order. would you call the roll, please, madam secretary. >> for the record director kim is in route. director gee, here. directorisis, present. director nuru, present. director harper, present as well. mr. chairman, you do have a quorum.

>> okay, we have -- next item. >> next item is communications and directors i'm not aware of any. >> and next item. >> item 4 is board of directors new and old business. >> no hands waving, next item. >> item 5 is public comment which is an opportunity for member s of the public to address the board on matters that are not on today's calendar and we have mr. robert, followed by mr. finebaum mr. robert? >> good morning, my name is steve roberts and i'm a member of the rail passenger association of california, a public transportation advocacy group. i thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning. because of the benefits of reduced automobile usage, fully leveraging caltrains

electrification project which thereby will increase caltrain ridership and its revenue performance and financial performance, also reducing green house gas misses, facilitating transit-oriented development, the extension of caltrain service to transbay terminal is one of our association's key priorities. any actions that delay this vital project and snarl it in endless planning reduce its operational flexibility or capacity are of a concern to our association. the rail passenger association of california recommends a focused effort to begin construction of the approved shovel ready extension to transbay terminal. thank you. >> mr. finebaum >> good morning, i'm bob finebaum, i'm a member of the citizen's advisory council, but i am not speaking on behalf of the council, i am speaking only

on behalf of myself. i'd like this disclaimer to be carried over to any other testimony i give this morning. the cac was supposed to have received a presentation from the planning department on the rail yard study on tuesday. that was abruptly taken off the agenda and i understand it was supposed to have been presented to you as well but is not on your agenda. this study is a feesibility study, it's part 1 of a 5-part study envisioned by the planning department. this part 1 is already 8 months overdue. it was supposed to have been delivered in june of 2015 and it's february and it still has not been delivered fully. anticipating that this is going to be the time lag in producing the results of the other 4 parts of the study,

we're looking at the possibility of applying for funding under their timetable of sometime in the middle of the second trump administration. now, as fiduciary duties of this board i think one of them is to see that the caltrain comes to the downtown terminal as quickly as possible. and i urge you to consider carefully what impact this protracted study is having on that goal. thank you. >> okay, that concludes members of the public that wanted to address you on this item. >> closed session? >> go into closed session. pursuant to government (inaudible) scheduled for discussion in closed session so we can go ahead and

. >> all right a, the tjpa board of directors of march 10, 2016 is back in open session and we will report on the announcement of closed session. i am pleased to report that the transbay joint powers authority board of directors has unanimously approved an agreement with f4 transbay partners for the tjpa sale of parcel f for 160 million in cash at closing and 115 in closing at f4 with the adjacent property at 540 howard and build on both parcels. f4 is a joint parcel, limited partnership, and affiliate of heinz and broad street principle investments llc an affiliate of goldman sachs. urban and heinz own a combined 10 percent. par tell f generally with a height of 750 feet sat last height in san

francisco for a super tall building and the last high rise with rights to connect to the transbay transit centers roof top park with a pedestrian bridge. the closing otd 160 million dollar sale will occur no later than the summer of this year. the proceeds of the sale of par tell f will be used for capital cost for phase i of the transbay project. the sale of parcel f is contingent on the oci board and *r giving f4 exclusive rights to negotiate a disposition and development agreement of fci for the purchase price of 4 million dollars. alternatively f4 may attempt to negotiate a fair market price market price pars3 with oc would retain absolute and xwlet discretion over every term of a disposition and development agreement with f4, other than price and the outside closing date, including project design

and a number and type of affordable housing units to be included in the development of block 4 so that the tjp and the city meet the requirements that 35 percent of the housing units built in the transbay district are affordable. parcel f is not entitled, f4 will be required to apply for entitlement from the san francisco planning commission. f4 currently plans to build up to 200 residential units in the parcel f tower in addition to two to three hundred hotel rooms apblds 250,000 to 425,000 square feet of office space. the number of affordable housing units in the parcel f tower will be determined by the planning commission and ocii that concludes my report out. >> next item, please. >> moving into your regular calendar, eye 1010 is authorizing the executive droetor to execute an agreement for independent auditing

services with varinek, trine, day and company for an amount not to exceed $144,000 for a period of 3 years. >> motion to approve and a second. >> are there member s of the public wanting to aye.isis, aye. director, five ayes, 10 is approved. 11 is approving an agreement with the california public employees retirement system to join the california employer's retiree benefit trust program. >> sarah is also here to answer any questions on this item.

>> yeah, what i want to know is what's the legal requirement for us here? post retirement benefits is killing ac transit, so i want to make sure before we get involved this is something we have to do. >> yes, tjpa does promise a portion of retirement, we do not cover dental or vision for most employees because we purchase our health care for active employees from caliper we fall under the public employees hospital care act, so under that we are required to pay the minimum towards retiree health care. right now that's $125 a month, it goes up a little bit every year based on the cpi, the medical portion of the cpi, so usually each year it's a 3 or 4 dollar a month

increase. we don't currently have any retirees eligible for this benefit, but if we did, we would be contributing $125 per month for that retiree for their health care premium. >> health care benefits for them. >> yes. >> is there a tenure requirement before you are eligible from day one, am i eligible? >> yes, you are eligible from day one, there is no vesting requirement, but to be eligible you need to be retired from tjpa and you need to have health benefits at the time you retire. >> what governs this agreement between the tjpa and its employees? >> individual employment agreements. >> i think the city a number of years ago in going to the voters changed its retiree health benefit vesting requirements such that i think it used to be immediate vesting then they changed it to 5 years

you are partially vested and kind of work up, i think 20 years or something to get fully vested. it seems like at least for new employees something that we should adopt here. i think that's been becoming a best practice. >> remember, we are under calpers, we are not under the city's retirement. >> it's not a matter of city or -- other calpers have done the same. we should explore vesting, we should benchmark against other cities or districts in the state. i think the city found that its liability was much -- it could manage the growth of its liabilities significantly by changing the vesting. obviously different for a 29,000 person organization than one that has a dozen people, but still a good practice. >> certainly, that's absolutely something we could look at for new agreements looking forward. we don't,

because we are so small, tend to hire very often but we certainly can take a look at that. whether new employees have a vesting requirement or not we would certainly still recommend pre-funding the liability through this trust. >> can we thin item for a month while we figure that out? because i would figure more comfortable if kupb sifrt stepbt with the city. >> we can. i would say those that making a change to the template of the employment agreement wouldn't change the agreement with calpers and it wouldn't change our liability. the actuary who did the valuation did so on a current basis, so only tjpa employees. employees hired within the next 10 years would be considerd on a new valuation. on a pay as you go basis is approximately $206,000 and on a pre-funded

bases at 6 1/2 percent discount rate is $40,000 less than that, so we certainly can make changes to our employment agreement template moving forward, but that won't change the amount of the liability that we currently report. >> i would feel more comfortable with knowing that was in place before i approve this agreement, even if it doesn't impact the doesn't impact the pars3 agreement itself . >> this time sensitive? >> we made to make the payment to calpers before june 30th. >> i'd say we can wait for that. >> continue this with that amendment. >> okay, next item.

>> continuing item 11 to the april calendar. april 12 is approving the minutes of the february 11, 2016 meeting. >> move approval. >> first and second, all those in favor. >> aye. >> seeing none opposed the special miplts -- minutes of the february 29 meeting are approved. 14 is a presentation on the operations study. >> in 2014, directors, ises corporation was hired to prepare an operations and

maintenance report. now that we've issued on march 4 it's important for the public and members of the board to see the assumptions that went into preparing the operations and maintenance study report. to that end i'd like to ask john thomas of ises corporation to come up and give the presentation for our phase i study. >> thank you, maria, and thanks to the board for having me. it's an honor to be a part of this exciting project so i'm going to present the operations and maintenance reports. again, my name is jonathan thomas, i work with ises corporation, i've been heading up the operations and maintenance planning operations for the past 15 years. ises is

a consulting and management firm that works for several municipalities, corporations, we're based out of atlanta but we work a lot in the pacific northwest. today we'll discuss the design of the facility and the impacts on maintenance, the methodology behind the report, the basis for the cost estimates, we'll have a renewal estimating then we'll talk about funding. for the transit center's design for a hundred year operation, to that end, durable materials have been selected, these are low maintenance long life cycle materials such as metal panel systems around the exterior, wear resistant surfaces sufrp as stainless steel on the interior, hard floor surfaces and high performance coating for steel which can withstand some flex.

there's a relatively low maintenance hvac system per square foot that incorporates natural and low energy mechanical ventilation up on the bus deck. the use of water source heat pumps distributes maintenance out and cuts down on the need for central utilities generation. utilities are submeters so tenants can be billed for their usage. we'll talk now a bit about the model in the report. these are the line items we estimated in the report. these came from some of them and we collected some of them as well. essentially the report is intended to present a total cost to the ownership model for

the tjpa all estimates foertd report are in current year dlars, contract or overhead is included but please note that the retail and tenant space is excluded because that's envisioned to be covered by the tenant. for the maintenance , janitorial and ground estimates we applied cleaning standards to come up with our staffing estimate. we applied localized 75th percentile wage rates to come up with the costs and this wage rate is expected to anticipate full union employment. driving the report are these service levels so this slide shows some quaul litative points on the service levels expected through the model in

the report. maintenance activities are estimated to be based on a comprehensive preventative maintenance program. for the janitorial, the surfaces are expected to look clean to most of the users. it's not expected to be maintained to a showpiece facility level, but it is expected to be a welcoming environment for users. same thing with the grounds, up on the roof park in particular, the grounds will appear neat, plants appear vigorous and disease and pests will be maintained upon observation. the security estimate, which denise will talk about in the second part of this presentation, is based on the 2015 conops report and

anticipated a mix of employees and police department staff. we applied estimated loaded rates. this also excludes the submetered tenant spaces and includes utilities such as electricity, water, sewer, fuel oil for generators and trash. information technology services were also estimated, including the two-way radio das, the virtual network license, data network service and basic data and telecom service. external service contracts that could potentially be managed directly by the tjpa were also estimated. this includes the phase i elevator and escalator maintenance, the mission square sculpture stability testing and the roof park landscaping which is going to be managed by the

installing contractor for the first two years. multiple insurance products and policies were also estimated by the tjpa insurance carrier. facilities renewal was also estimated. this is also known as capital renewal. and we estimated this in a similar manner to the maintenance, janitorial and grounds where we measured and counted building components and we applied localized life cycles and costs then we annualized 50 year costs by year to come up with an average annual cost. administrative costs were also included. these are to account for the normal operations of a facility such as this, so the tjpa management was estimated as well as an estimate for operations contingency and the operations contingency accounts for annual nruk waises in

annual o and m costs. so the basis of the cost estimates, we estimated by program component so we've got separate estimates for the phase i of the transit center, the bus ramp, the roof top park and we also included operations contingency and tjpa management. on this slide you'll see the estimated staffing required for each line item. 108 total staff anticipated, 73 of those are anticipated to be security and denise will expand upon that. so in the tjpa line agent item it is anticipated these services will be covered. these are normal services expected for an organization such as this managing a facility such as the transbay

transit center. and i will talk a bit about facilities renewal. examples of facilities renewal costs are, these are the costs to renew the life of systems and components of the building. so when systems and components reach their, the ends of their economic life cycle, that means when it makes more sense to replace them than it does to maintain them, these are examples of those points such as interior lighting replacements, switch gear replacements, multiplex pump system replacements. in 2053 we have a big spike in supply piping networks, park level skylights, for instance, then in 2058 we have a large spike when major systems are going to be smraited for renewal. this klus the hvac networks , the electrical networks and the drain pipe systems. the

reality is these replacements aren't necessarily made on a one-time basis for the whole facility, they are typically phased in as needed so the costs are actually smoothed out a little bit more than we might model. we'll talk a little bit about funding at this point. though the confirmed operating revenue covered the operations and maintenance costs, 4.7 million from the legacy rm2 fund for the old transbay transit center, which will be covered over, also community benefits district will be putting in approximately 1.5 million, so currently around 6.2 million is confirmed annually. other anticipated operating revenue to close the gap from the master lessee retail rents will be coming in,

the use of the promotional platform will generate some revenue for the tjpa as well for advertising, the master lessee will kupb tripbt to the operations and maintenance costs for certain portions of the facility which they will maintain such as the ampi theater and the grand hall. rents will also come in from greyhound and amtrak for spaces dedicated to their use. contributions are also anticipated to come in from the transit agencies that will be using the facility including ac transit and sfmt, lastly it is an ticipated that the legacy rm2 fund can be increased to help cover the gap. does anybody have any questions about the operations and maintenance portion of this presentation? >> good.

>> obviously we will wait and hear the security plan. looking at the staffing plan, i just wanted to get a better sense, i look forward to that presentation. the master lessee, have you run any numbers behind the scenes to get a sense of what that revenue will look like? >> he didn't do that but the consultant that put together the matter of facter lessee rfp did but that's for our information to look at when we get the responses. >> just to get a sense of wra -- what you think that revenue will be. when you are talking about security on the sfpd, are we talking about actual police or a --. >> the security police, you will hear about that in a moment but working with the san francisco police department we looked at two models and denise will talk about that. one was

all sfpd and one was a hybrid of sfpd and a security company. >> one of the things i think our master lessee has we are making payments to the master lessee for its efforts and i don't see that in here. >> mark will address that with our pmcp team. >> can you repeat the question? >> yeah, as i understand it, our rfp's assumed that the master lessee would be reimbursed. >> correct. >> for certain of its xwepbses. >> that's correct. >> and i see we've got revenue in here anticipating coming from the master lessee or i don't know if it's real revenue or if it's in kind services, but con trib because for o and m for areas of responsibility. but it's a two-way thing here

and do we have our part going to the master lessee in these numbers? >> no, these numbers, the deal, when the deal comes out from master lessee it will be structured in different ways so we're not sure what we will get back but it will all come out in the end. >> in our rfp as i understand it, the idea was to have the master lessee do a lot of the maintenance of the building and things like that. >> they are going to do all of it, yes. >> for which we were going to pay them. >> correct. >> reimburse a lot of what their expenses were. >> correct. >> so this, this is an all-in, an all-in study, as i understand it. this is what operations and maintenance of the building p will be. >> most of this money is going to go in our payments to the master lessee, at least a lot of it. at least the o and m part. >> we anticipate owing some to

them but we're not sure what that number will be. >> they're going to be doing a lot of this stuff. >> all the janitorial and maintenance estimates, yes, correct. i would just add that when we do get the then we start getting a sense of what the expenditure side is looking like, i think it's going to be not just looking at the revenue side but the expenditure side too. we're going to have to look at what we can afford and whether we can afford odor-free bathrooms. we may have to adjust. >> 108 people? >> right, the security side which is one of the big cost drivers. >> that's right. >> i think this is an idealized state which we hope we can get to but we may have a budget that we have to live within. >> that's correct. thank you and now i'd like to ask denise heinz to yum in and present the security component. >> good morning. >> oh, i think you have to call it. i'm sorry, that's a

separate item, even though they are pulled together in the presentation. >> item 15 --. >> that concludes item 14. >> sorry, mr. patrick. >> mr. patrick would like to comment on item 14, is that right? >> (inaudible). >> that's right, okay, go ahead, denise. >> okay, so we're talking today about the --. >> it will come back. >> about the security staffing plan. it obviously goes into your budget here. i'm talking about the benchmark, how you came up with it. the benchmarks we used were transit authorities throughout the united states, also included chicago in the mix. it is designed to provide safe, secure, clean environment, welcoming environment, for visitors for the commuters and retail. we came up with two staffing

models. one is primarily heavy with sfpd, you can see this is the heavier model that we have. the second model we are recommending is primarily staffed with contract security guard services, 8 hour shifts, three shifts per day. the transit agency going to operate primarily 5 am to 1:00 am, some areas will property 24 hours a day, busses coming in. operating dawn to dusk however there will be extended hours for any events scheduled for the park and certainly the dining. we want to talk about the staffing plan now and how we came up with it so you understand. it was done in complete coordination with, informed by sfpd, they have bought into this so it's going to run by you now. train platform, phase i, we have no staffing in there.

it's not going to be operational. lower concourse, the western half of this particular area will be accessible. the eastern portion of it is where the security operations center is. you'll have back up housed space there, o and m operators, et cetera. we have come up with a particular number of staff in there, sfc supervisor, sfc operators, shift supervisors will primarily be housed in the security center. shifts 1, 2, 3 is a little shifts 1, 2, 3 is a little bit different ground level is heavy up front, sfpd asked us to do that, that we have a particular security presence there to help people provide wayfinding, help them find their way up to the park,

commuters, retail, food court, et cetera. we expect this will be adjusted going forward and i'll talk about that in a minute. again, this is designed to provide a safe, secure and clean environment in a preventative manner as opposed to after the fact. the second lef -- level of the building, i suspect we will be moving a couple people around here. we have roving patrols, the food court may require you have some other individuals up there, mostly looking at conventional crimes, not looking at anything absolutely difficult here. the bus level has minimal personnel, this will be primarily for commuters so you don't need a lot in here but you do need some staffing. the roof park, i suspect we'll be moving people from the ground level up to the roof park once you are operational and you can see what issues you need to address. that will probably happen after the fact. you've got a, i want to say

after the fact, i mean after you are operational. you have your rolling patrol, bicycle, segue, what have you, we're not quite sure what that will be. the staffing model, the summary, it was designed so that the chief security officer, who will be coming on board in january 2017 and your security staffing, that will be put out for rfp in january, 2017, it can be adjusted up and down, back and forth. you can make adjustments where you need people. the cso will be able to do that once they determine choke places during commuter events, you will move have roving patrol, this stationary here, here, you can move them difrplt levels. you can also increase or decrease level of staffing but we have given best practice throughout the united states and again with states and again with

sfpd's buy-in it's preferred for all industry, you don't want them to work for the security guard company, has to do with a lot of conflict of interest. we can adjust this back and forth depending upon the mou's that are negotiated with the other transit entities if they provide more folks to come in and support this. again based on operational issues during your first six months. and that is all i have on this. are there any questions on this specifically? >> steve? >> yeah, i have a question on this. who has detention powers? which of these people, your rovers, your stationary, i know sfpd has detention powers. >> yes, we call them. >> so you've got, of these 73 people here, you've got two

that can actually detain somebody. >> arrest and detain, sfpd they have instructed us that should we have issues like that where you've got something that requires their presence, we call them immediately and they come in and arrest. >> uh-huh. >> they only provided us, initially the heavier model was to have additional sfpd, they say they can't afford additional sfpd, they don't have the resources. they asked us to lower the sfpd contribution to two individuals and the instruction is call them, they will come. remember we do have the sfpd kiosk there so they will be nearby. >> well, what i'd like to see some notion of here is an idea of what incidents we expect, what are we doing? what stuff -- at some point, say okay,

well, here's stuff that we -- and this is how we'd handle it and this is how we'd handle it. because i will tell you frankly some of these 73 people to do security in this building i find kind of overwhelming. >> we've got 33 per shift, 33 shift --. >> oh, i can read the chart. >> i can address that in the con ops i'll be addressing later this morning, the how, why, what, when, that's in the con ops i'll be addressing for you later today. >> okay. >> question on the benchmarks. i can understand benchmarking against stations, it seems like given that phase i is bus terminal that bus terminal benchmarks might be more appropriate. i less understand large transit systems as benchmarks. can you explain how you chose the benchmarks and what you learned from the benchmarks? >> we looked at large

transportation agencies. marta has a large transportation agency but what we looked at is their large transportation center in atlanta. for the rest of these port authority we looked at very specific main transit agencies for them, what those transit centers were. grand central station, the station, obviously, world trade center, what's there. what we did was we asked them a number of questions about how the transbay transit center would relate to their operations. i can share with you that they, each and every one of them uses a different mix of security. none of them use security guard forces like hired guns, they all use dhs, they use viep err units with the canine units, the dogs, i think marta was the only one that said they had two security

guards that were hired and that had to do with pac we talked about this earlier, this is draft to oranges, you have to find some middle ground. there isn't any transit center in the united states that uses security guard services as we're intending to do. we're the only ones who aren't licensed to carry weapons or to arrest. so we're using sfpd to do that. >> in your benchmarking did you account for the volume of people that flow through? >> yes. >> i don't think that what we're building in phase i is comparable to port authority bus terminal in that's what you mean by the entire port authority is what you benchmarked on. i don't think it's equivalent to grand central or grand central is not -- you mentioned it but it's not on your list here. i'm trying to understand how you got from whatever you learned in the benchmarks how you applied it. i see the list here, still don't understand

transit systems, how they are benchmarks and i don't understand how you then scaled for what we're building, which is a bus terminal much more modest than some of these which also has a very heavy retail component which is, not sure if any of these have. >> well, none of them have parks, in the furs place. none of them have an he will elevated park. each of these entities staff similar to how we've staffed. for phase ii for the transit center, we only go up by 10 positions, actually. only 41 as opposed to 31, i believe. so sfpd looked at these numbers, sfpd said, no, this is what you need. they want a show of force initially. now, that said, we do have room to adjust once you are operational. if you don't need 33, then we back it off. your

cso will determine that once you are operational. >> yeah, i find that kind of interesting. to me this is a whole different terminal when we get the rail in and do it in phase ii then it will be -- we do have some comparisons right now. we have a temporary terminal that's operating with a certain amount of security. >> doesn't have an elevated space, it doesn't have roof top --. >> i know, but you are going from 3 or 4 people in security to 73. >> uh-huh. >> yeah, you know, you're going to have to come and do that. to say we're going to start out big and then back off if we need to, i can understand a certain amount of immediate presence but, you know, it's a shopping center and it happens to have a bus terminal and a park on the top of it and i think we need to analyze them from existing local things that happen around the area, you

know, in terms of downtown san francisco in those 3 comments because i agree with director rifkin, it's over the moon. that handles more people than bart does in its entire system. those are huge passenger loads and eventually we're going to get some really big passenger loads but originally the passenger loads won't be that big and we will be trying to work with the security that the shopping center tenants bring in themselves. so, okay. >> it is best industry practices. sfpd has endorsed it, has bought into it and approved it and basically said go and have a, make sure you have secured the place, you prevent, you prepared a safe welcoming environment that people feel safe in so that when you have phase ii, when you have the trains in, you still continue along.

>> if i were sfpd i'd say the same thing. you know, i'd say, my gosh, you need 130 people around there and security guards all the time, don't bother us. so --. >> thank you, i appreciate it. >> thank you, chair. >> you started to answer the question i was going to ask with your last comments and as this moves forward, security means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. when you put this model together there were certain performance characteristics that you want to happen here, safe and welcome. can you take a moment and expand what safe means, what welcome means, what kind of performance measurements or outcomes are desired from, you know, this vendor? other than providing

73 staff, 3 shifts, things like that, what are the more characteristics or outcomes desired by having a staffing model of this level? >> most of those are covered in the con ops i'll be addressing later this more than. there are performance measures in there for how, why, what, where, and the level that goes into it. i will be addressing that a little later this morning. >> i think that's an important part of the conversation that hasn't been touched on yet. >> absolutely, sir. >> thank you. >> just checking if we have member s of the public that wanted to comment on item 14. we do have mr. patrick. >> thank you very much, jim patrick with patrick and company, san francisco. we made in the first report an allusion these would all be union workers and we would pay

the highest price. as you know my position on that, we did that with the employees we built the transit center with. bart embraced the same notion and we see what we've got with the bart people. i suggest we want to find the best people, union or not union. and i think we're going in the wrong direction there. no. 2, relative to the funding, one thing we haven't talked about is a charge on each individual that passes through the terminal as part of the ticketing process. this is the way we really ought to be funding the dtx also, everyone who comes through the dtx should pay $2. it wouldn't be a separate toll but would be built in the charge that caltrain or the bus operators would have. that's a great funding source and we seem to sweep that funding source under the carpet and we never talk about it but it's a funding source for the operations and it's a funding source also for

the dtx last thought, you always look at the property owners, which is myself and the neighborhood, to do all this funding. and i'm saying, like the police department is backing off, hey, wait a minute, let's find another funding source to do some of these things and i think it's reasonable. they are the people also receiving the benefit of the transbay depot. thank you. >> you want to handle that? >> well, mr. patrick brings up a very good point on the passenger facility charges. absolutely when caltrain and high speed rail come into the center they will be paying a passenger facility fee or charge as ac transit and certainly greg if you'd like to address that. >> i was going to say, good idea and it's already been done. >> when we meet with sfmta and golden gate transit we'll be asking the same. >> that was item 14, move into 15, safety and security operations for the transbay

transit center. >> denise will also report on this item. >> here is the how, why, where and when on the concept of operations. the concept of operations is a large compendium of documents. they are designed to prevent, mitigate and respond to events regardless of the event that goes on, normal day-to-day as well as exceptional conditions. it is safety and security operational efforts to deter, delay, prevent, detect before a bad event happens. so it would be normal as well as anything that comes in that's an exceptional event. what we have here is the components of these documents are very complicated and i'm not sure that we'll be able to answer all your questions today, we

can do some of these in closed session a bit further. some of these documents include the training, how you will be trained to do, to respond, the security staff will be trained, what kind of exercises they will do, how they will do them, how often they will do them so they are prepared for any events. certainly the staffing, what we expect of the staffing, plans and any response actions and we'll talk about that in a little bit here. again, the concept of operations compendium is best practices for transit agencies throughout the united states with a little bit of additional support and we'll talk about that in a minute. the concept of operations are informed by and have been shared with sfpd, sffd and other response agencies. there is considerable master-lessee coordination. we will have one of their

individuals working with us in the security operations center should the building need to be shut down or portions thereof depending on the particular event. safety and security, clean environment, inviting for, again, the commuters, visitors, retail folks, park, any you can think of, the con ops are there to, they are in the background so that it doesn't look like a very, very heavy -- this isn't a military facility. this isn't a prison, it's a transit center, it's a public facility and the con ops are also reflective of that. i'd like to note the situational awareness does not only include, it doesn't only include cameras, cctv, there's a certain amount of situational awareness that is required for let's say eyes on a situation. critical to the department of

homeland security safety act certification and designation and any future federal funding for grants, state and local funding for grants, these documents were based on department of homeland security national security, the nims, without the organization of the documents in this manner you will not be able to achieve the safety act designation. the con ops itself provides a strategic framework. it is, again, the who, what, why, where, when, the level of details for anything that you can think of in terms of day-to-day normal operations as well as extraordinary events. example would be off the top of my head, a lost package, a lost child, way finding, somebody who has gone into a place where they shouldn't be, there's a

particular event there you need to evacuate the building, the con ops lays out every single thing for how you will do what you will do and the security guard force will have to comply with each and every one of these. the security officer will provide the oversight to make sure they do what they are supposed to do and they adhere to the con ops. again, con ops are supposed to delay, deter, and act accordingly. x happens you do y again, this is before the -- they are designed so you have everything laid out before an event occurs. the chief security officer will have the flexibility to adjust the con ops one way or the other upon the operation of the facility. again, your chief security officer will come on board in

january 2017 and the security guard service rfp will be out in january 2017. this is a list of all the documents that are in the con ops. you can see that, and this is just the initial con ops plan under the circumstances self, everything that would go into the details of who is involved, how are they involved, how do you coordinate and work with them. an example is the site-wide communications plan, section 2.1. it's not only for the site-wide communications plan for the ttc, it is also sfpd, any response agencies and any state emergency response should we have an event of proportion and scale. the functional annexes, which are a part of the con ops plan, these are critical to that department of homeland security safety act and for grant funding. these are the nuts and bolts of what it is you will do in terms of an emergency response plan and an

incident action plan. an incident action plan is what is the incident, how will you respond to it, what is the time, who will you call, how will you resolve this issue? so it's an incredibly complicated approach to organizational response and how you will do things. the support annexes are a little bit different. they obviously are supportive of the whole program. the functional annexes -- this is critical to the whole organization, to the document. when implemented the con ops will contribute to the plan the master lessee will take on for managing the security, transit, retail, et cetera, and will also contribute to the tjpa application for safety act designation. it's a very comprehensive gutenberg bible, if you will, and while i'm going over this in broad, broad manner, should you wish to see

the nuts and bolts of it, the documents of it, we can do that as long as it's not a public forum. >> why is that? >> because you don't want to tell people what you're uer going to do to defend something so they can figure out how to work around it. >> oh, okay. >> any questions? >> might, just for the record, if you could state who you are and what firm you are with. >> i'm sorry, i am denise heinz, with ae com, i conducted the risk and vulnerability assessment and now i'm associated with the con ops that they are writing for. >> i hope you keep in mind this is san francisco. >> i got it, sir. >> i'm glad to hear you say all of this stuff is going to

be essentially invisible but i'd like to see, like i say, i mentioned this a couple of meetings ago, you weren't at it, but at the time at least in the next -- ac transit can buy all the busses it possibly can to bring all the passengers that it possibly can here, this terminal is still going to not have as much flow through as just embarcadero. so the con ops for something at embarcadero station, just my opinion from events that would be, you know, criminal in nature and fairly extensive, you don't pick on us. you don't pick on this. you've got much, much better targets. >> thank you. >> this is not a question for you but for staff, is there some sort of timeline on

approval on the plan that's before us? >> this isn't, this is just an information item. >> i know, but that's why i'm asking, is there a timeline for approval? >> this is just a recommendation that will be put forth on the security team that will be brought on. you can implement it or not. >> when would that be? >> the rfq is january 2017. >> so we have some time to provide feedback on this. >> i think the first thing is hiring this first dude. will that happen before january 2017? >> which dude? i'm sorry. >> it would be early 2017. >> early 2017, okay. >> i mean i have to concur with my board members, this is overly aggressive and ambitous. i couldn't support something like this so i hope we spend some time really tearing this down over the year before it goes out to rfp >> yes. >> i would also recommend you

talk with the sheriff's department. the sheriff's department --. >> we have. >> and do you have any numbers from them? >> the sheriff's department said they really didn't want anything to do with this and to sfpd >> who from the sheriff's department doesn't want --. >> i'm sorry, i would have to go back to my notes but we sat down and talked with them. >> they seem to do a really good job with buildings, city hall, our hospitals. >> understood, but they said this was not their jurisdiction, it was under sfpd's jurisdiction and they would go with whatever sfpd said. >> whatever the supervisors say. >> don't sound right to me. >> just to clarify to director kim's point, will this board have an opportunity to review the rfp before it goes out? >> yes, yes, the security rfp, yes. >> i think we'll want -- i think what i'm hearing and

speaking for myself, if the rfp comes to us for approval and it has this level of staffing we're probably not going to be ready to approve so we probably want some time between now and whenever you are going to bring it --. >> absolutely. >> something more comfortable. >> all we can do as staff is provide a recommendation. all the security experts can do a provide a recommendation. we certainly don't agree this is not a target, we think it could be, it will be iconic and even in phase i with the busses there will be a lot of people coming in because of the beautiful park, remember the park is 5.4 acres, the station is a million square feet. we have the tallest high rise in the city that will be connected to it in addition to two other towers. all we can do is make recommendations and the board can decide what it wants to do. we will bring the security rfp before and give ample time.

>> i'm not, this is not my area of subject matter expertise. i'm very cognizant of the different viewpoints. is there an opportunity to convene a peer review panel like we did for the master lessee to look at this and advise us rather than having us weigh in. >> that's a great idea. >> i don't know who would be involved with that, but i would feel more comfortable with peer review rather than us trying to dictate staffing levels on security. >> that's a great idea and what we would recommend is the emergency responders, sheriff's department, police department, fire department, the city's own home land emergency management service agency, certainly the transit agencies have security chiefs that they would want to provide us as part of peer review, the various consultants that work with denise and others, maybe we can have other people. i think it's a great idea. >> i just have to, we are

already reaching out to all of these people via this. the peer review committee should be other entities similar to a terminal. the security shouldn't be the peer review team, it should be other securities like this that are providing peer review on how they do security. as director harper already mentioned, of course sfpd is going to tell us to do the maximum security. that's in their interest, also they want to make sure that they are providing the most careful advice. we should be asking other entities that have similar facilities to advise us on what they do. >> we could do that, that's also a good suggestion. the heads of grand central and other places on the east coast, the west coast, we will look at that. >> as well as you probably reach uet to apta and ask them for a peer review panel, which is the american transit center.

>> no member s of the public wishing to address you. 16 is a resolution to enter into a enter governmental agreement with the city and county of san francisco. >> there is no intergovernmental agreement attached to this resolution. this item was put on the agenda by director reiskin. i've always been about protecting the public interests and the tjpa and it would have been better if there was an intergovernmental agreement attached to this and i wanted to mention the importance of this agreement which will be a construction intergovernmental agreement between public works and tjpa so that it ensures consistency with existing laws and regulations, existing contracts, tjpa policies, procedures, good government practices, making sure there

are controls on any decision making authority delegated to public works, control relating to compensation of public works, ensuring this is allocation for risks for acting and officials of public works, ensuring protection of the tjpa's existing rights relative to confidential information and attorney-client privilege. this is all just government practice. i understand the city attorney is looking at a draft of a construction upb ter governmental agreement and i've been told i'll be getting comments back on what was provided. that's all i wanted to say. >> so i appreciate that and i presume that the executive director concurs that everyone sitting up here believes in transparency and guarding the public interest, which is the purpose of bringing this resolution forward. it is now 4 months ago back in november when this board indicated a sdair desire to bring in

resources to ensure this project here will have seen an almost 40 percent increase in costs can be delivered at this new higher, greater than 2 billion dollar price tag that we are now contemplating when we approve a final budget. i think there was unanimous concurrence from the board that wae do so. i think there's been some efforts and some progress so far but 4 months later, i don't get the sense that the board is positioned to have the kind of oversight that we all agreed we needed back in november and it was brought forth in november with some sense of urgency since we are in the peak of construction, now another 4 months has gone by. while i think the intergovernmental agreement will certainly be helpful and i'm trusting that the staff will be able to work in good

faith and constructively to get to an agreement, i believe putting forward this resolution now is important so that the board's will as expressed back in november can, 4 months later, start to be realized and i believe there are some amendments that will be offered for consideration. >> okay. yeah, i think that this is something that we definitely have been moving to a long time. speaking of conflict of interest, one of the things i want to get from this board tonight is i have mentioned in some email to ed that i sent to ed, i'm not sure that the executive director is not in a conflict of interest in doing the negotiations. and that's one of the things i'll take, you know, feedback from the board members individually

on, but i said that to ed and it's obviously a concern of mine. i basically think that the general counsel and one or two board members should be probably doing this with the city. the other thing i would like to basically indicate from the city is that ed and i were meeting a couple of days ago with the controller on the financing thing and he mentioned that the degree of -- he had his own interests, non-construction wise, in terms of ensuring that the city of san francisco would be taken care of and repaid given the amount of money they were putting in and it would go beyond the existing mou as i have seen it. so i would just ask the city of san francisco when they come with this mou,

come with an mou as complete as they want it to be and that the city coordinate and say, okay, each department and whatever comes up so we'd have an mou that -- i don't want to have this board approve an mou and then have the next month or two months come in and city says, well, here are some other things we'd like to do. i think we need to look at this as a bundle, one time. i think the city has everything it thinks, everything it wants to do. that's my sense about it. so do we have the resolution before we have an mou, right? that's all it does. >> i'm going to, i've said this before, i'm going to milk this as long as i can. i don't have the same history as my colleagues up here do. this is

a major change, it is a major project. what is missing for me when i read this, and maybe it's going to be in the intergovernment relations or whatever it's called, agreement, is this change is being made for a reason. but i don't understand what the metrics are going to be for dpw in terms of how we know they are going to be successful. there's an implied, we're going to complete this project on budget, whatever that budget is, we're going to complete this project on schedule, whatever that schedule is. if we're going to evaluate success, what does success look like? and for me this is more of a preamble that leads into those metrics and those agreements and it's hard for me to understand as the new guy what those metrics are because they are not spelled out here. i mean, what is the number? if we're going to manage this to the budget, what's that budget

number? i mean i don't know. it's not in here. and hopefully an intergovernment agreement it is spelled out so that we will know as we move forward every three months or six months we're tracking to that. because my sense is the board and everybody involved has been surprised throughout the period of this project, this effort is to mitt dwait any future surprises, get this project done, whatever done means and that won helpful is to have a definition of what done is, so that we can all agree in 2017 it was a great project and we achieved a, b, c and d by doing this. and for me not having a history that many of you have and just reading these three pages there's a part missing about what success looks like, how we're going to measure it, what the arguments are and things like that. i don't even know if this is a cost neutral

agreement. is it going to cost more, cost less, cost the same, so i would hope some of this would be spelled out in that next agreement or next document. >> that's precisely why director gee had -- director rice we're a victim of our own success. it has nothing to do with any mismanagement or malfeasance on anybody's part, but everybody just wanted to be near the center and the first big hit came in when we put out the s for steel and that was by far one of the biggest line items and that is purely market driven. i think it's important to clear that up for the record. you also indicated this was approved, the first step in the

process was approved in december and now we're 4 months later. at your request we transmitted an intergovernmental agreement a long time ago. we received no comments from anyone. we have been waiting for comments from the city attorney so it's not being held up on our end. i just think it's important we are clear, we're transparent and i respond for the record. >> i agree, director gee, i think we know what the budget numbers will be because we have to go and ask someone else to provide us money for that project we haven't been able to approve one yet. but based on mjta's recommendation and staff's concurrence we know what the target budget is, we know what the target completion is and those are the primary metrics i think we should be evaluating ourselves and any agreement or anything else that we do on. for the record we

can bring back the mtc report, i think there were other factors at play other than the market and i think our getting to the market when we did, which was much later than what was originally anticipated, is a large part of the issue. so i don't know that it's constructive to debate that here. we can certainly re-review that report if we think that's important for the record. i'm sure there will continue to be a lot of analysis of this project. i think that all that we were trying to do as a board and it was in november, i believe, not december, was to bring in any resource we could that would help deliver this great project on time and on budget. and there was unanimous or there was at least majority support of the board to do that. just really want to consumate that and make sure we're getting the value so that we can all share in that success at the end of

the 2017 that we have a good project that was opened on time and at what will be a revised budget. perhaps it would be helpful if we asked the public works folks to come up. >> are they here? >> they might be able to speak to some of this, they may also be able to speak to amendments they want to suggest. >> good morning, board members, director, my name is edgar lopez, i am the city architect and director of public works. i want to comment on an item being discussed at the moment and recommend an amendment to the resolution that is before you that would give public works the authority to manage the construction now rather than defering it to a future time when we have a construction intergovernmental agreement. the resolution as it is presented to you this morning defers the authority public works needs in order to be

involved in reviewing change orders and reviewing scheduled changes and providing guidance to the design team so it will come in on budget and on schedule. last month you met director ron. ron's role is fairly limited and he has no authority to make decisions on this project. we believe the amendments that we're proposing this morning will clarify public works' role and would also give ron the tools that are needed to perform the role that was contemplated in the resolution you approved in december of last year. we have copies of the red lined version of the resolution and would be happy to answer questions that you may have. >> one of the things that i

have been trying to figure out, i sort of understand what you are saying but i sort of have the opposite impression. the resolution that we passed in november i thought gave san francisco, i thought it was done then and what we were waiting for was an mou which basically said, which i looked at basically saying this is what we're going to expect in consideration for exercising the powers you have given us. but that's not your impression, apparently, and that's not the impression given from this so i apparently was taiblging this wrong. we haven't already done this. i thought san francisco had been working free for the past 3 months. >> for the past 4 months while we have been attending -- we don't have the authority, what you did was consider giving authority to public works but you didn't really take the action. >> so we do need to do that.

ti understand. >> you can appreciate that the dilemma that we're in, while we're participating in meetings and all that we don't have the tools to really provide any level of authority and it's confusing our role because the design team and others don't have an understand of what is the purpose of public works, are we serving, or do we get involved and solve problems. >> this is essentially what you are saying, that the time for consideration is now. >> correct. >> chair harper, can i direct the excellents -- so is it the goal of this change to make sure we complete at the targeted budget and the target schedule and is there a reason that that's not in the resolution? >> yes, that's the not intent and there's no reason not to include that if that would

provide comfort. >> put it in. >> it begins to provide to provide some metrics then. is it the intent this change is neutral, cost more, cost less, in terms of dpw staff costs? i don't know. >> i think the intent of that would be within the overall budget that we anticipate approving at some point soon once we have fond *r funding source i went to approve the budget. >> would the budget be updated within the target budget so we can see and measure? >> i don't know what the mechanics of the budget would be. but it's the whole purpose of the board bringing on this resource would be to make sure that we could get to the end of this project within --. >> the target budget. >> if i can give you some element of comfort, director

gee, all the risky elements have been done. what's left is really the interiors, the rest of the mep's, the windows, the park components, plus the city's financial is looking to have a pretty large line item to draw in from the event of unforeseen circumstances so there's no reason why that a we wouldn't finish at the end of 2017 as originally contemplated and within the draw down credit line item that's an anticipated being drawn down. i would anticipate that would bring more comfort. >> i would move we adopt the item as red lined and perhaps amend it. >> be it resolved.

>> a resolved clause that would indicate the board's intent to complete the project on the anticipated budget and schedule. >> i think that's a good one. supervisor, what do you think? jeff? >> i'm still trying to get my head around all this and catch up. i'm okay with budget addition. >> oopbd this sort of brings me to, i don't know what -- how san francisco does its whereasing but every time we put something, we've got whereases that just run and run and run and run and i presume that the board or whoever looks at these things doesn't look at these where as clauses and see

if that has any legal implication on what we're dog. is there any legal implication from all these whereas clauses that's added too everything we do. >> that wasn't added by the city, that was added by tjpa >> it's the resolve clauses that is legal. >> some of the stuff in the whereas clauses i can't testify to or testify truthfully. they are okay for pretty, that's fine. >> whereas closet? >> in this one there's --. >> all of them? >> whereas clauses. it's now me. none of the agencies i've been on the boards of did that sort of thing. you have a where as clause they want to enter into the deal, resolved,

let's enter the agreement. here we have a history starting in 201, it helps jeff. >> it really helps jeff. >> all you have to do is real the whereases. >> he's the new guy on the block so it helps him. >> it's not the first time, it just seems to be a habit wear getting into it and an ever-growing -- every time we want to make a resolution. but i agree about the importance of this resolution. this is why i've been saying up until this point in my opinion san francisco is working for nothing because we don't have an mou because only with that mou can we look at it an say, yes, we're in budget, nothing is going out. i think that's an important decision that supervisor gee have added to.

>> (inaudible) the resitals are context, to the extent you see something you disagree with i would recommend that you point it out but they don't have, they are not action items. >> well, if they have no consequence i don't, i've got to the point i don't read through them so much. it's the hyperbole, highly successful. the way i draft whereas clauses in contracts there's no hyperbole, it's pretty much this is a fact, this is a fact, this is the background to what we're doing. i don't want to get into this. for the future, just want to, you know, unless it's important to the resolution why put it in? >> director yee had another

comment. >> just from a process standpoint, if the board acts on this, does the construction intergovernmental agreement come back for future action at a fuer tour date? >> the resolution posted on the web site said it would come at the april board meeting. >> and does the board if it sees something it doesn't like have an opportunity to change it? >> yes. >> and if i could offer some language specific to director res kin's proposed amendments to the resolution that was presented, i could suggest in the first resolved clause after the end of the first sentence adding, for the purpose of meeting the tjpa's approved budget and project schedule for phase i. then to director gee's comment, this is part of the motion, i would suggest adding to the end of the third resolved clause with the

expectation that compensation to purks would be consistent with the board's approve the program budget. >> i think those are great additions. modify my addition amending it. >> as long as everyone knows what those numbers are. >> includes board discussion, we do have members of the public. >> let's have some comment. >> we have mr. finebaum, followed by mr. kaufman. >> hi, i oppose this resolution. i think you cannot pass this today. i want to commend ed iskin on artfully

combining the most favorable management strategies of jimmy hoffa and stalin. mr. murrow, you are head of the public works. you must recuse yourself. this is an organizational change you cannot participate in or vote it. if there's any doubt i ask the tjpa attorney to make a ruling on that. secondly, there is no contract here. there is a contract somewhere in ether. this does not meet any rules of public disclosure, none. you can't act on this today until you have an actual contract or an actual agreement that people can look at. no. 3, this whole arrangement

of bridges, an existing contract you have with turner construction. they are the contract managers. what you are doing is either forcing an employee on turner construction -- and incidentally as a member of the cac i heard the gentleman's presentation, he took a portion of what turner construction has bpb presenting to the cac for many months. you are bridging a turner contract, how have you changed the contract of turner to diminish their scope? and i ask the tjpa attorney to rule on that. 4, this is unnecessary interference and mr. riskin you are totally incorrect in your assertion about costs. yes, i don't know where you are getting the 40 percent, it's been booted around between 25 and 35 percent, but that is irrelevant if you ever took a course in statistics you should

know that correlation does not equal causation and you are saying it's the fault of the management here and you have no evidence whatsoever. what you need to do, sir, is produce information from every other large construction project in this time to see what their cost increase were and then you might have more than one leg to stand on. finally, i'm going to say that this stinks to such high heaven i'm surprised all of you up there don't have your gas masks on. thank you. >> further? >> actually, mr. kaufman is next. >> my name is gerald kaufman, i am representing the bay area

transit working group this morning. i didn't hear this covered and i'm not casting aspersions on anybody but i want to point out another extremely unattractive and unsatisfactory arrangement you are talking about. you have a member sitting on the board that is both head of a san francisco city department and the supervisor of staff that's going to be added to this study. now, i am not a lawyer but i'm pretty sure that recent cases have said that recusing one's self from an existing situation isn't always adequate for the simple reason that as members of a board you can influence one another. let's assume a member of the public works department made a big mistake. mistakes on complicated projects do happen. i'm not saying it will happen, but it could happen. let's say that mistake is so serious it reflects on not only the public

works department but also mr. nuru. >> i am jim patrick with jim patrick and company. i agree substantially with waufs just said. these are expensive people, now we have two people running the show rather than one. as you know, i spoke against this by law when it was instituted, this very poes. i speak, i think you ought to take the thing and throw it away. it is of no value. now we're asked to have two people to run the show. we have an elevator and we have two operators. it's not going to work. or like the russian model you have a political officer and you have a chief officer. that

model doesn't work. what in the world are you people thinking about doing something like this? this is a mistake, a basic organizational mistake. i think maria has done a great job, the board has supported her, i've watched this for a long period of time. we all take credit or non-credit for whatever reasons that happened to say, well, we're going to hire an expert so they solve the problem. that is nonsense. asthma reastated most of the construction is done. this is a mistake, i think it was done in a smoke-filled room in the back, all of a sudden it appeared on this board, i suggest the board amend the bylaws and make it go away. rob did a nice job, i saw his presentation two nights ago and he's a very capable guy. i'm

not taking it away from anyone, i am placing it on the board to say this is a lousy, lousy organizational decision and it's not going to work. >> move the resolution as amended. >> as amended in both senses. >> you should read it into the record. i don't think the public knows what was amended because the red line wasn't included. >> just changes to the resolved. >> changes in the addition. >> resolved that the tjpa board of directors appoints sf public works with xlus sieve authority with exclusive oversight to oversigh all aspects of construction of the transbay project, including design and project controls related to construction, for the purpose of meeting the tjpa's board's schedule for phase i. this authority includes the supervision and direction of the contractors

and the tjpa engineers directly overseeing construction as it relates to construction of the transbay project and be it further resolved that sf public works will take direction directly from the board and shall have a mutual obl gaigts with the board to work closely and collaboratively together and be it further resolved the tjpa board of directors authorizes the tjpa to negotiate dregtly with the city with the objective of presenting this agreement to the tjpa for approval as soon as practical with the expectation that compensation to sf public works would be consistent with the board's program budget. >> okay, very good. so we have a motion. >> i have recuse myself. >> no, ed made the phoes, right? is there a second to the motion? we have a second to the motion and we've already heard from the public so would

you call the roll, please? >> sure, director gee, abstain. director kim, aye. director rees rees, aye. vice chair harper, aye. it's three ayes and the item is (inaudible). >> next item, please. >> item 17 is the executive director's report. >> well, good afternoon, everyone. i did want to report that on monday we had our very last construction milestone where we unveiled the beautiful awning that's going to grace the entire center, it will provide shade, allow for diffuse light into the station, but most importantly the awning whose pattern was donated to us

because he liked the project so much will provide general races of visitors to the transit center information on math and science and it will be an educational opportunity because we're in the heart of the silicon valley it was onlifitting to have a