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. 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. tt

>> january at this time we ask that everybody turn off your cell phone. thank you for city halls support. (taking roll). mr. president, we have quorum >> item two the explanationy

documents draft 2012 minutes. >> we have a motion to approve the minutes. >> a second. >> all in favor. >> any opposed? next item >> now the draft 26th draft. motion to approve? any opposed. next item >> approval the 2010 draft minutes. >> all in favor the december 12th minutes?

>> any opposed. >> commissioner are you now on item number 5 general comments allows public to give opinions. >> decision items. do we have anyone in the public who would like to comment? seeing none it is closed >> discussion by nicholas on live performs permits. mr. king was unable to attend today so i recommended do we have any comments from the

public? seeing none? public comment is closed. next item >> we're going to taurth the next item he. thank you. commissioner item 7 is presentation demonstration from the office of small business were welcome. don't believe my microphone is on. now it is >> as you remember i was here back in july of 2012 and introduced a business portal so, now i'm going to give you the real item here. so we're very excited. let me go through a presentation

and i'll question any questions at the end. so introduction and background of the obsolete i have as i mentioned before. there is so many permits in the city of san francisco how do we make things easier >> so a product was slicked called product 1, 2, 3 and the mares office and other city department we're able to put together a product. and we're kind of going through the first phase. we had a small budget but we're going to try to make it work.

so when useders come to this website which will about in our office. the banner is the same as the city's website so there will be a page that comes from the small business website and when they click on the website. what the user will do is it's very self-explanatory select the story. so i'm going to pick food and drink. and with that we'll select food trucks as an example.

so 3 concludes i select my story, my business type and click on see licenses. so we're going to encounter a page where we try to take the use users information. we're getting the users information so type in your name. i'm going to type in my name. and we're going to use some gener genetic data >> first name, last time, city,

state, zip code, phone number, e-mail address, and i can select if i'm a new business and if i have any estimated annual revenue. this takes me to the next page which is the report. open this report our office works closely with this vendor to customize his product so you -- our business owners have to connect the tax collector.

as they scroll down you'll see the permits and licenses you'll need. f a business property register. public health, department of pickup health has any requirements as well as if you locate your truck on a piece of private property i have to interact with the planning department. so all these permits are all listed here and when the yours concludes on view details they'll see what they need to complete and the fees. i can download the form. this is our tax collectors

application. and i can go back to the full report to see the rest of the forms with the county there's a fictitious business licenses we are providing information for the state and federal government whatever it's applicable. and some of the other things that are unique to starting a business in san francisco. for example, let's see someone wants to do a consulting business there are certain rules and guidelines to starting a business in your home. we've made easy links so the

users can find it easily. building permits should they do any construction work or wait water charges >> and there's another link on how to start your business in 10 steps. those will take you directly to our website to give the user more information. so the goal again is to simplify doing business in san francisco and this product is not the answer to everything but we're going accomplishing a lot of >> and also again, the product was an off the self product we

worked hard a custom misses to meet the needs of our consumers. traditionally the user who wanted to start a food truck would come to city hall, they would have gone to pick up department of health but now, it's all in one place and hopefully, this will increase the efficiency at the counter. the counsel can pull up the forms all in one place. and our other intention to capture those users who are more

internet savvy on the computer but in case they need more information the information is there. we're also talking about a phase two of this project. i guess - just to make this product even more powerful wore continuing to work with the company that put the permits together. as our economy changes we get a lot of business owners who come to us who have a new concept like a restaurant and a

motorcycle club. it's actually a real case i'm working on >> we want the user to have the abilility to be able to submit these applications online where we have one place for us to reroute the information. we'd like to have the abilility to save user profiles. and just a big pie in the sky goal is to have someday where the owner could build their business and i'm like thinking about ope