specializes in vunerbility threat and risk assessments and counter terrorism measures. for both state, federal, local, and international clients for rail, subway, bus, tunnel, bridge and air transportation facilities. so with that, i will turn it over to dennis to talk more about the rba. >> before dennis comes up i am looking at the length of the presentation, some of it was presented to the board in terms of why we, or the staff believes that this terminal is an important site for the additional security protections. so i would like you to go through it still, but if we could condense it down and abbreviate it and leave it open for questions from board members that would be great. >> so thank you for having me, today. i want to talk a little bit about the pedigree. to conduct, project of this scale, scope and complexity, it is a pretty big project. urs is a recognized security consultant on behalf of the department of homeland security and they come to us often looking at vuner ability assessments and have an incredible wealth of knowledge and background. we have asse

the technological and this is what one should do when you are conducting vunerbility. and technological hazards or hazards that are accidents and think of india and hazmat event, something where the transit center night not be the target. but they will receive collateral damage. some of these are very important to look at, scoring them cals and radiology and hospitals. >> have you to look at it across the board and we look at above and underground storage tanks and pipelines and if they rupture how will that effect the transit center. rail and air, of course your standard hazmat events, a truck something like that on the street near or around the center itself. man made is criminal acts, violence against property and in relation to the transit center. you think that everything from a violent act to graffiti, how are you going to try to buy down that threat and risk. we look at fire events, and plan to be 100-year building within those 100 years, we anticipate that you will have a fire event, a trash, can or a bus so we need recommendations and design criteria that woul

. >> so, when we were in the scheme mattic design phase we went through a risk and vunerbility assessment which was an effort to identify potential hazards, whether they are natural or man-made that the transit center would be exposed to. and to incorporate into the design of the transit center features, that would help insure the safety of people using the transit center as well as minimized on the impacts on the transit center itself of seismic and other events. it has been part of the design of the transit center since its inception for us to be operational after an earthquake with only minimal need to address cosmetic issues and be able to... to be up in operation following a seismic event. that type of issue has been in the design since the inception. as we moved into the construction document phase in 2011, it was appropriate for us to do an update of the risk and vunerbility assessment to incorporate both new information outside external to the project, on what the types of risks that the transit center might be exposed to, as well as to incorporate new information based on the adv

cost of that system by $17 and a half million in total including both direct costs and risk and vunerbility assessment related costs. on the rva, last month, you heard from bob ducabela. he is with the bbs security. he is the d, in dvs. and he has an extensive experience in the security industry, and has been responsible for protective design solutions at the world trade center site and the pen station, and the monahan station and washington's union station, and the amtrak and the command and control center and the portable in new york and e

systems it was clear that there were opportunities for the system to have a potential point of vunerbility. to make it robust, there are technologies to make that happen. enter agency five years ago was an interesting concept but more difficult to achieve. and looking forward five years, to a transit center that is going to open in 2017, additional and more robust infrastructure was proposed to a building in order to provide a future proofing for that capbility. it does not do a great deal of good to have a lot of information and if that location is compromised your opportunity to manage an incident is reduced. so the recommendation came to provide a back up capbility for the security operation center. and a back up capbility for the fire command center. this is a four-block long building, and it is exceptionally large in terms of population, so the determination was made redundancy and security and fire operations was critical. mass notification, audible and visual. it is robust means that it carries five feet of dirt on the top and designed and aten you ate radio signaling. you know that

we are recommending let's go with a metal skin and that reduces the risk and vunerbility costs and that is at least the $7 and a half line item. never mind the cost of the glass because it is custom made and it also would reduce our construction costs because the glass alone, the productivity rates will really quite high and the construction schedule any longer but if you just go to the perferated metal skin it is less expensive. we have been doing our due diligence, we don't have the money to pay for a third reviewer. it is very expensive, it was done by the u.s. security team and done by dbs and a whole slew of other consultants. we don't have the funding to bring in yet a third reviewer, but what we can do is we can be presented this to our funding partners and to the fra and the fta and happy to bring you any comments that they may have. we have many third party reviewers looking at this at the request of the fire department for example. as the director mentioned we brought this number down and just to give you a perspective. we were upwards in security and other costs and we are do

cost of that system by $17 and a half million in total including both direct costs and risk and vunerbility assessment related costs. on the rva, last month, you heard from bob ducabela. he is with the bbs security. he is the d, in dvs. and he has an extensive experience in the security industry, and has been responsible for protective design solutions at the world trade center site and the pen station, and the monahan station and washington's union station, and the amtrak and the command and control center and the portable in new york and the airport and the un and work with the nypd counter terrorism division and new york protective design standards. also, and dvs, in the role of our design and of the rva update has been working as the tjpa as the owner's representative, urs, and i will introduce the science who led that team and acted as the consultant to recommend the design criteria and the dvs led the consulting to the tjpa to make sure that the recommendations coming from urs, were reasonable and prudent. and did not not over or under address, the concerns and the nature of the facil

issues that are influencing our budget perspectives looking forward, including the rva, a risk and vunerbility assessment that we performed on the project and the status of the reserves and the over all schedule for design and construction and some potential recommendations that we may bring in the future to adjust phase one budget. >> so, the initial phase one budget, in june of 2006, the tjpa board, adopted the phasing strategy for the transbay program and broke it into phase one and phase two and the funding at that point to move the first phase into final design and eventually into construction. >> in 2007 we concluded the competition and we began the negotiations with pelly clark pelly to become the architect for the transit center and it was in november of 2007 that the initial phase one base line budget was adopted by the tjpa board. at that point in november of 2007, the phase one budget was 1.189 billion dollars. and it was based on a top-down construction approach where we would build the foundation systems for the transit center and the above grade portions for bus operations in the

our first job was to assess the vunerbility of the buildings in san francisco, what buildings were likely to be most at risk. and as we brought that very diverse group of people together and everybody realized that we have a big problem before us, where we had a very desperate diverse group of people who were at each other's throats. everybody came together and said that we have a collective problem and collectively that we have to solve. >> and as things moved on, in the end, when the final caps project was done, and the final reports were presented to you, in 2010, the public advisory community there was unanimous support for the program. this program, the south story ordinance actually was brought to you first four years ago today. you wonder why it has taken many of us wonder that as well. it was actually four years ago today that the report hear today hear tomorrow was brought forth to you. there is caps has evolved into esop the earthquake implementation program which is a 40, excuse me, 30-year program. the soft story ordinance is the first step in that. it is the low hanging fruit