>> they are laser cut and very simply cut and pressed. >> and one of the things that i don't quite understand is the differential just the slight differential, the 1 '8 different of stainless versus aluminum because one might think stainless steel is much more resistant, much less vulnerable than aluminum. why do you get such a small differential? >> some of it has to do with cost and if we use a stainless that is within our cost parameters. it maybe an increase that we have to resolve. stainless is more stable, as a material, it's a

denser material so we can use a lighter thinner gauge of stainless than we need to do with aluminum. aluminum is a more malleable particularly as it's being assembled. that's why the plate makes a big difference in aluminum because it's softer. >> so, and does some of the differential or the lack of the differential comes from a fixed plate? >> they need to be very flat. it's by and large extremely flat material. and if any distortion in the surface whether glass or metal at this scale of a building it's going to shown up assistantly instantly and that will be obvious. >> some years ago i was

involved in a process in chicago the cloud gate and the contract for the sculpture in the park. it was constructed locally. what amazed me was this machine that is also -- it took any place of metal even 3 '16 stainless and with the mathematical formula programmed into the computer would come out in both dimensions in an exact curvature that enabled the vision of having a perfect mirrored surface, 30 feet wide, a perfect mirrored object realizable. so, i'm wondering whether or not if you look at some -- what you would need a

very minor degree of curvature of cloud gate which is very complex in formulaic but it would seem if that would enable you to go down to a smaller -- i did some pricing on the differential and the difference between 20 gauge stainless steel and 16th aluminum because i didn't know what your factors were, it's about the assessment you can get stainless steel down to a price or even below what aluminum would be and if by putting in some curvature at the same time you can turn this surface into something more consistent and with the

mirrored surface at the same time restore some of the either realness. i would like to see that the notion of putting some curvature in enables differential between stainless and aluminum to a point where it would be considered. i think it could be just a remarkably beautiful beautiful building done in mirrored stainless in the same pattern. >> i agree with you and i'm going to oakland and meet that person and make that part of our research. absolutely. >> any other further comments or questions. i'm curious about the maintenance cost of keeping the panels clean and also if there is damage to it from whatever natural weather

controls there might be what the cost differential would be in the long-term between the aluminum metal or the glass? >> i think the metal frankly is going to be easier and less costly to maintain honestly. however there was always a maintenance program in the glass version and also line items in the budget for the operation of the transit center in general for the maintenance of the exterior wall. it's going to be easier to take care of. in terms of replacement, the panels on the corners can be taken down quite easily, in many ways less delicate than the glass. in all this is a more sensible fwolg building

to take care of in the long run. this is on people's minds, san francisco is lucky to have an example of dozens of buildings with metal -- we can see how they have been taken care of and aged. we are in the middle of that now. i think we are going to do the best version of this wall that one has seen in town. >> thank you very much, i have to agree. it's nice to see that a direction that we've taken in some ways both for safety and for cost reduction is actually something that is working out in a very lovely way and perhaps a stronger design for the building. so it's nice that the 3 kind of objectives are

nicely together. >> bringing what we have together so far. the design team is constructing the project and they have it deliverable to us on may 31st of this year on the over all transit of the center. as well as the glazing system package which includes not only the w 1 system but the specialty sky lights, glass floors and other systems in the package. we had originally issued that package for -- bid and suspended that process for the an allowing of the design of the w 1 system and we'll be actually folding in the remainder of the storefront glazing to increase the overall glazing component

of the package, but to resume the bidding schedule on that, we need to issue an addendum in june of this year to keep that process on schedule as part of the overall construction package and that's where we are seeking guidance on this change. the opportunity to reduce cost in the glazing package is a significant one. when we have completed the bidding of the first 5 major packages which include the skavgs, substructure, super structure, glazing and ceilings, we have locked in about 2 thirds of the value of the construction center. within those early packages, this system because of it's area, because of it's magnitude, presents a present unique opportunity for to us reduce construction cost in a significant way and that's where we are bringing forward

this recommendation. >> and bob, just to clarify, you are saying that we are looking at a saving of up to $17.5 million. >> $17. million is what we are working with. in addition we are looking to discuss the rba guidance area and design team to incorporate those changes for the packages prepared for may of this year. again, we have reviewed, the staff has reviewed the design guidance criteria with dvs securities and sme, the architect, the program

management team to identify the most cost-effective and practical means of fulfilling objectives and the guidance criteria. where feasible we have planned for the addressing of the design guidance criteria in phase 2 and we've developed estimates of the cost for addressed the design guidance criteria in phase one of the transit center construction. to ensure the incorporation of those design of guidance criteria, we are seeking an authorization from the board to direct to incorporate those changes into design. and we will be as i mentioned, evaluating the steel bid and coming back to the board with an over all on the budget phase 1 and looking for additional

revenue strategies. we are planning our revenue strategies on other funding opportunities to meet revised budget. it's important to recognize that in directing the design team to incorporate the design guidance criteria were not authorizing the construction of those changes or modifying the budget but the board would need to take action on a revising phase 1 budget before we reward packages that are incorporating those changes and we expect to bring a revised budget to you after further briefing the board. few words on the revenue

picture. as we mentioned in prior meetings we have identified 25.$25.million. those come primarily from the projected increase in land sale values but also from transit center district plan revenues and reflect $18.2 million in funds that were originally estimated for phase 1 budget from tax revenue and the sftca won't be available for phase 1 construction. the other revenue sources that we've identified as potential funding strategy for the adjustment in the phase budget would be to increase the loan

amount. we are beginning the dialogue with it to make those adjustments. that potentially could result in as much as $97 million in additional revenue to the program. sales tax that the programmed out in future years to phase 1, that would result in about $15 million in phase 1 funding. we have a pending grant through the one bay area grant program to fund pedestrian area for bikes just over $10 million and we are ranked highly in that process and expect to hear something later in this spring with the success of that grant. also potentially accelerating grants from phase 2, likely through a

no interest loan from one of our partners. the phase the can't be developed until actual phase 1. because of the restrictions of the use of land sale revenues, we are looking at this to construct only a relatively small portion of a half million dollars which would leave the bulk of revenue in excess of a million dollars in phase 2 and what we look to pursue in prs, tiger and other grant programs on the security side of things to further balance the program. when we bring a budget update and budget recommendations we've also bring you a picture of the

potential revenue opportunities. >> director, metcalf. >> director metcalf, thank you for the great presentation. bob, sorry i should know this, wlaets the what's the source of repayment for the loan? >> tax increment from the redevelopment areas. >> okay. the thing i think we need to be careful of is not robbing from phase 2 in order to pay for phase 1. whenever there is a flexible funding source that we think could be to phase 2 and use for phase 1, decrease the likelihood of getting the dtx done. of the revenue sources you have laid

out i'm unclear of where you fall into that category. we have to be careful. taking from phase 2, although you say it's a small amount, $10 million, is that already for the first phase? >> that was programmed out in fiscal year 34. it's unlikely available for phase 2 as well. >> okay. that's a relative small amount. the tiffa loan? >> there are two components to the tiff a -- loan. when we entered into agreement with the department of transportation, the interest rate was locked in at a rate that we thought at

that time was very attractive rate for the p g a, but as interest rate has declined, it's now below. so if we were to, if did i tive ya grease agrees to the new market, we are paying less interest in order to borrow greater amount. the second coverage is the ratio that they use in calculating the loan amount for which we can be authorized. the original coverage ratio was set at 3 times the coverage of the repayment with some of the land

sales, transactions now being concluded. there is a little bit more certainty from the revenue of that tax increment and from the second component alone is to request a reduction in the ratio from 3 to 2-and-a-half. >> the only dollar amount we are looking $3 to 2-and-a-half. >> the only dollar amount we are looking at is 10-and-a-half million from landfills. we can go for other pots if the city would be applying for other things that maybe munis needs or a dpw needs. at the end of the day, we have to stay on schedule because every time we delay or any delay is about 2-and-a-half million in administrative alone and we

have to build the station to get the trains in. we have to be helpful so city can be helpful. we are trying to recognize the realities of the needs of the city and try to go to our pots first. we don't have to do that. with your support we are going to prs and tiger spots and make the transbay a priority. it's a call . >> dr. harper? >> i understand the risk for the design guidance criteria, that this is what you have to do. we are mainly doing this on the advice of the risk and vulnerability of the assessment which is a reliability conscious here? >> there are several factors that play into risk and vulnerability in the process. the first is that we are

following a fema dhs for the assessment of what are called design basis for both natural and potential man-made threats that could impact the transit center. so we are following a federally established set of guidelines. the second component there is that it is from our assessment is kind of the standard of practice, the standard of care for a facility of our nature. and then the third component that you touched upon from a reliability perspective, is that through this prospect and the document of this process, we do intend to apply for a safety act certification, the safety act was passed in 2002 and it's a

federal program again to evaluate the design of systems and facilities to document the kind of again the standard of care being taken in their design from a threat perspective and make recommendations for the liability and insurance that those facilities should carry after certifying that adequate care has been taken in the design and establishing the limits of liability, the safety act caps the liability of the agency in the event of an incident to those in insured levels. >> and we are meeting the recommendation up to a hundred percent of the recommendation? >> yes. up to this point we are recommending whether there are elements that can be reasonably

fulfilled in phase 2, we are doing that but the guidance from the security team and our experts that have reviewed the material, all the recommendations they have made they believe the t gpa should implement over time. >> there is a lot of qualitative ideas on to what the whole thing is i'm sure. what i would like to be careful if not being in a situation when it comes to something like metal fatigue and things, it's an exponential thing. sometimes, for 50 percent of the cost, you can achieve 85 percent of the benefit because as you try get up towards a standard that's very difficult,

it just really -- i would just be interested in knowing if we might not be in a case where if we backed off from a hundred percent to something that i will phrase as more realistic, but i don't know, but in terms of something that could save us a lot of money, it would be interesting to know because you can safety yourself to death. and i don't want to be in a situation where we are -- and i don't know where these people are coming from. i don't know how much, what they are considering but i think it's worthy for us here in san francisco to take a look at and if we have the discretion to be able to back off from something that somebody else is saying, that if we have that discretion to at least look at the numbers and to see if there is maybe a significant savings from just of a minor backing off of that?

>> director harper, we have about a hundred million dollars. you have not been to the last two board meetings where we have gone over this extensively. there is no fluff here. we've looked at these numbers very carefully. we have taken everything to phase 2. we changed the gfrc ceilings to metal, for example. >> i'm fine with that, there is just one particular point on this issue of looking at this design guidance criteria >> that's what i'm referring to. >> to back off from the hundred percent all. that's all. >> i'm not sure, i'm sorry, bob. because you have presented at the last few meetings. i'm not snur we need to go through. >> i'm satisfied with that. >> the question still remabs

remains from other directors. you are not the only person asking that question. what makes it's difficult is that we are hearing from one consultant and it's difficult when we don't have a third party entity to show us the analysis of this is what is necessary. >> we heard from urs as the first consultant that did the design guidance criteria, that's consult no. 1, and we had consult no. 2 along with people like kevin dran, it's not just one consultant. maybe you can go over the list of all the people that have looked at this as well as the independent 3 rd parties that have looked at this to date. >> okay. thank you. yes, the

design guidance criteria were prepared by a security team from urs corporation security division led by denny's signs and acting by repeating repealing and designing with bob with security and bob from widely associates and kevin duran, and smoke and fire life safety issues. so we have a comprehensive team looking at the work product being parade

by urs. to say a few words of director harper's questions, the team first set out to establish kind of the level of importance and the level of protection for the facility as a whole and what was defined for our project was an ise medium for level of protection. so it's not the most stringent level of security protection, and the impacts for our project and the criteria for our project are influenced a lot by the intended design and operation of the facility that the facility is intended to be a very open facility, a transit

facility where people come to it expecting to come and go without delays and so forth. so some of the security implications or origination recognize those operational needs of the facility and are addressed surveillance and other issues, but a lot of the impact as i discussed at prior meetings are really what we would call multi-hazard design guidance criteria. there are many of the recommendations are in intended to ensure the continuity of operation of fire sprinkler systems, communication systems, power systems and emergency exiting pathways across a broad range of incidents. of course in the

bay area the first thing that always comes to mind is earthquakes but also potential man-made disasters. so that's a little more background on kind of the team composition and the kind of what was established as a basic line for the standard of care. perhaps bob could answer more questions. >> if i can ask a little bit about the process because maybe i misunderstand. my understanding was that more that dvs and u r s work together. are you saying that urs came up with the plan and dvs evaluated it? >> yes. >> they work in separate stuff? >> yeah. the work product we have is