an opportunity to explain specifically why there would be a good fit for the two downtown seats that remain open. so with the understanding that along the lines of this project, ms. leonard seems to be a good fit. director? >> mr. chairman, let me try to understand what the consequence of your proposal would be. you have appointed one of the positions. you are suggesting that we hold off on ms. leonard's appointment until she has an opportunity to appear before the committee, correct? i do not know if we need that one additional appointment.

we could have to wait until september. is that correct? are we having a quorum problem, and would that continue to exist? >> we have had quorum issues, but even the additional member is helpful. >> not life and ddeath but i would ask you to have ms. leonard make an appearance so we have a few months to do it. lower attendance. people are weigh inside, i don't

want to risk it. it would probably be a good thing to do. commissioner avalos: it would be good to have any of the eligible applicants in that meeting as well alongside ms. leonard. >> we will try to do that between now and next tuesday. commissioner campos: my preference, as much as possible everybody needs to do as much work as possible in committee, and given that outreach takes time, my preference would be to continue that matter.

commissioner chu: i am ok with waiting until more applicants come through. i think it would be messy to go forward and bring forth potential applicants, so i am ok with waiting in particular, because after today we will have 9-11, so i am ok with waiting until next meeting. commissioner campos: it is not in any way a reflection on your application. it is simply that we have seat requirements and haeve to work accordingly, but as to why other applicants would be a good fit, i think this provides the opportunity. commissioner avalos. >> just to be consistent, anyone

who is eligible for downtown tenderloin can come back and be part of the discussion and selection process, that would be great. >> if i may simply add, mr. director, if we can let the current members of the cac have a new appointment know that it is imperative for them to be ppresent at the meeting in light of the fact that we do not have a full complement at this point, and my expectation is that not be a problem. we have a motion by commissioner chu, seconded by david chiu. if we can take that without objection? again, thank you to all

applicants for coming forward. item? clerk cheng: item number 6, recommend approval of the adoption of a baseline budget schedule and funding plan for phase 1 of the transbay transit center project. this is an action item. >> the project has three phases. the extension is referred to as phase two, and the redevelopment plan. in november 2007, the djba adopted a budget of 1

,189,000,000. that included the foundations to prepare for future construction of the terminal. in this diagram, we show the bottom part boxed in gray would not be part of this initial scope. basically just the above ground portion, the foundations. the transbay center project is among san francisco's highest- priority project, identified as such in 3 plans. february last year, this

board adopted the funding and supported the transbay transit center project to receive funds. the project has received support from the mayor, governors, and congressional delegation. in january 28 of this year, the department of transportation announced a grant of 2.25 billion dollars in ara funds for california, and included $700 million for the transbay transit project. the federal agency of the department of transportation charged with administring lfm's confirmed that $700 million has

been reserved for the transbay transit center. the board adopted a new baseline budget of $1.5 billion, which basically added $4 million and this new baseline includes additional scope that was not in the 2007 budget. they upgrade to the gold rating, and most significantly, the below ground train box.

you have a cost breakdown here of the budget. there are more details in your packet, but -- there is the contractor and another separate estimate done by the architects. after those estimates are done independently, they are reviewed and reconciled by the public

construction managers for the program and by the staff, so there is a good level of comfort that the project will be built within that budget. here you have the schedule for the project. significantly, august 7 of this year, about a month away, service will begin at the temporary bus terminal. bus services will be moved to the temporary terminal and demolition will begin of the existing structure. construction will start in march, and excavation will be

complete in 2013. the train lines added 2 years to the schedule, so buses are 2017 as opposed to 2015 as planned, but it will be more comlpete a facility and cheaper in the long run. here we have the funding plan. as you see, the project is fully funded at this point. both staff and the authority recognizes this budget has some risks. second, because of the real

estate market right now. interestingly enough, the delay of the project caused by the years added to the schedule does a favor, because it allows the land to recover its value and regenerate it. it is also a motion that the tjpa has aggressively and vigilantly been looking for in case these funds do not mature. that concludes our presentation. commissioner campos: thank you. any questions?

commissioner chu: phase 1, you talked about the scope of the work. i understand with $400,000 that is moving something that would have been phase 2 forward to phase 1. what is the scope and value for phase 2? >> phase 2 is 2.5 billiloon dollars, and it is basically the extension of the train service to the transbay terminal and also the future high-speed rail also to go through the terminal, and it also includes the outfitting of the terminal itself, the underground terminal, that would build the box itself, but the track and systems and everything else will

be built in phase 2. commissioner campos: and that would mark the completion of high-speed rail, etc.? >> it may be that one precedes the other. they are thinking they could have the terminal created before. commissioner chu: ok. and a quick question about $429 million assumed as funding for phase 1, that area may experience some weakness. what are plans to deal with what the drops may be? >> well, estimates were based on 2007 numbers, so the value of the land has decreased.

however, like i mentioned, the extension of the project will allow for the market to recover. tjp was looking at multiple other sources to make up for that gap. i think i am going to have somebody from tjp -- we don't know what the gap is. it's a moving target, and they are more aware of where things are. commissioner campos: thank you. >> for the $429 million projected in phase 1, first i

think it is important to note that doesn't represent all of the land the city is receiving from the state of california, there are some parcels whose revenue was earmarked for phase 2, so there is potential to sell those earlier to help offset shortages and revenue in phase 1. the second issue is that we saw a significant funding damp on phase 2, and lewis said we would continue to pursue additional funding from the federal government under high speed rail or other programs to close phase 2, and where possible we may be

able to swap out funding, moving landfills on time to allow greater opportunity to recover value, or some of those sources are applicable to phase 1. the third area of opportunity we are looking at is the potential to bring it under cost so it can contain the cost of the program. as you may be aware, a number of projects have come in with competitive pricing of the contracts. our first represents more than

20% of our estimated phase 1 costs, so the bid results on closed. colleagues, can we have a motion to recommend approval > motion by carmen chu, seconded by david chiu. thank you very much. next item. clerk cheng: recommend the

allocation of $3,480,803 in prop k funds with conditions to municipal transportation agency for 6 requestis, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules. this is an action item. >> good afternoon. the request totals 3.4 million dollars, leveraging over $13.4 million in prop k funds, better than expected in the expenditure plan. these projects have been funded

by past prop k allocations. you will see those in particular for projects where we recommendm multi-phase allocations where the design phase is straightforward. the first project is for $3.1 million for the automatic fare collection program, the clipper fare collection system, the bay area's translink card. by fall of 2011, clipper will by the exclusive payment system, so all transfers and the transition plan, shown on page 64 on your packet so you can get an idea of the schedule for

implementation of the project. this is a two-phase project, managed by mtc, who holds the operate and maintain contract, and there is an mou in place for phase 1, for phase 1 systems, so the mou will be amended to encompass these two, the subject of this request. section 2 will be funded by prop k and formula funds. the system is currently accepted in ferry, mta, and vta will offer clipper in 2010. the clipper program is also included on page 55 of your packets, a presentation

prepared by the mta for the board. the overall project is funded by a variety of federal, state, and local funds. an $11 million stimulus grant for phase 1. phase 2 is [inaudible] dollars. phase 2 will install ticket vending machines at several stops and provide project support. procurement will begin this summer with project compleion expected by spring of 2013. the second project is the light rail corridor improvement, a $100,000 request to leverage almost $500,000 in federal

funds to upgrade signals at 115 locations, over 50 on the line and shown to be improved under the project. it will also upgrade pavement markings to enhance no u-turn instructions. the counting project will do counts at 25 locations this fll, to complement 25 studied last fall and reocmmendation will be in a pedestrian exposure model based on volume and collision history. past allocation has provided for consultant services for

model development. pedestrian improvement projects, $125 million to convert twenty locations from standard to continental, and these locations have been prioritized based on speed, generators, and so forth. locations will be coordinated among two projects. submit requests to the mta for these locations at www.sfmta.org/walk, and some improvements may improve parking, so there are some design costs incorporated in the project. last is the school crosswork --

crosswalk improvement project. i welcome any questions you might have. commissioner campos: thank you very much for your presentation. why don't we open it up for public comment? any member of the public? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, no questions? we have a motion by avalos, seconded by carmen chu. we can take that without objection. thank you very much. next item. clerk cheng: recommend third amendment of san francisco's 2008 lifeline transportation program project priorities to

include $1,691,391 for the municipal transportation agency's bus service restoration project. >> we have items that need to be resolved before we are ready to recommend this item. i want to acknowledge the importance of the item, because we are talking about additional money. so i would have the importance of doing committee work at committee, but also i would respectfully suggest you hold a meeting at 10:00 a.m. next tuesday of the committee so you can act on this item and get the future resolved in time to feed into the process of

restoring service at the mta. commissioner campos: thank you,k commissioner. i don't have a problem holding a special meeting, but there is already a special rules committee meeting scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on tuesday. the committee can preside -- precede with out me being here.

until later into timber? >> some -- in september? >> some of the allocations would fit into the process. i think it is important to clarify what your asking here. supervisor campos: david chiu? supervisor chiu: i generally agree with the chair person that we should try to do as much as possible. unfortunately, this happens to be the busiest month of the year with the budget, other items and other committees, and all the various projects, i might suggest that we pass in and out

of this body without recommendation and await the briefing before the next full meeting, and then we can assess from there. supervisor campos: i would be supportive of that. why don't we open this up to public comment before we act on that. is there any member of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion by david chiu, seconded by supervisor avalos. colleagues? thank you. we have been joined by bevan dufty. next item. >> recommend approval of the san francisco safe routes to school education and outreach program for $500,000 in cycle 1 safe routes to school funds. >> good morning. transportation planner with the