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 stakeholder agencies including ac transit, bada, caltrans, muni, we he da who will be managing the ferry service as well as the transportation

authority and tida. ~ weda if you have additional questions on the plan or the recommendationses to designate the transportation authority as the timma, be hatch toy answer those. aloe okay, thank you very much. colleagues, any questions he? supervisor mar. ~ happy to answer >> mr. beck, i just wanted to ask about the congestion management. i know that the transportation authority has to develop plan. do you have any concept of how that would work? >> we are working with the transportation authority already on some preliminary studies for the mobility management and congestion pricing. there are a number of variables that we're looking at. but the main vehicle to managing the congestion pricing is calling on and off of the island. we're looking at the question of whether those tolls should

be collected only when leaving the island, when arriving on the island, when leaving and arriving, whether tolls should be limited to just peak commute hours or should be -- have different prices or have some periods of day where there is no toll collected, whether toll should be applied just to the 8,000 households on the island or to all vehicle access to and from the island. so, there are a number of parameters that are being studied and we're just in the process of initiating those studies with the transportation authority. >> and i see particularly director fong and [speaker not understood] from the ta here. i know, i think it's a public-private partnership to rebuild the western -- i guess on and off ramps, but i worry about with 8,000 units and probably 10 to 15,000 more people as we build it out, that

the new ferry and some of the increased bus service still might not be enough to deal with the bottlenecks. but i'm just wondering, the transportation plan is developed to deal with that amount of new people, including the retail, i think you said 100,000 square feet of new office space there, and then the retail as well. but could you talk a little bit about the potential for more bottlenecks with that many more people coming in and out? >> a lot of the commercial program for the island is intended and anticipated to be primarily supporting of the neighborhood that exitsv on ~ exists on the island. so, grocery, some restaurants, perhaps dry cleaning, but really the primary focus of the retail is not destination retail, but retail that would be neighborhood supporting and supportive of the community.

so, not anticipated to contribute significantly to the transportation demands. but, yes, one of the central constructs here is to balance the congestion pricing and pricing -- parking pricing on the island in a way that encourages people to leave their automobiles behind and to support a level, a frequency of transportation service that makes it the most desirable choice. so, it will be -- the transportation authority is going to be modeling this through their champs modeling system, but that is the balance is going to be striving to achieve. >> and then i'm really pleased about the shuttle, the island shuttle system. i look forward to learning more about that as well. that serve the residents that are currently there and the new ones that will be coming.

so, that sounds wonder. >> yes. the focus is that the bus service and the ferry service will be focused around the transportation hub as people first come onto treasure island, and they'll be -- the shuttle service would connect people from their homes to that transportation hub, which is also kind of anticipated to be the center for the grocery store services and some of the on-island retail so that people can use the transportation. they'll come, they'll do their shopping, and then the shuttles will take them to their homes. >> thank you. >> colleagues, any further questions? okay, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> we'll open this item up to public comment. are there any members of the public that wish to comment on item number 4? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> [speaker not understood]. >> okay, we have a motion to move resolution forward and we can take that without objection. [gavel] >> all right, madam clerk, can

you call item 5 and 6 together, please? >> item number 5 is a ordinance amending the administrative code to add first source hiring requirements for developers applying for permits for commercial or residential projects to disclose to the city anticipated entry and apprentice level positions for development projects, anticipated local hires, and anticipated wages; and agree to hiring and retention goals for apprentice level positions. item number 6 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to provide that the city's local hiring policy and payment of prevailing wages apply to construction projects on property owned by the city and county of san francisco. >> okay, thank you. these are measures sponsored by supervisor avalos. we'll turn it over to you. >> thank you, chair farrell. and thank you, colleagues, for hearing these item. i want to thank members of the public who have been working with my office and drafting the legislation. ron friend, jack clark who has been helping from the city attorney's office.

rick [speaker not understood] in is in my staff as well. these two pieces of legislation are building on the promise and the implementation success of the local hire that we passed 3-1/2 years ago, december 2010. we are now, yesterday or day before yesterday was actually the three-year anniversary of the implementation of local hire. about a week ago we had approved a paw in the increase for the local hire ordinance so that we would actually have a chance to review how the program is working, how we're doing. we're collecting data, the he can economic and workforce development is collecting data on how well the program has been going. but we know that based on the numbers that have come in so far that the program has, has been very successful in getting people from san francisco to work in our construction and also making sure people from disadvantaged communities are getting work in our construction trade -- construction industry.

we're seeing city build get additional resources and more people who are coming through there are getting positions and construction is happening in san francisco. so, the i mpetus behind local hire is to make sure as we're building in san francisco and using our public dollars, we're making sure that the prosperity and the benefits that we create can really find their way to the neighborhood level, not so much as in a trickle, but in larger, a larger river of water that could actually come and support people. and we're looking at prosperity to the lives of everyday people. i've actually had the experience of working with youth programs over the years. one was the san francisco conservation core where i worked 20, 23 years ago and there are many people who came from ~ the excelsior, visitacion valley, i ngleside neighborhoods, bayview hunters

point, potrero hill, who were looking for access into -- into building. didn't really feel that they actually had the access they wanted. i think programs like first shoretion and the local hire ordinance are actually living up to that demand that is coming from our neighborhoods that we can actually create that greater access. ~ source i know that's been made through partnerships with our building trades and i want to thank the building trades for their work. for support at the local hire ordinance from the beginning and now it actually has become more open to it and now supporting it as we've seen the implementation happen three years later. so, i want to thank building trades partners for their participation and their patience and their flexibility in helping to make the local hire work happen in san francisco. today i have amendments to the local hire ordinance as well as, as well as an amendment to

our first source hiring program that was established after welfare reform in 1996, i think it was '98 we established the first source program. i'll start with the first source program. the first source program is actually going to enable us to get a really handle on what developers' plans are for local hiring and paying prevailing wage, [speaker not understood] for a project is starting, where construction begins. we're looking now for this ordinance to establish a relationship with the office of he can economic and workforce development and city build during the entitlement process, and actually that relationship and discussion about local hiring and prevailing wage will enable the city to assist developers in creating a workforce plan and a clear understanding of what we need to do to prepare people for work that will happen a couple