development, business attract and attention, neighborhood commercial revitalization and business facilitation and development planning. city building is within the work force with three main objectives. to maximize employment for san francisco resident in the construction industry and support training through opportunities for the purpose of job placement and assist contractors in meeting their requirements. mandatory local hiring ordinance. san francisco administrative code 6.2 g applies to contracts for san francisco, public works at or above $4,000 so that's the flesh hold. 20 percent of total work hours by trade for san francisco resident in the first year with a 5 percent annual increase over 7 years up

to 50 percent by trade. and throughout the duration 50 percent of all the hours per trade by san francisco resident. and the percentage is determined by the date of advertisement not award. so you can see on the left there's a brief over view of the 7 year period. the third and six year are identified as review periods and i'll get into that more later. so the penalties associated with the local high ordinance are equal to the number of hours deficient in each trade multiplied by the wage of that trade as determined by the california determine of industrial relations. contractors and sub contractors are liable for not meeting hiring requirements and if a project is deficient in any trade, dowd will work with

a contractor to provide a plan. so with that there's off ramps and exemption. if a contract can't meet local hire requirements, penalties may be completed by sponsoring a new apprentice and retaining those apprentice or they may receive off site credit by employing san francisco resident on non covered within the bay area. that's exempt in the local requirements if it's less than five percent of the total work hours or included in oewd list and trades. there's a short list that includes marine pile driving, crane operator drivers and the tunnelling craft and stainless steel welding and connecter, utility workers.

those are actually the exact trades under the ordinance. so it is currently in its third year. so per the ordinance it's under legislative review and that means that during this period up to march 25th the board of supervisors can make any adjustment to this by single vote by resolution. in anticipation of this mayor lee makes recommendations to the ordinance. the committee represents are 3. general manager of san francisco public utilities and mu ham mad the director of san francisco of public works. there's three labor representatives, bob, executive secretary treasury,

the northern california region council, and oscar and tim who is the secretary of international brother hood of electrical workers level six. there's three contracting represent tivens. tim, president of limb incorporated. bob of president brothers general contractors, jess peterson, president ceo of web core builders. there's three community builders, con, josh with bright wine defense project, and james bryant, regional director. i believe james is with us today. this body is currently meeting regularly to formulate recommendations to the mayor for consideration as the policy

is currently under review. data city wide for projects posted with a 20 percent requirement and a 25 percent requirement and broken down by city department. there's total hours and then on the right apprentice ship hours. if you look under the 25 percent both for the port and mta, there are no reported projects to date that were advertised or awarded with the a 25 percent requirement. that's why there's that gap there. and then specifically to the port, we have break down by trade for port projects and you can look at the total hours by trade and apprentice works. there's others -- i think there was under 5 percent. there's a reason for that lower percentage. also for pile driving because of the marine

pile driving exemption, that's why that's under as well. some highlights that was stated. valued at 79.4 million that are subject to the local hire with 20 percent. pier 27 brandon street warf, 23.5 and pier 50 le sub structure repairs, all four projects have satisfied local hire are on track to meet their local hire requirements and conditional waivers for off site credit and apprenticeship have been utilized. the pipeline to meet these needs for construction workers are through the apprenticeship program was founed and it was partnered with city college of

san francisco, trade apprenticeship program. and its eligible for college credit and financial aid participating in this program. the minimal requirement are high school diploma, ged, valid driver's license and the ability to pass a drug test and those are industry requirements and those aren't the ones we impose. their curriculum is a general training and hands on training and construction safing, and blueprint labor and life skills, cpr first aid, scaffolded stairway confined spaces and fall lift and traffic control. and then our apprentice ship partners are

the carpenters, cement maceers, sheet metal workers and we support the training program founded in 2009. it's an 18 week curriculum, non credit and partner with city college and then local cbo and construction employers. the minimum requirement are high school diploma or ged and microsoft office and quick books and introduction and scheduling contracts and lastly employer partnerships. web core, dpr, camp lemon and company, engineering lab tors and mechanical. any questions. >> any public comment? >> commissioners.

>> not yet. >> that's very comprehensive. no questions from the commissioners. thank you. >> i do have one question. that first slide regarding where the three year period, the one to seven year period, what is the one to seven year based on meaning we're at three years now and we're at a certain percentage so the goal is to get 50 percent over time or -- >> this was a legislative decision. i believe this was a compromise. there was a lot for 50 percent and there was a threshold held out. i think there was a threshold that people held. there was a push

back in the industry saying that was unreasonable. they figured there needs to be time to meet this growing demand in the legislative requirements and that's why the review period was built into it so we can assess it in the third year to see if do with he have sufficient pipelines. what is the direction of this industry. this was a piece of legislation that was put into affect during a recession period where construction work hours were off by 50 percent so it was easy to meet the demands initially. they went to 35 percent just in the first year of i implementation. as we have this rapidly expansion market and the projects are coming by the ordinance, it's dramatic. we're looking at this and we're taking market

analysis to make some comprehensive recommendations towards construction work force. also taking into consideration the city's provision for first source hiring which aren't as restrictive but covers most private developments throughout san francisco. >> and have any penalties been implemented so far? >> the off ramps are very generous so we've been able to utilize those to date to avoid liquid dated damaged. in the third year they'll be difficult to avoid in some situations but employers have every opportunity to utilize these off ramps. our goal is not to penalize contractors but put san francisco back to work. we tried to avoid liquidated damages. we work closely with

the city economist. we can see there's been cost impacted the city associated with this city. >> all right. thank you >> thank you. >> do you have someone else presenting or that's it. regarding the report, i want to thank you. it has been a great year and even though we didn't meet our self imposed goal, we're close to it and i want to thank director moyer and the entire staff for taking these goals serious and trying to make sure that we are doing our part in making sure san francisco are working so thank you so much. thank you. >> item 13 a request one port commission resolution 12-92

endorsement of the za 1,230 term sheet and three authorization to enter into a negotiation. portland between pier 28.5 and 23rd third street 4110 and block 4200 zero located at 21 and illinois street. >> good afternoon commissioners, brad benson, directors here to present. this is going to be familiar to the commission. port staff presented a term sheet for this important transmission project back in november of 2012. we're back before you today with a revised term sheet and we've been negotiating with our

partners represented here with jackson. and have some new public benefits to share associated with with this term sheet. i'm going to fly quickly through the presentation because you've heard it before but slow me down if you have questions or i can take questions at the end. >> you can't leave. we have no forum. sorry. >> pg and e maintains the transmission serving the city with the exception of the transbay cable. most of it

coming up the peninsula. they have proposed a new 230 kv transmission line to provide redundant see to downtown san francisco. you remember there were rolling blackouts that affected downtown and we had reliable services for the cities and supervisors got involved and we're looking at a number of transmission upgrades to the city and endorsed upgrades and this is one of the most important upgrades. right now downtown is served by kb system that runs from the patero substation to the embark substation and there's major concerns if there's an

earthquake that happens that that transmission line can be severed and it will take some time to get the power surface up to downtown san francisco. there are a number of proposed routes for this redundant see upgrade. one would involve submerged port property and i'll show you that route. as i mentioned before the port commission has previously endorsed a term sheet for the proposed project. and we have negotiated significant changes to that proposed agreement for your consideration today. pg and e has been hard at work during the same period of time. they've been working with the california public utilities commission and just recently published a draft mitigated that's under going public comment and review right now. here are the routes that are

being considered by the cpcu. there's two upland routes shown in green and red. and then the submerged route is shown in blue and all three routes would provide this tran mission update from patrero. the blue line would go underneath city streets and then there's directional drilling into the bay just north of pier 30. and that would -- the route would run three miles and then follow the transbay cable up to third street to get to the substation. once at the patrero substation, part of the station is building a new 230 kv switch yard to the existing switch yard in a much smaller foot length. on an anger of the site to the south of pier

70. i've gone over all of this. i'm going to skip this. there's quite a few approvals required for this project. the cpc is the lead agency there the project. they're analyzing the project from reliability to see if it provides the benefits. cpcu will be collecting comments on their draft mitigated declaration through september 2013 in writing. the board of supervisors will have approval which would come after its complete and there maybe some

[inaudible]. there's very agencies that regulate construction in the bay including the regional water quality board and cd cd that may have to issue permits as well as the federal level at the court of engineers. so getting to the terms of the revised term sheet, the basic premises are the same as what you saw last november. and as is the term which contemplated as a term agreement with one 126 year option to renew up to the 266 years. pg is proposing a pre-paid rent structure so that the ports rent would be collected in a lump sum, actually two lump sum payments

in 2014. and we expect $14.8 million divided into two payments. so the water front community benefits policy would apply so there's big deposited in that fund as well. for the option period rent, pg and e would have the option of paying an annual rent or a lump sum rent, calculated in the same manner as this initial rent. we mentioned when we were here in november that a major public benefit that port staff had been negotiating for was the ability to buy some property right near the patral yard. and it's where pg and e does industry was operations. if you recall 22nd street is planned to be a major interest to the 4th city water front

site development and we believe that the city staff level that there needs to be a change of use at this site in order to facilitate that development so we've negotiated an option price. under the revised agreement the office of he can no, ma'am he can and work force development would have the option and for city development would rezone the hoedown yard. the great fwhing this structure it provides public benefit that the improved land. that's the difference between the $8.3 million that oewd would pay for the property and what it would sale for. would go to a project that's important to mayor lee, the hope six project at patrol which is completing its environmental review. it's a rebuild of low income housing in the city and really a whole

new neighborhood. >> another is figuring out how that existing substation can be improved to allow for all the development in the pier 70 area. this area of the water front has been dedicated to providing power to this city. there was the patraro plant that closed several years ago to the south of pier 7 and the switch yard. as we're thinking about repurposing this area of the water front we have to think about how to treat these old power facilities in a manner that will accommodate growth, so we've been looking with pg and e help with two options, either screening the substation with the utility screen and we go around the perimeter of the project or the substation or enclosing the

existing substation in a building. and that's what you see in most of the neighborhoods around the substation. the larkinsubstation is enclosed. that's a great option as well. under this proposed agreement the city will have a right to select its preferred option and they'll seek the approval for that city preferred option. wrapping up the presentation. the timeline has not changed since we've seen you before. we're in the middle of review that should end at the end of this year. we could be back with a proposed license agreement in early 2014 and construction will start as early as 2015. so as to our recommendations and next steps the resolution before you would

resend your prior resolution endorsing that prior sheet and having the staff enter into this revised term sheet and then we would go to the board of supervisors with the term sheet and our expectation is to bring it to them for their consideration and make sure the terms are acceptable to the board. after the cpuc completes the process then we would come back to you for final action. so that's my presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> motion to approve. >> moved. >> second. >> okay. >> any public comment? >> any questions? the preferred route is the blue line? >> yes. >> which is under warrant. that's the most cost efficient we think? >> pg and e would be better -- they would be in a better

position to answer that. it's better from the port's perspective because that's the means we're able to charge rent and we think it's cheaper for the project all over than digging up city streets and putting the transmission. >> it's a blue route? >> the only one we're involved in is the blue route. this is ontario smith representing pg and e. >> the blue line is cost effective. it clears the hurdles and it minimizes public streets. we're not digging through streets which is impactful for the resident. >> my next question is the only line that affects us is the blue line, the orange or green line we have nothing to do with? >> although i think one of the other lines crosses the creek so we have a very small license

for a portion of that route. >> the hoedown yard, who is responsible for remediation if there's a need? >> the site has gone through a regular process. there's deed restriction on the site. we've been monitoring pg and e environmental efforts with respect to the hoedown yard and the power plant site including those lands off shore. and carol bock is our manager who has been monitoring that work. we think the cost to clean up that hoedown yard are pretty small to residential standards in the neighborhood of $600,000. we're buying the property on an as is basis so really what would happen is we would sale the property to a

future developer. they would clean up the site if they were going to do residential use or leave it as it is and build a commercial use which is allowed under current closure. >> so we'll be responsible or the developer -- >> yes. >> where is the yard going to move to? >> we discussed this and the commission expressed a concern that it not move to port property. pg and e heard that. so we can't tell you where it's going to move to. that will be part of pg and e due diligence over this next period of time as finding an alternative location for that use, but i think we can report to you that it won't be on port property. >> thank you. my last question is the 7 water front benefit fund, the $665,000 what is that based on. >> i think that number is wrong.

>> me too. >> i need to recalculate that number. if i come up -- >> i come up with closer to $1.2 million. >> i have to see if the 8 percent reflects the concerns in the schedule, but we'll get that information to you. it will be as we've told you in the past, the contribution to the fund will be consistent with the port commissions adopted plan. >> brad before we take a final vote -- >> by the way, nice catch. >> thank you. >> i am not 100 percent clear on what the revised versed the -- in three or four sentences tell me. >> we've moved from an annual rent structure to a pre-paid

structure. we've been contemplating renting structure. we have a new prevision of the substation. that's the major improvement to this term sheet. we've got rough cost estimates for the value of that. we can't tell you what it will cost but it can be between $10 million and if it's enclosed in a building it can be $50 million of expense. and then the option to acquire the hoedown yard shifted from the port to the office of economic and work force development, i think we concluded at the staff level as the port it doesn't make sense to acquire non trust property for non trust development purposes. >> i understand. that's it, right. i want to be sure that -- >> yes. >> okay. any further questions. >> all in favor. >> i. >> i. >> thank you. >> resolution number 1334 has

passed. >> item 14 no business. commissioners. >> no. >> no new business. okay. okay. >> adjourned. >> can we have a motion to adjourn. >> so move. >> second. >> all in favor. >> >> okay. good morning, and welcome to the transbay joint authority