>> 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 permit, rest room and hallways, shaw alleys due to the restrictions for

size, 1110 feet of playgrounds, children's areas, ticketed seating, and then within 50 feet of any construction site or equipment for the safety of the public and those engaging in expressive activities. permits may be required within open spaces. the requirement is again based upon the transit center functions and the anticipated impact to the public. for example, parades, demonstrations or religious event involving 25 or more people require a permit due to their impact on the transit center. where a permit is required, tjpa may designate areas in the transit center where activity may occur. we created expressive

activities permit documents and procedures as part of the process to develop the code of conduct, and earlier martha talked about the special event permitting which is not within the scope of this item but will be discussed at a later board meeting. shifting gears away from expressive activities to public use of the facility, the rest of this presentation covers public use. this includes commercial and organized use of the transit center, usually for a profit. so regulated activities, again, those activities for which a permit will be required can include events for which a fee is charged, so artistic performances, speeches, classes, selling, barttering, exchanging or promoting goods or services, athletic activities, providing a farmer's market, commercial photography, filming or recording, and weddings. other regulated activities:

animals. service animals fall under ada regulations so they're allowed anywhere with their owner. animals in crates are allows inside the transit centers and dogs leash are allowed in the exterior areas. we took into consideration transit rules so people would be able to get their animals from the bus plaza and the bus deck. we felt that their access to the interior spaces worked for all involved. bicycles are allowed in bike storage areas. we have long-term lockers and short-term racks, and on the roof by way of elevators only. for safety reasons, bicycles are not generally allowed on escalators, and access to the multiple exterior street level exit riders will be better for transit riders. wheelchairs, strollers for children or carrie on luggage are allowed anywhere in the

transit center. large lug an allowed only en route to a transit service or baggage check, and alcohol can only be consumed in a business or event with permit. and i promised not to read the prohibited items. at the bottom in the rest rooms we've identified activities that are allowed and not allowed, and exposing certain body parts is regulated by the police code. and just to go into a little more detail on the public outreach, we presented the draft code of conduct to the tjpa kr ac on february e6 and march e6. we hosted public meeting at tjpa's offices. we posted noticed on the website, and brought on social media, and then meeting notices were sent to east cut cbd, ocii

for the trans based cac for distribution through their community lists, and then, we contacted the neighboring properties. we recommend that the board approve the code of conduct, and this concludes my presentation subject to questions. >> question from board members? yes. >> just a silly question. where does that place street musicians? is that a permitted activity, where the performer would have to get a permit to do that because they're not technically collecting or -- there's no ticket associated with it, but there is compensation in some cases associated with it. >> it depends upon the space and the type of activity. so for instance, we do not allow amplified sound, and so if they wanted to use amplified sound, they would need to get a permit. >> okay.

thanks. >> thanks. >> yes, director gee. i may have missed it. is there a fee schedule or is that coming separate? >> that will be separate. that's outside of the scope of this. >> because that's a part. >> the permitting is more to ensure that the function of the transit center and then the impact to the public is understood. >> and they saw the permit, i just didn't see the fee schedule. >> no fee schedule for expressive activity permits. >> when we get to that item, this is more of a question, do we have a philosophy then that tjpa should -- it should be cost neutral or, you know, i don't know if we've gotten to that conversation yet. >> that is one of the items that brv is working on. they're putting together i'm going to call it, yes, a meenoo of fees, but they're still working through it. >> i think before they work on fees, i think the philosophy of the board should guide how

those fees are, whether it be cost neutral, 50-50, whatever, i think that's a board conversation, not a brv conversation. that's my -- >> yeah. good point. we'll develop something and try to bring it to the next board immediati immedia meeting ahead of what brv is going to do. >> yes, director reiskin. >> just on that, i would support full cost recovery given that we already have an operating budget gap that operators are largely going to be saddled with filling. at some point in the future, we could revisit, but that would being my recommendation. i had three questions. i appreciate all the work that you've done, particularly the outreach. it was very helpful. >> thank you. it was a team effort. >> starting with one of the issues that was raised in the cac report with regard to animals, we do permit people to bring animals onto muni

vehicles, not just service animals, but nonservice animals without requiring designation that they're comfort or otherwise. just can be your house pet. not everybody likes that rule, but that is our policy. there are certain qualifiers to that policy, so i'm now wondering if somebody comes from treasure island with the family pet and wants to get down into the city, would they be prohibited from doing that. >> no, they will not. we took into account both sfmta's and being c transit rules on pets, so they would be able to bring their pet from the bus deck down to the street, or if they're coming to the bus plaza, as well. >> so long as that animal is in a carrier. >> right, so that does not conform with our policy. >> the thinking was that it

straddled, hopefully in an acceptable way the concern about having animals not on leash within the transit center facility and the operator requirements, meaning that if a person knew they were coming to the transit center with their pet, they have the option of bringing a carrier so that they can then put the animal in the carrier and exit the transit level. on the bus plaza, they simply need to have a leash. they don't need to have a carrier. >> and i don't know how much this case will arise, by somebody coming in on ac transit or muni bus, and i don't know what ac transit's rules are. somebody coming in from treasure island could have a pet with them and then would not be able to offboard because they wouldn't be -- if they weren't able to meet the carrier requirement. i have a 180 pound dog, and i'd

never bring it on the bus. if i did, i wouldn't be able to bring a carrier, so i'm not comfortable with the carrier requirement. i think generally within the building, i think that's fine, but just as you're providing a way for people to get bikes from the plaza to the street, it seems like there should be a way for people to get pets from the plaza to the street. that's one point. with that, i think some way finding signage would be helpful. if we don't want bikes on escalators, we have some signing and things for folks on education about that. the second one had to do with the--drugs and alcohol are

mentioned 17 times in this approximately, which is okay. in some places, it's mentioned as if you're under the influence and it's essentially creating a problem, it's a disturbance, you're getting in people's way, you're drunk and sloppy, then certainliy, we would aunt that requirement. but certainly now with regard to drugs and controlled substances, i'm wondering where marijuana fits into that now that it's legal at the state level. i get smoking wouldn't be permitted, but there are lots of ways that people seem to be using it now that don't entail smoking. so somebody's eating a brownie, are they in violation of their code of conduct if they're not otherwise creating a problem? >> i don't think there's any way we'd know if there was marijuana in a brownie or not. we're more concerned about the impact of the people around based on either the behaviors or say secondhand smoke, and my undering from sfpd is they are able to enforce marijuana smoking the way they enforce cigarette smoking or vaping. >> yeah, smoking, we would

definitely want enforced. but the controlled substances, i believe the definition of controlled substances would include marijuana, and if so, it seems like we have a little bit of inconsistency. >> we're very concerned about having people shooting up and some of the behaviors that happen. >> totally agree with you, and i think transit center fellow people munching brownies wouldn't be great, either. i just don't want to be doing something inconsistent with state law or generally not the will of the voters, so if you can check. >> director reiskin, i can let you know that we did mimic the san francisco city code on this topic, and so to the extent that the law is evolving and the definitions around drugs or controlled substances are evolving, i'm sure that the staff would be happy to consider that. the intention, though, was to be parallel and exactly in line with the san francisco city code. >> okay.

that's helpful. maybe it just hasn't caught up or maybe it's not a conflict. the third one had to do with advertising and promotion, which i was very glad to see in there. we -- outside in the public rights of way, see various forms of gorilla advertising that is not consistent with the city's permit requirements. so my question on that is what is the penalty if i go down and start slapping things down on the floor to advertise my product? i get that it's not consistent with the code of conduct. i would like to -- i would hope that the penalty would be such that it would be dissuasive from doing this. because oftentimes when people do this, they get a little media splash. i don't want them to be worth that risking that cost. so can you speak to what the penalty would be for someone doing that sort of activity. >> i can speak to the -- there are no monetary penalties. we will be asking them to cease

their behavior, cleanup what they -- the mess they made, if i can call it that, and if there's not compliance, then, it'll be considered trespassing. as far as legal damages, if they actually damage the property while they're doing that, say if they spray paint the terazzo floor, that would be an issue where we would go after them for damages. >> would there be fees associated for violation of the code of conduct? >> not at this time. we would have to adopt a separate schedule of penalties and really think it. >> yeah, i don't mean this second, but to the point about we have a schedule of fees that are forth coming, could that include a schedule of penalties? >> perhaps. i really want to investigate that thoroughly and determine our enforcement authority, who literally would be the

enforcement authority. right now we have a system setup where we have private security to assist with our enforcement, and then, we have the san francisco police department, by their scope of authority have some limits tide to the municipal code. so to the extent that we are looking at adopting policies that are not in line with the san francisco municipal code, we'd have to grapple with that. >> suggest entities do existent under the public rights of way with the public works, but i don't know how they would apply in a building. we would want something similar. i wouldn't be suggesting fees for every violation of the code of conduct, but for things that people are getting commercial benefit of, even if they're caught and forced to cease, again, i would want the risk of doing so to be disuasive enough so that it didn't happen. >> yeah. certainly understand your point, and i'd suggest that the

staff go back and see how we can use some of the existing city procedures to see if we can gather some of the same benefits for the tjpa. >> thank you. >> yes, director gee. >> just more of a follow up on director reiskin's comments. one of the things on my work in sacramento on the public league of cities is we all refer to dui, driving under the influence of alcohol, so we're experiencing more from that. so just food for thought in the code of conduct is behaviors under the influence and/or drugs. we're seeing more combinations of the two rather than one. and i -- when people talk about dui, i always say duid, because people are doing both and amplifying the behaviors with those kinds of combinations. and so while it is a behavior that we're trying to avoid, i think we might want to look at

behaviors caused by the influence of alcohol and/or drugs and just leave it as generic as that. >> thank you. we'll definitely do that because where that happens, because we have police on-site, we'll be able to rely on the police code to solve those problems also. but yes, we'll take it into account. thank you. >> yeah, i agree completely with director reiskin. dogs on buses, this thing is just evolving -- and all kinds of pets, really. it's getting harder and harder for us to do things that -- and they're going to will those expectations when they come to the terminal. so i think it's really going to cause a lot of -- if it's different when they get to the terminal, you're going to have a lot of disgruntled people. but this is on balance, and i think very well done. and it will evolve with learning. i understand that.

but like director reiskin, we know we're going to get people coming off of buses -- you know, take your dog to work is now a thing. >> more than the dogs. >> yeah. so any way, i just want to -- >> thank you, we'll ensure that we have that path of travel covered so that people can get to and from where they need to be. >> amendments, work with to improve that issue? >> and just to make sure i understand what the fix-it is, so is it the board's direction to allow animals, even not on leash, within the transit center, to exit a vehicle or are we -- >> so -- well, what i would propose, and i think we would need the sense of the board. i don't want to speak for the board. what i would propose is it essentially follow the same rules as the bikes, that just as a way for the folks to get from the bus deck out to the

street with their animal, i would suggest that it should be on leash. it's just that the carrier requirement is one that i think would be onerous, so that's what i would recommend. >> we have all three in here on animals from make uppy, which is dogged musti be muzzled or leashed or in a carrier. we can ensure that if you're bringing your iguana in a carrier, you can get it to the street in addition to dogs. >> i think where we are is on leash following a specific permitted route to have the animal and the transit rider exit the facility. >> yeah. i think that -- dogs running around loose in the transit center is not what i'm recommending. >> right. >> but generally, the general concept of what you're talking about is fine. it's really just folks who come into the plaza or the bus deck should be able to get between

those two. >> thank you. i don't need to reinvent the wheel here. it should just be an extension of the mta and ac directive in terms of the requirement of a pet on a leash, and for alternate pets, some means of carrying. we should provide things that the transportation facility offers. as director reiskin pointed out, if i'm bringing my 90 pound dog to the transit center on the bus, i'm going to have it on a leash because the bus requires it, and that should be extended through the center and to the path of the exit and entry, and that way, the patron can understand that it's fully -- they can plan ahead more effectively for that trip.

>> okay. so with those -- >> we did have a member of the public that wanted to comment on the item. andrew robert with the east cut cbd. >> good morning, directors. andrew robert with the east cut cbd area. we have tens of thousands of people and workers who come into the district every day. i just want to speak to the code of conduct, which think it's incredibly dependant on the success of the center. i'm going to keep it brief, but that's what i think. >> thank you. oh, mr. patrick? >> relative to -- hi. jim patrick, patrick and company. relative to pets, i'm not a great dog lover, but we're not talking about pets in the park.

we've sort of swept that under the table. what will the policy be about pets in the park? i read an article recently where 34% of the people living have pets, and so we're trying to market ourselves to the neighborhood and their activity. and right now, as i understand it, there are no dogs allowed in the park. and is that the right decision? i suggest it's going to be a problem, and so i leave that in your hands. thank you. >> all right. that concludes members of the public that wanted to address you under that item. >> could i have comment on that last point? was there any feedback from the public with regard to the ban on nonservice animals in the park? >> we -- we had a lot of conversation before we brought that to the board, and identifying that under ramp park is going to be a very dog friendly park, and it would be more difficult for people to bring dogs up onto the park

unless they had direct access, that the neighborhood was satisfied with that stlit where service animals in the park, in addition to the way it's designed and the gray water recovery systems issues with animals, but also having that under ramp park for them, they were satisfied. >> thank you. >> i would move approval with the direction to staff with regard to pets as i hope staff will understand. and also, with the expectation that the -- that the fees and fines are going to come back, including a possibly exploration of fines for commercial activity. that's -- violates code of conduct. >> second. >> with a first and a second on the item as proposed to be amended -- [ roll call. ] >> director kim has had to depart and so she will be marked as absent.

[ roll call. ] >> your eyes well. five ayes, and item 11 is approved. item 12 is authorizing the executive director to execute an agreement with mosaic 451 for a three year term in an amount not to exceed 2,491,000. introduce yourself. >> sidney sampson, tjpa chief security officer. thank you. so this contract will provide information, security and cyber security services to the transbay program to include defending the use of cyber space from attacks. systems protected include the building management and control system, the fire management system, security system such as cctv and access controls, computer systems, and the over 500 transit screens that are installed in the transit center, as well as local and

wide area networks. in a nutshell, any device that connects to the internet and the entire building runs on the network. the contract scope of work consists of five tasks: a task one is to define the objectives and requirements of the info section cyber security program with a process of collaboration with shake holders after getting an understanding of the operational and business needs of the tjpa. task two is assessing system vulnerableablities and risks across the transit control system's technology. task number three is creating an info sec cyber security policy identified in tasks one and two. task number four is to create the info sec cyber security plan and manual based on the policies developed in task three. and task five is executing and

managing, evaluating ongoing info sec and cyber security plan for the information, community, technology cyber security systems, the operational technology of the building. the requested proposals was issued on november 14th, with proposals due on january 11th. tjpa received five proposals, and after scoring those proposals, identified three respondents. that was done on february 14. seb chury link and de-llo-- ce lloyd are large businesses, and the mosaic 415 is a california

small business. here's a breakdown of the rfp cost proposals. the one time start-up and implementation costs ranged from 247,677 to 248,878. the reoccurring costs ranged from 558,40802,569,844. the staffing costs ranged from 344,000 to 449,000. the one year costs ranged from 989,676 to 4,613,906. this is the award summary following negotiations with mosaic 451. this one time standard up and installation fee for installation and configuration of security software is $47,267. the one time staffing budget is

128,000, and that will fund completion of tasks one through four of the scope of services. those tasks were defining the program objectives and requirements, assessing the vulnerablities and risks, creating the cyber security policies and cyber security manual. i'd like to also make a note that mosaic was the only proposer that will come to the transit center to resolve a major transit breach and remain as long as needed at no additional cost to tjpa. for me being in a worst case nar scenario world, that was very