look at fewer and the information is collected and put through a policy engine, that is a decision-making engine that informed by people and actionable information is placed to people who under crisis may not think as clearly as they otherwise might. so a security, piecing system which is what we believe through current application will be the standard in the future. and the opportunities for that to happen are embedded in the design now through the enhancement of conduit and above and beyond what was conceived of in the conceptual phase. >> one of the last areas of mitigation is this chemical and biological release, design has been greatly informed over the past five years, five years ago, the information from the sources such as our national

labs, sandia, argon mit, specific northwest, highly classified information, managed carefully by the federal government, not disbursed into the public domain, but because the threat for this as increased that information is now made more available and for 2011, rva assessment took advantage of that disclosure and the design was enhanced. what did that mean? we modified the intakes and added filter to take stuff out of the air. we improved the building perimeter, we have the event to close off portions of the building if there is an event outside of it, it does not get into the building with the same level of opportunity. we protected the security operation and fire command centers with additional filtration, why? we expect the people there to manage an event. they need to stay there longer than anyone else to get

everyone else out. so they need to have an additional protection to stay longer. and we had to install infrastructure and conduet and wire that at best this could have been a concept in 2009, but now has an opportunity five years from now could be installed with greater credibility. a few last slides. i talked a great deal with creating safe spaces. the building is not safe unless it can be safely operated when it is finished. that requires a very intelligence computer based network. which can collect information and provide actionable intelligence. and we are looking at a design in 09 that acknowledged that and we are looking at a design that is cap able of doing that and create a network in a way

that is cap able of managing future technologies that required some design revision. i will finish up quickly. and there have been significant investments if these enhancements are authorized beyond the building code, and they represent significant liability reductions. they represent the best industry standards of practice and care. they are essential in order to obtain safety act designation and certification and will assist you in additional funding and they will optimize the response and crime prevention in the future and the direction that we were given by the executive director was to create a national model for safe, transport and it will do that as well. lastly, and i realized that this can be a difficult slide. these are cities where transit centers and other critical assets have been compromised. we have the responsibility of making sure that this does not

happen in san francisco. these criteria are consistent with what is done in new york, boston, philadelphia and elsewhere. and the rva crisis will not just reduce the liability for the facility but create a great, safe place, bob is going to speak after me. and give you more insights into how each one of these nine categories that i have explained to you, and what the cost implications for those are. >> director metcalf. >> thank you for the presentation. chair, person, kim, i think that we need to take a moment to triage on this agenda. we are looking at a $214 million cost over run, so far on the project. we have heard an indepth part of 25 percent of this problem. i don't know if this board is going to try to go item by item

to second guess or push back on this or if we are going to just accept the 56.8 rda cost ad dish or whatever the number is and say that we have to focus elsewhere. we have to we have on the agenda to understand the rest of the cost over runs and what we are going to do about it or whether we are doing value engineering or talking about new revenue and also have the cal tran extension and it does not seem, we have a few other things. it does not seem like we can do all of this, i would propose that we think about triaging the agenda. >> do you have a motion director metcalf? >> i am not sure what to put off or what to focus on. but i would move that we... i don't think that we can do all of this with the... i have there is a lot of indepth discussion that we need to have about this presentation and also need to do a major

exploration of the downtown extension. i don't want to short change that and solve the $214 million. >> i just i have a suggestion. first of all for a clarification, it is not an over run and it is not $214, it is $164.5 million. and there is we have a presentation on how we are going to meet that. but, we have i know that there are some constraints of the board members and some of them have to leave by noon. and so what we could do is with the concur ans with the board secretary and council, we have item number 9 is an action item which we do need to take because that is going to the sfmta board and we need to approval first, item number ten is another action item. >> i do think that we can take the action items that i don't think that is a problem. >> we can't take those. >> they did it already. >> okay. >> i think that we should take

items number nine and ten today i don't think that they will be long. but we could continue item number eight although i know how hard the staff worked to get that presentation done by today. we may not have time. >> it is an informational item. >> right. >> maybe we could continue item number 8 to march. >> we could do that and then, if you would like we could continue the closed session also. >> i think can we continue the closed session to march? >> yes. so director, we could continue the closed session to march but i do think that we want to finish up the presentation on the budget, it is very important. >> okay, so with apologies to planning staff i see in the audience who i know have worked really hard on talking about the downtown extension i would make a motion that we postpone that in the closed session to the next month so that we can actually give some real attention and time to the dtx

issues. okay. >> so, several directors are telling me, so we do have a motion to continue item number 8, and item number... >> in the closed session item. >> number 12 to the march board. >> item 12 was an informational item and an update to the board and i know that we have the memo before us. >> why don't we get through as much of 7 as we can. we do have a hard stop, i believe by noon. so, if we get passed a certain point i may stop this presentation and move on to the action items, 9 and 10 so we could at least pass those out of this board. why don't we continue from item number 7 as is. so i believe that mr. beck. >> why don't we get a motion. >> do we have a motion and a second? >> a motion and a second. >> and we will take a roll call vote. >> continuing item 8 to march

and closed session to march. >> with that. director lloyd? >> aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> reiskin >>ite. >> ortiz. >> aye. kim >> aye. >> and so we will continue the downtown rail extension and closed session to march and go ahead and continue back to item seven. >> thank you. >> why don't we continue, mr. beck is coming up to go over, >> thank you very much. >> i don't know if you have any questions on the rva. >> i do but i am going to wait to hear the cost. >> okay. great. >> on the rva, he described the effort that went into the rva and the attention that was paid to each one of issues. in some cases that resulted in us doing considerable additional analysis that in some cases did not result in additional costs for

construction. and in other cases there were more substantial cost for construction impacts that perhaps did not prior the same level of analysis. but in the aggregate, these were all areas of focus, and attention during the rva process and as i mentioned earlier, aggregate, impact, or estimated impact on the construction costs budget is 64.3 as reviewed and assessed by the design team. so going into a little more detail working down the legend, which is on the right-hand side of the pie chart, and represented by the wedges within the pie chart which move in a clockwise fashion from the top. center from the 12 hour. the first issue was bus, train, and other fire event

management, we did do a note only with the subject matter, but in conjunction with the san francisco fire department, at the end of the day, those analysis did not result in significant modifications, to the design of those systems. some minor adjustments and the next category is perimeter protection as he indicated this is providing vehicle in particular at the transit center. and there are kind of three

major recommendations or recommendations within this. this estimated 9.5 million the first area of recommendation is moving the protective perimeter outside of the curb line to the other boundaries along the transit center as you extend the it the number of bolards increase, the vector analysis of the achievable vehicle speeds around the perimeter and that results in some bolards being recommended to be more robust and then the third area within the protective perimeter was the protection of areas that were not previously

protected, in particular, the bus plaza at the ground level, the introduction, to of operatable barriers to be able to close the bus plaza to through traffic in the event that we were in a heightened threat scenario. so those are the three bodies of recommendations that contribute to the costs and protective perimeter. in communications, represents about 4 and a half million dollars worth of recommended changes to the communication systems. one of the major initiatives within the realm of communications is the provision of a mass notification system in kind of an all hazards address system that includes not only communications within the building, but with

operators, with surrounding properties and with the public address and both visually and audibly and so forth. so the mass notification communication strategies is within that as well as the issues of audbility and that mr. ducibella had discussed throughout the system not only for public address, but for radio communications and so forth. >> nine and a half million dollar impact to the costs as well. these are our enhancements as i discussed earlier to the glazing system. the biggest impact here, is on the awning system around the building which had been injured to survive a seismic event, but

in doing additional analysis and in fact, some actual physical blast testing, some significant recommendations as would effect the design and performance of that system, and as i will mention a little bit later on, based on that information in part and the budget picture as a whole we are tasking the design team with taking another look at the design of the awning system. >> structural performance, there were a few locations where there was some minor enhancement recommended. this is indicated on the start as 0 percent, there are in fact, some costs less than half a million dollars worth of costs where there is some structural enhancement to the transit center. again, an area where we conducted exhaustive additional analysis on blast performance,

but one over all where the seismic performance of the transit center, the robustness of the structure because of the roof top park and the loads that it brings to the structure, we had a very robust structural design and only minor modifications were recommended or required. >> err pathways, roughly two million dollars worth of enhancements, recommended for the err pathways. these again are exit stairwells and the avenues for both passengers to leave the station and emergency responders to enter the station and so some minor hardening of those pathways based on a number of analysis. and pedestrian modeling that was performed.

and err supporting structures, now, they are supporting systems, the err supporting systems as he described encompass a wide range of systems. so, that includes both the electrical systems in the building, fire sprinklers in the building, and the network system in the building, that support the communications and the video surveillance and the other systems. roughly 17 and a half million dollars worth of modifications and changes recommended there, he highlighted a few. allowing generators to back feed from one zone of a building to another. but also a number of other recommendations relating to the power systems separating the routing of primary and

emergency power systems so that a physical interruption in a primary power distribution will not effect the emergency power distribution in the building so a great deal of redundantcy. we have a high level of reliability for those systems that support people exiting and emergency responsers entering the building. >> then, the situational awareness and intrusion detection, roughly 18 and a half million in that category. this includes as you are aware, video cameras, but also door electronic looking on doors and enhancement of electronic looks that were previously being provided. so locks and hardware and

additional layering of intrusion prevention and control of the security spaces of the transit center. as well as, enhanced video surveillance equipment and video surveillance coverage. then, finally, the cbrn category, again he described this, this is roughly 1 and a half million dollars, a lot, primarily on power, and conduit and signaling to support monitoring and detection systems. some enhancements in ventilation control and in physical barriers to allow us to protect people within the transit center from an event outside of the transit center, and to protect the building

venttation system as well. and so those are the cost category and the rough orders of magnitude associated with them. if you have any questions. >> we will speak to those categories in more detail. >> director metcalf? >> i don't first of all, very good presentation. second of all, i agree that we probably ought to be doing this. i would not personally think that this is the place to focus our cost-cutting efforts. however, we do need somebody to help us as a board know where we should focus if cost cutting is going to be part of this. i am curious how other boards of or other managers of major infrastructure get that second opinion on where to focus.

>> i'm looking at the head of the mta to see if he has any thoughts on that qstion. >> dr. reiskin? >> well, what, you know, for our major projects, our funder, contracts with a third party entity to provide oversight over the program. and it looks at a very detailed level at the budget schedule and scope and identifies areas where they have concerns. and that it is really protecting, you know, the federal interest in the project, for the... this is talking about where we have federal funding. but they are looking at the entire project. so, that is one place, you know, peer reviews it sounds like some of this was peer reviewed is another way to do it, i think that the point is well taken that for what i see as an expenditure increase of more than $200 million, this is

just a quarter of it. but when you say, maybe just this should not be the focus of cost cutting, we are not talking about cost cutting, we are talking about cost addition at this point. >> for right now as a board, i don't feel in a position to second guess any of these specific recommendations. >> if any of you do i would like to hear it. >> but that said, there may be other places where we have an opportunity to make some changes to the project to bring down the cost. >> so, i, if i may, i think that there is no question that we all want a safe building, safe from the various threats that face it. perhaps, seismic being the most likely threat and we want a strong resilient building and we want a he is esthetically

pleasing building and operationally viable building and so i appreciate all of the background and the references to all of the previous events. s notwithstanding that, i think that the art of engineering and project management is kind of dialing those things at the right level. we could make this building in penetratable and we could make it invulnerable to the 11.0 earthquake and we could make it the most beautiful structure in the world with each one of those decisions there are trade offs to be made. i guess that would be helpful for me as a board member is not to try to second guess, you know the different line items that we are developed with experts. but it is generally understanding how to think about dialing the right level here, this is 64 million dollars, additional, i didn't, i had the same question as

we have the building cost that is going just for this and maybe just the understanding comparables for other buildings, and spending ten percent of the cost, on heightened security that within the realm of reasonable and how do we see this facility relative to the world trade center? or grand center station? how are we kind of measuring ourselves? i think that it would be saying that it would be helpful for us and kind of thinking through, what level of 17 million dollars of the supporting systems, which is extra power generation. and reserve generation and reserve lighting and reserve fuel. and what is the right level?

and so i guess that i, in short i agree that for us to get, you know, i don't think that it is our role as a board to get into that level of detail but just to have a sense of are we setting this at a right level are we over shooting or under shooting, given the some what unique structure that we are talking about. >> if i could just add to that and i know that actually director ortiz and metcalf have additional thoughts as well. for me what is most helpful is getting an pdsing of what a variety of different packages would look like to make this a safe place to be and what each package would be. at 64.5, what are we looking at? at 40 million, what does that mean? i agree that none of us here are security experts and it is hard to us to gauge. i could say that the city has listed 8 do 10 million in terms

of the populations san francisco, roughly about 800, 900,000 people. it seems off to me and i am not here to second guess anyone either. we need to have an understanding of what a series of package costs and i think that it is a great idea to get certified. but by the safety act i think that it is important so i want to be able to do that. but as we talk about increasing the budget charge and 14 million, even though $50 million has been identified which is great, we still want to have an over all kind of birds eye view of everything and clearly the experts are here in this room to help guide us through that and director ortiz and back to director metcalf? >> yeah. all of this cost that you gave us, are for construction of

this protective improvements. when we are going to have to maintain this, whatever this computer system to this and that. and so that will be adding also to your month, yearly maintenance expenses. >> if anything it will make it less expensive. >> is it? >> yes. >> okay. >> because, well, because, you are going to be self-automated in many respects. >> all of the computer systems and the people that you need there. >> yes, i am going to need more protection. >> director metcalf? >> all right. i, really think that the question you guys are asking, about what is the right level, is it is the heart of the judgment call, and chair person kim i am really relating to your request that the board be

presented with multiple options rather than just one solution for the problem. i observed that we have $500 million left to spend and we are talking about $64 million of that, $500 million left to spend. if you believe as i know that you do, that this is the correct level of safety eninvestment, i am interested in being presented with options for how to reduce costs somewhere else in the project then, i'm also interested in having a discussion about multiple options on solving the revenue piece. some of these are robbing from phase two to shift the money to phase one, which is probably something that i would be interested in avoiding, but in both cases, on the cost cut and revenue side i am interested in the multiple options. i really want to pick up on director reiskin's idea of a third party oversight that

could report to the board with recommendations. >> thank you, for your comments. i think that director, chair person kim's question about what is the comparebility between san francisco and say for example, new york city? we can certainly come back and present to the board what they are doing relative to what we are doing and putting it in perspective with respect to the different population and so forth and we can give the director, directors and chair person kim that information. i can tell you right now, that they are doing it and at a much higher level of security than we are. the world trade center, building, for example, the station substantially higher level than we are. >> secondly we have not finished our presentation, but we are giving recommendation to bring the number of $64 million down to $56. so one of the things and one of the most expensive components of the station is the glass. the glass