Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Budget And Finance Sub Regular Committee 42716 20160428

Everyone. Welcome to the San Francisco budget and finance Committee Meeting for april 27, 2016. Supervisor mark farrell i will be chairing this meeting. Im joined by supervisor katie tang. And supervisor norman yee . Madam clerk, any announcements . Yes. Please silence all cell phones and any speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted on today will be listed on the agenda unless otherwise stated. Supervisor mark farrell madam clerk. Well skip item 1 until we hear from the board of supervisors office. Lets go to item two. 2. Clerk [hearing budget update Human Services agency fys 20162017 and 20172018] sponsor farrell hearing to receive a budget update from the Human Services agency for fys clerk [hearing budget update Human Services agency fys 20162017 and 20172018] sponsor farrell hearing to receive a budget update from the Human Services agency for fys 20162017 clerk [hearing budget update Human Services agency fys 20162017 and 20172018] sponsor farrell hearing to receive a budget update from the Human Services agency for fys 20162017 and 20172018. Good morning, chairperson farrell and members of the budget finance committee. Im with the program bureau. The San Francisco lbe Program Stands for local Business Enterprise to provide small construction firms located in the sf puc to hetch hetchy for the Monitoring Division on a Regional Water System Improvement Program. There are 140 certified sf puc local Business Enterprises, firms. This will correct a mistake amaze in the legislation returning a provision back to the original language with some clarifications. The proposed ordinance states that sf puc lbes are eligible under certain situations. Noncost shared programs monitored by San Francisco. They would not apply if its submitted by an lbe. When i say lbe in that situation. Its a local Business Enterprise located in San Francisco. Project examples are mostly projects related to our power transmission. The second is the shared cost project which are projects where twothirds of the project is funding by the bay Area Conservation and 1 3 paid by San Francisco ratepayers. Basska is served by the hetch hetchy regional systems. This will be applied through San Francisco Utility Commission lbes on the Regional Water System Improvement Program. Repair and replace projects and other regional Capital Improvement programs. So in other words, the lbes and the citys lbes will be playing on a level field. Since the program went into effect with the San Francisco Public Utilities commission. In 2013 they went into to expand the sf puc program to include r and r, repair and repraes projects as well as other Capital Improvement projects located outside of the city. And in july 2015, the sf puc lbesque program expanded to include other programs outside of the city. We ask the commit to please recommend this item for the full board and im available for any questions. Thank you very much for your presentation. Colleagues, any questions . Okay. Thank you very much. We dont have an annual budget report on item 2. Is there any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Supervisor katy tang i would like to make a motion to send this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. All in favor say, aye. Aye. Any opposed . Item no. 3. [hearing budget update department of children, youth, and their families and First Five Commission fys 20162017 and 20172018] sponsor farrell hearing to receive a budget update from the department of children, youth, and their families and First Five Commission for fys 20162017 and 201720 [hearing budget update department of children, youth, and their families and First Five Commission fys 20162017 and 20172018] sponsor farrell hearing to receive a budget update from the department of children, youth, and their families and First Five Commission for fys 20162017 [hearing budget update department of children, youth, and their families and First Five Commission fys 20162017 and 20172018] sponsor farrell hearing to receive a budget update from the department of children, youth, and their families and First Five Commission for fys 20162017 and 201720 mr. Speaker 1234 ms. Fong is here to speak on this item. Thank you. This is a mix of sodium by the city for wastewater and for pipelines and reservoirs, the city issued a contract proposal on november 4, 2015. We received three bids. This is really just to show you the value in the city the city will save 1. 5 million based on the price from the low bid to the second low bidder. So we are glad to report that on the proposing term the contract is 3 years with 21year options to extend. Estimated spending is approximately 4 million per year. We are requesting approval of a contract cap of 24 million which includes a 20 contingency as requested by the department. Again, this is a contract cap. Actual expenditures will be approved by the board during the budget process. This is an essential component of our Water Treatment process and lca is recommending approval of the contract. Thank you. Supervisor mark farrell thank you very much. Colleagues, any questions right now . Can we get your report for item 3 . Yes, mr. Chairman and members of the committee. On page 3 of the report including the request to the amount to be total stilted cost is 436,401 and as stated is 14,500,000. We recommend you approve. Any comments . Is there any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues, any motion . Supervisor norman yee i will move to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. Without objection. Item 4. Clerk [certificates of participation interim financing for phase 1 of the Transbay Transit Center project not to exceed 260,000,000] sponsors mayor; kim, wiener and campo presenter good morning, supervisors. Im with the office of community and development and infrastructure. Before you today are two resolutions regarding site control and financing for units with Affordable Rentals known as transbay block 7. The first resolution authorizes the office of the community and investment structure to execute a 75year ground lease for the development and operation of Affordable Housing on transbay block 7. The second issue in an amount not to exceed 35 million. To give you a sense of the development, i will provide a very brief overview of the transbay project before running the items before you today. As you can see on the map provided, its extension of the south to the east. When completed transbay 7 will be a 120unit comprised of 53 bedrooms, 43 bedrooms and one managers units. This is target Household Incomes of 40 . To just under 54,000. The transit project created by Assembly Bill 812 thatten insures that 35 are occupied by very low and moderate income households. The project timeline, construction will start in june 2016 with an anticipated construction completion date of 2018. The approval has a term of p 5 years with one option to extend to 24 years. The approval by the boards is requesting pursuant to the redevelopment plan can which provides the board shall release any property pursuant to the agreement with the procedures that govern the agencies disposition of properties of that appears in the california redevelopment law. It was not acquired with tax increment monies with the Plan Requirement the board of supervisors approval is requested. The tax exempt bond issue also requested for your approval today is necessary for this project. As you know the bond issue is a conduit financing which does not require payment of the bonds. The tax bond allocation was the Allocation Committee in june of 2015. The bond allocation was awarded in 2015. To ensure the Development Team has enough time to begin construction shortly thereafter. This concludes Staff Support and available for any questions you may have. Also with me is the manager and we appreciate your support and hope you will join us at the grand opening. Supervisor mark farrell thump. Colleagues, any questions for staff . All right. Can we go to your report for item 4. On page 8 of our report, the base annual rent to be paid by mercy to the city of up to 1,860,000. The combined annual base of residual rent equals 10 percent of the appraised value for unrestrict use of 18,750,000. We recommend you approve this resolution. Thank you. Any comments . Okay. Is there any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues, any questions or motion. We have two items. I would like to motion to send both items to the board with a positive recommendation. Okay, a motion by supervisor yang and yee, we will take those without objection. No. 1. Thank you. Colleagues. Im going to keep my comments brief. As part of the process of this legislation, im introducing amendment from complying with the vending requirement the second. Im requiring the department of Public Health come back with that full report. The Affordable Care act would require this information. This package for the legislation is part of the meet and confer process that we went through here and i ask for your support for these amendments. First, if there is no other discussion, i would like to open up item 1 for Public Comment. Is there any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. A wondering why there is an exempt for vending machines located on property operated exclusive by we need to go through that with the union members. That was the result. Thats why we have introduced it today. All right. With that colleagues, can we accept a motion to continue these items for 1 week. Moved by supervisor yee and tang. Well take that without objection. All right. Would you continue with item 69. Would you like to continue that item to the call of the chair . To the next meeting. Clerk item no. 6. Apply for accept and spend congratulate Community Development Block Grant Program. 19,163,346; item no. 1. Apply for, accept, spend grant housing opportunities and persons with aids 9,213,192. Item 8. Apply for accept and spend grant home program 4,236,238. Item no. 9 apply for accept and spend grant Emergency Solutions grants program 1,484,425. Supervisor mark farrell okay, thank you very much. Brian chiu, director of housing development. You see before you four resolutions taken as a whole that will allow us to submit the whole action plan by may 2016 to hud requesting relief of those four formula grants that San Francisco receives. As you are aware the Block Grant Program funds a variety of social Services Programs as well as capital facilities for organizations that primarily serve low and moderate income here in San Francisco. The program, housing opportunities for persons with aids, for rental subsidies and operational subsidies for San Francisco residents with hiv or aids. The home Program Offers funding for new construction for Affordable Housing and the Emergency Solutions grants Program Provides funding for Homeless Services and from homeless prevention services. As we are moving into the second year, 1617 is the second year of a multiyear funding cycle. We were fortunate in that we were able to maintain the current funding levels for all of our grantees, the cdbg Program Grant last year, it was less than 25,000. We are glad that congress kept that flat. Our home program which has suffered some significant cuts received a small increase. The one program that did receive a fairly significant cut was the hopra program was reduced this year. We share those funds with the formula based on how many people are living with hiv and aids. We needed to dip into one time reserves for hopra. That does raise an issue of concern because all of our formula allocation is going into rental subsidies for People Living with hiv and aids. It seems very likely that hud and congress will be approving a formula change to the hopra program. This has incorporated the cumulative number of People Living with hiv and aids since this began when San Francisco was struck with the crisis. Since early on that formula has provided a base amount of funding and proposed to switch to a formula looking at those living with the number of those with hiv. That new formula would decrease hopa funds. Natural formula predictions that within 5 years would reduce San Franciscos hopa allocation closer to 5 million which would require either the elimination of longterm rental subsidies which helps People Living and would require the operation in the subsidies for the chronically ill. If this trend continues, we are going to need to either make those Service Reductions or identify other Funding Sources for that. I wanted to flag that for you for a significant cause for concern moving on. Other than that, i think we were happy that we were able to main taken all of the Funding Sources, all of our grantees will remain stable moving into next year. Excuse me, one other item, due to the right increase of the new department that will be focusing on homeless issues, the Grant Administration of our Emergency Solutions Grant Program because that is a dedicated homeless funding stream, we have been working with the Mayors Office and the Controllers Office so that grant can be integrated to allow for better coordination and integration of homeless service. While our department will remain the point for the hud funding and well bring that forward to present that, the added fund will be moved to the department for more efficient ways of administering our homeless funds. I will be available for any questions you may have. Supervisor mark farrell colleagues, any questions . Is there any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Supervisor katy tang i would like to make a motion to send items 69 to the full board. Without objection. Item 10. Clerk item 10. Business and tax regulations code parking Tax Exemption for certainty parking events on School District property. Colleagues, during big events from harvey to bluegrass to other events in the marina area allow many Parent Teacher organizations to hold School Fundraisers to help the school raise funds for the woefully inadequate state funding for schools. This helps to pay for computers and for art teachers to also keep fit programs at the school at the art level. The ptas and ptos have been doing this for a number of years for raising money for their schools. 2 years ago, the city and business and tax regulation code require these events be taxed like any parking tax. It created an unfair burden on the volunteer and organizers. Parents like me that have to be in the parking lot because people took them in and out for the sole benefit. Schools. I wanted to thank Jose Cisneros and mayor ed lee and his staff and the City Attorney. We worked for several months with the president at the time, michelle parker. I want to thank her for her work in the schools. And also Presidio Middle School and the school of sunset and jefferson which is very close to the park and does some very amazing parking lot fundraisers. We have a new law by reaping the full benefits to better meet the needs of the schools. The business and tax regulation code imposes a parking space in the city. Its very very broad. The parking station operator must collect the tax from the occupant along with the rent from the parking space and then remitts the tax from the city. Revenue control or equipment or rce requirements apply to all parking stations including or it had been applied to all parking stations. The police code require the operator obtain a parking permit. The original ordinance that i created in 2014 created an exemption in the parking tax for a limited number of special parking events operated by volunteer parent led organizations for the sole benefit of the San Francisco Public Schools and earning less than 10,000 in gross receipts. We had a narrow definition on what these parking lots would be. Its exempted. This is an effort to bring it up to date and deal with expired exemption through 2025. A few more years down the road. This ordinance shall be retro active to january 1, 2016. The school will issue parking permits for the event. One, the event must be conducted on School District property, two, the event must be held by volunteers by taxation of the 501c 3 of the Internal Revenue code. Four, Gross Revenue from the parking event may not exceed 10,000. 5, a maximum of 150 permits will be issued annually. So there is a limit on the number of permits allowed. And six organizations that are issued School Parking permits will be required to report Gross Revenues on all permits annually to the tax collect or. So there is annual reporting built in. I want to thank you for drafting the update. What was really helpful and implementing this law and bringing up to date is amanda and loretta who are here also making a brief presentation shortly. Second, pta president , kathy miles myers, who couldnt be here today. I want to thank you for helping the schools and every penny stays in the school and keeps pace with our students needs on the school level and other schools as they take advantage of this parking tax fundraiser law. I want to ask if there is a report from the tax treasure and tax collectors office. Thank you, amanda from the tax collectors office. You covered it beautifully. Im happy to support it being a member of the School District myself. Supervisor mark farrell thank you, any comments . Is there any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Thank you for bringing this forward. I think its a great idea. Happy to support this. Colleagues . Well move it with a positive recommendation. Motion by supervisor yee and tanning. Well take that without objection. Madam clerk, please call item no. 11. Clerk item no. 11. Accept and spend grant California Department of Public Health hepatitis c Virus Testing and linkages to care demonstration projects 456,000. Good morning, supervisors, im here from the dopsz. We are requesting funding in the amount of 456,000 to build prevention and treatment of hepatitis c, we are excited to receive this outside of the general fund. This will build our capacity to test, link to care and imagine lies services to hepatitis c which is a group that is highly impacted by the project. This is to conduct settings for testing and such as shelters and the cultural competent and primary care providers and training and consultation for the department of Public Health and pharmacy clinicians and those who care for the population. This is not a challenge for the San Francisco department of Public Health because the vast majority of patients are covered by medical and the patients are covered by the program. Im available for questions . Supervisor mark farrell colleagues, any questions. Is there any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues item 11. Supervisor katy tang i would like to make a motion to send to the full board with a positive recommendation. Supervisor mark farrell well take that without objection. Item no. 12. Clerk accept and expend gift molly fliesh ner laguna honda Hospital Gift fund of 100,000. Supervisor norman yee of course, we would like to take a gift and expend it. Although i know that dph has requested a continuance since they are still working out details to accept and expand. Maybe we can hear from dph. We need additional time to work out specifics on the intention of the donor. Anybody wish to comment on the item 12. Is there any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. We can take that to the call of the chair and take that without objection. Item no. 13. Clerk accept and expend gift estate of Norma Parenti Laguna Honda hospital and Rehabilitation Center gift fund. Sponsored by supervisor yee. Norma parenti requested 26,000. We seek approval to accept this donation. The donation will be deposited in a miscellaneous gift fund and used for special and cultural events, catering, of lunchings and other special needs for our residents. Can you restate the total amount again . The total amount is 26, 6 we can take that without objection. Madam clerk, is there anything else . No, mr. Chair. Okay, well see you at 1 00. We are adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ]. Good afternoon, everybody rk welcome to the San Francisco board of supervisors budged and finance Committee Meeting for april 27, 2016. My name is mark farrell, i will be chairing this committee. I am joupbed by our Committee Vice chair, supervisor tang tank, 94 man yee and supervisors 94 man kim. Madam clerk, any announcements. Please silence any cell phones and electronic devices. Speaker cards and any documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. Actions taken today will appear on the may 3, 2016 agenda unless otherwise stated. We have 3 items here, we will be continuing the first two so we will be hearing from dcyf if you kault items 1 and 2 together and well continue them. Item no. 1, hearing to receive a budget updot from the department of Public Health from 2016, 2017 and 2018. Item 2, hearing to receive a budget update from the Human Services agency for fiscal years 2016 to 2017 and 2017 and 2018. Anyone wish to comment on items 1 and 2 that we will be continuing. Colleagues, may i have a motion to continue items 1 and 2 to call of the chair. So moved. We can take that without objection. Item no. 3, hearing to receive a budget updot from the department of children, youth and their families and First Five Commission for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 and 2017 to 2018. Okay, thank you very much. We do have maria sue today to kick off this meeting. Thank you for being here. So good afternoon, chair farrell and members of the budget and finance committee, i am maria sue, i have the privilege of leading the department for children and their families. I will propose to you the budget we presented to the mayor aoffice in february for 2016, 2017 and 2018. Cyf brings together city government, schools, Community Based agencies to help our cities, children and youth birth to age 24 and their families lead lives full of opportunity and happiness. Back in 1991 the people of San Francisco made a unique and historic commitment to ensure that children and families have funding thats available to them on a regular basis. They passed the childrens amendment and back in november of 2014, that commitment was renewed through the children and Family First Initiative and that was passed by nearly 75 percent of our voters in the city. The revamped children and Family First Initiative included several upgrades. It included increase of the fund, it extended the eligible age for services up to age 24 and that includes services for our disconnected transitional he youth. It created a 5 year planning cycle, it established an oversite and Advisory Committee, created a Service Provider working group, and most importantly, it extended the children and youth fund for 25 years. Once again i just want to thank the members of the board, the Mayors Office and other Community Stake holders in helping to ensure we pass this very important legislation. So i want to provide you an overview of our Budget Proposal in very extensive detail here. I think most importantly i want to call your attention to the expenditure line. Sfgtv, can we cover the monitor . Most importantly, i want to call your attention to our two largest budget line items. The first one is grants to cbos and the second one is work order expenditures. All these work orders to other City Departments result to tlepl doing services to cbos. We do this primarily to leverage our sister cities expertise. We send funds over to the department of Mental Health it provide Mental Health services in our public high schools as well as violence prevention strategies. We partner with first five San Francisco and the Human Services agency. The other highlight on this slide is the children and youth fund revenues. And as ux see, the funds are growing and thats because of the scheduled growth that was written inside the charter. And i will be focusing the rest of my time on details of our grant making since that is the core of our function. Last year, fiscal year 20142015, dcyf allocated approximately 20 million to serve 20,000 individuals in the city. Thats over 450 programs. Due to the scheduled increase that i had referenced earlier, we are looking at almost 18 million of unprogrammed funds over the next two years and we are working very closely with our stake holders, including our staff, our grantees and our oversight and Advisory Committee to determine the most appropriate ways to allocate these funds for vital childrens services. I want to note that due to timing constraints we have already moved forward in allocating additional dollars to Fund Summer Programs because as we all know, summer for our School District is going to happen next month, its going to start next month, so we wanted to work closely with our cbos to make sure they had the resources necessary to hire up, prepare and train more young people in their programs. We also awill he allocated more funds for tay services. We felt confident we would be able to quickly bring on the additional number of proposals that we receive through the rfp process. Once again last fiscal year, fiscal year 1415, dcyf allocated approximately 60 million for direct service grants. As you know, the primary areas of dcyf funding are early care and education, youth employment, youth empowerment, teen afrses, health and wellness and violence prevention. Our investments are holistic offering aefrs to enhance learns while also creating Healthy Family and environments to support our young people. Both direct grants and work orders to other City Departments including first five, office of early care and education, department of Public Health and the Human Services agency ends up resulting in grants to nonprofit agencies. The pie chart here shows age information about the youth we serve. Of note, the bulk of our Services Currently go towards school aged children, so 50 percent of our budget goes toward school aged children, but due to the new legislation changes we are going to start focusing on services for the 18 to 24. The other piece that you dont see on this chart is the birth to 5 population, and thats because we send our funds over to the office of early care and education and they are the ones who manage those funds on our behalf. Then finally i want to share with you a graph of the Race Ethnicity information that our nonprofit agencies are providing. We measured this, we measure our population served against the School Districts population and the citys overall children population and i think of note here is that although the city has 7 percent of our city children are African American and 10 percent goes to our Public Schools, our cbos, our nonprofit agencies are serving 16 percent of our African American young people and the same goes for our Asian Pacific islanders, 31 percent live in the city, 41 percent goes to our School Districts and we are serving 38 percent of our api young people and our latino young people, 23 percent live in the city, 30 percent goes to the School District, 29 percent are served in our programs. And you can read the rest. In closing, we strive to make San Francisco a great place to grow up and we look forward to working with all members of the board of supervisors to ensure that we will have sufficient resources to make this happen. And with that i am going to close and end my presentation and i am available for questions. Thank you, miss sue. Colleagues, any questions or comments on the budget for miss sue at all . Okay, well, thank you for being here. Appreciate it. I look forward to the continuing discussions as we get into the heart of budget season here. Thank you so much for the opportunity. Im sorry, are we having a separate first five . Okay, great. Hi, im ingrid mosquito with first five. Thank you for having our presentation done separately, although i think we could have combined it with dcyf our presentation is going to be very brief because we are, a lot of our work really is, were interdependent with the other City Departments, the department of children youth and families, the office of Early Education as well as the department of hub health. First five, which i actually provided you copies of our presentation, has just gone through a Strategic Planning process and for the next 5 years our focus is really gooing to be much more laser focused as we are driven by our values, were really honing in not only of our values but our mission and that is going to influence the impact areas that were going to be working on for the next five years. As many of you know, first five was created back in 1995 by prop 10, the tobacco tax. When it first started the collection of that revenue was considerable. The idea behind tobacco tax was that there would be actually less smokers and theres been a lot of success in that. The consequence to it is that theres less state tax revenue and so with first fives across the state are experiencing the same tax base decline. And so for, we have developed a Financial Plan that looks out into not only 5 years but 10 years out and also looking at the projections for that tax revenue as it declines. Much of our organizational strategy is going to focus around being very strategic around what we fund, not only in the near future but in the next 10, 15 years out. So we consider ourselves being a much more strategic funder and invester, really focusing on areas that we can have the most impact with and in order to make that impact we actually have to be sort of thinking partners along with the larger City Departments that can have the resources to be able to do that. So for the next few years, what we have done is leveraged other city resources and as you can see in the following chart, which is our two year budget outlook, our prop 10 allocation, as i explained earlier, is on a little bit 6 a short decline. For this year our funding was 5. Ate, we expect in 167 for it to be 5. 3 and in 1718, 5. 1. We also receive grants from first five california and we expect a little bit over ar Million Dollars over the next 3 years in each fiscal year. We piloted a federal grant which was a race to the top, it was to implement a quality rating and improvement system. The state of california is now starting to fund the quality rating and improvement system as that federal grant has phased out, so the next line item is those state grants for the quality rating and improvements system. We do have to use our reserve because of the tax revenue decline. We actually set up a reserve over 10 years ago and so every year we use a little bit of that reserve with the expectation that that reserve will be depleted. Like many other departments we actually have work orders with the department of children youth and families, the Human Services agency and the Mayors Office of early care and education. So our total budget for 1617 is a little bit over 28 million versus what we have this year, 1516, of 15 million. And that variance is mostly due to our transition of the preschool for all initiative over to the Mayors Office of early care and education. And so a major expenditures, at least in 1516, have been around Early Childhood and that again because of the preschool for all initiative. In outer years that will be managed by the office of early care and education. We still are going to be the lead for the Family Resource initiative in the city and again that Partnership Includes the Human Services agency and the department of children, youth and familiarly. And just to show our just prop 10 revenue and how that is categorized, we are going to be leading well, coleading with the office of early care and education but our investments in Child Development are going to be honed in in the further development of the quality rating and improvement system. That investment is going to be over 3 Million Dollars in Early Childhood health, home visiting, inclusion for Children Special needs, house screenings and also San Franciscos own Healthy Kids Program through the department of Public Health and family support. So this actually this slide actually just highlights the prop 10 or state funding. And that is it. Okay, supervisor yee. Thank you, ingrid, for your presentation. Im curious, in terms of the Human Services Agency Funding of 4 million or so, i didnt hear what you said that was for. Thats for the Family Resource center. Okay, thank you. Okay, any further questions . Comments . Okay, thank you for being with us today, miss sue, we look forward to continuing conversations as we go forward here. With thatll open up on Public Comment on item 3. Anyone wish to comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues, likewise, can i receive a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. Motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. Motion byee . Oo . A item 4, resolution approving and authorizing the execution through the tax exempt revenue commercial paper certificate of participation and tax exempt and or taxable direct placement resolving certificates of participation in a combined aggregate principal of amount not to exceed 260 million to provide interim financing for phase i of the Transbay Transit Center project frplt item 5, ordinance appropriating 260 million, item 6, resolution determining that Certain Property in the future annex area namely assessors parcel block no. 3721, is annexed to the city and county of San Francisco Community Facilities district no. 20141. I just want to acknowledge the work of many different agencies to bring forward this solution. It took place over many, many months but i do want to recognize been rosenfield from the Controllers Office, nadia sesay as well as our staff at the transbay office, thank you for taking on the leadership during this time of transition and of course to our community director, scott lay, who is also here. I think this is a good balance and a partnership along with the metropolitan Transportation Commission to help make sure that the Transbay Joint Powers Authority is able to complete this project on time and able to solve the cash flow issues in the midst of the construction while we await future land sales that are dedicated to the construction of the terminal and of course eventually to phase ii of the downtown extension of caltrans. So i believe the presentation is with the Controllers Office. Mr. Rosenfield. Before we begin, i apologize, supervisor wiener is on the mic. Thank you, mr. Chair. I also want to thank everyone who was able to make this happen. Its actually, were making the best of a bad situation where we have a project that incurred substantial cost overruns and where weve really already, frankly, stepped in and taken over a lot of the project management so that we can make sure that we dont continue to have the progress problems the transbay joint powers have experienced. I dont think any of us ever wanted to be in a position where the city and county of San Francisco was acting as back stop to the tune of a quarter billion dollars for something that is basically a regional project. Thats why we created the Transbay Authority because it is a regional project but sometimes we have to step in and solve a problem that was not of the citys making and were doing that because this project, the Transbay Transit Center, is so critically important to the future of transportation of this city and this region. It is going to be at the heart of our future Transportation Network as the region grows by two million people, the heart of our rail network. So we have to get this done. Because of the cost overruns in building the Transit Center, because of the cost overruns incurred by the tgpa, we are now having to use funds to help complete phase i that is not a good result but its a situation that we face given the management and Cost Management of the project by the tgpa, so were stepping in to fix that. This morning i was down at san jose at our monthly mtc meeting and we voted unanimously to loan a hundred Million Dollars or purchase a hundred Million Dollars worth of the cops from the city so the mtc has played its role in helping clean up this bad situation. Now its our turn as a city. Okay, thank you , supervisor wiener. I hesitate to call ben rosenfeed up. Ben rosenfield. inaudible mayor lee, supervisor kim and wiener and supervisor david compos, our office has been working on this interim breach financing package for many months now. It endeavors to solve a gap that has become apparent on this project totaling will 250 million. Were somewhat reluctant to bring this forward in the sense it is an unusual place for the city to be stepping in to effectively provide the funding solution for another governmental entity, but at the same time we do think the package that our office, working with tjpa staff and the mtc, has pulled together minimizes risks to our government and to the mtc while providing a financing vehicle frankly thats necessary to complete this project that is well underway and in construction in downtown San Francisco. With that brief introduction, though, i will turn things over to Sarah Deboard and nadia sesay that can walk through the challenge and the proposal we have for you. Good afternoon, supervisors, Sarah Deboard. I know you are all familiar with the transbay project, but just a brief refresher. We are building a multi level Transit Center in downtown. Included in phase i is building the core and shell of the train box, first and second levels with information, ticketing, retail, a bus deck level for ac transit and muni from Treasure Island to come in from the bay bridge and of course the roof top park. Sfgov tv, can we put this on the screen . This is a map of the project area. The blue highlighted parcels show the parcels that were transferred from caltrans as part of the coop agreement between the city, caltrans and tjpa transfer of this land has enabled us to, in cooperation pars3 with oc in 2010 we received a 400 million grant be that allowed us to move construction of the train box from phase ii to phase i. Previously before receipt of that grant the train box was going to be built later under a more difficult construction method. In 2013, following receipt of multiple s that were overestimate largely due to very active Construction Market in the area, we increased the budget to 1. 9 and then in late 2015, as i believe you are all aware, the mtc conducted a cost review and came to a final cost estimate of 2. 59 billion, which is an increase. This slide states the reasons mtc included in their report for the recommendation of the 360 Million Dollar increase. I would like to note all of our now interim executive director, as well as the dpw staff person working with our project now both have no intention of needing to spend 360 million to finish phase i and both with state today that they believe they can finish phase i with just about 260 million of that 360 million increase, thereby saving a hundred million for phase ii. This slide shows our myriad and various Funding Sources. We have a federal grant, we have multiple fta grants, we have sales tax from San Francisco and san mateo, bridge tolls, a federal tifia loan, land sales and tax increment. This shows how we get to the 247250 million need. The difference between the 2013 budget and the mtc recommendation is the 360 million. A parcel s sale will close within the next month or two and provide approximately 160 million, which gives us a net shortfall of 200 million. However, we had previously anticipated receiving about 194 million in cfd special tax proveeds. The city has updated those projections and they have come down to 146 million thats expected to be received during the construction period, so we also have a shortfall that, 47 1 2 million, and that gives us the 247. 5. We anticipate meeting most of that in near near 17 and that would be calendar year 2017, i anticipate, before we need to draw down on any city financing and then a small remainder to the extent its needed in fiscal year 2018. And with that i will turn it over to nadia good afternoon, supervisors, nadia sesay, office of public finance. In working with the mtc, as well as the tjpa with several option it was clear that tjpa on its own would not be able to seek financing on the market so the city is proposing this structure. What the city is proposing, in partnership with mtc, is to provide short term interim financing to fund the 247. 5 million in shortfalls just talked about. That would result in a not to exceed amount of 260 million in short term financing. It would be a variable rate financing and the intent would be to draw in kind and amounts necessary to meet the funding needs of the project. Additionally mtc as a Sister Agency will be purchasing a hundred million of the 260 million in proceeds to hold as an investment through a competitive that we con did you telled in january we were able to get 7 s and wells fargo was the current low bidder, so we are working with them on getting the 160 million of the remainder amount. I think what is interesting of mtc they are willing to go for a term of 5 years, where the normal term is 3 years. The other interesting factor is mtc is willing to stay with the city for up to 10 years depending on the timing of revenues generated within the district. As a result the differential between the two facilities is 5 basis points to allow for the three sets of 5 year differential as well as mtc taking up inaudible to wells fargo. Sarah alluded to transbay is also funded by a tca loan, and that is a loan secured i think in 2012 that is secured by future increment generated by sale of parcels. Weve been working with tjpa and the idea would be the citys short term financing would be on parity. As you know we also have cfd oh proceeds. The board of supervisors approved the formation of tfd for authorization to issue up to 1. 4 billion secured by special taxes within the district, so those would be made available to pay down the outstanding loan amount as well as the tax increment being used to pay interest on the outstanding short term certificate. As you know, the fact that the city is using its general fund credit as a security for the transaction, if the revenues that are projected do not come in the city general fund will have to step in to secure that. On the next slide i will talk about some of the analysis weve done to make sure at least were covered and that we have protected the general fund from having to front the dollars up. The idea would be that this is short term, thinking it would be 5 to 10 years. Before up to 10 years the intent is that we take it up with longterm financing, most likely the tjpa tax implement within the district have matured. As part of this interim financing as well the city is proposing a Cost Review Committee and that got approve ds at the tjpa Board Meeting early this month and additionally the public works is also providing Construction Management oversight and that agreement was approved on april 22nd. And just, the budget analyst has recommended that we acknowledge that approval in our recommendation and were accepting that recommendation. The next slide is simply to demonstrate that weve done extensive analysis. As you know, the extensive, the cfd revenues, professional tax revenues as well as net tax interim revenues that are supposed to be generated within the district as well as the redevelopment plan area, what this is showing theres sufficient revenues showing theyre just not coming in the time frame needed to complete the project by 2017. So the intent would be what weve been able to demonstrate through Due Diligence if revenues come in in the time frame we anticipate, we would be able to take out the financing in 5 to 6 years. If the recession based on some analysis we did with professional, it would last an additional 3 years. At most it should not be holding the paper for longer than 10 years, hence the partnership with mtc where they have agreed to stay with us for 5 years with an renewal of an additional 5 years within the district to mature. The next slide shows just the uses. The a typical format, it shows you a not 20 exceed amount of 260 million, it also shows you while providing inaudible as well as mtcs hundred million and the 247. 5 million for the project and cost of issuance and then some reserve for market uncertainties. This is a variable rate debt, it is tied to inaudible plus a spread. We know there will be fluctuations in interest so we wanted to allow the greatest flexibility in meeting those needs. Weve done extensive analysis and Due Diligence. There is other things we should consider as were moving along. If development doesnt occur in the time frame that we anticipate, the city will be left holding on to a higher outstanding amount for a longer period of time. We know weve tried our best as a city to really get costs by all the mtc review thats wepb done to date, the public Works Partnership with the tjpa to deliver the project and we also created the cost review Oversight Committee to address and make approved change orders and so on, so those are things weve tried to address. Those are things well have to keep an eye on as we move along. Additionally we know by providing these fundings up front, over 600 hill 81 from phase ii is shall pushed to phase i, so it means the project revenues available for phase ii are reduced by that amount. The next slide is the last item. If you recall the board had approved the cfd district as part of the approval they also approved a future annexation of parcels within cfd it turns out a portion of parcel f, which is owned by tjpa now, were trying to annex that into the district and the document allows that unanimous approval inaudible annexation for the district. So tjpa has done so and this is simply acknowledging that the board acknowledging such annexation. What that means is parcel f, which is supposed to be coming in partnership with block 4, the developer that is purchasing will get the entire parcel. Im happy to answer any questions you may have. And we also have inaudible from mtc who is available to answer any questions. Thank you for your partnership with the city. Thank you, supervisor tang tank. I wanted to echo my colleagues comments to everyone who is involved in this difficult situation. I know on page 6 of the presentation you went over this may not be a question for nadia per se, it may be for other staff. But i know there was the list of reasons why there were the Cost Increases but i would like to drill down on that a little bit more and find out what led to all of these factors leading to the increases and how do we think that the new Oversite Committee will help address this for the future. Good afternoon, im mark daniel, interim director next week, im on probation this week. Congratulations. Thank you. I do first want to start by thanking supervisor kim for her leadership and the tjpa board for providing me with the opportunity to be interim director. I do intend to deliver this project by the end of december 2017, advanced stage 2, working collaboratively with the department of public works manager rhonda lamida there are several factors that led us to where were at right now. I cant assign any particular percentage or number to what led to what, but i can tell you in ranking overall the core estimate was the major driver of the cost overrun. Our estimate did not reflect market kpbs, was not adjusted properly to keep up with the market. The second driver is the complex design and the Construction Market itself. Our design is pretty complex, pretty unique, and the Construction Market in the transbay district, as you know, is very busy, which limited the amount of contractors willing to on the project. So we were having several s that came in with only one or two s, versus three or four s that normalize the costs and having only one or two s toward the margins, very high. In summary thats what led us to where we are now. Even with an Oversight Committee do you think those same factors many impact phase ii . I think were going to be working very closely with the cost committee. When we move on to phase ii were going to make sure our cost estimates reflect the Market Conditions and we need to continue to have a really robust Risk Management plan to see whats coming out ahead of us and be able to plan ahead and be more proactive. We were less proactive with phase i and wae need to be more proactive as we move on to phase ii. Im glad to see public works will be giving some oversite, that gives us a little bit more reassurance. Yes, they came in about six months ago and we will be working hand in hand to make sure things work out properly and we deliver on time. Thank you. I guess this might go back to either nadia or ben now in terms of financing. Nadia mentioned, i wanted to make sure i had it down on record, what would be the impact of phase ii. 600 million, is that correct . Over 600 million. Str some sort of deadline or timeline associated with the tafia loan and when we need to access it before it goes away or as long as we meet the 3 criteria were able to access it. You have until, bryant, complete me if im wrong, one year after substantial completion of the project. We would plan to access it first, well be able to draw down on that once we can demonstrateful project funding to tefia, which we can do once the financing and parcel ask are closed. Last question, because there is this impact on phase ii, what are some of your initial thoughts about how were moving 600 million from phase ii to phase i. Mark has been doing a lot of work on that. We started developing a funding plan from phase i to phase ii. Its still in rough development. We hope to share it in the next 2 or 3 months. So were looking at Funding Sources and trying to identify additional Funding Sources. Were making progress but were not ready to present yet. Thank you very much. Colleagues, any further questions right now . Okay, mr. Rose, your report, please for items 4 and 5. Mr. Chamber and members of the committee, on page twechl of our report we have a table 4 and that shows of the total not to exceed 260 million in financing, 247,500,000 would be for the interim financing of the project and up to 12. 5 million to fund the cross issuance and related costs. On page 13 of our report we state that the Transbay Joint Powers Authority is responsible for the financing, design, development, construction and operation of this project and due to numerous errors including inaccurate engineering estimates, the cost of phase i of the project has risen from 1,189,000 in 2008 to 2,259,216. Thats a rise of 190 percent. Because of the significant cost we are facing a shortfall to complete the project costs in phase i, which is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2017. On page 14 of our report we state that given the construction and financial history of this project, coupled with the unique request for the city to provide interim financing for the Transbay Joint Powers Authority for phase i of the project, the board of supervisors should have numerous assurances of direct construction, management and inaudible of the city and as you know the tjpa has just approved an interim agreement with the City Department of public works to provide all construction and management and Oversight Services for the project. So our recommendation, as has been stated on page 15 of our report, we recommend that you amend the proposed resolution filed 160364 of the enter governmental agreement between the city and the transbay and dpw to provide construction Oversight Services for the transbay project. We consider approval of the proposed resolution as amended and the proposed ordinance to be policy decision for the board of supervisors and wed be happy to respond to any questions. Thank you, mr. Rose. Colleagues, any questions for our project analyst . Seeing none, why dont we open this up for Public Comment. Anybody wishing to comment on items 4, 5 or 6, please step forward. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is jerry kottman, im here on behalf of the bay area group. Were not going to say anything against either rangement that would help either one. When weve done it, i will say one word in defense of the existing tjpa and staff, though raised something on the order of 2 billion dollars. They have no fund raising authority of their own, no taxing authority, but they managed to bring in from the state, who is very generous with this property transfer, and the feds, who kicked in somewhere around 600 Million Dollars, a great deal of the money for this project. Im not an architect and im not going to talk about the architecture, but if the complaint that you have is related to design, its done. Its finished. Right now theres Construction Management which is in very good interim construction so i doubt the overruns once the business are in are going to be particularly horrendous. Im sure the amount you have set up would be adequate so were not opposed to that at all. Supervisor tang says something that resonates with me. It would be good since theres been so much generalization about these irresponsible overruns and Risk Management, it would be nice to drill in and see exactly what were talking about in each case. In many cases there are reasons for those overruns. And i might say one other thing. Central subway was back in 2010, its budget went from 1. 2 billion to 1. 6 billion. That is not solved by a loan, that was solved by a inaudible unless you kick in 150 million and mtc did that. Not alone, it was an allocation. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Supervisors, im tim half, i am been a cassandra about this project, since it was a 1 billion dollar bus terminal with no money for the train. I want to make a couple points. This project is not and never was a city project. The authority was artfully put together to limit the citys influence and information and in fact during may newsoms time the city was frozen out of the project for several years. To the Decision Makers until very recently were all amateurs. No one had any experience building a building or a public works project and being of the bennightd soles that sat on the board of supervisors didnt know what was going on, were not fully briefed and did not ask serious questions because they knew they would get push back. 3, this project suffers from grandiosity. 250 million was spent for a Security System that would be fuepb for Grand Central station in new york, a hundred million was committed to the public ride program that maybe could have been postponed. So you have a whole list of problems that have been listed but also the project suffered from grandiosity. The city spent all the funds put together for the extension and to quote steve heninger, we cannibalized the funds. It is time for us to control this project and figure out what we are going to do with the behemoth of a building and we should figure out what were going to do with it during the period of time where there is no train. There is no money in the future. Anybody else wishing to comment on items 4, 5 or 6 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. So, colleagues, we have in front of us 3 items, budget analyst recommendation on i believe its just one of them. Mr. Rose, can you repeat that recommendation, just the item itself . Mr. Chair, members of the committee, on page 15, this is a reference to fall 160364 where we recommend that you amend the proposed resolution to reference the addition of the Intergovernmental Agreement between the city and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority and that is for dpw to provide construction and Oversight Services. Theyve done that, we believe you should just reference, codify that in writing in the resolution. Colleagues, first can i have a motion to accept the budget analysts recommendation . Through the chair id like to make a motion for send forth items 4, 5 and 6 and with amendment to the full board with a positive recommendation. Motion by supervisor tang tank, second by supervisor yee rr. Any further business . No further business. Thanks, everybody, we are adjourned. [gavel] good afternoon i would like to call the meeting of the public Utility Commission for San Francisco to order. Mdm. Sec. , can you please call roll. [roll call] the next order of business is the approval of the meeting of march 22, 2016. I move. Seconded. All those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay. The Meeting Minutes are approved. The next order of business is Public Comment. Members of the public may address the commission on matters that are within the commissions jurisdiction and are not on todays agenda. Camp may 3 is opening on may 29 we urge you to come and rest and have a good time and do not worry about anything. Bring all of your relatives and friends and is just a time to get away. Just do not forget. Camp mather starts on the 29th and and in august and we have a volunteer leader they are so make sure to say hello to them. And it is a time to get away and to rest and relax. Good wishes for the days ahead. We hope that water continues to be there on our agenda and we hope that you are there to help us in all of the directions that we go. Thank you very much, byebye. Thank you very much. Ive always heard that the parks are very good at taking care of kids. Any others . Mr. Dacosta. How are you all. I have not seen you all in a long time. There is a lot happening in the southeast sector there is a new commissioner and whether you like it or not they are a part of what is happening. I would like during the general Public Comment to talk aboutdr. Espinola jackson. Now that she is gone a lot of people call me. Having received hundreds of telephone calls i have no idea what is happening. I am not a telephone operator or secretary or whatever. I choose what i have to do and i focus on that. Right now there is some confusion about 1800 Community Facility Commission Building and what i would suggest is that a onepage fact sheet be put out there on exactly what we want to do with it whatever it is. The community is confused. It has become much more convoluted. I have direct access to the general manager and it is not his fault but it may have something to do with how we communicate and who ever is in charge of that situation in San Francisco, we have a facility that is supposed to serve the community and at that time the leaders were supposed to focus on education. In thhe year of 2016 we may think we could use it for Something Else or for another building or build it somewhere else or whatever but lets run it by the community because what i do not want to happen is some of those that want direct action i do not want direct action to take place. We need to have focus meetings where everyone is more or less on the same page. They may not agree but at least they can be on the same page. The commissioners cannot be doing things through Remote Control okay. [timer dings] i am here before the Public Utilities commission and and i am asking you this and i thank you for your time. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . Currently, this is a tool to define what disadvantaged communities mean. The impact of this tool is extraordinary. Let me emphasize that bright lineis a tool that has effectiveness but its effect on the bay area has not been good. It has transportation disadvantage, low income just by the way of example Alameda County only 32 rank as disadvantage and these are the community of san ratify out and san mateo is 22 and finally San Francisco most significantly48 would rank as disadvantage and only 3 under callan buyers screening. This commission has shown its dedication to it over the years and specifically in this last month recognizing dr. Jacksonwhose belief was that her community needed more and more resources because it was falling behind. The callan byers screening could be better as far back as 2014 under general managers kellys leadership to improve to make sure they a better leadership and to make sure this was analyzed. And finally that the efforts are worth looking at the find out how they could better be included in this pool. Thank you very much. Any other general Public Comment . Seeing none. We will move on to the next item which is communications. Commissioners, any comments or questions . I will turn the gavel over to our pres. Thank you. Welcome. We are on communications and i had a couple of comments. One is with respect to item 5e. First of all, i would appreciate the report from staff and i appreciate the usefulness and the candor that came along with the report. It shows the wisdom of our technology policy. It says we will push the envelope a little bit on Emergent Technology and we will test it on a pilot level before we recommend those to the city before we and barge on the building so im thankful for the technological all policy. The larger question had to do with an audit that the city controller did of the current practices in the city. The audit was quite critical of the citys procurement practices and the changes to those practices within the organizations as well and this is not something that is part of our jurisdictionso we do not have responsibility for it but on the other hand we buy a lot of stuff so we have a lot of interest in it. So the question that i really want to get to is do we as a city by the basic premise of the auditors report do we think that there are efficiencies needed in the procurement prior to and do we think that they are on the right track and if i can have at some point a response to those questions i would appreciate that. That is all my comment. Thank you that was communications. I see we have 2 Public Comment cards. Have we taken those . Okay, great. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on communications . Hearing none. Next item please. Item 6 is other communication business im sorry, commissioner courtney. I do not believe that we mentioned this i was wondering that are in it mean we have more discussion about that . Yes. Thank you. Commissioner courtney. Thanks to all of your help and participation especially your general manager kelly, the folks out there with the help of the Mayors Office at the Workforce Development had converted a very, very, old, dated storage unit into a community classroomi just want to put it on the commissions radar and make sure that in the the you know the in the future that there arepeople participating in the education and participation components of thisthank you. Thank you so much for your leadership on that work. We really appreciate it. Any other business . Next item please. Item 7 is the report of the general manager. The 1st item is the drought update by stephen ritchie. If i can have the slides please. This is our reservoir storage levels. As you can see the water bank now has 1000 acres her feet of water and our total storage isat a 97 maximum. At this time a year this is usually at a 79 so theyre looking a lot better than they have in the last 4 years. We did on april 1 have a field reportand we covered this area with black balls as you can see here and i to commissioner come up and say when did we do that . And i had this completed by a professor at uc davis. The snowpack is having its particular pack downward this year so the weather is looking good currently. Upcountryof the numbers on the upper right are the ones to focus on here. They are more than the average annually at hetch hetchy the same is true for the bay area here as well for a bay area station. So, again this is a better than average year at the precipitation at the upcountry area and locally. Tuolomne water station if we have currently 800 acrefeet so we are just under completely full so we have a possibility of filling the entire system this year which again is a nice position to finally be in after these years of drought. Conservation people are continuing to observe. We had a hot spell a couple of weeks ago where actually the demand jumped up to 2015 levels and if we saw 2015 levels this year i think particularly eric would be happier because that would enforce something right now so the waters have come back down and people are getting concerned and that is true of some of our customers as well. Lastly, our state water board has adopted regulations in the past and they had a workshop this past wednesday about continuing those. Many water agencies are saying g, we have a lot more water the sheer c should back off some of these regulations. You should back off of those considerations of hat they have had this year. I think that will eliminate them somewhat but not completely eliminate them. Certainly in the drought. They will expect to act on 18 may. We will come back in may with potential modifications to what we are requiring of our customers here but certainly i think we are in the same boat and the matter what we do there will be nothing that we would say stop conserving. That would never be the message. We always have to conserve. We always have to confirm that next year could be a drop your. We will be happy to answer any questions. Commissioners . Thank you for the good news. Are we expecting any drought this year . Weve had 6 consecutive months of being above average except for one we been above average up there. Next order of business is item 7 b, ocean beach update by for the 2nd 3, if we set rates the way we recommended here we would need 330 increases to beat the cost of service by 2021. 3 additional, that was one of the issues that i wanted to bring up and i was hoping that we could come up with a timeline and a process in the guse rates as well. Im not sure how that was arrived at but im sure there could be an issue there and im not sure if we have to have a conversation with this but i would like to find a time to talk about these as we move forward. The 2nd is the question of the reserve policy which i believe is important. You put out a 60 million figures so some thoughts or ideas on how we make it to that as well. The 3rd is the question which i really do not quite understand but is the 1989 resolution on setting the standard rates. It seems as though was a long time ago and i imagine that is due for every visit. And then the 4th is the question of the cost of service and how we can get there. I think all of those are going to have a lot in them and they should be part of the Business Plan if not a separate time that we really put aside to try and analyze that and see how we can get that to a more comfortable level. Was there a thought of increasing it more . The general rates or the guse rates . Yes, of course, always. Given the fact that you look around and you look at all of the construction going on and you think that the city is doing well and unfortunately the City Departments and the city was asked to take a budget cut of one and a half percent and it was based on 3 items. One was the mortality rate was higher and the 2nd was losing the lawsuit and although we are showing this timing of asking of this was timing. So, we asked anyway and i think that you know, i think the mayors budgetoffice is more accepting of doing a longterm commitment than during a transition which i think is significant if we can get a commitment and then the next thing is to make sure that they follow the commitment and hopefully we can do that within this present administration. Commissioners, anything else on this item . So, there is no action right now. And, we will be taking action at the next meeting. Yes. And, we also have kevin chong from the rate fairness board to present their perspective o our proposal. Is that right now . Yes. I have a question. What is your timing . I think we have a game plan. It seems like we have some recommendations before is that we can think on on the next month before we vote. I dont think any of these 4 items would prevent us from taking action on this item but i think in the next 2 years we need a game plan to help better understand what we might need to do on those 4 pieces to bridge some of that financial gap as well as visit some of the policies that need to be updated. I think it fits very well under the Financial Plan. Commissioner, one thing that i think may be helpful is that some of those issues are going to take a wild to work out. I think by our next meeting we are not going to have everybody on board with all of the information we need to have. I would like to have some expression of the resolution of if i would adopt the direct staff and i dont know what the exact language is but we have a ways to figure it out but basically the direct staff can develop that plan in a way that gets us to recovering the cost of service over a reasonable period of time. The way that is written now it is basically saying this is the 1st 2 years and we will deal with the rest as the time goes on. I would like the resolution to say here is the 1st 2 years and we recognize theres more work that needs to be done and we are committed to doing it. And, the goal of the recovery of cost of service being written in their. That would make a lot of sense. Also a timeline that we would hope to accomplish that. We went through that in the slide. Low good afternoon. My name is kevin chang my name is kevin chang i am on the rate fairness board. What you reached in 5 minutes of discussion it took us 5 meetings and we would like to give you the benefit of those discussions. Just as a way of background as cfo sandler mentioned earlier the independent rate study came as a result of a requirement and our role as the rate fairness board came as a result of prob b. The rate fairness board is more art than science and coming to a conclusion as to whether or not these rates are fair. We can have some discussion as to whether these proposed rates are fair as we dive into out different classes are paying different rates. This is a little bit hard to read but here are basic observations as the rate fairness board. 1st just on the study itself the board believes that it has been thoroughly by both the staff consultant analysis and communication have eliminated different ways that customers can pay and how the rate can be set and more communication with the board and the public. We think the staff has taken great effort to make sure the information is available to the public. As cfo sandler mentioned, the staff recommendation and the consultant recommendations are just book and as how we can bring the entire enterprise into the cost of service. The key difference between the consultants presentation and recommendation of staff is 1st of all it brings our resources of cuts to a 10 year power plan. The recommendations currently would not bring us the cuts that we proposed in the past. The set proposals would not reflect what is recommended by the consultant for best ractices. And also we see these dramatic increases on rates 3, 4, and 5. We saw this kind of chart earlier by cfo sandler on this proposal issue but as far as the residential rates this yellow line represents pg e. Red line represents the cost of service. The green and light blue lines are the consultant proposal and the staff proposal andthe darker blue line is the current rate that the customers are being charged. If you move on to the guse or general fund customers you can see what they are being charge. If you look at the enterprise customers, those customers are being charged above the redline. If we look across all customer classes, i think the most important part is that is deftly well below pg e rates but the question of how we get the blue and green lines in line with the red is a challenge and its a challenge with the rate fairness board as far as giving a fair recommendation and it is a challenge with the commission on how they will adopt appropriate rates. Here are the concerns and issues that the rate fairness board has come up with after 5 sessions of meeting with the consultants and staff. The 1st is that the proposed half cent increase over the next 2 fiscal years is not sustainable. The nonguse will be way above the cost of service and the guse will be well below. And we do not believe this is one of the best practices for conserving. This is not where we will need to be as far as an enterprise of operation and if we dig deeper into the classes some customers we paying way more than they should be paying and others will be paying less. So the half cent increase is just not sustainable. The 2nd is that the the 2nd is that theguse rate customers need time to process this change. If the question is is this fair i think we know what the answer is. But how fast we make this and how deep and how severei think that is what we can say at this point as far as where fairness stands. One thing that we can say for the goosy customers is that we have looked at the water and sewer rates in the past and we have been able to adjust those rate increases since 2001. It is not that they have not went through this process before they have done it and done it successfully. The question is how and where over the next4 years going forward. So we recommend that they remain at the set rates below and we recommend that the consultant and staff come back to the rate fairness board and the commission to set rates for a threeyear and a fiveyear plan with the goal that we revisit the councils recommendations and that we gently increase the guze rates and decrease the nonguse. So thats what were saying right now im more detailed plan and then to call back the board to set these rates and then thats what we would recommend to you for years 3, 4 and 5. The next is that we wanted to touch on the power enterprise rates for the next 2 years as well. Thank you. Can i ask you a question on something that you said and i didnt really see it in your set of recommendations here. And, we did not really talk about it and that is restoring the cuts of the past question. Because, you are primarily focused on the cost of service but in a perfect world, we would go and above and beyond that, right . We would not only go above and beyond the cost of service but we would discuss past cuts and there is some restoration we would have to do in the community. Did you look at that . We did. These were proposed in the general plan. These were staff recommendations that were prepared prior to the rate study. We were assured that these were not fine all of the immediate enterprise andthey would not jeopardize the immediate enterprise and ot only in an ideal road but that these cuts do need to be restored but the question is when and how. I would like to add that as a 5th item if possible and if there is a capital line or some other line and if there is anything that we can plan for to restore the past cuts that may have been significant. I do not know about restoring past cuts because we are not for profit. We actually defer projects so one of the things that we would do is bring up more projects on which the cost of service will go up. I think that the one thing is we want to restore the reserves to a healthy level so that it helps with our bond but is not discretionary. What we do is what we do and the cost of services where we want to get to and if we have the ability to raise rates then we will improve our ability to bring our assets into a state of good repair. I mean, that is just a limitation that we have. There is nothing on that list though . I mean i know we all have lists that we want to do, but given our financial situation we do what we must do not we would like to do. But, in the forward projection it makes sense to build that back in. At the same time it is the same kind of issue as rates and reserve issues dealing with pension liabilities and things like that and we want the funds the things that we know differently. The other thing that we know is that once we get to a point where we are giving everyone the cost of service we have to look at affordability and not the competition. And you know, those are 2 things, although we are looking. I think we showed this in our Business Plan that we have a lot of assets up there and we do not have as many customers to spread around and that is why building our Customer Base so that when we look at the cost of service that over time will not exceed pg es cost. Because, at the end of the day we want to have our electricity be cheaper than pg es cost of service. Anything else commissioners . Thank you very much. So, there is no action on that either. Any Public Comment on the presentation by the rate fairness board . Or, any items on rates say . Hello pres. Vietor, and commissioners. My name is jeff i do not plan on speaking on this today. But it occurs to me that there should be some cost with the overflowing freeness and the waste that we retrieve it. I do not think that the customers are necessarily using this as efficiently as they could be. I believe there is some argument that increasing the resource to this might cause ore efficient use. There has been multiple news stories about that sfpca and they are running lots of energy out in the yard of potrero. Theres lots of energy that we do not need to be using. I think if we could push maximum Energy Efficiency to the city and county we advocate in not just city hall but lots of these municipal buildings but if we really communicate with how the city operates and we renew that infrastructure that is feasible unavailable to us that would decrease the load overall in the city and county that this general fund customers would be pulling from you which would then make them more able to countenance rate increases which the puc needs in order to reach cost of service so obviously it will not increase the total revenues while decreasing their load and increasing the price theyre paying you and it would help to provide a gui path to get the city and count the to a rate that is reasonable and the City Departments that we rely on not in any intense cuts. I think for the same that was the point for me. Unless we have a customer for the cost that we save it gets a little bit tricky. And we are looking at the efficiency for general fund, theyre really not paying a lot for it. If you look at the Capital Investment they actually but it is actually in the pucs best interest because they are losing money. So the puc will not have to pay the transmission distribution of the pg e. It makes sense and i totally agree that we need to get it to the cost of service and look for Energy Efficiency at the same time. Good afternoon commissioners. Eric brooks representing green brooks and the city of San Francisco. It was a great presentation i think we need to think about what were calling the cost of service. We are on a planet now where brandnew projections have come out that say that those protections are likely double what the sfpuc thought that they were and we are going through an Energy Transition that is massive and necessary and not just in clean power nsf program but in all programs. We need to create cuts for this Energy Efficiencies and as long as were staying under the pg e rate we need to do the same thing with the guse which will create this crisis that we will be experiencing in a decade or 2 so on the general fund i would not advocate these increases. They do not pay very much for their electricity in both them and the other customers need to really start seeing the price of old energy go up so we can create the demand for new energy so we can get places like the customers outside of the city of San Francisco outside of the hetch hetchy system. I would like you to raise as much revenue as you can and without exceeding the pg and e rates and staying within the rates of clean power sf. Any other Public Comment . Hearing none. Mdm. Sec. Next item. Next item is item14. Public hearing discussion and possible action to adopt a Net Energy Metering schedule for cleanpowersf nemcleanpowersf , rates for net surplus compensation for nemcleanpowersf customers, and new residential timeofuse rates, which would 1 direct the general manager to implement the nemcleanpowersf schedule for eligible cleanpowersf customers; 2 establish a net surplus Compensation Rate for eligible cleanpowersf nem customers if they are net electricity generators over the course of a 12month period; 3 direct the general manager to report back to the commission annually on the status of the nemcleanpowersf program; and 4 adopt new timeofuse rates for residential customers and authorize the general manager to periodically incorporate new rate schedules to ensure that cleanpowersf customers have rate offerings that are comparable to what they would receive as generation customers of pacific gas and Electric Company pg e , as long as those rates do not exceed pg e rates, less the power charge indifference adjustment and franchise fee surcharge. hale 15. Public hearing discussion and possible action to adopt a customer selfgeneration program implementing Net Energy Metering nem and shared Renewable Energy schedule which would 1 direct the general manager to implement a nem schedule for sfpuc retail electricity customers as required by Public Utilities code 2827; 2 find that based on the results of the customer generation Pilot Program at pier 1 and fort mason , share will not increase the expected revenue requirement from nonparticipating customers i. E. , cause Cost Shifting beyond what would otherwise occur under standard nem; 3 direct the general manager to implement the proposed Share Program, extending the benefits of nem to sfpuc electricity customers with multitenant and multimeter facilities located on the same or contiguous properties; 4 direct the general manager to develop a net surplus electricity Compensation Rate, based on determination of the sfpucs generation rate, for eligible sfpuc electricity on the nem schedule if they are net electricity producers over the course of a 12month period; and 5 direct the general manager to report back to the commission annually on a the status of the customer selfgeneration program, including total. Just to be clear item 14 is an action item and item 15 is not. Good afternoon pres. And commissioners my name is barbara hale. And i am here to discuss the Net Energy Metering schedule for clean power sf. Using clean transit or environmentally friendly methods 100 your power is renewable. So, now it is telling mehang on 1 minute. I am having technical difficulties. [adjusting video] maybe we can come back to the movie later. I cannot get it up successfully. Will so we will go back to the presentation and the time of use rates items. Under the clean power sf program we want to establish comparable rate schedules. That is what you see in your packet. We would apply the same ratesetting methodology policies that you adopted for the clean power sf program in december which is the 0. 25 less than pg e equivalent generation rate for our customer and less power cost indifference adjustment and the franchise fee surcharges. We also request that the general manager have the authority to periodically implement new rate changes like this without having to come back to the commission. These time of use rates items are all part of 14 which are up for adoption today. Next is a general overview of Net Energy Meterings which are serving 2 groups of ratepayers so we are providing Net Energy Metering programs for our customers and that law include some boundaries and requirements on us and i have listed those here. Also, one of those which is part of the actions today is to establish a Compensation Rate for Surplus Energy that a customer with Renewable Generation behind their meters spills onto the d. That sort of laid out what the state law required but what we want to get out of the state Energy Program is to encourage our existing customers to install solar. We want to provide an attractive Net Energy Metering compensation for our local Renewable Energy meter. We want to remain fair to our nonparticipating customers and we really want to keep it simple. These programs can get very complicated. Anyone who has solar on their roof and participates in a Net Energy Metering program understands that statement. You get a very complicated bill. And, for clean power sf, we just want to make sure that we encourage existing Net Energy Metering custommers to become our customers. So next i want to discuss what is the Net Energy Metering . Net energy allows customers to install an on site Renewable Energy system to receive bill credits off the grid. We received this at the last bill meeting this is a generation and consumption and this will show you how this works. This top graph shows a residential customer in San Francisco during the summer. Actually yes, during the summer. This red line represents the rooftop solar. The gold area im not talking about the lines but the yellow that shows on the screen here is the energy that is produced by the Solar Project consumed by the customer at their site. Then, the red area which is above the black line represents that energy that is in excess of the customers demand and it spilled to the grid. Under the Net Energy Metering the Utility Company reimburse the customer for that energy that spilled to the blue area of the graph. Thats what you see on the bottom part of the screen. That is the excess billing to the area during the times a day that the solar system is not producing. This arrangement is tracked over the course of a month and the customers net consumption or Net Generation is calculated. That kinda gives you the basics. Now lets talk about how we propose to use this for clean power sf in particular. With clean power sf, pg e is providing forlet me stop, i said that wrong. Without clean power sf pg e is responsible for the generation and the energy that they are providing. When you add clean power sf that is responsible for just the generation credits but pg e is responsible for the delivery. So, when you have solar on your roof and your spelling and we are assigning credits to that spill pge is assigning that credit to distribution charges that could be avoided and clean power sf is assigning charges for generation provided for having the energy on your roof. Specifically for the clean power sf customers, we propose they apply the rate schedule they are on to assign the value for that spill so that they get appropriate credit and that is consistent with the state law. We are proposing that for these charges that this be done monthly to avoid a large bill at the end of the year for customers that consume more energy than they use. Any credits that are generated in a month by a customer would be carried forward for use in the following month until we do an annual settlement process and we are proposing that that annual settlement process take pl. , april of each year. This would be in the april billing cycle. During that billing cycle we would take a look at back customers Consumption Patterns over the year and there generation pattern over the year and if they had more generation than they had consumption so they were a net generator, we would compensate them for that extra electricity that they provided to the grid. That spilled from their roof. That is where we are proposing a net surplus Compensation Rate. That rate and average green rate for our Green Program. The generation charge that we use for our Green Program on average and if that customer is not assigning the Renewable Energy credits associated with their solar system to us. If that customer is agreeing to assign the Renewable Energy credits associated with the kilowatt hours to us we would compensate them at the average super green rate. So, we are showing a differential to show that that Renewable Energy attribute has a value to the customer and to us so thats why were assigning this differential rate. So, i am going to pause there because im about to go on to the hetch hetchy power elements of you have any question about the Net Energy Metering items or the billable Energy Credits . I do have a question. What would they do if they did not assign those credits . What we did with those customers is when they signed up through rooftop solar through a power Purchase Agreement or a lease arrangement they committed those with an arrangement that they agreed with. They were not available to us. The kilowatt hours really that spill off their roof do not have a benefit to us. Under there are agreement from the get go this country said this should be assigned to the city. So youre saying that should be assigned to the city instead ofthat is one part i dont understand . Im suggesting that if you are a Net Energy Metering customer and you are a generator and you are giving them to your Energy Provider which would be clean power sf then they would pay for that at that Renewable Power energy rate. Theen, potentially what were talking about here though is that at the end of the settlement period, at the and of the annual true up period if you will we are actually writing the customer a check. You are expecting that that amount will be small . Yes. We took that sample and we applied this program to it. What it turned out is that customers that put solar energy on the roof for customers that tend to use a lot of electricity. Most San Francisco roofs are small so they tend to be not net generators yet consumers. We are finding that most customers it because they probably will not at the end of the year be due a payment the customers of the net Energy Program it is advantageous to have them in the program but it should only cost is about 100,000 year net compensation payout. If you were setting out on purpose to generate a lot of excess that be something to a different tariff . Under the state law to Energy Metering program tariffs youre supposed to energize the system to your consumption. So this would be appropriate for customers that would be just looking to generate electricity for sale and we are coming to you with those Program Proposals over the next couple months. Thank you. Okay, are you ready to move on to hetch hetchy power than . Yes, great. So for hetch hetchy power were going to do just like we did for the Net Energy Meeting program. We are going to go over the hetch hetchy Power Program as well as a Pilot Program. And we will go over a standard Net Energy Metering program as well as a shared Renewable Energy program. I think the time is right for us to spend the scope of the pilot. So, familiar chart. The difference here is that we are standing in the shoes of pg e for the other chart were providing the credit for delivery and generation so were charging our customers for both of those things. Were providing the credits for both of those things. And, we are proposing to apply similar to the Net Energy Meeting program the hetch hetchy proposals as well as the over well as the overthe credit gearing forward. For those that assigned the Renewable Energy credits to us we are willing to pay a little bit more. Were proposing to use the 2015 average market price for the Renewable Energy credits for. 0123 cents 2 people that are assigning there were new Energy Credits to us. This would be capped at 7 months totals that the net Energy Program proposal here is the Share Program the net Energy Program is good for customers with one meter and one roof. That is what deal with. We do have a number of accounts in San Francisco that have multiple meters under the same account like a campus environment. And one thing that we are proposing is that they are generating electricity on the roof and they have more than they need they could say to the continuous property in a similiar situated account appropriately they would tell us how to proportion those kilowatt hours to the account that they identify or the property on the account that they had in a fight. So that allows them to maintain the benefit of the project on there properties. So what we intend to do here is to limit the size of the project to 1 mw and maintain the expectation that they would offset that consumption to their properties and to participating accounts and they would be responsible for apportioning those benefit accounts that they will be benefiting and then there would be additional share account fees 12 as a onetime accounting set up charge and a 5 monthly bill service fee for the participating accounts and we would this participation at 5 mw. Next step is we would like to see adoption of item 14 the clean power sf time of use rate schedules and Net Energy Metering program for our customers and that would allow us to offer these programs in may consistent with our main launch of the clean power sf program overall. We are asking for the general manager to be authorized to implement the new rate schedules as they come up within the policy at that was stated in december along with tthe agreement that we would stay below pg es. And with that, i will take any discussion you may have . Commissioners, any questions or discussions on items 14 or 15 . Just one question. I had a conversation earlier with general manager kelly about the general manager authorities and i think there are 2 things that need to be rationalized here. One is that we need to be commercially flexible and responsive. We need to be able to act quickly. In that line i think having that authority makes sense. On the other hand i think its important that the commission be in charge of rates. For an awful lot of cases as rates move it is subject to a cpuc and they are really slow and we have to keep up with those. And, what i have asked for is that staff come back with a recommendation to us as to how we maintain both objectives of both commercial flexibility and the puc being the ultimate Rate Authority and that can be subject to our future meeting. I think the authorities that are here makes sense in getting these programs up to speed quickly and we are giving specific authority with respect to that but i would like that item to come back at a future time for what our longterm practices. Isnt that a contradiction to how this reads . What would we be doing by the general manager would be adjusting the existing rates . Is that correct . What im understanding is that from this slide the commissioner wants to remove that item from the slide off of item 14. It is my understanding that he wants to move everything forward with that except for our adjustments 2 rates in which he feels the commission should still have the authority for that. As we get a year down the road and pg is changing their rates again this is a policy matter. We no longer want to track our rates. We need to do better. Is not just a matter of tracking for perpetuity it needs to come back to the commission to reassess what our policy is and whether it continues to make sense in light of what is happening at the cpuc. I am really not concerned with this item. What im concerned with is that we put in place proper authorities for the gm and the commission to meet those objectives and make both flexible and have the commission be in charge of the policy. Okay, i think practically speaking as we look at the resolution associated with item 14 the final page of the resolution has a resolved clause that would have the general manager authorized to periodically incorporate new schedules to the clean power rate sf customers as general customers of pg es continues. That resolve clauses at the bottom. I think that resolved cause can be removed to respond to what you have expressed commissioner. And on the final resolved clause, it says that this commission directs that general manager to adjust our rates and charges and the authorization of annual Rate Adjustments based on cpi. I think that language handles your concern commissioner and allows the gm to handle any adjustments that may be needed within the ratesetting action that are taken today. At some point in time i would then move as an amendment to remove that from the bottom. Then, i would note as well that we notice that the attachment to this resolution that shows the rates are missing the footnotes that it has in the body so on table 2 on the 5th page of the agenda item it has the rates and some notes and those notes should appear as an attachment to the resolution. Okay. So, i believe a motion has been made to amend the resolution by removing the 4th result from the bottom which is the 5th resolved clause. Which is the 5th from the top [laughing]and to add the footnotes. And add the footnotes. Is there a motion . So there is a motion by commissioner moran. Is there a second. I second. Okay at this time we will vote. All those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay. [chorus of ayes] okay that amendment was approved unanimously. Now, iis there a motion to approve the second . I motion. I second. Okay, at this time we will vote. All those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay. [chorus of ayes] and that amendment is approved unanimously. At this time we will take Public Comment. There will be more rooftop solar that will be able to be produced because sometimes its not produce because it is not costeffective. With this nem there will be more roofs that are costeffective because of that. We will get more energy and more jobs and will not impact the clean power sf program and when its negative. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon again commissioners. I am eric brooks groups with the groups that i mentioned before and i am also old here to represent Community Choice which is here on Community Choice policy and i just want to echo what jason freid said which is that it is great to have better net metering rates and i concur with commissioner morans amendments and i think that is prudent policy and i just have 2 questionswell one question and one ask for staff i will say. The question is, i realize the Interconnection Agreements are more difficult and more limited but it seems like we ought to have a similar Share Program for clean power sf so that customers can group together in micro grids as clean power sf customers and do something similar, so, i want staff to speak to that and hopefully we can get that moving soon. The big thing i wanted to raise today is that we have these good metering rates but you cannot tell from reading any of these documents how they are compared to pg e. I talked to tens of thousands of people and i continue to talk to hundreds and eventually thousands more about clean power sf and one of the main things that i need to be able to say to every person that i talked to that has solar pounders or is thinking about having solar panels is is how does this compared to and how does this affect pg e . So, it would be nice to have a one page pamphlet and we need to be when we are going out in the community we need to be able to show them this and they can compare this. So, my question was about the Solar Program under clean power sf and then when can we get a one page document any webpage so we can show people how great these rates are compared to pg e. Thanks. Any comments . Commissioners, we will call our vote all those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay. [chorus of ayes] approval of item 14. Are you ready for a threeminute movie or do you want to put it off . Okay. [video] can you turn up the volume . Clean power sf will provide cleaner more Renewable Power to all san franciscans. Best of all, clean power sf offers a Renewable Energy option called supergreen to reduce omissions and reach our greenhouse goals. We decided to sign up for super green for a number of reasons. We mirrored our goals after the city of San Francisco. I spent the last few years researching how can we get solar panels on our roof and after years of wondering how i would solve this question clean power says do you want 100 Renewable Energy and just like that [snaps] here we are. We chose to sign up for 100 super green it was a little bit more expensive but the difference was very large. Super super simple to sign up for. It just takes 5 minutes you just click a button and it is renewable. Having clean power sf is important to me and easy for me as a consumer and now i have Renewable Energy through clean power sf. I hope to support green energy and hopefully make an impact. This means so many things. This means reduction air pollution and we deftly benefit from that and it also means that we can take control of something that is locally a sustainable and now you can profit. We signed up for green and you can too . Sign up for super green now. [sign up for super green now] great video thank you. It makes me want to go run out and sign up if i had signed up already. There was a little bit of humor at the end. Sorry. That is all right. That is all right. We keep saying we are on target, we are on target. That is great. But meanwhile, behindthescenes there is a ton of work being done behind the pc staff and i want to just recognize tyrone as he leaves and charles as he is been the Communications Lead on clean power sf i think they are both out of the room by now but a lot of folks are making this happen and that is some of the work that they are doing so thank you. All right, thank you very much. Okay, next item please. Item 16 b item 1616. Approve amendment no. 3 to agreement no. Cs913, Construction Management services bay tunnel project, with Jacobs Engineering group, inc. , to continue providing Construction Management services; and authorize the general manager to execute this amendment, with a time extension up to 11 months, for a total agreement duration of eight years, seven months, with no change to the agreement amount. how i will move approval. I will second. Any questions or comments on that . Hearing none. We will vote on this item. All those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay [chorus of ayes] the motion carries unanimously on this item. Next item please. Item 17. Approve amendment no. 1 to agreement no. Cs1010 g , front yard ambassadors Program Grant, with friends of the urban forest to continue providing program and project Management Services for the front yard ambassadors program; and authorize the general manager to execute this amendment, increasing the agreement by 80,000, for a total nottoexceed agreement amount of 160,000, and with a time extension up to one year, for a total agreement duration of two years. ellis 18. Authorize the general manager to execute, on behalf of the city and county ofSan Francisco, a memorandum of agreement with the county of tuolumne, for an amount not to exceed 2,365,354, and with a duration of six years, which will provide funding for Fire Suppression and protection, sheriff protection and patrol, road maintenance, ambulance services, and other essential services for the hetch hetchy water and power project. ritchie i will move it. I will second it. Okay, any questions any Public Comment . All those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay [chorus of ayes] item move. Next item please. 19. Authorize the general manger to request the mayor and board of supervisors approval of a supplemental appropriation in the amount of 5,937,594 for the warnerville substation upgrades project, if required. The project is necessary to mitigate the impacts to the citys electric system caused by the interconnection of electric generating projects to the electric grid. ritchie any comments on this question . Any Public Comment . Hearing none. I move. I second. All those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay. [chorus of ayes]. Next item please. 20. Adopt findings pursuant to the California Environmental quality act; approve the partial quitclaim of a public utility easement encumbering San Francisco block 8709, lot 020; approve the terms and conditions; and authorize the general manager to execute the easement quitclaim deed, transferring the city and county of San Franciscos interests in a portion of the easement to Kaiser Foundation health plan, inc. carlin 21. Authorize the general manager to negotiate to extend the water system improvement Program Project Labor Agreement pla to the sewer System Improvement Program and auxiliary water supply system pumping station 2 project, subject to Commission Approval of the terms of the pla as modified. how 22. Adopt findings pursuant to the California Environmental quality act related to an ordinance proposedto be introduced at the board of supervisors on april 19, 2016, entitled street vacation and sale of property at jessie street and elim alley, oceanwide center, concerning matters that are within the jurisdiction ofthe San Francisco Public Utilities commission; and authorize the general manager of the sfpuc to recommend that the board approve the proposed ordinance. russell i will make a motion. I will second. Any comment . Any Public Comment . All those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay [chorus of ayes]. Motion carries unanimously please. The next item is 23. Public comments on matters to be discussed in closed session. Would you like for me to read the items . Yes, would you like me to read the items that will be Public Comment . Sort of. If you will indulge me because i cant be here for the general managers reports so that is my excuse. A couple of meetings ago assistant general hail put out a pretty good report in response to the public request aboutwhat about this pacificorp merger and the report showed very well that we need to be weary of this and it probably would not be good for us even though the report did not take a stand either way. What i wanted to mention was that i found out through discussion with other groups that i work with on this issue is that not only is pacificorp a private company instead of a quat is a Public Company were talking about Warren Buffett the same person that just went to nevada and attacked clean energy and i just wanted to put that final point on the report which is that i dont see how it could possibly benefit us to have a person like Warren Buffett and his Company Merger attacked clean Energy Simply become largely in charge of her energy grid which may lead to litigation which may end up in your close session items. So, thanks. Thank you for that. So, yes if you could please read the items in closed session. 25. Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to california Government Code Section 54956. 9 d 2 and San Francisco administrative code section 67. 10 d 2 ambrose anticipated litigation as defendant 26. Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to california Government Code Section 54956. 9 d 1 and San Francisco administrative code section 67. 10 d 1 roddy unlitigated claim state Water Resources control board v. City and county of San Francisco City Attorney file no. 160984 27. Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to california Government Code Section 54956. 9 d 1 and San Francisco administrative code section 67. 10 d 1 sheinfield existing litigation alfaro v. City and county of San Francisco filed amended complaint december 8, 2015 City Attorney file no. 160241 28. Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to california Government Code Section 54956. 9 d 1 and San Francisco administrative code section 67. 10 d 1 mueller existing litigation city and county of San Francisco v. Pacific gas electric federal Energy Regulatory Commission Case no. el153000 date filed october 10, 2014 29. Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to california Government Code Section 54956. 9 d 1 and San Francisco administrative code section 67. 10 d 1 mueller Pacific Gas Electric federal Energy Regulatory Commission Tariff withdrawal per 35. 15 notice of termination of the 1987 ccsf Interconnection Agreement pg e rate schedule ferc no. 114 to be effective june 30, 2015. Case no. er15702000 date filed december 23, 2014 30. Conference with welcome to the epic center did you know you may be eligible for a 3 thousand redefeat beating hell learn about the Stay Safe Program hi, everybody im patrick chief resigns director for the city and county of San Francisco welcome to another episode of stay safe im here with jennelle for the California Earthquake Authority shell talk about brace and bolt good to see you. Earthquake brace and bolt the first Incentive Program of california Mitigation Program as jointly managed by the Earthquake Authority and the california gvrnz of department of emergency services. And what is the mission. Brace and bolt is 3,000 up to a homeowner that retrofits the equivalent in a singlefamily. Were down owe epic center the public demonstrates weve built a mock house so i dont in the take a look at it and and show you what were talking about were in a model house in the epic center to demonstrate a variety of things jen i will i want to focus on the portion of the house and tell us how brace and bolts help to keep the home safe. This is a particular foundation and that mockup shows the first floor right here and, of course, this one is the concrete foundation and this short wall that is in between those two youre first floor and the concrete foundation is called a cripple it is a short wall this is a particular vunltd in 0r8d homes theyre designed before metamorphic coddling codes and will slide off the foundation. If you come to my home look at the previous work. So see if any anchor bolts between the wood and this mud and concrete foundation that is a collar bolt. What if i dont have enough space power a think collar bolt and we have Foundation Plates made by a company where a flat plate that is bolted to the concrete foundation and screwed into this flat mechanism. If i applied to a bolt what is a it coffer what type of work should you do in my hope. Up to 3,000 funding with the collar bolts or Foundation Plates and plywood up to the top of the short triple wall that going around. What are the tips. You want to make sure the Capital Improvement plan emancipation proclamation he will the short wall is less than 4 feet tall youll use the provision to adopt it to the city of San Francisco so a contractor can use that. So if i have a typical house over a garage and did that quality for the program. That would qualify for the program you need an engineer to design the riefrt it is not specific for that kind of house it is really theyre looking for short cripple walls maybe a couple of steps up. So jen i will if i want to find out more information. Earthquake brace good morning and welcome to the monthly meeting of Transportation Authority im chair mar item one commissioner avalos commissioner breed commissioner campos absent commissioner cohen commissioner farrell absent commissioner kim absent commissioner mar commissioner peskin commissioner tang absent commissioner weiner commissioner yee we have quorum thank you i want to thank sfgovtv for broadcasting todays hearing charles kremack and leo and can i have a motion to excuse commissioner farrell who by seconded by commissioner cohen and can we please call the roll or without objection without objection commissioner farrell is excused item 2. Chairs report on information item. Okay. Colleagues this month the Transportation Authority participated in several rail system Planning Efforts including testifying at the High Speed Rail Authority hearing on the craft 2016 high speed rail Business Plan and monitoring a plan for the transbay crossing the high speed rail businessman recommends shifting the projects segment to the Northern California direct from the Central Valley san jose is called to build the southern rail first it is given the benefits and costs to segment, in fact, we urge the authority to expand further San Francisco tomato misses the revenues of private investment the selection is more than a demonstration project with strongly believe the future of high speed rail in california and the nation hinges on its success by choosing the expanded project that comes up to transbay terminal the High Speed Rail Authority own Business Plan estimates the ridership will increase by 76 percent and fair bos by 45 percent and net cash flow but with one hundred and ti and private investment will increase based on the numbers it simple makes business sense so far the debate field segment not ios to deliver the statewide project we appreciate the support of caltrain and the sfmta hearing and looking forward to working with the partners to deliver the Northern California operating segment in the coming years similarly ambitious projects, of course, the much needed second transbay too many reasons to plan for this important connection the need to rehabilitate the bart 2 the need to facet resentcy in a Natural Disaster thank you for tilly chang to thinking about how we should approach this gigantic problem o with four public agencies with the state transportation and bart and the city of oakland i want to stress the importance of having this Second Crossing for many reasons including a true Regional Rail well have the chance to continue this dialogue as Municipal Transportation Agency we collaborative across the city and region for the local transportation in San Francisco as well as barts plan regional bond and finally thank the region abag and Planning Department to give presentations and the rail generated alternative transportation and boulevard study we look forward to hearing the sites from the agencies that concludes my remarks any Public Comment on item 2 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed this is an information item item 3 executive directors report is this is an informational item. Tilly chang. Thank you, commissioners this month as presented a few updates beginning first with a quick update on the local level we did a wonderful delineation from the concerts u. S. Secretary of transportations a couple weeks ago and on behalf of the Mayors Office and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency we received the agencies participating berkley and the private partners in the Community Liaison to help our challenge part that have application should we be successful well be no evidence around june and involve everyone and implement our strategy to bring innovative transportation on that front we were joined with the chambers trip to washington, d. C. To advocate to thank our delegation for passing did longterm bill for transportation and traffic for the remaining 173 million in the federal administration among other funding for the federal priorities we want to also ask that the ot for the citys sponsorship for Treasure Island on the initiative a Transportation Program at the state level the High Speed Rail Authority was in the area and received a hearing with mta and caltrain to have the corridors up and down the peninsula and hearing from the colleagues if abag were working in concert with the regional effort in many of our projects are performing well as suspected but we need to insure the policies and funding will be there to Carry Forward the projects picture the state active Transportation Program this is the a t p for bikes and vehicle this is the third cycle of 200 plus Million Dollars across the state and looking forward to help to refine their applications to get the Community Members across the city for more Information Contact our agency and also mta and public works that are will be sponsoring those projects a little bit more on the grim side of the state level the 2016 our state transportation Improvement Program is facing a fiscal year cliff funding and one of the projects on the list is lombard street on the 2016 list because of the inability to close 750 million gap statewide were not able to well have to move forward with local money to continue to deliver the lombard corridor project with similar fund with sfmta fund to keep to advance the project at the state level so the state funding picture thinks it be in limbo with the legislation and the funding bill and state level to meet the needs as well as other transportation infrastructure needs meantime were working locally particularly this many o month with the Transit Center upper market to a conclusion in terms of the financing for the mtc provided to the city a regional partner to help us to so we can finish and move towards building the transbay train project has made progress caltrain has entered into negotiation with the value the design build electrification contract and be able to announce the winner of the rail they have a worldwide manufacture of vehicles those contracts will be coming to the caltrain board in july and locally to provide for the updates to the memorandum of understanding among the partners to make sure we have the strong oversight as well as funding candidates to support the funding increased number funding for electrification on the local side we will have again, a presentation later today on the rail yard study ill note on march 30th the Planning Department held a planning meeting well hear in the Planning Department on that and on vision zero we want to commend thank the Vision Zero Committee for meeting on matrix 31st and sfmta that presented the draft list of next high propriety vision zero project so my understanding this is a mix of capital and enforcement and education projects but on the anti speeding a new campaign was shared the implementation of a safe drive for city staff and, of course, mta continued to work on the Speed Enforcement bill sometime in the next session and finally your sfmta and Transportation Authority attend a summit by caltrain in early april there port a shift as well continuing on at the state level whoops excuse me locally i wanted to also thing and congratulate walk sf and many of the commissioners who participated in the walk to work today very successful on april 7th this month and in addition wanted to encourage folks to take part in the bike and walk to work events in a few weeks how healthy under the influence and fund those modes of transportation how they help our city meet the congestion around inhibit and safety the Transportation Plan is make progress there was sfmta planners held the meeting concepts that identified safety improvements as well as is traffic calming commencements for golden gate avenue thank you to the sfgov sfmta for the transportation 5 improvement planning study that is happening in the western edition i think i believe more meetings coming up with movj and may 5 the workshop so, please look this up for more information and take part in this youre in the western edition area the one Grant Program this is fell funding by the Transportation Authority that program is making process particularly public works has made progress in safe routes to school and intersection along Elementary School have received bulb outs in addition weve added tax fund are prop k to supplement the corridor their funding with the area prop c programs and prop a on receiving the south side this traffic versus 3 districts 9, 10 and 11 working with the community for bicycle pathways that will start next month our Second Street vision zero Improvement Project is making a lot of progress with bike lanes 2w7b market and howard and Second Street as well as left turn restriction from Second Street to eastbound harrison this is a by the way, with prop k that is making good process and finally im pleased to introduce our newest addition our Deputy Director many of you you know jeff transformed our leading statewide and nationally recognized sustainable Transportation Planning and land use equity organizations jeff brings a commitment and track record and expertise of sustainable planning on climatic and so were fortunate to have him we face those complex issues and regional thank you jeff. Thank you Priscilla Chan colleagues questions or comments relative to the executive directors report move to Public Comment any Public Comment on item 3 seeing none, Public Comment is closed and this is an information item. Item 4. Item 4 approval of the minutes of the march 22, 2016 this is an action item. Colleagues, any questions or comments or changes to the minutes . Seeing none, any Public Comment on item number 4 seeing none, Public Comment is closed and mr. Clerk, please call roll commissioner avalos commissioner breed commissioner campos commissioner cohen commissioner kim commissioner mar commissioner peskin commissioner tang commissioner weiner commissioner yee the minutes are approved. Item 5. Item 5 adopt the positions on state legislation an action item. Colleagues, any questions or comments with respect to item 57 seeing none, any Public Comment on item 5 seeing none, Public Comment is closed and colleagues, can we take that same house, same call . Without objection that will be the order item 6. 6 award 3 contractors with an option to extend for two additional time pertsdz for northern american and consulting of services and w p partisan for an amount invited 2 million for on call transportation and authorize the executive director to talk about the terms and conditions. Colleagues questions or comments on item 6 seeing none, move to Public Comment any Public Comment on this item . 6 seeing none, Public Comment is closed and colleagues, can we take that same house, same call . Without objection that will be the order item 7. Item 7 amend the adopted fiscal year 20152016 budget to decrease the revenues by 30 million plus and increase expenditures by 23 million plus for a total decrease in fund balance of 26 million plus this is an action item. Colleagues, any questions or comments on item no. 7 . Seeing none, any Public Comment on item 7 seeing none, Public Comment is closed and colleagues, can we take that same house, same call . Without objection that will be the order item number 8 item 8 appoint bradley to the Advisory Committee this is an action item. Colleagues questions or comments on this item . Seeing none, any Public Comment on item 8 seeing none, Public Comment is closed and colleagues, can we take that same house, same call . Without objection that will be the order item 9 item 9 allocate 48,000 prop k and plows in prop a funds with conditions and appropriate 6 hundred prop k funds plus subject to the fiscal year distribution schedules this is an action item. Colleagues questions or comments own item 9 seeing none, any Public Comment on item seeing none, Public Comment is closed and colleagues, can we take that same house, same call . Without objection that will be the order item 10 and item 10 plan b an informational item. Okay for item 10 we have the mtc and abag. With the Transportation Authority well have a 2 part presentation first from the association of bayview governments will be talking about at regional level the land use work for plan bay area and josh with sf planning will relate that to the planning done in San Francisco ill wrap up with some discussion of what is happening on the transportation side so like to introduce miriam. Good morning, commissioners thank you for making the time to discuss plan bay area per planning and Research Director at the association of bayview as you may know this think an effort conducted by abag and mtc id like to cover 3 points in this all revenue the relevance of the plan to date a little bit of the planning process for this update and then what are the key tasks that need to be added version of plan bayview in terms of the plan to date let me thank San Francisco elected officials for engaging in the process as well as the staff it has your engagement ton transportation and housing strategies and cooperation with oakland and san jose with other cities that makes this regional plan a lot more meaningful and closer to the ground so we approve the first plan bay area in 2013 recognized as one of the most substantial regional plans in the state i believe that most is of that is related to the fact that the area came to support the effort that were take place at the local level weve been working to connect the Land Use Planning and transportation investment youve worked on addressing the housing challenges with the sustainability and entity to the success of this plan is based on what is happening at the city hall city level were still as successful we were in 2013 some core challenges let me flag a couple of points San Francisco is well aware there are changes in urban lifestyle people are making the choices our folks are choosing access to coffee shops and schools to libraries and book stores to parks as opposed to access e access to housing and shopping malls that has defined a region for the first time in the history of the region were, more multi single families and shifting from suburban from subsection more opportunity to asset the sustainability and exit and comes with core challenges the region experiments some demographic and other changes the region in terms of our population we have becoming a much more diversifies region were are latinos populations in our asian populations is increasing across the region not in San Francisco but across the region a diversity of the population that is an asset but comes with challenges we Pay Attention to the visions and cultivate extension of those communities were having a larger senior population that has demands in terms of assess to services we also have a stronger economy were joining the enar very of any regions but that growth were seeing the polarization of jobs in a shrinking of the middle that consumed with some of the globals investments are resulting in some of the housing decreasing housing costs were not producing enough housing in our housing are getting more expensive that is creating a series of displacement that were familiar with it is important to recognize this is happening across the region in smaller cities the concept of displacement was not familiar before it is important to address this challenge of Housing Affordability in communities and the fourth point is environmental challenges we know within the con frame of the plan with the subsequent earthquakes in addition, we have experienced a major drought in some of the flooding that is linked to Sea Level Rise the whole task it is about reducing Green House Gas emissions it is about connecting translation dollars to land use and housing but primary about shaping and addressing the changes for sustainability that can address entity in other communities so what is the framework for addressing those as you may know with the two simple concepts pirate conservatism places for growth and closest to services and closer to amenities and Public Places we can capture the vitally of our community and preservation we serve our natural environmentalist we grow our fruit and spaces for recreation we have 2 had had permit areas throughout the region and the region has a successful record of returning retaining our green built in San Francisco your similar with the local plans we have 12 permit developments primarily on the eastern and Southern Side with proximity to jobs and other services in terms of the overall growth this plan shows a higher growth than last time the growth we experienced in terms of populations with employment is a one stronger than and expected were looking at 2 housing unit 3 million additional people in the next thirty years and 1. 3 million jobs the numbers of Housing Units is a substantially higher less than seven hundred thousand more than now 8 hundred be thousand a substantial challenge for the region how are we discussing this and what are the alternative patterns 3 scenarios were discussing with our staff with the transportation staff were discussing this with cities across the region and basically on scenario 1 or main street it is an effort to accommodate growth throughout the region across cities of all size and trying to focus on the small cities medium and large cities if you go to the other extreme option 3 the big city somewhere most of the growth focuses on San Francisco and oakland and san jose and option two, that connects it focuses on the 3 big cities and the corridors that connect those on the west side on the east side of the bay so the emphasis is connecting cities of different size and providing a wide range range of the neighborhood scale each the scenarios the land use strategies and Investment Strategies that support that pattern of work and they intent to have the investments that will allow the growth that will happy in the region to be more sustainable and eligible and lastly the key elements in the update that will happen every 4 years we dont have the allocation but 3 tasks we need to address more specifically the population and job growth is the highest so across the board were expecting higher numbers for city priorities Development Areas the issue of displacement we need to come up with strategies that are stronger at the local and regional level to address the sustainability of our neighborhood and third addressing resilience at the beginning is imperative we address the earthquake challenge and drought has this thats a short overall of where we are right now and again, it has been an essential component of this engagement of San Francisco and we look forward to continue this conversation let me now pass the conversation presentation to josh minor good morning, commissioners joshua with the planning staff i want to talk about the land engagement working with the process i believe were working closely together with our regional partners than in recent memory i heard that several abag staff are familiar we have closed relationships with them also have note we have a 5 Year Work Program in the longterm and one key is the bay we are reaching out probably more diligently to our neighbors across the bay in oakland and san jose to find vicinity strategies for the plan bay area for the bonds and Transportation Needs so as you know, the city has been growing robustly in the last plan bay area targets weve achieved over half the job growth in the first 5 years of the plan marry and were generally on pace with the housing so we eagerly await the reports to see how well, they have shifted as it meshes with our view of San Franciscos landscape shaping up were activity working to see the scenarios in a couple of weeks providing details on the land use capacity and neighborhood plans so they reflect how San Francisco using views itself is a complex landscape one thing ear doing were looking at the horizon for 2040 so absorb more growth that leads up to not first and foremost influencing this but when it is adopted in 8021 youve heard interpretations about the 50 yearlong range partnering for the planning and sfmta Transportation Authority is creating a vision a 50ier vision plan for transportation in San Francisco and going with that the 50 year land use set of scenarios so were trying to look at 50 years ahead how the city evolves so have a holistic look for the next planned area be prepared for the next 4 years this is a timeframe of 20 to 50 so were trying to get head im going to turn it over to any colleague. All right. Thank you josh and moirj just to update opposite the transportation side i think the last time in october when you approved the projects we submitted to mtc for consideration and in planned area since then, the staff has evaluated and looking at the assessment so the performances assessment was performed on a subset of projects flowering ones to consultant one a the fact of the matter assessment looks at how it stacks up against the 14 projects and assessments for each the projects the purpose of analysis of analysis so identify the high performs the High Performer you get consideration funding and local you have to have a case why youre project should be included in the plan eve its a low performer so some of the projects that were evaluated and just taking into account the performance results this is what well talk about next month but in general the projects performed less well in this assessment than in planned bayview we have ideas but as a result we think well have High Performers were actively going to have low performers well have to justify their inclusion in the plan our main request is we saw our projects perform much, much better in the taupgd e taught assessment than the cost assessment there is an inaccuracy in the modeling of the efforts that is used in the methodology so ours main request we when their deciding how the high and low performers and consider the performances the fact of the matter for the benefit costs numbers this is the schedule of what well be bringing to you next the key areas on the agenda pretty much through abag and mtc adopt the final preferred scenario in september of this year i want to flag for you and members of the public watching mtc and abag are host an open house in San Francisco on june 14th from 6 30 to 8 30 in the evening at 1231 Market Street well be there be there so we have a quorum if you have any questions, well be happy to answer them. Thank you for the presentation supervisor kim. Thank you chair wiener and talked about potential ways to increase production and Affordable Housing in the region that is something i was interested in how the you know the Housing Trust fund so something ive brought up looking at the projects might be within the Transit Center corridors that we talk about in this presentation i was wondering in abag has begun work on identifying the projects further down the road an example was brought up the Taylor Project in the district i represent that is a transit oriented project close to bart station and several the lines that were entitled shovel ready and ready to go but need the gap funding to get housing into place i was curious there are projects like that around the bay area gotten to that point with the millions to get that cross the finish line to identify the sites and expedite some. Thank you for your question so we are in the process of come piling that list of projects there is some permanent information not been updated for a few months this is one task the other task is also the communities Development Areas where the transit is more responsibility the level of housing or the level of housing efforts is important and substantial so we can establish a set of p da a priority within the region the priorities that the p da delegations and identifying the projects the housing dollars give us is one important component and just for the benefit of the rest of the commissioners this is a proposal of a regional Housing Trust fund that comes to supplement the funding that is available at the local level were working in coordination with fcc and a retreat to discuss the components that comes to support that in addition to this housing fund there is an infrastructure funding that will go in parallel with this effort were hoping to bring you a summer summary of those projects with the Housing Trust fund. Yeah. No, im very interested in this project but interested overall in the developments potential in these areas and the p da and figuring out im sure youve looked at where we have control and there is potential development but even parcels in the p da we dont have control but are vacant a possibility to negotiate with the lymph gland great to have 3 buckets one that move forward that needs a little bit to get across the finish line and parcels we have second control and but you know we need to theres a lot more to figure out and finally, the papers we dont have site control but the list if we want to go and pursue the development in the parcels. This is good well take