down the entrances and even integrated into sign itself with the name of the logo. we have the beale street lobby we mentioned before. that over the portal doors into building would be the sponsors name for the building and within the beale street lobby itself, would be another opportunity for sponsorship. that sponsorship could be tied in with the retail space on the second floor that could be a retail or office and there is also infrastructure for a large digital signage board for above elevators that would be created at the level there and all the way into the park down into the lower concourse. the five artist that are

again sponsorship opportunities are listed here. each of those we envision also digital signage that talks about the artist, talks about their artwork, talks about it's relevance to the transcenter and educational historical information that is usually and along with that a companies the donor sponsor for that piece of artwork. julie change is again is the terz a floor above the grand hall looking down from the glass through message board that is electronic for message written specifically for it's relevance to the transit center to san francisco and our project. jamie carpenter, he has

custom light fixtures we are developing for the sealing for the custom pictures above there. the fountain in the park level that's activated on the bus level below. and tim hawkins sculpture at the corner of fremont and mission street which is the corner of mission square. in phase one we have a bicycle rack located around the building in these particular groups in these locations and each of these groups is a sponsorship opportunity for someone wants they could claim sponsorship for the entire group depending on the response for the rfp. there will be additional bicycle storage in

phase 2 when that comes along as well. and the wifi partnership is a unique opportunity here where we believe there will be an app developed that people will use as they come into transit center where they look at the kuld -- schedule of the buses and trains and look at the waiting lines for the restrooms and restaurants and retail outlets. they can look at an interactive realtime where they are in the building so they can find where they want to go, finding. there will also be, you can order food from a restaurant to be picked up or to be delivered from the park. all sorts of useful beneficial things that we think the patrons would use and each of the uses of that app would also

bear the name and the logo of the sponsor for this system. beyond the component sponsorship in the rfp is a request for full sponsorship which would be essentially everything you have just seen in one sponsors name which would include the entire building, the park, the components, the bus ramp. that's the section through the building again as a reminder of how much is available in one single sponsorship.

the respondents that provide more quickly are going well in this section. the next in the profile of the respondent and this is the mission of the organization, the make-up of the board, the ceo, in this area, the respondents that do well are those for example that demonstrate a commitment to social responsibility or demonstrate a commitment to some aspect to entrance bay program like sustainability. conversely an oil company or car company would not do well in this section. finally throughout the world there are obviously landmarks named

after historical figures. we would provide a point to respond end to name a can you recall -- cultural figure. respondents would do well if that figure has some sort of relationship to san francisco or transportation. someone we would use is someone like maya angelou which is a major figure and maya angelou was the first female african american streetcar conductor in san francisco. major cultural figure with a connection to san francisco and public transportation. we want to make it very clear if a respondent is selected that includes a name naming the transit center after a public figure that there are many opportunities to place that sponsors logo throughout the entrance bay center and make it local. we

have a couple of advertising policies and we want to convey to you that there are going to be parameters around this opportunity. i mentioned the scoring that will be included for the profile of the respondent. we also will not be considering respondents that in anyway inhibit our ability to promote the transbay program or to maintain a safe and welcoming environment for all passengers that will inhibit tbja also does not promote any illegal activity. all the aspects of the transbay center will be with restrictions. you won't see anything with violence or anything that would violate community standards. so finally we end

with an overview of our key dates. we are looking to issue the rfp next thursday on february 19th and then we'll have our presubmissions session on march 3rd and responses to those questions on march 17th and proposals due on march 26th. all leading towards hopefully bringing your recommendation to the board at the june 11th, board meeting. with that we would be happy to answer any questions that you have.

this shows a great amount of opportunity. what is the timeline to be able to attract some of the funders like you talked about like the one in general hospital in a very short timeframe. so i embrace that yes, it will bring a lot of opportunity but i also think there is a lot of rushing to get the pest -- best type of advertisers in here. >> in terms of the timeframe, we set minimum terms of the duration of sponsorship, but we didn't set a maximum. there is a flexibility for respondents as far beyond off what they would like to propose.

the smallest components of 5 years to suggest something that goes much longer than that. >> but the window between march february 19th to april 15th. >> i thought you were making two 2 points. >> are there people that come and already express interest. >> we can extend the timeframe, but the objective is the following. we are always looking at the end goal. the end goal is to open the station concurrent with the opening of the park at that time mayor's suggestion as well. if we work our way back wards, in order to accomplish that goal, we need to have awarded all the contracts by no later than july of

this year. which means we need to have this funded no later than this year. for the past few months and sometime now we've been looking for sponsorship opportunities to ensure that phase one is fully funded. so thankfully we have the mellow radios that past by july of 2015 we need to know where the money is coming from. is it part of mellow roost and sponsorship coming from and we have expressed interest that's come to us and we indicated we would be

putting out a competitive proposal for the public at large. that's what's driving the timeframe. >> my concern is just to get the big money people within the timeframe is difficult. >> what we allow for in the schedule is a question and answer period. if people would come to us and ask for more time we can allow time for that. as it goes, if the respondent is looking for more time. understand what's driving all of our schedules is opening up the station concurrent with the park by 2017. >> sorry. it took years and lots of presentations and one on

meetings with philanthropist that took time to get to the hotel. if you already have folks in line and these conversations have happened i think this works. i think it will be tough to get a major done or in this timeframe if there hasn't been interest committed. the second set of feedback that i have is actually a lot of our residents have a lot of concerns around advertising. a very san francisco issue. i wonder if you reached out to sf beautiful and residents to get feedback on their thought. even recently we had an ordinance code clean up come up around signage which includes transbay terminal and people wrote me because of the neighborhood now and it's not a

solely financial commercial neighborhood and they don't want advertising in their windows and they have been pushing us to think differently about how signage occurs in this area. when i was on the school board, a ton of opposition from parents for having hallways named after people. you will have a tough time with that. i love the concept which says brought to you by city bank. i think parents are going to be an issue of consumerism to their kids. when naming the park and terminal and even the calendar that shows the training coming at, i think you will have a lot less opposition there but certainly with the children's park and some of the educational signs i think

you will definitely get some critical feedback and get some feedback directly from the area residents and sf beautiful because there is a key stakeholders in this issue. >> we did present to the advisory committee on tuesday. got good feedback. but that point was made. there was an appreciation for seeing the details on our advertising policy. there are parameters to consider. >> about the timeframe and all of that because i think it's a huge effort. but it's an exciting initiative. i'm wondering what we can take

back . i had questions about the advertising policy and restrictions. i know at the jpb we have challenges of even though there are policies it's the interpretation of policies. so things like -- what we are trying to do is not have something obscene out there. they are going to start to interpret things differently. what sort of mechanism do you have to deal with those kind of disputes to get really can be time consuming. >> well, i was paraphrasing a bit when i was describing the goal of not violating any community standards. but in the, i don't know if i can

bring this up again on the crime scene. -- screen. but in the advertising policy there is details and those restrictions i put in place but i imagine the goal was to be as clear as possible and i will defer it to maria but i believe the tjpa would have the final word. >> this is considered after thoroughly reviewing them and before we put out the advertising package at the terminal. that these policies have really served us well to date. we have no problems with the advertising at the station. at the end of the day, we would bring all of these components to the board. offers we would be looking at closely the advisory committee would have input, the community as

director kim mentioned. today it worked well the way it's worded in detail. >> i would suggest that it maybe get relooked at because it's venturing into a new area of being artistic and freedom of expression. it brings all these terminology and different scriptures of what this means. it might be worth just looking at existing policies and seeing how effective it will be in dealing with those issues that you will deal with when you go through rfp. i know from the jpb that if the right mechanisms or dispute management or the claims, it could be, very small things could move a very big issue. i ask

the staff to relook at the policy and make sure the structure is there so that when there is a dispute, it's contained in whatever structure you set up to manage those types of disputes. >> if i could, director, lee, one thing that's different about this sponsorship opportunity from the regular advertising is that sponsorship it wouldn't change every month or some period like you might see in some advertising with the sponsors name. we may at least not confront this with questions about does this or not meet our policy. >> i think it is something that at first glance, charge ahead but when you see it's a lot of

complexities. what is the external. the idea of there is a lot of public places that have a lot of different external characters. time square in new york has an iconic external character. whether that would fit anything like this, we don't know, right? it might be interesting to work with the citizens advisory committee. here are some examples. that's what we are thinking. do we want digital screens in just advertising in digital crime scenes and get that to a policy

>> if you are talking about the major terminal sponsor, that's a long term. you have to get senators and congresswomen and all sorts of people involved in that if you are going to maximize it. it has to be done very well and i don't know if rfp maybe isn't necessarily the way to start. i don't know, i have never done it and we are doing it in the brp and oakland. that is a much smaller scale. but we already had targets. we knew that kaiser was one that we really wanted and we have been working with them for several years and see if we can nail that. there are other comparable things like that. i think the one thing that i would holdback on because i think it would be to our advantage is the wifi

sponsorship. the reason being is the public's attitude towards the wifi they expect changes about every 6 weeks in terms of, i remember an initial. just a few years ago you couldn't get wifi unless you signed up for so many months and they would bill you and people don't tolerate that anymore. so, and apps can be constructed very fast. so almost, we are going to build a wifi network that's fine, but it could be anything from ours, but we want it sponsored. the nature of what passengers will accept for a place like that for getting wifi will change in the next 2 years. it's moving so fast. if they can sit better in peach coffee in terms of of the

terminal. it has to be a very subtle thing. the other thing is i view advertising versus sponsorship very different. advertising will be taken care of by screens where we have a short-term thing going on where the giants will be advertising something for a month and that's going to be flexible. for the sponsorship and the terms, i think we really need to think about the idea or encourage the idea of options and rights of first refusal. because if i were a big sponsor, i would two concerns. i don't know how this is going to play out in the representation and what the community is going to think. i would like a little flexibility, that would be

options. at the other hand, if we say if this becomes as big, then the value of the poerp -- sponsorship is going up. you have a short-term write-up for it's refusal to keep the sponsorship going. if someone wants to come up at a market price. that's what we have to deal with. >> right. that's the way it works. they would have the right to match a better off. >> and ed is not here to support me. i know he would. the transit ideas and the ads on the buses, it's not just trying to stay within very middle norms. there are people on the edges that are pushing rights and that sort of thing and in the example that i give through operation

transit because right now we are trying to talk about what are our bus ads going to look like. if planned parenthood would put an ad, would we have a problem with that. or if the nra wanted to, would we have a policy to prohibit it. those are things you need to think through which i don't think we need for a while, bit do. >> our advertising policy would do anything to prohibit on positions of neutrality that are not related to the transbay programs. >> some people are pushing 1st amendment rights when you have a policy and when they have a political message. does that mean your ad policy would have to accept it. it's dynamic right now. >> it is the item no. 1 on

our list of shall not, consider political campaigns. it's great. i don't think any of us have a problem with the concept. it's the idea of all the factors involved. good luck. >> thank you. that concludes my report. >> okay. go ahead and move to your next item. item 6 is the citizens advisory committee update. >> chairman and members of the board, executive director. i'm happy to give you the report of our citizens advisory committee. it will be in two

parts. first on vision zero and secondly on the rfp for naming rights and stuff like that. i was not able to stay for the whole meeting and so vice chairman provided me for second points. i thank scott for bringing it here so i can see it. in terms of vision zero, we were very grateful to scott and staff for scheduling vision zero to speak to us on the agenda. because bruce and i sit over that committee and had requested it. megan, we and mary hunter presented it to us and you may wish to present a similar presentation before you. vision zero as you know is city policies

adopted by 13 agencies of the city. and ed reiskin is one of the, director of one of those agencies that manages the director of department of public health. i would like to mention to you that this is a 10-year plan of course to reduce traffic incidents to zero whether they be motorist. the

number of reporting traffic incidents. 17 pedestrians, 9 motorist, 3 bicyclist. the second point was high injury streets. 12 percent of all san francisco streets are upon for 70 percent of the total crashes. we is that is the transbay transit center happens to be in the network of that 12 percent of the streets. so we really want to be thinking of this now, how working with the city we prevent accidents from happening around this wonderful grand central station of the west which will be hub of all traffic in san francisco and you can imagine for yourselves what the head lines and public city would be if during the first year

or subsequent years we have an accident there. we want to prevent that. now is the time that we need to think of that and i propose to you that we with the transbay center become the exemplar of this vision zero of making sure that we have done all that we can to prevent that. so i had proposed that the vision zero theme meet with maria and her team and bruce and i would be there but especially with the commander who sits on the vision zero is signed to the vision zero campaign and task force so that we hear from the police what they are doing around the transbay hub and know that we are going to have something ve