can't go forward with the project as a whole. am i misunderstanding that? if that sort of the legal position that we find ourselves in which i realize is not solace for the local sbe's that is a situation that we are in? >> you captured it exactly right; chapter 14b, we are legally precluded from applying the requirements of chapter 14b of the admin code to the entirety of the project with the federal funds providing the lion's share; even if it were a minor share the project is federalized; and those kinds of local rules that are in conflict with federal law we cannot apply as much as we would like to. i spend a lot of time working on improving 14b to improve the outcomes from 14b when i was public works director; there has been a lot of good work

from the coalition, from the previously hrc, now the city administrator's office, it's been a great thing for severn san francisco businesses. to be honest, for 840 million dollars with the work in san francisco for such an important and visible and symbolic project, i concur with a lot of the comments of the people who spoke in terms of being disappointed that there's not more san francisco businesses, listed subcontractors that will be able to participate. i am heartened to hear that the contractor is willing instead

and try to make whatever opportunities remain available for local businesses despite the fact that we cannot compel him to do so. i think the last gentleman's comment, we did put a strong workforce by which in the contract; we did a local hire ordinance does not apply. first source requirements do and many of the source requirement individuals are local. we are hopeful that more local businesses have those opportunities. what we are faced with at this point, recognizing as you say, kind of where we are, our choices to award -- your choice -- to authorize a word

of the contract and maximizes opportunities or reject all bids and rebid the contract; about score, you heard talk of where are in terms of schedule contingency. given how costs are escalating in the market it would erode our cost contingency and ultimately i don't think we would get a different outcome. there was talk before about the bundling; you directed questions of the contractor. the public comment was directed at us because we had taken four separate contracts and bundled them. want impetus for doing that, we took into account the potential impact on small

business engagement and in the end the gaol that we set for this contract was 20 percent was higher; the low responsible bid we got exceed that goal, up to 25%. initially when we were in the unbundled mode, three different contracts, we bid the first one. the low bid came in not even meeting, i think 18%. the difference between 200 million dollar contract and 800 million dollar contract - i don't think it is a significant in terms of the local opportunities. you heard from this bidder and perhaps the others that there

were opportunities to try to unbundle and break up some electrical work. when i see in a rejection of the bids, would be almost guaranteed cost and scheduling impact without corresponding benefits of increased local participation. i know we all would, and the mayor, the board, everybody would love to see but it is not an outcome that we can guarantee or anticipate yet we would put the project in a customized position. i am 100 percent sympathetic to those concerns; in terms of the numbers of lbe anticipation and the rest of the agency's capital program. much is federal but we do getting good amount of dbes and

lbes the participate in the balance of the agency's programs. we can still achieve the spirit of what the city is trying to do and get san franciscans, and san francisco businesses to benefit. >> follow-up on that. how would you characterize the outreach to the minority and small business communities in san francisco? about the same as always? >> no. we did significantly a higher level of outreach than we do in a normal construction project. and because of many people in the local community really work hard to get this project to where it is, and advocate for it at the state and federal level. it was important for us to try to maximize the extent that we

could given the constraints of the law; as i mentioned, you even heard references, outreach going back five years to the contracting community. we required the bidders for this contract to come to meet and greet sessions with the contractors. we have a number of different forms and try to share all of the perspective bidding information so the program was funding positions in our sbe office and also in the office of economic and workforce development try to make sure we are maximizing opportunities. it is disappointing that despite what i believe was a legitimate, above and beyond effort in this case with regard to local, small and minority-owned businesses we are not where we would like to be but the contractor has fairly significantly exceeded the sbe goal, which is the

requirement that we can enforce and so i guess that is a consolation and it sounds like there are still remaining opportunities that we would be happy to see go to small, local, minority and other firms. >> chair nolan: individuals in san francisco can still be hired but is subcontractors and elsewhere, is that right? it's not good news for the local businesses sincerely but individual people in san francisco who are painters and -- >> you are correct. is one part of how we are trying to encourage that the funding those apprenticeship slots; we cannot require the those be san francisco residents,

we remain optimistic that san franciscans will be put to work, close to 20% of local hire on the current construction projects. the ones where the local hire ordinance technically does not apply because of the same federal laws. even without the force of law we have opportunity to see san franciscans working on this project. >> chair nolan: anybody else on the board? director bridges, i'm sorry. >> director bridges: when doctor director heinicke's comments, we really don't have that many options, have zero options because we don't want to see the project delayed for fear of jeopardizing where we are with a federal grant. at the same time it is very disappointing that we cannot force the contractor to comply to our local laws.

i would hope that in the spirit of the severn san francisco code, to see if local contractors can be hired for the jobs remaining. >> is that a motion? >> i have a comment and a motion. i'm happy to make a motion; i am not interested in rejecting the bids. i agree that we should encourage the contractor to hire locally if possible. i think we have to keep in mind that this project is going to create future work all along the corridor. and slowing it down is not going to serve any of our businesses large or small so i really don't want to delay this. we are going to see this project drive the economy along the corridor in the city

and it will create business in the city, that is what we want to see all the businesses large and small benefit and moving forward expeditiously will be the best way to see that. >> director ramos. >> director ramos: i do make sure i understand this. the tremendous amount a funny that we are getting from the feds is such that, this is federal funding coming from washington, dc. you said the lion's share the funding, do not fall from the sky or that we paid out of our pockets, is money come from all over the country. we cannot put limitations on what we expect; theoretically everybody has paid for this project from outside of s san francisco as well. taxation without representation --

is an effort on the part of the federal government to get representation from contractors outside of the region. and because we have to take this funding to be able to complete this project is sort of a necessary compliance that we have to act in accordance with. i want to express my support for this talk in this effort of given all of that, having the lead contractor understand the spirit, and i know from my own experience that this is not unique. this problem that we are talking about right now is not unique to this project. it happens with every federally funded project; every time a nickel of federal funding goes into any project like this it automatically opens it up for these kinds of limitations. that being said to support thinking about if we say no to this contract at this time,

what happens is a project is delayed for who knows how much time in who knows for what better, if any, we will get. we talk about the economy and how it will turn around the whole corridor and everything; , every time i think about the central subway and i hear about it, i think about those folks who are slaves to the ferry stockton. i would encourage anyone to go ahead and wash dishes in a windowless room for 10 hours, and going and stand in line and wait for crowded bus that will pass you, and have that person, or have someone tell you that we'll have to wait a few more years before anything changes; this is a transit first city, we have to move this contract forward to improve his vision that is inclusive of those writers and the community in chinatown and i will support this and vote yes in looking forward to moving this along. >> chair nolan: other directors?

we have a motion and a second? all those in favor? ayes have it. ms. boomer, next item. >> item 12, to whether to conduct a close session. >> chair nolan: is there a motion? second? all those in favor? we will not go into closed session. >> item 13, the board of directors voted unanimously to settle the huey case.

>> chair nolan: all those in favor? >> secretary boomer: that concludes the business today.

>> hello, i am with the san francisco parks department serious we are featuring some wonderful locations in your and very own backyard. this is your chance to find your heart in san francisco with someone special. we are here at the lovely and historic palace of fine arts, located in the bustling marina district. originally built for the 1950's exposition, the palace is situated along san francisco's waterfront. it is ada accessible and is reached by the 28, 30, and 91 bus lines. with its rotunda, columns, uncut the reflecting waters

against the eucalyptus trees, it is one of the most romantic settings for special dates, and memorable proposals. it is also a perfect spot where you can relax with that special someone while listening to the water and fountain in the lagoon. beautiful to view from many locations, and inside is an ideal place to walk around with your loved ones. the palace is the most popular wedding location in the city park system. reservations for weddings and other events are available at strecpark.org. shakespeares' guard and refers -- has plants referred to in shakespeare's plays and poems. located near the museum and the california academy of sciences,

shakespeares garden was designed in 1928 by the california spring blossom association. flowers and plants played an important part in shakespeares literary masterpieces. here is an enchanting and tranquil garden tucked away along a path behind a charming gate. this garden is the spot to woo your date. appreciate the beauty of its unique setting. the cherry tree, the brick walkways, the enchanting stones, the rustic sundial. chaired the bards'w ro -- share the bard's words. the garden is a gem to share with someone special. pack a picnic, find a bench,

enjoy the sunshine and let the whimsical words of william shakespeare float you and your loved one away. this is one of the most popular wedding locations and is available for reservations. shakespeares garden is 8ada accessible. this park is located at the bottom of a hill. it is a secret garden with an infinite and captivating appeal. carefully tucked away, one block from the bottom of lombard street, it makes the top of our list for the most intimate picnic settings. avoid all tourist cars and parking hassles by hopping on the cable car. or the 30, 45, 41, or 91 bus.

this garden was designed by a the landscape architect thomas church in 19 to -- 1957. grow old with me, the best is yet to be is inscribed at this gem of a park. a lush oasis anchored by gazebosanchoreddekcs, -- gazebos, anchored by decks. this is the place to tell your family the love you share. reservations are available for this hidden gem. i am jamie hopper. until next time, don't forget to get out and play. for more information about reserving one of these romantic locations, or any other location, call 831-5500. this number is best for special

events, weddings, picnics, and the county fair building. for any athletic fields and neighborhood parks, 831-5510. you can also write us. 501 san francisco, calif. 94117. or just walk in and say hello. and of course you can find more information and reach us at sfrecpark.org.