part of it? >> i believe that is the purpose of the fee, for them to do the monitoring. >> we had a time where it was defined as whatever people want it to be, so the reason we have 18,000, which is the same number we had when we passed this law in they 1978, because we have the action, so without any disrespect to any city department, as a backup, it is important to have that. i think if you take the language from the residential conversion and demolition of ordinance, that languages narrowed to be defined. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please.

>> we will wait and then ask the city attorney to advise us. >> my name is francisco. when i worked of the presidio common-law -- the presidio, in early 2002, we gave a lot of housing to university students. the gentleman before may has spoken about how the university has deprived the city of a lot of housing, and the planning inspection has been slow, but in some of our discussions with planning, we have been able to ratify that. i have them to rally together.

i am aware of those issues. i work with a few partners who do business not only in this nation, but abroad, and again and again, what has not been matching is that the banks are loaning money to institutions of learning, and this has not been mentioned. i heard the planning department say that something about the institutions planning housing for having a plan for student housing so the city could work with them closely and in a better way, but as far as money is concerned, without money you

cannot do much. the financial institutions today are embracing universities and institutions of learning to give them money. the other thing i want to point out is there are areas in our city where there hundreds of units that were there on the market, and some of them are brand new. people will not buy them. people will not rent them. if this legislation passes, in the interim, we could look at some of those buildings, and the students come in, and they will give an input to the community.

are you rooting to be our next mayor? >> no time soon. walter paulson. >> ♪ you never have to ask me why ♪ ♪ we will never say goodbye affordable housing ♪ ♪ affordable housing, affordable housing holds the city ♪ affordable housing ♪ ♪ affordable housing does it could for you and me -- good

for you and me ♪ ♪ affordable housing holds the city kee for you and me, and it should ♪ ♪ affordable housing does it did for you -- good for you and me ♪ >> anybody else? any further comments? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i wonder if one of our deputy chair scattered talk about the suggestion about private right of action. i have a sense this might require a referral. >> if we were to put a private right of action, it seems something we could do, but it would require referral back to planning.

>> i just wonder if it would be possible to send a committee letter and to ask if they can opine on creating this mechanism. i am just concerned that i would like to see this reached the board. >> it could be trailing legislation. we could look into that later. >> i will commit to sending a letter to major the inquiry is fully considered.

>> we do not know who is going to be here later, so to have a backup is important. >> we could send a letter of inquiry, and maybe both should be done. i think it would highlight the importance of taking a look at this. supervisor maxwell: colleagues, as amended, including the reporting amendment. without objection, the legislation is amended, and we will send a letter to our committee requesting that they look into having a private right of action, and that means somebody else is overseeing our housing and making sure we are

following the rules and regulations. thank you, supervisor dufty, and who thank everybody who is working on this. item seven will be continued on december 6, but if there is anybody here who would like to speak on it, you may. >> item #7 the committee benefits program. >> public comment on this item? >> i would like to say my understanding is that this is not to come before the public utilities commission until january. i served of the task force for the expansion, and we work with the people.

i wish that you would delay this until after the puc, but the figures i have requested for the southeast community benefit funds. thank you. >> any further comments? seeing none -- sorry. >> supervisors, regarding this, we had a task force, and there is a document with suggestions. she is just giving you some sense she is one of those from the task force monitoring community benefits. i have said it before and will say it again that at one point when the bond measure was passed, it was part of the clean water and the waste water, but they chose to go ahead with a

clean water, and it is still ongoing. we are going to go, and it is going to come before the board of supervisors, some $600 million bond measure, so the short and the tall of this is that in the bayview, you need to visit the communities. people need help, and people are desperate. the other thing some of you may understand is that we have an influx of latinos that have change the demographics, and they need help, sue. -- too. that is the way you look at the picture. they are mandated to satisfy 5%

of the total budget for work- force, community benefits, and so forth, so you are astute enough to know, and you will be there, because soon the new supervisors will come in, and they may not know this, so it is good to remind them that whatever we do, even though it caters to the whole city, the impacted area is going to be the southeast sector. that is where it will be reallocated. that is where tunnelling is going on right now. tunnelling is going on, but with tunneling, it is specialized, so not too many

people can be employed, but for the other thing, lots of jobs can be given, and for once, the impacted communities should be helped common -- be helped, but you cannot help them by waiting until the last moment. you need a plan to do it right now. thank you very much. >> any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. that is exactly why we want to have a hearing. we want to have a hearing to find out exactly where they are going with this and how much money does go to public benefits. right now there is no real clear idea, so that is why we have these hearings. i look forward to seeing everybody here december 6. madam clerk, is there any further business?

>> there are no further items. >> this meeting is adjourned.

commissioner chu: good morning. welcome to a special meeting of the transportation authority plans and programs committee. madam car, please call item two. >>

update on the financial plan for the san francisco municipal transportation agency's central subway project. this is an information item. commissioner chu: this was an item that we heard last week and we asked for an update. >> this is an item that was continued from last week. i am continued -- happy to say that we have worked with sfmta staff over the past week. i am about to introduce the central manager for the central subway project to show you a presentation that shows you our attempt to close the funding gap as well as an overall context and where regard to the road map of getting the full funding grant agreement from the transportation administration. >> good morning, supervisors, my name is john, the central subway program manager.

i'm also joined by mr. carter wrote hand, the director of construction. they have reviewed this briefing that i'm about to give you. before i start the presentation, i want to provide you with a bit of context in terms of how the financial plan fits into the over all sfga process. i will highlight some of the accomplishments that the mta has achieved in meeting some of the ssga roadmap deliverable. i will discuss the fund's utilize to close the funding gap to fully fund the cap and then the next tax. >the central subway is currently on track to achieving a full funding grant agreement. the sfta process began with the final approval dated january 7

of this year and continues with monthly meetings fta washington and region 9 staff, along with tsa staff, and it continues to meet and satisfy all the obligations under the ssga road map process. submitted must and that we achieved on november 19 where the project received approval for the letter of no prejudice that would allow us to move forward with the utility relocation contract in the union square area. this is an significant milestone which allows for the federal authorization of an early construction activity. identified before you are the remaining sfga some metals necessary on schedule to receive the $942 million in federal funding. a key milestone in the

application is a submission of an updated financial plan, which is scheduled for february 15 of 2011, that identifies the funds committed to this $1.58 billion project. the sfmta is now moving forward with revisions to the central subway financial plan in order to meet the ssga obligation. the central subway financial plan is comprised of federal, state, and local funding sources, as outlined on this slide. the great majority of the funds have already been committed, and they are highlighted in yellow. as you can see, there is a remaining federal obligation of aid and its $69.7 million. that is the remaining fund that would be authorized under the full grant agreement. what is currently shown is the

$137 million funding gap which is part of today's discussion. earlier this year, sfmta convened a mind the gap committee, which was comprised of members of the sfcta, mayor's office, and others to explore a number of the funding options we are about to present to you today. this slide show the proposed capital funds committed to fully fund the program. only capital programs are -- funds are being used to fund the central subway program. no operating funds are being utilized for the central subway program. the alliance structure of the funds used to fill the remaining gaps of the funds are used here. $31 million in prop k, $32 million in problem be. the combination of these funds, along with a projected savings from current capital projects

are what is identified as a solution for closing the remaining funding gap for the central subway program. as a maximum -- since central subway have received the maximum allocation under prop k, as you can see, the items identified under kapor reprogramming, a number of projects would require the reprogramming of prop k and sfmta, along with the sfcta will be working on a reprogramming efforts that will start immediately and conclude prior to the submission of the financial plan in february of next year. a $34 million in prop 1a is part of the $61 million state funds for high-speed rail. one of the conditions of that funding was connectivity. central subway provides a direct link to caltrain and imposed

high speed rail station at fourth and townsend. earlier this year in march, we put in a programming request to the california transportation commission for $27 million, and we were approved by the ctc to move forward with $27 million of the $61 million. a $31 million represents the balance of that funding source. prop1b, there is $78 million left in the program listed as uncommitted. 72.3 of that $70 million of and committed funding will be allocated to the central subway program. we have been receiving $9 million in savings from this been climate for project phase one, so we will be looking at reprogramming that prop k effort

back to central subway. phase two, we recently received federal allocations that allows us to unallocate some of the funds for islais creek. geneva can be project, that project is in close out, $1.2 million in savings for that effort that would be allocated to the central subway project. finally, the its radius system replacement program. there will be some lower-cost program that will be allocated back. some of the lower priority options are like a digital, visual announce the system for cards, along with using their radio system as a means of mapping out the yards.

these are lower party options that will be deferred. commissioner campos: commissioner dufty? commissioner dufty: what does that mean, lower priority option. can you go more into what you mean with its? lower priority? i do not know what that means. >> the radius system project is a replacement program read the agency will replace its motorola system with a modern, upgraded system, as mandated. we will be replacing the radio system by 2012. commissioner dufty: and this is a large project? >> it is a large project, essentially replacing all the radio systems within the fleet. we are currently operating under a 1970's-based system. that said, the base effort of

that program is fully funded and there are some out-year options that our options in the contract that are listed as whether or not -- sort of enhancements -- to the system. if the agency would like to move forward and assign those options to the program. $10 million was assigned to this option effort. because of the deferment of these options, it will not have an effect on the overall delivery of river systems. the agency is proposing to move forward to defer some of these lower priority out year options to central subway. commissioner dufty: is this something that is future, down the road? >> it is currently approved

under prop k under the radio replacement project. before you is the proposed central financial plan showing the additional capital funding, and demonstrating a fully funded central subway financial plan. as you can see in yellow, under committed, $29.5 million currently assigned under local, regional, other. that is the pool of funding that will be working with the sfcta to reprogram. identified here are the actual project expenditure needs for the program. the expenditure needs are shown in light blue, so you can see the expenditure begins in fiscal

year 10, 11, and concludes in 2017 through 2020. what is highlighted in dark blue on the top, beginning in fiscal year 2013, is when we will be spending the money we are committing today to close the 1 and $37 million gap. the first spending need for the 137 will be in fiscal year 12, 13, 4 $38.7 million. as you can see, it is proportioned out for the next seven years. concerning cost, central subway is fortunate to take advantage of a competitive bidding environment and has realized $8.5 million in savings for its second contract, contract 1251, that we are about to award on

december 7. we also anticipate receiving approximately another $10 million in savings to our largest contract that we are planning on issuing for bid in the first quarter, february 2011. at this stage in product development, fta requires cost savings be carried in the program as program contingency. the mta is also controlling cost through its utilization of what is known as a contingency management program -- commissioner chu: just to clarify, you commented that cost savings must be carried as contingencies. would you are saying is, even if we are realizing cost savings, as we are seeing with $8.5 million, hypothetically, the $10 million coming up in the second

quarter of 2011, we cannot count those toward reducing the project cost, we just have to put into a contingency bucket at a later point in time? >> that is right. the plan allows us to reduce our contingency levels for the program. further to the point, currently, the program carries $300 million in program contingency. that is part of the $1.58 billion program. this is not allocated, not assigned to any effort in the program, besides program contingency. in the management plan, there are seven intermediate milestones. if the agency meets those milestones, those contingency levels will be reduced, and a radically, it could go down to zero in 2018, when we finish the