we are currently completing the draft technical studies for the environmental document. the environmental impact report and the environmental impact statement. the intent is to issue it this summer of 2010. then we go ahead and proceed through the public hearing and approval process and obtained approvals by the end of this year. complete design by the spring of 2011. move forward with advertisements and construction contracts. the assumption now is that caltrans would advertise the ramps projects as part of their san francisco bay bridge project. open construction bids in april of 2012. as i mentioned previously, we

worked very closely with caltrans and the federal highway administration to become eligible for federal highway bridge dollars. that was quite an effort. we are anticipating approval by the end of this month in terms of the first allocation of approximately $6 million of the $9.5 million 3 the federal transportation improvement program also includes future dollars out of the state caught, as well as approximately $89 million for federal highway bridge programs. in summary, item five is to amend the agreement. it will go ahead and include additional services for completion of the design for the project that i have outlined. item six is to correspondingly go ahead and execute the amendments with the engineering

outfit that we have retained for the last two years to complete the engineering work. that concludes my presentation. i am available for any questions. commissioner mar: ms. cheng, is inappropriate to call item 6? could you read item 6? >> recommend increasing the amount of the professional services contract with aecom by $9,200,000, to a total amount not to exceed $15,935,000, to complete preliminary engineering and design of the i-80/yerba buena island interchange improvement project and authorizing the executive director to negotiate contract terms and conditions. this is in action item. commissioner mar: we have both items before us. >> we tend to work through these things and get them done, which is the right thing to do. i've come to believe in the ritual. i think we need to take a second

to recognize the work that eric has done. essentially, having worked through an amazing collection of obstacles to get to essentially $100 million in money from outside san francisco to deal with a problem that is a significant access issue and a priority in san francisco. if we did not get to this point by now, the critics would be asking why we allowed the bay bridge to be built without these ramps. they were not included as part of the design of the new east span. we had to play catch-up in corp. cooperation with tida. i just wanted to take a moment to recognize there weir work.

we would not be here today without their efforts. i think we can look forward to a very good project that would increase not just access to yerba buena island, but safety for everybody, which is very important thank you thank. commissioner mar: thank you. any questions? let's open this up for public comment. any comments from the public? seeing none, public, it is closed. it has been moved an. both items 5 and 6 move forward positively. next item? >> item 7, state and federal legislative update. this is an information action. >> a couple quick things i want to cover for you. the state budget has commenced with the conference on friday.

they went transportation to a number went items yesterday. none of them directly affect san francisco or any of the programs we're watching at this time. it dealt with more caltrans issues. i want to highlight five bills. one is a new one for support. ab 1871 deals with cars year program insurance. this allows or clarifies a private individuals vehicle could be used by an official car share program without negatively affecting their insurance on the personal side. in other words, it will be covered by the professional program. this facilitates car sharing. it expands the base of vehicles available for car sharing. it comes with a recommendation

of support. sb 1061 that adds pedestrian facilities on the bay bridge has cleared the senate and has been sent to the assembly transportation committee. it just got over there last week. a bill we are watching carefully is sb 1348. this is on page 12. this seeks to change or codify the process of the ctc uses in adopting guidelines. over the entire span of their existence, they have been adopting guidelines. recently, because of the attention brought to focus on the ctc by virtue of the delegation of a number of programs to them, the guidelines have become of intense interest in the legislature.

guidelines did not rise to the level of regulatory structure. they are not necessarily binding. as a matter of fact, when this bill was launched, -- is now simply codifying the current process. we expect this to move forward without causing (b+h$arm to the typical process of the commission. also, on your behalf, i monitoring two transit bills. they both seek to do something a little bit different. ab2324 is on page 4. sb 1320 is a measure by senator hancock. that is on page 12. it deals with administrative adjudication. where these on here? both contain an amended section

of law that is very important to san francisco's municipal authority. we are monitoring this to ensure there's nothing that occurs in the amendments that affects current authority in laws. it's more of monitoring, but i want to highlight those for your attention. from time to time, you ask me how sb 10 is fairing. there's been no real change in circumstances. the focus has been on the deadline of moving bills out of the senate's. . there has been no real perceived indication that there will be an attempt to move that the bill. as an aside, i will mention that the senate democrats did include an increase. if you think that through in

terms of the concern about sb 10 and sb 83, it could be the case that an increase in the blf could be enacted by the legislature, and thereby there could be confusion. i would rate the chances of the governor's signing the bill and a tax increase is highly unlikely. we are also cutting $20 billion. who knows what is in store for us? commissioner mar: commissioner elsbernd. commissioner elsbernd: is it realistic that if the governor allows any change in the blf, they will keep the money for themselves? the bill will not allow us to do anything. >> correct. they would be using that to close the gap. whether they send that to the local government -- the net

would be to the states benefit, not to local. . commissioner mar: thank you. >> thank you. commissioner mar: are there any other items? any other questions? seeing none, this is not an action item, but let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public, it is closed. next item. >> introduction of new items. this is an intermission commissioner mar: mar. seeing nonintermission item. item 10. adjournment. commissioner mar: thank you, everyone. the meeting is adjourned.

>> good morning, everybody. this is the tuesday, july 13th meeting of the transportation committee finance. my name is eric mar. erica cheng is our clerk. please call item number 1. eclerk: approval. this is an action item. supervisor mar: thank you.

there is a motion without objection for the minutes. is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. we approving the minutes of june 8, 2010. clerk: recommend approval of the policy. this is an action item. >> today we have a recurring annual item, best practices. we update the investment policy and debt policy once a year, and on the advice of financial management, we are recommending a few minor

changes. in the investment policy, 4 minor changes. we are recommending to expand the scope of the investments. page twelve of the packet, we are adding placement service certificates of deposit and requiring those deposits be fdic insured. we are adding language to change to be cnosistent with the investment report, and we are adding a more comprehensive policy. we are editing the financing on page 20 and modifying our financial alternative to extend

long-term bonds. page 22 of the packet, we are modifying types of debt to include more. page 31, underwriter's council, we are adding consultation before meeting with authorities, and we are updating the list of definitions for a more comprehensive policy. with that, i am recommending approval. please let me know if you have any questions. supervisor mar: these cnoform to applicable law and allow more flexibility for staff? ok. any questions? seeing none, is there anyone

from the public who would like to speak. we move without objection, we are supporting the recommendations. next item? clerk: item #4, state and federal legislative update. >> good morning. we have about half a dozen bills to update you on with recommendations, and the secretary of state has certified a number of recommendations since we last met. the first is ad-153. that measure we have ben tracking previously, amended recently to apply to the

strategic growth council. in addition, provides for an up to $4 registration fee to be applied for by voters. for a fee greater than $2, the mpo has a distribution requirement that has some return to source, so that is intended to provide the plan funding resources to mpo's across the state to undertake the responsibilities for 75. second bill we recommend you watch, 86-19. requires prospective contractors design contracts to certify

whether they had ever provided transportation resources for the deportation of prisoners and others, a very sensitive topic. the bill is viable at this point in time and had been amended to have it's current content. we had it recommended to watch, but it would be up to you to change that position and we would accordingly move forward on that. the third is related to another one. these bills deal with right turn violations. ab-909, reconciles two different kinds of violations involved in running right turns. while it is not directly

pertinent to any specific locality, it is a companion to 209, automatic signal devices at octavia, and we recommend support for both of those because it would make the activities more readily done. another bill, sb474, i have neglected to tell you which page. we are calling it a watch, but i have been watching and it goes into projects such as presidio parkway, and sequencing, and was

viewed as potentially dangerous litigation work. it has been significantly modified and now it would require after a contract award, a sponsoring agency would be required to adopt a resolution outlining goals and objectives so we could define how it went with the sponsor, and it has been watered down to be not viewed as a danger to implementation under p-3. senator is the sponsor of sb145 on page 15, addressing the strategic growth council planning activities and it would provide a $1 fee statewide

to fund the activities of the strategic growth council on a grant basis. it goes into a planning advisory and assistance council, and the funding generated would be distributed on that. they modify the designated slots from a variety of mpo's and likewise, generating in excess of $30 million a year. it is similar to measures in the past that have been vetoed, and this would be a statewide fee rather than delegated. we recommend support on that, as well. that would be the support to

update you on. on propositions, 18 through 27 were certified end of june and run the gamut from proposition 18, the water bond measure, just to high light that, and the two of most importance are 22, the protect our local revenues act. in essence, the transit association and alliance for jobs would protect the tax account, as it would have protected 42 but it is unfunded, and because

of the protection, those swapped funds are not protected. while prop 42 is not protected, the funds are. in addition, the public account and local tda funds are protected under this measure, and it is pretty strongly worded. i do not see any opportunity for future legislature to attach, redirect, file. this is a strongly-worded measure. supervisor mar: i know there were concerns about impact and i

think there was bad blood. can you comment on the impact with transportation and hhs? >> there was a lot of outreach from sponsoring partners. they never got the closure at a broad level. some individual counties have signed on, but not very many. the protection for transportation measures is solid, as well as the local resources, and i can certainly understand why the social service responsibility in a county, that the management electives would be concerned about locking out the

flexibility. but there is not much more to observe. i understand why there would be unhappiness. at the sa -- state level, prop 26 requires all feees to be approved by a 2-3rds vote, and taxes be passed by a two-thirds vote of the legislature. many fees, unless there is a tight nexus to the benefit and impact, would also require that vote. at the local level, the measure addresses the same types of fees and requires approval for fees that violate.

so that is very interesting, and i think it is part and parcel of why the research underway is so important to understand where you will end up if you move forward on that measure. one last comment -- no, i think that is all i have. supervisor mar: any other questions? if prop 23 passes it is out of state companies? >> it defers to the fourth quarter economic growth, the implementation of regulations under ab-32. there has been talk of cap and

trade within ab 32, and there has been talk of sharing net revenues, but it is hard to say that there will be a direct connection between the delay and revenue sharing. >> is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. any objections? approved by the committee. mr. chairman, are there any other items? >> item number 5, introduction of new items. this is an information item. supervisor mar: seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. clerk: item number 6, public

comment. item number 7, adjournment. supervisor mar: thank you. so the meeting is adjourned. thank you. >> i work with the department of environment and we are recycling oil. thank you. we can go into a refinery and we can use it again.

they do oil changes and sell it anyway, so now they know when a ticket to a. hal>> to you have something you want to get rid of? >> why throw it away when you can reuse it? >> it can be filtered out and used for other products. >> [speaking spanish] >> it is going to be a good thing for us to take used motor oil from customers. we have a