january, february and the very first weekend in april? will be the preparation and support structures for the beale street bridge. we plan to do that on a friday night road closure with an early monday re-opening. we have been able to do that on the other two bridges. this just gives you an idea of the prep work that has to occur and the time periods and of course the support piles will require road closures on beale street. and mr. and is there is muni that necessitates where muni has to be taken down and reinstalled. budgeting information, there

has been plenty of discussion on that. we run 63% on local labor and continue to hit the similar numbers throughout the general areas. san francisco still contribution about 20% of the labor to the project. and these "around the house" are the trades that are currently working and the numbers. any questions? >> director reiskin? >> great news, that is more than 10% reduction and you suggested a little mvp might be coming bab, is that a significant analyst? >> the way the contract is written, that it was a price for the installation of the 125 and the change order to add the 72 for a total count of 207. each shaft, each foot of the drilled shaft is what we calculated on.

the original design length was 241' and that was what the bid was based on with a total estimated drill amount. so what we need to do now is wait until they are 100% done, the last shaft is drilled and from a quality perspective, approved, accepted. and then we'll say we add up the total feet drilled of each one and do the multiplication. because there are three different types of shaft with three different prices per foot. yes, the average cost of a shaft is well over $200,000 at the 241' estimate. and more importantly it saves us time. as you recall the buttress work was controlling a lot of the project and this helps us tremendously there as well. any other questions?

>> seeing none, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> that concludes my report. >> thank you. we'll move on to item no. 6, which is publ comment? >> i have not received any indication that a member of the public wants to address you under this item. >> if you want to address the board, please come up to the mic and you will have two minutes. >> hi, thank you i'm jim patrick with patrick and company in san francisco and i have watched this board go on and analyze this agreement with heines behind closed doors for the last year and a half and finally reading the minutes which are about to be approved this deal has concluded apparently. i would like to know from the board, why is this a good deal for us? no. 1. and no. 2 could i get a copy of this deal to evaluate it? thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none, we will close

public comment. and we'll move on to our regular calendar, which brings us to item no. 7. >> item no. 17 authorizing the executive director to negotiate a contract with the san francisco public utilities commission. >> and directors bob beck will report on this item. >> thank you, we did get a really detailed summary, which i appreciate. since we did a detailed one, we could just answer questions. >> the detail was at a pretty high level and really at the end of the day boils down to what are the economic terms of two proposals. so we did receive proposals from both pg&e and puc to provide power source to the tjpa and based on

the schedule for finalizing construction documents this may we really need to commit to the space program that would be associated with one service or the other. that is why we're bringing this issue to you today. under the cpuc as a regulated utility it's pretty straightforward that tjpa would fall underneath the cpuc rate e20 classification and in the proposal that the puc has submitted to us, they would provide us a rate that would be 10% lower than the published cpuc rate that pg&e would be required to meet. the pg&e connection, the recommended connection, they presented three alternatives, but the one recommended to us was the connection to the downtown network grid. which is the kind of standard arrangement in areas where that

service is available. and they would serve the transit center with two different points of service, which would be fully redundant and neither would be able to support the operations of the transit center, if one point of service failed. the san francisco puc proposal, they are not able to service directly from the downtown grid, but what they have proposed is what is called a "do dual primary feeder." again connecting to the transit center at two different locations and either service being able to fully support the needs of the transit center. so if there was a problem with one point of service or the pg&e substation, we would be able to receive service from

the other substation. in terms of the first cost to the tjpa, the first cost of the connection to the pg&e service was estimated by pg&e at roughly $4.5 million. those service connections are subject to a number of rebate programs based on consumption. the san francisco public utilities commission, the cost of making that connection would be greater, but the proposal from the san francisco public utilities commission is that they would cover any additional costs above and beyond those that would be required for the pg&e service connection. and, in fact, that they would -- because they are not required to pay a state tax on the service connections, they would decrease the cost of our service connection by the cost of that tax, which is rough

life $650,000. and their service connection would be subject to the same refunds as the pg&e service connection. so that we're at a very equitable basis, but realizing about a $650,000 initial savings on cost of service. it's worth noting also that the puc has additional energy-efficiency rebates that they have indicated that the transit center might be eligible for above and beyond those offered by pg&e. and that puc primarily, because they are primary hetchy and solar power that they are 100% greenhouse gas-free service to the tjpa. so in summary, the sfpuc is offering us an ongoing service rate that would be 10%

lower than pg&e's. an initial cost of connection that is again roughly $650,000 less than pg&e's. and has a comparable level of reliability of service. and so the recommendation is that the board authorize staff to negotiate an agreement with puc. >> thank you. actually i did have a quick question. i wasn't clear from the summary, the $661,000 of the itcc, are we going to discount that amount to the puc? because in the summary it said a minus and i wasn't sure we would offer that credit to the puc, since we would not have to pay it to pg&e. >> the puc has said is that they would limit the cost to the tjpa to the amount that it

would cost them to establish pg&e network grid service, less the amount of that fee. so that is a further decrease in the initial cost investment to the tjpa for the amount of that fee, which at the time of the pg&e proposal was 22% of the costs. >> thank you. director metcalf? >> why is the sf puc proposing to subsidize the installation by 3. 5 million dollars? >> the puc is here and barbara hale could speak to that. but in terms of bringing us on as a customer, they are able to further utilize the amount --

to sell on the retail market additional energy that they would otherwise would be surplus and selling on the whole sale market. >> do they make the money back? >> they make the money back. >> thank you. that is all i need. >> director reiskin? >> just a comment, as the chair said, first of all, a very good and comprehensive report. so i appreciate that. and i also think as the transbay terminal itself is enabling a sustainability form of transportation and brings a very big environmental benefit to the region, i think it's very appropriate that we would be powering it with clean hetch hetchy power. so i commend the puc for an innovative and aggressive proposal and i think this is a win-win and good for the puc and it's good for the project and it's good for the

city. so i think i'm happy to see the recommendation. thank you. >> i will just concur with director reiskin. and i think over the last -- actually over the last year the board of supervisors has spent quite a bit of time comparing rates and offerings between pg&e and puc with community choice aggregation. i think i came out of that process with incredible faith with the public utilities commission to really work through and offer the best deal possible both for the city and i do think it's a big win-win in terms of the revenue that is going to flow back to the city. and of course, the savings that will occur at tjpa and of course, the environmental impacts or the benefits is also a huge bonus. so i'm really happy to see this come before us and happy to support this as well. any other commentses or questions? let's take a vote on this item. >> motion to approve this. >> second. >> with a first and second,

and any member of public wishing to comment on the item (roll call vote ) that is four ayes and item 7 is approved. >> thank you. can we please move to item no. 8. >> item no. 8 is approving the updated initial projects report and a resolution of project compliance with for the allocation of regional measure 1/ab funds in amount of $47,800,000 for the transit center program >> sarah will report on this item. >> directors this is the standard compliancing. this particular allocation allows us to certify and issue an ntp for the first portion of the structural steel contract. as we have done in the past with mtc, when we have the land sale funds available from the

close of the tower parcel t, we would actually rescind whatever we haven't spent and return it to mtc and would be available for a future allocation. so this is $47.8 million in funds to be determined by mtc and i'm happy to answer any questions that you have. >> director reiskin. >> it's great to see this moving forward and enabling the ntp package. the table in the back that showed the revenue plan for both the $1.6 million project and total $4.5 . the land sales items, it was maybe $400 something million for phase 1 and double that for the total project. what are

the assumptions underlaying those numbers and what is the level of certainty with those? >> the land sale assumptions are based on projections that are real estate consultant as part of the tifia loan. there is a range of numbers that are possible and we have of course used the lower more conservative assumptions. and we'll see how the market performs as we move forward. we do have -- if the board would like to review in closed session, we do have those projections on a block-by-block basis, but we do keep those confidential. >> okay. thank you. >> sure. >> move approval. >> so we have a motion to approve, and we have a second. >> and no members of the publication indicated that they wanted to address you on the

item. so with that roll call (roll call vote ) . >> that is four ayes and item 8 is approved. thank you. >> can we call items 9 and 10 together? >> item 9 is approving the minutes of the november 19th, 2012 meet >> members of the board, good morning and happy new year. i would like to direct your attention to item 9 at the bottom of page 3. this does not actually request what was said at the meeting. the board gave specific direction to staff to come back basically other issues to be studied in the supplemental eir and directions were to come back to the board, either in december or january. now the reason i am addressing you here is that one thing that was really basically skipped

over is that the authority mandated in the alignment, but what happened as a result of that is that the platforms have not been pushed back to the other side of main street, on the other side of the street. what that means if we pursue this avenue, we will never, ever be able to connect transbay to the east bay. and the sooner we look at this and address this, the better. thank you. >> that concludes the members of the public that indicated that they wanted to address you under that item. >> thank you. i am actually looking at our november minutes right now and i'm not sure what aspect of the minutes that were referred to. director metcalf? >> i think i was the one who made comments there. thank you for the comments. i agree that this is an area that needs future study. i do think that the minutes are

accurate. we did authorize moving forward with that professional services agreement. we are requesting that we talk about this at a future meeting as the minute say. so i think you are flagging an important issue for us, but i think we should adopt the minutes >> thank you, director metcalf. i assume this is referring to item no. 9? >> that is right. >> when the board did request an update on dtx and high speed rail and i do see that reflected in the minutes. would you like to make that more specific in the minutes? >> no, i'm comfortable with the minutes. >> we do have items 9 and so before us. >> i think i'm going to abstain from item 9. >> so we'll call them separately then. >> i do know if you have read the minutes and you feel comfortable with them you can vote on them, but if you rather not we can do them separately. do we have a motion to approve. >> so moved. >> motion and second and we'll vote on that first. >> [-ebs/] director mett kav?

>> aye. >> director reiskin? >> aye. >> vice-chair ortiz? >> obstain. >> chair kim? >> aye. >> that is three ayes and one abstained and item 9 is approved. >> go ahead and call item 10. >> approving the minutes of meeting december 13, 2013. >> moved and second. >> no members of public who wish to address you on that item. (roll call vote? >> . four ayes and item 10 is approved. >> at this time i do not see any further items in our open session. do we have a motion to convene into closed session. >> so moved. >> second. >> at this time we do ask members of the public to exit the room to discuss closed session items and we want to thank everyone for coming today. >> i did want to note that no

members indicated that they wish to address you on the closed session item. >> seeing none, public comment on this item is closed. thank you. [ gavel ]

the meeting is now back in open session and counsel will report on the closed session. >> >> the board unanimously resolved to direct the executive director [speaker not understood] for l1,432,500 and resolve upon successful closure, surmisal of the eminent domain action. >> thank you no further items? >> that conclude yours agenda for today. thank you, meeting adjourned.

>> you're watching quick bite, the show that has san francisco. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> we're here at one of the many food centric districts of san francisco, the 18th street corridor which locals have affectionately dubbed the castro.

a cross between castro and gastronomic. the bakery, pizza, and dolores park cafe, there is no end in sight for the mouth watering food options here. adding to the culinary delights is the family of business he which includes skylight creamery, skylight and the 18 raisin. >> skylight market has been here since 1940. it's been in the family since 1964. his father and uncle bought the market and ran it through sam taking it over in 1998. at that point sam revamped the market. he installed a kitchen in the center of the market and really made it a place where chefs look forward to come. he created community through food. so, we designed our community as having three parts we like

to draw as a triangle where it's comprised of our producers that make the food, our staff, those who sell it, and our guests who come and buy and eat the food. and we really feel that we wouldn't exist if it weren't for all three of those components who really support each other. and that's kind of what we work towards every day. >> valley creamery was opened in 2006. the two pastry chefs who started it, chris hoover and walker who is sam's wife, supplied all the pastries and bakeries for the market. they found a space on the block to do that and the ice cream kind of came as an afterthought. they realized the desire for ice cream and we now have lines around the corner. so, that's been a huge success. in 2008, sam started 18 reasons, which is our community and event space where we do five events a week all around

the idea of bringling people closer to where the food comes from and closer to each other in that process. >> 18 reasons was started almost four years ago as an educational arm of their work. and we would have dinners and a few classes and we understood there what momentum that people wanted this type of engagement and education in a way that allowed for a more in-depth conversation. we grew and now we offer -- i think we had nine, we have a series where adults learned home cooking and we did a teacher training workshop where san francisco unified public school teachers came and learned to use cooking for the core standards. we range all over the place. we really want everyone to feel like they can be included in the conversation. a lot of organizations i think which say we're going to teach cooking or we're going to teach gardening, or we're going to get in the policy side of the food from conversation.

we say all of that is connected and we want to provide a place that feels really community oriented where you can be interested in multiple of those things or one of those things and have an entree point to meet people. we want to build community and we're using food as a means to that end. >> we have a wonderful organization to be involved with obviously coming from buy right where really everyone is treated very much like family. coming into 18 reasons which even more community focused is such a treat. we have these events in the evening and we really try and bring people together. people come in in groups, meet friends that they didn't even know they had before. our whole set up is focused on communal table. you can sit across from someone and start a conversation. we're excited about that. >> i never worked in catering or food service before. it's been really fun learning about where things are coming from, where things are served from. >> it is getting really popular. she's a wonderful teacher and i think it is a er