the first component is how mta defines a process now. that is something that can be gleaned from written procedures. in the absence of a written procedure, there may be a presentation, so how they say they do it. the second component is best practice. best practice is our opinion. it comes from sources like the institute for asset management and other sources. the third one, and this is where the referenced project comes in, this is what the current practice is. is there evidence that the written procedure is being followed? the audit report organization will be in this format. we will have three sections. the first is called enablers and controls. we do not call it that. it is the infrastructure or the environment in which the products are carried out. it would be like what a road is to an automobile. a road enables an automobile to travel from place to place. the second component is porfolio and program management. that means selecting the right projects, the process you go through all the time. setting priorities, how that is done, an

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 an

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,

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

again, with mta's review

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

i'm looking forward to continuing to work with the mta to make it happen. there are some of the sea items that will involve this board. there are some action items that will involve the sport in regard to swaps of prop k money. you also need to do some advocacy with the california transportation division to make sure it is approved and timely manner. i will skip this item because the chair has recovered it. you should not be surprised to see some of the authority planners in your neighborhoods talking about the san francisco transportation plan. this is a 30-year look at transportation that it gets done every 30 years. we are in the middle of analysis in raising analysis around the neighborhoods on the importance of having this road map that will bury much navigate the sustainable community's strategy to we've had many meetings, including the district 11 council, and we have a very long roster of other community divisions we will be in touch with. of course, we are delighted to take your suggestions for organizations we should be connected with in your dist

it is to allow time for the mta to analyze the way bills for 2009 and 2010. additional briefing is allowed by both parties, with mr. alexander due four thursdays prior and the mta due one prior. commissioner fung: aye. vice president goh: no. president peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: no. >> the vote is 3-2. the matter is continued to march 9. thank you. president peterson: when you are ready, we can call item nine. we have already taken care of item eight during housekeeping. >> : item nine, our last item. appeal number 10-19. wayne allen and theresa fulks versus the zoning administrator. it is the protest of the granting of a permit to carmen roman mariurray variances to construct a structure on a vacant lot. president peterson: we need to wait for some of our commissioners to be back. i appreciate your patience. we are ready for you. i'm sorry. >> now we are ready. >> my name is theresa. i am one of the appellants. the building the murrays want to build is very upsetting and stressful. we do not believe the city would let them to have the small front yar

it is something that could be seen as a next up for by planning, and it would be led by mta. commissioner maxwell: so there is no specific work on bike corridors, boulevard? they have them in berkeley, san jose, so there is a dedicated lane, a place for bicycles. >> there are multiple different developments of that moving forward. there are developments of cycle tracks that are being identified. those would be referred to as class 1 facilities because it is fully dedicated and in some cases may even be at a higher level than the street. there are also developments for bicycle lanes and other improvements coming from the bicycle plant that are now being implemented with the injunction. >> deputy for planning. just to answer your question more broadly, we know -- we are working with the mta to initiate their forays and piloting a bicycle facilities of the cycle track nature that you are talking about. for example, on the market street corridor, they are experimenting with different treatments, right turn restrictions. we are trying to see even what could be beyond that, boxes,

this matter got sent over to the mta. it would be great if they could work out some resolution of this thing. when he put his name on the list and paid his fees, there was no prior driving requirement. if you read the language, there is no driving requirement and that ordinance. it was a global preference that had been stalled by the board of supervisors in 1980, 25 years after prop k. the board of supervisors through the roadblock by requiring proof of extensive driving. when i first looked at it, i thought i was just the way it was. when he came back to me after a time, i thought about it and realized it was within the context of a voter initiative. prop k specifically addresses the issue of prior driving. for the first two years only, we will give a sort of a kickoff preference to get the program started. there was no prior driving requirement or prior driving preference. the board of supervisors tried to regain control of taxi regulation and was shot down so they passed this one-your preference that was a fairly low b

before i turn it over to the mta, let me touch on parking.in a nutshell, physically how the parking layout would be his underground. with the exception of a couple of blocks northeast in the neighborhood, a commercial area. -- neighborhood-commercial area. in terms of how the numbers layout, parking would be essentially concentrated in terms of how it relates to the ratio of the number of units to a number of parking spaces. there will be more parking on the west side vs. the east side. that is concentrating year transit so that there are more units to fit as much parking and rolling it out as it gets less dense. on the east side, the ratio is about half a space per unit. overall, the project is proposing one-one parking. some residents, if they choose, if they live on the east side, the parking will be market price. you could pay less and have the parking space closer towards the boulevard of that was your choice. as was required by the code, it works together to support of the household choice and the nature of the project. how the ratios c

the question that needs to be asked is where is the mta on this? how would they combine their resources to figure out what is best for san francisco? do they have an official stand on congestion pricing? $60 million to $80 million for one area is a lot of money. >> commissioner, what we are proposing would certainly dedicate a nice amount of money to the mta and transit in general. i guess the caveat is it would not be just the mta for the reasons i explained earlier. we are at a stage where we are bringing this to you. we have had mta, or participate in the study, but again, we are talking about a feasibility study. we have not sat down to design a particular transit line, but let me give you a sense as to how that might happen. they put on 17 new bus routes. that is the kind of message ultimately we want to give the general public, of course, and the operators themselves, that this is not about a promise. this is about to the producing an improvement in the transit service before you start charging people, so when they get hit with the charge, th

the central subway is also considered a high risk project by the mta in their january letter of 2010, and they are saying, the city will not cost -- fund any of the overruns. look at the products across the country. what are the risks? they are high. the central subway, the funding is very peculiar. high speed rail is connecting these -- commissioner campos: thank you. next speaker please. >> my name is dorothy shank. i have lived in san francisco for 30 years. i think most of the people in here know that san francisco redevelopment ruins the fillmore district and they put in high- rises and all sorts of job. this is going to happen to chinatown if this project goes through. do not kill chinatown the way fillmore was killed. commissioner campos: thank you. next speaker please. >> good morning. i have been a resident of district 3 for 30 years. i have seen my share of boondoggle proposals, but this one takes the cake. when you are taking $1 billion of federal money to fund a project that does not even provide transportation to the main hub on market to chinatown, this is a complete and

i did not follow. >> you are asking mta would have an opportunity to submit a long response? commissioner fung: they could do the verification they do on everything else. commissioner garcia: we're going to continue this and hope that either sfmta and the appellant -- more week to request or to find that we want this individual placed a new on the list, such that if he were to be heard in 2011 he would have the potential to get a medallion. what that would demonstrate, what the way bills would demonstrate to this board, or at least to me, because it would not be of interest to others -- we know that his claim was that he had a fire and things got stolen. if he could come up with waybills that show that, he would absolutely qualify for a medallion. that is what we are trying to do. so the issue is to continue, and how far out in order to hopefully produce this information. it seems as though they have the power to tell him to produce the documents. has there been a motion? i guess the motion would be -- do you want to make the motion here? the motion would be to determine a re

the mta added extra people on to the extra train. it was able to run throughout the entire fleet week. anything we can do to help people get to the wharf will help us out. traffic congestion and parking reaching -- and parking. we want to not make it a treasure hunt when they come down to park. sometimes people believe there is not parking. there is parking. if we can get people parking efficiently, they can enjoy what they came to enjoy without circling the district. we have 14 private parking garages. this is a rendering of what it will look like. jefferson street would become a shared street program. there are cars and people. when you have a shared street, people would instinctively slow down when they are driving. you would be able to enjoy the wharf. the last image is a little bit closer-up. supervisor mar: i know i ride my bicycle on jefferson street, but it is so crowded, i have to walk it. a shared street process would help tremendously. >> you live here, and when you are visiting, it is even more difficult. we feel that the

third, the mta has to be in this conversation.rywhere there were specific transit improvements made, one year and half before you put in the congestion pricing program, if the mta is not a serious part of the conversation with specific improvements that we can consider, cta is not serious about this proposal. supervisor mirkarimi: i want to remind people that if you have not spoken yet on items 13 and 14, please come up the aisle. we will be closing public comment soon. >> hello. in the chair of the city government of san mateo county. the first thing i would like to say is that we acknowledge and agree that congestion is a regional issue. it does not start at the border of san francisco and is not confined to downtown san francisco. if you want to go to the airport around commuter hours, you will see some of our congestion. want to get to silicon valley during those same hours? you will be in congestion. the city county association of governments is the management agency for the county. we also understand that this is a study. bu