i'm sorry. >> so the first one is there's the total -- we have the total contract dollar amount. the total amount spent to date. the total lbe's spent to date, and then on the far three on the far right i'm sorry side of the table you've got the total spent for that quarter, for this quarter, so that is total i spent on the contract for the quarter -- >> right. so the first category is the contract is over time, but it could be two years, three years -- >> correct. depending on the life of the contract to date. >> okay. >> so if you want to see what we totally spent on that contract for this quarter the total amount we spent within the quarter it's the third column from the right. >> okay. >> and then the next one over

there is how much we spent -- we paid -- that went to lbe contractors, again within that quarter. >> right. so on the total contract over time -- over on these projects we've only met 12% of the 20% goal? >> yeah. that is correct. as of this moment in time. >> as of this moment in time. okay. so i guess i am just -- i want to make the point again that i think this report is very important, and i think that a lot of people want to know this information of how we're doing, and there maybe an issue that we're not doing enough, and so i really want to make sure that we do this on a quarterly basis. we do it in open session, and instead of just reporting the numbers tell us what we're going to do to increase those

numbers? what is staff doing actively to make sure that those numbers are met during all periods in time? >> i think one of the first things in doing the report on a quarterly basis. one of the things we want to do is work with the project managers and make sure we're tracking on a payment by payment basis where they are within the meeting the lbe goals, so we can look at that and have conversations with the contractors as we go along, and keep pushing them. how are you going to meet this goal? how are you going to meet this goal? it looks like you're running around it. i think those contracts are less of an issue because you have already planned out the work for that contract, and it might be that the lbe is the person doing the dry wall and the participating so they're coming at the end of the contract. as you're putting up the steel and everything you

see low lbe participation. you will see that at the end, so i think for those we can keep an eye on that and as long as they're meeting that and i know hrc is reviewing that as well. the issue is with the as needed contracts and tracking that. >> so they're told in the beginning that the lbe portion of the contract has to be x percent? >> right. >> do they present a plan how they're going to meet that goal? because i think as to the commissioner's question what can they do about it? and while we can remind them it seems we want them to anticipate and not react and we didn't meet the goal and now what are you going to do? >> thank you for your questions of the i did want to point out the hrc goals is also in the chart for the goals and why it

says actual percent is 20% and they have ones below that and they look at all the trade packages in that contract up front and reviews what we can reasonably and aggressively achieve and sets that goal. it's the port's commission policy that we get to 20% and we love to get better than and do better than the goals but i want to point out what we approved in the contracts are these -- for example, 9% for the brandon wharf project. 3% are the maintenance dredge contract which we're actually having trouble meeting because we are not having off shore disposear. we have a plan up front. they look at what we can achieve and set the goal aggressively as we can reasonably achieve. we

look to expand the lbe's and trade packages with coordination with them to get to the 20% goal and we are pleased when we get over the goal. for example with cruise terminal -- >> (inaudible). >> i'm sorry. let me get to the right one and a lot is the availability with the subcontracts and the hrc does and we partner with them in that work. >> for example if we use that as an example and see them over long period of time just not meeting the goal when they come again for bidding on something do we take into consideration they weren't able to meet the

goal or always below it? >> it's a process and as we monitor this and good to do this in open session quarterly. as we monitor this with the project manager we talk with them when it's not meeting the goals and what's happened? why aren't they meeting the goal? is it a change in scope of work? if they don't meet them and they're fined and it's serious. if the port changed the scope or the dredging where there is not enough off shore disposal we know it's because of a change in the work and we work with hrc if it's appropriate to fine because they have just failed to meet the terms of their contract. going forward we look to subdivide the work and find other ways to bring in more lbe's has we move forward and the next contracts we can push

that goal setting up. >> what struck me is we seem to be exceeding our goals on the smaller contracts but unfortunately looks like the larger ones, particularly turner at pier 27 and with the america's cup that's where we have fallen short and some degree with the brandon street wharf and that also because what concerns me we push for lbe participation but then -- i guess to your point we need to monitorrer more carefully and good to do it on a quarterly basis but i am concerned of the areas we're falling short and we were able to get more participating and shouldn't be below those goals. >> good point commissioner. i would like to add that the

bigger contracts tend to have more pile driving in them and more of the type that work that requires a large company and not lbe. it's going to be a company with significant investment in the equipment and i know you have seen this and the vertexes and the primes too and so that's why that happens and on the smaller ones like the pier 33 and a half where we have a lot of interwork on a building and dry wall, participating, electrical systems. those have high amount of participation in those fields and we do very well and overall with the exception of drudging and it's one of the big

companies doing it and all we really have is trucking so if we have drudge spoils really toxic or not suitable for the bay and put them on the pier and dry out and truck it out to the landfill. that we can get a lot of participation with the trucking and we haven't had to do that luck ree and didn't find anything unsuitable which is nice but overall i think we did a good job at meeting our goals. >> i think we did a good job with consulting but contracting i think we have room to grow and hrc knows that certain projects are going to have higher or lower goals which is why there is such a difference so they set the goals for a reason and that's because there are contractors out there available to do this work, so i can't of

don't buy that argument. >> you just saw the annual report two meetings ago and we did meet the goals for the year when it smoothed out. i reported today we pored cement there tonight and will see a change in that number in the next quarter as we get to mr. burn's point to the interior on the cruise ship project see a change there as well, so it is a snapshot in time but i do think in the last report we did a very good job on the contracts. i don't recall there was even one that fell below. do you recall that commissioners? >> don't. i would have to see the report in front of me. >> i wanted to clarify -- elaine picked it up as well and when you said open session. we always hear it in open session. i assume you mean on consent.

>> definitely. it's a presentation. >> and i will the goals are below 20% on some of them and getting them up higher -- >> it's necessarily getting them more. i look forward to the next report. >> okay: we will make sure we exceed. >> thank you. >> maybe what maybe helpful is when we have the full four quarters or whatever that we can have that as a comparison too and address some of the concerns and i just wanted to thank all of you because having seen a number of other departments and how they fair i am proud of the port for setting a higher goal and i do remember some of the other ports. we did meet and exceed the goals that we set. >> many. >> good work. >> okay.

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. >> item 11 -- >> move to public -- >> number 11, new business. >> any new business? >> wanted to comengz commissioners at the last meeting you asked for us to bring back maritime tenants for review and doesn't show on the calendar but we are intended to do that. commissioner you asked for a hearing on transportation. we heard some of that today from peter albert but in january we will capture some of it from the next workshop. commissioner brandon asked for a presentation on the blue green way and probably best for january meeting and the december meeting has more items. >> i was responding to a call

from david asking what his next step should be. >> i was the one that asked -- >> my apologize. >> i actually asked for it. >> in any event looking at december's calendar january is the better place for it and even more for december than today. >> one of the reasons to bring it forward sooner than later in light of the discussions earlier i want to make sure that the blue green way is incorporated in everything that is happening. >> and david has a terrific presentation to make and very timely, so having said all of that. is there anything else to add to the calendar or new business in general? >> no. i think you're covered the items. okay. >> comment on new business. >> no more comments on new business. public comment in general? we do have one. john

haiber. >> good evening members of the commission. i am john heber and represent a large well known development entity that has a strong interest in developing sea lot wall 337 and pea 48 and issue for these properties. it is reported they're no longer involved in the property. in reviewing the port's document it's not clear if the company has withdrawn. what i do know there is no change more material than a change in ownership. if cornish is done both from legal and public policy perspective the port has no choice but to reissue the rfp. is there is

no way the giants couldn't have won it without cornish's involvement nor do they have the experience to pull it off of this magnitude. the giants are a great club and great stadium but they have no experience in mixed use projects. the project proposed building several million of square feet of office space and shops and why they required them to meet extensive standards. i am not familiar with one mixed use project by the environments. the project states that cornish company represented the bulk of the development expertise, not the giants. the fact that the giants have hired some consultant to help the process doesn't make them a seasoned

developer. another concern is where is the money coming from? the port consultant laurence brown after reviewing the giants and cornish company financial records stating that cornish is providing the vast majority of the money. the last memorandum states that they need to generate the entitlements for infrastructure and this is a far cry from building this billion dollar project. the sea wall 337 not a planned project and the giants shouldn't be able to shop for a developer partner. such actions are contrary to the public interest and imply back door dealings especially after the port confleet pleeted

the public process and they have created a lot of value. shouldn't that value return to the public through the new issue afns rfp process. thank you. >> thank you. okay. is there any further public comment? hearing none we are going to adjourn the open session and continue -- >> [inaudible] >> in closed session. >> reconvene in closed your pre we typically only present for budget and audit. >> so we're recording. so may have a motion -- >> i move to adjourn. >> second. >> motion to reconvene in open session. >> second. >> and you also move -- >> i move to disclose not anything discussed in closed session. >> second. >> i move to adjourn. >> second. >> okay. >> all in favor aye.

>> aye.

>> good afternoon and welcome to the mayor's disability council, room 400,san francisco city hall. our meeting is fully accessible to persons using wheelchairs. assisting listening devices are available. our meeting is open captioned and sign interpreting is available. braille is available. ask staff for any assistance. the respect everyone's ability to focus on the presentation, please either turn off all mobile phones and pdas, or change these devices to vibrate mode. your cooperation is appreciated.

we welcome the public's participation during public comment. you may complete a speakers card available in the front of the room. the mayor's disability council meeting are generally the third friday of each month. our next regular meeting will not be until january 18, 2013, from 1 o'clock to four o'clock here, san francisco city hall, room 400. call the mayor's office on disability for further information or to request accommodations at 415-554-6789. voice. or 415-554-6799, tty. a reminder to all of our guests today to speak slowly into the

microphone to assist our captioners and interpreters. we thank you for joining us and ken stein has an announcement regarding the bridge line. thank you. >> we also want to invite people who are at home, they can listen via the bridge line, 415-554-9632. usually the bridge line has the capacity for people to talk to us. today there are technical problems. we don't have the capability. we do welcome people's comments nonetheless. if you like to call monday, 554-6799, tty. email, - we apologize for our difficulties.

>> thank you mr. stein. proceeding with agenda item number one, may we initiated roll call please. >> present today we have councilmembers wong, wilson, burkett, james, parson. >> item 2, reading and approval of agenda. with mr. stein.. >> here i am again. regular meeting, mayors disability council. one, welcome, introduction roll call.

two, approval of the agenda. three, public comment, four, report from the chair. five, report from the director of the mayor's office of disability. six, report of the transportation plan update. seven, community perspective of supportive housing and sros eight, action item. nine, action item, proposed amendment to the mdc by laws. -- elven, multimodal accessibility committee update. eleven, public comment. that was 12, 13, correspondent, 14 councilmember comments and announcements.

15 adjourn. >> thank you. moving on the public comment agenda item number three. i have one speakers card here. our friends across the day ms. denise jacobson, with the oakland mayor's commission. we welcome you. anyone else who wishes to speak after her? please step forward. >> thank you. i'm very happy to be here today. i am the vice-chair of oakland's mayor's --

(off mic) (off mic) (indiscernible) >> excuse me ms. jacobson? would you please try to start over, and talk closer to the mic. >> okay. i am vice-chair of the mayor's commission on persons with disabilities. for the past year. we've been looking to --

problems of (indiscernible). we decided that we are going to -- >> what were the problems again? >> the -- are in poor condition. >> bart elevators. are in poor condition. >> who is they?

>> the bart elevators. >> wonderful. >> this has been a matter of discussion for us. we are happy to have you come and speak about it. >> we are asking people who ride bart to keep a log of the experience for the period of november

and december. i've passed out my -- business cards for any of you who want more information. and if one of the members of the council wants to be contacted

please contact me by e-mail. we are excited about collaborating with the council and i've also contacted the people on the berkley commission. if we can all work this together,