>> again, i want to thank everyone that's been involved from the city end to the community end. colleagues, as i mentioned before, i have an amendment i'd like to assert as a whereas clause. as we're centralizing the development of an urban agriculture strategy, that there will continue to be coordination and enhanced inter agency collaboration. so, if i could ask -- i'd like to make that amendment. >> any discussion? okay. without objection we'll accept the amendment. [gavel] >> with that, colleagues, i appreciate making the motion to move this out of committee with recommendation to the full board. >> without objection? that will be the order. [gavel] >> thank you, colleagues. and thank you to the community. >> okay, thank you. madam clerk, can you please call item number 4? >> item number 4 is a resolution granting a revocable permission to san francisco state university to occupy portions of the public right-of-way to construct and maintain a pedestrian tunnel below winston drive to provide a safe and accessible connection from the main campus of sfsu to the site of a new recreation wellness center, and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. ~ winston drive

>> mr. kwong. >> thank you, john kwong [speaker not understood]. tunnel under winston drive to connect two portions of the campus. if you can give me the overhead, please. please note that the location -- this is lake merced boulevard, this is winston drive. san francisco state has -- campus is divided by -- >> one moment, mr. kwong. can we please close that door back there? thank you. >> as you can see -- >> why don't we just wait for people exiting. okay, go ahead. >> thank you. as noted, this is lake merced boulevard. this is winston drive, san francisco state has portions of

this campus divided by winston boulevard. one of the issues is they want to interconnect these two portions of the campus on both sides. the distance from the intersection at lake merced boulevard to the approximate location is approximately 350 feet or so. so, what's been happening is obviously students and other people that use san francisco state would jay walk across winston drive with san francisco state being determined that is not the safest for its users. what san francisco state wanted to do in this case is to construct a proposed -- is they are proposing to construct approximately 120-foot pedestrian tunnel that crosses under winston drive to interconnect the two campuses. a plan view -- >> actually, i think should we be calling 4, 5 and 6 together?

>> encroachment facilities with different [speaker not understood] and they all require different resolutions to the board. >> why don't we call items 5 and 6, and then, mr. fong, you can present seriatim. >> item number 5 is resolution granting revocable permission to atlantic richfield company to occupy a portion of the public right-of-way to install and maintain four soil vapor extraction conduits connecting to two new vapor extraction wells crossing under broderick street fronting 2 richardson avenue, conditioned upon the payment of an annual assessment fee, and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. ~ extractions item number 6 is a resolution granting revocable permission to jeremy ricks to occupy a portion of the public right-of-way to extend an unimproved portion of greenwich street with a privately maintained driveway to provide access to a new garage at 1281 - 1283 greenwich street; to install additional landscaping and public access improvements within the unimproved portion of the greenwich street public right-of-way between hyde and larkin streets, conditioned upon the payment of an annual assessment fee of $4,433.00; and making environmental findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. ~ greenwich street >> thank you. you can continue, please. >> as i was stating, in this case, san francisco state being a good steward, determined they want to provide local pedestrian safety to access different areas of the campus across winston drive. they applied for a permit to

install a pedestrian tunnel that interconnects the two portions of san francisco state. they have applied for the major street encroachment permit has been reviewed and been deemed to be in conformance with general plans. the city agency food task has reviewed it and determined it is appropriate. we had a director's hearing after notifying the general public. there has been -- the director has determined this is an appropriate use of the public right-of-way and is recommending that the board -- the committee here move this forward to the full board for approval. >> okay, thank you. why don't you continue with the next item. you can do all three and then we'll take public comment. >> to richardson avenue is requesting a major street encroachment permit for the

installation of vapor extraction facilities. ~ 2 richardson it is believed to be either a gas station or industrial area that the health department and the property owner have identified contaminants entering the soil and this is one of the methodologies to remediate the contaminants. the applicant has applied for, again in this case, an encroachment permit to place these facilities in the public right-of-way. this was reviewed by planning, determined again that it was in conformed with the general plan. this was short term while the mitigation is being taken care of. [speaker not understood] reviewed it and determined it is also in conformity. the department held a public hearing on this. there were some comments from the public inquiring as to what this really was about when it was explained to them, they were comfortable with it. ~ the department requested again in this case, the committee move this forward to the full board with recommendations. >> okay.

and then the final item. >> the final item is for 1281 - 83 greenwich street. the project sponsor, the owner of that property as part of this permit is requesting to reconstruct the -- an improved portion of greenwich street to create a garage on his property and get vehicular access to it. as part of this, they work with the community to install a variety of landscaping improvements in the area where the property owner will maintain. this was reviewed again by both planning and task and both have given approval. again, we had a public hearing on this and -- with strong community support and we recommend, the director in this case is recommending that the committee move this forward to the full board with recommendations. >> great, thank you, mr. kwong.

>> thank you. >> okay, is there any public comment on either item 4, 5, or 6? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> president chiu, can we have a motion on items 4, 5 and 6? >> happy to move those items. >> with recommendation? >> with recommendation. >> okay. and we will take that without objection. [gavel] >> mad amount clerk is there any other business before the committee? >> no, we have no further matters. >> then we are adjourned. [gavel]

>> it's not being treated as such. it did pass the assembly and what it does is it /saobgs to reduce the voter threshold for general local bonds and related taxes so it did pass the assembly, which is remarkable, but it's in the senate and i think the out look in the senate is all such voter threshold related measures will likely be deferred 'til next year so they can sort out the various policy areas that are under consideration ranging from education parcel taxes to

general bonds so there'll be a lot of work done and we wanted to put this on the agenda so if we come back year we're already on top of it. couple other key bills i mentioned from time to time -- they're both eye dent cal bills -- they deal with the [inaudible] program. the bills would extend those programs come /pwhraoet with the fee authority and necessary fees to provide about 2 billion dollars worth of funding over the next decade for alternative fuel in the state and emission criteria reduction programs so those -- the reason i bring that to your attention is the carl moyer program is a funning source for the projects you're interested in here. the one measure, the assembly measure did pass the

assembly recently. >> which page. >> ab 8 is on page one. of the matrix. it recently passed the assembly just before the deadline date for measures to pass. the look alike bill s and we'll see which one gets down to the governor. i have a high degree of faith that unless somebody puts something in either one of the bills that the governor objects to this is something that the administration agrees to. we're halfway into the legislative recess. this is an unusual year. the assembly completed their work and took a recess last week and that extends through august 5 however the senate's recess doesn't start until this friday so there's an odd situation

where we will have committee meetings in either house when the other house the out of session, meaning those members have to travel to sacramento to present their bills. it is recklations we're working under and we're adjusting. one bill of note or issue of note that's re/phrebgted in a measure is seqa modernization and senator [inaudible] is pushing [inaudible]. it modern /tphaoeuzing seqa by moving to more of a threshold based program rather than standards and it's during some support. it recently passed the senate. it has not been set for assembly, although when the

assembly returns it will be eligible to return in that point in time. i think early in the budget process this year i mentioned that the governor had called on the secretary of dtnh at that time to convene a working group to look at transportation funding short falls and how to proortize those. they established the [inaudible] and i'm a member of the large /tkpwraoupb and also on the transit subgroup. they just announced yesterday the conveneing of the next full group meeting in july. they're making some progress. can't wait to see what analysis the administration has put together. as a reminder as of july 1 btnh agency, the cabinet level for transportation no longer exists as such and in this place there is simply cal

sta, which we now have brian proven kelly who's in charge of nothing but transportation and the focus is cal transand high speed rail so you have a very experienced secretary with focus on transportation, which is a very good development. i have two more quick things to brief you on. one is working with staff over the last two-and-a-half weeks an issue has arisen in terms of the -- there's a dispert treatment between your agencies enabling statutes and other statutes that govern local taxes and that is this 1986 enabling statute that you operate under had an overall can only be one

percent in 2003 other sections of the revenue and tax code were updated to impose an overall 2 percent cap overall so we're seeking language to be inserted into a bill and mod /tphaoeuz that an bring it up to be consistent /aeu /kwrosz the board. sis >> any opposition to that yet

>> i'll give you an overview of the positions, the current status, the agreements that are the /subts of item four and the consultant contract of subject of item number five and overall schedule of our recommendation. let's talk a little bit about the existing condition first. as you know, as you're traveling westbound into san francisco from oakland there is an off ramp on the left side that's not standard. typically it's on the right side and also to the westbound onramp is a very short on ramp with very minimal [inaudible] deficiencies. the good news is that we're gonna reconstruct those ramps -- new westbound on and off ram /-pbls. in front of your screen you'll see the

blue colored off ramp is the new off ramp on the right side of the bridge, standard in terms of geometry and the new onramp will be in orange, a hook type onramp which will increase the acceleration distance to be able to merge more safely on to the bay bridge. this is separate and independent of the san francisco bay bridge. there's no high strength bolts or anything in that regard related to this project. this is more stop sign /tkard construction. construction phase is funded with [inaudible] programs to the tune of 77.5 million dollars. project also inchose some improvements on [inaudible] road to make it much better and accommodate bike and pedestrian traffic. current status is i'm happy to report we finished and completed the plans, specks and estimates in march of 2013. i was here in front of this same committee in that same

timeframe requesting authorizations to execute right of way certification documents and we have done that. we have submitted all of the appropriate documentation and we are waiting any day now for that funding authorization. it is anticipated we will have it later in july. it is in cal transheadquarters now and will be in front of hwa for /aeu /pra*ufl. the authority will administer this contract, will add versailles and award the construction contract. they will happen with cal trans, and tita on this contract. we're ready to execute the agreements and construction services contract. i'll get into the details now. lit's talk about the tie agreements first. back in 2008 and 2007 we went ahead and ex/kaoutded agreements with

tita in terms of managing this project and to manage the process through the /ka* trans, approval process /abdz in working in partnership with all the main entities on the project. we're at a point where we're ready to finalize all the engineering documentation, but also for a future projoke, which is the yebi west side bridges so we're requesting an increase to the tita local match and we have worked out all the details with ti /t*rbga city controllers office and the city family and we need to execute moa's for the right away and construction phases. one final note is that tita will reimburse the authority for all costst not

covered by federal funds. >> anyone here from tita? >> yes. >> i'll save my questions for you. go ahead and continue. >> sure, i wanna move on to the construction management discussion, which is item number five. it's an important discussion. we... >> let me bring up tita -- i have a couple questions for tiat before we move on to that. thank you. now on to the

construction management /-pl discussion. the transportation authority went ahead and issued a request for proposals in january of 2013. we received

six proposals in february, four firms were short listed and interviews were conducted in march of 2013. unanimous panel selection [inaudible] with the best relevant experience. wanna talk a little bit about the team memberer ship and the make up. we have db participation of 16 percent, made up of firms from transamerican engineers and garcia associates.

north american engineering is handling the [inaudible] assisting on inspection work as well as some of the environmental permitting. >> okay. mark from db, if you could come up. i have a couple questions. i want to talk about the protege re/shraeugs relationship. can you describe this program. >> bart with parsons, i'm the project manager for pb on this

project. the [inaudible] bay area district for cal trance, and they are a program where they want /pwhrarpblg established firms such as ours to help small emerging firms get a head start and be successful so pb's been very involved in this program locally and we actually have more mou's -- memorandum of understanding with small and emerging firms than any other firm in the program. wanted to underscore what -- we have mou's in place with and so basically what we do is we give them opportunities first of all to be on our teams and then doing this highway work can be pretty complicated if you've never done it, the cost proposals, the audits, how the work is done in accordance with

cal transstandards and things like that. some of the firms we've had mou's with in the past have moved on and are doing real well now. >> are they competing against you. >> in some cases. >> i guess that's a determinant that the program's successful. is it very specific that you will take them on projects and... >> it did you want list specific projects, but what it does -- it's an agreement between us and them that first of all, describes what the intent of the program is and that we are going to make an effort and they're going to be receptive and that the idea though is there's in guarantees. they still have to perform and have to meet the scope that's in their contract. this kind of stuff. and... >> how to you identify which