you today represent two key elements requiring your approval to maintain the momentum on the program. as mr. ford has spoken earlier, calendar item 12 requests your authorization for the agency program controls, and item 13 requests your approval of the central subway relocation impact study. we have staff here today, and so we will be happy to answer any questions with either of the two calendar items or the brief i just gave you. >> thank you mr. rohan. a couple of questions about the actual tunneling. in the double slide, it seems like the construction there has been about three years as well. are you familiar with that project? >> no, sir, i'm not. >> it appears to be a much easier project than going under

all the stuff in the city. >> that is the complexity, doing a subway in a city that has utilities, sewer, water, electric, you name it. there is a whole host of things in this city, and in some cases we have found some of it as we have gone on. we have had to find ways to deal with that, which are far outside the engineering realm when it comes to remains and things of that nature. it is very complex when we are talking about a tunneling job under a major urban city. >> do you have a time frame? >> they are doing samples, but you are always at risk of something that is not there in the drawings or the historical documentation. there is some risk in terms of crog across something that we didn't plan to. i think we have built in a certain amount of contingency there, and hopefully that is enough to cover it. >> chairman, we are very comfortable with the schedule. i would submit to you that the

greater risk is going to be on the time lines of actually constructing the underground stations. the tunneling itself is going to go very smooth. if we hit something like an arc logical find, it will stop us in our tracks until we clear that. >> so the last things that goes in is the tracks? >> we are staging the contract that most of the material can be removed through the tunnel. so there will be subbays and temporary track put if for those contracts. >> and those projects could go on? there is nothing to preclude that? >> the actual exit is in north beach. >> this contract includes a tunnel bore machine retraction shift. we go all the way to washington square, and that is where we take the machine out.

and all we have to do is close the door over it. if we ever decide there is a phase three, it will be able to spring from that. >> when there is a phase three. >> you mean spring from that, building a washington square station? >> anything that is designed. >> director? >> i think you forth greats presentation. it is very helpful to see this all laid out. a couple of service-related questions. the south terminus at king and 4th. does the t lee keep going down the existing line? >> no. it is going to connect both phases. the terminus would be visitation valley for the t-line. the t-line would continue straight, not make that right-hand turn. >> so someone there chinatown

could keep going to what is the current end of the t-line? >> yes. >> and is the current t-line around the embarcadero going to continue as well? >> no. >> so that is the end of that one? >> yes. >> so then my next question is -- and i am sure you guys have thought of this, but my limited exposure to this in my real job suggestion -- suggests any time you go to digging up a gas station, there is a lot of remediation? that is part of it? >> yes. that is in our plan. we have that contingency in our plan. >> you touched a little on this, about the laying down of temporary track to remove debris. what is the sort of anticipated disruption for the union square area associated with this

project, and how much of it can be done underground to avoid strupting what is obviously a commerce center? >> actually, each of the three stations will be excavated differently. mosconi will have the more surface disruption, because it is a cut and cover. we'll bore down and then squa videogate back up. there will be a lot of disruption around that one. our utilities contract that is going to be going out in september will uncover and reroute major utilities, and then place back so that we can restore traffic on a temporary means. then we are going to mine from there down and then build back up. now the struppings will be mitigated considerably, but there will be some surface disruption to make the final closure and initially to make the utilities opening. the chinatown station is going

to be mined completely. we'll bore through and then set up and mine inside. >> so we could probably come back to you with specific time lines in terms of how much disruption at each location, if any. for example, minimal at chinatown, but definitely at union square. we have a very healthy community relations group as part of this project. there are a lot of elements that are working with the union square merchants and dealing with those issues. but we can come back with more of the details on that because those are questions that we had to answer a couple of years ago when we went through this process. but i don't recall the exact -- >> one would be to minimize it during the christmas season, obviously a busy season for them. as long as you are doing the outreach with the community, that is excellent. the one thing i note on this map which is an excitement to me, you have in here a possible future line which appears to be

running along eerie. am i reading the map correctly? >> which page is that on? >> possible future muni line. >> this map was taken from some of the earlier preliminary engineering drawings, which had geary in the concept stage. at that time we didn't know if it would be a connection to the subway or a b.r.t. this man shows that potential. >> all right. >> but it is not part of the program now. >> i understand that. great next idea though. and the stations, the connection between powell street and union state stations will be at subground level so someone can walk from station to station?

>> no connection at the platform. >> are there still plans for moving side walks? >> we actually abandoned those ideas about two years ago when the cost of the moving sidewalks became an issue. when we went through our risk mitigation program -- f.t.a. has a risk program you go through where you take a look at enhanced elements and what they would cost. when we went through that, we threw it out because of the huge cost. >> another item we need to follow up with this because this has come from the public in terms of the length of time of transfer from our platform to the bart system. carter, i don't know if you have that in front of you, but i want to make sure we give you as much as we can in terms of potential issues.

that was hot button a few years ago. >> we are not talking about a major league distance. >> maybe not for you and i? >> but it's about a block's worth of distance? >> yes. where someone of my age would ben at this time from moving sidewalks. >> and you are the one who threw it out, >> and you are not going to be any younger when it gets through. that concludes that. >> no one has registered as a speaker card, and i don't see anyone in the audience who is appearing to desire to address you. >> so we can take both at once? >> ma i -- you may. >> any discussion? the ayes after it. >> number 14, fixing the wage schedule for transit operators at $29.52 per hour as of july

1, 2010. >> what is the pleasure of the board? >> move the staff recommendation. >> second. >> all in favor say aye. the ayes have it. >> i'd 15, discussion and vote whether to go to closed session and invoke the attorney-client privilege. prosecutor moved. >> seconded. >> all in favor say eye. >> for the close the session, we >> the board met in closed session. the board of directors took no action. directors, do you want to disclose or not disclosed? director nolan: i think is important that we may be just indicate who was the present -- who was present at the meeting.

and yes, mr. chairman. in the minutes, we are required to reflect who is involved in the closed session, the minutes will reflect that. director nolan: on the basis of that, is there a motion to disclose or not disclose? director oka: move to not disclosed. director nolan: all in favor? we were not disclosed. with that, we are adjourned. -- we will not disclosed. with that, we are intent. -- adjourned. >> i want to thank you all for being here today. i'm the mayor of the city of

long beach, california, and i'm also a trustee of the u.s. conference of mayors. mayors from all over this great state have assembled here today to talk about the energy efficiency conservation block grant program. this is a program that started in 2007, and it delivers funds directly to cities to be able to improve their energy efficiency, reduce their carbon footprint, and as important, create new jobs in our community. i will just give you a little background in this really quickly. program was originally thought of in 2005 when the u.s. conference of mayors launched its climate protection agreement. the agreement is a landmark measure across the country. the u.s. conference of mayors initiated it. it began with 141 mayors. it now has 1044 mayors that have signed on to the climate

protection agreement, committing to reduce our climate footprint in each one of our communities. the energy block grant program has been an integral part of that. it gives us the resources to reduce our energy consumption and reduce our carbon footprint, and as i said, it also creates jobs. it has been the result of a lot of people working together, but i do need to thank the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, who worked hard to make this program a reality, and we would not be here today except for her efforts. on behalf of american cities, i want to thank the speaker for her commitment and diligence. without her help, as i said, this would not be here. i also want to thank president obama and his administration for his support of the program as well as the american recovery and reinvestment act, which is also to fund a number of new

initiative projects in a number of our cities. as i said, we are here to work for efficiency and reduce our carbon footprint. in my city, we are investing about $4 million to accelerate private city efforts to reduce energy efficiency in our city structures as well as some of our residential buildings, and we will hear in a moment from the mayors of other cities about what they're doing, but this program is exactly what we need to continue. it is really the only major funding source we have to be able to improve our efficiency and work on climate change issues, particularly by reducing our carbon footprint. we know that a successful plan for reducing u.s. energy consumption is grounded in local action, and all across this country, it has been demonstrated that local government can take action that is effective and not only reduces our impact on the environment but also puts people back to work. we have been leading the nation

in this effort, and i have to tell you, it has been an innovative program that provides the flexibility needed to local governments, and it is the kind of thing that must be carried on in the future. i now would like to introduce a friend of mine and no stranger to all of you, san francisco mayor gavin newsom, who is going to discuss what things have been going on right here in san francisco with this program. mayor newsom: thank you for your stewardship and leadership in bringing us all together. i thank all the mayors that are here and all of you for taking the time to be here. from our perspective, there are few things more important than this. at the end of the day, what we are really talking about, what we are organizing around is job creation and economic development, reducing the costs not only to government, but reducing the cost to individual businesses, large and small,

that want to reduce their energy bill at the same time we advance our environmental principles and advance our collective goals. as many of you know, san francisco has a low global climate action plan. basically all that is is the formal plan that 3043 other mayors -- at 1043 other mayors have signed to robot greenhouse gas unless it -- emissions to 1990 levels by 2012. we have done that through -- in small part in terms of that reduction. that is energy efficiency. that is the low hanging fruit. that is the easy part of this effort. we have some very ambitious goals nationwide. about half of that, most objective analysis has been done that shows that half of that can be achieved through energy

efficiency, so you do not need something in the order of magnitude. just common sense. swapping out that level, taking the old boiler and replacing it, taking that call don t --hat -- that caulk gun in different respects. the think about it is it is so obvious and so easy but we were not achieving our goals until the president and speaker got together and demanded we get some block grants. we needed some energy development block grants and we needed some autonomy. let me conclude by making a jobs case, and i was making this just a moment ago, on why this matters. we get about $7.7 million

through block grants, and we are using that jobs now program, the federal subsidy for direct jobs. 3600 jobs we have created. they are going out and doing energy audits, so we are doing free energy audits, and then we are using all these grants, and then we are providing free resources for folks to actually deal with their boilers and other issues, but here is the big idea, and this is something -- if we put $1 billion -- you do not need to take $1 billion credit. you can just leverage the percentage that is arguably of to what $1.8 trillion that is just sitting there on the sidelines. just to leverage that money is guaranteed, like we do small business association loans, and start getting people to work today on energy efficiency and create real jobs. here's how we do it -- you get $1 billion just making this case, and you invest into coal,

and generate about 870 jobs. sounds great, but you could generate 1000 or 1500 jobs in nuclear energy, but if you want to create more jobs and wealth and opportunity, 1900 jobs in wind or about 3300 jobs, but the big game changer is retrofitting and green building. 7000 jobs for that $1 billion investment. you can just use the money that is sitting in all these financial institutions and guarantee those loans and get people back to work, doing the energy efficiency work that all these mayors are doing quite successfully, and you do it in rural and suburban areas, not just these big metro areas. get people to work, particularly those in the building and construction trades, those that have the highest rate of unemployment. that is the opportunity, and that is where we are trying to

communicate, what we are trying to organize around. this is a win on all fronts, and this is being demonstrated in cities large and small across the country. one of the successes of the stimulus plan is the focus on jobs and this economy. i want to thank everybody who is here and think cathy and her team for their leadership, and think mayor foster for helping bring all of you here to our city and county of sentences go. thank you. >> thank you, mayor newsom. >> i would like to bring our partner to the podium, the efficiency secretary, cathy joey. >> thank you all for coming. three quick points. on behalf of the president and secretary chu, let me underscore that energy efficiency is

central to economic recovery from our perspective. we need to bleed into all the energy potential. americans spend $1.10 trillion on utility bills in their businesses and homes per year. we can become more efficient. that is $200 billion we can save, and we can create jobs while doing it. for every billion that gets invested, 7000 jobs. this program will go on to create more. we love our partnership with the mayors. the mayors are working directly in investing money in cities on the ground, in buildings, schools, and communities. this program has 2350 grantees from across america that have programs under way this summer, demonstrating that investments in clean energy, green energy, helps economies. watch where the projects are. some of them are wildly

innovative. some just make good sense. there are sensible, money saving light bulbs that should have gone in a long time ago. putting new elie de -- led technology into traffic lights, which create safer streets. there are literally thousands of projects under way. take note of what those are. share information. in washington, we are very excited about our partnership. we are very excited about the energy savings that will come from this program and in the future. thank you all. >> thank you, madam secretary. finally, we will have another major address you with what is going on in her city. she is from the city of santa barbara. >> thanks you. i appreciate the opportunity to speak here. i think mayor newsom for your leadership from the beginning. hopefully, we can see some

allocations after the first- round is moved around. that is important for congress to see the investment of this as not just an expenditure. the city of santa barbara has a little over 100,000 people. our funding was about $658,000. we did lighting efficiency projects in four parks as well as some heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning retrofits in eight city buildings. the park's alone are saving 140,000 kilowatt hours annually, a savings of $88,000. the eecbg grants, coupled with other funding we did with our municipal building energy audit, is sitting as $150,000 in our general fund. along with the jobs that are being created with this project, when i came in and met with a number of mayors this morning,

the first question has been how is your budget going. what is going on with your general fund and your public works? in our city, if we are able to save $150,000 a year that would have gone to paying for energy bills, which can put it into police officers, firefighters, parks and recreation -- the municipal services people have come to expect. that is helping us get over this recession on top of giving private-sector jobs. it is saving energy at the same time. it is a great program. we need to keep it coming to the cities. i appreciate the leadership of the u.s. conference of mayors for having this meeting today. >> thank you, mayor schneider. are there any questions from anyone? >> i was just wondering about -- speaking of leveraging grants,

clean energy loans. can some of that money come to this program? >> can you repeat that? i did not get all of that. i am sorry. >> we just passed with a lot of fanfare and no follow-up, not because of good intentions but because of fannie and freddie. i was going to use the wrong adjective. [laughter] their unwillingness to be supportive of the program -- they are wrong. this is right. the president is right. congress, by and large, is right. all these mares are ready to go to do what -- all these mares are ready to go to do what the secretary started. the first program was done in berkeley years ago. it is simple. the company is not going to

provide enough resources. how the finance those upgrades? -- how do you finance those upgrades? you can amortize them over the life of your mortgage in a way that gives billions of dollars for the retrofitting of buildings. ours is the largest in the united states. we passed a more than $150 million appropriation. we were ready to go. we had dozens of people who had already gotten approval. then the word came out that fannie and freddie no longer would allow these because of the weight it relates to first orleans. i will not bore you with it. -- because of the way it relates to first liens. i will not bore you with it. it is a step to the screen economy. it is up to the folks running fannie and freddie.

we need to see something change quickly. our attorney general filed suit, to his credit. mayors across the country are ready to voice, as well as governors, when we have a sympathetic ear from the administration and the department. we just need some folks there to right this wrong. >> any other questions? thank you all for being here. we appreciate it. >> we thought we wouldd< take ts weekly video out on the road. we are here at recology at the

recycling center. if you ever wondered where your recyclables go, and this new mandate for composting, the new challenges and mandates around recycling, what we are trying to achieve -- it all starts right here. we just marked an important milestone in our city. i would argue important this nationn francisco has now achieved a 77% diversion rate, the highest in america. no big city can lay claim to diverting that much of their waste, and that is why that composting requirement was so important. this is why our efforts to consumption and distribution and the like of plastic water bottles is so important. it is because we want to reduce that waste going into the landfill. we want to reduce the burden on our environment. we want to create jobs. the folks on the line behind me

and above me, those are folks that have employment because of these programs. we have added over 118 people in the last couple of years to the roles of the employed in these green collar jobs because of the recycling and composting programs. we actually created economic stimulus by building facilities like this and putting people to work to do that job. ball the folks out here in the hard hats are also supported by people in the office is doing the processing, doing accounting, doing the bookkeeping, so there is a multiple in terms of jobs that are created because of programs like we have established. it was error, we were less than 50%. when i first w6urw@8yyixorwakñwe were roughly 35% effective, which was pretty impressive. it was higher than almost any other big city in this country, but