hydro, ghg free, start to go away because they're going to start selling those contracts to other vendors that they have, other people that want to buy that energy. and, so, we need to keep this thing moving forward. i understand, commissioner arce, that you have some kaiserious concerns. those are concerns that have nothing to do with the not to exceed rate. they have other program designs and we can continue to have this discussion. you doughthv need a resolution to have that continued discussion. simply ask the puc staff, i am 100% willing to bet with anyone that ken malcolm and anyone else with the puc would be willing to come back and have those discussions with you here or if you want to have more sit-down meetings one on one with any of you that have questions, we can do all of this. i think what you're about to do is going to seriously harm this program and i would encourage you to volt no on that resolution at this time. thank you. ~ vote >> thank you. next speaker. well, what a night. derek burks, san francisco green party, local grassroots organization in our city.

so, i want to scare you a little bit and reassure you a lot. the scare you part is that commissioner arce, you're absolutely right. they could set the not to exceed rate next week. they could move forward with a shell program and no other program, which as i said is only less than 4% of what we envision. so, but with that said, the reason that advocates have recently voted and said to the sfpuc and to lafco we would like them to proceed with these not to exceed rates is because they are now competitive with pg&e. especially if you compare it to a pg&e green rate. and what ms. malcolm proposed to us tonight are rates that will probably be even more competitive, even competitive with pg&e's brown power rate. the issue with the shell contract is that whether we like it or not, the local

buildout that we all want is no longer tied to the small phase 1 part of the program. it's no longer tied to the shell contract. so, the reality is now that the shell contract is going to have competitive rates if the sfpuc sets competitive rates next week, now that it's going to have competitive rates, the advocates are not concerned that there is going to be a large opt out of the program. after the shell contract is underway, as long as there's no large opt out, that's when we start building this next phase. when you get into phase ii and we do the buildout. and as commissioner wald rightly points out, that buildout is not going to happen unless we -- you as a commission, you as a department, we as advocates, make sure that the sfpuc and the board of supervisors does it. and under ab 117, the 2002 law

passed for community insurance aggregation, i want to reassure you, and this can be done, if the sfpuc ends up not doing the program we want, the board of supervisors is empowered by that law, ab 117, to get advice from the local agency formation commission on how to build out that buildout program regardless whether the sfpuc wants to do or not. and you the department of environment because you have been involved in a lot of energy efficiency buildout would be the natural vehicle for that. so, the reality is we all need to make this happen. and if we find that the sfpuc is not getting it together, we can make it happen ourselves. is that a risk? yes. will stopping the not to exceed rate vote next week change much? the answer is no. and as mr. freed said, if we get this not to exceed rate thing out of the way, we see how much money we've got to work with the buildout, then we can get this second phase rolling.

so, i agree with your expressing the concerns you've expressed. i wouldn't make it so leveraged on you better work with us or else. let's just express the concerns and express that you want the not to exceed rates to be competitive with pg&e. thanks. oh, and you can leave out the rec thing because if you insist that we do the local buildout that's envisioned by all the laws and resolution that the board passed, then that means we will get away from recs right away. so, you don't really need to get into that territory. >> thank you, mr. brookes. next speaker. hello, commissioners, judd holtz man again from 350 bay area. i won't take too much time just to point out that mr. brookes and the advocate coalition and lafco would be the two entities who have worked the longest and the hardest on making this program what i understand the commission also wants it to be. and i would urge the commission

to look at the representative of lafco and the representative of the advocates and listen very closely to what they are urging you to do as folk who didn't last check in on this in september, but have been doing this day in and day out. i also would just support commissioner wald's comments that it's all of our responsibilities as citizens, as advocacy organizations and certainly as the commission on the environment to make sure that this happens and that convincing ourselves that this could be a one-top check box everything is going to be okay and then we stop paying attention is both unrealistic and will probably result in negative program outcomes going forward. thanks. >> thank you. other speakers? [speaker not understood] for ibew1245.

just a brief comment. we'll be supportive of the resolution. it would be an addition that the program goals that tonight did not set -- the resolution be revised it does not meet all goals and does not comply with state's environmental laws. as was discussed earlier today. the decision on the rate structure will determine the scope of the program including its environmental impact. and the sfpuc was required to conduct environmental review before it makes a decision on the program in accordance with c-e-q-a. thank you. >> thank you. any other speakers? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> commissioner king. >> call the question. >> the question has been called. and if we could perhaps get one final read with the amendment from commissioner josefowitz, if you would mind to do us the honor, commissioner wald, unless our director has a more succinct expression. >> do you have a better

version? >> i don't know if i do. what do you have? >> okay. the program as we heard it described tonight does not meet all -- that's your amendment, right -- goals. >> the original goals. >> oh, all the original goals. and we encourage the puc to work with the department of the environment to craft a program that is acceptable to the san francisco environment commission. is that what you got, ellen? >> the program as we heard it described tonight does not meet

all of the original goals -- >> goals. i assume. >> i want to say commission. the program as we heard it described tonight does not meet all of the commission's original goals and we encourage the sfpuc to work with the department of the environment to craft a program that is acceptable to the environment commission. [speaker not understood]. >> we can amend it now because we called the question, right? >> right. that's the question. all those in favor please say aye. actually, you want to do a roll call vote, may be easier at this point. he called the question, which -- >> do roll call. >> can we just have it read again? it was back and forth. >> the program as we heard it described tonight does not meet all of the commission's original goals, and we

encourage the puc to work with the department of the environment to craft a program acceptable to the san francisco environment commission. >> so, and the commission there is what, is us? it doesn't meet all our original goals? >> yes, that's what josh is saying. >> okay. so, we're not including the second bit that angelo said? i just want to under that. >> that's what it is. >> would you mind rescinding your motion to have a brief discussion, commissioner king? >> [speaker not understood]. >> you were calling my language which was your language. >> and this is to be conveyed in a letter to the puc or are you sending me in? >> [inaudible]. >> i don't think we need to decide how to deliver it till we decide what it is, if anything, we're delivering. >> right.

>> [speaker not understood] he would really set us straight on this stuff. proceed to roll call vote if we can, monica. >> [speaker not understood]? >> aye. >> commissioner king? >> aye. >> commissioner josefowitz? >> no. >> commissioner wald? >> no. >> commissioner wan? >> no. >> [speaker not understood]. >> aye. >> so, commissioner arce was aye. commissioner king was no. commissioner josefowitz was -- what was your vote, commissioner josefowitz? >> yes. >> aye, okay. commissioner wald was no. so, that's -- commissioner wan was aye. it doesn't pass. >> see you next week, vice president courtney. if we can call the next item before doing that.

if we can, we've kept a lot of folks. can we make our presentation to our labor folks? we have to stay here very briefly. >> i've got to go. [multiple voices] >> if we come at 4:00, we can have a quorum. >> [speaker not understood]. i don't know how many people you would have. i would like to say now that we've decided there is something we're going to deliver, test,

test, test, test, test, test, test, test good morning. today

is thank you july twergd july, 2013 well, to the san francisco transportation authority. i'm commissioner campos's and we're being abbreviate by sftv staff >> number one roll call. (calling names). we have quorum. >> very good madam clerk call our next item.

>> the meeting minutes this is an action item. >> let's go into our public committed on the minutes. we'll continue >> no. 2 (calling names) the item passes. >> next item please. the treasure report is an information item. >> thank you. good morning colleagues the authority board will enter into closed session today as we move

toward selecting a director. i want to thank the commissioners for logging in a lot of hours. we have 3 candidates we're hoping to have a decision before august and have another board meeting scheduled july 30th. we'll have our interviews on the 30th and a special board meeting early september to make a decision. i'm working with the controllers office which i called for to help identify what agencies is doing well. the controllers off the is honing in on a few recommended areas consulted with key stakeholders to make sure the discussions are productive.

i expect to see a final draft i can share with the board this week. last although, it's been a high topics the transportation commission adopted plan bay area after a marathon meeting that was for the outreach strategies. despite some of more hyperbolic press coverage it goes toward the transportation development based on the growth areas the 3rir78 growth areas and encouraging you housing for all income levels. those are key in moving toward green gashouse processes. and this is very important.

i want to thank our m t c and bay commissioners. currently representatives as well that served on a bag earlier in a bag development. in particular i want to recognize campos and wiener foyer the successful cap and a trade revenues and state of good repair needs respectfully with the balance for affordable housing. the details will be worked out in the months ahead working with the mayor's office and the regional advocates and m t c to make sure that the cap and trade revenues are made available. those are especially important statements and calls for the revenues that don't come close

to meeting our operation systems mostly in san francisco that take the largest share in the bay area. the mayors task force and the san francisco transportation plan are corporating on the advocacy efforts. and that conclusions my remarks. if there are no comments or questions from the commission we can go onto the public comment >> commissioner wiener. >> thank you chair avalos and thank you for recapping the joint m t c a planning bay plan. i want to reiterate what you mentioned on capital needs. i offered a project that should go to capital replacement and

that amendment was adopted. we as we learn through the plan bay area process have an absolutely massive unfunded capital rehabilitation and replacement need in the bay area for all the transit folks in the bay area interest there's a $17 million how old we have the need to rehabilitate our system so it retains fundamental and we have no funding identified in the plan. a boil of that is with muni and some with cal train. thirty so this is an unresolved issue. when we talk about adding 2

million new folks in san francisco. a lot of this plan a predicted an having a robust plan of transportation and with 17 to $18 billion it's a real big issue. we need to be focused like a lazyor in san francisco on addressing that. >> i think it's important to mention $580 billion with the pentagon. >> thank you. i wanted to say that a couple of other sub things with the adoption of the regional housing assessment was a debate between conservative groups tea party groups and other groups that don't want more affordable housing in their areas. there was a grassroot coalition of groups under accident entity

coalition jobs that were effective so the building of affordable housing with some of the cap and trade money a significant percentage key was a win. also identifying displacement as a real issue some folks in san francisco were saying that many the equality advocates and the affordable housing folks did a great job in emphasizing how displacement is real and also ooelgd e oakland and san jose so there was great language from my office and this grace roots coalition. they're not satisfied because of the significant displacement

that we know w will happen but some mitigations and strong analysis was advocated and i and others supported the equity jobs coalition though it's not perfect but without the grace roots coalition we wouldn't have had the impact >> without really repeating i think one of the things i'm proud of is to see the level of engagement by the san francisco delegation on the metropolitan transportation commission and a being a baggy believe this has made this plan a lot better and all of us brought something to the table, you know, supervisor wiener and his focus on the capital needs of the system and

supervisor campos when we was there and supervisor cowen. i know that even you know when supervisor i'm sorry from district 5 former supervisor was in a bashgs bag he he was talking about will equity. i think that san francisco has the role to play in making regional planning better and more responsive inform the needs. and one of the reasons is some of the folks that other jurisdictions have to deal with some of the tea party folks who are against any you beyond a reasonable doubt of regional planning we don't have to deal with. i'm very proud of the changes in this plan and very appreciative whether it's representatives from the board or

representatives from the mayor we're on the same page on those issues and we're very proud >> i left out we're fortunate that a bag the association has tremendous staff the new director did tremendous work. i would say that the leadership was effective in getting language in and making really great points through that process. i hope as we work forward to implement the key points in affordable housing and echoing real displacement we work closely with the staff as well. >> very good if there are no other comments we can go onto the public comment.

please come forward and seeing none, we'll close >> this is an information item the director's report. >> good morning commissioners executive director. the director's report is in our two attachments i'll keep my comments brief. the first one i don't need to say much we're going to start again in 12 months. i would echo the comments especially by commissioner campos. this is the first time i've had input from all working together. i know that the staff appreciate that we're able to articulate similar to the sustainable planning and housing objective

more easily in other communities. i do want to emphasize that we've got a great grant program that is towards the transit development but tailor about the need for transportation and housing behalf and beyond cap and a trade and making sure that the bay area has a stronger voice in terms of endorsing the next legislation. we can learn a lot by looking at our colleagues in the los angeles area. we can do the same in the bay area. at the federal level we have a new federal level from north carolina. we've got continued barnship at the federal level and two transportation bills for 2014.

we've got the same situation repeatedly where two bills are significantly different we're going to have to have them compromised. there will be another continued resolution and it's not a great way to do the capital funding. it provides a great deal of uncertain. one piece of good news it's not set yet but both the house and senate appears to continue the full amount of $50 million. and we'll keep an eye on that. i want to draw your attention to the fee registration program. the board approved $8.12 billion

and we're talking about the status of the project as well as the funds that were not allocated. there was a promise to the voters that there was one of the policies the board adopted if the funds are not allocated in the year then the funds can be move forward forward. there's in the told them there's 7 to 12 projects allocated funding. can i add 5 are 5 of them left. 4 are detailed due to the september to december pedestrian so we recommended those funds be rolled over. we might need to work with the chairs office. this is the pedestrian project providing a more direct

connection between the rerouted developments that are going on in the field. this has been in limb both but we'll continue to work with the city college and that's also in commissioner yees district so we, work 3 offices on that project >> thank you very much. 19th avenue transit study i want to note that one of the that attachments you'll be arching on today, this is the realignment we're working on this in kwopgs with the office of workforce development the planning department and the maintenance maintains. there's certain decisions that need to be making and the planning development is working on the transportation commission and all itself city departments

got together e together and one of the promises t is 5 hundred though dollar grant it's called the project study report and that will keep the project moving along. the last projects are the van necessary project. it's august 12th. we made a connotati to action that's the september 10th final documents. mta will do so on september 17th and we'll get the report at the end of the environmental report. 3450e789 mta is moving forward