child care. currently, only 51% of the family seeking licensed child care are doing so. to date, even in the presentation, you have not said anything that dissuades me that tjpa has been absolutely lackluster. it has not been brought before the board, nothing in writing, nothing adopted. it is just words. i am concerned that these words will not have meaning. >> what i can report and take back to the executive director is the recommendation that we move something to the board which states where we are at the staff level, which if i can repeat, is a commitment that all the parcels we put up for development put in a requirement that the developer comes forward with a plan that includes a child care facility. once we develop a plan and design that incorporates a child care facility, we will collectively be charged with the

task of finding a way to pay for that facility. the tjpa is willing to move toward making it a reality, but quite honestly, it has its own financial capacities as it relates to a program that is currently $4.2 billion, $1.9 billion underfunded. the tjpa is working diligently to find $1.9 billion to make the high-speed rail terminus a reality, to make the redevelopment zone a reality, and at this point, is not able to make financial commitments, but is certain they able to make planning commitments, design commitments, and working with the city, finding funding to make child care a part of the redevelopment zone. commissioner campos: commissioner avalos? commissioner duftycommissioner . i want to thank commissioner dufty for bringing this item forward.

not only for the transit center that we are building, but every place we build commercial office space in san francisco, it should be a requirement across the board that they would provide spaces for workers and their families that can make it possible for them to work. i have talked with many others about this. it makes a lot of sense. i think there needs to be a shift in the mind set of planners, that the cost of the transit center will include child care and we are going to make it happen the matter what. that is the kind of infrastructure we need to be building for, not just transit, office space, residential housing, but for the city. it makes sense to have these centers built in, and that will make san francisco more livable. i would like the tjpa to go back and consider bringing this to an agenda item on how to make

this happen at the tjpa. commissioner campos: i have a question for transportation authority staff. thank you, mr. cruz. i have a lot of respect for you, mr. cruz, and i appreciate the presentation, but i do not think what we heard is sufficient. what we need is not an oral commitment, but we actually need a commitment from the board, from the tjpa board, that says child care facilities will be included in this project, not that they are considering it, not that they understand the need, not that they are cognizant of the importance of this, but in fact, that it will be included. with that, a question for transportation authority staff. is there a way that we can make prop k funding contingent upon actual deliverable is on this issue? >> in terms of the prop k

funding that has not yet been committed to the project -- we have over $10 million committed to phase two, the downtown extension. near-term, we have a commitment of $20 million in regional transportation improvement funds for the state, which we have not yet programmed. in addition, we have been working with tjpa staff to de- obligate some of those things to link these two funds. commissioner campos: so how much money is left that we have not committed to the project, where we can make that commitment contingent on the liberals on this issue? >> i do not know the exact amount, but if you count the $20 million in rtip funds, prop k, probably about $30 million. we are working with the tjpa to

close the funding gap on phase two. commissioner campos: commissioner dufty? commissioner dufty: i would certainly appreciate the plans and programs committee of'comm' commitment to this. in earlier meetings around the subject, what's that said to me was they were concerned about having a child care facilities to close to the transbay center because they thought it would be a site for possible terrorist attack. this infuriated me. my child spent a year and half in the basement of city hall. certainly, this building would be an opportunistic site for anyone wanting to be in our city. it portrayed to me a level of awareness of the needs of the people who live in this city, and how fundamentally important it is that people have a place

for their child to be while they live and work. having proximity to your child is one of the things that makes you feel safe. i just want to say i am really disappointed in the presentation here, disappointed that after four years of discussion at the staff level, that there has been so little to show for it, in terms of written commitments relating to the tjpa authority members about concerns for having child care. can i know the commitment of the members of this committee and the board of supervisors, and i am relying on you to make sure that this is carried forward properly. commissioner campos: commissioner david chiu? commissioner chiu: i want to thank commissioner dufty for bringing this to our conversation. i certainly echo what all of our colleagues have said about the importance of this.

i think, one of the framing issues here, is that child care is often viewed as an expense as part of development. what is important to note, in san francisco right now, the child-care industry is a $200 million industry that has created over 400,000 jobs. if we think about it as an form part of the economy, not just for the jobs it provides, but how it leverages other jobs by allowing parents the opportunity to bring their children summer and work in an immediate vicinity, and that in itself, has tremendous multipliers. thinking of it as a complementary economic strategy, and instead of an either or project, is an important aspect that policymakers often forget. commissioner campos: colleagues, my suggestion would be that we bring this item back to the plans and programs committee, and that we put it as an action

item so that we make it very clear that the funding that this project will receive from this agency will be contingent upon actual deliverable on this issue. i would ask staff to work with my office, the office of commissioner dufty to make that happen as soon as possible. again, i want to thank commissioner dufty for his leadership on this and shedding light on this issue. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, any other thoughts on this item? we can now move to item six. thank you. >> recommend appropriation of $2,955,000 in prop k funds, with conditions, for environmental analysis and preliminary engineering for the van ness avenue bus rapid transit (brt) project, subject to the attached cash flow distribution schedule, and amendment of the brt/transit preferential streets/muni metro network 5-year prioritization program, with a commitment to appropriate $574,000 in fiscal year 2010/11 prop k

funds to complete this phase of work. this is an action item. >> good morning. senior transportation planning manager. our current phase, which is the environmental analysis and product development going from 12% to 34% product development. the van ness brt is the signature project in the prop k expenditure plan. it had been identified in the countywide transportation plan of 2004 as part of our strategy for expanding rapid transit in san francisco. it is a highly rated fta small starts project. we have been rated high for cost effectiveness. it is also a regional party for the small start program. we are part of mt a's vision for rapid transit as expressed through their transit affected

this project. it is an exciting project for the muni system. where we are right now is the environmental analysis and product development phase. 12%, 30% engineering. we have made a lot of progress. we have completed all the technical studies for the environmental analysis. we have completed 12% project engineering. this is what we are calling phase one in this request. we are moving on to stage two. stage two comprises additional environmental work and the initiation of 30% project development. i will go a little bit more into the scope of this effort in a moment. there is a third phase. the third phase is so designated because it will have a different

funding strategy. by the time we reached the stage three, we expect to be able to leverage a small start funds. right now, we are starting product development at risk, but we expect to have the availability of small starts in the next couple fiscal years. this entire phase, the environmental analysis, the 12% to 30% project development, is $8.6 million effort. this is a good cost, at this point. only 7% of the overall project construction cost, which is less than industry averages. you can see the cost per stage. stage one was the environmental analysis, environmental work. stage two, the current request, will include additional environmental work in response

to agency and community input, as well as initiation of 30% engineering. a significant amount of that. stage 3 will complete the 30% engineering. this current request, the $2.9 million, which is most of the cost for stage two, the rest of the cost is subject of a parallel request from mta that is also on your agenda. the scope of stage two has forecasts a through d. staffing our citizen advisory committee, caltrans product development team. tasks b and c are where the

environmental and transportation analysis are done. this is mainly done by persons transportation's group, our contractor for the project. the additional environmental analysis that we need to complete is in response to agency and public comment. through the last year, work on the project, we have added additional scenario tests to respond to stickle the concerns. we have done some engineering, feasibility on these samara tests, to respond to stickle the concerns. we have doubled our efforts in the caltrans project design exception fact sheet process to respond to caltrans'questions, needs for documentation. the scenario test and we analyzed -- i want to point out -- one of them is an alternative

that would reduce the number of left turn pockets along van ness ave to provide more signal time and potentially save time for the brt. this work tasks b and c, and is conducted by parsons transportation group, but also with support from the authority and mta. finally, a task see is the engineering task. we are initiating the engineering design. this is not a new approach to 30% and was originally envisioned for the project. we are excited about it because it will actually be more efficient in the end. we have brought on more capital projects staff from mta. we now have a team of established project managers and engineers who have developed a scope of work, have worked with

other city agencies, to identify those i engineering tasks that should start now. -- those engineering tasks that should start now. we are integrating them into the construction team to facilitate this information- sharing, a partnership in engineering, which will have more efficient outcomes and will advance the initiation, the 30% engineering activities. finally, we also want to provide at this stage of the project, project management oversight services from our capital projects division to make sure the value analysis, risk analysis for the project is conducted. that is typical for this stage. this stage of project will continue through next october,

and that timeline relates to fta milestones pierre next october will be --. by next october, we will be submitting those cost estimates to fta, updated project management plans with updates on the engineering activity, construction implementation timeframe. that is a good milestone to provide key deliverables for this effort. it is also the point at which we hope to access and leverage small start funds. we have been recommended for up to $50 million in the president abbas budget. but that is just a recommendation at this point. the implementation of the project as we move forward, so by the first month of 2012, we will be able to complete 30%

engineering. certification of deatheithe ei. final design, a vehicle procurement. we hope to start construction in 2013 with a project pendular open for service in the first month of 2015. happy to answer any questions. commissioner campos: colleagues, i do not know if you have any questions? commissioner carmen chu? commissioner chu: just a question about the regional small starts project. what does that mean? >> mtc has included this project in their expansion plan, which identifies in the region transportation plan, a trans expansion strategy. it identifies the region's priorities for these key federal

funding programs, new starts being one of them, small starts, a federal fta program designed for these cost-effective quick to implement projects. we are one of two regional priorities for small starts. commissioner chu: what is the other one? >> the other is an ac transit project in alameda county. commissioner chu: so this provides us with a better position to apply for federal grant money? ok. in terms of the federal commitment, nothing yet from the federal government. >> the $15 million has been recommended. we have been given a high rating each year, but not yet. we are working with gta and mta to identify at what point we should apply. commissioner chu: on page five

you go through what the timeline will look like. where do we begin to apply for the small starts funding? >> in fact, we have started to apply for some of it. you will see in a parallel request, mta has applied for $395,000 in funding which we are hoping to match with prop k. it is a small enough for the effort and we have already started the application. we are working with fta and mta to determine when that $50 million will be available to apply for -- we expect to have that in the fiscal 2011 budget. commissioner chu: bad is the small start money? >> if i could add, the fact that this is included in the mtc

regional expansion plan is huge. this is one of the region topos two priorities for small start, just like the subway is one of the two regional priorities for new starts for the larger projects. i believe it is the highest rated -- received the highest rating for the brt in the country. we are working closely with mta. commissioner chu: thank you. so we expect to go to the fta around 2011? >> yes. commissioner campos: in looking at the scope of work for stage two in the report, it talks about how the authority will lead the work which will be conducted by the sfmta, department of public works, parsons, and the authorities consultants. i wonder if you could say more about the interaction between these different players?

>> the project team is large, but it is effective. authority is the lead at this stage. the handover to mta will happen after the informant the document is certified and position is obtained. after what we are calling stage three. however, the team includes mt a sustainable street planning staff, and now mta capital planning staff, so we have an engineering manager, staff engineer, who will be doing a lot of the work. we have an mta sustainable street staff who had done work for the project, who had done transit signal priority for the project. in addition to providing review

to the overall environmental analysis and engineering efforts thus far, mta has also contributed work to the project. the parsons contractor group is providing the environment the documents to do the basic civil engineering. again, with mta's review of the deliverable. commissioner campos: one of the things noted in the report is this objective of stretching prop k dollars as far as we can, and that the mta will maintain the form as additional funds come in and possibly lead to the the appropriation of prop k money, if additional funding is

obtained. could you talk more about how that works, when we will know that, and how much money are we talking about? >> we are eligible for up to $75 million in small start funds. that is the maximum grant of work available for small start projects. the entire project cost is $180 million. we will be over-matching the required 20% that for small starts. but we have a well-developed funding plan at this point because we are eligible for up to $75 million in small starts. we have been rated highly every year in the program. and up to $20 million in crop k identified in the fifth strategic plan. we will continue to seek strategic funds from grant

sources like climate initiatives on the shop program for resurfaces and contributions from undeveloped projects. but we are in a good position on the operating side where the project will reduce operating costs because of travel times. which will result in operation savings. >> of the $2.9 million we are appropriating, how much of that could be the appropriated if -- appropriated if funding is obtained? >> that is a very good question if you are paying attention to the details. we are coming forward with 100% funding right now. what happens when it becomes available as it requires only a

20% local match. whatever is left to be spent would be obligated to be replaced with small starts. supervisor campos: when will we know that? >> when the newly elected folks in washington decide. supervisor campos: any other questions? thank you for your presentation. does any member of the public wish to speak on this item? seeing no one, public comment is closed. colleagues? supervisor campowe have a motio. thank you. >> item #7, recommended appropriation of prop k funds with conditions for

environmental analysis subject to the attached cashflow distribution schedules and amendment. supervisor campos: thank you. the floor is yours. once again we are here to talk with you about the project that is identified as a signature project in crop k expenditure plans and part of the rapid network evaluated. feasibility in 2007 and 2008, one difference that should be noted is that it must be ready for the designs in the additional environmental work being more related to making sure that if the project is considered in the future, minimax -- impact can be

minimized. we have not yet signed up for the smallest arts program. we are about one year behind and are considering applications for next year. we are currently in the process, having worked on this process for about 1.5 years. we have several technical studies under way. as well as other technical studies that are pending dependent upon those that can be begun. once we have identified what has been needed in our technical work, refinement is needed in key areas. one of the areas is the transition zone between the separated intersection segments as well as transitions to and from the one way couplet between goeph and market.

one thing that i should note that is different is that geary takes the entire corridor from the market to the ocean. we need to veer out how to transition between the segments, particularly with the separated interconnections. we need to do a little bit more than environmental clearance leading up to some of the preliminary engineering work. particularly at the separated and the sections where we evaluated and designed separate intersections, an area of additional scope as well. the community has also asked for more detail on the construction duration. particularly of the first of the few options we looked that. this one would essentially be filling in the trench to bring traffic to the surface.

the community has asked for more detail in that area. we also have two options there. in this area we need to do a little bit more engineering work to understand the traffic analysis and to understand coordination with a couple of new improvements. particularly the target site. also, as a part of our work, bicycle demand. we have identified a need to accommodate bicycle facilities between masonic and presidio. another bit of technical analysis for us. we look at options in the corridor to the east. there were better options available but potentially identified through technical