tv Government Access Programming SFGTV March 10, 2018 9:00pm-10:01pm PST
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 comforting for me. [ inaudible ] -- with rail and bus, the nasdaq, and state of arizona department of administration strategic enterprise technology office. and staff's recommendation is that the board authorize the executive director to execute a professional services agreement with mosaic 451 for a three year term in an amount not to exce exceed 4,000, 391 dr, and this concludes my bri concludes -- concludes my brief subject to question. >> director reiskin. >> yes. a couple questions.
one, we seem to miraculously have the highest rated by far be the lowest cost by far, which is great from a value perspective, assuming those numbers all make sense, so the -- was -- did the disparity between the bid prices give you any pause for concern? how could they do something so much better yet so much cheaper than the other two? >> it did. we asked a lot of questions about that, and really what it came down to with century limpg is associated with at&t. de-lloyd, they're multinational. they scoped the project large, so when they showed up, they filled the firm with their staff. mosaic is a boutique firm, they're very agile, and they're able to scale and focus on exactly what is needed, and
they did that in martheir presentation and proposal, so they came in much lower than the other companies that were willing to provide a lot more than what we were asking for. >> okay. thank you. next question is are there certain standards that we required in the solicitation for them to get us to? i know there are iso standards and this standards and dhs standards. did we specifically what level of security they need to achieve? >> yes. we did. we had a laundry list in the rfp and in the contract that they will meet, and it sort of became alphabet soup. i can ask isaac or steve -- >> i don't need to know. i just want to know was there some standards that were required, assurances that were required, certain standards be in place. the next question is having the way the solicitation was structured, the people
designing the system are then the people that are going to manage the system. what -- what does that mean for the future? does that mean that we're essentially stuck in a future perpetual sole source operator, or if we were to change vendors in the future, that somebody would have to start anew? how would that work? >> i'll actually ask isaac to answer that question, but before i give up the mic here, while he has a chance to think about the question, with you looked at all of the items, and we will -- we will not just be -- tjpa will not just be the only people paying attention to what they're doing and ensuring that they're going the right way. we have our technology consultants who will also be ensuring that the path forward is the correct one and also maintain that quality is
assured, but i'll turn it over to isaac now. >> good morning, the board members. so this is isaac chin. i'm working for wsp. i'm a technology advisor for the tjpa. so to just answer your question in short, so the in general from our technology perspective, because why we're talking about this, everybody heard, this iop, there's a lot of things coming, in the cloud. there's a lot coming from the technology, manufacturing perspective, there's change coming. so we wanted a contractor that's not focusing on the current infrastructure as well as any possible -- this new technology within the scope because we are serving the facility from operation management perspective. we are not just saying what are is the current infrastructure.
so that's why we address the future. we want the contractor when they appropriates their proposal, it should be include those feature majority is moving in the internet side will be covered. >> thank you. but i guess my question is let's say they develop that, and they have the system up and running, they're managing a system that they themselves designed. if the subsequent procurement, if they are not the recommended vendor, will the -- their successor vendor be able to manage the system that they have developed for themselves or will we have to start this process all over again? >> so i can let the steve -- >> certainly, i can take that. my name is steve bresher.
i'm the director of development for mosaic one. we build our systems so that they're structurally replacement. if you don't like us, you can fire us tomorrow. we provide you a log of record. that's the most important thing. all the records of activities that go on within your environment will belong to you. so with that, you can replace us at any time. so we -- we pride ourselves on the clients that we do have and the ability to service them, but we look at this is if we're not doing our job, we deserve to be fired, and we give you every opportunity to do that. we give you all the information that you need. if you want to walk us out the door, it's all there. >> okay. thank you. we're not looking for opportunities to fire you. i just want to make sure if we enter into a contract and build a system that it'll survive any one contractor. my last question is, aside from showing up and staying until the problem is fixed, which certainly is a great thing, what accountablity if any is there in the contract for breaches? so if there is some security
breach that brings down the transit center and deprives the public and the commuters use of the transit center and track, is there any accountablity to the contractor for that breach? >> i think that's going to be a debra question, but the first things that we'll be doing is figuring out what happened, stopping is from happening, and then, we can assess blame afterwards. and if it's their problem, then, we'll be -- >> i'm not blaming, but measures of accountablity, they are in the contract. >> yeah. we do reserve the right to pursue damages, although we do not have the right to pursue punitive damages, so just actual damage. >> okay. thank you. >> yes, director hopper. >> yes. i'm going to simply propose that we bifurcate the contract between stages one and two, and
three, four, and five. and that's because one and two are critical to convincing me the extent of what has to be done. at this point, we've got a bus station on top of a shopping center under a park. we're not an airport, we're not even a big police department. we're not a hospital. i'm wondering -- i mean, there's a big difference between, as you folks know, system resiliency, which we certainly need to have resilient fire systems and things like that, and cyber security. i don't know who would want in, i don't know if they got in, what damage they could do. this is what one and two is doing, right? what are your threats, what are your risks? and i don't know if they did that damage, i don't know what the consequences would be. at this point, we've got three
very simple things going on, and to spend $83,000 a month for the next two years on cyber security, even though it's well priced -- i can imagine it is, given these things, but i still don't know why, because the bus decks, most of the software that's going to be running the bus decks is ac transit's. i presume most of the software that's going to be running the retails -- retailers are going to be the retailers. the park, i'm not quite sure what that's going to be about in terms of software. so it may be that we need $83,000 a month for cyber security. i won't close my mind to that, but what you have to do is you have to come back to me, and you have to say, we've done one and two, and here's what we find.
thank you, $50,000, it's worth it. i've got no problem with that. but until i hear why this bus station on top of a shopping center under a park needs that $83,000 a month cyber security, i really don't want to spend it. it may need it, but it may not after you really do -- and i appreciate, looking at your bids, that i think you kind of recognize that. and i'm not saying that you wouldn't come back and say, after one and two, you know, that $83,000 a month that we want, we're not going to need it. i'm not saying that. but i'm saying it because i'm curious. i want to know the risks, and i presume the architects and mechanical engineers, and everybody we spent years and years with have built in good
resiliency, so i'm just saying, let's bifurcate the thing and say guys, have at it, and really do a deep dive. and the other thing i hope you would come back with is regard to the threats, you know, we -- we are giving you the keys to the kingdom, and the jewels, and you are creating your own jewels in creating the macrokingdom. but that means you are the bigger target than we are. if somebody really, really, is a good hacker, i mean, russian level, chinese level, it's mosaic 451 that they would say, you get there, and you've got all the gold. you've got the airport's gold, you've got this gold, that gold.
you would have -- you don't have to address it now, but you'll come back after one and two, and say and this is why you're not making your security worse by putting it in the hands of a third party who then does become, because of their virtue of the systems that they have the keys to, you know, the people that you want. i know that, you know, in most practices now, there's a whole move to -- with the idea that everything is hackable, to disaggregate. a little bit back to the nike net like we had in the old days. this system is isolated from that to a little extent. to the extent that we put everything together, maybe after one and two you guys will say, okay. we want some walls in here in this thing, and that's what
we're going to build for you because yeah, you are too integrated. so my suggestion is find out what these guys are going to tell us about our needs and come back and tell us what it's going to cost to maintain that security that they then say we need. >> so director harper, i guess the line to install the system and develop criteria for monitoring the system, the 550 peryear, or the 83,000 permonth, that's for updating the system and monitoring the system. are you suggesting -- >> no, no, i'm not -- >> if we get attacked, we have to call somebody to help us. >> yeah, they'll figure out in these stages. but to enter into something now, saying we need $83,000 a month for security. >> actually, it's 46,000 plus.
it's 46,000. >> i just say 83,000. >> that's the contract, and much of the costs are up front, so the implementation free was 47,000, the staffing fee is 1128, and it's possible that could be used up before opening. >> i just think it would make sense to educate us first where we are at with things, and come back with a report saying this is what it would cost. >> can we come back with a report as part of this process -- sorry. >> yeah. this is just a contractual part. obviously rkts the things that we need -- >> yeah. my concern with this is we have an incredible complex building, so even on the park, as simple as it looks, we have a lot of infrastructure run on the
network up there. all of our fire light, safety, emergency, the water recovery, everything on the bus deck except for what the supervisor's office will have with ac transit, all of the signage, the way finding, that's all on the network. if the network goes down, the building goes down, and so it would be like turning on your computer and surfing the internet without having your virus on. that's our concern, that time is of the essence. we need to move forward with one task -- one through four will be somewhat overlapping. we will not finish task one, finish task two as we go along. >> director gee? >> yes. that was going to be my question. if we were to take this in pieces, we would probably not lineup with those dates that we've been talking about.
so as a compromise, i would suggest we -- happy to make the motion to approve with the report at the next meeting about threat assessments that have been identified as top priorities first, and then a subsequent report of risk analysis and investment, and not just to the building, because as i recall, we have other things beyond the building that were implied in our naming rights agreement that safety and security of the neighborhood was of utmost importance, too. this is not just about the building. it's much bigger when we look at threat assessment and risk to the neighborhood. so is that a reasonable request that in april or may, that a threat and risk assessment be brought forward so that we know what the consequences and risks may be and how they're being addressed -- or could be addressed or you're working to
address them? >> yes. >> would that -- >> yeah, i think so. if it's truly -- if they can understand the comeback, and that the board needs it -- minor things in terms of the contract that we're looking at is it's really not just insurance, but these folks having the keys and the jewels should be bonded, and we should be asking for a bond as -- with respect to. i mean, the founder got into some trouble with torrey pines because he lost control of a couple of underlings. it wasn't his fault, but he lost control of a couple of underlings, and torrey pines went do you object. so we want to get control of something there, don't lose control of these folks, because these guys are going to have everything, and they need it.
i agree. so if the understanding is to kind of come back with this thing in a report, then -- and where we can, as you say, fire you tomorrow, and say nice report, thank you very much, reevaluate, come back, then fine. sfl >> i did hear a motion. >> what. >> oh, something else? >> oh,sub contracting? i don't want to see kaspersky anywhere near this, and you know why. >> i heard a motion and a second. did you have a comment? >> just to modify the motion. >> comment, i think this goes without saying, but i want to make it clear to our chief safety officer that we wouldn't be asking you to bring anything to the board that would be considered security sensitive information, so there may be things that come from your initial analysis that would not be appropriate to share in a public forum. i think i can speak to the
board -- >> there's our vulnerablity report. look here. >> so we have a motion and -- >> second. >> thank you. first and second. no members of the public wanting to comment on the item. [ roll call. ] >> so that's five ayes. item 12 is approved. ready for your next item. >> yes. item 13. >> 13 is approving the recommended applicants to the citizens advisory committee. >> can we do this very quickly. >> okay. motion. >> second. >> we've got a motion and second. any members of the public wants to comment on the item? >> great report by the way. >> thank you. thank you. >> thank you.
[ roll call. ] >> that's six ayes. item -- excuse me. that's five ayes, and item 13 is approved. with that, i'll go ahead and all your next item, which is the annual election of chair and vice chair pursuant to the tjpa joint powers agreement, item 14. no members of the public have indicated they want to comment on the item, and are there any nominations? >> volunteers? >> i would nominate mohamed nuru as chair. >> second. >> great. >> whether he wants it or not. >> director reiskin nominating director nuru as chair, and vice chair gee seconding that. are there any other nominations? seeing none, and as i noted, no members of the public wanted to
comment -- [ roll call. ] >> the motion to elect director nuru as chair passed. the next up is the vice chair. do we have any nominations? >> i would nominate director gee. >> current victim. >> i like the way that was said. >> director reiskin has nominated director gee, and i -- >> second. >> we've got a second. with that, are there any other nominations? no other victims? okay. then seeing none, no members of the public wanting to comment on motion to elect director gee as vice chair -- [ roll call. ] >> the motion to elect director gee as vice chair has passed.
that does conclude your regular agenda. you're scheduled to go into closed session at this time. we've not received any indication that a member of the public wishes to comment on any of the items listed. >> so should go -- >> you have . >> all right. the tjpa meeting is back in session on march 8, 2018. can you sum up the closed session. >> as to item 18, conference with labor negotiators, the board unanimously appointed chair nuru as its designationed representative for negotiating a contract with the executive director. >> that does conclude your agenda for today. >> okay. our meeting's adjourned. >> okay. >> thank you. streets.
wishes and congratulations the community has shifted a lot of when i was growing up in the 60s and 50's a good portion of chicano-american chinese-american lived in north beach a nob hill community. >> as part the immigrant family is some of the recreation centers are making people have the ability to get together and meet 0 other people if communities in the 60s a 70s and 80s and 90s saw a move to the richmond the sunset district and more recently out to the excelsior the avenue community as well as the ensuring u bayview so chinese family living all over the city and when he grape it was in this area. >> we're united. >> and growing up in the area that was a big part of the my
leave you know playing basketball and mycy took band lessons and grew up. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> allergies welcome to the community fair it kicks off three weeks of celebrations for the year and let's keep everybody safe and celebrate the biggest parade outside of china on february 11th go best wishes and congratulations and 3, 2, 1
happy enough is enough. >> i grew up volley ball education and in media professional contrary as an educator he work with all skids whether or not caucasian hispanic and i african-american cumber a lot of arrest binge kids my philosophy to work with all kids but being here and griping in the chinese community being a chinese-american is important going to american school during the day but went to chinese school that is community is important working with all the kids and having them exposed to all culture it is important to me. >> it is a mask evening. >> i'd like to thank you a you all to celebrate an installation of the days here in the asian
art museum. >> one time has become so many things in the past two centuries because of the different did i licks the immigration officer didn't understand it became no standard chinese marine or cantonese sproupgs it became so many different sounds this is convenient for the immigration officer this okay your family name so this tells the generations of immigrants where they come from and also many stories behind it too. >> and what a better way to celebrate the enough is enough nuru with the light nothing is more important at an the hope
the energy we. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> relative to the current administration it is, it is touching very worrisome for our immigrant frames you know and some of the stability in the country and i know how this new president is doing you know immigration as well as immigrants (fireworks) later than you think new year the largest holiday no asia and china those of us when my grandparents came over in the
19 hundreds and celebrated in the united states chinese nuru is traditional with a lot of meani meaning. >> good afternoon my name is carmen chu assessor-recorder i want to wish everything a happy new year thank you for joining us i want to say. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i'm proud to be a native san
franciscan i grew up in the chinatown, north beach community port commission important to come back and work with those that live in the community that i grew up in and that that very, very important to give back to continue to work with the community and hope e help those who may not be as capable in who may not be as capable in
>> good morning, ladies and gentlemen, i want to welcome to you committee. i'm the chairwoman and to my right is sandy fewer and to my left is supervisor catherine stefani. i want to recognize our friends at sfgovtv. tom and lawrence. thank you for your assistance and i want to recognize the clerk of our board is ms. linda wong. are there any announcements? >> yes, please silence all cellphones and electronic devices and copies of documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk and items will be on the march 24th supervisor agenda unless otherwise stated. >> excellent, thank you for the announcements, let's begin. let's start with