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.

supervisor mirkarimi: good morning. welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority. ross mirkarimi, chair. i apologize for the slight delay. >> >> supervisor avalos -- >> present. >> supervisor campos -- >> present. >> supervisor chiu -- absent. >> supervisor chu -- >> present. >> supervisor cohen -- >> present. >> supervisor elsbernd -- >> present. >> supervisor farrell -- >> present. >> supervisor kim -- >> present. >> supervisor mar -- >> present. >> supervisor mirkarimi -- >> present -- present. >> item number two, approval of minutes of the october 25, 2011 meeting. this is an action item. supervisor mirkarimi: any discussion? the seeing none. approval. second. public comments.

seeing none, public comment is closed. roll call, please. >> commissioner at the lows. commissioner campos. commissioner issue. " -- commissioner carmen chu. commissioner:. commissioner elsbernd. commissioner farrell. commissioner kim. commissioner mark. commissioner mirkarimi. commissioner winner. it is passed. supervisor mirkarimi: please read item number three and four. >> item number 3, chairs report. item number four, executive director's report. these are information items. supervisor mirkarimi: we have had interesting is in the transportation field this month. on november 1, the california high speed rail authority released its business plan. the main piece of news is that there's more than a doubling of the total price tag of the system, which is averaging $100 billion. i think everyone expected that the price tag would be revised.

but the magnitude of the increase has been at definitely noticed. the schedule was also significantly revised videos and disappointed to see that we're now looking at a much longer time line in implementation of the downtown extension, which would not get to happen until after 2030. i do not think san francisco can stand for that kind of strategy when we're the only city in california that is actually building a high-speed rail terminal. i am referring to the transbay terminal. i know that the legislature now has 60 days to deliberate on the business plan prevent -- presented by the high-speed rail authority to decide either to support a return several billion dollars of federal funds given to california for this purpose last year. the believed it is crucial for san francisco to advocate for changes in the plan that make the implementation of high-speed rail into the transbay terminal a priority much sooner than 2030, obviously, especially when

so much local funding has been going into this project. i understand that commissioners wiener and candidates are working on this with the mayor's office -- and campos are working on this with the mayor's office. this should be a major priority for the next four weeks and then new year. the other big piece of the news with the action last wednesday by the environment and public works committee the u.s. senate, chaired by senator barbara boxer, approving a two-year reauthorization of the surface transportation act, which is now going to be named map, map 21, which i think stands for moving ahead for progress in the 21st century. this is a bill that would continue the current level funding for two years understand that not all the funding has been identified for it yet. it is also not clear the level of support. in the senate the senate bill was approved in a bipartisan vote. i expect the executive director has more details on that.

this bodes well for the start of the conversation. that might give us a multi-year bill. it is clear that it may not go beyond two years. this concludes my report. mr. executive director, please -- >> good morning, commissioners. my report is on your desks. i want to highlight just a few things. i do not really have more details on the issue of the two- year reauthorization bill, other than to say this is yeoman's work on the part of senator boxer to try to get a bill and create some stability for funding for the transportation sector in the next couple of years. it is clear that we have gone from a six-rebel 20-year bill, because the resource issue, the revenue issue is still unresolved. in fact, even the senate bill has a $12 billion hole, and that is more than 10% of the total funding for those two years.

i think you can count on a fight of some sort in the house to try to get to a similar level of commitment for a two-year bill, even for a two-year bill. and the local level, when we commit to voters the sales tax, a 30-year plan, we expect that the federal level, there will be a little -- a level of commitment that would allow us to leverage the funds that the locals are willing to commit to. so the two-year effort is better than nothing, certainly, especially at this time of economic hardship. but we need multi-year commitments to be able to engage in multi-your initiatives, like the high-speed rail initiative and other things we're doing. even some of the programs that require multi-year funding. we will hope for the best in that area and continue to encourage congress to do the right thing.

i wanted to point out a few things that are going on, that went on this month related to funding for projects. we had a series of meetings with mcc to try to sort of strategy for the big projects under construction. the presidio parkway, central subway, and the transbay project it all of them are experiencing some level of impacts from the slowdown in the economy and the pace of the liver of state and federal funds. we're doing the due diligence necessary, especially sorting out the weekend provided bridge financing for these projects that the commitments that the state and federal governments have made in years past do not materialize in the timeline that was originally promised, which is a distinct possibility, especially with the issue of delays with the state bonds and so on. we have had productive meetings.

i will keep you posted. we have not really changed anything as far as our commitment to those priorities. but we're simply trying to get some clarity about how the ntc will bill to help us with those issues. the authority is committed in helping to commit as much as possible. there has been considerable work in progress on the regional transportation plan. several of the have been involved in the directly, especially the ntc commissioners. i would point out that the earlier this month, a draft result was released on the performance assessment. we found several san francisco priorities that did very well. of course, this is sweepstakes for future funding. one of them, of course, is the effect of this project. we also saw the bart metro project that will increase

frequency of services to downtown san francisco scored very well. and the initial pricing initiatives in san francisco also did very well, of course. i would note that both commissioner campos and commissioner reno made comments about the need to further take into account, in the evaluation of both the end of the door projects and the program might alternatives, this is the commitment to housing supply, a way to reward what local jurisdictions are doing. and the quality of targets need to be more closely included in the evaluation that is done. and results released for the rtp next month. i think that will give us an opportunity for an interesting

discussion about that before the planned moves to next year's steps toward adoption. some wanted to also point out that the san francisco transportation plannin is making progress, and we have had more briefings of our advisory committee and other groups. we're looking now at some things that will probably not get as much attention in the plan. these are subjects that we intend to govern in a more comprehensive way this time. there's more information on our web site on the transportation plan. there is the lifeline transportation program change, which is highlighted here because of its significance. the lifeline transportation program funds have flowed from mtc to the condition management

agencies and the different counties. the mtc is now proposing a change which would actually increase the amount of funding that goes to the counties, but it would direct a large amount to the transit operators, sfmta, and also increase the amount coming to the authority. we're talking about revenues of $11.7 million going to mta and up to $5.4 million coming to the authority. this is funding intended to deal with increasing taxes and mobility for low-income communities, and we have already had quite a bit of involvement with the program in the past. you can expect the requisite projects and the actions of the plans and programs committee in

december, prior to the issuance considering some of the funding going to the program that commissioner campos has been spearheading. van ness brt released its eir/eis draft on november 4. the comment period closes on december 19. prior to that, there'll be a public hearing on november 30 at the holiday inn, golden gateway, 1500 men ness avenue. this is all included on our website, but of course the public is encouraged to attend the public hearing and to provide comments. several channels are available for that. geary brt is also making progress. i wanted to point out, as a segue from the chair's remarks about high-speed rail, there was a session on high-speed

rail at the focus on the future conference happening right now in san francisco, and i was intending that this morning. a member of the high speed rail authority board clarified the schedule for comment on the business plan that is out there now, that was released on november 1. the idea is that the authority, the high-speed rail authority, will take comments at a hearing today in palo alto and then on december 6 in san francisco. then they will consider incorporating all of those comments and directing the mine some fashion. then at that yuri one, are the first week of february, the intention of the meeting to approve the revised plan that might incorporate those comments. only after that, the 60-day timespan, will the legislature kick in. so there's time to organize

commons, even beyond the two hearings that are already scheduled. i think that is time that is welcome to, because we probably need to make some additional comments on that. finally, i wanted to announce that i am pleased to report that we have received two grants in san francisco from the value pricing program at the federal level. one grant for $1.5 million is going to a joint venture of the sfmta and the city car share for electric bike sharing and car sharing demonstration. $480,000 them into the of 34 parking pricing in regulation study, which is going to be helpful for parking-based pricing options to fall on the environmental studies in the

city. the last thing is that caltrans has done a pre-award audit of the authority, and we have a clean audit report. there are several items on the report, and i would be happy to answer questions about them. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor campos: thank you very much. i wanted to make one general comment. one of the things that supervisor wiener and i have been working very diligently since we were appointed to the ntc was making sure that the funding issuance and other decisions are being made at the mtc and that we continue to speak with one voice. i think that we have managed to do that. i think it is especially important with some of the projects, especially those that perhaps did not receive the kind of rating that they should have, that we continue to speak with one voice. at this point, i want to thank

all of the different agencies. the transportation authority, certainly, but also the mta, the mayor's office, who has worked very hard to make sure that that happens, and i think it is important, especially as funding becomes more limited, that we are strategic and how we approach these projects. so thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: very good. any other comments? seeing none, public comment, please, on either one of the reports. seeing none, public comment is closed to this is an action item. madam clerk, please read the next item. >> item 5, increase the authorized amount for the non- federal portion of the memorandum of agreement with the treasure island developer about 30 by $1 million, to a loan obligation amount not to exceed $10,287,000 to complete preliminary engineering and design for the i-80/yerba buena hylan interchange improvement project. deferred to retain a date by two years. supervisor mirkarimi: