three different meetings and i will call them separately. the meeting of january 9th, 2020, are there any additions or corrections to this meeting? any public comments on this meeting? may i have a motion? >> to approve. >> second. >> all those in favour? the motion carries. secondly, we have the approval of the minutes for januar january 14th. any additions or corrections. any public comment on the meeting of january 14th? may i have a motion, please? >> i move the item. >> all those in favour? any public comments on the meeting of january 16th. may i have a motion? so moved. all those in favour? >> approved. >> commissioners, you all know i attended budget meetings. and i thin take those matters vy seriously and one of the reasons why i come and attend those meetings personally is so that after i do my research, what i call empirical data, i can write about it. what is happening is with our resources, if you are not very serious in what we have, where we get our pristine water from and how we bring it down the three pipelines which once were full and that's why i mention the name of the engineer. i wish he was in that room in spirit. if we do not seriously address our resources and time is running out, then we will be in deep, deep trouble. now even as we speak, we flush or toilets with clean drinking water. every time i go closer to homes, they always offer me that water and that water is sacred water. but some people don't get it. now, i saw you are wasting a lot of time, talking about the trails, this, that and the other. that's not important. what is important are the resources. what is important is climate change. what is important is what we have seen already and other countries are experiencing. that is important. now some of you all, and i know all of you all, but some of you all have institutional experience and memory. you have to pass it on to those who are willy-nilly, who give themselves titles like chief strategists, strategists of what, i want to know. where are we moving and what goal? are we going to a better place? and the only way you cab g can a better place is with your heart in the right place. that's the only way. so i'm now going to the board of supervisors. thank you very much. >> thank you. the next speaker is -- i'm going to apologize to begin with because i won't pronounce in correctly. , mr. mimo. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. , commissioners. one day i saw on my curbside somebody was fooling with my water meter or maybe checking and i felt a sick sense to check my bill and i looked and my bill was higher than the previous month. i call your department and i say this year was use 25% what we use normally and my bill is slightly higher. when the space inspection say, d your transponder not responding correctly and you have used $50. whereas it's normally a $100. so you have to pay for it. so your meter is showing 345 units and the transponder is saying 324. somebody came later on, took the tile out of the meter and i call the department, can you read. now cannot. ten days, 15 days and they cannot read. 529 must be. if i can't afford it cannot afft immediately, it's a collection. i say can you change the transponder now. no, these are all broken from other houses. so 50 sitting there could be 10,000 already moved from the city and this is a smart meter. you gave it to us and we are in this travel. i wish we should be. so this is the problem, what you can do now. i talked department to department and nobody knows. when they meet, i call the secretary, i left an answering machine message and didn't debt the message back andidn't get a. what is this? ten people in puc in the water department couldn't tell you when you meet and who you are. so this is the trouble we are going through in the public and these meters start checking every meter, check tens of thousands of transponders and if everything is wrong, change the system tomorrow, so please fix this problem. i gave it to you in write, this bill, which is on the screen, as well as the details of what happened. and please look into it. thank you very much. >> well, for the department, i truly apologize. looking at your bill, i mean, i would be astounded. so help me in terms of what we can do about this immediately. >> we'll definitely look into it and see what the circumstances are, but we do allow a payment plan if we determine that the amount used was more than -- the bill is more than they can afford and so they have a payment plan. first of all, to find out a situation and we'll back to them. >> i appreciate them. so you will give me a call somehow? thank you very much, i appreciate that. thank you. >> again, apologies. ok, any other public comment on this item? >> item 5 is communications. commissioners, any comment? no. moving along, the next item. >> item 6 is recognition of mr. carlos for his 44 years of service to the city and county of san francisco with 38 years of service to the san francisco utility's commission. >> well, first of all, i would like to call carlos decobo up at the podium. [cheers and applause] >> can you now give us the outcome of the budget? [ laughter ] >> just joking. when a veteran employee retires, there's mixed feelings. i think first of all we're happy that the person will live a happy life at home with his life and kids, but also with great sadness to see a person that meant so much to the department that leaves a void in our organization. and with carlos, it's going to be a big void. and carlos' case, he has served the city for 44 years, 44 years. i'm jealous, 44 years and 38 of those years with the puc. his outstanding work resulted in his promotion to budget director in 1997 which was way back when we had no water and we had a lot of issues and we just separated from muni, the anson moran years. [ laughter ] >> sorry about that. it gives me great pleasure to have worked with carlos when i came over to the puc. i can say that he's an outstanding financial and physical manager who contributes vastly to the success of the water movement programme. carlos vetted all of the compell projects and has tremendous knowledge and skill and when we needed money, we would say, where is carlos. so carlos will officially retire on august 23rd, 2019. however, he returned to the agency as a prop f, employee, to help develop our budget for the next two years which shows how dedicated he is to this agency. so you coulhe could have left ue wanted to do one more cycle. so i probably need one more psych example we macycle so we . [ laughter ] >> carlos, with deep gratitude, i wanted to thank you from the bottom of my art and the agency'heart and you meanso muc. i can't put it into words. so thank you for your service and then i'll turn it over to the commission president. >> exactly. well, carlos, to you, this is a very personal recognition of you, because i remember back, it was my second meeting of the commission in march of 1997. and for some reason, i thought we were dealing with the budget, but maybe you can help me with that. why were we dealing with the budget in march? my r is such. recollection is such and ihad t question i ever asked on this commission. and it had to do with a ratio. and our meetings were at 11:55 market street, which actually was a venue i liked very much because we're close to one another's staff and the commission. close meaning physically close. and i remember you went out to find out the answer at your office, your desk and came back and ever since then, i had this vision of you, whenever there was a question financially, i looked to you for the answer and this always remains, it's going to be very difficult and it has because you have already retired. but look out and not see you there to answer a very important question. so as i said, it's a personal thank you for your service and your wise intelligence. so congratulations. >> thank you, commissioner. >> i have not worked with you long, but anyone who dedicates and is that exited to an agency and to our city, i have to thank you. i have to thank you very much for all of that, because it takes a lot to stay anywhere that long and especially in an agency that grows and grows and gets bigger but your dedication to our city is one that is exemplary and thank you so much for that. >> thank you, commissioner. >> one of my roles these days is to remember the archaic bits of history and somebody comes along who is part of the old esoterismestestreaches of histo. we first knew each other at the district attorney's office. i was doing budget work and carlos was a forensic's accountant in the special prosecution's use the knit uniti came here, carlos was my second hire and probably my most durable. [ laughter ] >> while i appreciated then and now most is the quality of the man. carlos does it job, he dus doest quietly and as near as i can tell, nobody is involved in that and he gets it done. he's been doing that for 38 years. that's a tremendous accomplishment and a tremendous gift to the city. and i want to thank you and i know this whole commission wants to thank you, as well. we should also recognise some of the folks who are here, if i might. >> certainly. >> susan liale, ed harrington, former commission secretary jacksonville tompson is here and if i missed anybody, i'm sorry for i that, but we appreciate yr presence, as well. >> thank you for noting that. well, we've heard a lot about your activities and your commitment to date and what i am just so pleased about is that now you will be able to take some time to be with your family, to do the things that, perhaps, you might not have been able to do because you've been working so hard these many years. and i just want to wish you well and encourage and urge you to take some time, travel if you can, see the city in ways that you haven't before from this building, walk the streets didn't do whatever yoanddo whate retirement days because it's a special time and i wish you could go in your retirement and have a lot of joy and peace in these days after all of your hard work. so thank you. >> thank you. >> and i know that we have some folks in the audience that would like to speak. susan liale. >> carlos, as a rate payer, as native san francisco and formal general manager, thank you for your service. i was always told the way to be better is to higher people that are a lot smarter than you are and andy, and commissioner moran, you beat me to it with someone like carlos. and so i just want to say thank you. >> thank you. >> you really did a great job, but i think commissioner moran, when you spoke about the quality of the man, that's what comes across, carlos. so thanks again. >> any other public comment? >> when i heard carlos was leaving i thought i had to come here and make sure city hall was still standing. [ laughter ] >> good afternoon. i joined the andy moran, carlos show a couple years after they were starting, about 35 years ago. when you're new and try to meet feel and try to figure out what's going on, it's hard. carlos and his team were there. carlos took me under his wing, taught me about the city and puc and i will always remember their kindness. we had lunch everyday for years, just working through all of this stuff. the other part about carlos is, obviously, he's competent. and i remember a phone call one time when i was fairly new and carlos was talking to them. the process is to ask a mayor for the budget and they cut some things and you move on and carlos was able to answer like every single question they were asking, about muni, water, hechi, maybe the same discussion you were having with him, commissioner cane. and after he finished on, i said carlos, how do you know all of that and he gave me a nice smile and made me realize that carlos knows a lot about a lot of things and knows generally what needs to happen and generally the board and what analysts wanted to hear. he was getting what was probably true but not specifically accurate on a lot of those things. [ laughter ] >> certainly really good and quite sufficient to make the budget happen for us and that taught me a lot about how to work things through in san francisco, too. [ laughter ] >> so carlos, i wish you well this retirement and have as much fun as i do. [ laughter ] >> well done. any other public comments? >> yes, i'm a cryer, so hopefully i don't. so you've heard some of the statistics about carlos and his service to the city. i think what i rcm really wanteo focus are some of the qualities. we joined in 2001 when i joined as a financial planning director and we were peers and i made a lot of mistakes and carlos was helpful at letting me know. [ laughter ] >> but he has so many qualities that i admire and respect and one of them is his commitment to impeccable stewardship. folks know carlos throughout the organization as a fixer. you know, when you have problems with the budget, he comes and helps you figure it out. but he is also an impeccable steward and knows that the funds we deal with are rate pairer funds and does not have any problems picking up on half of the rate payers and so i admire that about him. i admire how he connects and cares about with people. it's at the core of his leadership which is silent, non- egotistical and i hope we stay in touch. >> i have a problem cla makes froproclamation fromthe mayor o. therefore it be resolved that i, mayor london bree, on this occasion of carlos' retirement from city service hereby proclaim january 28th, 2020 as carlos decobo day in san francisco. [cheers and applause] >> i, too, have something to add to that, a resolution from this commission. i don't have it, but it's somewhere -- [ laughter ] >> but i have the last paragraph. on this occasion of carlos' retirement, we will finally remember and greatly miss impeccable professionalism his graciousness, his generous mentoring of others over the years and most of all, his integrity. it is with tremendous pride that this agency expresses to you war carloswar,carlos, our very bestl as our deepest gratitude, congratulations and affection to you. >> thank you. >> and lastly, the greatest honor of them all is the honor that the general managers gives you. you know, it's sort of the same theme, but i just wanted to tell a little story, i go to the gym at the ymca and i try to get there by 5:30. and some days when i drive down to the embarcadaro, i will see carlos running in the morning. and he loves to run. i know that now running, you're trying to do other things in your life, but i want you to really enjoy your retirement. do the things you love. like ed harrington and others, because you worked hard and you need to spend the rest of the time with your family to really enjoy it. so with that, i want you to come up here, take pictures with all of your proclamations and with the commission. i would like to present you with the water meter cover, kind of heavy. so hopefully you have some people to help you carry all this stuff. [ laughter ] >> he has to tell the truth now. >> commissioners, i'm truly honored. thank you very much and this is very special for me. really grateful that i was able to spend all of my professional career, basically, serving the puc. over the years, i've met wonderful people i work with and those people i will always treasure and that's what made the difference to me staying in that job, the people that i was surrounded by, the people love me, the people next to me and below me. it didn't matter. i was able to work at all levels and it was a joy. i would like to recognise my life, laura. [cheers and applause] her understanding and support over the years. i know i came home sometimes where i'm not sure i wanted to talk to her. [ laughter ] >> but she stood by me. also i want to recognise commissioner moran because you opened a door for me at the puc. thank you very much. ed, susan, harlen, you provided leadership and guidance which it gave me a motivation to continue working. eric and charles, you both mentored me and at the same time you had a trust in me. and, of course, you made this possible. thank you very much. and last but not least, is the finance bureau staff, you were my big supporters and i really truly wouldn't be here if it had not been for you, especially the budget team. thank you very much. appreciate it. [cheers and applause] >> so with that, we move into the report of the general manager. >> wow! so on the report is a local renewable energy report, my kind. good afternoon, i'm the director of the clean power program. i'm here as a part of the report of the general manager today to present work that our power enterprise has undertaken to develop a draft, clean power sf renewable energy report. and if i could have the slides, thank you. i've got a number of slides here that i'll review and i'll cover some background on this report. the method taken to identify candidate sites for local, renewable opportunities, our findings and the next steps. and this report is part of a larger planning process that we're engaged in right now for clean power sf and that's the integrated resource plan which we've reported to you previously. eventually, with capital funding approval, the high candidate projects identified in this process will be evaluated further and preliminary design work will be undertaken. so that candidate projects that continue to show value and constructability will be pursued through the capital planning process. under state law, the san francisco puc must complete an integrated resource plan for clean power sf every two years. in this plan, we model a range of supply and demands in areas and sensitivities. the objective is to develop the least cost, best fit portfolio of electricity supply that meets program goals over a 20-year period including local development. for example, the plan that we're working on will analyze and propose a mix of electricity, resources to support meeting the city's goal of having a 100% renewable energy supply by 2030. the integrated resource plan analysis allow for a better understanding of the cost and energy delivery impacts including a range of resources, but also the local projects that we've looked at in this report. and integrating that into a total portfolio for clean power sf. of course, local renewable energy development has long been a part of san francisco's clean energy initiatives. the board of supervisors urged the san francisco puc to develop this report, focused on developing cost-effective projects on city property without increasing costs to repairs by 2030. the local renewable energy report findings inform our state required irp and ultimately our capital plan. we'll be bringing you clean power sf's first capital plan at the power budget workshop this thursday. and, of course, the sf puc has been investing on city projects in renewable project for a long time. the puc has developed 23 renewable projects to date, including this building, city hall, totaling 8.2 megawatts of solar power with $27 million invested and that's revenue of the hedge hechi program invested into these projects and there's battery storage on the way. so that's a little bit of context. now let's talk a little bit about how we approach this plan and what we found. we've structured our work around three project categories that were analyzed for cost effective development, in city, city-owned sites, regional city-owned sites and then sort of a catch-all of other opportunities in and near san francisco. this went beyond the request board of supervisors. sites were evaluated for suitability to develop within five to ten years and candidate sites were those that were came capable of exporting power to the grid and had no readily identified major barriers to development. and again, we're looking at a five-to ten-year window here. the candidate sites are rated and the high suitable rating means the site is worth further time and resources, further planning and analysis to determine whether a renewable project should be implemented at the site and funds requested. if yoa medium suitability ratins assigned to sites where we know a barrier will need to be addressed before we spend any more time on renewable development. so, for example, structural upgrades to some of our reservoirs would be an example of that seen through here and low suitability sites were those too small or had obstacles to development and the use of the energy to serve clean power sf. for electric resource planning and procurement, we have defined local as the nine county bay area region and this approach allows us to provide a preference for projects developed within our bay area. and it provides access to increased resource diversity, so as you can see from the map here, it allows us to access wind, energy resources and geothermal resources that can't be developed within san francisco. and it allows for larger project opportunities, improving the scale economies of a project and lower cost of construction than may be available in the san francisco-only projects. taking a regional approach provides the opportunity to balance what are higher cost sn francisco projects with lower cost projects, providing economic investment in the san francisco bay area, but also within the city. this balancing will also help to clean power sf maintain power affordability and cost competitiveness which is critical to our success. let's look at the cost data for resource types and sizes. this chart that we developed shows a range of project technologies and costs along the xaxis, we've grouped them in locations. on the far left of the scale are larger utility scale projects, so represent be, for example, solar or wind within the state of california. the middle segment is projects in the nine bay area and the far right segment would be in-city local projects. the blue bars represent the cost ranges we've identified for projects of those technologies and locations. anon a per megawatthour of ener. this is the electricity portfolio so that red line across which is 55 to $60 per megawatt hour and you can see the technology costs compare to that average. so i think the message here is we have to get the mix of resources and locations right in order to maintain affordability. and this slide helps to further that point a little bit. so there's this trade-off between cost and local energy and the amount of local energy that can be procured while still maintaining the average supply lost. this chart shows that if we procure local projects at an average of $80 a megawatt hour, which is on the far left side of this chart, the costs of the resources are on the bottom, the x axis, if you're reading this. so $80 on the far left side and that says that we can indicate local content, up to 30% of our supply portfolio without increasing our average supply costs. the higher the local costs that we mix into our portfolio, as we move along the horizonal access, decreases the total percentage that we can procure without increasing our cost repairs. so that red bar across the top represents stability in our portfolio. as the cost increases across the axis, we can incorporate less of it and it's a simple concept. we want to emphasize this idea of trade-offs and put this in the context of our portfolio. >> a lot of information. so jus just if i understand thi, because part of this is the local versus regional and the nature of the resource, right? so if the resource cost goes down, then that would change the axis, making the local content cheaper, potentially? >> potentially, and that's a part of the reason we have the sale. maybe you're getting at is the blue area. so the blue area -- the green area is the local content and the blue area is the rest of the portfolio. and if the rest of the cost of the -- the rest of the portfolio came down, then that would allow us also to have more local or reduce or rates, right? >> so another way look at it is a weighted average. so if you want to maintain the current price and not raise our price because we're fair foe and people stop opting out and that's what we want to protect and if we're trying to beat pg & e, how can we do that? and if we are able to do regional and state-wide content at a price that we're seeing now, this is how much local that we can afford given the price. now if the local content price goes down, then we can do more local but if it goes up, we would have to do less because we don't want to bump and make our program more expensive than pg & e. >> but, the local content piece is contingent on the local build-out, more or less, because we won't get more local content unless we create more local content and that will increase the price. >> well, another way say it is that, if you have a certain price and then you have to say, well, if i do this project, it's x amount of dollars, you know, can we actually do that with the rest of the projects without raising the price? that's how we would look at it. and so we probably would do some projects but not a lot, unless the price of those options go down. and then we would do more. and so the theme that we're hoping is that a lot of this technology will keep going down and even the regional and state-wide, if that even goes down, then we can actually do more of the local stuff. and we want to do local. mine, if wif we had a choice, wo a lot of local but we don't want people to pay more than pg & e. >> i appreciate keeping in mind that one of the real goals this local build-out, local jobs around clean energy, right? >> and we wanted to include this to really get at that idea of integrating all of the resources and what that means to our cost, right, and what the some of the trade-offs are. it might help to take a closer look at the specifics and some of the costs that we identify or estimate. so staff evaluated 132 in-city sites across multiple city agencies. the dots on the map here represent those sites. the bigger the dot, the larger the generating capacity of the project and the dot colour representing the clean power suitability rating. green being high, red being low and yellow being medium. and then you can see, too, the distribution of the sites review bid reviewed by a city agency oe table. and so driving a bit further into our methodology, our first screen, we implemented a number of screens to get through the 132 sites. so the first seen was prioritizing sites that could support projects with more than 250 kill lo250 kill250 kill lo2. the remaining sites were identified to identify potential risks and suitability for serving clean power sf. city agencies were contacted to determine their preferences for hosting a project to support clean power sf and to learn more about site details and their plans, for example, their capital plan. analysis was conducted to determine potential on-site generation and suit abilityabily assignments were assigned. so we'll drill deeper on that part of it. these are the site evaluation factors that we considered. we looked at really a number of risks to inform the suitability rating. we looked at structural improvements that might be required on the site in order to support a project. we looked at potential environmental impacts. we looked at risks to the asset, so, for example, one issue that we find in the port area is corrosion due to the marine air. and we also looked at technical export implications and that's exporting to the grid, so there are certain parts, actually, of the distribution system in san francisco where you can't export to the grid. for safety and operational reasons. we looked at other limitations on site usage and so the host agencies on-site demand more than we produce from the project. if so, then we flag that for serving that customer rather than serving clean power sf. we also looked at potential contractual issues of the site. we reached out to agencies to understand the preferences i indicated before and then, finally, we analyzed the cost of the projects. >> excuse me, could you go back over, if they generate more, that you look at it differently? could you explain that? >> so the city sites are served by public power utility and not clean power sf customers. so really, what we're talking about what this analysis is using city property and buildings as hosts to generate electricity and deliver it into the grid to serve the clean power sf program, a different set of rate pairers. payers. if the site has sufficient demandedemand to use that electy to be used, it's a different power to the site to just consume it behind the meter, rather than deliver it to a third party like another program like clean power sf. >> can you give an example? >> so when you generate behind the meter, you might offset your own electricity usage, so you might avoid a bill, a payment to hedge power and another arrange tharrangement would be the hedge power delivers the resource and the energy is used more efficiently behind the meter and there's fewer losses. when you transform the power and deliver it to the grid, you occur additional losses so there's efficiency issues there, as well. >> so, for example, like a treasure island, right, that's a hedge customer currently and if they were could develop additional power and then they continued on with their development of the island, which is theoretically going to contain a lot of housing and retail and whatnot, they would use the power that they've developed to power those facilities, right, rather than than shipping any of that additional -- >> that's the basic idea, yes. you use it and consumer it on site rather than sort of dropping it on the other side of your electricity meter and shipping it to clean power sf. ultimately, the electronics just flow into the system, but it would offset other supply needs that clean power sf would have, so that would reduce, for example, the energy from a thi third-party contract for the clean power sf program. our findings for city-owned sites is that we identified 14 as medium to high suitability for supply and clean power sf. and that comes out to 9.3 megawatts of high suitability, projects and 16.6 megawatts. you can see the cost range from the energy from these projects is between 79 and $159 a megawatt hour and it is expanding to the regional city-owned sites and there were six sites viewed and three met medium to high suitability ranking and ther we're estimati0 megawatts capacity as high suitability and four as medium. so there are smaller sites along with a larger one. and you can see the impact of the scale on the average cost being between 42 and $104 a megawatt hour. >> my question is, what percentage would you put on the two, the in-city and regional? >> what percentage? >> what percentage of total? >> of total, of what we looked at? >> in terms of what it's going to produce to us? >> i need to come back to you on what the contribution of the projects would provide in terms of total energy. it goes as high as $150 across the range and the medium suitability sites have issues that would need to be addressed before we move forward with the project. for example, structural reinforcement of the building. and these are the regional sites. the lower cost regional projects can help balance the higher cost in-city projects and support an overall higher bay area region renewable content. some other opportunities for developing renewable energy resources that we found include off-shore wind. this is the installation of wind turbins off the coast in the water and this hasn't been done yet on west coast and so this is an emerging application of wind energy. it's been deployed pretty significantly in europe and the u.s. just recently developed its first project on the east coast near rhode island. in this application, the wind turbines would be installed on floating platforms out in the sea. let's see, we also are taking a close look at the development of disadvantaged community solar programs. california state cap and trade funding has been made available to community-choice aggregation programs to develop green tariff and community solar programs for disadvantaged communities and about two megawatts of potential funding has been allocated to clean power sf. to subsidize suh a program. so we're analyzing that further and that's something we've identified as promising for further work. we're also analyzing the development of a feed-in tariff and under a feed-in tariff, clean power sf would pay building owners in san francisco to feed electricity into the grid. so very similar to what we've been talking to with city properties, but this would be targeted to private properties. we're still conducting analysis on the potential o potential ofa program but initial results indicate two to ten mea megawatf rooftop solar could be cost effective in ten years from such a program. so what are the next steps? we intend to continue planning and development of the high suitability candidate sites. those amount to 49 megawatts to new solar and 40 megawatts of battery storiage. we'll be coming back to you on thursday with the clean power sf capital plan and that will support additional planning and anticipates project construction. the early years of the plan propose funding, additional planning with the latter years supporting cost of asset ownership. and meanwhile, we'll be continuing to keep an eye on the medium suitability sites to positioourselves to partner witt agencies to be high suitability sites. >> you mentioned if a site is producing more than it uses, is the battery storage a possibility? >> it is, absolutely. so we've been doing a lot of work, looking at battery storage and it's a technology with a number of different applications, not all of which you can do at the same time. so for the sites that we looked at for this plan, we were looking at using the battery storage to shift the energy production from the solar plants from the middle of the day to the evening or early evening. , where energy is now getting much more costly. and we've been seeing, because so much solar is coming out of the grid that cost of energy in the middle of the day is coming way down. so that's a way to also balance it against our customer's demand. >> so if we were looking at using, say, city hall, we could have the battery storage somewhere in the basement and would that be a program that you would consider or something like that? >> that's really a different application, most likely. so i mentioned the shifting of energy. another application would be using the battery to provide back-up power. and if you pair it with a solar project, you can provide clean back-up power in the case of a grid emergency, yeah. just a couple more here. so we're not proposing to do any further work at this time on low suitability sites and as is our practise in power, we'll keep an eye on those sites for the potential of any of these ratings to change. we're sort of always doing that with our city sites. we're also proposing to move forward with the development of a feed-in term program and solar community programs and we'll keep you apprised of progress in those areas as they take a more defined shape. we will be looking for opportunities to partner with opportunities on off-shore wind as the technology matures and pathways for development become clearer. the redwood coast energy authority, which is the community choice energy program serving humboldt county and cities in the area is partnering with an area off the coast of the humboldt project and looks to be one of the first projects in california and there will be other sites opened up by the federal government for leasing over the next several years. so we'll be paying close attention to that. and, of course, we will do everything here with engagement with our community and stakeholders. we're proposing to engage with stakeholders over two phases with the first phase focusing on taking the work i've presented to you today together with our integrated resource plan to the community of the next couple of months. so we're planning to present the integrated resource plan to the commission, the power cac and local agency commission later this quarter and targeting an april approval by this body. so the plan is to come with another presentation to inform you about the work we've undertaken with the integrated resource plan in advance of a vote. , which would come later. integrated resource plan is due to the california puc on may 1st. so that's our deadline. and we'll be sharing updates with the members of the board of supervisors and their offices and we'll be inviting community-based organizations to our roundable to receive a general update on the table, but also some content on our integrated resource plan. and we're relaunching a newsletter which we'll use to update and inform our customers. we anticipate that our capital plan approvals will fund recommended next steps and that will begin next fiscal year and then we'll begin next fiscal year with a round of engagement and that second round with include meeting with community stakeholders and host city agencies to further pursue potential sites, projects on their sites. so with that, i'm happy to take any other questions you might have. thanks. >> are we working with hope sf, which is doing a lot of building in the housing developments on patrol hill and bayview, sunny sunnydale? thank you for the question, commissioner. barbara hail, generate assistant manager, yes we are. we're working to improve the electrical grid that serves them as well as energy efficiency and other program areas. >> great, and wher are we givine who live there stakeholders and be a part of whatever groups you're doing, at least they are aware? >> yes. >> and we're working with the mayor's office of economic and workforce development, as well, who are managing those projects. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> can i ask a question about the site review? did you -- what about the watershed lands? do we look at those and the opportunities out there, especially the public access portions? >> so some of the sites that we've identified do include some of those lands. >> like a knoll? >> yes. >> i had a vision of putting solar panels along and some microhydro-in the new tunnel. i'm wondering if you're thinking about the creative, innovative ideas. >> you know, we're happy to take in more ideas and to do a round two of this. the sites that i identified here are the extent of what we looked at for this round. and i do want to point out the work done by our staff was on quite an accelerated schedule for this. and our planning doesn't stop with this report, it doesn't stop with the integrated resource plan we'll bring to you in next quarter and we'll continue to do that work. so this is an ongoing process and we'll always be looking for a new potential site across the puc, across the city. so happy to consider other possibilities. >> it just feels like we're such large land holders and this is a secondary use which it seems like you covered the lands are not real estate, which we don't use for primary purpose or primary used to. utility. and i understand the sensitivities of watershed development, if you will, but just feels like something done around energy production, clean renewable energy on the available lands, we should at least review it, taking into consideration all of the potential pitfalls. >> i think one other way to think about what we've done here in the next steps is, we've identified projects that we've been aware of that we think have the best potential that previously we really didn't have a use for. and i think they'll give us an opportunity to try things out because we know there are competing uses for some of these site expose we alsites. >> another factor is how close you are to transmission or distribution by the grid. >> absolutely. >> so you can have a space out there, but you're not close to the grid, you have to get it there and it could be very costly. >> that's right. >> well, it's very exciting. thank you. >> any public comment on this report? >> mr. kelly? >> the next item is our sewer system improvement program, major project update and i think steven, you'll introduce the project manager of the southeast community centre. >> i'm steve robinson, the program director and as we kick off 2020, providing updates on the major projects in the program, we thought it was timely and fitting to talk about the community center and i'll hand it over to shelby campbell to provide that update. >> good afternoon. i'm shelby campbell. the i thought i would start off with a recap of the project. the new southeast community center will be located at the corner of evans avenue and third street. the plans were five-acre site include a three-story building community center and pavilion for the picture room and kitchen. in the three-story building on the frowne groundfloor is child, cafe and offices for the sf puc staff. on the second staff is multipurpose safe and classrooms and on the third floor is tenant space for our tenant partners and additional multipurpose space. the two-open acre space is play years for children, picnic areas, and the project includes a parks lot and a site for future education building. this is an exciting time for this project as we get time to start construction. the total budget for the project is 108.5 millions of which 70% is construction costs. to recap our milestones, in 2017, we complete a design and at the final civic design review, the commissioners appraised the project stating it will be an award-winning building and the most exciting project in the city that they're looking forward to. in 2019, we also awarded the cmgc contract to pacnc and the cm contract to the allen group. this year, we're starting construction within weeks and we'll achieve substantial completion on time at th at the. we awarded the cmgc contract last january and the sf puc issued the notice to proceed with preconstruction in april and in september, we initiated a procurement with demolition and structural-steel bid packages. to date, over 80% of the bids have been advertised. we issued the notice to proceed for construction two weeks ago and we're getting the construction office and site ready to start construction and the ground-breaking ceremony has been scheduled for saturday, march 7th. over the past nine months, the team has worked diligently to implement a local participation strategy and thanks to the efforts of my colleagues, this is now expanded into a unified work plan across all assistant projects at the southeast plant. the key components of the project are outreach with a hyper local target and strategies to remove barriers by matching projects with lb capacity and targeting workforce training and barrier removal from workforce interested in the projects. the local participation consultants for 1515 evans are joyolanda jones and james bran f jbr partners. our contractor and consultant partners are generally committed to the mission of what this project means to the community. we're in the process of awarding 11 of the 27 trade packages representing 65% completion of procurement on a dollar basis which means that we've completed the major trades. on the bids awarded to date, we've achieved 43% lg participation and 20% are with local minority contractors, including ground control, gunmens, hby8 pioneer and red dropper. dipper, sorry. put my glasses on. five of the 11 contracts, we've awarded had a 75% or greater lbe participation. the bids are trending 10% above or estimated costs but we're working diligently with the subs to review drawings page by page to identify savings and realign the project back to budget. the two biggest are structural steel and electrical. the structural steel sub says every fabricator in the market is booked and the only suggestion for savings was to start construction in august of '21. he told us if we start next year, we can get 1.5 million back and beyond budget. as for electrical bids, the contractor calls the bids we received no-thank you bids and the contractor who wins things, i'll have to figure out how to do this project. i have to say the electrical sub has been a true project at the table, spending hours to find solutions. for incidencfor instance, theret blighting package deemed comparable and that was a $200,000 savings. the good news is, we're ready to start construction, starting with abatement and demolition of the warehouse building in february. our kick-off is thursday and our first partnering meeting is on monday. orchestrating everything in place to start construction and then pushing everyone at the end of construction are always the most challenging points of a project. we're also working on a facility's management and operation's and maintenance plan for 1515 evans and intented to issue rfp some time this year. another update this year is at the public art for the project has been selected and i'm sure randall will provide an update. and with that, i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. what is unique about this building since we are the publig it and we deal with water and power? are there any water features that are going to be there, that people can see in the activity area? are there any educational, outside educational treatments that people will be able to identify and learn from and is it going to be any outside exercise equipment? if you go outside the country, people are doing that with open spaces and especially since this is not necessarily in a park but somewhere where there are people and eyes on it. this is definitely a use -- i'm sorry, start with the last end of your question, the adult exercise equipment, so that green area that's next to the education building, we're kind of leaving that open for additional programming space in the open space. , which is now just a lawn area. so because on the left-hand side, you see the bio swells and so that's our main demonstration feature is stormwater control with bioswale garden on the left-hand side. so that's a waste water, stormwater control and then renewable energy on the roof. >> that's great, but i mean, we're surrounded by water on three sides. there should be something so when people come that features that. there could be a drip of water showing you where this water goes. right, sorry. i do have that feature. >> we do? >> yes. i forgot about that. so on the community center building, the rainwater from the roof, we will demonstrate the travel of that rainwater down an exposed pipe down the -- drain down the building and then it will be exposed at the sidewalk and we'll have a trench plate over the sidewalk and show that water flow to the bioswell. >> ok. that sounds great. i just think in addition to, that's wonderful -- >> i agree. we did evaluate treating water on site, but the building just really isn't large enough. >> we don't have to do that. that's pretty big, you're right. but i mean, i'm just thinking that being that we're surrounded by water on three sides, there could be somewhere showing the bay and how deep it is or just where people are. i mean, i've been to places where -- i mean, like in europe and in germany, there's a drip. you can see in front of their city hall. and there's just water features and i think since we are the public utilities, you are on the bay side and people there live around that. we have more waterfront than anywhere else, that there could be some idea of how we could show something different, because if not, it's a lawn with bioswells but something that relates it could where you are in the surrounding and in the bay and the water. because people don't always realize that. >> so i would say it's more of a holistic approach. we have, actually, 15-50, but we also have the treatment facility, as well. and there we have a prominent water feature. >> i would like to see somethin. uc. we can still think about it. we don't have people look at something that would consider that. >> in our installation -- >> what i would say that we should definitely talk about it, but we thought that, you know, we wanted to focus on the waste water side because this is a waste water mitigation and so we wanted to talk about, you know, stormwater management and stuff like that. this is something we can talk about the other programming we have. >> it's not either/or, right? i'm saying and, because stormwater goes where and we're preventing it from going where? into the bigger ocean, in the water, right? >> that's the whole thing with the bioswells and stuff. but i would love to chat with yoyou. we're going to manage the berm. >> the focus with the art installations because we did have that discussion and it was beside it to go more towards cultural installations as opposed to who the sf puc is because this is the community center, as opposed to a building that's for the sf puc. >> i think it all goes together because this community has lived with the puc for many, many years and so we are intertwined and i don't think it's either/or. it's and. people that live there and people coming there, you don't even recognise that the ocean, the water is right down the street and how it affects the whole community. so thank you. i appreciated commissioner maxwalemaxwell's comments and ie to see interpretive signing to say this is how much water is taken out of the stormwater system, the bay is over there in case you need to know the connection. my day job is one of our core partners and they're doing incredible work and have developed a campsite out there now for the community and they have a whole, like, greenhouse where they have a native plants that they are using to plant the whole, you know, southeast and selling plants now. plus, there's a whole kayaking program and it would be nice to off through the community center local programming that would actually take people to the water, to the bay. and so just, you know, for us to really be thinking about programming that will tie in both with public utility and education and sort of local efforts that are going on from getting people out in the bay and activating the community down there. >> it would be great to learn more about that, what is the bigger communication plan that will be offered to the community as part of all of these pieces. >> i would like you to get back to us in terms of how to incorporate these ideas set fort with thsetforth and you should y there is a community center that's there could begin you? to know what the water shed is and what that means, we have an opportunity to educate people on that who live in the community so there's definitely a community tie, and there's new people coming into the community. so that would be a great idea. and also to talk about why it's there. and i just think we can do more right now. this is an opportunity. because we are having sea level rise, we are having all these things happen. people need to have an idea and we can do that in such a wonderful and interpretive way that kids can hop and things and learn and touch something and learn. there's that. >> that's another discussion. >> so what we'll do is we'll definitely maybe have some conversations to get some of the ideas you have. i think the timing is perfect, because we are starting to do ground breaking, and we are going to do demo of the existing building. >> it's really an exciting opportunity. thank you for all your work. it's really looking great. now is where the fun stuff is from our perspective. what these ideas and community engagement pros can be. >> great. thank you. >> very productive. any public comment on this presentation? >> next item is an update on pg&e bankruptcy and city acquisition offer. >> assistant general manager for power. so this is the time we have an for an update on the pg&e bankruptcy. i'm going to provide a brief update on the topics. our regulatory activities primaryry at the california pg&e, some of our special work. with respect to the bankruptcy of pg&e itself, as we previously discussed, both pg&e's preferred plan and the ad hoc committee plan are before the bankruptcy judge for consideration. these are separate competing plans of reorganization for pg&e to meet the financial obligations they emerged from bankruptcy. on january 23, pg&e announced it has reached agreement with the note holder committee that the note holder's committee will withdraw that you are alternative plan and support the pg&e preferred plan. so now we would have just one plan before the bankruptcy judge for how pg&e would emerge from bankruptcy. in its announcement, pg&e recognized it needs to work with key stakeholders, including elected officials and the california p.u.c. and i'm going to quote how pg&e will look, act and be held accountable, as it emerges from bankruptcy. in a filing regarding this newest plan, the governor's office said that it believes the plan fails to address his earlier concerns, these are concerns that were expressed in a december 13 letter. i summarized that to you januar. and the governor also said that he sees it as an attempt to leverage the bankruptcy process to force the state into accepting a quote, subopt matt matt -- suboptimal plan. pg&e hasn't filed this plan. it only has pg&e's announcement. there is a status conference in the bankruptcy case tomorrow, the 29th, before the bankruptcy judge. we expect to learn more there. there's also a filing that pg&e has to make before the california p.u.c. that filing is on friday the 31st. that starts to get into the california p.u.c. and the regulatory topic i wanted to talk about. the california p.u.c. has an investigation on the plan already opened and begun. pg&e is required to file testimony supporting its preferred plan and addressing its compliance with the ab1054 requirements. so as a reminder, those requirements are fair treatment of victims employees, continuing to make progress on climate change initiate is through pg&e, demonstrating how the plan is newt ran on average to rate pairs and how the plan positions the company for safe, reliable and affordable service. so those are the metrics that were laid out in ab-1054. the governor said so far he hasn't seen a plan that meets that. on friday pg&e is supposed to have filed testimony that speaks to those issues. and that may be the first time we see actual filed documents that describe this newest plan. we are following that case. and together with the city attorney, we are evaluating our level of engagement in the case. at this point we anticipate that we will be prepareing testimony. then the third topic is legislative. at the last meeting i reported that the bill that we were proposing for senator wiener's introduction was introduced. it's been -- it's in print as senate bill 804. this is the bill that would allow local agencies to qualify bonds for more favorable credit ratings and reduce service coverage. if it was pass, agencies like ours could use the authority to make power systems more resilient and safer and cleaner but financing infrastructure liar battery storage, combinations of renewables and storage, distribution system acquisition and improvements. staff have continued to work with stakeholders to garner support for senator wiener's bill. the california municipal utilities association, for example, has come out in support of the bill. the legislative activities are underway and percolating. the p.u.c.'s policy and government affairs team is plugged in and will keep coming back to you with further information as things develop. so i talked about those three things. i mentioned a couple of the internal activities we are doing like the legislative activity and regulatory activity. we have also completed our work on a refresh of our 2015 business plan. we are continuing to o on our operational readiness to take on expanded service responsibility and preparing to request an indicative credit rating for the new envisioned enterprise were we to expand. so with that, i'm happy to take any questions you may have. thank you. >> no questions? any public comment on this report. >> that concludes my report. thank you. >> next item, please. >> item 8 is a bay area water supply and conservation agency report. >> good afternoon, commissioners. harlan kelly, general manager. thank you for the opportunity to speak to you again today. i believe your secretary passed out a statement that is really going to be the focus of my comments today. as you'll recall, i came and spoke to you at your last workshop on your water enterprise budget. and in february, this commission will consider adoption of your ten-year cip and two-year budget that's been proposed by your staff. boska supports the projects included in this program. i think they are necessary to protect the water interests of the 1.8 million residents and community organizations we represent in three counties. importantly, we also support the inclusion of the increased funding for water supply programs that's included in that to meet your legal and contractual obstacle debases for water supply. and i've -- obstacles for water supply. we propose additional staff be hired to perform the work. we are concerned even with those additions, implementing the c.i.p. will require a greater number of internal staff and more outside support to get the job done on time to ensure the water system remains reliable and able to deliver an adequate supply of water when and where it is needed. this issue should be addressed promptly by the commission and fixed with additional money for inside staff and outside consultants. so i request the commission look more closely at the tasks to be tone and resources recommended by staff to do them. it could lead to failure if this is not fixed. it is needed to put up the money today rather than delay. we are committed to paying our fair share. this need is increased by climate change impact to our water supply. the commission should follow the law which requires the p.u.c. to acquire supplemental water supplies. included is additional funding for the regional groundwater storage and recovery project which is a critical project included in your state-mandated water system improvement program. the need for this additional funding so it can meet its water supply goal. what we don't understand and cannot support is any suggestion that this is complete without the individual projects and achieving the specific project and program objectives that have been set forth by this commission. the oversight was extended by the legislature for another six years. we want continued state oversight for this program until it is completed. so in summary, we support c.i.p., we support the projects and pleased to see the water supply program included and appreciate your hard work on both these programs, but we want them properly staffed and funded so they can be successfully implemented. we ask the p.u.c. state the course as established recently by the state legislature. i thank you for your time and i'll answer any questions you might have. that completes my comments. >> commissioners? >> i do have a question. are there specific areas that you have concern? and if so, what are they? >> so we do have some areas of specific concern. we had discussions with those at a staff level. we regularly meet with your staff, we had the opportunity three times to meet on the c.i.p. as it was being developed. so those have been conveyed in previous meetings. around the ability to actually get projects implemented. you have a lot of funding appropriation that hasn't been used in the last several years, and it was a great task to bring that forward to make sure you used that. but that indicates some difficulty in actually implementing projects that were planned. so the question is how do you overcome that? and we've had some discussions about that. but i think that's also a conversation that's really appropriate sometimes at a staff level. so i don't have any more that i was planning to prepare and speak to you today about. >> well, that has to be ongoing with staff. so i'm sure that we will make sure that that happens. >> yeah, we will work with nicole and her team to talk about how our plan to actually implement the program and meet the schedule. >> yeah. i would be curious for there to be a feedback loop on that and better understand how much we are talking about and to really get some more specifics, because i've had the same concern as i expressed in our budget hearing that i'm just -- this real urgency around water supply because of unknown factors, regulatory climate, climate change, whatnot, and want to make sure we are not caught unawares or underbudget, if you will, for what we need to get done. and i know that steve has done a lot of thinking on this. but since we are in our budget hearings now, it feels like an important time to really figure out specifically what we are talking about and what we need to get to where we need to be. worst-case scenario, right? is how we should approach this, i feel. >> i just want to say the second week of february, february 25 we will definitely give you an update of where everything is. in the budget, we also have a schedule. but we will iron it out in more detail. so we'll work with you and talk to you about the update that we'll give then. >> good. any further comments? >> i want to be making decisions before that, though. meeting on the 11th of february. >> i think what nicole said, and correct me if i'm wrong, the money is not the issue, it's the resources, meaning contracts and higher folks, right? >> the question is your ability to deliver it. and so if there's reallocation within existing resources, if that's something available, that's something to be looking for or processes that need to be back. obviously there were a large number of changes that happened. and what's gone on since then and what happened and why do we have that, and if it is more resources, more program management, consultant resources, those are things we have seen in the past have assisted the p.u.c. in getting work done. >> yeah. so i'm hearing it's beyond money. >> resources could be the element but for some reason they are not. >> let me be clear. i was here when we did the weather system improvement program. and there was a lot of doubt by everyone. but what we did is we came up with an implementation plan of identifying what we were going to do in house, who was going to manage what projects, how we were going to get a program manager or not, hire the environmental consultant, design consultant, construction manager, design on the contracts and stuff like that. so we will come out with an implementation plan to do that. we have more than enough resources to do it in house, because infrastructure has 80 positions that are vacant. so we can actually manage around that. we have the ability to issue contracts that we did. so i'm confident that we'll be able to do it. so we just need to come up with an implementation plan and work with folks to get a plan so that we can make this happen. but i must say that just keep clear that a lot of these projects are not totally in our control. and so we have talked about you making sure that we have the right resources to gently push folks that are the lead in being responsive and keeping on the burner. so these are the things we are going to work on. so why don't -- i would suggest, you know, let us work with you on the february meeting to hopefully maybe address some of your concerns and so we can move forward after that. >> and that's when we'll hear about the implementation plan? >> will we have the implementation? yeah. i think we will have the schedule be who is involved. but the actual types of contracts, environmental contracts, how many, that's something that we need to kind of work out. because there are challenges that are different from that program. we can't do business with. so we might have to come up with another strategy. >> yes. i think your latter remark is very true. certainly, we have the plan. we had to fine-tune it because environmental, not environmental, but the total environment has changed, because as you stated, there's states that we can't do business with. there's increased costs, materials, there's whole new venue. so i think what i would like to call it is really really tweaking our plan, because we do have a plan. i don't want it to sound like we are sort of lost at sea, not having an overall plan. but i'm glad she brought this up, because it makes us all work together in a more positive way. >> well, i appreciate the commission's attention to it and your questions significantly. and also i look forward to working further with the general manager and assistant general manager. >> good. thank you. >> any public comment on this last report? next item, please. >> item 9 is new commission business. >> commissioners? yes? >> i would like to add on our thursday hearing, go back over some things that i need clarifying on, and that was the tunnel issue from $689 million down to $250 million. and the other was the fire hazard, the high-risk fire. and then the $20 million trail. i don't remember what. oh, it was at crystal springs trail. the one that was six miles. and maybe the other one too. we might as well talk about both of them. thank you. >> so that will be first on the agenda at the thursday meeting. we will go through questions. those will be distributed to us? >> at the meeting, yes >> okay. next item, please. >> item 10 is a consent calendar. all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar, are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission and will be acted upon by a single vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of the items unless a member of the commission or the public so requests, in which event the matter will be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate item. >> any items to be removed? to the general public, any item to be removed from the consent calendar? seeing none, may i have a motion? >> so moved >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye >> opposed? the motion carries. next item. >> item 11, approve modification of the san francisco public utilities commission's on-site water reuse grant program rules to double the amount of grant funding for eligible projects. >> mr. ritchi >> steve, assistant general manager for water, this is to approve modification of the on-site water reuse grant program rules. you previous lydell gated the authority to make changes in those -- you previous lydell gated the previously delegated the authority to make changes in those. we need to increase the amount in individual grants that might be available to get the best leverage to get recycled water projects done by individual facilities. so i would recommend that you approve modification of the rules to increase the eligibility, basically from $100,000 to $200,000 for projects that can deliver 450,000-gallons a year. and from $500,000 to $1 million for projects that be deliver 3 million-gallons per year. >> why? what did you see that made you think we needed it? >> the projects are costing more, so if we increased our share, that will help make sure the projects get accomplished >> and where does the money come from? >> just basically from the p.u.c.'s water revenues. >> i would like to move the item. >> second. >> general public, any comment? discussion from commissioners? no? i'll call the item. all those in favor? >> aye >> opposed? the motion carries. next item, please. >> item 12, authorize the general manager to execute a memorandum of understanding between the port of san francisco and the sfpuc for the development for the total cost not to exceed $500,000. >> i think this is rather clear. >> thank you >> i just have one question. >> i'm happy to take any questions. assistant general manager for power. >> i just wanted to ask if this is one of those clean power candidates for what we were calling about, integrated resource planning? >> any development opportunity we have in the city could be. and he alluded to this when he presented the local energy report earlier. one of our challenges is we have a built environment that isn't a lot of roof space. it's more built up, right? so the roof space available for, like, solar on the roof, the garage space for storage in the basement are a pretty prime real estate for us here in the city. and typically the amount of space we have on the roof couldn't accommodate a solar generation system large enough to have export energy. so it's likely that projects like this, to the extent renewables and storage are entregrated on-site, it would all be consumed within that site. having said that, that doesn't mean we won't explore those opportunities, but that's just kind of the physical space constraints and realities that we are dealing with. and in this particular site, we are developing this as a hetch hetchy power grid. and looking at opportunities at sites like this for distributed energy resource opportunities where solar, storage, electric vehicles, all that kind of more modern grid can happen, because beyond the grid, and we can't control what happens there. >> i would love -- and i mentioned this before, but i would like to keep us moving toward developments being distributed generators and being able to power themselves at that time a minimum. clean power is great, but it feels like with these new developments that are already looking towards sustainability to really make it a unit of development that can generate its own power and just however we need to work that into contracts and negotiations, i just would urge and encourage that to continue. >> we hear you. yes. >> and so why are we spending half a million dollars to take down the poles? >> oh, because undergrounded facilities is the preferred approach. this is temporary power, just to power the construction of the site. the underground facilities aren't constructed yet. so it just bridges us to when we will have underground facilities constructed and ready to provide the service. >> so we are paying for the poles because we are putting them up and using them to distribute power? >> yes. >> okay. >> temporary. >> yes. temporary solution until the facilities are all built. thank you. >> i would like to move the item. >> i'll second it. >> have i called for public comment? i don't recall. i'm calling for it now. if not, i'll call the question. all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? >> the motion carries >> item 13, approve the terms and conditions of and authorize the general manager to execute amendment no. 1 to the license agreement with c5 children's school, extending it, it he remember for five years for a childcare facility at 525 golden gate avenue for a $1 annual fee and waiving for purposes of this license the requirements of section 532 of the commission's real estate guidelines. >> this is quite clear. i don't think we need discussion. >> let's move the item >> second. >> i do have a question, though. what is the cost per child of a child attending? >> good afternoon. real estate director. some of the children get scholarships. that are in our zip code here. so i will find out the exact cost for people who pay full rate. the price varies between infant care and toddler care, because the infants have a higher ratio of caregivers. >> yes. i'll provide that information. >> i'm just curious about that. >> any public comment on this item? all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries. >> thank you. >> next item, please >> item 14, approve amendment no. 2 and approve the amendment no. 1 to agreement no. cs344, increasing the amount to $42 million for a total amount not to exceed $149 million and extending the agreement duration by two years for a total duration of seven years, subject to the board of supervisors approval. >> mrs. hale? >> thank you. so under this approach, what we are asking for is an amendment to be authorized by the board to support our ability to continue to participate in the california system operator market where we transact our power. a.p.x. provides the support to us in providing that service. all the power that we move around the state is transported on transmission systems that are operated by the independent system operator, and they bill us for services. a.p.x. helps us interact i.s.o. and much of the funds you see represented here are part of a pass through of the charges that the i.s.o. bills us for. we pay through a bill from a.p.x. the actual consulting services are a fraction of what you see represented in this in s contract. it is core to our business, and we need these services to continue to operate effectively, and i ask for your support. >> commissioners? questions? public comment on this item? all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries. and the last item, please. >> item 15, approve the award of a green infrastructure grant in the amount up to $1,118,958 to the arch diocese of san francisco parish and school persons real property support corporation. >> hello. i'm from the waste water enterprise. i'm excited to bring forward our third green infrastructure grant to date for the st. thomas more school located at 50 thomas more way. i would like to point out something that's different about this project is we slightly updated our funding disbursement procedures. they are still relatively the same but we have now four structures instead of three. we are going to bring that forward for official adoption in february. >> very good. >> why are we changing? >> we are updating to be more in line with our accounting procedures. >> okay. >> i have one question. the selection of projects remind me how that's done. is that based on requests presented to us? or do we go out and fund them? >> we have been doing a lot of extensive outreach to large property owners across san francisco, but ultimately they apply to us with their projects, and we score them against our five minimum eligibility criteria. so we have a size criteria, a performance criteria and certain minimum requirements for the grant and if that project meets those requirements, then we issue them for an award. >> and are we getting grant request from the types and variety of outfits that we wanted? >> yeah. so to date we've only had schools, which was definitely a target for this program, to public schools and this is a private school. in the queue right now that's being reviewed is a park project, another religious institution and i think the other one is -- we are seeing a wide variety. the types of projects that are applying are going to be institutional properties. we have a 20-year maintenance requirement. so it is not necessarily the best fit for private property that's going to be redeveloped. so we are working closely with those institutional landowners who know they are going to be committed to their site and using their site for 20 years. >> and is the unified school district active? >> yes. >> we didn't have a higher percentage. >> yeah. they were our early adopters. they are our first two projects. they are going into construction this summer. they'll be complete by the end of the year, which is really excite. and we are continuing to work with them on identifying additional sites. so we expect to see them apply for a couple more in the next year and next round. >> go ahead. >> what is the feature at thomas more? >> it's a combination. so they are utilizeing some pavements, rain gardens and just removal of impervious service. they also have an educational cistern. a smaller cistern that is collecting a portion of the water that's in their pre-k yard. so they wanted to highlight a variety of different technologies. we are seeing with a lot of our grantees so they are showcasing the pavement in the entryway, gardens in the schoolyard so they can showcase different technologies. >> so we are going to do that to, right? thank you. >> so francesca, didn't she go through one? >> yeah, we went to one >> which one? >> the pilot project at stevenson elementary school. that was completed in 2018 and that was our showcase as to how we could do this. >> and you are meticulously recording lessons learned and challenges and additional opportunities? >> yes >> so for a year from now, hopefully there are one on two online and they will say gosh, they are not using a cistern. >> yeah. we'll do that. because this program has a 20-year maintenance requirement we had to get authority from the board of supervisors to be able to enter into the agreements and that sunetts in at the end of the fiscal year so we we are starting next week at a big program update. so we will be back to you in a couple months with those recommendations and request to go back to the board of supervisors. >> great. and if you could give us a financial update on where we are with the grants program and what the demand has been, that kind of reporting. >> we coordinate it with their capital improvements, right? >> for the school district? >> yeah. for the schools. >> yeah. the first two projects to date have been green schoolyard bond projects that were already being delivered and we were able to supplement as they were putting forward. >> good. okay. any public comment? >> i have one last question. i know we are doing a lot of educational work with sf unified and i'm wondering about the connection because i know in oakland which i'm tracking more carefully, there's this living schoolyards program that is supposed to be activating schoolyard for community and bringing kids to learn science in the garden. just wondering if there's additional programming beyond the landscaping is starting? >> absolutely. so we are including a lot of educational signage and working with the school district on utilizing that in their programming. we are also as part of the development of the next phase of our capital projects with sfusd looking at how we can interact with the school community and look at doing more education and engagement through the project delivery process, delivering our capital projects. >> it would be great to stay informed on opportunities, because i know we are in the schools talking about where does your water come from. just like the community center to have that piece integrated i think would be great. >> very good. public comment? is there any? seeing none, do i have a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? motion carries. madame secretary, could you please read the items for closed session? >> yes, item 18 is existing irrigation, pacific gas and oil corporation, item 19, existing litigation city and county of san francisco versus pg&e, item 20, existing litigation with pg&e, regulatory complaint. >> is there any public comment on the items for closed session? seeing none, may i have a motion whether to assert? >> move to assert. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries. >> the commission has reconvened in open session. the announcement following closed session is that no action was taken and may have hav i haa motion regarding to disclose? >> second. >> do you move to disclose or not to doe disclose? >> move not to disclose. >> second. >> all those in favour. >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries. this meeting is adjourned at 4:21.