admin code 12b and 12c. the functions being transferred are mainly at ministerial -- administerial. supervisor campos: to the extent that the responsibility on compliance remains with the hrc, how does that work, given that the functions -- administrative functions will be transferred out of hrc. can you talk a little bit about that? anyone. again, the question is -- to the extent that the responsibility in terms of determining compliance, as i understand it, remains with hrc, but the

administrative function is being transferred -- how is that going to work? >> under the charter, the human rights commission has charter authority over discrimination programs. the final determination about whether or not an entity is ebo compliant is considered to be a discrimination determination. the plan is that all of the same people that have been doing this work really since the ebo began, will be working under the direction of the city administrator. they will be evaluating files, making recommendations, but ultimately, the director of the human rights commission has the authority under chapter 12b of equal benefits ordinance to determine if someone is or is not compliant. the ultimate decision has to be made by the director. interestingly, it is the director and not the commission. there is no appeal to the

commission. supervisor campos: i guess the question for me is more of a practical one. i can see the director being able to make that determination where the director retains day- to-day oversight and supervision of some of these individuals. i wonder if you could tell me then -- how does that work? to the extent that they will be day to day reporting to the administrator -- i just want to understand how that works. >> i did not think it has been put into place yet. it is hard for anyone to understand the question, but i think the factual analysis will be made and reported to the ultimate decision maker, and i of the ultimate decision maker is not the city administrator, it is the director of the human rights commission. supervisor campos: i wonder if director sparks has anything to add to that. >> i do not think we have worked out the details. honestly, there's been a lot of different formats we have talked

about. whether or not the charter actually talks about discrimination for a program that is not minority and women- focus, whether discrimination under a local ordinance is in fact discrimination. we try protected class is in the equal benefits as we kind of roll it out on certification and some other things, but the primary function of the equal benefits ordinance is to certify companies, and that is done by a group of administrative individuals, headed by tamara winchester, who is sitting behind us. made i do not know. supervisor campos: seems like that is yet to be worked out. i do have a final question for the deputy city administrator. i appreciate that a lot of this

is being worked out. one of the benefits of having the human rights commission oversees some of these functions has been -- you know, for instance, using the example of community engagement and outreach, is that with hrc, you do have a commission. you have a body of individuals that is providing oversight. you have a city administrator reporting to the mayor and the board of supervisors, so i wonder if you could talk a little bit about how we ensure, as we are moving forward, that there is as much transparency and community involvement, given the -- that one of the functions these commissions play is that they are very good at reaching out to communities, in gauging people. >> thank you, supervisor, for

the question. i think the city administrator has demonstrated her commitment to working with the board and the mayor. we do not have a commission, but we are committed to working with advisory committees to making sure their issues are heard. chivas for to working closely with this body to make sure your voices are heard. supervisor campos: i think that would be helpful, especially as these meetings continue. it might be that the work of the commission is done sooner and we come back sooner than two months -- who knows? but i would be interested in continuing to talk. i also think, going back to what share -- chair kim was saying, the outreach is very important because if we ourselves have not ironed out some of the details of how this will work, how do we expect the public and

the people that will be impacted to know? >> if i may, when we come back, we will be back with a plan to present to you. supervisor campos: i think that would be very helpful. i do not have any questions. supervisor kim: thank you. at this time, we will open up for public comment on this item. seeing no public comment, public comment is now close. supervisor campos: supervisor, if i may, i would like to make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair, and we can speak to your office and with the human rights commission as to when would be an appropriate time to bring this back. supervisor kim: i just wanted to thank you for this hearing requests. this is a major shift with the mayor's office, and it is

important for the board to hear about this transfer of duties. this is an area where many members of the board and many members of the community are interested in, regardless of the transfer, and i look forward to an update on both the transfer and, of course, how we plan to do the outreach so we can increase the number of contracts we are able to and give to locally owned businesses, women- owned businesses, and minority- owned businesses. i love to work with the human rights commission and city administrator as we move forward. supervisor campos: i apologize -- one thing i hope we also keep in mind is that to the extent as we move these things forward, we -- if one of these changes or an aspect of one of these changes does not work, that we are open to figure out maybe perhaps a different approach. i think the goal here is to figure out the most expeditious,

transparent, and effective way of approaching these functions. thank you. supervisor kim: agreed, so we have a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair, and we can do that without opposition. thank you. before we entertain a motion to convene -- actually, i'm sorry. can you please call the rest of the items on the agenda. >> items 8 and 13 -- 8 through 13 are litigation, so would you like to entertain a motion to convene in closed session? supervisor kim: before we can meet in closed session, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on items 8 through 13? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to convene in closed session. it looks like most of the members of the public have filed out already, but we will be convening in closed session, so at this time, we ask you to leave the committee room. when we are done, we will come

back and announced the actions >> we met in closed session to discuss pending claims on litigation. i understand the committee will move items eight, 10, 11, 12, and 13 forward with recommendations of committee report and continue item 9 to the call of the chair. supervisor campos: so moved. supervisor kim: [inaudible]

is there anything else on the agenda? >> no, madam chair. supervisor kim: seeing no other items, this meeting is commissioner avalos: good morning and welcome to the plans and programs committee of the transportation authority. i am john amylose, the chair of the committee. other commissioners will be joining our shortly. commissioner jane kim, christina olague. the clerk of the committee is erica chang.

i want to call out on the folks on sfgtv broadcasting. please share with us any announcements. >> there are no announcements. commissioner avalos: item to police. >> item 2. approve the minutes of the june 19, 2012 meeting. this is an action item. commissioner avalos: any questions or comments? public comment. two minutes. seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to approve? motions farrell, seconded by commissioner cohen. without objection. next item, item #3. >> item 3. citizens advisory committee report. this is an information item.

>> good morning. today's agenda has three items that were viewed last month by the cac. item six, the discussion will focus mostly on the allocation of the funds of the port, demolition of pier 1 and 2. the cac, that is why the items are being considered prior to

the informant of reports being completed. the port explained the timing1!ó with the america's cup. it was also required from the bay conservation and development commission'

terminal expansion program and that the demolition of the pier was considered essential to bring in that project to completion. this motion passed by the cac unanimously and the modification at the staff recommended regarding the desigt requiring the mta to perform overhauls of the upgrades of critical components.

once they reached age of five or six years. the mta did not complete the necessary overhauls. mta staff would have provided the authority with the explanation of why these overalls were not completed. item seven, this motion was passed by the cac and there was concern that the cac be consistently asked to support the allocation of funds. the full fund grant payment is in place. the authority assured the cac

that having the local match was essential to receiving the federal funds. item eight, this item was passed unanimously by the cac. this concludes my report. thank you very much. commissioner avalos: thank you. any question for mr. flanagan? ok, we'll go to public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. that is an information item. we will now move on to item for. >> item 4. recommend approval of the fiscal year 2012/2013 transportation fund for clean air program of projects. this is an action item. commissioner avalos: this is an item that we have before us last month and we're getting updates.

>> we presented on this last month, so i will not go into all the projects. the registration fee is to fund projects that improve air quality by reducing motor vehicle trips. primarily, the measureib,r of e reduced vehicle miles traveled. as noted in a random, at the request of commissioner cohen, we are continuing this item out of concern for the one project we're not recommending funding for which is the bayview community shuttle. this shuttle is -- the grant is received by the department of public health. the shuttle is a committee held shuttle that operates in the bayview, run by the bay view community foundation. we had in the past the the does from the lifeline transportation program.

last year, we found it through the transportation fund for clean air. if the first time you from the shuttle project, you are cut some slack, you get to make some assumptions about ridership and how many vehicle miles traveled will result in improved -- improved air quality. unfortunately, the results came back to show the combination of the ridership and the trips do not meet the cost effectiveness threshold to the transportation fund for clean air, so we're not recommending it for the program. however, we have met with a foundation and this afternoon we have meetings with the municipal tradition agency to fund this with the remaining lifeline funds. those funds are state transit assisted funds. we are working with all parties to figure out how to do that and also how to relate this to the authority's bayview mobility solution study site. the authority is working with a number of partners and has a

very strong link with the department of public health. commissioners are familiar with that in the community, to see if we can build on the expertise to that study to help the shuttle through the lifeline program. commissioner avalos: commissioner cohen. commissioner cohen: to thank you for giving me the opportunity to meet with transportation staff. i thought it was very enlightening about funds, how they're allocated, and how we can help, because of the loss of funds for this particular shuttle help identify other locations for money. thank you. i am grateful for the time and i'm prepared to vote in favor of the )nro:áoday. commissioner avalos: thank you. since we had a full presentation last committee meeting, we can go on to public comment. i am very supportive of these projects, especially as we are

putting a lot of investment into bike projects as well. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? >> good morning. my name is kit hodge, a deputy director of the san francisco bicycle coalition. thank you for your support of this item. especially thank you for commissioner avalos for putting this back on the agenda today. we want to call attention to two specific projects. the short term biking item. perhaps to have the item that we have, where we cannot walk into many businesses right now because they are so frustrated that they do not havet[ñí÷ theie rack at. many districts brought the city are experiencing this. they want to provide parking for potential customers. we want to make sure the city and the mta has the funding to be able to meet that demand around the city.

second, we are excited about the potential for a western access to the golden gate bridge path. folks on the west side of the city right now have to go a long way to get to the bridge. this will be a tremendous opportunity to open of that wonderful facility to people throughout the city. once again, thank you. we are excited about this item. we hope that you vote in favor. thank you. commissioner avalos: thank you. mr. milosevic? -- moscovich? >> thank you,;x@,ñ commissioner, executive director. i cohen for taking a no-nonsense approach to discussing how to find a solution to problems like the funding for this shuttle in the bayview. i want to put in a word about the importance of paying close attention to the sta, obag, list

for which the county is opposed to prioritize. you're supposed to process of prioritizing that list very seriously. it is a function that i believe the board will exercise and must exercise in prioritizing those lists, precisely to address issues that may not be addressed through the normal city process of servicing the most pressing priorities in the neighborhoods. part of that process is very organic to the efforts we have been making over the last several years to do neighborhood transportation plans and interact withé7 constituencies in your district. to complement what you are already doing, in terms of looking out for the needs of the neighborhoods and when you are hearing from the community organizations, so that you have

essentially an escape valve, an extra amount of money in very tight budget times, to deal with those priorities that may not be bubbling up to the normal process -- through the normal processes. i think the shuttle is a good example of that. all of a sudden, you have this thing that exists already. they need to evaluate it, make sure it gets funded appropriately, according to the benefit it produces, but there is a real need, something where your ability to prioritize funds either from sta, stp, obag process control by the authority board, is an excellent tool to solve problems in any neighborhood. i want to make sure we're all aware of that when we discuss these lists. it is very important to consider

that as a major asset for solving small problems. commissioner avalos: thank you. we are going to close public comment. > item 5. recommend appointment of two members to the citizens advisory committee. this is an action item. >> planner with the authority. this item begins on page 41 of your package. each member of the cac serves a

year-long term. plans and programs committee recommends and the authority board appoints members. the other staff nor the cac make some recommendations on appointments appeared on page 44 of your packet, you can see the folks that have submitted applications to be submitted for positions on the city's advisory committee. on page 43, a listing of some information regarding current committee members. to qualify for apartment to the cac, you have to be a san francisco resident and appear at least once before this committee to speak to your interest and qualifications. we currently have two vacancies on the committee. vacancies have resulted from the -- vacancies of conrad wu and brian larkin. i understand mr. larkin is seeking reappointment. with that, we can take any questions. commissioner avalos: are any of the candidates here?

mr. larkin? commissioner farrell: given that these are generally supported by district, has commissioner chiu expressed any preference here? >> no, we have not heard confirmation. commissioner avalos: since we do not have mr. larkin here --nñ did have a conversation with commissioner mar. he was open to mr. larkin but other folks as well. maybe we should continue this item to the next plans and programs committee and hopefully have mr. larkin here next week or other candidates who are here for the district 1 seat and district 4 seat. commissioner kilet's go on to pt

for item five. >> good morning commissioners, i am a member of the citizens advisory committee district 2. i have known brian larkin for many years and he serves well on the committee. i strongly support his reappointment. thank you very much. commissioner avalos: thank you for your comments. seeing no other member of the public come forward, we will close public comment and go on to the next item. item six. >> item 6. recommend allocation of $1,300,000 in prop k funds, with conditions, to the port of san francisco for one request and $1,384,852 in prop k funds, with conditions, to the san francisco municipal transportation agency for five requests, subject to the

attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules, and amendment of the relevant 5-year prioritization programs. this is an action item. >> good morning commissioners. this item begins on page 45 of your packet. accompanies the memo. including the allocation request forms received and presented to the r%'g&rity board. page 51 of your package so is a summary of the request. if you want a quick reference, it shows the phases3ñçf for fung and expect to leverage and assumptions. the following pages gives a brief description of the product and our recommendations. the only project that is a non sfmta project is the ferry terminal expansion -- i'm sorry, about pier 1/2 demolition

project. the port has requested $1.3 million from the expenditure plan category for which it is eligible to receive funds. the category is to fund improvements to the downtown fair return now to increase ridership. the project is to remove small rectangular-shaped parcel on the north basin. this was formally a parking lot. it was tagged in 2008 and has not been used since. the demolition is required as part of the ferry terminal project but it is also necessary for a bay conservation: permit for the america's cup next summer. the pier must be removed by march 2013 in order to be in compliance with that permit it. the removal was cleared under the removal was cleared under the america's cup eir.