today? >> clerk: there's no further matters before us. >> supervisor tang: i just wanted to thank supervisor peskin for keeping us until the last day. >> supervisor peskin: thank you for your eight and six years for your work to this commission, and thank you for your continued work on this committee. >> supervisor tang: and thank you. >> clerk: thank you for the opportunity to chair this committee. >> supervisor tang: thank you for giving me this opportunity to also giving me the opportunity to work so closely with our planning commission on these wonderful issues impacting our city. so with that, last meeting; we are adjourned.

>> the transbay joint powers authority board of directors meeting for january 10, 2019. will you go ahead and call the roll. >> yes. [roll call] >> i understand director tavares is also en route.

[roll call] >> mr. chairman, you do have a quorum. >> will you call the next item. >> item three is communications. and directors, i'm not aware of any. seeing none, your next item is item four, board of directors new and oral business. also seeing none. item five, executive director's report. >> good morning, directors, and happy new year. i have several updates for you this morning. i will begin by updating you on the progress we are making toward reopening the salesforce transit center, which is our highest priority. the two multilevel shoring systems remain in place at fremont and first street, and we have tested samples extracted from the girders at monitoring continues. we continue to find no additional issues at first and fremont street, and we have found no issues found at first

street. the m.t.c. and review panel approved the design for repair at fremont street, which we will use to enforce the girders at first street. we have directed webcor last month to proceed to implement -- obtain the materials to implement the repair. you will marry from the director later this morning about the status of the repair. we continue to make significant progress with the peer review panel in determining a cause and issue the final findings which we are eager to complete. you heard last month about the preliminary findings of the lab tests results from the chair of the peer review panel. as you know, the path to reopening the transit center consists of not only identifying the cause of the failure and repairing the girders in approximate question, we must also work with independent peer review panel to determine what if anything we need to inspect, ren expect or review at the transit -- reinspect or review

before we open the transit center to the public. this will also help us to design, to begin restoring the confidence and trust of our transit riders and the jeb public before we reopen. you will hear this morning about the extremely rigorous review and inspections this project will receive throughout its design, construction and commissioning. throughout this temporary closure, we have been operating the temporary terminal and are working hard to make the experience as seamless as possible to the transit riders. we know this is a significant inconvenience, and we are doing everything we can to mitigate it. i would like to thank the metropolitan transportation commission, the panel, and

mayor breed. while we don't have a date to open this facility, we are close to determining the schedule to reopen, and i ask for your patience as we close in on a cause of the failure and determine a schedule to reopen. directors, now that the design of the repair has been approved by the peer review panel, and the procurement process for the materials has begun by the contractor, once we receive a date certain by the steel mil when the materials will be available, which we expect to happen in about two weeks, we will be able to develop a schedule and share with you the date for completing the repair and removing the shoring systems. and once we receive input from the peer review panels as to what areas we need to expect if any in the transit center, we will be able to develop a schedule of the transit center reopening, and i would like that to be in the next few

months. >> director, yes. >> just a clarification, when you say that is in the next few months, what is the that that will be in the next few months? when will we know from the peer review committee what additional inspections will be needed? >> we expect to hear from them in february . right now, the peer review panels have hired a consultant to go through the design drawings as well as the fabrication drawings to ascertain what other areas warrant further inspection. >> and so once we know that, if there are other areas, then, there will need to be inspections, and there'll be analysis of the inspection results and then potential corrective actions. >> potentially or potentially that they may allow us to continue the investigation while the transit center's open. we haven't had those discussions with them, so it depends on what needs -- what are we looking at and what degree we need to look at. >> and there's no way to

expedite that process? >> we were 're working very hah them. the first focus was to focus on the design drawings. there's thousands of sheets they have to go through to try to determine what other connections, what other areas warrant inspection, and i think dp -- i think in the area of february we would have a good idea of other areas -- we still don't know other areas, director, of what we need to do. they're very comfortable with the area in question. they've looked at the adjacent girders, so -- and they've hired somebody in december to do that, as welling, for them. >> okay. >> okay. moving onto phase two and the downtown extension, you approved the supplemental environmental document for the

phase two extension at the december board meeting. we are working to issue the amended record decision, however due to the partial shutdown of the federal government, we do not have an update at this time. the supplemental environmental impact statement was posted to the federal register december 7. the 30-day minimum posting period ended january 7. we will follow up with f.t.a. staff after the shutdown is over and they're able to come back to work. as i mentioned last month, approval of the supplemental jiermt value document along with the presumption of the 30% design effort are two major milestones that will allow us to advance the delivery, funding, and construction of phase two. as these two efforts will allow us to enter the new starts program and capture the $1 billion in federal funding that is included in the area of the downtown extension. this also helps make phase two

much more competitive as we seek funding from the state and federal infrastructure funding from the government. in the status of the phase two design. as you know, the san francisco county transportation authority suspended proposition k funding for design of phase two until the evaluation is done of the management delivery of phase one by the controller's office and a review of alternative over sight and governance models. we've received several proposals that we're currently evaluating. they expect to award contracts to -- and form several peer review panels in the next week or so. it is anticipated that this work will be done may 19 -- may of 2019, sorry. the controller's office review of the management and delivery of phase one is also slated to be completed about the same time. the transbay joint powers authority will continue to work

closely with the transportation authority staff and the controller's office on these two efforts as appropriate so that funding can be reinstated and the work on phase two and the downtown extension can resume. as a follow up item to the direction at the board meeting last month, we began working with the american public transportation association or apta regarding a peer review of phase two. apta's technical services and innovation department will lead the peer review efforts. we expect this effort to begin later this month and be completed in approximately four months. the peer review will evaluate the processes and procedures implemented in phase one and recommend improvements for phase two. the scope will also include recommendation on organizational capablities, lead agency governance, and project delivery best practices based on apta members' sentencesive experience in

delivering large public infrastructure projects nationwide. i would like to highlight that this peer review is intended to complement the transportation authority's peer review with expert analysis from the public's -- from public sector leaders who have extensive experience in delivering public complex infrastructure projects. in regards to the pennsylvania avenue extension, as i reported last month, we received a letter from mayor breed communicating her support for the pennsylvania avenue extension as the city's preliminary preferred alignment. i plan to present the pennsylvania avenue alignment for your consideration to include -- to be included in the scope of the transbay program as next month's board meeting after i have the opportunity for further discussions of the delivery strategy with stakeholders at california high speed rail, caltrain, city and county of san francisco, and the san francisco county transportation authority. if approved and formally adopted into the transbay

program, it is indisputed that the first task will be to prepare a scoping document in the form of a high level preliminary report to determine the scope of work and obtain take holder concurrence on that scope. there will be followed by performing the required environmental studies necessary to obtain environmental approval. it is expected that the scope of work and environmental studies would be funded by the san francisco planning department. at this time, i would like to ask martha velez, the tjpa facility manager to provide you with a brief update on our efforts to minimize costs while the transit center is temporarily closed. martha? >> happy new year, directors. martha velez, transit center

facility manager. first, aside from the daily operations, tenant improvements, and continuing leasing efforts, an area of focus over the next few months for the transit center will be operations working closely with webcor on commissioning and turnover of the major building systems. a general framework is in place and will be refined over the next couple of weeks. secondly, in response to the questions raised in last month's meeting, further work was done in taking a look at the temporary terminal expenses, including security. a revised detailed schedule is on the following slide. this slide is to highlight further refinement of avoided monthly expenses in running the temporarily terminal. one is $14,000 per month for facilities management not being incurred because lincoln's fee to operate the terminal is

absorbed in the operating of the center. the second is $16,000 in operating and maintenance labor, and having one on-site instead of two as was the previous practice. so this is the -- this is the slide revised to incorporate the direct security costs of the temporary terminal into the appropriate temporary terminal line minus the $30,000 for the expenses noted on the previous slide. as such, the bottom line cost avoidance or savings increases to about $551,000 per month, up from what was report reported last month, which was $521,000 per month. we found ways to save costs, such as not hiring positions vacated through atrition.

it's a work in progress. i'm now going to turn it over to sydney. she's going to go into detail over the security expenses of the transit center to address a question from last month's meeting. >> good morning, directors. sydney sanson, chief security officer for tjpa. so the chloryou are, the temporary closure numbers, 470,290 average monthly -- is that better? compared to the cost at full operation of $66,192,000, we've achieved a 29% decrease in overall security costs since the closure at the transit center, removing our fixed costs, which is the sfpd m.o.u. at the transit center, we've achieved a 52% reduction in the security costs. those are our variable costs. we looked very closely at each

security position and reduced where able while staff still maintained an acceptable level of protection and for the public. the majority of the security staff time is being spent in the ground level and exterior spaces where the public can access those if we don't keep them out. the s.o.c. remains in full operation with reduced staffing. they're monitoring security systems and then acting as the communications hub for the transit center. we continue to bring security technologies on-line and integrate them into the physical management security information system, and in addition, our staff is providing security for areas of the transit center where construction is -- activities are still occurring, and we continue to look for areas to improve our efficiency and to make the most productive use of our resources. and we both stand by for any

questions. >> directors, i'd like to stress this is work in progress, and we continue to look for ways to be more efficient. >> question? >> yes, mike. >> i have a question on the line item. digital content management and way finding systems, we're spending $60,000 a month for that. what is that? >> those are the development costs for the digital system itself, the 200-some screens. right now, a great deal of time has been spent with the transit operators in developing the interactive -- the interactive -- the interactive screens. >> how long will that go on for? >> well, the development of that piece is nearly done, but once the system is turned -- is completely turned over to us, there'll be ongoing maintenance, making sure that it's up and running. i think the one thing to remember, this is the vehicle where we also generate revenue through advertising, so it's critical that there not be any

downtime, so making sure that it's properly maintained is going to -- so those expenses will continue. it'll move from development then into maintenance. >> all right. thank you. >> okay. anymore questions on this, directors? >> so are you -- >> i have one more presentation by dennis for the project labor agreement quarterly reports. dennis? >> good morning, directors. it's a new year, and i'm here to present the q42018 project report. i'll hit on the similar points of labor statistics. we did have our regular quarterly meeting.

carpenters and ibew were in attendance, and we gave them a similar presentation and discussion from our executive director, a similar presentation that you saw in december, along with retail leasing phase two, and of course the unions gave us an update on the apprentice programs. prebt i say programs for both the carpenters and electricians is extremely robusted. electricians, there's over 5700 in their program, and -- carpenters, there's over 5700 in their apprentice program, and electricians, there's over 1500 in their program, so that's very robust. in the fourth quarter which that closes out the year. we are at 5.6 million hours on the project as we continue to go through the punch list and other items. that is the short report, and we

will entertain any questions. i can answer those. >> this concludes my report. >> just not on the p.l.a. report but on the operating picture, i appreciate the clarity and explanation and efforts to try to reduce operating costs. i would urge we continue to track as closely as possible all operating costs and revenue impacts. we expect the operators to be made whole ultimately from this. with regard to the peer review, i would suggest should this board approve the modification of the tjpa program to include phase 3, the pennsylvania avenue expansion that the copy of the peer review focus on phase two. we can discuss that when it comes to us next week. as you are talking you may want

to preview there is a subsequent phase or expansion of phase two. >> will do. >> item 6. update on construction much the transit center. >> we will have two-parts. the first will cover which relates to the repair and actions by the project team and peer review related to that. ron will go into the more global affects on the entire facility and touch on what is happening there as well. i do want to bring out that i am going to touch on areas not only at fremont street but first street. there has been action since the

last time we met at both areas. i will touch on them. in december we had thomas head de present the design of the repair at fremont street. this is a detail from fremont street sandwich plate design. two inches on top and two on the bottom. 20 inches wide on either side. you are looking at 20 inches wide there. 20 inches on the other side with the total length 14 feet. 224 bolts. this is just one girder. that is the design presented to the peer review. it is moving forward. the actions since we last presented are as follows. the free front street repair --

prenot -- fremont street. they were presented with this on the 18th of december and they strongly concur with the repair strategy at fremont street. also it was proposed same as first street. the fact that it is no questions on the implementation of this remediation so it is not a -- we are ability to move forward with that. with those two from the peer review, we gave web core the direction to procure. recently in the last couple days we gave them direction to install as well. there will be a slight difference.

first street doesn't have the area missing where cracks were removed. since then is load shedding analysis. that is what happened when the bottom, the bottom piece when it cracked what happened around it. the analysis was done of the health of everything around it and confirmed it was in good health. the bolts. we tested to confirm there was damage or crack or anything. the bolts were found to be sound and in good shape. there was no issues regarding any kind of impacts that went out. from a health standpoint of surrounding area, we confirmed everything was confirmed good throughout the analysis and peer review panel agreed. most importantly what happened

since then. we initiated the search for any other areas for the brittle fractures similar to what happened. the prp actively engaged us and engaged a consultant very specific to this, ruby and associates. there was a reference to how much effort has to question into it. they are looking through 15,000 pages of shop drawings to find anything similar with the criteria blessed this week if not today. a certain thickness of plate to certain type of weld, a whole nearby, all of that is being determined and confirmed this week. that will set the tone of what locations to investigate and then you vision gate them to determine if you need to do

anything. that peer review brought somebody on as oversight. quite frankly doing his own analysis. it is not just the project team. what is happening this month as well. we have also implemented there is a element analysis done that last month lpi, the president, presented that he is putting together the analysis model. that is being presented to the peer review next friday, the 18th. what we are doing as well, too, a pre-meeting with our project team on friday to see if there is any other additional information to be provided. we will go through the model. if they are doing it at a different way and there is value every one of our team has been

invited to attend. they have all accepted my invite. they will be there on the 11th and many on the 18th. the whole project team is involved in this with the have been better taking input from the team. it is a 4d model. it has time involved. if going forward. the hanger material. when michael was here, he talked about the bullets the panel is looking at, one is the hanger. we are actually as part of that process going to take core samples in the near future and test that to confirm the material is as strong as they say it is as an extra insurance

then resolve, in early february the evaluation and element analysis. [please stand by]

>> and we'll have timetables to all of that very shortly. also, what we're doing as an extra insurance is we're taking a coupon of that similar material, bending it, and sending it to the lab to test, a sharpie test, to make sure that bending doesn't do anything to that grade 70 steel, so we're doing testing on everything, as well. and that will happen from now to about mid-february because it takes time to do those sharpie tests and slice and dice the sample up.

also, we gave webcor, we gave them directions to start closing up some of the areas. we had 30 feet opened, and now that we know that it's 14 feet long, 7 feet wide, we're going to start putting that back in so we can gain some time on the back end so we don't have to wait and do the fix and then put it all back. and then, of course, the peer review, the verification, that's related to the brittle verification analysis. we brought on ruby and associations on december 17, and that's going to be ongoing working with the team and ruby associates getting to creating that list, and if any additional remediation has to be done, it'll be determined here, and we'll report on that on february , and then, the actual mitigation itself would happen at some point once we start getting data out of that

review. so that's what's happened regarding the peer review panel. now, i will turn it over to ron to continue with what's going on on the rest of the facility. >> thank you, dennis, good morning, directors. i'm here to give the other half of this presentation, which is focused on facility wide validation, beginning with establishing a framework for -- for this concern. as you can tell, it's somewhat of a brought and somewhat wide open question on what might else be out there that we should be worried about. so we began by lending some definition to that first by creating this framework. it wins with reaffirm the structural integrity of the building, which dennis has

spoken to at great length and will continue to do the deeper dive on that. it will also include or has been including the revalidation of full live fire and life safety systems. it has been, for the last couple months, involving the review of test and inspection records and processes, and it will continue with the building management system commissioning, which will inform us a lot about health of the building because it will be an ongoing communication, if you will, with the building on how it's functioning. and with all of that, we can begin to develop the reoccupancy criteria, kind of define what action should be taken prior to occupancy versus those that can occur post occupancy. so diving in a little deeper,

but not terribly, the reaffirmed structural integrity of the building, again, is what dennis was delving into. it's to complete the p.r.p. findings and reports, act on them, and perfect them out in the field. it also, i mentioned, validation of the full fire and life safety systems. i'll remind you back in august of 2018, the full system was accepted by the authority having jurisdiction in this case, ourselves, in conjunction with the san francisco fire department, which did a rigorous shake down of the system, and it's been functioning and operating ever since. as we sit or stand here today, those show up as trouble

lights, so the system is functioning. as we splice back or reinstall those areas that are interrupted, those areas, and the full system at the level of the requirements of the san francisco fire department will be retested and recertified, so that's the pathway to valid ate the fire and safety systems. in terms of testing and inspections, we've been reviewing the inspection records, and there's quite a number of them for this building to identify what areas of concern had they been addresses, those that are still outstanding, we should field commission reports and noncompliance reports.

those are out of the qa/qc process, as the progress and development of the building occurred, and those were where issues and concerns were earmarked, so we're reviewing those and making sure those have been closed and addressed sufficiently as well as any future f.c.r.s or n.c.r.s that may occur as we progress through the repair and tenant improvements and such. and to kind of look forward, i think we need to look back a little bit in terms of what happened with respect to qa/qc. you'll see a diagram, and this is a short snippet of about a half-hour presentation that was

given to this board in november 2015. it was given by turner construction, our construction manager oversight, and steve rule, who presented that, it available here for questions after if you have any questions regarding this. it was a multilayered approach to qa/qc. it began with the development and the qa/qc steps within the design field or design team, developing submittals and r.f.i.s as we progressed through with the cmgc, and the logistic plans as we went back and forth with the cmgc and their trade subcontractors. then, they moved into what they called the act, which was the implementation of the plans out

in the field, and that involved cmgc as well as the subcontractors developing and perfecting and implementing their q -- quality control activities, fabrication, surveillance, delivery checklist, etc. and then, it culminates in the q.a. stage, what they call the check in this presentation, and that involved the c.m.o. turner and i.s.i. doing their inspections, their special inspections and their tests and observations, and these are the records that have been produced and recently rereviewed to tease out if there's any outlined concerns or issues.

it developed the q.c. records, daily reports, calibration reports, a very deep dive into the process of advancing the project. at a summary level on a monthly basis, we viewed code and specialty inspections, construction quality, field conditions, and that nonconformance reports that i mentioned before. what that -- just kind of a high level outcome of that, this process, the qa/qc process developed over 21,000 inspections for this job, which, you know, i'm short on finding some direct metrics, but 21,000 inspections on this job is an extraordinary amount of oversight, particularly if you remember that the qa/qc

process involved q.c. from the subcontractor, q.c. from the cmgc, and then, ultimately, q.a. inspections, so that's essentially 64,000 times things of concern were addressed and reviewed. out of this process, i mentioned the field condition reports and the noncompliance reports. there was a total of 21,000 inspections in this process and were addressed. the pie chart kind of speaks to the character of that root cause and basically a paperwork concern in the process, and then two thirds were --

two-thirds were, finding things that are done and deviated from the approved documents and addressed. so that's the overview of the system -- or the qa/qc system that was implemented and has given at least myself and the team a high level of you will,

speaking to the system and informing us of any issues out there. in terms of timeline, i want to underscore underneath the fire alarm, the fire suppression and the vertical transportation have already been fully commissioned and -- and

accepted by the sayereous authorities having jurisdiction and have continued to function. again, some of their areas are interrupted by the areas of girder repair and they will be revisited once we start patching back the building. with respect to the hvac, through the rest of january and the beginning of february , we will be finishing the whole shakeout of the hvac system, including the building management control system, which, again, is the, if you will, the brain and heart and lungs of the telling us how the building is functioning. and then, we'll go into february and tiptoeing into march with a bit of the

electrical prove-out to ensure that things are functioning correctly. as a place holder in april, and we hope to do better than that be in a position to recommission the areas that are affected by the repaired. as dennis has mentioned, as the analysis of the remediation of the structure has advanced, we have been already able to start patching back pieces of the building because the footprint of the repair is considerably smaller than what we had first anticipated. so i can take any questions or steve rule can with respect to any outlying or remaining concerns of what might need to be looked at, but i think we have a robust record of what's

occurred, and we have a framework to move forward to address what concerns there may be or what things that may manifest itself out in the field. >> any questions from the directors? director reiskin? >> thank you. first, i want to say, i really appreciate -- it's great to hear that we have a fix that the peer review committee has agreed upon and it's moving forward. that's encouraging, at least a fix for what we know needs to be fixed, and very much appreciate what looks like kind of a comprehensive approach to looking at the building so we can restore the public confidence that it will be ready to reoccupy when that time comes. a couple of questions. the overview of the qa/qc process, and then a refresher and how it played out, and a

look back was helpful at a general level. my recollection from the last meeting is that there was an implication that there may have been an issue with the hole that is thought to be the cause of the failure, and that the hole should have been post treated in a way to remove the brittlized surface so that the general overview of q.a. is hopeful, but have we evaluated the q.a. verification of that specific process to see, was it done according to spec, was it not? is that part of -- >> yes. part of reviewing the records has reviewed that that area was inspected and tested and met the criteria of the test and the code. so that -- it was not missed in terms of -- >> so does that suggest it was a design problem or is that the

design should have called for that brittlized surface? >> i think that's a little too granular for the design drawings. it would have been called for in the standards. there's been, as i understand it, an internal debate amongst the fabricators and inspectors as to what constituted the right level of grinding. some were aligned and some were less aligned, i should say, in terms of interpreting the level of grinding. we're relying on the last of the findings of the p.r.p., and we also -- just if i can make reference to the upcoming agenda item, we have the original peer reviewers will be presenting as to the level of scrutiny on the design. there's been a bit of focus on

fabrication and material and installation, but we have been focusing on design, as well, from the get go, and this seismic structural review committee was shoulder to shoulder with d.b.i. in reviewing the design, so we'll start teasing out the big question, which is the design defect. we do in the preliminary review of what's been tested indicates some issues or defects with material or fabrication, so now, we want to tease out that last third leg of what we've been talking about, whether there's an issue there. but with respect to the implementation of the qa/qc, the records indicate that those actions were taken, the tests were taken, and at that time had passed the criteria.

>> okay. well, that's good to now, one way or another, whether it's design or fabrication or installation, the dimensionability of this is going to be important. >> oh, that's right. that's why we're trying to dig in to what the root causes are, and my understanding from my participation with the lab as well as the p.r.p. and the education i got, because it preceded my time, the activities of the structural seismic review committee. >> okay. other question is with regard to the load shedding analysis, it was good to hear that the bolts were physically tested and found to be okay. >> yeah, nonobstructive. >> the rest of the structural members that assumed the load, that they were not designed for or anticipated to assume, how -- was that analysis a

paper analysis or was it a visual or physical analysis? >> he's closer to that. >> the load cutting analysis was -- they modelled -- it was calculated besides the physical checking. i think the simple fact was there wasn't much load shed to the other remaining members, and that was because how little the original girder moved. the web took most of it. that's why there was very little load shedding that was found from the analysis, so it was no surprise that the bolts -- there was no damage to the bolts. >> okay. and then finally, this is more of a comment or a suggestion, that is seems that the root cause of what happened was the access hole or whatever you want to refer to it as. we're now going to bring in

these new members, we're going to bend them to match the shape, and then, we're going to pull a whole bunch of hole -- put a whole bunch of holes in them. i don't remember how many, but i think you said it was a lot of them. i think you're going to be testing a parallel sample after it's bent. i would recommend it's tested also after the holes that are drilled in the same way that they will be for the actual installations. >> yeah, and the holes that have been accounted for in the design, it's probably hard to see in the detail, but the plate is almost 6 inches wider than the existing flange to account for some of that, so the -- there was surface area that's actually been -- it's already been accounted for, but they're -- the bolt -- >> but we accounted for everything in the first place, and here we are, so this is maybe a trust but verify. if we're going to be doing a testing any way on kind of the

sample that reflects this -- the -- what the final fix is going to be, i would suggest we do it after or additionally do it after all of the holes are drilled in the same way they're going to be drilled and the actual members are going to be affixed. it's great that the suggested design is okay, but the original design was said to be okay, and it ended up not be. >> the method of the hole drilling has been called out. that's a very important part. and the other part, it actually realized on friction. not the bolts themselves, but it's a friction connection that's built into the design. >> right, but we're relying on the strength of these new -- this sandwich of plates, and we will be compromising necessarily the integrity of those plates by drilling holes. i'm certain that the design has accounted for that, but since we're taking the step to test

it just in a -- out of an abundance of caution, it seems reasonable that we would test the integrity of those members after all the holes have been drilled. >> yeah, we'll take it back to the panel. i do want to drink one distinction, that the fractured beam, the holes were torched in. >> i understand. >> these were drilled in. >> i understand. >> different process, so that will lend us some guidance on, you know, what -- what might be a problem, so we'll take it back to the panel and see or verify the correct sequence of testing because that -- that would require, i think -- and i'm the architect and not the engineer in the room, but i would think that would mean taking more samples and diminishing the material again. so we'll take it back to the panel for advice. >> okay.

thank you. >> more board questions? yes, director hursh? >> well, i echo what director reiskin says. i believe it's largely meeting what i've asked for, to have assurance that we look beyond the failure, the fractures. however, i'm still concerned about the root cause of the fractures and that this board and the public receive a black-and-white description of what happened. but that didn't happen. something broke down. something definitively broke down, and i will be looking in the report to see what that definitively -- i actually expected to hear it today. i understand we're not going to, but before the matter's

closed for me, i would like to see, in black and white, what failed, and if it is the hole, how much other places on the structures are there similar holes? >> that's exactly what we're doing in terms of developing the criteria for what needs to be looked at structurally further. yes, and we're all eager to kind of nail down. i think we've all kind of neared the analogy of the perfect storm of a number of contributing factors, and some of those contributing factors are normal and usual risk or issues that are absorbed in the industry, some of which may have wanders outside those parameters, and that's where i would place my finger on the trigger, and we'll hear that, but we've given enough all time

and space to all parties to tease out all questions from everybody, including the subcontractors and the engineers that reviewed previously, as well as the ones that are reviewing now. so if you will, we'll leave no stone unturned before we place a definitive statement as to what was the issue that triggered the whole thing. >> thank you. >> thank you. that covered a lot of some of my thought on follow up question. the peer review you mentioned, the original peer review that was already under way, did that conclude or was that -- >> you'll hear in the presentation when it concluded. memory serve me, 2015, 2014, if my memory served me right.

they were brought in conjunction with d.b.i. prior to plan review. so prior to permitting, they did a thorough deep review of the structure to reassure d.b.i. that everything in terms of design and codes were met. i mentioned a number of inspections in the q.a. and q.c. in this building. this building is somewhat unique structurally with large spans, and that precipitated d.b.i. wanting to be buttressed with a body or a panel of experts, and that's what you'll hear about in item ten, i believe, of this agenda. >> okay. >> we have the -- two of the participants in that committee available here, and the chair will be presenting that item. >> i'll have the same sort of thought as director hursh just

expressed, that there's a difference between a review to ensure codes were met versus a review of the design sufficiency to serve the intent of the building. that's one of the reasons i don't believe the peer review includes sort of this little aspect of the review of what obligations there are to meet the needs of the building versus just the codes. >> i think it went well. with respect to d.b.i., they needed to have assurance about the codes, but in terms of the use of the building and the depth of analysis that went under way by this committee was complete and full beyond just meeting minimum. they really understand how this building was designed and put together, so much so that, you know, out of the blue, specifics were coming out in discussions when i first met them a week ago, and those were

activities that were done, you know, a couple years ago. so i'm looking forward to that dimension of the analysis to bebe enriched by the presentation coming up. >> director chu? >> thank you. ron, thank you so much for the presentation. like the team, i share some of concerns, but i also have a perspective, having been in your chair, having had to do forensics, having had to condemn buildings and do a number of different things. for me, there's always at least three pieces that we don't have all the information yet, and i'm willing to wait a little longer. most important is one, reassuring the public that whatever we do is going to be preserving the safety of the transit operators and the public. part of it is what was the cause and then, the third part is who to blame.

they're all connected, but they don't all need to be connected at the same time, particularly, the who to blame. it can take decades with a lot of other people involved to -- hopefully not, but that's usually what happens. but there is those components of what happened, how do we fix it, how do we make sure whatever we fix, everyone is in agreement that it's above and beyond and that everyone's protected. >> absolutely. >> and the blaming part, then, will follow on its own timeline. >> yeah. it'll have its own time and space, but those three elements need to be addressed. they'll be progressive. not necessarily sequential.

the building is safe. we've kind of crossed that threshold. if it wasn't for some disruptions in the systems, we do use that building today if it weren't for the lack of confidence or concern. we are, you know, well into the second step you noticed or made notice of, and ultimately, we're looking for our experts to articulate exactly the blame part. >> thank you. >> so i just want to echo some of the other comments from director reiskin that we're reviewing the design process and the review process for this process. is there going to be a final report that kind of lays this out for folks that they can understand the review that was done and have confidence that when we're all said and done that the building is -- is safe and ready to go? >> yeah, both from