to general engineering (a-license) for san francisco, san mateo, santa clara, and alameda counties, for a not-to-exceed amount of $5,000,000, to the lowest, qualified, responsible, and responsive bidder, cal state constructors, inc., to perform

general engineering construction tasks for all san francisco public utilities commission enterprise operations and bureaus. (how) c) accept work performed by michels/jay dee/coluccio, joint venture, for contract no. wd-2531, bay division pipelines reliability upgrade bay tunnel; approve modification no. 48 (final), decreasing the contract amount by $401,175, for a total contract amount of $217,619,067, with a time extension of 319 non-compensable consecutive calendar days (approximately 10 months), for a total contract duration of 2,252 consecutive calendar days (approximately six years, two months); and authorize final payment to the contractor. (how) d) accept work performed by jdb & sons construction inc., for contract no. wd-2779, college hill learning garden; approve modification no. 1 (final), increasing the contract amount by $57,252, for a total contract amount of $580,652, with a time extension of 119 consecutive calendar days (approximately four months), for a total contract duration of 189 consecutive calendar days (approximately six months); and authorize final payment to the contractor. (how) e) accept work performed by shimmick construction company, inc., for contract no. ww-490, oceanside water pollution control plant 620 digesters sbr tpad conversion and facility improvements; approve modification no. 11 (final), increasing the contract amount by $158,021, for a total contract amount of $19,034,533, and with a time extension of 167 consecutive calendar days (approximately five months), for a total contract duration of 1337 consecutive calendar days (approximately three years, eight months); and authorize final payment to the contractor. (how) f) authorize the general manager to negotiate and execute, on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, a memorandum of agreement (moa) with the california department of fish and wildlife (cdfw), for an amount not to exceed $585,000, and with a duration of 12 months, which will allow for the sfpuc to provide funding to cdfw for the design, procurement, and installation of a temporary water treatment and reuse system (pilot recirculation system) at moccasin creek fish hatchery. cdfw intends to implement the pilot recirculation system to enable the hatchery to successfully operate from january 3, 2017 through march 4, 2017, a period in which water deliveries through mountain tunnel will be interrupted due to maintenance, and consequently, water deliveries to the hatchery will

be significantly reduced. (ritchie) regular session 9. authorize the general manager to exceed 50 mw average demand for the cleanpowersf program and set the new program enrollment cap at approximately 75 mw average, as long as the additional demand can be met in accordance with the adopted cleanpowersf power content and phasing policies. >> i would urge the commission to remove the full load of san francisco and i think that staff should be free to move at whatever pace is expeditious and i'm not sure whether you would get this information from anywhere else so i will run through this with a couple of things to buy comparison our neighbors in the peninsula will offer a 50% renewable and 70% gst three default product for 2 1/2% cheaper than pg&e's rates. they're going from the date of serving customers to full rollout to their service territory will be six months. further down, the silicon valley cca further default product will offer a 50% renewable and ghd project that will be closer to ours and again, that rollout from the date of serving to total rollout to the whole service territory will be six months. that will be october 2017 schedule for both of them. so, this achievement in our neighbors and we are the leader in the south bay and were talking about the rollout staff i support your staff i support being prudent and fluid i think we can do both. i urge you to support your staff and following the policies that you have it adopted to bring them as expeditiously as possible to full enrollment in the city

with a priority of as soon as possible these will be fully enrolled in shorter time than we are generated a program growth plan thank you very much. >>thank you. yes, commissioner moran. >>yes, a question and a comment. is there a rate impact for existing customers with the expansion? >>we will be assessing that went before we make any supply commitments to serve the expansion. that is part of the business practice policy is the commission adopted. the supplies that we looked at to support fall enrollment do not cause a rate impact. >>okay and if we were getting

into a position where the market might require a rate change the commission would know about it for those changes were made? >>absolutely >>the other thing that want to mention is if we go out to purchase power and it is so expensive that we have to take pause. so, that is why we have to be very cautious because we talked about affordability and that is why that has to be measured instead of trying to roll it out just to roll it out. we made a promise to try to make this affordable. so when we do come up with a rate to expand and it's more expensive than pg we will have to have you come and we will have a dialogue. >>that didn't expand beyond

that. and finally understand why we have a cap of approximately anything. i don't know how on earth you would administer that. if 75 isn't enough then- approximately 75 is meaningless. >>question to straight. >>yeah, i agree with that. i think we could amend that. >>that would be my proposal. >>it sounds like you also have another proposed amendment that is not addressed in this resolution that has to do with the rates. >>i want to make sure that there was reference to existing

policy and unless you have read the policy, it's not altogether clear what that entails. i want to make sure explicitly that those polities were such that by extending the program we were not obligating ourselves to a rate increase. if the answer from staff was that the existing policies cover that it would not result in a rate increase i don't think there was an amendment there necessarily. but, i appreciate your support on the approximately and i would make an amendment to move the word approximately in the resolution. >>and, to delete the number 75? >>as long as 75 can sufficient to get us to that point i don't see any point in deleting that. >>and when would we get updates on that? >>the end of this year.

>>i think again, the most important part of this rollout is the ability to find the capital or the reserve that we need to continue to purchase contracts and i mean, that is really the main reason why we've been doing it in phases because we want this program to be self-sufficient. the other thing is, we talked about lockbox versus not lockbox and advantages and reassessing that so there's a lot of moving parts and things that we want to include into the program that were talking about that. so, it is a lot of stuff and remember, we shift from residential to commercial and it sometime this year you want to do commercial so all of that we're trying to put together and as we mentioned today, we will come back and talk to you about the things that we are

thinking about so that you will at least know what we are planning to include and look at the different options and stuff like that. >>i wanted to make one comment on the approximately term and to explain why that is in there might be helpful. so, a couple things that are at play, whenever we do an auto enrollment there are opt outs. in order to meet a targeted resulting demand we enroll more

customers then our demand.we use the data that we have citywide to make projections for customer enrollments and because we are serving a subset of the customers in the city we might have outliers in there so there is an amount of variability that's created due to that. so, the approximate wasn't intended to be5-10% movement necessarily, but what we didn't want is if we ended up point megawatts to be in that regulation. >>if you need more headroom we'll give you more headroom to deal with that availability it

sounds like you don't need that initially and if you do you come have plenty of time to come back for an amendment for that. i motion to approve that. >>do i hear a second? >>i second. >>there is motion and a second is there a public comment? >>i think the approximate 20 we should leave that approximate 20 if we get a higher opt out it will be less. you are talking about paul 75.

>>i will agree with that >>amendment to my amendment. only if it is above the 75. >>jason fried, michael can correct me on this if i'm wrong but there is a formula to between the two but if you want to get rid of the word approximate that is fine and i personally agree with some of the comments that the public made about the being there and it's as long as you are staying

within the pricing policy goal is you should encourage staff to get as big as it can well stay in the procedure in some ways i think take out the word 75 because as long as you stay within your policies and procedures because as long as her staying within your policies and procedures it shouldn't matter if it is 75 or not. >>this is just bad drafting. at least is clear drafting to take the word out. it should be something else and come forward with something else. >>yes? >>jed holtzman i didn't identify myself for the tv earlier but i would like to set

can officer fried's comment on the amendment because if we remove the number 75 or commenting on the established policies and proceduresthat your staff is approving and were counting on that to move us forward and of course any report if there is a significant retribution and that path. i would urge you to take officer freid's suggestion and remove the number 75 ae thank you. >>what is the disadvantage of 75? do so with the unlimited.

and will be governed by the policies and practices we've already adopted civic to be read impact or purchase and supply issues that could potentially come up.-feeling this will come up again if we go to 100 are to 200 at some point. >>they said they are going to come back and address the long-term growth issues and hopefully it will come back in a way that we don't have to keep rehashing this. staff hasn't said that they need more than 75. so, i don't see where we need to give them unlimited. if we were giving them unlimited authority i would want to review the policies to make sure they were consistent with that kind of authorization and absent the kind of review i'm not ready to give them unlimited authorization. >>it removes checks and balances of its unlimited. >>if i could just comment that this authority is important for

our next enrollment and, 75 does give us room to grow the program in a manner that is responsive to customer proactive demand. customers are reaching out to us and saying they want to be in the program and a staff, one thing we could really use is additional headroom to say that will get you into the program. and, this will help that. and, i think that i can understand the comments of the public and we want to grow the program as quickly as we can and as prudent and that will come out of our planning effort and we do see with the other cc are doing and we are in touch with them and i think that the 75 will help us to be responsive to the customer demand that we are seeing and ensure that we stay on track too with this current

phase. >>i think the issue is if we are limited and the limiting factor is their ability to support above 75. so our son everybody to understand what our top margin is now and we need to reevaluate that if we do something differently may come back and propose changing some of those policies so that we can expand faster. so, that is why we put the 75 in there. is there any other- >>that is helpful. maybe when we have a rollout plan we can understand what some of those implications are and the rate of rollout if we were to go to 100 or 300 whatever that might be that's a very important consideration. >>and, there are different

options for scaling the program. we actually took a path that no other cca has taken to date. we secured power outside of secure account with a single counterparty in a single supplier that was the model that we were investigating earlier and in earlier efforts to launch the cca program. will we did here there was that we solicited from and ultimately a broader pool of suppliers in order to create as competitive of solicitation as we could. but, there has been a lot of motivation happening because we are learning there are multiparty out boxes and there are many paths we can take to scale the program up and it might be that we take multiple options. it might be smaller phases or even larger auto enrollments. there might be smaller options available to

us now but i just want the planning commission to understand what the options are now because i want this to remain competitive. >>i don't love natural gas i think that is a fuel we should be moving away from. with the solar and all of the great news and supply questions that will give us an opportunity to clean up our green. >>i should say there is a companion plan to our expansion plan and that is an integrated resource plan and that is actually part of our business practice policies but we will develop an integrated resource plan that provides supply, demand, and the resources going forward. it will make a

projection of that plan going citywide and this is really a buildout place of that program aspirations and supply needs and that will bedone in conjunction with the growth plan. it may follow it a little bit because we want to do is lay out some low growth projections and put some inputs into the resource plan. so, i wanted to put that out there and with respect to natural gas something that i wanted to do is have as many specified resources as possible rather than just leaning on the grid where you can lean on a mix of unspecified supply projects. that is one of the emphasis of what we had done before and that is to specify within the mix. >>yeah, but you specify with

natural gas? isn't that right? there is a third option you can go with the grid, you can specify or you can specify without the gas. >>the natural gas would have to go 20. >>as part of the growth plan is it the same as the rollout plan? >>the two together is what i think you think of as the rollout plan. the growth plan is whether we meet the demand and the rollout plan is the supply and resources and technology and type of energy supplies that we will want to procure or developed to meet that plan. >>i think the integrated

resource plan we can't even have have them done in the exact amount of time as the power energy enterprise. >>the silicon valley plan is how much less than pg&e? well, the question is how did they achieve that because we aren't there, are we? >>just to be clear, silicon valley has right now just one product. is 100% ghd free but it is only 50% clean power. in

that area it's in 50% below. >>we have an amendment on the floor. are there any other questions or comments? and, the proposed amendment is to remove the word approximately before 75. >>i think we have a motion and a second already on the main resolution. any public comment on the resolution? all those in favor say, aye. opposed, nay. >>can you read the next item please? >>10. approve the revised

records retention schedule and record retention policy of the san francisco public utilities commission. (sandler) >>is there a motion to move the revised schedule? >>i will move it. >>i will second it.

>>is there any public comment? >>is there any public comment on the retention schedule? >>[indecipherable] >>

thank you. are there any other public comments on this item? all those in favor say, aye. opposed, nay. the motion carries. next item please.

>>11. approve amendments to agreement nos. cs-211a-d, specialized and technical services, , natural resources division, water enterprise, with cdm smith/ats, joint venture (cs-211a); icf+avila, joint venture (cs-211b); shaw environmental and infrastructure, inc., (cs-211c); and urs corporation (cs-211d), to provide continuing permit compliance monitoring of water system improvement program (wsip) habitat mitigation sites; and authorize the general manager to execute future amendments within the existing contract capacity of $20,000,000, with no single contract exceeding $7,500,000. >>is there a motion? >>i motion >>i will second. all those in favor say, aye. opposed, nay. the motion carries. the next item will be closed session16. conference with legal counsel pursuant to california government code section 54956.9 (d) (1) and san francisco administrative code section 67.10 (d) (1) (ambrose) existing litigation federal insurance co., et al v. san francisco independent taxi assoc., et al. san francisco superior court no.: cgc-14-543173

city attorney file no.: 150762 17. conference with legal counsel pursuant to california government code section 54956.9 (d) (1) and san francisco administrative code section 67.10 (d) (1) (ambrose) existing litigation federal insurance co., et al v. san francisco independent taxi assoc., et al. san francisco superior court no.: cgc-14-543173 city attorney file no.: 150762 19. conference with legal counsel pursuant to california government code section 54956.9 (d) (1) and san francisco administrative code section 67.10 (d) (1) (ambrose) existing litigation stacey a. lawrence v. city and county of san francisco, et al san francisco superior court no.: cgc-14-542269 city attorney file no.: 151275 20. conference with legal counsel pursuant to california government code section 54956.9 (d) (1) and san francisco administrative code section 67.10 (d) (1) (ambrose) existing litigation civil service employees insurance co. v. city and county of san francisco san francisco superior court no.: cgc-14-538389pursuant to california government code section 54956.9 (d) (1) and san francisco administrative code section 67.10 (d) (1) (ambrose) >>and items 23 through 25 will not be heard today. >>thank you. are there any public comment on the closed session items?

>>[indecipherable] >>we have to learn about our

earthquake issues. we have proceeded in these kind of ways and they say they don't

understand that there are understandings that they have to clarify on this request. i think there would be a lot of problems for getting an officer in city hall and, to [inaudible] the supervisors because we really need this office in tune to our needs it we haven't been getting answered >>[timer >>[gavel] >>we are back in open session.

and we have settled on the items is there a motion on whether or not todiscuss the items during closed session? >>to not disclose. >>i second. all those in favor say, aye. opposed, nay >>is there any new business?

t-we're live. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. welcome back for another session of the land use and transportation committee. my name is malia cohen, chair of this committee and to my right is supervisor scott wiener, the vice-chair and to my left is supervisor aaron peskin. our clerk is victor young, yes. and i also want to recognize jessie -- jim smith and leo who are televising this meeting on sfgovtv. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements for us today? >> yes, please science all cell phones and electronic devices and completed speaker cards and documents to be completed as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon will appear on the august 16th, 2016 meeting of the board of supervisors, unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. could you call item 1? >> item no. 1 resolution authorizing the sublease between the city and county of san francisco, as tenant

and sublandlord and the crossroads as subtenant. of 4124 rentable square feet in the building located at 167 jessie street for an initial term of five years. >> thank you. so colleagues, today we have mr. brian chiu to present on this item. mr. chiu, the floor is yours. >> thank you, supervisor. members of the committee, as you may recall back in january of 2015, you approved the city entering into a lease for this space. at a time when we were eagerly looking at opportunities for the city to be able to provide some additional space for our non-profits and as you may seen in today's examiner, we're very excited this is

one of those opportunities. back in 2003, the initial landlord for this space, third and mission associates entered into agreement with the california historical society, a 99-year lease as part of a restructured deal with what was then sfra and what became the office community investment and infrastructure. about ten years later the california historical society decided that they did not need the entire 15,000 square feet. and was going to return that to the landlord, the ocii commission rightfully was concerned about the loss of non-profit space. and so as part of that agreement, the landlord agreed to enter into an 87-year lease with the city

for approximately 4,000 square feet of unimproved space along with that there was a portion of the payment that was going to come to the city, characterized as community block grant income, which would allow for the capital improvements necessary for that space. so the city agreed to enter into that long-term lease for a dollar a year with the landlord. we then worked with our colleagues at oewd to come up with a process to identify the appropriate non-profit for that space. we wanted to line it up with the recommendations that came out of working group on non-profit displacement. and so we issued an rfp in september of 2015. we distributed information about that through the human services network and many city departments. 25 different non-profits indicated interest in utilizing that space. two different non-profits completed applications and

after review, the city determined that the youth organization at the crossroads was the best organization to utilize that space. since that time, in the fall, at the crossroads has been working to finalizes sublease agreement and we come with you to authorize the lease between the city and at the crossroads and propose to ent near a five-year lease with one five-year option to extend the term of that sublease. we're very excited about at the crossroads in particular, because of its focus on reaching out to homeless youth and young adults. as some of the you may be aware at the crossroads is really a national leader in services to the homeless youth population and they are going to be offering one-on-one case management services at that site. as many of you may know it's becoming increasingly more and more difficult for us to

identify spaces for these kinds of direct services, and so we're really excited that we're able to provide this for at the crossroads. i'm here to answer question and we're joshua from department of real estate and the executive director of at the crossroads. i would like to ask rob, if you wouldn't mind to come up and make a few comments? >> thank you so much. it's incredibly exciting to be here. two years ago when prada bought the building and let us know they would not be having our lease renewed and we faced an uncertain future terrifying for us and terrifying for our clients. for the last 18 years our organization has been helping

young people street san francisco with the focus on those kids falling out of of services. we don't have the option of moving out of city for cheaper rent. we need to be right where our clients are. when this opportunity presented itself, it was basically like a dream come true. when we were selected we were overwhelmed it was the singlemost important moment in our organization's 18-year history. it will allow us to help every year more than a thousand young people in san francisco get the support that they need to move beyond the streets, and build outstanding lives. a lot of our office use is going to allow us to expand the money that we save with the space will allow us to reinvest in the young people that we work with. i just want to thank a couple of people, josh keen from the department of real estate. i want to thank brian chiu

from mohcd and oewd and bill with related the owners of the property, and the non-profit displacement mitigation fund. but i just want to say thank you for this opportunity. we're really thrilled to have it. >> thank you for your presentation. mr. chiu, is that it? all right, colleagues, do you have any questions for mr. chiu? let's go to public comment. ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to come and speak on item no. 1, please do so. just by way of reminder you will have two minutes. will you hear a soft chime indicating that you have 30 seconds remaining. all right, seeing no speakers for item 1, i'm going close public comment at this time. thank you. [ gavel ] . the matter is in the hands of this committee. >> i would move that we send this item to the full board with recommendation as a committee report. >> all right. thank you very much. and without objection, that motion passes unanimously. [ gavel ]

>> mr. clerk, let's bring up item no. 2. >> item no. 2, ordinance amending the administrative code to revise the residential unit conversion ordinance to require hostion platforms to verify that the residential unit is on the city registry prior to accepting a fee for book a short-term rental transaction and to provide an affidavit of compliance to the city and retain certain records authorizing the office of short-term rentals to issue an administrative subpoena to obtain records provide for civil, administrative and criminal penalties against hosting platforms for violations of their obligation. >> supervisor peskin has opening remarks. >> thank you, madam chair and supervisor campos who is the lead author of this legislation, which is really a series of technical amendments to the short-term rental enforcement legislation that supervisor

campos authors and co-authored with supervisors mar and avalos and i just wanted to make some remarks about the ordinance. which is pretty straightforward. is still to require that hosting platforms do business with law-abiding hosts and ensure that they are not aiding and abetting scofflaws who are further deteriorating our housing stock. it's modest commonsense legislationing and i think it's fair for everyone and for law-abiding hosts and fair for san francisco. most residents want to give our short-term rental law a chance to work, but san franciscans won't be played for fools forever if short-term rental platforms persist in keeping our law unenforceable. after confering with the city attorney about airbnb's legal amounts that after they filed litigation on the law we passed last month, it is our

desire to simultaneously address for this needed regulation or if there real motivation is to continue to flaunt our tourist rental laws with impunity. at the end of the day, the board didn't pass this ordinance to litigate over the scope of federal law. our intent is to make san francisco short-term rental law enforceable and fair. these amendments aim to accomplish exactly that by simply making language more precise by making modest changes in record keeping requirements and by tailoring enforcement to work through administrative subpoenas rather than a publication option. i want to thank carolyn

goosen and she is here from supervisor campos' office if you have any questions as is deputy city attorney jon givner. that is it. >> thank you very much. supervisor peskin, question through the chair, in terms of amendments, i have heard that this will not necessarily apply to all short-term rental companies because of the way it's structured. for example, a company like vrbo, can you comment on this? because this has been reported to me? >> insofar as that it ised at the point of sale is that the argument you are making through the chair? why don't we defer that to

ms. goosen. >> welcome. >> carolyn goosen, supervisor campos' offices as deputy city attorney givner wants to add to this, but the way san francisco defines web [tpao-rpt/] one that facilitates advertisement of units, but is involved in any kind of business transaction related to it. so clearly craigslist is one company not included in how we define a web platform, but other companies where there is a business transaction that occurs between the platform, for example the way airbnb does it that company is relevant under this law if there is a business transaction plus the advertising. >> supervisor peskin has an answer. >> if you look at section 41a4 line 4, the definition of "booking service," i think it actually would apply to all platforms. a booking

service is any reservation and/or payment service provided by a person or entity that facilitates a short-term rental transaction between an owner or business entity and a perspective tourist or transient user and for which the person or entity collects a fee in connection with the reservation and payment services provided for the short-term rental transaction. as i understand even these platforms that in essence charge for a listing, i think that they would be covered under that definition, but i will defer that to competent counsel. >> deputy city attorney jon givner. i don't frankly know exactly how vrbo operates. the ordinance as supervisor peskin says would apply to booking services. which is basically those that collect a fee in connection

with reservation or payment service. i think ms. goosen is correct that craigslist does not collect a fee with a booking service. i can't say vrbo's business model. >> thank you for the clarification, supervisor wiener. >> i asked the question, because i think it's important when regulating short-term rentals that we're regulating as broadly as possible and not regulating some companies and not other companies because different companis have different structures. but they are all facilitiating short-term rentals and for all the good reons that we want to regulate them it should apply to all short-term rentals. this measure that this amended, that i voted for, to try to increase enforcement because we want people to comply with the law, to the extent that the amendments

were to contract that and basically exempting out certain companies and focusing on other companies; that would be an issue for me. i would be interested in perhaps this is a committee report for tomorrow, is that correct? yes. perhaps by tomorrow trying to get a better sense for that. because i know this came up -- i think 30-day waiver and it sort of moved quickly, which i understand why because the litigation, i presume. so i would like to have a clearer answer to that. >> so maybe we can get deputy city attorney and supervisor wiener together. >> >> we're going to continue to move forward. ms. goosen, did you have a presentation prepared? no. let's go to public comment. i have a stack of the cards

here. dale carlson. jim lazarus, peter quan, ed bell. dan nu feld. rodolpho. and karen cansino and if there is anyone who would like to speak, you can do so after the folks that i have called. thank you. >> dale carlson, share better san francisco. they have traditionally used a subscription model to pay an annual fee to list properties on their website. they are moving to a model more similar to airbnb and they are too going to be taking a commission, a percentage of every rental. i think it's ironic that we're here today. give that airbnb spent $10 million last year telling us how much they hated the idea

of neighbors suing neighbors. here they are suing us. their hometown neighbors. portland adopted similar ones on their listings long before san francisco and airbnb didn't raise a squawk and spent $10 million bragging about the hotel tax revenue that they pay to the city each year and admonished us not to spend it in one place, but now to spend it defending the ordinance that you passed unanimously. they are telling us that they are only in business to help home sharers, legitimate home sharers, simply trying to make ends meet and thrust of the their lawsuit is clearly intended to defend the people violating the law that you passed two years ago, who are not complying with the registration requirements and they are using it - and they are using the first amendment to defend their practices. maybe we should buy some bus

shelter ads of the our own? dear airbnb, the first amendment does not protect aiding and abetting, love the founding fathers. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is peter quan the co-chair of the home shares democratic club. supervisors the reformation of this platform liability law that is being considered today attempts to sidestep the legal flaws of the first version, instead of making them liable for posting without a valid registration number, this new iteration instead imposes liability -- puting aside whether this dodges the bullet regarding federal law. this new version is not achieving the results it seeks. platforms at home away listed rentals for hosts, a

subscription service as the previous speaker described it. many cases the booking itself, the contractual relationship and agreement on dates and rates, these are entirely between the host and guest, home away simply facilitates the transmission of the basic information and payment mechanism. so if platforms at home away don't accept or conclude bookings, they won't be liable under this new version of the law being considered. hosts who want to avoid legal entanglement will simply migrate away. we think there is a better way ahead. everybody agrees that the goal is to increase registration rates to maxing maximize the compliant hosts. it is legally flawed as i said and to look at ways that the current registration system can be improved to

remove roadblocks and increase incentives to register. the home share democratic club has proposed reforms that we believe is a more productive approach to increasing the registration rates. so we urge the supervisors to consider this approach rather than one that in all likelihood will shift from one platform to another. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good day. my name is karen, a registered host that has submitted all required paperwork. do you recognize me? i have been coming up here for two years and i'm getting tired of seeing you all. so i'm hoping that we'll get this resolved soon. i could have decided not to come, but feel strong enough to come to represent registered hosts who cannot be here because of work or

family responsibilities. it is quite obvious that each new requirement is an attempt to squash home sharing. it's creating a law by piecemeal the best way. hosts are not registering; that is a fact no one disputes. they are being unfair to those of us who are. but i can understand their hesitation as the city's reaction. i can envision opponents around the table trying to think up what next can be regulated to discourage home sharing? our hosts from becoming legal? it is time to give it a rest. put politics aside, focus on solutions already suggested, applying reservation and giving potential host a try-out period and ferret

out abusers. it continues to grow. citizens defeated prop f, please listen to the majority of san francisco voters rather than grandstanding politics rather than civic responsibility govern your vote. driving out home-shares will make the city even more only for the wealthy. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm jan nu feld in district 8 and i'm a home-sharer and home-sharing helps me be able to pay my mortgage and live in the city and place that i want to be. my 18th street merchant neighbors also very much benefit from my guests and many others who come to the area because of the desirability of that territory. it seems clear to me that the proposed amendments would only push bad actors to

other platforms. let's not do that and please read what home-sharers have put together and work in that direction, rather than being political as was just mentioned. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> jim lazarus, san francisco chamber of commerce. last time we were here we raised the very issues that you are trying in a small way with the advice of the city attorney to correct and legal questions vis-a-vis federal law that were challenged in the legislation you approved a few months ago. getting people registered and having a registration process that works and let's not beat around the bush and come up with 6,7, 8, 9, 10 different amendments. this was cutting-edge legislation three years ago, but where it filed is a process that allowed the average citizen to feel

comfortable and understand how to be registered. what the exposures are? how to manage the system? that is what you need to be dealing with. having multiple pieces of information about your residence. having to come in in person in an online era just makes no sense. if we want people registered get them registered in a modern 21st century way. that will fix the vast majority of problems. and lastly, that very complicated series of articles in the chronicle yesterday i think the bottom-line to that is our housing crisis in san francisco is not and should not be fought on the back of home-sharers in san francisco. to spend as much time trying to maneuver through zoning changes, density bonuses,

some have you have solve, accessory units and some you haven't and let's solve those and get on with building san francisco. thank you. >> while the next speaker is coming up, i want to note that the quotes in the piece from the chief economist at zillo to the effect that some of the short-term rental behavior in san francisco is exacerbating the housing crisis should not be overlooked. >> next speaker. >> hi. ed bell. i live in noe valley and lived in san francisco for almost 60 years. i am a host and list through airbnb. last year i told my wife we would have to sell our house in july of this year and leave the city we love and join the hundreds of families that can no longer afford to live in san francisco. i am happy to tell you my house is not for-sale and i have currently no intentions to selling due to the income

generated through heir incumbent. airbnb. i have tried to convince several of my senior friends to become host and almost all afraid to get involved in the computer interaction mandated by the city of san francisco. airbnb should be rewarded rather than penalized. last week i filed my occupancy report the computer-generated report [speaker not understood] and a friend of mine owns a business selling toxic chemicals and doesn't have to report which days his business is own. i share a bed and pillow in my home and why do i have to file these reports when he

doesn't? why is the city changing my requirements? i believe these actions disproportionately affect senior citizens. i hope you keep your senior constituents in mind and vote accordingly. help people like my wife and i hold on to our homes and stay in the great city of san francisco. thank you for letting me speak. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi, i'm the other co-chair of the home sharing group and i want to thank the supervisors who took meetings with us to talk about the improvements. supervisor peskin did not return our calls unfortunately, but we're happy to meet with you still. we produced a 7-page report and met with the office of short-term rentals detailing what we think could make it easier for people to register and maintain registration. in addition, it's not just office of short-term rental,

but involves the tax collector's office as with the as assessor's office and we're going to be meeting with the tax collector's office this week. we have a lot of detailed suggestions about improvements. we also think there are a couple of legislative amendments that could make it more inclusive, so that more people could come forth to register. we hold monthly workshops on registration -- we have tried to share this with the supervisors. we would like to share it with you, too, mr. peskin and we think that the law could be improved so more people can come forward. we're all about maintaining long-term housing and helping people who really want to stay in san francisco. i would like to add, because i use vrbo, as well as airbnb and they use a third-party for collection. we would be happy to meet with the city attorney's

office to provide more insight on that as well. you were all emailed the report, and unfortunately over the weekend, we didn't realize the process would move to quickly, but you are welcome to call us and invite us for more details. we have a lot of the input on this. thank you for listening. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is tony robles and i work with seniors and people with disabilities with an organization called senior and disability action. i'm just taken by all of the talk by the so-called home-sharers, and home-sharer platforms that ring philanthropy and we have seen the effect on housing stocks and neighborhoods, whole blocks that we have seen

evictions and people using these short-term rentals as a business model. and at the same time, it has had drastic effect only on the health of seniors who are living in stress about whether or not they are going to be able to retain their homes? they live in fear of eviction. and the stresses lead to very negative health impacts. so i think what this really is about is accountability on the part of a multi-billion dollar corporation that has tried to do anything within its power to thwart regulation of any kind. we're in favor of the amendments and legislation being proposed. thank you. >> next speaker. if anyone else would like to speak, please come up and get in line. >> i'm teresa and i'm in

support of this amendment. anything that will help make it very clear that if you want to do business in san francisco as a platform, you are required to follow the rules. you may not advertise illegal activity, if people aren't registered that is an illegal activity. i'm completely in support of this. i'm also excited about this helping planning do what it's supposed to do, which is to ensure that a neighborhood is not impacted negatively in terms of the environment, the character of a neighborhood, no rezoning that if you have a picture of 22 units within a block units being used on various websites,. that these platforms in being required to delist if there are too many in the neighborhoods and do something about it.

if it's really about sharing a home, your home and one room, that doesn't affect our housing, as much as entire units entire buildings being taken off the market. those people will never register, because they are property -- they own 8 properties say in -- scattered throughout the city. they don't live here. they are not living in those buildings. those people will never register. so it's to hold the platforms accountable for the illegal activities that have indeed been go on and people do need to register in person. it's not about 21st century, but to make sure that that person matches the paperwork. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is rodolpho and we have one tiny little room

we rent out. we're registered. first i would like to comment on the multiplicity of attempts of registering airbnb because of the unregistered hosts and every piece in a units that seems to punish registered hosts and drive away non-registered hosts. accomplishing little or nothing while collecting a measly $130,000 for the city and just making people uncomfortable. that and other attempts at regulation also have the obvious taint of single out one platform and encouraging hosts to go to other platforms. this proposed legislation of yours will create a carve-out for home away, make it obvious, and also for vrbo and craigslist and did the dpt city attorney basically say he doesn't know or doesn't necessarily agree

with supervisor peskin? how is this legislation -- how this legislation going to affect home away and vrbo and craigslist, it's a carve-out. it's been in the making 30, 40 years and not just san francisco where zoning regulations have slowed or prevented new construction. don't blame airbnb for the housing shortage. maybe it exacerbated it slightly or somewhat, but don't believe it as you have for the past two years or month. in trying to finish this off, i would like to comment on the individual who tried to rewrite the first amendment with his little comment. >> thank you, mr. rodolpho. please, next speaker.

>> hi. my name is kathy wu and i'm a san francisco voter, and a member of the better housing policy. our organization is committed to supporting solutions that address the housing affordability crisis in san francisco. unfortunately we cannot support supervisor campos' amendment because it will make things worse. the proposed amendments would exemption companies that openly refuse to follow the city's primary residence requirement for short-term rentals. rather than working with hosts to make the registration process easier and simple. supervisor campos has proposed a loophole that will primarily benefit non-residents, who own second or third homes in san francisco. this is wrong, and unfair.

we could do much better and urge the committee to please oppose these amendments. thank you. >> thank you. another speaker, come on down. >> good afternoon, supervisors and thank you for taking action to put some teeth in the short-term residential regulation you passed several years ago. these technical fixes blessed by the city attorney address the companies who are making money illegally in san francisco by facilitating illegal rentals. they can pay taxes all they want, but if they are facilitating illegal rentals, it's illegal. we wouldn't take tax money from drug-dealers, from houses of prostitution, and the companis that are claiming to be such civic minded people and yet have hundreds, thousands of units that they are collecting

money on, making money on, and it's not right. so these fixes are attempting to handle that situation. it may be that there will be one or two other technical fixs that we have to get, but every company that makes money in any way off of an illegal rental in san francisco should be stopped. please pass this legislation with recommendations to the board. >> thank you for your comments. is there anyone else that would like to speak on item 2? none? okay, public comment is closed at there time. [ gavel ] the matter is back into the hands of this committee. colleagues is there a motion for this item supervisor peskin, do you have a motion? >> i would like to move this item to the full board as a committee report, and given

supervisor wiener's outstanding question for deputy city attorney, why went dow with do that without recommendation. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you, i was going to recommend that we put it out without recommendation and that makes sense and we can can get answers by tomorrow. >> this committee report goes to full board without recommendation. thank you. >> mr. clerk the next item is item 3. >> item no. 3, resolution aboving the disposition of land located in south one -third bounded by howard, spear, folsom and main streets, assessor's parcel block no. 3740, lot no. 027 by the office of community investment and infrastructure a successor agency to the san francisco redevelopment agency to block one property holder l.p.. >> thank you,. supervisor kim is the author of this item. but i believe we'll have presentation by shane hart from ocii who is here to

present. good to see you again. the floor is yours. >> good afternoon, supervisors my name is shane hart and work with ocii as transbay manager and i would like to introduce mr. campos with our office and aaron foxworthy with our office. for the developer, jenny wang and carl shannon. >> where is mr. campos? oh, in the back. all right. thank you. >> the land use committee action is to approve the disposition of ocii owned land within transbay block one to block one property holder l.p., an affiliate of tishman speyer. this slide shows the timing of the transbay redevelopment plan, as well as other area plans that have been approved. also in bold you can see that

in 2003, the former redevelopment agency purchased this portion of block one site for affordable housing. in april of this year there was a redevelopment plan amendment that came before the board, and was approved. that plan amendment increased the tower height for block one from 300' to 400'. in june of this year, the ocii commission approved the plan and this shows the overall transit center district plan. as i mentioned to you before, ab 812 and redevelopment plan require that 35% of all the units within transbay,

within zones one and two be affordable. ocii has land use jurisdiction over the formerly state-owned parcels, as well as this parcel and you can see that in the lower section of this map that is on the slide. the planning department has land use jurisdiction for zone 2. transbay block 1 is located on folsom street, between main and spear streets. this slide gives you an idea of the development program that has been approved. this slide shows the parcelization for block 1. the top portion is the ocii-owned parcel which consists of about 34,000 square feet. the lower parcels are the ones that are owned by tishman and those are about 20,000 square feet in total.

the project summary is a mixed income homeownership project consisting of 391 units. 40% of the project is affordable, 156 units and they'll be available for households earning between 80-120% of ami. the affordable units are dispersed in the first 26 floors of the tower and in the podium and provide protections for owners, there has been included a certain homeowners' association for the bmr owners, as well as the developer has put up 225,000 dollars for what we call a homeowner associations dues assistance fund that could be used by the bmr owners in case there should be special assessments or large dues increases. 156 units are affordable as i said. 80 of those units are in the

tower and townhomes, which are all funded by the developer and 76 units are in the podium buildings. and there is a subsidy of $19,180,000 that is being provided by ocii for the podium and remaining costs are funded by the developer. regarding the fair market value for the ocii parcel, 3343 report concludes that based on the appraisal, and the analysis that was done by kma, 19.2 million that ocii is receiving for its land is fair market value. and that ocii is receiving an additional $31 million of consideration beyond fair market value based on the current deal terms negotiated with the developer. this is a rendering of the block one tower and podium. this is also a view from the

bay bridge. last friday the ocii executive director and i met with supervisor peskin, and he was concerned about the effect that the construction defect litigation could have on bmr homeowner as the association dues and the construction defect litigation is common and as a result we proposed to allow bmr homeowners to access $225,000 bmr homeowner dues assistance fund for construction defect litigation costs, and to include in the project ccrs a requirement that the market-rate hoa pay for the cost of construction defect litigation without differentiating between market-rate and bmr units in any settlements.

proposed changes to the resolution are on page 6, lines 12-20. and on page 7, lines 20-22. the developer has reviewed and agrees with these changes. with that, thank you, and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, mr. hart. all right. colleagues, i think we're going to go to public comment. appreciate your presentation. >> madam chair, i would like to move those amendments on page 6 and page 7. >> okay. i thought we could do public comment and talk in-depth a little bit about these amendments. we have a stack here. let's see who is still here? laura thompson, are you here still? rudy corpus? i think i saw charlie, danny campbell. tony rodriguez. joel coppell. adrianne simi.

all right. why don't you just all come on down and welcome back, boys. marcus -- i'm sorry, marcus, i can't read your last name. go ahead, rudy. welcome. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am here representing united players in support of the project. united players has been an organization that has been serving the city of san francisco for the last 22 years and 8 months. we're fortunate that we're located in a neighborhood where a development is being built. what has been in district 6 with the organization that we have built a great relationship with the project, with the developers, tishman speyer who has been helping and assisting us tremendously. not only just coming to our center, and meeting the kids, but also donating their time with people with books, and

mentorships and also helping us support our organization. so we can continue to run and thrive. so i'm in here in full support of the project and here with people from the community. i'm born and raised in district 6, still live there. my kids went to school there and i just want to say this is the type of project that we need in order for people in our neighborhood to survive. we are probably ground-zero of gentrification and displacement, but with projects like this help us to stay in the communitis that we're born and raised and the amis that we're part of helping out is a win-win situation for us. so thank you . thank you. charlie. >> good afternoon, chair cohen, supervisors wiener and peskin. my name is charlie, the district representative for the operating engineers in san francisco and san mateo

counties and associated with the building trade council and labor councils in both counties. as a representative of labor, i want to thank you all for your civic service and hard work on behalf of the citizens of san francisco. with regard to the agenda item i want to say that tishman he or speyer has been a blue-chip partner and we are looking forward to working with them on this exciting project and they have been proactive many their efforts to strike the right balance of retaining neighborhood values and providing units for a wide range of incomes. i want to speak in support of the project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is marcus and i'm here to show my support for block one, and for more affordable housing here in san francisco. a year-and-a-half ago my wife landed her dream job as a flight attendant, as a condition of her employment, we had to

relocate to boston. this was a real tough decision to make, to pack up everything that we owned, to leave our rent-controlled unit in the mission, and to say goodbye to our home. well, as luck would have it and after a cold boston winter a position became available for my wife at sfo. we were moving back to san francisco. but now the apartment costs 40% more than we were paying before we left. this exponential rise in the cost of housing made our return to san francisco seem almost impossible. but thanks to the mayor's office, a few forward-thinking developers, and the voters of san francisco, we found a once -in-a-lifetime opportunity to actually own a home here in the city. 1400 mission, below market rate had a handful of units left that we qualified for.

although we haven't moved in just yet this bmr program has given us hope, hope that we can have a permanent home in the city. hope that we can raise a family here without worrying how we're going to make rent. hope for the future. i encourage you to share this hope with other working families by approving block one and more affordable housing here in the greatest city in the world. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. danny campbell, sheet metal workers local 104. i, too on behalf of the membership of the sheet metal workers put our support behind this project. it's refreshing to see this project building the type of housing that the city has not been building enough of lately and that is for middle-income families.

such as teachers, librarians, firefighters and construction workers. like i said, it's a pleasure to see that, tishman has and continues to be a strong industry partner with the san francisco building and construction trades council and ask you to move this disposition agreement forward today. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is tony rodriguez and i'm with local 43, fire sprinkler union and we're here in support of the project and what charlie and danny said about tishman always providing well-paying union jobs and benefits is true and i don't really need to go into that. the exciting part is the 156 units. i have mentioned many times that i have three daughters. one is say a nurse and one is a teacher and the other one is going to school to become a nurse. they live at home and can't

afford to buy a house. our construction workers can't afford to buy homes in the city and projects of this nature would help to alleviate the thing of people having to move out. yesterday i was in sacramento and/or friday we went to sacrament and spent the weekend and it's amazing the number of people that i know that live in sacramento and work in san francisco and only do that out of necessity, because they can't afford the rents and to buy a house here. i ask you to help by approving this project. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. chair cohen, joel coppell for electrical workers. once they need a home to

house their kids and their family, sometimes 15-20% a year of our members are leaving the city. that is why projects like this are of the utmost importance. tishman speyer has been more than a responsible developer here in san francisco with the lumina and infinity towers and south of market and 160 folsom is going to be a great project also because of its proximity to the transit center and looking forward to building this project and hope you approve the disposition today. thank you. >> thank you, joel. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. tom o'connor, president of the san francisco firefighters. i, too, am here to support this project. this project not only represents a wonderful opportunity for our members to live in san francisco, but it also allows tishman has helped to us explain the complicated process of applying for these unitss and enabling many of our members to stay in san francisco and live and walk to work. quite often when we talk about keeping public safety

in san francisco, people they exaggerate and talk about the big one, the earthquake or a natural disaster, but what is more important to public safety in san francisco, when a personal natural disaster happens. if your kid is hit by a car or your mother falls and breaks her hip, you want your public safety partners here. this project and tishman speyer are helping us to do that. we speak in support of this project and thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, madam chair and supervisors. my name is adrian with carpenters local 22. not much i can add that hasn't been said already, but carpenters local 22 does fully support this project and looking forward to working with the long time partner of tishman speyer and i think most of all what hits home for me, this will

put apprentices to work. young carpenters, male and female who live in san francisco, who have a nice job with benefits and in today's world, that is what is needed. thank you. >> thank you. is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? public comment is closed. thank you, folks. [ gavel ] now the matter is in the hands of this body and supervisor peskin has an amendment he will walk us through. >> thank you, madam chair and i have every hope there is no construction defects in the project and no litigation, i think our primary policy concern and the reason that the developer has agreed to a $225,000 contribution for the below market rate 156 units is because we want to make sure as condo dues rise, people like this gentleman will be able to continue to pay

those condo dues. that is the fundamental reason for the $225,000 fund. but it is not uncommon, as mr. hart said, in residential condominium development to have construction defect and a little bit of litigation after these projects are built. so i wanted to make sure that no. 1 insofar as there are going to be under the covenance, conditions and restrictions that the developer has agreed to, three different homeowner associations. a bmr homeowner association, market-rate and master hoa that would require a super majority vote in order to raise annual condominium dues or special assessments, above certain percentages 10 and 5%. i wanted to make sure that we actually were thoughtful about litigation, if it should occur? so i wanted

to make sure that the bmr condo association was not disadvantaged in that unlikely, but possible, event. so to that end, one, in the second paragraph on page 6, we made it clear that the $225,000 could be used for the affordable unit hoa cost including litigation costs, if she should ever arise. and furthermore, a provision that says that if the market-rate hoa would like to pay for all of the litigation costs, they can do so provided that any settlement would be shared equitably between the market-rate and bmr hoas subject to the relevant governing laws of the state of california and the bureau of real estate. those are set forth on page 6.

i want to say mr. shannon, i know it's never fun to put money into a well-meaning good-spirited fund that could be used against the developer and hopefully that won't happen, but i want to foresee the unforeseeable here and thank you for agreeing to those and the developer has agreed to those in the sub4 on line 20 to 22 on page 7. i'm happy to answer any questions and i want to thank ocii and their director, ms. boe and mr. hart for helping craft the language around the suggestions that i made on friday. >> thank you for the amendments. let's go ahead and take a motion to accept -- someone could make a motion to accept these amendment s. >> so moved. >> thank you. motion to accept the amendments, moved and

without objection passes unanimously. [ gavel ] >> thank you, on the overall piece of legislation, >> i would like to make the motion to send as amended ai as a committee report with recommendation for hearing tomorrow, july 26th. >> the motion has been made and without objection this motion passed as a committee report with recommendation. thank you. [ gavel ] >> mr. clerk, what do we have next? >> that completes the agenda for today? >> excuse me? >> that completes the agenda. >> thank you, this meet is adjourned. thank you. [ gavel ]

>>[gavel] >>good morning today is july 29, 2016 welcome to the local agency formation commission my name is john avila's i am the chair of the commission i am joined by supervisor crews and supervisor mar and supervisor campos. >> mme. clerk would you please call the first item.>>item 1 is

the call to water and [roll call vote] which we've arrayed done >>okay item 2. >item 2 is approval of the lafco minutes from the meeting of june 13, 2016. >>do we have any public comment? unless there is a

ghost in here than i don't think they were going to have any public comment. i will close public comment. can i please have a motion and a second? we have a motion and a secondthe minutes of july 13, 2016 are approved. >>[gavel] >>mme. city clerk please read item 3. >>item 3 is that community choice aggregation activities report by barbara hale and jason fried. >>good morning, barbara hale.

this is the lowest top-down rate that we have seen so far. >>great, do you know any reasons that people do opt out when they do? >>we have had a lot of interest in the program and we are

seeing a lot of commitment to it. the super green participation is also good. the rate of participation in our super green program is currently 3%. we are continuing to promote the super green offering that is the 100% renewable offering and we will send out a notice soon to our existing customers to encourage our friend and neighbors to join the super green portfolio as well. and, we will be doing an advertising campaign in the fall to specifically promote the super green sign up in our next enrollment in districts five and eight. so, speaking of the next enrollment we have 561 customers that have signed up for august enrollment. most of those sign-ups are residential. 78% is super green and 28%have signed up for

our super green offering. we are finalizing our notice for our next renewal period you may recall that when we previously surveyed the city that districts five and eight were areas that showed a 500% renewable product and when they start the product they will start there instead of having to start in green and make a second step to super green. please sign up for this enrollment please sign up for this enrollment@cleanpowersf.org by august 1. we have launched a bill calculator on our website so that customers can look at their existing pge bill and see

what their existing bill should look like as they consider the cleanpowersf option so we are hoping that will help the awareness and the understanding of our program. we also have put a bill tutorial on the last program to help customers understand theirbill. we have a bill comparison by sb 790 that is put together collaboratively by the california public utilities commission, and the public advisory staff the comparison shows an average. we are also

putting together a category to [inaudible] we are excited to go out on the market and get some more renewable n action to approvean increase in the power, as you may call this when we planned the program, the first enrollment period in may had pre-enrolled to meet

about 30 mw of average demand the second was set to occur this fall and was planned at an additional 20 and it is that combinationthat 30 and 20 that got us to 50 mw focusing mostly on enrollment in residential customers. during program planning we use a 20% projected opt out rate for those two enrollments. however, because our opt out rate is much lower that 1.6% that i mentioned instead of 20 we are forecasting that enrolling that additional megawattsso we went to the commission and said this was the road we are on and we

sought the authority and wehad an increase of approximately 20 mw as we had initially planned assuming we can meet the policy requirements in conjunction with the business policy practices we adopted in december and the commission also approved an increase to 75 mw. assuming we enroll 20 mw in our enrollment period that is an exciting growth to share with you. >>a few years ago when we talked about initializing

cleanpowersf we were talking about 30 mw? >>our first enrollment that happened in may was 30 and then our third was 20 and thatwas 20 and if we had went forward with 20 we would exceed ouso r 50 had to go to the commission and say alright, do we scale back our plan of 20 to make the total match 50 or may we have more authority? and, they opted for more authority so that is great.so, staff is also working on a growth plan to help us identify all of the options to continue to expand the service citywide and we are

working to have that completed by the end of this year and finally the puc action authorizes the general manager to negotiate and execute additional contracts for the energy suppliesnecessary for that 75 mw average demand which will allow us to expand beyond that 50. >>and so, when we want to look at the sufficient renewable supplies to get beyond 50 we don't have to put an rfp or an rfq out again we can actually, since we have people lined up from the first one, they can be available to help us with that is that correct? >>that is correct. we are going out into the market for a short-term contract so, we are using the standard industry contract so were using a western systems power pool contract and procuring a short-term supply to meet that in the near term and as we expand beyond this next enrollment we will be initiating another competitive procurement process for additional power. and hope to be procuring some longer-term power some longer-term

renewable power. >>great, thank you. >>so that is my update on the cleanpowersf operating activities. in terms of legislating activities item b, on this item we are continuing to work with the public utilities commission there are number of economics that affect this program as you know what that pca is among them and we also recently saul, i'm sure as did you that pg & e has announced they will be closing them miablo canyon and there is

other interest in the california power market of how pg&e is can replace that part of the power that they need. part of the reason that pg&e is said they are going to close diablo canyon is because there use is lower than they had expected and primarily because there will be more programs implemented in their service territory which will reduce their generation needs. so, they are knowledge and that they will have to replace all

200 mw and the talking about having the community choice aggregation customers help pay for some of that power so we deftly have a strong interest in that and we deftly have a strong part in that and the whole part of cleanpowersf is that we would have local control and decision-making over those decision choices that we will be working with the commission and other community choice aggregation operators to shape our positions at the california puc on that issue. >>great, thank you. commissioner crews. >>thank you for that update. i have received a notice from cleanpowersf asking if i felt

that my energy was cleaner and i would like to reply that it feels cleaner. and i would like also over the upcoming august break there will be a little bit of time before we hear what is going on at the state puc and wondering if we should keep in contact with you over the break or if you think anything will be coming down the pike in terms of the near-term? >>pg&e had initially said they would make a filing i believe it was this week but they are going to put that off. we will not see anything filed i pg&e for a bit of time now so it is kind of a moving target as what they are really proposing. i

don't mean to say that is a negative. that is a positive if they are open to talking to folks about how to shape their proposal in a way that folks would be happier with, that is a good thing. and so, we will be reporting to our commission in the absence of activity here while the break is happening at city hall it will be happening at their commission so we will be happy to share that information with you. >>or, we can just pop by at your commission meetings. do you foresee any impacts or changes that are being tossed around in terms of changing the puc structure?do you know what i'm talking about? >> i assume you're talking about the california governor's changes that he is envisioning?

i haven't seen anything yet i think the overall basis for it is positive. >>kind of cleaning house a little bit. >> trying to address some of those concerns of transparency and so forth but i have been seen any activity on that. >>jason fried, executive officer, a couple things that i would want to point out is am very glad that the commission did move forward so that we could allow the program to get a little bit bigger so we weren't scaling back on the residential program. one thing that i would like to point out is that last week a notice was sent out encouraging those sent

out to super green and of course any of your environmental groups are target so i'm hoping these numbers will jump up a little bit over the course of the next week as people start getting those emails and start clicking on the buttons. just a reminder, august 1is monday so you need to sign up this weekend in order to enter this phase of those customers i really encourage people to sign up with cleanpowersf if you want to be part of that enrollment process. and also i wanted to let you know commissioner crews that i will keep you posted and if we need a little bit of help

i will talk to the chair and if there is intention needed or a letter needed or a specifichelp but you're welcome to go to the puc we come i attend each one. >>i'm up for a field trip. >> i'm going to open public comment. but there's no one in here but also going to close public comment >>[gavel]

>>next item please. >>item >>item 4 is the final report on the study on what the city and county of san francisco can do to help to increase voter turnout. >>do we have any questions or comments? commissioner crews >> i think we should motion to accept it. >> so that we have a motion from commissioner crews and a second from commissioner mar. so we will pass this without objection. >>[gavel] >>next item please.

>>next item is the executive officer's report >> we are opening up public comment and seeing no onecoming forward we will close public comment. >>item number si