we had a string of issues or i think that cooperative concerns that we had a chance to discuss wittjpa to get expectations with life safety and trying to collaboratively look to what we do to lay out to get a path for some of the things that they can help to bring into this that we don't necessarily control as well as the things that we do control. i would say that all directions point to that being very possible or -- i mean, certainly more than feasible and given a high likelihood of it occurring and as long as we're able to keep bringing to bear the forces, which we have been to date, both in directly managing the low-voltage sub-contract as well as bringing on the electrical systems that there's now a path forward with that in place. and something that we are able to now with power on monday finalize the schedule and to be able to commit to.

happy to take any questions regarding that. >> yes, directors. a couple, maybe a clarification, the achiefment o achievement ofn mid-june, does that equate with full completion? in june. >> basically yes and they finalize a punch list so it's more of a procedural issue after getting t.c.o. and the main thing is to just make sure that the building can be occupied by the public and once it's occupied by the public then substantial completion is finding the balance of work is done. and the physical work itself is on track and it shouldn't be a problem. >> so if i were to try to fill in ron's conspicuously absent dot on the chart, what date

would i put in? >> june 15th. >> okay, that's excellent. and with regard to the inspections are these inspections by the construction management team or by the city inspectors? >> mostly city inspectors. >> okay, well, i guess that i would just offer again if there's any assistance that the folks on the board can provide to accelerate that, i heard the point that slotting those in -- and i know that they're all very busy with the construction that is happening -- but if there's anything that we can do to make sure that doesn't become a problem. >> absolutely. and they've been there for us and it's primarily d.b.i. inspectors working on behalf of the tjpa who is the authority having jurisdiction, as well as some incidental special inspections and they've been at the ready and they're out there pretty much every day. you know, incidentally there was -- i understand on sunday at

midnight we got an email informing us of a concrete pour on monday morning and we had a special inspector there to support the activity. so we've got a solid commitment and team to respond and to support the plan that's rolled out by webcore to get us where we need to be by june 15th. >> okay. well, i appreciate both of your efforts on this. i think that you somewhat pointed it out but then there's the good, fun part of the presentation and you have the more challenging one and i appreciate as the c.e.o. of the company your direct involvement and engaging with the principals of the key subs. it sounds like that has been helpful and the numbers of bodies that you're getting on to the job sound like what's needed. so from -- we had tried to create this -- this framework of the different major tasks to help us and the public to track progress and it's proved to be

not so useful as with each month that goes by, two or three weeks of slippage seem to happen based on the schedule which suggests that in the month that goes by we're only getting a week or two of work done. now that we're getting closer to having a realistic schedule, what will we have more meaningful -- i guess transparency into how we're really tracking towards that june 15th date? >> my expectations is to get back on track with those milestones as it relates to power and enrich it a little bit more with low voltage. other activities are fairlily transparently tracking and by the end of march we should have all of the outside exterior concrete done by the end of march. start seeing system components, pretty much peppering the whole site throughout april. and within the commissioning

going on that latter part of april and may. so those are -- those are -- you know, aside from the drag point of electrical, those are tracking well and, you know, my expectation is to continue to monitor those established milestones, particularly the electrical. and to report back at those and track them a little closer. it's been a little hard to get the data in the last couple months. but i expect to elevate the knowledge base on that in the coming months' reports. >> thank you. other questions from directors? director harper. >> supervisor harper: well, i'm going back to the bus ramp on merge. it said that there were caltrans

had some exceptions for non-standard design elements, what are those? >> there's eight of those that range from a site distance element from an existing condition to the merge, you know, kind of width. and we're addressing each one of those one by one with caltrans next week to close out. in combination between those with me because this is a designer element that they need to close it out. so that's where we've got them on board and i have been talking with both within the last day or two to ensure that we can close those out next week. >> supervisor harper: i know how caltrans can be with its standards. so what happens if it says that it's not going to just close out these concerns but, i mean, can caltrans really say that we can't get on the bridge? >> each one of the items that we're speaking to will have a mitigation to fix it, you know,

and a recommendation. i mean, all of the recommendations for every one of those seven are not necessary, do nothing -- it's usually something that is a cross slope as a good example. a cross slope is supposed to be 2% and it's like 2.01% and you need a design exception. those are the level of tolerances that we're talking about with each one of these design exceptions. and with those it's -- working with caltrans right now it's more of how to package it and process it, sign it, and move forward. i believe that caltrans does not anticipate a mitigation for any one of those and we just have to close it out and to have documentation to why it was closed out. >> supervisor harper: okay. is a.c. transit going to be at that meet something. >> yes, they are and the parsons team will be with us next week. we do have, you know, some preparation that is prior to that and if it doesn't happen on wednesday it will happen shortly

thereafter if we're ready. we won't go in unless we are ready and we want to go in there once and have everything ready and presented. it's a presentation from identification to qualification to what is mitigation and ultimate recommendation for every one of those. >> supervisor harper: okay. >> chair nuru: director gee. >> vice-chair gee: thank you. sort of two buckets of topics similar to director reiskin. yes, thank you very much for coming in and to talking to us. the june 15th date is -- how can we -- can we tell everybody that we're going to commit to that date so that our retail leasing partners and everyone else can step up? because the financial consequences as ron alluded to just magnify every time that this schedule moves. because the partners, the income or lack of income, we need to have a date certain. so how certain is june 15th?

>> well, like i say, the biggest thing that changes is us actually getting electricity so now that we have that a whole lot more of our destiny is in our hands. the june 15th kind of t.c.o. date is when it's life safety ready and we have worked with ron -- i think that there was a couple months that we were bringing security on and getting ready all of the bus training that needed to take place. so i'm not sure what that means for actually use of the facility. i'm just looking at it from a contractor -- when we turn it over at that stage what that means for actual use -- >> vice-chair gee: am i hearing a commitment from the team to turn over t.c.o. on june 15th? >> yes, you are. >> so we'll proceed the meeting with our operational partners on the premise of june 15th as the t.c.o. date to regroup as how it relates to rolling out operations for all of the parties.

and then -- >> vice-chair gee: as time moves the time moves on and time is money. i know that there's a liquidated damages cause but is there actual damages or just one or the other? >> i believe that it's principally around liquidated damages. there are mechanisms for bad charge and what have you as well in terms of aligning the responsibilities. you know, amongst the different sub-contractors and webcore and stuff. so there's unpleasantries to sort out in the coming year. >> vice-chair gee: focus on the t.c.o. and we can always sort out the financial aspects -- >> that's exactly our priority. >> vice-chair gee: great. thank you. >> and the date is still the same or did it move for start of

service? >> the key points for -- in fact, i understand that there's a request for -- >> the c.o.o. has requested to speak on this matter. >> okay, he can answer my question. >> this may be a good time -- >> no more questions of the board. salvador? salvador lamas. >> good morning board of directors, i'm the chief operating officer at a.c. transit and i would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning. i would like to reaffirm a.c. transit remains appreciative of our continued collaboration with the transbay joint powers authority. in these final months of construction for the new transit center. we are excited to launch the service enhancements and the

passenger improvements. this is world-class transit facility that will bring as we near the finish line and i want to reinforce a.c. transit is ready today to move in and to begin operator training and supervisor training. as you can imagine there are several activities required in preparation to begin full service operations of the transit center. this includes bus deck testing that we are doing now and we're collaborating with the tjpa staff to further continue that. and operator and supervisor training, operator sign-up preparation, and legally required public notification of service changes. planning the execution of these activities need to be aligned with a realistic and firm construction completion date from tjpa. thus far the construction completion date continues to be a moving target, has not been

realistic and lacks transparency. we believe that it's not in the best interest of the public and the tjpa partners and specifically a.c. transit. it's led to confusion between tjpa and a.c. transit staff. now that the construction completion date appears to be further delayed we are concerned with the timing of bus operator training without knowing exactly when the sales force transit center will open or will be ready and safe for the public. safety of our employees, customers and the public is paramount for a.c. transit, therefore, validation that all required life safety and occupational and health compliance has been achieved is necessary before we can begin revenue service. the basic design and concept of the bus deck is that public transit buses enter the bus deck from the bay bridge, service the

bus stops on the bus deck, and then exit the bus deck back on the bay bridge. access to and from the bus deck from the bay bridge needs to be safe and functional before we can begin full-service operations. and a.c. transit has fulfilled its commitment to tjpa on the bay bridge merge mitigations and requests that tjpa followthrough with the completion of this critical safety component in advance of the bus operator training. a. krmple transit has reiterated on several occasions that we can only cease operation in the terminal after the new terminal is safe, ready, and properly permitted for revenue service. and we have have had sufficient time to complete activities required for training and start-up of operations. please know that a.c. transit remains committed to our partnership with the tjpa, more

importantly, we cannot wait to celebrate the grand opening with you. and we thank you -- or i thank you for, again, for the opportunity to make comments. i hope that answers your questions, director. >> so when do you believe that the buses will start running at the station? >> the best way that i can answer is that when we get a confirmed date that the bus deck has met all of its requirements and it's ready for public -- for public occupancy that we need to back that with all of the activities that a.c. transit has to do to achieve that date. so we were informed that june was the date that it would be ready. so we started and within our staff to formulate plans to condense our training to look at the entry of our schedules into our dispatching system, notifications to the public -- i mean, there's a whole team -- floors of teams of people that have to mobilize. so that is why it's frustrating

and confusing to learn that june is not the date that we can start operations and we're looking for confirmed, realistic dates that we can rely on so that we can put all of our resources forward. we're ready to start in june. if june is the date that it will be ready. >> so i guess that i should ask the question to the construction team and jes if june 15th is substantial completion, when do you think -- >> so with the t.c.o. of mid-june and substantial completion towards the end of june, i know that there's still things around security and bringing teams in and starting them up. so relative -- i don't know as much about the start-up that takes place after those handoffs are done. really, you know, ron has been helping to coordinate those as well and i'm -- i'm -- i don't know, quite honestly, what additional work takes place

specifically to ready the terminal for other uses, whether they're retail or bus use. i don't know, ron, you could help? >> could you also clarify -- i thought that i had understood that the t.c.o. and substantial completion would be more or less coincidence and it seems that you just said it's end of june. so the substantial completion -- if you guys could just clarify for us -- for any future transit and anyone else when substantial completion is -- i believe that we should have beneficial use of the facility. >> we are looking at -- on june 15th to have the life safety systems done, ready, operational, and public able to use. however, just because it's up and running there's a paperwork validation and everything that takes place so my comment around the june 15th was having life safety ready and, quite

honestly, i'm not sure everything that it takes to get to substantial completion. it's probably more of a team aspect to understand because there's design team and engineering team to really come on and say, yes, everything that you say is right and we're ready to go. so that's why i put out -- >> maybe then to ron -- >> yeah, let me lend some clarity and i will speak directly to all of the questions. the emphasis on june 15th has been t.c.o. which is historically or traditionally the moment when the fire department and other life safety building department officials deem it safe enough and the systems associated with fire life safety are in place. and the public is welcomed to use the facility. so that's where the emphasis has been and that's kind of been the trip wire for initiating training as well for kind of your john q bus driver as

opposed to the others that are trained to work within a construction site. so that's where the emphasis has been. the subtly between t.c.o. and substantial completion is that substantial completion by definition in the contract is that the scope of work is ready for its intended use. so there's a slight subtly there and there may be some systems not associated with life safety that don't cripple or don't preclude the normal operations of the building, but still need some -- or are on the work-to-complete list. so there's a subtly there and what i understand from jes is that june 15th is his commitment for t.c.o. and a couple weeks after that, but those other incidental systems to cross the threshold which we would call substantial completion. again, the entire facility ready

for its intended use. what does that mean to us working with the operators on mapping out operations? you know, historically a.c. transit has, you know, some key moments in time aligned with sign-up and we were aiming for june. we tried very hard for march. that went away. the next natural one is august 12th as i understand. that introduces a bit of a pain point for muni because they have all right initiated some scheduling and activities around june. so i intend to regroup with all of the operators and fine tune when start of operations ought to be. it's safe to say that it's hovering around august or between june and august as it relates to muni.

if the -- if they want or can. and like i said there's certain things that they've already put in place in terms of scheduling and notifications that may support an earlier arrival for them. so i anticipate teasing that all out in the next couple weeks. >> okay, but -- so you're saying that the center will be ready for bus operations in june? >> they'll be -- >> or not? >> the fire life safety systems are in play. it's effectively at substantial completion -- i don't know what pieces that will be falling short then that don't fall under that umbrella of fire and life safety, but in theory june would be ready. we do have some catch-up to do with training, testing has been going well and we have half of

the deck tested and next week we test the other half of the deck. it's really, you know, getting the momentum on the deck in terms of training and i appreciate the volume of drivers that both m.t.a. and a.c. transit need to educate and frame and that's just -- you know, it's been around an eight to 10-week timeframe we have been trying to, you know, set you up on the front end of that a bit in terms of getting a raining start with training. we had some strategies to start in april and now well, we see where we are, you know, it looks like june is the start point for that. i'm hoping to put some interim life safety measures in place that will allow us to get a running start on some of the training prior to june 15th but i still need to get by on

all of the appropriate parties on that in terms of getting ahead of the june 15th on the training side. >> maybe if i could ask -- with the consent of the rest of the board, so that we don't lose another month before we as the board and the public get an understanding of a realistic start date is, if after you reconvening with the operators that you could communicate back to the board the status, because by the time that we next meet we're at least eight weeks out from at least t.c.o. so it would be helpful to know sooner than later. >> absolutely. >> just to pick it back on director tripousis' question and responding to a.c.'s concerns and given the ballpark of especially completion that we're

looking at, is there a relative date certain that you can say that you can realistically drive the team to and suggest that within this timeframe, certainly, by june 30th or whatever that date is, that -- that the a.c. team can have a reasonable expectation that all of their work that they need to complete leading up to operations can be done so they can plan a little more effectively and have a realistic ballpark and still give the construction team a reasonable opportunity to complete those responsibilities? >> yeah, and that pretty much brackets around the june 15th versus the august 12th date. >> okay. thank you. (please stand by).

>> with -- a lot more complex systems associated with a world clats medical center, so this convergence is very similar. so i was very relieved to hear that they were enlisted recently to put a good

management overlay on this next push. >> okay. just, again, as soon as things change or something has slipped, we need to know sooner rather than later. >> yeah. we're going to keep the communications. i've appreciated all your support thus far. the director has been very active in the last couple weeks as well to help bring us along where we need to be in terms of support, and we'll have some incide interim on how it's progressing working the next couple mondays with our operators and our partners. i do want to mention that come april board meeting, i have a family commitment, so my expectation -- so i won't be here in april. however, it's my expectation that jess will return with dennis to report what's going

on in april, and i'll be fully engaged before and after that meeting, as well. >> okay. thank you. all right. next item. >> go ahead and all your next item. item seven is the facility readiness update. >> this item is presented by martha velez, our facility manager. i'm going to ask martha to expedite her presentation. if she's going too fast, please stop her. >> good morning, directors. martha velez. as i go through each slide, i will highlight one or two key points. the contract for the greyhound amtrak second floor has been finalized. the following slide provides

further detail. staging work is this week staging closely with webcor, however final schedule is depending on their scheduling. at this point, it looks like early may. this slide shows the bid comparisons for the various trades. note that this price was developed prior to a conversation with capital corridors last week that amtrak will only be leasing its flosh of the second floor passenger area. finally, the sbe participation on this contract is 8.1%. perdirector harper's request last month, this slide is a first path at looking at the path of travel through the center while areas are under construction, so i'm going to assume rise this rather than going through the detail that i was going to go through. in essence, we can program elevators to skip the second

floor. we'll have areas blocked off where people can't walk onto the second floor. the retail areas are all interior, so those will be blocked off, and then, on the ground floor, we are looking at putting some sort of -- i'm going to call it a wrap, so that when you're looking at the retail storefronts, you don't see -- you don't see empty spaces. i'd be happy to go through this in more detail at next month's meeting. >> okay. i'm going to just pause and introduce maria michaud. she is replacing tony smith, and she joins the team at a director level. one of her first tasks was to review the 50-plus rfp's that lincoln completed last year, early this year. these are prioritized and staged in place with daily operation support by the end of

march with most of the rest to follow by the end of june and a handful in december. so in other words, we're focusing on the ones that are needed on a daily basis to be ready by the end of march. as such, lincoln team is working through approximately 20 to 25 contracts. when we meet this next month, i'll have further detail. two key updates for drv. one is that the team is taking more time with the place of entertainment structure. they're currently investigating other like if a ilt ises, such as yerba buena guards to find out how they permit events. the consideration is to consider what makes sense to permit in-house, in that the tjb is its own entity. it's not necessarily an

either-or permitation, it could be a combination of both. this is targeted for completion in april. the second update is that drv has a solid bench of about 15 potential program partners; however, completion of agreements is pending an opening date. with pearl, two key areas of focus: continue to work with the transit agencies on the display information with the agencies working on their artwork. targeted completion is april. and then, the second item is working on configuring the media players. these are the pieces of equipment that are embedded in each digital kiosk that enable the displays. a before or after arrived last week with the final number arriving at the end of march. that puts optimization of that system in about the august time

frame. with the pri popup, it's very dependant on a solid date outreach to turn it into commitments. when the date is known there's no problem. currently it's juggling about 70 interested vendors of about 20 popup locations, including the bus plaza. so of the 75 vendors that pri has interest -- which there's interest, three of them are what i am ache going to call aggregators. these are like the machines in the airport that dispense food products. pri is tistill looking for a farmer's market, and they are looking at a beer vendor who

will not commit without an opening date. this information is all going to be summarized and presented to the tjpa in a more cohesive plan later this month. with the plans, dennis mentioned some of this earlier. the primary update is the tjpa and director reiskin met with david petrovsky, and he provided updates with two items. one is he'll be working with 5 v transit for the license of the bus space on the bus deck, and the other is he will not need space on the second floor, but will provide a lease with tjp for a passenger area. a revised lease was sent to them this week with a targeted presentation to this board in april or may. so that space it -- because amtrak is no longer leasing that space, it goes back into

marketable inventory through collier's. collier's has approached the prospective tenant to the second floor, and i've also contacted greyhound to see if they're interested in expanding into that space. this is the master schedule slide that shows overall readiness as compared to the construction timeline, which has the bubbles missing, similar to ron's. the only change from last month on facilities is that i extended the april -- to april the timeline for the roof park in consideration of taking another look at the place of entertainment permit. ti at this point, i'm going to turn it over to sidney. >> good morning. i'm going to come back to this slide. so later in the meeting, i'll be presenting the code of

conduct item and the cyber security item to the board. standard procedures are under development, and they'll be in place prior to opening. the preopening security training is on hold until ten weeks prior to opening. four weeks prior to opening with a fully operational building, safety and security systems will begin in building training on standard and emergency procedures for the security team, which consists of the security guards, ambassadors, and the ssc operators. the schedule in the next slide will show the ongoing planning work because we're in the process of training and to be delivered. and the piece-in project is on track to be completed in june 2018, provided that the security and pcm operator has access to the building and allow to complete the training of staff on systems. it's a very complex building. so on the schedule, the ongoing planning activities are shown.

as i said earlier, the training that does not include building access will start ten weeks prior, and the training that does require building access will start four weeks prior, and that consists -- this is my briefing. >> any questions, directors in. >> yes, director yee? >> one of the things, prior to substantial completion, when we say revenue date, are we talking about the same thing or are they two different things? >> so the substantial completion date of june 15th -- >> no, no, when you say opening date, what does that mean? does that mean revenue service, when the buses start running or is that a different day? because we're using words? >> ribbon cutting. >> i don't know what we're talking about when we talk about opening day versus revenue service. >> i can clarify that. opening day is revenue service

for us. >> so i would ask that we're consistent in our language so we're not confused. i am, but i don't know about anybody else. it's just easier to understand that opening day is when we're in rsd, revenue service. >> yeah, revenue service. we wanted to make sure we have enough training for security. if we go on-line earlier, we end up paying for -- >> yeah. i just want to make sure we're thoughtful with our language. so when you also talk about training for security and the time you need from tco, how does that align with our operator needs? are we in sync or are we on a different timeline? >> for the pco training, we will be syncing our training with the operator needs. >> that's the right answer. if you need 20 weeks and the operators are ten, the answer is i think we're going to be in

alignment with the operator. >> on the engineering side, there's a similar training needed for the engineer and maintenance team. >> so the only answer would be it is in parallel. >> keep saying. >> right answer. >> crawling with trainees. >> right. and then, on the roof top park on the programming, is that tide to revenue service also, or is that tied to a different timeline? >> it's tied to revenue service in that for the park to commence its activities, you really do want the -- the traffic, the commuter traffic as -- as part of it. >> i think they're two issues. you want the traffic, but the neighborhood is expecting -- >> yeah. >> has been patiently expecting, and they're not all going to be transit riders, so there's that balance between rsd, and if there's an opportunity to use the open

park to train, we'll hear from our cac and the neighborhood association. maybe there's an opportunity to open the park earlier, generate some excitement. just two different dynamics. there's the transit riders and there's the neighborhood, and how do you balance those, so... >> any other directors? okay. next item, please. >> all right. item eight is the citizens' advisory committee update, and we have bruce aggett with us. >> good morning, chair, directors, executive directors, i'm the chair of the siddens' advisory committee. first on the staff report, we were pleased to hear the progress on the technical peer review for the two or three track design is on schedule, and look forward to hearing the

results. we continue to encourage the san francisco planning department to work with the key stakeholders and decision makers to move forward with the process leading to a decision on the preferred alignment of the dtx as part of the rab study for a post of reasons that we shared at the board of previous meetings, and we look forward to hearing back on a new timeline leading to a decision. as far as a construction update, i had some comments prepared, but after the robust discussion, i kind of changed all the comments, so i won't read them, i'll just kind of -- >> oh, boy. >> -- kind of give you our impressions that i think you would hear from the cac, because we normally hear this robust discussion on tuesday night, and we did not have the benefit of hearing that prior to today. but i really appreciate the comments from webcor obiyashi

arpd what everyone has said that there's a lot of resources coming to bear now, a lot of transparency, the onion's being peeled back, and a lot more focus and transparency in detail. however, i'd like to direct my comments around your statement, director yee. it sounds like -- i was trying to figure it out myself. i think it's more june 30th. that's the impression that i got. but then, again, with that, i think listening to the coo from ac-transit and the concerns of really being able to get in there and put into motion all of the complexity that goes into scheduling operate impropers, training operators, getting communications ready for passenger experience and so on, there's a lot, and it's

very complex, so they really need that date, and we are -- i think from the cac's perspective, we appreciate that, because as certain as those dates are, and as well as the plans are executed and delivered, will really then result in a good implementation and start-up of operations at the center. and i know it's not about pushing the date as quick as possible. there's a balance between pushing the date as quick as possible and a substantial, safe, robust experience for customers, for visitors, and for the neighbors. so with that said, the comments are all very appropriate. i know we'll all be looking forward at the next cac meeting to see how the plans of the resources coming on board and hitting all the key milestones and why the experience over the next month will be different from what we've seen and what

we've experienced in the past. that will be where the rubber really meets the road of meeting the certainty and getting these milestones on dates. we all know that everybody is working together, but safety is number one, so i really appreciate ac-transit's comments about getting in the center and getting training going. safety good night cannot be co so we all know those are key elements. and then, balancing the cost of operations, being very clear about all the key dates going forward, there's got to be a lot of certainty around that because you don't want to train and then have to retain arain have to retrain again. that just continues to add to additional costs, which there would need to be funding. and again, we talked about the most important thing at the end of the day is the customer,

passenger, and neighborhood experience as this thing moves forward. so those are comments on the construction update. just switching briefly over to facilities and retail update. we were pleased to see the progress on the letters of intent for retail at the center. it looks like the team is quite a bit ahead. i think 24, where they were anticipating 13 at this time. however, we look forward to seeing the progress on the negotiate and sign off phases, which are targeted toward the second and third quarters of this year. we were also pleased to hear that 90% were local businesses. we again discussed the timing of bus operations. we had a pretty robust discussion of getting, you know, transit operations up and running, but again, what's the experience for the passengers.

so as far as way finding, detail, bus lines, etcetera, i think that's on the page and that ties into the last part of the conversation we had on construction update, and we spent a little bit of time talking about the bikes interaction, passengers with bikes. so where would the bike lockers be, where are the bike share stations going to be? understanding the way finding, we stressed that optimal placement is important to ensure that the conflicts between buses, other vehicles, bikes and pedestrians are minimized and then really support our focus on vision zero that we're really focused on here in san francisco. we have a brief update on the code of conduct, and it looks very, very thorough. we were pleased that there were, i think, four or five community stakeholder meetings and congrats to the project team on that. with that said, we didn't hear there was any push back from constituent groups, and as the

cac we're kind of kicking around a few things that we think could potentially come up. a couple of those, just for example are dogs not being allowed in the center or in the park. i think certain -- certain dogs are -- service -- certain service animals are allowed, but comfort animals are not and so on, and we just anticipate that potentially that could be something that comes up as an issue. and then, also, that bikes, you know, passengers who are bringing bikes either on the 25 treasure island or on ac transit, you know, how do they get their bikes up to the bus deck, and of course they're not allowed in the center. they're going to have to get access from the outside, and some of the feedback that we gave is that you know, take a look at b.a.r.t., and you kind of see where the bikes are running around in b.a.r.t., and it'll be interesting to see if that comes up as an issue. because they're actually in the

station, they're on the escalators, and there could potentially be some issued that come up. we talked as a committee that you have to be sensitive to these comments, and it'll be interested to see how they're resolved moving forward. okay. that's the update. thank you for the opportunity and happy to answer any questions. >> questions from board members? >> okay. thanks. >> thanks. >> next item? >> next item are the opportunity for members of the public to address you on items that are not on the calendar, but we've not received any notification that any member of the public wishes to speak, so we'll move onto the next item. >> 10.2. >> you would like to have that considered separately? >> yeah, i'd like to have that severed. >> well, then we'll go -- shall we just call them individually?

>> yes. >> so item 10.1 is approving the minutes of the february 18, 2018 meeting. we've not received any communication from the public. >> motion. >> second. >> aye? approved. >> item 10.2, and -- >> yeah, i appreciate the correction on the fact that we don't need a fiscal agent, but that changes everything. i mean, it makes our relationship with them much more flexible, and much different. i mean, i'm general counsel to an organization that acts as fiscal agents for artists and scientists and technologists to get together and collaborate on projects. and so i know a lot about what it takes to be a fiscal agent

and what's involved in the accounting between the agent and the recipient. it's -- it's a hassle. when you need it, because somebody needs to be a fiscal agent, then, you go through the hassle. that's the 7.5% and things like that. and i'm not saying this isn't a good idea at all. i think bringing in the community's benefit district into this and getting them involved in the opening and everything is very good. i'm just saying that these documents now are not the documents that would apply. we don't need a fiscal agent, and so to have a fiscal sponsorship agreement is just confusing. so i brought up that point just so -- and i don't know how -- i mean, we just sort of kicked everything for six weeks or eight weeks, so unless there is a super hurry, i'd like to see agreements that reflected ability that we now have with them and don't refer to the necessity of a fiscal agent,

because that just confuses everything. >> good morning, directors. sarah debord. chief financial officer. i'm sorry, director harper. i'm not sure what flexiblity you are referring to, but if we are going to utilize the community benefits district to receive donations on our behalf, we do need a fiscal sponsorship agreement in place. >> no, you don't. i'm sorry. they can be just a plain old agent, and they can say go out, have at it, folks, and raise money and all that sort of stuff on our behalf as agents do, but when you talk about a fiscal agent for the irs purposes, you have to have a necessity. otherwise, there's no point. >> we worked with counsel that works on these agreements similar as i'm sure to yourself, and the agreement actually came through him was run through him. >> yeah, but originally, the

staff report said we have to have one. >> and i apologize for -- that's my mistake. but certainly, as the cfo, i don't want donations running through an organization without agreements in place. i don't think there are any agreements, and i know there's an expense with having the cbd doing this for us, and i hope the board understanding that i don't want to add additional duties to my accounting staff for this for a short period of time. so certainly, myself and christine would recommend approval of this item. >> well, everybody else can vote for it. i think it's silly to approve of a document that doesn't fit what you need. i'm not saying -- i don't have

any problem with this in terms of its substance and getting this group involved. i've said that, but to think, to three this into a fiscal agency thing, when you need it -- look at what you have to do when you're a fiscal agent on both sides. every since homeland security got involved, it's a lot more work. i don't want us to do any work that's not necessary. i'm trying to save us and our agent. they don't have to be an irs fiscal agent, they just need to be an ordinary agent. that's all. and maybe if the word can go out, that look, don't pay attention to the irs code, the internal revenue code, fine, maybe that's all it needs, but i can't in good conscience good on record saying that we need a good fiscal agent when we don't. >> saying that we don't need to

have an irs agent in place, how does that affect the tjpa. >> my understanding is if we don't have to go through all the accounting efforts that goes into that, fine. i'm just saving people from having to do that, because maybe a simple agent is all we need. >> i just want to clarify you're using the term fiscal agent, and i'm using the term fiscal sponsorship agreement. >> i'm just not going to vote it. it's critical to the legal documents that the legal people draw up as to whether you need a fiscal sponsorship or not. so it's just -- just confusing, you know? >> any comments from any other directors? >> again, i would say i'm not sure i understand the distinction here.

i think the idea of using this nonprofit to support the idea of bringing in resource is a good thing. i think we would want the agreement between the agency and the nonprofit. whether or not this is the right agreement, it sounds like it's a battle of lawyers. we have whatever counsel agency you're using saying one thing, and we have a board member saying another. i think the idea, the concept is good, and we should have some sort of agreement. whether this is the right agreement, i would defer to the director on that. >> well, if you want to move that it should be that the agreement that the lawyers now would do it, that's fine. we could make it an agreement that fits according to our general counsel. >> perhaps we could ask our general counsel. >> yeah. >> can you shed some lights on that? >> yeah. so the tjpa asked its counsel for legal assistance in drafting this document, and he recommended this document. but i would be very happy to

work with the cbd and the tjpa's finance counsel to make sure that it does what it needs to and not forward with that, so you could director them to move forward with the fiscal sponsorship agreement and specifically with a percentage amount paid to the cbd not to exceed 7.5%, since that seems to be one of the key business terms, and that i doubt would change as a result of making any changes to the form agreement. >> so moved. >> second. >> first and second with that recommendation, and no members of the public wanting to comment on that item. [ roll call. ] >> that item is approved.

>> next item. >> next item is on your regular calendar. item 11, adopting the tjpa's code of conduct for the transit center. >> and miss sampson will present this item to the directors. >> good morning, directors. last month, the board directed tjpa staff to conduct public outreach on the code of conduct prior to bringing it to the board for approval. it was developed with input from stakeholders and city agencies and is part of the process tjpa presented the proposed code of conduct to neighborhood organizations following extensive noticing to stakeholders via e-mail, phone calls and social media. we held four public meetings in tjpa offices. the response to the proposed

code of conduct was overwhelmingly positive. the transit center code of conduct is being developed as part of our ongoing process to support the four program attic goals of the transit center which create an exceptional visitor experience, facilitates transportation retail and other purposes of the city, preserve the public's investment in the transit center's infrastructure, and promote a safe transit center to all users. the park is also governed by the park rules and regulations, which was passed by the board in september. the code of conduct supplements the park rules and regulations and all applicable laws. as part of the process we followed to develop the code of conduct, tjpa and asset management staff identified five primary functions of the transit center and the areas in which those activities occur. so this was the breakdown.

transit areas are the did you say beco say -- bus deck and bus plaza. retail on the ground and second floors. these are areas that are least attendance and designated to serve retail purposes. a park and open space, the roof top park and pedestrian areas. movement areas, sidewalks, walkways and passage ways. these are areas through which the public passes, some of which are very narrow, and then way finding, which is the grand hall. this area is ziepd as a safe interior safen come passing multiple activities and the hub for information and way finding. we broke the code of conduct down into three sections. first of expressive activities, the second is regulation of certainly commercial or organized activities. this is a public use of the transit center, usually for profit, and then, the third is prohibition of certain use and conduct, and that is also public use of the transit

center. so we went ahead and defined expressive activities as generally thought of as auditory visual or printed communication or conduct that's intended to convey a political, religious, philosophical or idea logical message. they're protected by the first amendment and may include demonstrating, protesting, leafletting or displacement of signs. there are many other activities which may qualify as expressive activities. this is just a sample. we spent a lot of time on expressive activities, seeking to understand what activities might occur at the transit center and their impact on the five primary functions at the transit center. we used the five primary junctions and the public to define open areas. it includes exteriors and sidewalks around the outside perimeter, the roof top and grand hall. closed areas include leased areas dedicated by