tv [untitled] November 24, 2010 6:00pm-6:30pm PST
clarifying amendments that clearly defined what student housing is and is not. they have been playing a game where they think they are housing units, but if you leave the school, you have to leave the housing. this clarifies the. the one situation -- the one point i made is that we include the right of private action to enforce this. we do it like a residential hotel where we define who has that right, and you say it is a non-profit fed has in their mission preservation of affordable housing. -- that has in their mission the preservation of affordable housing.
you want there be a way to make sure they stay on the straight and narrow. i would be happy to answer any questions, but i support the legislation. >> is that in there at all. do you want to go over the last 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
chair. i would like to thank sfgtv for their excellent an ongoing work. >> commissioner david chu. commissioner dufty. commissioner maxwell absent. >> thank you. please read item two. >> approval of minutes. >> public comment? public comment is closed. without objection, so moved. please read items 3 and 4. item three, chairs report.
item four, directors' report. >> vercommissioner mirkarimi: very good. my comments are a breeze. there's never a dull moment in transportation. especially here in san francisco. the main focus of activity this month was the sustainable communities process, which is being led by the metropolitan transportation commission. this is essentially the local implementation of the legislative mandate. it is very important to demonstrate that local jurisdictions working in concert with regional agencies can turn that into real actions on the ground. there are many dimensions to this challenge, such as land use policy, transportation, and other infrastructure policy, and other key policies related to schools.
these work together to determine where people are located. we are moving in the direction more closely integrating all those areas. it is a daunting task that is only the first go round. we can expect they will be far from perfect, but it's a great opportunity to look at things from a multi varied perspectives. the congestion management agencies around the region have taken the lead in coordinating county level meetings to ensure people are aware of the process. the authority has been very involved in actively fulfilling the role of these last several months. we have already had several meetings with the department
meetings of mtc. i attended one of those meetings last week to emphasize that san francisco department heads, the importance of this process of having san francisco taking a leading role in the region in this regard. i expect the process to intensify. it will have to. as the region debates alternative visions of how we move forward. finally, serious discussions about the funding plan for the central subway. interesting coverage lately in the press, and, of course, with in committee hearings. i'm delighted we've worked out what i believe will be with a feasible funding plan to close the $137 million funding gap before us in the mta. the way to get there is through a collaborative process. what we have is exactly that. i want to thank staff for taking
the initiative, and thank you to the mta for coming to the table. it will be a huge benefit for san francisco and almost $1 billion in federal funds secured, which she to happen in short time. i know that the solution we have at hand will have creative funding swaps including proposition k money. i hope the director will help us navigate through the steps. this is not the first time we're doing something like this with state and federal dollars. i'm looking forward to making a great case to securing the funds. with that, i will conclude my remarks. mr. executive director. >> good morning, mr. chairman and commissioners. i have a report on your desk that will highlight a few things. i think that the price this week
goes to the high-speed rail picture, where we have now had official guidance from washington to the fact that california must spend its high- speed rail allocation of over $3.2 billion. related investments totaling $4.3 billion. this is in one of two central valley sections. it will either be fresno or fresno to bakersfield. we're having trouble getting excited about the prospect of high-speed rail that is that far away from us. that has been the guidance so far to we are forced committed to working to continue to coordinate the segment that we
have the most significant interest in. it has of course had its share of challenges, particularly the mid peninsula section. it requires continued partnership. at the local level, the authority of staff continue to coordinate the city families and put into the high-speed process. we have been successful so far in getting the high-speed rail authority to accept a set of three alternatives that are the result of a consensus building process among the agencies. you're sure that will be included in the report.
given the news that i'm sure you have all seen in the last 24 hours -- the incoming republican leadership in the house looking at high speed rail and california's allocation of money as a target of deficit reduction. we have at least a reason to be worried. come the beginning of the year, we will most likely be involved in a vigorous advocacy process to help the state retained the funds that are already at the state level to keep moving this project forward. of course, there are implications for projects within san francisco that we need to be worried about. it seems as though this topic will require continued
education and continued attention. we will continue to do that. i'm sure there will be some demands for your time as the advocacy in d.c. demands that we all be there in demonstrating support for these local projects. we had a mixed bag in terms of transportation as it regards to the november election. we have proposition 22, which went long way toward securing transportation funds. i hesitate to say dedicated transportation funds, because they turned out to not be dedicated in years past when the legislature has seen fit to borrow those funds to balance the budget. now we have a proposition that says the transportation funds can only be used for transportation and cannot be used to balance the budget. that is good news. unfortunately, the election coupled that good news with
proposition 26, which has now turned every user fee into potentially a tax, and raised the bar to a supermajority for getting those things passed. without boring you with the details, i think there are some implications you need to be aware of, especially in regards to the funding deal that was approved as part of the initial budget approval, the one that happened 100 days after the deadline. that budget included a swap where the sales tax oreplaced an excise tax. that was on a simple majority vote for the simple reason that there was a net no change in the amount of revenue generated, but there is a reid already that prop. 26 might change that.
it is retroactive for certain measures back to january 1, 2010. it may be necessary for the legislature to reopen that deal and do it on a super majority basis. if it is not able to achieve that, that would mean a significant reduction in transportation money available around the state. and of course, we are talking about a reduction of budget that is already in the works. we're worried about it and we're watching this very closely. i will keep you posted about this as we begin to see it in the next month. there's an item on my report about the central subway, but you already heard from the chair. i'm delighted to say that we did come to a what we believe is a workable plan. 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 district. finally, we want to rejoice in the fact that the bay area clinton program has awarded a total of $14 million for various projects that provide opportunities for innovative pilots in the area of regional like sharibike sharing, san frao city car share, and most notably, an electric vehicle battery swap program that mta
will be doing. they are all exciting projects. the one that the authority is leading is management partnership project that i think will be the colonel for some very interesting and innovative ways in mobility in alternative ways around town. it will involve employers and agencies around the city. that is a summarized version of my report. i'm glad to answer any questions. that concludes my report. commissioner mirkarimi: any comments or questions? any public comment on items three or item four? public comment is closed. >> we could go back to item one. i know that commissioner avalos is not here today. he has a sick