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 analysis in the community as a whole. including a rival lionel -- ride along in the community. another area that we identified additional work in is east of venice. we have a range of different opportunities here to create

more robust options and scenarios. both during the scope. -- scope as well as the valuation for the work needed east of how to maximize the traffic and improved pedestrian conditions. so, the current request is about 1.6 5 million. one portion of this project management. task b is environmental work with additional alternatives for the more robust interior scenarios with engineering phase is at the start of the project. refining the analysis that allows us to do traffic analysis

specifically as well as cost implementation. giving you a breakdown of the current request, any questions that you might have -- we have four parties working cooperatively together. the transportation authority as well as -- thank you -- the mta as our partner agency. we are proposing bringing in our consulting team to bring in focus on the engineering work designated for those phases. as i mentioned, we are about one year behind. we have not yet completed those design drawings, but in the summer of next year with technical studies as well the project will be moved forward for construction services in 2015.

>> colleagues, any questions? i have a couple of questions. btus -- supervisor campos: we are being asked to appropriate additional funds. my understanding was that in may of 2008 we approved $2.3 million. what is the current amount of the contract for jacobs consultant? >> $1.8 million. this request would require -- increase that by about $1 million. supervisor campos: that is a very significant increase and i am trying to understand how it is we got from $1.8 million to close to $3 million. >> during the original phase we had stoved two alternatives with the addition of one in the prior alternative. also, the additional engineering

work with transitions in the intersections as well as more robust scenarios in the inner area. much of that work is being done by consultants teams. supervisor campos: did we consider the potential increase in the scope in this? i assume that we went for a competitive bid when this was elected. the problem when we go from a contract of $1.8 million to a contract of $3 million, when it is increase in this way there is no way of knowing that if you had put the bid differently he would not have gotten the better deal. how do we know that that is not the case here? that we in fact could have done this a lot more cheap? >> we do not know exactly what the potential could have been but at the same time we have to consider that at the time we got the bid and the team that we thought would respond best to

the project, we did not anticipate that the result of scoping would bring in more alternatives than we originally had. we do believe that the team can best address the concern and we have worked again with project management oversight consultants and others to make sure that we have a scope in the level that we need. we think that this is what it will take. supervisor campos: what kind of oversight is being provided by transportation authority staff? >> in terms of project management? >> that is one of the reasons we propose bringing in the consultant at this point, doing more detailed engineering work. in addition to the planning level analysis oversight that we are managing, we also want to bring in our engineering and

construction overside teams. supervisor campos: who is managing the consultant, is my question. >> myself, planning staff, and management oversight consultants. supervisor campos: thank you. colleagues, any other questions? is there any member of the public that would like to speak? seeing no one, public comment is closed. colleagues, this is an action item. i understand how we got here. i respect where staff is coming from and i will vote against this. i do not think that it is a good approach in terms of managing this kind of contract. but we do need a motion. >> can we have a new role called? [roll call]

three ayes. the item passes. supervisor campos: thank you, please call item no. 8. >> item #8, recommend allocation of $828,353 in prop k funds, with conditions, for seven requests, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules, and amendment of the relevant 5-year prioritization programs. >> this item starts on page 123 of your packet. i will do a brief overview. the first by will do is the request from the municipal transportation agency. this is for $99,000 by an fda small start funds.

and of the 30% design work. traction our analysis and survey, completed by this summer of 2011. it is the likely alternative for the project. the next item is $45,000 to provide a portion of the local match for sunset boulevard new test signals. match is $800,000 or $900,000 in the grant. this project will construct a new traffic signals. the design to be complete in the spring of 2012 and infrastructure should the -- should be completed in 2013. the next request is another match request from mark.

this is a match to the 24th street mission class of improvement project. this request will be a portion of the entire design of the project, $640,000. this begins to provide the match for the $1.2 million regional communities grants. upgrading the southwest corner of the plaza at the mission very much like the 16th street project that was completed recently. just to make a programming note, we are allocating about 50% of the funds this year and it comes from a the obligation of the 16th street project. this just keeps us with our strategic financing assumptions. the remaining four requests are

for the black grant projects adopted in june of 2010. let's do a quick review. $14,000 will go to match the bike trail project that was almost $9 million. the broadway streetscape project will be in the design phase to match approximately $1 million in the congestion management agency funds. that project also includes paving on broadway. the $276,000 for the streetscape improvements project matches the $1 million grant for the construction phase of the project. it will also include repaving a

long fall some. finally, the second street project with its allocation request to match under $700,000 for congestion management in the block grant, this is for the phase of that project that also includes regional bicycle projects and repaving on second street. those are all eight projects. >> thank you. any questions? any member of the public that would like to -- sorry, my apologies. supervisor campossupervisor chut this allocation would go towards prioritizing the street intersections. just a question for the mta, perhaps, about where it lines up. i know that recently there was an incident at that intersection.

>> hello, commissioners. the intersection has actually moved into contract 60 in the design phase. we anticipate that the intersection will be symbolized by 2012 and advertised next april. supervisor chu: that one is actually faster than the ones that we talked about today? blacks yes. 60 and 2009. -- >> yes. 60 and 2009. there will be other information provided with respect to this intersection. supervisor chu: it sounds like it will take time for this intersection to be up and running. given that it will be the middle of 2013, is there any way to

speed that process up? >> typically budget 30 the 36 months from the beginning to completion. there are a variety of factors. if we run into complications during the design or protests during the surface mounting facility process, people may have objections to it. we have to have firm ramps design. once you have a complete design done you advertise a three month the four month process that is anywhere from eight months to 10 months depending on the scope. there is not a lot of room to compress. supervisor chu: if you can buy and the response, would you please include the information along the lines of time line and an understanding and explanation about where it can be compressed?

>> i will do that. supervisor campos: i had a quick question about the 24th street plaza. is there any sense of what the timing attack assuming everything goes accordingly? when it will be completed? >> the current schedule of the design should be completed by winter of 2011. construction would be completed in winter of 2013. supervisor campos: great. thank you very much. is there any member of the public that would like to speak on item number eight? if so, please come forward. seeing no one, public comment is closed. the motion is seconded and taken without objection. madam clerk, please call item no. 10. >> introduction of new items. supervisor campos: any new

items? any member of the public? seeing no one, public comment is closed. no. 11? >> public comments. supervisor campos: any member of the public that would like to speak within the jurisdiction of the committee? seeing no one, public comment is closed. >> item number 12, adjournment. supervisor campos: thank you very much. happy holidays.

commissioner mar: good morning, everyone. welcome to the regular meeting of the transportation authority finance committee. i am joined by commissioner chris daly and sophie maxwell. erica chang it is our clark. i want to take a moment to thank sfgtv for providing access

to the meeting. madam clerk, please call item two. >> approval of minutes of the november 9, 2010 meeting. this is an action item. commissioner mar: is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. without objection. item two. -- item three. >> recommend increasing the amount of the authority's professional services contract with parsons transportation group by a maximum of $1,700,000, to a total amount not to exceed $3,972,046, for environmental and preliminary engineering for the van ness avenue bus rapid transit project and authorization for the executive director to negotiate the contract terms and conditions. this is an action item. >> good morning, senior planner manager, manager of the van ness brt current phase, environmental analysis, product development. that is what%, 30% engineering.

van ness bus rapid transit is a signature project within the prop k expenditure plan, part of the transportation authority to recommend a strategy for rapid transit expansion in san francisco from our 2004 countywide 2000 -- transportation plan. it is a regional small starts priority in a highly rated sfta -- fta project. the project is currently in the environmental analysis, product development phase. we have made a significant amount of progress on this phase. we have completed all the technical studies in support of the anbar the document and are running the administration draft. completed 12% engineering. right now, we are on the verge of circulating the public draft of the eir, eis, identifying a

preferred alternative, and initiating 35% engineering on that provocative. the request before you is to amend our contract with parsons transportation group for their portion to getting to the finish line of completing and circulate the environment the document and supporting the 30% project development effort. it is a new scope item and all of those areas. the bigger picture for this phase is it is being conducted in three stages. the first stage is the work we have already done to complete the environmental technical analyses and to complete the 12% project development, which is already done. stage two is the subject of this current contract amendment. the larger picture is that it is the scope of work that also includes a significant mta and

dpw support for 30% project development. the scope for this stage include completing the environmental analysis, with some additional technical works that were identified, based on the public and agency in but we have gone over the last year, and beginning a 30% project development. stage 3 is the completion of the product development work to 30%, and the designation of phase three is based on funding -- the funding timeframe. this is the point in which we expect to be able to leverage small starts money for stage three. for this phase, the bigger picture is that we are doing very well in cost effectively completing this. right now, this total set of three stages is about $8.8

million, which is 7% of the project construction costs, capital cost. so this is below industry averages for this stage. the parsons role in this stage is equivalent to the mta and agency's role in the state. a 30% project development effort that is split between parsons transportation group engineering group and sfmta, dpw product engineering. -- project engineering. that is where the rest upper the phase amount that = 3.45 will be spent. commissioner mar: commissioner maxwell? commissioner maxwell: so it will

be spent with parsons? are you saying that the 1.7 is going to be divided among all of them? >> the total cost for this stage is the $3.45 million. this is page two, a total of $3.45 million. there is $1.7 million of that which are recommended not to exceed contract amount 4 parsons. also, $1.75 million which will fund the mta, dpw, transportation authority project oversight work. commissioner alioto-pier: in -- commissioner maxwell: in the beginning, we kept on coming back to the well with parsons. was there an initial scope of work, initial price, so was it done in phases?

it reads like there is more. >> we have an original contract and not with parsons from 2007 when we initiated the environmental work and product development. you can see the total amount before you in the presentation, $1.7 million. this included environmental analysis on two alternatives, 12% project development. we did amend the contract in 2009 and it + 2 @ scope to the environmental work. fortunately, as a result of the scoping process, we did need to add another build alternative analysis into the mix. we also needed to build in the scope to address the caltrans approval process. the project report, we were able to negotiate with caltrans on a streamlined process, so a

combined report instead of sequentially. we feel it is still something we need to do. the reason we added that later was because we did not want to negotiate with caltrans to try to get something more streamlined, so we did. it was something we needed to add to amendment a. now where we are is this proposed amendment fee. -- amendment b. there are two scope additions to our work with parsons. the first one relates to environmental analysis work. over the last year, we have done a lot of out reach with our partner agencies and with the public, particularly our citizens advisory committee, and as a result of that out reach, have been analyzing design scenarios that respond to agency

concerns and stickle their questions and concerns. the largest part of this contract amendment is our approach to 30% project development which is something that we have worked out with mta over the past year, and we have -- are going to have an effective approach. commissioner maxwell: so this is not anything that you saw in the beginning? as you went along the way, you decided that this would be good? >> yes, the 30% project development approach that we had going in at the beginning in 2007 was just to have parsons do basic civil work. what we have learned, and now we have built up a team that includes mt a, a capital project staff -- mta, capital projects that, staff engineers, is it will be more efficient ultimately to initiate many of these engineering tests sooner.

now they can start sharing that information and expand the activity, beyond basic civil war, into other areas, signal design, for example. it brings more of these activities for word, so it is a much higher level of effort than we thought we would do for 30%, but we are recommending it. we think it will be more efficient in the end. again, we are doing quite well in this project, in terms of the cost in this phase. the proposal before you is related to a cost for this phase which is 7% of the total capital cost, and that is below industry average for what this stage typically costs. commissioner mar: thank you.

>> i hope i have answered your questions. everything else here addresses the specifics of the scope of the engineering work that parsons would do, and how that would compare to the scope of work that dpw and mta would do. construction is slated to start in 2013, service beginning in 2015. commissioner mar: for the public interest, groundbreaking would be somewhere around 2013, and the project completed some time around the end of 2014? >> yes, early 2015. commissioner mar: thank you. any other questions? is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, without objection, can remove this item fort with

recommendations? thank you. next item. >> recommend increasing the amount of the authority's professional services contract with jacobs engineering group by $1,054,565, to a total amount not to exceed $2,854,565, for environmental analysis for the geary bus rapid transit project and authorization for the executive director to negotiate contract terms and conditions. this is an action item. >> good morning, commissioners. transportation planner. very similar to the van ness project, geary brt is identified in the countywide transportation plan and is one of the key routes identified in the transit affected this project of mt a. as we move forward, the feasibility study was adopted in 2007 to begin the eir eis. one thing i should note that is different about geary, the prop k line which specifies it must be rail-ready.

we are doing more on the design work to make sure that if the decision is made to enhance rail, the physical dimensions are incorporated so we can minimize potential impact. one of the first items i should know in terms of new scope, we identified three alternative contract amendments. the contract identified only two build alternatives. similar to van ness, we are looking at three build alternatives in addition to the baseline. we have many different technical studies under way for the project. as part of the study, one thing we have identified are a couple of new areas of work that need to be focused on, moving forward. part of the design drawings, they pay focus to that,