year -- actually, they have the same in 2015. it has fewer traffic impact site 2035 in alternatives and three four. in terms of travel time, three and four per for our slightly better -- perform slightly better. supervisor wiener: in terms of parallel parking, it will go through the bustling, will have a double parking problems potentially with alternative two? >> correct. each alternative has its trade- offs. supervisor wiener: presumably three in four will probably result in more efficient brt travel, i would imagine? >> yes, and that is what our models indicate as well. supervisor wiener: it has always start read that because we have franklin and others that go with the timing of the lights

to be efficient with north-south automobile trial -- travel, and van ness is sort of a worse alternative currently if you're driving north-south. i assume that there will be perpendicular increases on franklin and goff because it is somewhat more difficult to drive on van ness overtime. are there plans in place or considerations of improving traffic signals on goff and franklin to accommodate that increase? >> yes, the sf go project, a series of smart signals that allows for battle signal progression is actually going into construction, i believe, right now. it is partly in anticipation for this project. that should hopefully accommodate the additional traffic. we're only anticipating about three more vehicles per minute

on those streets. our models indicate that is the case. we are seeing no increase in traffic impacts in 2015 and beyond that. supervisor wiener: thank you very much. supervisor campos: thank you very much for your presentation. i have a general question about the outreach that has been done and that is being done in terms of getting as much feedback from our different communities as possible. i mean, i understand looking at page 6 of your presentation why there is a geographic focus, if you will, in terms of the groups that were approached. but the thing one thing i don't see enough of its involvement by organizations that work with language minorities and clearly there are

neighborhoods like the mission, chinatown, and others that will be impacted by this. it would be helpful if you could involve some of these organizations, especially as to what choices should be selected and gone through. >> we have done outreach to those groups. we have a plan to have limited the outreach. we have made at least to try to reach those contingencies in other ways if not necessarily a presentation. we are presenting this at the chinatown community development group. we have made contact with districts 6 and some groups in the mission.

>> i would encourage you to reach out to other tree graphic areas of the city that will be users of the system. whether it is groups like power, i think it is important to be as inclusive as possible. it seems like you are doing that anyway but to the extent that we can do as much as possible would be helpful. >> thank you. >> colleagues, any other comments or questions? why don't we open it up to public comment? since there is any member of the public that like to speak in this item, please come forward. >> when we have on important projects like this, one of the important things to note is the time given for public comment.

november 4th thru november 19th, a lot of people are on vacation. i would say that we need more time for public comment. i was looking at the general presentation and icy variable by clients -- i see very little bike lanes. usually the bike coalition is here but they are absent. i would like to sit down with the person to review a few things who gave the presentation. the demographics point to an

increase of seniors and i want to see the output. as the director of environmental justice advocacy, i want to see empirical data on pollution, cumulative pollution. a lot of the traffic will go on franklin and a lot of people are living indoors as residents, renters and they would be adversely impacted. i would like to see some impact on that. supervisors, none of you asked the question about this huge project. how's this going to impact this?

this is an important project. you should have done this when things were rosy. we should have done this five years ago but we spent a lot of time on the eir. we should do this project. this is an important project. just looking at it, at this presentation, now we just talked about like -- bike lanes, then we don't. we talked about being interested in our carbon footprint, then we don't. i would like to hearing -- have a hearing on this if possible. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i just want to come and

encourage you and the board of supervisors to have dedicated lines so we don't have cars moving in. we should have level boarding so that people can get on quickly. then the trances signal priority so that the buses can go and move freely. i would like to encourage you between mrs. street so that there is not the back up and bunching and i like to encourage you to support this project. thank you. >> thank you. is any other member of the public that would like to speak? colleagues, this is an informational item. do we have anything to add? ok.

madam clerk, please call the next item. >> introduction of items. >> colleagues, are there any items to speak on? is there any public comment on this? seeing none, public comment. >> public comment. >> this is the percentage for members of the public to speak within on an item -- to speak on an item. >> next item. >> adjournment.

supervisor mar: welcome to the regular scheduled meeting of the transportation committee. i am supervisor mar. to my left is supervisor cohen and mark farrell. public comment is closed. is there a motion on this item? we can take that without objection. item three, madam clerk.

to go recommending increasing the authorized amount for the non-federal portion of the memorandum of agreement with treasure island element of 30 to complete the preliminary engineering and design for the i-80 /yerba buena island interchange improvement project. >> good morning. i want to quickly go ahead and go through the presentation in terms of specifics on the project and then we will get into the amendment details. first, an overview. everyone recognizes cal tran building the eastern stand. that did not include the on ramp, as well as the testing of free. both of those are on the side of

the island, and the purpose of the project is to upgrade those ramps. we have selected a preferred alternative as shown in blue, the westbound on ramp would meet the standard after it is constructed. we would also go ahead and widen the road as the rams tight into the private -- into the new public right away. requires the relocation, which are located right now at the ramp. that is an important part of the project. happy to report that we are completing the environmental documentation process. we have prepared a final eir/eis. it has been posted and the federal register, starting on october 21. we are at the final day review time for the final eir/eis.

we expect a decision by the end of november. i will be in front of the program's board next month for the action. that is a major milestone for the project. very quickly, our intent is to complete the final design next year to relocate the historic buildings that are reference before to put this out to construction advertisement in the summer of 2013 and be in a position to start construction in 2014. that is all being worked out, the details are being worked out closely with cal tran, because their intent is to open up the new bay bridge in the fall of 2013. and once they would open up the new bridge, we will start construction on the new france. the old rams will still be in place for a couple more years. - ramps- ramps will still be ine

for a couple more years. what we refer to the west side of the island. there are a series of nine bridges that former treasurer island road. that is a separate project that right now we are completing and have completed. we sat down with cal tran structures about the approval earlier this month, and we are in a position where we will stir the environmental and design and structure work for this project. it is quite frankly -- once they open of the new bridge to work of the island to upgrade the ravens and these viaduct bridges on the west side as quickly as possible after that. let's get to the specifics. we executed an moa in july of 2008. we have been working as the management arm in dealing with

cal tran and obtaining the funding. we upon through a series of amendments. they have gone through a critical match for the highway bridge funds, and is as important to recognize that this is not a a prop kprop k project. we're being areimbursed for all of the funds. finally, the item before you is to increase by $1 million. and to defer the payment start to coincide with the redevelopment of the island in terms of the cash flow that works for them. that concludes my presentation. i am open to any questions. >> seeing no immediate questions, is there any public comment of this item? -- on this item? >> supervisors, as you know, the

san francisco redevelopment agency that was supposed to play a key role with treasure island is no more. as you heard in this presentation, while some very general reference is made to tida, the public at large really does not know how the funds will be paid. i suppose treasure island and still comes under the jurisdiction of the city and county of san francisco. i last heard of deliberations. i am not sure it comes under the jurisdiction of san francisco.

while i endorse and look forward to new developments in the expansion of the roads or in to treasure island, i think some further investigation is required on the development strengthening of the bridges and roads. my main concern regarding this is because when the new bridge was being built over 600 remains were found this is a sensitive issue. while the public at home knows very little and very few people are interested in that

archaeological concerns, we must, san francisco must, pay attention to this. that is all i am saying, because the gentleman says, most everything is on place. the focus is on the money. in this dire economic time, we do not know how tida is going to function. it was paid to circumvent the redevelopment agency to play a main role that is not possible now. the ifd, the new type of program or project, we really do not know how that will work. the public needs to be told, and so and the gentleman could put something on the backside as to the funding and the role of the ifd's in this will be appropriate. thank you very much.

supervisor mar: any other additional public comment? is there a motion on this item? move the item forward with recommendations. can we take that without objection? next item, please. to go recommend a board of a consulting contract to kimley- horn and associates in an amount not to exceed 250,004 program management and technical support a of thevan ness avenue bus rapid track a program, with an option to extend for two additional years, and authorizing the executive director to negotiate contract terms and conditions. his for members of the publ, the document can be found on our web site. this item relates to the

consulting contract. a recommendation for the award. we identified this need through our joint work last fall when we came to the authority board for appropriation to support the overall planning and project development activities of both agencies on july 22 we did issue an rfp for overcalling technical support services. we held two pre-proposal conferences. we agree to use the small enterprise program to ensure we would have significant local participation and minority and

women-owned participation. out reach that we did throughout this process to anchorago encoue firms to sign up for the conferences, eight ethnic organizations, including the asian american contractors association, hispanic chamber of commerce and african american chamber of commerce, as well as women-owned organizations and offices here in san francisco. we also put advertisements out through the common cro"the chrod emailed out. the result was good. we had good participation amongst the three proposals that qualified and very strong firms. we did interview all three

firms, and the team led by kimley horn and associates is here and audience. it does include 51% small business enterprise firms in terms of the percentage of the contract that would be dedicated to those firms, i. including a minority firm, with 41% value. steven and associates would be a san francisco-based firm of african-americans. 10% participation with 100% minority holding in the principal position. ted crickpritchett is an african

american who owned his own firm and provides architectural design services. in total, the participation on at this consultant team would exceed the 20% goal exceeded. it would hit the 50% mark. with that, we're happy to into questioned in are seeking recommendation for word of the contract. think you. supervisor mar: -- thank you. i appreciate the details that was once into. this a quick question. the queue for the bridge down, because i was curious about this question and stevenson associates. were the other two, are they based in the area? >> i believe steven and associates is san francisco- based. cal christian, i do not show it in my notes as san francisco, but they could be regional.

mr. allen says they are oak land-based. supervisor mar anyone: anyone fm the public that would like to speak? francisco decasto. >> may i have the overhead, please? i was here earlier for the plans and programs. i was paying attention to the presentation, and i brought to the attention of those that are for dissipating in the deliberations that i seek no bicycle lights, and no mention was made about a huge project

that is a specific hospital in director of environmental justice advocacy, i am very much interested in critical data link to pollution. none of those questions were asked, because the presentation was rather general, and i think that is the prerogative of the board of supervisors. i am bringing it over here, because we need to pay attention to this project, and we need to, rather than ostar with contracts and stuff like that, prior to that we need to have detailed deliberations about out reach, and how the physically-challenged will be affected with this program. when we come to the contracts it

is very easy to save 51% of the minorities to come in this and that, but if you really have them participating, you need to figure out how they have bonding. how the local hire is going to be implemented. it is an ordinance, but what we're having is difficulties, because if you are dealing with the laborers union, they have the priority to send their workers. if they have five or six workers working for them, it does not mean only five or six will work. there is a ratio. there is -- it is very easy to say we did an hour reach and reached out to certain things, but we really want to know why the projects take place in san francisco.

we need to know how local hire is implemented. we need to pay attention. if you are an lbe, and you pay $21,000 in union fees, the unions are ready to except the fees, but we need to boolook ate workers. thank you very much. supervisor mar: anyone else that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. hacould you just address how the california medical center project impacts the brt and also the geary? and there was a question about the bicycle lane. >> on your first question, we

did ordinate throughout the planning process with stakeholders. certainly cpmc because they were preparing an environmental document. the way that their project is coordinated with ours is primarily in the design of the entrances and exits of the medical site said they would reduce and minimize the conflicts. there is some turning lanes and cuing that would potentially conflict, and there were able to make design changes, and we are hopeful there will be an opportunity to revisit -- revisit the fine details and final design, but we are satisfied we of found a way to minimize the conflict. another way we are courting is the and our mental documents in the planning process seas, that we use a common traffic base and make sure the existing and future conditions match.

we are assuming, at least an hour project, the project is loaded onto the network. i served also notes, a final way we are coordinating is the mayor's office of economic development and coordination to contribute capital funds to brt's. we're hopeful that will reach a mutually beneficial conclusion. with regard to bicycle planning, van ness avenue is very constrained. we have difficulty accommodating all of the current uses and trying to improve the bus operations given the limited right away. that said, the design does provide for state bicycle travel. the route in the area is in polk street. it would be to enhance an improved poll. they just received a planning grant to brief but --o