so, turning, then, to our proposed procurement plan guidelines and authority, the plan for normal year, we are proposing that we plan to meet normal hydro year conditions just like we do in the budget. we are planning to update our forecast as needed to ensure that we comply with the act. that's also consistent with how we report on a quarterly basis for budget variances. and as i mentioned, we're seeking authorization to have the general manager procure the rps resources as needed within these boundaries, up to 5% of retail sales over the two-year budget cycle. that's about 50,000 megawatt hours. or $500,000, whichever is greater. his discretion would be capped at that amount. and to meet that requirement at the lowest cost. we would bring to the commission any procurement

necessary to comply with the law beyond those levels for further action. so, we're asking -- >> for november 13th? >> beg your pardon? >> you plan to present that november 13? >> no, r i'm planning to present the actual plan and a resolution november 13th. this is -- this give you the information behind it. >> ahead of time? >> yes. >> okay. so, the commission will adopt the procurement plan november 13th? >> if you're comfortable with it, yes. >> but i'm not clear on this. what would the commission workshop november 23rd? >> that's today, that's what we're doing right now. >> oh, this is the workshop? >> this is the workshop. >> i didn't realize that. >> this is the discussion. >> welcome to the commission workshop. >> yes, it's your workshop. [laughter] >> we have this year -- excuse me, in 2011, just to take that policy proposal that i just put before you and describe what it means to us. in 2011 it was a wet year. there would have been no

additional rps purchases needed to comply with the law. the calendar year we're in right now, 2012 is more of a dry year. and we have some plant outages. we project that we will need to procure rps resources to meet the acts requirements. they will be small so they're going to be under the 5% of retail sales limit. we're forecasting each month to monitor and evaluate the need. we expect we will need to procure renewable energy credits equivalent to 50,000 megawatt hours before january 1st, 2013. -- to comply with this law * . we expect that will cost us about $50,000. the act also allows for cost limitations, as i mentioned, if exceptions. the exceptions briefly are that our obligation is capped at the same level as other publicly

owned utilities. so, for example, the requirement for publicly owned utilities is 20% of your retail sales need to be met by rps compliant resources. in 2012 that rises to 33% by 2020. we may delay compliance due to circumstances beyond our control, and we may adopt a cost limitation. so, putting the cap and the delay ability together, for example, if we had an unexpected outage that was significant, but made it so our hetchy generation was less than 67% of our retail sales, that would mean that we would only have to procure up to 33% of renewable power and we wouldn't have to do -- meet that

compliance requirement within the same calendar year. we'd have some flexibility on delaying our compliance due to that unforeseen circumstance. so, focus just briefly on the cost limitation. you know, it's really intended to allow us to address uncertainties, like extreme dry year or plant outages. allows us to budget for any contingencies. we presently have in our adopted budget a budget line item for risk management as a contingency fund. at this point that is set at $4 million a year. we are proposing that the cost limitation be limited -- excuse me, that the use of that risk management fund, that $4 million, be applied as it is today, but also be available to us to meet this rps requirement. it would be -- allow us to use

those funds, modest amounts of those funds, minimizing the need to raise rates on -- to customers in future budget years. it's really a safety valve to make sure that our compliance doesn't push costs up unreasonably. president torres, you alluded to the timeline. let me put it up on the screen here so that you can see more specifically where we're at. >> right, that's good for the public to see that. >> yes. >> my other question is in terms of the rps eligible, the renewables, what percentage are we looking at in terms of renewables? we have solar, wind -- >> right. so, now our resource mix is our biogas, our hydro and solar. >> okay. >> and because we have this separate section of the rps law, we don't have to procure

beyond those resources except very infrequently. and we are proposing that that procurement be from renewable energy credits. >> so, the way they're titled would be appropriate? >> they would be. they would be qualified resources under state law. >> if we had -- >> if we had them, yes. >> and we have no geo thermal here? >> correct. we have purchased it in the part, but we do not have any in our portfolio today. >> where do we purchase it from? >> we purchase from the geo thermal system in guyser. >> in guyser ville? >> yes. >> are they acceptible our hydro now? >> yes, commissioner, they are accepting our hydro. yeah, another hooray, that's three in one meeting. [laughter] >> we have -- we were able through the legislative process to explain that were we to have the same rules applied to us, we would just be selling our hydro and substituting in other

renewable resources. the objective of the law is to in part to reduce the emissions from power plants. we don't have any power plants that emit. >> [inaudible]. >> yeah, i have a couple of questions. so, we can't bank the rps resources? >> we can. under the rules, we can -- if we have -- if we do that math equation and we have lots of extra rps compliant power, we can bank those renewable energy credits. you earlier allowed us to register with us the western system that allows folks to have those credits certified in a way that's recognized by the marketplace. we are registering those credits, then, and we can use them ourselves in a subsequent compliance year. so, for example, in this year

because last year was wet, 2011 was wet, we had some extra. this year we're going to need to purchase some, but we're also taking some of what we generated last year and applying it to this year. so, we're not having to purchase as much as we otherwise would have. >> and they don't expire? >> they do expire. under the regulations, they do expire. so, we would either use them or if we projected that we wouldn't need them, we would attempt to sell them before they expire. so, we extract the value one way or the other. >> that was my other question. and then i thought we budgeted in our budget for some additional renewable procurement. >> yes, we do have additional renewable procurement in our budget. some of that capacity, if you will, that financial capacity is absorbed by the power purchase agreement we have with sunset, for the sunset soler output. but we also recognize that even in any year, what we may need may need we exceed forecast.

we're looking at the risk management part of our line item to fund these unusual circumstances. >> and when was the last time that we weren't able to meet our needs? and i know that these rps standards are new, so, maybe we didn't have the same issues. >> we didn't have the same requirement. >> but have we been able to meet our needs with hetch hetchy with our parr? >> there have been times we had to meet short-term purchases in order to meet our needs. and maybe the best way to look at that is to again look at the first background slide i put up where you can see there are some years where a lot of our generation is considerably lower. you could tell that our retail sales pretty much track a wet year. not exactly, but in recent years, sorry, they pretty much track a dry year.

so, the dry year line you see on this slide here is about where our retail sales are or have been in the last 10 or so years. and, so, looking at these -- the tail end of this slide here, you can see although years we have plenty of power to cover our retail sales. >> so, one of the things this slide doesn't give you is sort of like that day to day sort of variation that happens. that's an annual sort of like slide. and when you look at it sort of by quarter or by month, great, you have lots of power in april, may, june, and you have very little in september, october, november. until the rain starts and the snow starts again. so, if there is a cycle that kind of goes on and we do do short term purchases in what we call quarter 3 and quarter 4. just to cover, you know, our existing customers. >> and that's why we'd be procuring the recs this year, right? >> yes. this is a lower than normal

water year and we've had some outages. >> right. >> thank you very much. >> anybody have any questions? yes, commissioner moran. >> on the -- on page 12 of the presentation where you talk about the cost limitation proposal. >> yes. >> and you have $100 per megawatt hour. >> yes. >> which is twice what the penalty level is that was set by the cpuc for pg&e. >> yes. >> what is the thinking as to why we doubled that? why do we choose to have a twice what the cpucd? >> one is a penalty is one is a cost limitation. it could certainly be lower if you prefer a lower -- to cap the amount the puc will pay at a lower level, we could. it was really just -- we're just providing that as a benchmark for you to understand

sort of some of the context in which we're proposing this number. >> and the market for renewables ranges from currently what to what? >> it's also about 30 to 50 megawatt premium on top of the brown power. brown power price. >> so, 30 do $50 per megawatt hour premium? >> yes. >> and this says that it would be market -- in case of an adverse market which is probably when we would most likely need to buy this stuff, it gives us some price flexibility there. >> right. to the extent that we are low on hydro -- california is low on hydro, and, so, market prices are going to be up overall as a result. >> thank you. >> what is the impact of the deductions on solar utilization? have we measured that? tax deductions that are -- >> have we measured that? we certainly realize that it lowers the cost. >> right. >> and that's why we pursued a

third-party for our development of the sunset solar project. >> okay. >> and didn't fund it ourselves. i can't recall off the top of my head, maybe you do, todd, what the -- mr. reedstrom, what the financial impact of that was for us. >> it was pretty significant. by way of comparison, the tax credit, tax credit financing that we successfully undertook for current sunset solar brought the average cost per kilowatt hour down to 23-1/2 cents. that compares to average costs of our hydro system. all the costs included of about 9 cents. so, without the tax credit federal financing as well as the state programs, it would have been over 30 cents kilowatt hour. >> you need to take credit for that. >> we have a line item -- >> that's why i try to raise some of these issues because when you and the work that this agency has been doing, i am so proud of the fact that the cost saving that ultimately go to

the rate payer, we need to talk about. if we're going to get your trumpet so you can blow your horn, we'll do that. you should be commended because you've been taking into account, you've been a steady steward of the process and look what it's producing for the rate payer here in san francisco. i'm sure most jurisdictions, knowing some of the mayors in those other jurisdictions, i don't think they've had as good a record as we've had here in san francisco. i want to say thank you. i think it's important to bring it out into the public view. >> thank you. it's definitely a team effort. a lot of detail. >> no question it's a team effort. my comments were directed to the team. any other comments? we don't need to accept anything. [speaker not understood]. >> there's no action. >> right, no action necessary. i guess there is an action necessary to go into executive session, closed session. >> thank you. >> any public comments before we move into closed session? all right, we need a motion to assert the attorney/client privilege. >> move to assert the attorney/client privilege.

>> second. all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all right. >> closed session items, item 17, existing litigation lennon versus city and county of san francisco. item 18, existing litigation cadmin versus city and county of san francisco. item 19, existing claim, chung versus city and county of san francisco. and item 20, existing litigation city and county of san francisco versus pacific run and gun club. >> let the record show that the private session [inaudible]. >> i would like to make a motion not to disclose -- [inaudible]. >> [inaudible]. >> aye. >> [inaudible].

[adjourned] i'd like to remind everyone that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outburstses of any kind. please turn off any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, please speak directly into the microphone and do state your name for the record. at this time i'd like to take

roll. commission president fong? >> here. >> commission vice president wu? >> here. >> commissioner antonini? >> present. >> commissioner moore? >> here. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> first on your calendar, commissioners, are consideration of items proposed for continuance. item 1, case no. case no. 2011.0430e at 4 08 potrero avenue, appeal of preliminary mitigated negative declaration proposed for continuance to january 17, 2013. i have no other items proposed for continuance. >> is there any public comment on the item proposed for continuance? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner wu. >> i move to continue item number 1 to january 17th. >> second. >> on that motion to continue, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya?

>> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> so moved unanimously, commissioners, that motion passes 5 to 0. next up is your consent calendar. all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussionvv of these items unless a member of the commission, l public or staff so requests in which the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. items 2a and b for case numbers 2012.10 46 b and c at 1550 bryant street - between division street and 15th street; lot 006 in assessor's block 39 23 - request for office development authorization pursuant to planning code sections 179.1, 321, and 322 to establish 108,399 gross square feet of legal office use in a pdr-1-g zoning district and 68-x height and bulk district. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any public comment on the items proposed on the consent calendar?

seeing none, commissioner antonini? >> move to approve. >> second. >> on that motion to approve, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commissionedthv fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. which places you under your commissioners questions and matters. item 3, consideration of adoption, draft minutes of special meeting of october 11, 2012 and draft minutes of regular meeting of october 18, 2012. >> any public comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, commissioner sugaya? >> yes, on thursday, october 11 under item 1, which is on page 2 under speakers, i believe

didn't sue hester testify on this item? 295 as related to the transit center district plans. anyway, her name is not listed. maybe the secretary can check. -- check on that. >> i can certainly check. if she made an appearance, i will add her name. >> thank you. >> the subsequent item just says same as those listed in item 1. with that change, is that a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> on that motion to adopt the draft minutes with the proposed amendment, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president

fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously and puts you on item 4, commission comments and questions. >> commissioner antonini. >> a couple things, first of all. happy to report that the subcommittee for secretary search has been meeting in smaller group parts of the subcommittee have been interacting and i think we are moving closer to a situation where we may be seeing a job application issued. and thanks to cooperative -- cooperation of the department of human resources and others. so, we will continue, and i believe we will be meeting in another week with the subcommittee to continue the process. >> thanks again for everyone's hard work on that. i know it's time consuming, but obviously important that we spend the right amount of time. >> i think you sometimes get out of something what you put

into it and we felt that way and we've put in the necessary hours, i think, to make sure the product that comes out will help us to try to find as close a replacement as we can for linda, which is a very difficult thing to do, but we wanted to be as good as it possibly can be. on another subject, i think we were all really thrilled by the giants' win and the parade yesterday. and i had the good fortune to see the entire thing. and i thought some of the remarks by some of the speakers, players and others, rose above the, what you usually get. and particularly was impressed by the remarks of the manager boce and he talked about the life lessons that can be learned from a victory. some of them perseverance, cooperation, humility are important lessons. and team members doing things that they don't usually do to help the team win. starters pitching in middle

relief, pitchers being called upon to deliver big hits and sluggers having to punt and all those sort of things is a good lesson for us because sometimes we have to do things in our lives that we're not accustomed to doing and may not be our job, but we have to do the best we can. and i also was very happy to hear an analogy drawn by sergio romo talking about the giants being a lot like the city of san francisco. i'm paraphrasing his remarks, but he basically talked about the diverse group that comes from all over the world and often different languages, but collectively they can do great things. and he sort of made an analogy to our city. so, i thought that was really good. and finally, buster posy talking about the fact that a win like this is more than just a win, but it has the ability to be a tonic and lift municipal spirits. and this theory has been brought forward in the past, but i think there is some validity to that.

certainly the only admonishment is that even though it's fine to live vicariously with the team, it never gives anyone license to destroy property or assault someone just because there's been a victory. and we don't want to be classified with some of the things that have been said about some cities in the past where they have riots whether they win or lose. and glad yesterday seemed to go very well from what i've heard as far as that was concerned. so, it's great to win, but it's even greater to see good things come out of it for the entire city. >> commissioner moore. >> as a follow-up to comma commissioner antonini was saying, the city looked photo general i can today when you looked at the area of the civic center, when you looked at literally wearing black and orange, overall it was

spectacular. so, i think everybody who participated made it happening. we all can pat each other on the shoulder that this came about in a wonderful way. >> all right. commissioners, that will place us under director's report, item 5, director's announcements. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. i ask just wanted to thank several of you for attending the board hearing on tuesday in honor of linda avery herbert. it was a resolution that was passed -- that was proposed by supervisor olague to honor linda for her 32 years of service and named tuesday as linda avery-herbert day in the city. several staff attended as well and i think it was an appropriate honor for linda for all of her service to the city. so, thank you all for attending. that concludes my report. thank you. >> which will place us under

item 6, review of past week's events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here to give you your weekly report of the board of supervisors activities. ann murry rodgers, planning department staff. at the land use committee there was one ordinance i'd like to report about and one hearing. the first was the ordinance amending the administrative code to -- for port prepayment of jobs housing [speaker not understood]. this ordinance would encourage the development of affordable housing on port properties. the planning commission did not hold a hearing on this item, but instead requested an informational memo. this week's staff from the legislative sponsor, supervisor kim, explained along with city staff that this ordinance would allow the port and the mayor's office of housing to enter into a memorandum of understanding whereby the port would receive credits towards their obligations to pay this fee, the jobs housing linkage fee in exchange for the sale or lease

of port property to under market rate for affordable housing. that was the longest -- sorry about that. if you have any questions about that, i can explain it again. secondly, there is a hearing on the car sharing program. the director of the mta made a presentation about the importance of car sharing as part of the city's transit first program. also in attendance was the director of the department of the environment and some local car sharing organizations. the presentation covered the transportation code definition for car sharing and the benefits of car sharing and the fact that this is largely a private sector type of transportation which supports our city's transit first policy. that said, the mta said the city can help in making parking available for this use, both on street and off-street. and staff from mta noted that off-street spaces don't always match the demand that may be

needed, and that there are over 2 80,000 on-street parking spaces. sfmta recently start aid pilot program to look at using some of those on-street spaces for car-sharing. and they found that by using this pilot program some people did illegally park on the on-street spaces and that also there was some difficulty in removing some spaces from general use and dedicating them for car-share. that said, sfmta will be expanding their program in the coming year and able to expand it in an equitable manner throughout the city. on tuesday's board hearing, supervisor olague's ordinance was there that would add mend the administrative code to ensure the right to return to revitalized housing. this commission heard this item on september 27th and since your hearing the supervisor continued to work with other city agencies. this week the ordinance was passed on final reading. supervisor olague's other

ordinance requiring housing production report was continued to november 20th. the board also heard the privately owned but publicly accessible open space signage ordinance sponsored by board president chiu. this item was heard on june 7. the supervisor adopted all your recommendation. and after the commission hearing he continued to work with our staff and the mayor's office of disability to ensure that the entire proposal is a-d-a compliant. this week the board passed the ordinance on first reading. next up is the housing trust fund monitoring ordinance also sponsored by board president chiu. this commission approved the ordinance with modification two weeks ago. supervisor again incorporated all your recommended modifications. and after a hearing, the mayor's office of housing proposed another modification, asking that these reports also include assistance