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 -- to fix the last gap ito finalize the last

gatt. the hope would be we will provide for bicycle access and parking, but the route through the area would be on polk. supervisor kim: polk street eventually becomes one way? could you clarify that? >> that is the area that i believe the mta has recommended to receive a super transit grants to figure out at least a one-way, if not a two-way bicycle facility. >supervisor mar: let's move this forward without objection. all right. next item. >> internal accounting report and investment report for the three months ended september 30, 2011. >> good morning, deputy director

for finance and administration. this item starts on 15 of your packet. i am here to present the first quarterly report a fiscal year 2010, which consists of activity happening in the month of july, august, as of timber. what you have before you are two tables that represents assets, liabilities, revenues and expenditures for the first three months for authority. you also have budgeted expenditures versus actual expenditures. total assets for the first three months total to $194 million. there were 131 million of that in the cash deposits and investments. total liabilities total to 219 million. within that you have 150 million of commercial paper outstanding. in terms of revenues come of it collected 17.5 million for the first quarter. in terms of expenditures, we incurred $7.5 million.

of the $131 million cash balance, we have 93% of the money sitting with the city and county treasury pull. also, all the investments in the portfolio for a three are in compliance with the government code and within the authorities investment policy, and there is enough funds sitting in the accounts that can pay for expenditures for the next six months. with that, this is your first quarterly report. this is for fiscal year 2011- 2012. if you have any questions come i am more than happy to answer them. supervisor mar: let's open this up for public comment. anyone from the public that would like to speak? >> last week i was paying attention to the mta meetingg,

and there was a presentation on bonding investment linked to teh he mta, and i think even though this report, this particular report shows a plus with the san francisco county transportation will area, i am requesting, and i know an individual cannot request, but maybe i could get the signatures of a couple of supervisors or maybe you some of their revenue for a hearing first about twhat the transportation authority represents? meaning it is kind of applause i-state agency, and what role

does it really play? secondly, how do they invest? if they do not invest, who and us for them -- who invests for them, and to give that kind of clarity. also, the conflict of interest between the commissioners, supervisors. i will go into the board of chambers. all of that relationship. just so that the public gets an idea. this is a good time for accountability and transparency. if i mention accountability and transparency, they do mention -- they give all line and say -- a line and say he mentioned about accountability and transparency. that means nothing. we need to know more about the transportation authority. we need to know when we go on

the website, why we cannot email the various people directly so that we can ask them some questions. why they have info. why can we not have those deliberations? also, it would be good that we could send emails to the chair, so the chair could defer to the stock that you could reply to us. the time has come for the people to participate. they really do not get their questions answered. the time has come for them to use the internet so that we can contact the chair. we can contact them and irrelevant answers. thank you very much. supervisor mar: i think it is a good point. we're talking about an informational item, but even the

interaction of the regional agencies would be helpful and useful conversation. let me try to talk to stuff about some sort of a hearing on that. commissioner kim. commissioner long. commissioner lomar: i see no other public comment. could you please call the next item. >> item #6 come introduction of new items come information item. supervisor mar: anyone from the public that would like to speak? cnn, public comment is closed. anyone from the public that would like to speak? thank you. -- seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you everyone for being here today. meeting adjourned.