piles central subway as a fte in the program that has contract specific goals from 6 to thirty percent those goals are based on the type of works to be performed and the ability of the krarthsd to perform the work the tunneling contract only had a 6 percent goal because there isn't any dbes to do the tunneling work now as of the challenges he mentioned earlier we need to continue with the advocacy for the new funds they've been coming in a timely number and quantities, however, because they require congressional approval we need to insure the

funds are allocated to fund the project second one is, of course the alternative funding that see required to replace the tuning materials the third although the project is within budget it is slow based on the fta recommendations, however, when april comes along and the tunnel contract is complete that recommended contingency will go in terms of the accuracy of the funding. >> on that point what's the contingency required and the level. >> right now $140 million at this point that is required and the project has $81.2 million in

reserve so when in april when the tunnel contracts reaches completion the required amount will be down to $75 million so that's more than more than adequate funding. >> thank you. >> and the final challenge because, of course, the project of this size has changes is that the revenue service date remains unchanged, however again based on the fta foundations the contingencies scheduled is lower the recommended amount project has about 4.8 months contingency scheduled and the requirement is for 8 however, in april again, that's

what we're talking about earlier that requirement will go down and deficit will be smaller won't disappear but go down to 4.2 months so the project is well positions to complete with the scheduled budget and that concludes my presentation. i'm also joined by john the mta's senior project manager. >> supervisor yee i have a general question related to that but not directly to our presentation anyone will have the answers. >> i guess as has it been studied to extend to fisherman's wharf or not and what's the cost

that of that. >> it's official together. >> right and everybody else has - >> we have the transportation authority staff directly with mta has finalized the feasibility study of that extension and looking at different options and station locations so, now it's a matter of continued to move forward and mta has indicated they like to reprioritize and kind of move forward work those things take time so it's not going to happen anytime soon but it is moving forward this actually came about from the local contingent who

actually came to the mta and requested that this extension be put you can on the burner at least. >> next speaker. >> not opportunity but on the burner that's where we are with that. >> director chang yes at the request of the community at the time that supervisor christensen was leading this they asked the planning department to look at the ability to extend the central subway to fisherman's wharf it is there it ranks from $$21 billion to $2 billion depending on the alternatives it is a wide range and mta has agreed to consider this within our plan and undertook it at the

citywide level and looking at other rail capacity needs we'll write them and have a proposal to have a presentation to the capacity plan that will be of interest. >> supervisor christensen. >> that will be welcome thank you i didn't will add i didn't plan on interject this but i'm getting enthusiastic response for all so i think we're going to be asked i want to be clear on the topic of funding where did our $75 million go and how are we're going to make it up is there small business that can answer that question what's the state doing with our money. >> i'll answer all those questions the $75 million is really a cash flow issue we're looking at so

the funds are guaranteed to san francisco and city of san francisco we're looking at the fund ability across the state or the state meets overall they can't provide the cash within the period of the project immediately what we can do to meet the contingency to meet the gap in the contingency we have $100 million paper program we entered into just in case to keep the project funding going so the project can pay off that's up to 2018 we're exploring and have explored with the metropolitan transportation we've looking at internally how to take the dollars and swap out over 7, 8, 9 to meet cash flows needs we'll have to take the $75 million and swap it out with

funds with the mta so it is complicated we went through assault weapons on projects and what might be feasible and it wouldn't work out united states way we hoped the fte requirement to reduce the contingency amount it is a problem we need to look at it and hopefully, we'll hope that the project continues on track to the full conspiracy is not needed matrix you've heard that state was said $75 million is the contingency we need so really managing 9 cash flow and working with the federal partners to get higher levels of that every year with the recommendations it is $165 million that is a little bit more than projected so more cash up front we're not

concerned with meeting the deliveryables but we have to escape out the $75 million. >> one more question so when the streets are replaced at union square there's money in the budget for the restoration of the roadways that are being displaced; right? you guys are going to put the street back when our done; right? (laughter). >> john the program director yes, we will supervisor. >> and currently the plan to replace them the way you founded them other studies for alternative. >> since you brought up that topic we had a successful winter walk we temporarily closed the street and opened and reopened to the public for padded purposes that was a huge success

with the residents alike i know that working with the union square improvement district they're interested in looking at a more permanent solution to that approach once we're complete with the central subway at the end of 2018 at this point from prior to 2018 the central staff will be more than happy to work with a complete street type of approach for the two blocks to stockton street but i think that the test case this winter was a huge success to put things into prospective we're have two more winter we'll be reopening the streets to pedestrian and hopefully learn from the experience and apply those lengths lops learned to future opportunity to arrive a more complete streets for stockton.

>> we're looking at the entire thirty stockton routes i'm w working with the mta to sort the continuous ideas to tie the ice cream study both that and i'm endeavor to do that. >> thank you. >> thank you. any other colleagues questions i'm glad to hear the project is moving forward and the only issue is the contingency that's a good thing i think we'll open up for public comment any public comment on item 7 seeing none, public comment is closed this was an informational item so item 8 please. item 8 instruction of new items introduction of new items. >> seeing none okay moving on to item 9 and general public comment

i'm sorry - >> oh, i apologize so public comment is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed and now we'll move on to item 9 general public comment any members seeing none public comment is closed and item 10 and adjournment. >> thank you sfgovtv jessie larson and jonathan at 62942 working with together we can support your children.

it's been my dream to start is a valley school since i was a little girl. i'm having a lot of fun with it (clapping) the biggest thing we really want the kids to have fun. a lot of times parents say that valley schools have a lot of problems but we want them to follow directions but we want them to have a wonderful time and be an affordable time so the kids will go to school here. we hold the classes to no longer

12 and there's 23 teachers. i go around and i watch each class and there's certain children i watched from babies and it's exciting to see them after today. the children learn how to follow directions and it ends up helping them in their regular schooling. they get self-confidents and today, we had a residual and a lot of time go on stage and i hope they get the bug and want to dance for the rest of their

>> director heinicke director rem mel, director rubke, director nolan will not be at today's meeting. item 3, prohibition of sound devices, the use of pagers and sound producing electronic devices are prohibited alt the meeting. any person responsible for one going off in the room may be asked to leave the room. also please know that cell phones set on vibrate do cause microphone interference so the board respectfully requests they be turned off. item 4, approval of the minutes of the march 3rd meeting, you have a member of the public who wishes to address you on this? >> any board members first have any comments on the minutes from our last meeting? >> yes. i had a question about the

motion on the second motion that was month rkts after we discussed the study and having looked at how things were going, doing the before and after survey, that we would -- we would have a chance -- that we would talk about in general, reconsider it but i didn't think we were asking for the exact project to be brought back to us 12 months after, and that's what i don't recall, and the way that we approved this motion. >> did you have a chance to review that case?

>> yes, i went back and looked at it and because i was aware that a member of the public was also interested in this. the motion in the minutes is exactly as stated at the meeting that you all voted on. >> and my understanding is that it's -- and correct me, director kiez k*in, this would bring it back after the full completion, it is not a commitment to action or inaction, it simply is bringing that back to the board. >> that was my understanding, correct. >> more on informational -- >> because -- that sounds like -- >> it would be bringing back all of the data that we collect in those 12 months after implementation and the set of

additional parking and traffic changes for the board's consideration. that's what i understood that motion to be. >> director borden, does that sound more in line with what you were thinking is that it comes back after the study? >> it is just an item for action or not action by the board, it's not -- because that was kind of -- you know, as much as -- >> we all discussed not wanting to have the same hearing all over again and i just remember that we had really talked about all that kind of other -- looking at now and into the future and the grand scheme of how we were achieving our goals and other things so i felt like the spirit of the motion didn't capture quite the dialogue. >> yeah, that's good, i'm glad you brought that up you know we have that feedback now and we know when that does come back, we have an idea of what we're all expecting and i think we have a member op of the public as well.

>> and madam chair, just for the record, in the original staff in the resolution, there was a discussion about staff bringing back the study about the economic impact of construction and all of that, so that is -- that was separate -- that was in the main resolution, this was something very specific, so that study will come back at a future time. >> director borden, are you okay with that, or do you want to -- >> yeah, it's one of those things where you feel like you remember it differently, so it concerns me. >> it was a long meeting. >> but i think we should -- if members of the public want to -- >> why don't we hear from members of the public. >> dawn trenart. >> two minutes. >> thank you, commissioners, i also remember that conversation going a little bit differently in the essence of the conversation.

the essence of the conversation as i had understand it as i read in the newspaper the following day was that after a 12 month period of understanding what the economic metrics and the modal shifts would be, there would be a grading of how well did we do what did we do well, what didn't we do well and then things, decisions would be made from that point but when i read back into the printed minutes, i see that it would be no longer than 12 months after the completion of the project from -- ms. boomer, 12 months after completion of the projects so it would be directing staff to come back to the board with traffic modify cases that were include ined the categorical exemption as described in the city and planning department to continue the bicycle improvements by either protected bike lanes or raised cycle track on the east

side of polk street, the [inaudible] in order to reduce impacts on business and project costs within 12 months after the completion of the project, and you've got some differences in the way things are written, it's in time to coordinate with the public utilities project and it would be no longer than 12 months after the completion of the project but the motion is now recorded as within 12 months after completion of the project, which could mean one month, six months and anything less than 12 months and, again the spirit of the conversation as i heard it, as i understand it is let's see how we did and give ourselves a grade after the 12 month period, after the 12 month period, not let's race ahead and see how much more we can do within 12 months. thank you for your time. >> thank you, and thank you,

director borden for bringing that up. i do agree that it was the intent was i think the discussions that we always had was in order to see how a project works you do need 12 months at least to see how it works so i believe that is the spirit of the motion. yes? >> and i would just say i agree with that. i think also a spirit of this motion and this whole process is we're not going to do anything without significant public input and that alone will require significant time, this is not something that's going to happen without us going back to the public the way we have. on a procedural point, i will say especially with this understanding and very much appreciating our fellow citizens coming in on this, on a procedural point if ms. boomer has gone back to the tape and that is what was said, i don't think we should be in the practice of rewriting minutes after the fact, it's enough to have minutes of what our understanding was, but if that's what was voted on i think we ought to respect the sbegtd of that and not change the minutes, but i think we're

all on the same page as to where we're headed, so with that, i would move the minutes. >> let's have a vote, all in favor, aye? >> aye. >> opposed? >> no you're not opposed? >> i'm opposed. >> alright, thank you. >> item 5, communications, director, please be advised there will be no discussion of anticipated litigation in closed session today. any other -- >> introduction of new or unfinished business by board members. >> i have one thing, i would like to congratulate director ramos would was renominated by the office to continue his service on this board of director, i know you have many option of where you're willing to spend your time, we're happy you're continuing to spend it with us. >> anyone else with new or unfinished business? >> item 7, director's report.

>> good afternoon, madam chair, members of the board staff and the public, just a cum of quick things to update you on, the first is that last week, the board of supervisors land use and transportation committee adopted a resolution which they have forward today the full board for their consideration next tuesday that urges the sfmta board or to this board to adopt a requirement that applicants or participants in the commuter shuttle pilot -- or the commuter pilot program, now a pilot, demonstrate that they have conditions of labor harmony as a part of their permit application, so we'll see, i presume that will go forward to the full board next week and likely be approved. i think it came out of land use unanimously. we will be working with the

sponsors of the legislation and the city attorney's office as well as our own program staff in termser of what options we have with that regard and we'll be coming back to you once we have something developed in terms of following the spirit of what the board of supervisors is likely to be urging this body to do. >> can we have a moment on that one before you move on with the rest of your report while it's fresh in anyone's mind. i wanted to check to see if anybody has anything on that. >> yeah, i do have a question so in terms of the people who applies for the permit, is it the transportation company or is it the -- >> it's the -- so in almost all cases, the employers who are using the shuttles are doing so through transportation companies and it's the transportation companies that are the permit applicants, that currently that are the permit holders. >> and is there a definition of harmonious labor --

>> there is not. >> so, director reiskin. >> i believe the board of supervisors was intentionally not trying to get too prescriptive in that definition to give us some discretion and leeway as to how we might define it. >> my point is even with contracts, people will come and there doesn't appear to be harmonious relations at the time as we hear it, i understand why they are trying not to be prescriptive, at the same time, they are, so i just feel like it really opens it up for the ambiguity opens it up for exploitation in some ways is my concern. >> understood, and i believe that, you know, the work that we have ahead to work again with members of the board of supervisors with the city attorney's office and our staff

would be presuming the board will want to go forward with this to try to put some definition around it. it is, you know, it is a very vague term, but part of what i would be striving to do before bringing something to you would be to try to put some definition on -- around it something that our staff can actually work with and it's legally defensible. >> just to be clear the motion is directed at labor harmony at transportation companies, not jenentec, etc., right? >> i don't have it in front of me it was basically attach today the permittee which happens to be in almost all cases the transportation companies and that was the intent. >> thank you, so it sounds like there's no action that this board would be taking on this until there's a little bit more clarity and back and forth and the board of supervisors have -- >> right so i would

potentially be bringing you a proposed modification to the transportation code that governs the process that you already established, that would be one way to implement this, so correct, there's no action for you to take until we formally bring something and we agendize it. thafrjts's different than anything i've ever seen since i've been on this board so it's encouraging. no other questions from the directors on that one? no. >> there's wonderful things happening in the world of transportation that we haven't seen before. >> the only other item that i wanted to let know *f you know, the construction of the spmc campus, the hole up at van ness at gary is proceeding and will include the construction of a tunnel going underneath van ness from the west side where the hospital's being built to the future i think it's a

medical office building across the street. it will be deep below the ground but the construction will require some closures of van ness avenue, cpmc has been working with caltrans and us to develop plans for these closure, they anticipate right now three of them in this calendar year, the first one starting the second week of april, april 10th and 12th, they will be -- there's a lots of information, i don't think i need to go through all of it. the access will remain open for emergency vehicles and transit vehicles, but it's still closing off van ness to general traffic is a pretty significant undercharging so we've been working with them to make sure that the streets where the traffic is going to be diverted to are ready to a company that spent a significant amount of outreach, they've been doing

the cpmc contractor is hired an outreach firm to help them with this, so we'll help them in the lead-up to that first weekend where this will be happening, april 10th through 12th, there will be a lot of public information going out to ensure that people can adequately plan, so our folks have reviewed and are providing guidance on the traffic management plan, we'll be deploying extra parking control officers and facilitating the communications. it is a cpmc private developer project but we are doing what we can to assist and making sure that the impacts to the transportation system will be minimized so you'll see -- you'll start to see that more publicly in the next few weeks but i just wanted to give you a heads-up that that's coming. >> do we have any public comment on the director's report. seeing no one