROCUREMENTCONTRACT AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURES ~AFE)

The RCC Board recommended that the Commission authorize newexpenditure levels for active construction/procurementcontracts.

METRO RED LINE, SEGMENT 1 - CONTRACT A710ELEVATORS AND ESCAI~ATORS, WAREHOUSING COSTSCHANGE ORDER NO. 014

The RCC Board recommended that the Commission approveChange Order No. 014 for warehouse storage costs consistingof: moving expenses, warehouse rent, utilities and officespace from October i, 1990 to April 30, 1992 in the amountof $394,904.23, which increases the total contract value to$15,287,719. The cost of this change order is within theproject budget of $1.45 billion.

METRO RED LINE - SEGMENT i, - CONTRACT NO. C6690PLATFORM EDGE WARNING STRIP REPlaCEMENT, KEY STATIONS

This item was deferred to the 1/4/93 meeting or until suchtime that the MBE/WBE goals are established.

7

RCC BoardMeeting Minutes - 12/7/92Page 5

i0.

ii.

12.

13.

METRO RED LINE, SEGMENTS 1 AND 2CONTRACT NO. 4756, BARSOTTI’S INC.CONTRACT NO. 4987, DAMES & MOOREREQUEST FOR AFE ADJUSTMENT

The RCC Board recommended that the Commission approve anincrease to the Dames & Moore Contract No. 4987 by$600,000, whereby reducing Barsotti’s Contract No. A756, inthe amount of $600,000. The net effect will be no increaseto the project budget.

METRO RED LINE, SEGMENT 1 - CONTRACT NO. 3136SYSTEM ENGINEERING AND ANALYSIS, AMENDMENT NO. 14

The RCC Board recommended that the Commission authorize theExecutive Director to execute Amendment No. 14 in theamount of $563,629.

METRO RAIL LINES - CONTRACT NO. EN025ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

The RCC Board recommended that the Commission approveselection of Enqineerinq Sciences, Inc., EnviroRail JointVenture, Tetra Tech, Inc., and Law/Crandall and theirrespective subcontractors, and authorize RCC staff tonegotiate pricing, terms and conditions with each firm fora five year contract. Project services will be ordered bystaff’s issuance of Contract Work Orders (CWO) under eachcontract.

METRO RAIL PROJECTS - CONTRACT CM001SYSTEMWIDE CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT

The RCC Board recommended that the Commission approve theselection of LKG-CMC Inc. a WBE prime, and authorize staffto negotiate the terms and conditions for the SystemwideConfiguration Management Services contract. The serviceswill be performed on an as required contract work orderbasis.

14. METRO RAIL PROJECTS - I~NDFILL FACILITIESREQUEST TO NEGOTIATE

The RCC Board recommended that the Commission authorizestaff to commence negotiations with nine landfill firms,shown on Attachment A. Negotiations shall be subject toapproval by County Counsel. Staff will return to the Boardwith recommendations for approval of the formal contractswith these landfill firms.

8

RCC BoardMeeting Minutes - 12/7/92Page 6

15.

16.

METRO BLUE LINE - CONTRACT C6370STATION PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTSPRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGN SUBMITTALREQUEST TO ADVERTISE

This item was deferred to the 1/4/93 meeting or until suchtime that the MBE/WBE goals are established.

METRO RAIL PROJECTS - CONTRACT NO. MC020CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR SYSTEMWIDE

CAPITAL PROJECTS, REQUEST TO ADVERTISE

This item was deferred to the 1/4/93 meeting or until suchtime that the MBE/WBE goals are established.

CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION

Items 9, 15 & 16 were deferred until 1/4/93 or until such timethat MBE/WBE goals are established.

REGULAR CALENDAR

17. METRO RAIL PROJECTS - SHORT FORM CONTRACT POLICIESREQUEST FOR APPROVAL

Mr. McSpedon stated that staff worked on the development ofthese policies with the Board’s Contract Subcommittee withinput from some of our smaller contractors.

Mr. Kruse stated that the short form is generally intendedfor use on contracts under $5 million yet this is notstated in the policy and should be. Mr. McSpedon notedthat there may be instances where the long form may beappropriate for contracts under $5 million, and vice versa,and suggested including in the policy the directive forstaff to stipulate which version will be used at the timethat approval to advertise is sought.

Following further discussion Mr. Anderson moved,Mr. Camacho seconded to recommend that the Commissionapprove the recommended policy changes set forth in Attach-ment A for implementation of the short form contract forcontracts under $5 million with an amendment to allowdiscretionary use, where appropriate, of the short form forcontracts above $5 million and, likewise, discretionaryuse, where appropriate, of the long form for contractsbelow $5 million. These variations are to be approved bythe RCC Board on a case-by-case basis.

RCC BoardMeeting Minutes - 12/7/92Page 7

19.

20.

METRO RED LINE, SEGMENT 2 - PHASE IISTATION DESIGN ENHANCEMENTS

Mr. Sandberg, assisted by Ms. Tamuri, provided a briefingon this item.

Mr. Anderson moved, Mr. Camacho seconded to approve thisitem contingent upon the Joint Development Committee’sapproval of this item. Motion was approved.

The RCC Board recommended that the Commission authorizefunding in an amount of $36,922,000 for the RCC to design,construct and secure real estate for the Phase II DesignEnhancements described herein. Funding will be providedfrom LACTC’S 30 Year Transit Enhancement Budget.

METRO RED LINE, SEGMENTS 2 AND 3 - CONTRACT NO. B645TRANSIT AUTOMATIC CONTROLS AND SCADA (TRACS) SYSTEMREQUEST TO ADVERTISE AND PROCURE BY COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION

Mr. Durrant provided a briefing on this item.

Mr. Anderson clarified for Mr. Kruse that this issue hasnot been addressed by the High Technology Procurement AdHoc Subcommittee; the Committee is not ready to beginreviewing actual high technology procurement cases yet.

Mr. Kelsey provided a briefing on the evaluation criteriathat is proposed. Mr. Kelsey clarified for Mr. Camachothat the DBE bonus for exceeding the goal is one point foreach percent by which the goal is exceeded, up to a maximumof 5%.

Mr. Kruse stated that it would be beneficial to have theHigh Technology Procurement Ad Hoc Subcommittee study andinput into this procurement. Mr. Anderson stated that theSubcommittee has not yet formulated a strategy or plan yetand therefore isn’t ready to accept this task.Mr. Kelsey proposed to keep the Subcommittee apprised ofthe status of the activities of this procurement.

Mr. Anderson moved, Mr. Murray seconded to approve thisitem. Motion was approved.

The RCC Board recommended that the Commission approveprocurement of Transit Automatic Controls and SCADA (TRACS)System by competitive negotiation. As specified in theCalifornia PUC 130238, a two-thirds Commission vote isrequired to conduct a competitive negotiation.

The RCC Board also recommended that the Commission approvethe proposed evaluation criteria.

RCC BoardMeeting Minutes - 12/7/92Page 8

21. METRO GREEN LINE, CONTRACT NO. H0901PLATFORM INTRUSION DETECTION SYSTEM

Mr. Sievers briefed the Board on this item.

Mr. Camacho asked what the DBE goal is for the total bidprice. Mr. Clegg stated that the contract documents pro-vide for the calculation of a DBE goal on the base priceonly so he does not have this information readily avail-able. Mr. Camacho stated that the way it is presented ismisleading.

Mr. McSpedon stated that the important issue is the basisfor award. Mr. McSpedon added that the basis for deter-mining low bidder was the base price plus options A, B & C.The DBE was calculated on the base price only so that inthe event the options were not exercised the DBE goal wouldremain unaffected.

Ms. McCaffrey clarified for Mr. Camacho that should theoptions be exercised, the base goal is increased by thegoals for each option unless a specific exemption is made.Mr. McSpedon added that the options will be treated justlike we do with any add-on to a base contract in that theymust comply with the contract goal of 30% or better.

After much further discussion, staff was instructed to re-work this report for submission to the Commission with aclearer analysis of how the DBE goal was calculated. Inaddition, Mr. Nagami requested that a footnote under Table1 provide the DBE goal.

Mr. Murray moved, Mr. Anderson seconded to approve thisitem. Motion was approved.

The RCC Board recommended that the Commission authorize theExecutive Director to authorize the award of Metro GreenLine, Contract No. H0901, Platform Intrusion DetectionSystem to Mass. Electric Construction Co., the low bidder,who is a responsible, responsive bidder. This award iscontingent upon receipt of contractor supplied bonds andinsurance certificates, and resolution of protests, if any,filed in a timely manner. The contract award will be for atotal amount of #3,298,329. The commitment for this con-tract is as follows:

Total Contract Award10% Contract Reserve Fund(Excluded from Award):

$3,298,329$ 329,833

$3,628,162

RCC BoardMeeting Minutes -Page 9

12/7/92

22. METRO GREEN LINE - CONTRACT HO888, LIGHT RAIL RADIO SYSTEM

Mr. Sievers briefed the Board on this item.

Mr. Zuniga provided the following reasoning for rejectionof bids for Contract H0888 at Mr. Kruse’s request.Mr. Zuniga stated that there was a modification to thecontract language that was done incorrectly.

Mr. Zuniga explained that the RCC had established a specif-ic level of participation by the prime contractor and therewas an intent by staff to achieve a qualified prime con-tractor to oversee this work. It was determined that thecontractor would be required to complete 40% of the totallabor of the contract. This required modification of thecontract language. The bid forms were not correctly modi-fied resulting in staff’s inability to calculate whetherthe 40% participation by the prime contractor had been met.

Mr. Zuniga clarified for Mr. Murray that this was the firsttime RCC went out for bids on this item, under this itera-tion, that is. A prior contract had been issued for bids,but with a different set of specifications. Mr. McSpedonadded that the prior contract resulted in receipt of asingle bid for twice the engineer’s estimate and wasnonresponsive and subsequently rejected. Mr. McSpedonstated that this time several bids were obtained but, asexplained by Mr. Zuniga, there was a defect in the techni-cal provisions of the bid documents.

Mr. Camacho stated that the statement on Page 3 underFinancial Impact "...increased MBE/WBE participation andcontract work acceleration may result in slightly higherbid prices..." insinuates that doing business with MBE’s isa costlier way of doing business and is simply inaccurate.Mr. Murray concurred with Mr. Camacho and discouraged stafffrom this type of editorializing.

The Board heard public comments heard from:

Richard Corona, Attorney representing Steiny & Co.Dan Thomas, Amelco ElectricDr. Johnetta MacCalla, Amelco Electric SubcontractorDr. Eric MacCalla, Amelco Electric SubcontractorMarkell Frisco, Digital Corporation

Mr. Murray stated that in view of staff’s report today, itis apparent that there is no choice but to go out to bidthis item again. Mr. Murray stated that this item shouldbe added to RCC’s "Lessons Learned" file and offered anapology on behalf of staff to all proposer firms involved.Mr. Murray then moved and Mr. Camacho seconded to approvestaff’s recommendation. Motion was approved.

RCC BoardMeeting MinutesPage i0

12/7/92

The RCC Board recommended the Commission authorize the:

1) Rejection of all bids for the Metro Green Line (MGL),Contract No. H0888, Light Rail Radio System,

2) Advertisement of MGL, Contract No. H0889, Light RailRadio System with an accelerated bid and award sched-ule.

23. METRO GREEN LINE - CONTRACT NO. C0095, WAYSIDE INTRUSION

24.

DETECTION SYSTEM

Mr. Sievers provided a briefing on this item.

Mr. Camacho moved, Mr. Murray moved approval of this item.Motion approved.

The RCC Board recommended that the Commission authorize theaward of Contract No. C0095 to the lowest priced responsiveand responsible bidder, Moran Construction Company, for$9,269,512. This amount included the estimated base con-tract, allowance for Disputed Review Board and allowancefor damage repair work. Award is contingent on receipt ofbonds and resolution of any protest that is filed in atimely manner.

Total Contract Award10% (of Base) Contract ReserveFundTotal Commitment Request (AFE)

$9,269,512$ 913,451

$10,182,963

METRO RAIL PROJECTS - ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT(EMC), SELECTION TO AWARD SIGNAGE AND GRAPHIC CONTRACT

Mr. Rubin briefed the Board on this item.

Mr. Murray stated that the RCC Board previously adopted anEMC Subcontracting Policy and there have been one or twoamendments to the policy since then. The proposed awardingof this contract, while it may have been consistent withthe provisions first adopted, does not address the subse-quent amendments approved by the Board. More importantlythan that, stated Mr. Murray, there is still an LACTCaction pending with regard to the amendments.

Mr. McSpedon clarified for Mr. Murray that the originalpolicy was approved by the LACTC. The Commission directedthat the amendments to the policy go through the Planningand Mobility Improvement Committee and then to the Commis-sion for consideration. PMIC will look at the amendmentson 12/9 and, if approved, the amendments will go before theCommission on 12/16.

RCC BoardMeeting Minutes - 12/7/92Page ii

Mr. Murray pointed out that to approve this item would begetting out in advance of the Commission since the amend-ments to the policy haven’t yet been approved.

Mr. McSpedon suggested that the Board take action on thisitem contingent upon the PMIC action on 12/9, and theCommission’s approval of the amendments to the policy on12/16.

Mr. Rubin clarified that this selection does, in fact,follow the new criteria because during the process, theteam was modified to reflect the modified criteria whichrecognizes local employment, local economy and technologytransfer aspects. On a further positive note, Mr. Rubinadded that although the DBE goal was established at 25%,the goal was negotiated at 40% participation.

Mr. Murray moved, Mr. Camacho seconded to approve this itemcontingent upon PMIC/Commission approval of the EMC’s Con-tracting Plan/List of Subconsultants, Contract E0070 forMetro Rail Projects. Motion was approved.

The RCC Board recommended that the Commission accept theEMC’s selection of Cambridge Seven Associates and itssubcontractors.

Mr. Nagami pointed out that the DBE goal was not includedin the report. Staff was directed to amend the report toinclude this data for submission to the PMIC and Commissionmeetings on 12/9 and 12/16, respectively.

25. METRO RED LINE, SEGMENT I, START-UP READINESS

Mr. Stark provided an update on this item.

Mr. Stark stated that the schedule looks achievable at thepresent moment. Of course, the SCADA System problems muststill be resolved and two more railcar pairs must be ac-cepted by the SCRTD before we have 16 cars for service butthe schedule appears to provide sufficient time to workthrough these issues provided no major problems of anunforseen nature arise between now and the opening date.

26. METRO BLUE AND RED LINES: ART PROJECTS FORGRAND AND WILSHIRE/NORMANDIE STATIONS

Ms. Cusick provided a presentation on this item.

RCC BoardMeeting Minutes - 12/7/92Page 12

27.

28.

METRO RED LINE, SEGMENT 3TUNNEL ENGINEERING PREVIEW FOR HOLLYWOOD SEGMENT

Mr. Stark provided a presentation on this item.

Mr. McSpedon mentioned that on 12/9 PMIC is scheduled tochoose from an aerial line on the Ventura Freeway or aBurbank/Chandler subway San Fernando alignment. Eitherchoice will impact our project.

METRO RED LINE, HOLLYWOOD SEGMENTENHANCED CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. McSpedon opened up the discussion by providing back-ground on this project.

Mr. Miner provided a slide show presentation depicting thedifferences between cut-and-cover vs. mined tunneling ofthis project.

Mr. Lantz and Mr. Saldana briefed the Board on the detailsof the enhanced construction program.

Mr. McSpedon clarified for Mr. Murray, that to opt for thecut-and-cover method tunneling of this project does notpreclude us from using the mined tunneling method in anoth-er area of this project or future projects. Mr. McSpedonfurther elaborated that there still may be an opportunitywhere mining would be a viable approach under the right setof circumstances.

Mr. Lantz stated that the estimated savings of $20 millionin opting for the cut-and-cover alternative will not neces-sarily be used entirely for construction mitigation purpos-es although the LACTC is entirely prepared to spend what isnecessary to see the community through the impacts ofconstruction.

Mr. Nagami noted a problem in the format of this report inthat information contained in the attachment documentsshould have been brought forward in the report.

Mr. Anderson moved, Mr. Murray seconded the approval ofthis item contingent upon the PMIC’s approval of this itemat its meeting on 12/9. Motion was approved.

The RCC Board recommended that the Commission:

Adopt an enhanced construction mitigation program forHollywood Boulevard including those measures thataddress the community and business concerns expressedby elected the officials, residents, business people

RCC BoardMeeting Minutes - 12/7/92Page 13

and community leaders and as a result of comments atpublic meetings and hearings.

Construct the Hollywood/Highland station with enhancedcut-and-cover methods rather than with the mined sta-tion method.

29. CONSTRUCTION LOAN PROGRAM

Mr. McSpedon prefaced Mr. Porter’s briefing by saying thatthis is an item of major interest to the business communityimpacted by our construction projects.

Mr. Kruse stated that the potential for this program soundsgreat, however, the banking climate at the present timewill not give commercial loans. Mr. Kruse added that tooffer the program simply to have banks reject loans canonly make for disgruntled business people. Mr. Krusestated that the Commission must back these loans if theprogram is going to work.

Mr. Porter stated that this program is not contingent uponProposition A & C funds. In addition, Mr. Porter clarifiedfor Mr. Murray that the loan program will be available notonly to Hollywood and Wilshire Boulevard merchants butimpacted merchants anywhere along our construction pro-jects.

Mr. Anderson inquired whether the Commission has any inten-tion of asking the banks to defer payment of interestduring the period of construction, which conceivably willspan several years. Mr. Porter stated that the Commissionwill fund the interest payments until construction iscompleted. Mr. Porter affirmed Mr. Anderson’s understand-ing that the Commission will, then, be at risk for theinterest paid and therefore shares the risk with the bank.

30. MBE/WBE PROGRAM STATUS UPDATE

Ms. Walker provided a briefing on this item.

Ms. Walker stated that effective 11/1/92, the MBE/WBEProgram was put in place for all RCC procurements. Inaddition, stated Ms. Walker, there now exists an interagen-cy list of approximately i0,000 certified MBE/WBE firms.

Mr. Kruse stated that it appears a Board subcommittee mustconvene to work through how staff will manage the certifi-cation program. Ms. Walker stated that there is a plan;however, the plan will require additional staffing.

RCC BoardMeeting Minutes - 12/7/92Page 14

31. OPERATION SAFETY UPDATE

Ms. Meadows provided a presentation on this item.

Ms. Meadows stated that she anticipates requesting Boardapproval for increased funding in January, 1993.

28. PUBLIC COMMENT

The Board heard comments from Mr. Walsh.

29. BOARD MEMBER REQUEST FOR FUTURE ITEMS

There were no requests for future items.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

The Board adjourned to Executive Session to discuss:

Potential Litigation - G. C. #54956.9 (b)oContract No. MC001

Actual Litigation - G. C. #54956.9 (a)oParcel No. B2-217

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 4:47 p.m.

BONNIE VERDI"NBoard Secretary