commissioner wiener: i will call to order this meeting of the san francisco transportation authority finance committee. i am commissioner scott wiener, the chair of the committee. joining me today and are commissioner david chiu and carmen chu, a vice chair eric mar, and commissioner john elsbernd are not present. the first item is the approval of the minutes from december 6, 2011 meeting. is there a motion, 2nd? is there any public comment? >> yes, and i can call these items. did you call for a public comment?

commissioner wiener: is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we take that without objection? next item. >> item 3. recommend increasing the amount of the professional services contract with wmh corporation by $4,300,000, to a total amount not to exceed $5,900,000, to complete preliminary engineering, environmental analysis, and design services of the yerba buena island bridge structures and authorizing the executive irector to modify contract terms and conditions. this is an action item. commissioner wiener: is there a presentation from staff? if everyone could speak clearly, a closely to the microphone, to contend with the background music. >> understood. eric cordova, ybi corp. mission manager. happy to present this item. i am here to update you on the contract terms we are requesting an amendment on as well as the

overall current status of the project. i'm going to jump right into the contract information and quickly give you a history, of state. at the end of 2010, the authority issued an rfq requesting qualification statements from engineering and environmental firms. we received six proposals, reviewed them, and executed a contract with the wmh corporation. they definitely had the superior understanding of the project as well as the team that could handle all phases of the project, the engineering, environmental, etc. it is also important to recognize the rfp included provisions to amend the contract to include the following services that we are here to discuss, the environmental phase and design phase. we have just finished preparation of the seismic strategy report. i will get into that into more detail.

caltrans approved this strategy and it meets the highway bridge programming funding deadline, which were very strict. the good news is, we receive approximately $5.5 million of highway bridge program funds approved to date. that is a significant effort, working with them to get the approvals. now we are ready to move forward with further engineering and environmental analysis. i do want to introduce the team. it is highly qualified, led by wmh, and its president, william addai, as well asdave dickenson. they are primarily handling the civil engineering effort. we also have a principle of bigs cardoza and associates. we also have dan yao handling the electrical engineering. we also have judy chandling and

john schwartz. they are a women-owned enterprise as well as a udbe. they are handling the environmental analysis. we also have leah haygood who will be preparing landscape renovations as part of the project. finally, mr. hubert law, president of earth mechanics. mike is the project manager. they are handling the geotechnical analysis. as you can see in and out in front of you, we are going to meet a goal of approximately depaul% and probably exceed it. -- 12% and probably will exceed it. we are ready to move forward on the contract for your approval. i want to make sure you understand where we are at on

the island. sometimes there is confusion. we are on the west side of the island. a series of bridges that lead to the west side of the bay bridge, -- i'm sorry, and the west down side of the on ramp, as well as the eastbound on ramp. when you have in front of you is an aerial photo showing you the bridges themselves. they are numbered. do not ask me how the sequence numbering was arrived at. they are numbered one through eight. we are here to talk about these bridges in particular as it relates to their seismic deficiencies, what our proposals are. time is of the essence here. the seismic strategy reports that were approved in december 2011 indicate we do have a situation where, in the case of a seismic event, these bridges are not properly anchored to the

bedrock. we definitely need to perform these improvements so that we have got a safer situation and it is today. -- and then it is today. these bridges were built in the late 1930's, 1940's. frankly, at the end of the useful life. in particular, bridge no. 2. looking at the steel substructure. bridges no. 4, 7a. 4 also has that same substructure. others need to be lowered to the ground or retrofitted. this is a typical cross-section showing in the proposal, in terms of what we need to do. we need to ankara to bed rock. shows the geotechnical planes. -- anchor to bed rock.

these are perched on the side of the hill. as i indicated previously, seismic strategy reports were approved in december. five of the bridges, 1, 4, 7a, 7b, and 8 require retrofit. three of them require replacement, bridges two, three, and six. we have updated the cost, and i will show you that later. we are about to start the environmental analysis here in february contingent on this approval. these bridges fall under the category of categorical exemptions, exclusions per ceqa and nepa, but there are definitely studies that caltrans is asking us to support those findings. culture resources is one, making sure we take a look at all of the cold war resources here in the area, particularly those that of american and looking at

the potential historic significance of the bridges, since they were built quite some time ago. we have an accelerated schedule given the type of approval we believe we are moving forward with with caltrans and f. h. wa -- fhwa. we are looking at late fall to early summer. that is the funding and that we have, getting these environmentally approved and design by early 2013, to meet the construction funding the nine we have agreed to with the state of california. finally, the updated cost. because we have some bridge replacement. three of the costs are significantly higher than what had been initially thought. we have approximately a $33 million project. the good news is, we have the funding program for all phases of the project, in particular,

for the remainder of the preliminary engineering, design here. we have small local match from the treasure island development authority. finally, our recommendation is to increase the amount of professional services contract with wmh corporation by $4.3 million, for a total not to exceed $5.9 million to complete the engineering, environmental analysis and design, and to authorize the executive director to modify the contract terms and conditions. that concludes my presentation. available for questions. commissioner wiener: thank you, any questions from members of the committee? does that have any comments? we will open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? >> commissioners, my name is

francisco decasta. i have heard some of these presentations before, and as you can see the gentleman who spoke before you took his time, i hang because of -- i think becauseof he has stated very clearly, and rightly so, that in the engineering process of the bridges, caltran has made it known to him, and hopefully all those involved, and this is a levy for the city and county of san francisco, that when it comes to resources, due

diligence must be done. in this room we have another gentlemen, mr. saga, and he will tell you when we address similar issues, due diligence was done. it do diligence is not done -- if due diligence has not done, respect is not given to the people, as i stated before, you can build what ever you want with the best engineers, things will come tumbling down. finally, i want to commend the engineers and a grouthe group. you do a good job, but that land belongs to the first people. thank you very much. commissioner wiener: any

additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion on decided to move it forward? can we take that without objection? that will be forwarded. >> item number four, recommend of a two-year award consulting contract to fehr & peers. this is an action item. >> good morning. senior transportation planner with the authority. this item begins on page 13 of your packet. it is a consulting contract award for the balboa park planning study. it will explore changes to the ball pola park station, focusing specifically on the rams from to under 80 and ocean avenue.

the station is right next to the interchange system, and it is creating some current conflicts between freeway traffic and pedestrians and buses accessing the station. we will be looking in the study at the conceptual feasibility of changes, maybe even closure of ramp or two. if that is feasible, we will look at arranging station conscience to mitigate conflicts. this grant was funded by cal tran. the authority applied for the grant. in december we brought an item to the board for the approval of the required local match from prop k. the amount for this contract will be $165,000. we released the request proposal on december 6 of last year. proposals were due june were 10, just last month. there was a good amount of interest for such a small

contract amount. we received a three proposals. we received -- we convened a selection committee. the panel selected to interview all three of the teams, and from that set up teams has recommended tehe fehr & peers' team. they had emphasis on complex multi-modal interactions. they demonstrated strong local knowledge of the area and task and planning efforts in the area. they demonstrated experience with cal tran, and has strong performance manner durimanagingr projects. the participation rate for the team is " percent signed, which met our goal. we have representatives from the fehr & peers' team, brooke dubose to answer any questions about the team. we're seeking a recommendation

for the award of the two-year contract to fehr & peers. commissioner wiener: i want to acknowledge the work of commissioner avaollos on this project. are there any questions or comments on this item? seeing none, any public comments? seeininng none, public comment is closed. is there a motion? second? can we take that without objection? send it forward with recommendation without objection. next item. >> item #5, recommended award of a two-year contract to aarup north america ltd., in an amount not to exceed $318,000 for planning services for the 19th avenue transit corridor and as

his study. >> good morning. this item begins on 17 of your packet. this is for the 19th avenue transit corridor and as the study. this study is exploring central feasibility of changes to 19th avenue, really focusing on three things. one is looking at the ocean view light rail line that currently runs down at medium come in looking at the feasibility of realigning that to the west side of the street. that would have transit access benefits. the second piece the city will look at is a g separating the cost from under light rail, either over or under the street to get transit operational benefits. third, looking at ways we can improve the transit connection to the bart station, which is not far away from the area. this is funded by the planning branch. the authority applied successfully last year for a grant. in november we brought the item

to the board approving local match for the study as well. this study is also receiving by way of further information, some funds from local partners in the area. the land owners privas. the amount for this contract is $318,000. a bit about the procurement process here, we released our request for proposal on december 1 of last year. proposals were due january 9. there was high interest in this study. we received six proposals. we were very sick ry excited abt that. we had up procurement process. the panel selected to interview three teams. of those teams, the panel is recommending arup north america as the award. that team demonstrated the ability to provide creative engineering solutions, strong

expertise in intermodal transactions come and brought a strong design to the project. also, strong experience with the caltran approval process and strong planning expertise. the team has an underutilized disadvantage bridges addition rate of 22%, which exceeded our goal of 12%. there is a representative here to answer any questions if there are any. we're seeking recommendation for a two-year consulting contract. i can answer any questions at this time. commissioner wiener: colleagues, any questions or comments? we will open it up to public comment. i am sorry, commissioner commissioner chiu: . -- commissioner chiu: . .

commissioner chiu: this will help to improve transit along that area in corridor. i am wondering if we are making sure as we are taking a look at these, are we taking opportunity to look at any overlaps that may inteimpact area? >> we will interact with them to see how this would have synergies with the recommendation. there is obviously some question about how you handle bus service, especially if you move light rail to the other side of the street. we will look at that. commissioner wiener: if there are no other questions or comments, we will go to public comment. any member of the public that wishes to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner wiener: colleagues, can we do that without objection? that will be the order. >> item number six, recommend

executing an amendment to increase the interior architectural contract agreement with gensler by 168,8762 total amount not to exceed $206,000.500 for additional interior architectural, acoustical come and audiovisual consulting services for the authority workspace. this is an action item. >> back in october 2011 i brought before the board option for the authority to accept the $750,000 incentive fee determining office contracts at 100 vaness, and bringing to the committee a 13-year work space leased with hudson up 1455 market street -- at 1455 market street. we have negotiated the contract

back in december, and now we're looking at planning office move. we are anticipating opposite of to be in july 2012. with the new lease contract we are allowed to have 1.7 million in terms of improvements. a tenant improvements will cover architectural fees, construction, and minutes and anything related to the office moves. one of the first contracts a bringing before you is architectural contracts. we initially entered into a contract with gensler to start a pre-planning phase. now we are bringing back the remaining part of the contract to include this thematic documents and other phases of rrequired for the office move. you have acoustical and audiovisual terms included. w witwith that, i like to remind

the committee this contract will be paid for by hudson specific, the new landlord, for the office move. none of the of fees will be covered by the authority fees at all. this was brought to the committee back in january and received a unanimous motion of support. with that, i would like to recommend an amendment to the current contract with gensler and to include additional services and consulting fees. commissioner wiener: think you very much. colleagues, any questions or comments? -- thank you very much. public comment is closed. is there a motion? to forward the recommendation? that will be the order. >> item number seven, recommend authorizing the executive

director to substitute the credit facility for the 200 million commercial paper program to enter into a new credit and or liquidity facility agreement with top-rate bank come in to negotiate agreement terms and conditions. this is an action item. >> cynthia fong. what i have before you is a request to substitute the to several million dollar commercial line of credit for the commercial paper program back in 2004 the authority initiated $150,000 of commercial paper. the commercial paper is to fund all of the ongoing projects, prop k program supplies. the reason i bring this item before you today is with the recent fiscal problems in greece, italy, france, in germany, two of the three rating agencies, moody's and standard and poor's have notified as they

may be downgraded our credit rating based on the line of credit agreement we have with a german banks. with this information we took opportunity to issue an rfp and received six responses from various american and japanese banks. japanese banks partnered with american banks. each of these offered a three- year term with fees which are currently half of what the authority is paying now. the authority is praying -- paying approximately $200 million for a $200,000 line of credit. banks are offering fees that would cut the cost in half right now. we are in preliminary negotiations of the final terms with banks. once the terms are fully negotiated, we plan to select the best advantage to the

authority and best fees and best credit rating in line of credit supply. this item was brought before the committee last month, and there was unanimous vote of the motion of support. we initiate that it would end -- we anticipate it would end in march 2012 and satisfy standard and poor's and moody's requirement to not downgrade the authorities credit rating. commissioner wiener: thank you for the presentation. any questions or comments? commissioner chiu: just a request to provide information to the committee with regards to what that stream of cash flows are. i know we have a commercial paper program that you are suggesting, but what is the savings that will be anticipated? you are saying the fees are half

of what the cost are. i would like to see that in the future. >> that will not be a problem. commissioner wiener: any further comments or questions? public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. do we of a motion to forward this with recommendation? can we do that without objection? that will be the order. >> no. 8, recommend approval of the 2012 state and federal legislative program. this is an action item. >> commissioners, executive director. the proposed legislative agenda is in your packets, starting on page 29.

i will try to be very brief about this in consideration of the hour. the detailed work program starts on page 30. we have a focus this year, as always, on the state legislative program. the state budget reform process has had a number of negative affect on the transportation program. it has affected the reliability and availability of funds. ahead -- it has also affected the process ability of new funds for the transportation. -- it has also affected the possibility of new funds. this does not show signs of letting up. the efforts this year will continue to be to protect transportation funding, and to oppose any takings or our win