sure that i am reading it correctly, and so the first categories are the total contract and what's been spent overall, but not through a time period, and then the second total spending is what's been spent in the first quarter? is that how you read it? >> no. the first one is the total amount on the contract and the second one is the lbe's, specifically the payments to them. >> okay. so the -- let's say the brandon street ward and the total contract is 13.5 million total spending for first quarter is 3.one. >> i'm sorry. i was looking at the presentation which exhibit again? >> two from the staff report. 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

>> when there's good children's theater, it is good theater. if it is good theater, you would like it. even if it is for children that, is what i think. i know for the velveteen rabbit, i feel it is a story for kids and much older people. it is about being a young child and loving a toy or friend and it is also about what it means to get old.

in 1986 my son was 2. i decided i would like to adapt the velveteen rabbit. mind you, i had never read it as a child but heard it as a mother. my first time was a bedtime story recording. it was through that that i defined the theme and really determined how i was going to produce the story. is it true listening to it. when i made the dance i watched my son, since i have been taking him to live performances since he was 6 years old. he loved it when he saw his peers or when someone was reading to him or he heard

language. early when the bunny first comes out they go, ah, the rabbit. i think talking, flying, something they can relate to. and the adults love nana. nan na is the main adult figure in the show. the fairy is played by the same person. fair is very much like the love for your first child. pure love. nature is a beautiful thing. all wild rabbits come from nature. i think nature is mysterious, beautiful, not

something our kids get very much these days. there's fantastical spectacle because of computers and film. i think in live performance, in a way being paired down, you can be more successful and ask everybody to buy into the world you are in. if it is a simple world they will buy in, as long as the world is consistent that you have on stage. in some ways i also want that message for kids. it doesn't have to be spectacle but how you feel and having fun and taking things seriously, not about being blown away.

>> what is real? it is a thing that happens to you when a child loves you for a long, long time. >> i think it is a success. for the most part if you are three to seven, you sit in the seats and most of the time the kids are engaged. they laugh and ask questions. i think that is success. the fact we tour it and do it here, it is lasting. i really want to say the reason it is lasting is because of the story marjorie williams wrote is a gem of a story. if it was just an okay story, it wouldn't have lasted this long. i have had people say that is the first show i ever saw, that is why i am a choreographer. i have had people that have come back when they are 20

and 23 years old. little kids and people in their 50s and 60s are telling me how much they love it. they come back more than once, they come back year after year. >> so again good morning everyone. i am ed risk. i am the transportation director in the great city of san francisco and it's my great pleasure and delight to welcome you today to a great celebration. what we're celebrating here is the partnership that many of you that are with us today that have gotten to this point. we are celebrating the fact that we have gotten to this point and the investments that will central sup way will bring to

san francisco and what it means for this city and this region. i can't tell you what an honor and privilege it is to serves as the transportation director in this great city. we ordered san francisco weather to deep the dust down and we are in a construction site and it's a great time for transportation across the nation largely because of some of the folks you will hear who are to my left and your right. it is also a great time to be in san francisco because we have leadership here in the city that are encouraging innovation, that recognize the importance of investment and infrastructure, and there is no better manifestation of that than this project and that prt is man manifested in a way that i can see no more strongly in our great mayor who have been been a public works director, a city administrator, and helped

build the city's plan he really gets this stuff. he is really engaged in this stuff. i don't think a week has come gone by that he hasn't asked me when this day is coming and it's a pleasure to introduce our mayor ed lee. >> thank you for your wonderful leadership. over 20-25 years ago when we were struggling with the earthquake, when people in chinatown said "gosh we're really going to suffer, and if we're going to be participating in our great economy in san francisco we have to find a way for better transportation routes to transfer people up north and down south of the city, and when we call ourselves a city as a transit first city there is no

better example than that than what is reflected in the plans for the central subway. this project is a vital enhancement of our public transportation system. it's going to significantly improve the movement of tens of thousands of franciscans and if you were here this past weekend when people were predicting it would be jam san francisco instead of san francisco you knew that folks were educated because of the great leadership at our mta, our county transportation, all of our transit systems and were at the highest level of educating the visitors and others to use public transportation. it will work for all of us and as we build the housing units we identified in hunter's point and treasure island and welcome more people to our great city and we are growing as a result. we

are going to have the greatest subway system that can connect to our bart, to our caltrans, to up and down our muni lines. this central subway will be a great success. it will connect to some of the most densely populated and rapidly developing areas, and it will improve access to all of our vibrant communities, and really is investments like this that will foster loyalty among all of our public transit customers while we reduce carbon emissions, make our city cleaner and cleaner. i'm not the only one that thinks this way. you know i'm among many, many friends today in the audience, on stage and i would like to invite at this time someone who has made it a practice to visit our city regularly, to make sure this

project was being planned well, that the initial funds that were granted to us by president obama and with the great work of our congressional delegates and speaker pelosi and senator feinstein we would make sure to use it in the right way and creating the jobs and the investment that people wanted to see. u.s. transportation secretary ray lahood. please share this announcement. >> hello san francisco. i am delighted to be here to celebrate with all of you three very important champions for this project. senator feinstein who doesn't often call me, but when she does i pay attention, and four years ago when i went