>> good morning, everyone. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance subcommittee meeting for wednesday, march 26, 2014. my name is mark farrell, i will be chairing this committee. i am joined by vice-chair eric mar and committee member john avalos. we want to thank the members of sfgov-tv covering this meeting nona melkonian and jonathan and the clerk of the committee ms. linda wong. madam clerk do we have any announcements? >> yes he, mr. chair. silence cell phones. completed speaker cards and copies of documents it to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted on today will be on april 5, 2014 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> okay, thank you, madam clerk. can you please call item number 1? >> time number 1 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the fleet management division of the general services agency to accept and expend a grant in

the amount of $384,000 from alameda county for electric vehicles and chargers, for the period of july 30, 2013, through december 31, 2015. >> okay, thanks very much. is it tom from fleet management? thanks for being here. >> thank you. thank you for having me. good morning, chair, and supervisors. my name is tom fong. i'm the fleet manager at the fleet management division of the general services agency. i'm here today to seek your support to accept and expend grant funds for the local government electric vehicle fleet demonstration project which will help bring 14 new electric vehicles to the san francisco municipal fleet. in 2010, the metropolitan transportation commission issued a grant announcement for electric vehicle demonstration project. 10 public agencies in the bay area joined together to apply and later awarded the local

government electric vehicle project ~ which was funded for $2.8 million a total of 90 vehicles. for this particular project alameda county is acting as the lead agency for participating partners. as a partner to the demonstration project, the fleet management division of the general services agency was awarded up to $384,000, up to $2.8 million total for the purchase of 14 electric vehicles and chargers, which will be distributed amount city departments including the human services agency, the public library, the port, recreation and park, and the general services agency ~. the affected date of this grant is july 2013 through december 2015. the grant is being requested [speaker retroactively to align with the 2013 grant commencement date. however, to date no grant funds

have been received or expended. the grant include two components. the first component is the reimbursement of incremental costs between the standard sedan and electric vehicle. this will allow san francisco to buy more expensive electric vehicle at the same cost of a standard sedan. the city will be reimbursed approximately $163,000 for this incremental cost. the second component is reimbursement for charging station for which the city will be reimbursed approximately $70,000 for 14 electric chargers. a grant reimbursement for this project is expected to be $233,000 and any remaining balance will be reallocated back to the grantor, the federal highway administration. the grant requires $200,000 matching funds which would be appropriated by the board of supervisors in the 2013-2015 annual appropriation. the grant will present a cost

[speaker not understood] environmental benefit opportunity to continue granting the municipal fleet. i ask that you approve and accept and expend and can answer any questions at this time. >> okay, thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? supervisor mar? >> i just wanted to ask, i believe it's mr. fong, about the charging [speaker not understood]. are those rapid charging stations? i know from electric vehicle week last september, there was a number of demonstrations. i got to drive a few vehicles. and then looked at different types of charging stations, but i'm wondering are we keeping up with the technology and having the most rapid charging stations in this project? >> okay, sir. >> the chargers that will be procured through this process are the, what we call level 2 chargers, the smart chargers capable of charging at 240 volts. for a typical vehicle, anywhere between 6 to 8 hours [speaker not understood] charge. >> and then it looks like

there's two vans and 12 sedans. and i see on the budget analyst report that there's only a couple of car miles we're considering. but when i went to the electric vehicle week, it looked like there were a whole bunch of different options. but is there a reason why we're focused on the ford focus and nissan [speaker not understood]? >> so, the lead agency in alameda county actually conducted a competitive bid process. so, they were sent out and later awarded through this process. the three vehicle is the ford focus, nissan [speaker not understood], and [speaker not understood] electric van if i'm not mistaken. >> thank you. >> supervisor avalos. >> thank you. i just have a question regarding the cargo vans. we have two that are part of this agreement? >> initially when we submitted the grant, was for 12 sedans and two electric vans. subsequent to that, we asked

for a substitution to have 14 electric vehicle or sedans as opposed to 12 sedans and two vans. >> the vans were taken out? >> the vans were substituted for two sedans. >> and what was the reason for the vans being removed? i heard that possibly the vans weren't suitable for san francisco's terrain? >> through the cumulative process, one of the exceptions to the specifications from the manufacturer was that they would not recommend the vans to be used in san francisco because of the hills. >> okay, thank you. >> okay. colleagues, if no other questions, why don't we go to our budget analyst report. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, as the report shows on page 4 of our report, the grant requires the city to provide matching funds of $300,000 for the 14 vehicleses. that's the base cost. and the city's current cost for

the 14 fleet vehicles is $353,96 2, which exceeds the matching grant requirement of $300,000. as you know, the board of supervisors has previously appropriated that 353,96 2 in the 13-14 budget for the purchase of the 14 vehicles. we also note on page 5 of our report that the department of transportation grant will reimburse the city for the differential as the department said between the cost of the 14 standard fleet sedans and the cost of the nissan electric sedans, so, that differential is 162,876 plus the cost of the 14 charging stations, 70000, results in a total grant reimbursement of 232,876. we recommend that you approve the resolution ~. >> great, thank you, mr. rose. colleagues, any questions for our budget analyst? okay, seeing none, we'll move on to public comment. much appreciated. is there anyone in the public wishing to comment on item number 1?

okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> so, colleagues, we have this item in front of us. could i have a motion to move it forward to the full board? >> i'll move approval. >> and we can take that without only significance. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you please call item number 2? >> item number 2 is a ordinance appropriating $1,089,249.67 of surplus proceeds from the sale of general obligation bonds for completion of capital improvement projects included in the 2008 clean and safe neighborhood park projects to the port commission for fiscal year 2013-2014. >> okay, thanks very much. mr. cruz from the port of san francisco is here to present on this item. >> chairman, committee members, my name is nate cruz. i'm with the port of san francisco. here today to request the supplemental appropriation in the amount of approximately $1.1 million for various port park projects. by way of background -- sorry, could you activate the overhead, please? thank you.

by way of background, back in 2008 the voters of san francisco generously approved a $185 million general obligation bond issuance. included in that 185 million was an allocation of 33-1/2 million for port park projects. as they are appropriated today, the chart in front of you shows how that 33-1/2 was allocated to individual projects. today i'm asking to reallocate 1.1 million from the projects in red which are completed or near completed, and have savings to the two projects in green which have shortfall. specific amounts of the appropriation which are also in the budget analyst report are in this table. again, we're just taking savings from completed projects and near completed projects and moving them to projects, bayview gateway and [speaker not understood] park. a little bit about the specific parks. we're excited about these projects. they face each other across from [speaker not understood] creek. as you go from sort of dogpatch

into bayview they really are at an access point in the neighborhood. tulare park is on the [speaker not understood]. this is a view of it today from the third street bridge. could use a little work. specifically, the [speaker not understood] there today is not a-d-a compliant. through the design process, we determined that the only way to provide an a-d-a accessible path is to build a bristol-myers squibbv bridge that actually goes out over the water. that was an unforeseen event driven primarily because there is a puc force main underneath the path we didn't know about ~. our original path included redesigning that force main. so, that is basically what's driving the budget shortfall on this project. that would be solved by the supplemental. the [speaker not understood] design for tulare park is shown by the bridge and enhancement of landscaping across.

the creek is bayview gateway. this used to be part of the port's working waterfront. today it's just an asphalt lot and brick building you see there is a fire station which would not be impacted by our project. what we propose to do is remove a lot of the wharf, open up the waterfront, restore the shoreline, and provide a pedestrian access and public amenities [speaker not understood], benches, things like that. here's the conception design. you can sort of see public pathways. >> can you talk into the microphone? thanks. >> sorry. this is the conceptual design for the park. you can see how the pathways and landscaping would integrate with the exposed creek. that is my presentation. want to thank the budget analyst budget analyst for their report and i'm available for any questions. >> colleagues, any questions? seeing none, mr. rose, can we go to your report?

>> yes, mr. chair, committee, orphan page 11 as explained, on pages 11 and 13, the port proposes to [speaker not understood] 189,250 dollars and that's from the 2008 clean and safe neighborhood parks general obligation bond funds. and that de appropriation includes 619,63 3 in project savings from the bay front park project, 459,089 [speaker not understood] site improvements project. and then the balance of 10,528 in savings from the blue greenway planning and design cross. those funds then would be reappropriated if you approve this request for a total of the 1,089,250 and the estimated savings would go to two port projects including 444-625 for the tulare park project as shown in table 3 on page 12 of our report, and 64 4,625 for

the bayview gateway project as shown in table 4 on page 13 of our report ~. the port has provided us with sufficient details. we recommend that you approve this proposed ordinance. >> okay, thank you, mr. rose. colleagues, any questions? okay, thanks very much. seeing none, we'll move on to public comment. anybody wish to comment on item number 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> [speaker not understood]. >> we have a motion to approve this item to move forward with recommendation. we have a second. we can take that without objection. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you please call item number 3? >> item number 3 is a resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness; authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development to submit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee to permit the issuance of residential mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $19,500,000 for 350 friedell street, san francisco, california 94124 (block no. 4591-c, lot no. 103); authorizing and directing the director to direct the controller's office to hold in trust an amount not to exceed $100,000 in accordance with cdlac procedures; authorizing the director to certify to cdlac that the city has on deposit the required amount; authorizing the director to pay

an amount equal to such deposit to the state of california if the city fails to issue residential mortgage revenue bonds; authorizing and directing the execution of any documents necessary to implement this resolution; and ratifying and approving any action heretofore taken in connection with the project, as defined herein, and the application as defined herein. >> okay, thank you very much. i believe sophie hayeses was here to speak on this item. >> thank you, good morning chair farrell and supervisors. [speaker not understood]. we are hoping this item would be tabled. since the item was introduced march 11, the developer has requested to change the entity that would induce the bond to the california municipal authority. due to the timing of the [speaker not understood]. so, without any further questions. >> okay, thanks, ms. hayward. colleagues, any questions? no budget analyst report. move to public comment. anybody wish to comment on item number 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, at the request, could we have a motion to table? >> move to table. >> move to table item 3. take that without objection, so moved.

[gavel] >> madam clerk, can you call item number 4? >> item number 4 is a resolution designationing the san francisco county transportation authority as the treasure island mobility management agency for certain purposes pursuant to the treasure island transportation management act. ~ >> owe kay, thanks. mr. beck, thanks for being here. >> thank you, members of the committee. bob beck, treasure island director. the treasure island mobility management agency was conceived and its designation authorized by ab 98 1 in 2008 ~. the treasure island transportation management act. the ~ role of the tema is [speaker not understood] treasure island transportation programs including the preparing of studies, adopting of rules and regulations for the administration of transportation programs on the island and to administer revenues from the island.

the treasure island development authority has worked with the san francisco transportation authority and the san francisco municipal transportation agency to develop the treasure island transportation implementation plan and the recommendation that we are bringing to you today. also present are members of the sfmta, frank markowitz and cynthia fong from the san francisco transportation authority. i do have a short presentation that provides background on the treasure island transportation implementation plan and the role of the tima. if you like or i can take questions. ~ >> colleagues, any questions?

>> as i mentioned, the treasure island mobility management agency was conceived first in the 2006 treasure island transportation planned authorized in assembly bill 98 1 in 2008, and the role of the timma and the scope of the treasure island transportation plans were further refined in the 2011 treasure island transportation implementation plan. it called for the establishment of the timma for management of the [speaker not understood] implementation. and the overall objective is to

price automobile usage on the island through parking fees and [speaker not understood] to access the bridge to discourage driving to and from the future development on treasure island. the development program itself calls for 100,000 square feet of office space, 300 space is a [speaker not understood] space, but it's really anchored by 8,000 residential units, 25% of which will be affordable, but also hotels and some retail and historic facilities. the major transportation [speaker not understood] of the development of treasure island is to minimize impacts on the bay bridge corridor, particularly the peak commute hours. and the starting point for our efforts here is the treasure island transportation implementation plan which includes certain guiding principles, the design the

island to encourage walking and biking as the primary modes of travel, to provide efficient transpour thaitionv services ~ transportation services to and from the island, levels of service that provide -- support a high demand and provide a high-quality alternative to automobile use. to discourage the use of automobiles through parking policies and pricing, congestion pricing on the bridge, and other measures. and through those revenues to create and maintain a financially sustainable transportation system. and going forward, to adaptively manage the transportation services and the pricing to adapt the changing needs of the island. the transit services that are called for for the island include new ferry service to the embarcadaro from treasure island.

there's currently muni service to the transbay terminal, but also additional muni service to civic center. future ac transit service to the east bay. and an on-island shuttle system to connect users from their homes to the transit hub, as well as bike service and travel information. some of the innovative measures that are called for in the plan called for unbundled parking, congestion pricing, metering of the on and off ramps from the island, and also mandatory transit prices for all residents on ti. and the revenues from the transit passes, the parking and the tolls support the high level, high-quality transit service from the island. the implementation of this will include working with all the stakehde