our schedule, we think we'll get through that process by the end of march. >> and then just finally on the construction schedule, this -- you know, basically this is going to be a phased construction of a couple of major phases and i think one of big reasons for that is the fact that the will remain operational throughout construction. and that is very important, obviously. so the first construction activities will start next fall. and that will be, again, phase one. the conservancy will take on that and they'll spend eight, nine months on that phase. later on, when the ferry concessioner is in place, they have their own construction project. so the schedule shows them basically starting in october of 2019. and again it's a phased

multiyear construction with the sites scheduled to be completely built out by the year 2024. and i believe that's the last slide. completes our presentation and rebecca, jay and i as well as our partners are here to answer any questions you might have. thank you. >> thank you. that was a great presentation. i thank everyone. we have public comment. first would be veronica sanchez. >> president brandon -- [feedback] commissioner adams, congratulations on your appointment. we are very pleased to have you again in a leadership position. commissioners, i'm speaking on behalf of the master mates and pilots. captain hunter who was here and was going to address you

unfortunately had to leave to coach his son's basketball game. and expresses his regrets. in advance of this hearing today, we did submit a letter for the record on behalf of both master mates and pilots and the inland boatman's union of pacific. you've heard today that the -- that the m.p.s. will issue the ferry concession in mid january. and while that ferry concession bid will have many of the requirements that the port is imposing and also bcdc requirements, we do not know at this time whether that bid will include a prevailing wage reflective of local area standards. we are coming to you today not to ask you to impose a local prevailing wage because certainly the city does not have the authority to do that. but we're asking you to send a

clear message, to use commissioner katz's word, to the national park service that they should adhere to federal law and actually impose or set a local standard which they can do under the law. their sister of federal agency, the department of homeland security, for example, at san francisco international airport set a wage standard that is peged to the sciu contract. that is a representative workforce there. that reflects the cost of living needs of this area. what we are worried about is that the park service will use a national wage standard which has substandard wage and benefits that reflect wages in texas to gulf area because it is a national standard. we do not know at this time

where they've done a wage survey, can they can do. just as homeland security asked department of labour to do. and to do it for ferry workers. ferry workers are very different than tugboat workers and so the standard they're using right now is for tug workers and special projects nationally. so we ask that you reiterate this and memorialize this in the contract documents before you. because, unfortunately, we think that the park service need this is type of reminder about the city's commitment to paying the workforce, especially ferry workers -- [bell ringing] a standard wage and competitive wage for this area. i'm going to introduce with your permission, president brandon, i will provide to director for the benefits a coffee of the t.s.a. standard. >> thank you. thank you. >> director forbes, do you have any comment on that?

>> thank you, veronica. my comment is that this is an issue of federal law. that managers sanchez is referring to. and that we can look into what we could do or what we could propose to you to do. but in general, this isn't an issue of adherence of federal law. >> our concession contract will require the concessioner to comply with the mcna marrow service contract act which is consistent with wage determination. that is as much as i can share at this moment in time. we'll be consistent with all the regulatory requirements as a federal agency. so, thank you. >> thank you. >> i guess along that point, there is something in our contract that requires compliance with federal law. and we don't have to be specific, but i imagine all of

our contracts require -- >> can you help us with the answer to that one? thank you. >> good afternoon. the general agreement does require m.p.s. to comply with federal laws in issuing the solicitation and in contracting for the services. >> thank you. that was a leading question. [laughter] >> thank you. j.b. davis. >> good afternoon, commissioner -- or president brandon. [bell ringing] and commissioners. i came to also support what ms. sanchez was talking about. currently the park service is using a national survey to determine working wage that comes in at $12.01 per hourment. and a wage that completely

fails to reflect the reality of living in the bay area. i'm a member of the inland boatman's union and we ask that the general agreement between the port and the national park service include a requirement that the department of labour conduct a wage and benefits survey that -- of deck hands that are working in and around san francisco bay. further, we ask that it include language that would -- that requires the national park service to compel potential commissioner -- or concessionnaires to pay prevailing wages to deck hands working on the alcatraz ferries. now it sounds like i'm asking for more money. and i am. but i want you to think of this more as a safety or at least as

a safety issue on top of everything else. just on the way over here, i did a quick little craigslist survey. to rent not an apartment, but a room in an apartment in san francisco. i found it ranged anywhere from $1200 to $1700 a month. alameda, $1100 to $1200 a month. oakland, $775 to $1500 a month. that is a room in an apartment. when the middle class, and these are middle class shops, when we start getting squeezed out of the local housing market, we're driving in from stockton modesto. alcatraz is a busy, busy run. at the the end of the day,

you're tired. you've been sweeping, throwing lines. hard, hard work. when you show up tired from a two-hour drive fighting traffic, you are not at your best and that is a safety issue. when i show up to work as a senior deck hand, my priority is the safety of my passengers, safety of my crew. and it is a lot easier for me to do that when i don't have to spend two hours on the road just getting to and from work. thank you very much for your time. >> any other public comment? commissioner katz? >> thank you. thank you for a detailed presentation. it belies the months and months, years of work that it took to get here. so, thank you for all the work that i think everyone has put in to making this happen. it should be, you know, an

exciting project. as we move forward. a couple questions on some specific issues. one is with respect to the concession operator. the park service has sole responsibility and obligation for the selection, but what occurs if there is a violation of some of the port policie does the port then require the park service to take steps, you know, i can't think of something specific, but be it a safety policy or failure to maintain the premises properly, that sort of thing. because wi eve been removed from much of the oversight of the concessionnaire, what obligations do exist if a situation like that?

>> thank you, commissioner katz. rebecca here to answer questions. this is a part of the team presentation. i drew the star on. [laughter] so just to be clear on our relationship with the concessioner, m.p.s. has a responsibility to select them just as they do too. our responsibility is to enter a lease with them. but that lease, once we enter it, is a direct relationship between the port and that tenant. they are our typical tenant and they will be required to maintain sister. we'll be sending them notices if they are in violation of the lease. one problem that we have now is we will be sending -- we will also be letting the park service know about these problems. so that they have their direct relationship with that concessionary of either contract, will have a direct relationship via our lease and communicating with one another if they're in violation of either of those two documents. what we're seeking to do is

kind of be shoulder to shoulder, mom and a dad, be shoulder to shoulder in terms of using both of our documents to make sure that the coner is in compliance with both of them. we have our typical termination and damages, and provisions of this lease that we have in our typical leases. anything to add? ok. >> for example, if we were to determine that a termination was required, that's solely up to us to make that determination or does the park service get veto power every that decision? >> they do fot have raoe toe power every that decision. it would be our decision. the decision has a process that would then occur where they would have to put in an -- they might have to do an emergency contract. sort of overriding goal in the g.a. and with both of our benefits that we get from this project is that in no case will alcatraz service stop. so what we would do would be to

plan that term nation and then have an emergency contract in place potentially with another ferry provider, providing service to alcatraz while m.p.s. conducted a new solicitation process. that was one of the complicated decision trees of how our relationship would work like -- where we would be at cross purposes potentially. this is one area we wanted to make sure we cover. did i get that right, team? thank you. >> it's always best to think about the worst case scenario when everyone is getting along. [laughter] in terms of our responsibility for the substructure improvements, is there a cap on our cost for those improvements? >> our commitment today is to do the $5.7 million repair which you authorized in a previous port commission meeting. going forward, we'll be required to check, just as we typically do with our substructure, do assessments on

a periodic basis. we can then, if a repair is needed in the future, we can determine if we would like to take it on or ask a subsequent tenant to take it on for rent credits and then we've also, of course, held out for the possibly that if there is a catastrophic event, we would have the chief harbour engineer with us to determine whether or not there is a health and safety problem in which case we would have to go through the dispute resolution and potential termination process for the g.a. we've held out different-- and the are pair so large we can't talk it on. we can do that. >> and in terms of, for

example, the level or quality of repairs. but often there is different ways of conducting a repair, is that an r-election? >> we'll maintain -- the chief harbour engineer retains the ultimate direction on what the scope of their repair would be. yep. >> we have the obligation for maintaining the shed exterior. does that also include keeping it graffiti-free and other things like that or because it is in the sort of quasi-control of both who has responsibility for smaller kind of repair issues like that? >> i don't remember that one off hand. i believe we we have a graffiti provisions in the leases. but i don't remember if it's focused on any particular part of the shed. do you remember, jay? let me defer to jay edwards on this one.

>> the tenant will have their normal maintenance repair obligations for their improvements and part of also our lease does require tenants to remove the graffiti on their portion of the property. if it happened within their premise, they should be responsible. if it's outside, we would have another port tenant do i. >> got it. just wanted to be clear when it said the maintenance for that. thank you. last question with respect to sea level rise. and then i'm looking to see where i made my notes on that. but the language that we have, i saw -- sorry. in terms of obligation or requirements to be prepared for sort of potential sea level rise.

there is different levels. here it is. i'm sorry. it was just on the presentation. so it may not be as detailed as the documents. tenant must implement any required flood protection measures as determined to be necessary by the chief harbour engineer. >> sorry. >> could you clarify that a little bit more? >> yes. if i remember that provision correctly, it is focused on the health and safety per view where the chief harbour engineer, we do foresee, i don't know about at this site, but general sea level rise, we may see place where is we're still operating our typical operations, but there are temporary flooding conditions that would need to be mitigated at that moment or maybe the tenant could take on a minor repair project that would make it so that that area didn't flood. you know ark couple of times a year. we reserved the chief harbour engineer's able to come in on and on a health and safety basis direct the tenant to make some type of repair that would

make the area safe for continued operations. we've been focused on making sure that alcatraz service doesn't get interrupted because of demands for the island and the amount of services it is currently providing. that is one of the provisions we inserted thinking ahead 30 or 40 years to be able to make a clear indication that the tenant would be responsible for those types of repairs. >> i guess a corollary to that, going forward with the improvements, repairs, construction, etc., do we have provisions in directing the park service and/or the concession operator to do construction with an eye towards dra drainage, perhaps or other things that we envision might make some sense 30 years down the line. >> i don't have a good answer for that. i haven't been as close to the design. just one note, the park service is facilitating the improvement. they aren't doing the

improvements themselves. >> and the design documents or things like that. >> yes. >> could require incorporation of a 30-year or 50-year plan for sea level rise. >> i was just speaking with one of our staffers about bcdc's review and the design has been well-received. and we were just talking about how bcdc's review does think a lot about how the design of the project will last through the anticipate sea level rise. i believe that has been covereded. but i will come back at our approvals and make sure that i have more detail on how that is being anticipated. >> great. well, thank you very much. and thank you for the detailed presentation. we've gone through many it rations of this and discussions and negotiations are pretty familiar with a lot of the details. thank you very much. >> yes. thank you. we've been through many, many rounds of discussion and brings

back some of the terms, but nonetheless good to have a good overall summary so i really appreciate that all the players are here and all the details. i'm just going to first follow up with a question based on what the last topic that commissioner katz raised and we're talking about how we're managing sea level rise on the port side. and excuse my ignorance here, i will ask the question to make sure that on the other side at the receiving side at alcatraz island, what is there in terms of management of sea level rise on alcatraz island on the receiving side over the next 30, 50 years and whether that is addressed and since it is the term of the lease and if something that is not working on the other side that could create issues down the line. >> i'll immediately yield the floor. [laughter] >> we have a few additional piers in case you're interested in the park.

one of those being the fixed wharf on alcatraz island. we're looking at significant unvestments being made and our sea wall on the island side as well as the fixed wharf. anytime we have a major construction project, it gets vetted at the national level to look at resiliency and sea level rise and climate change effects and that we're taking that into account. actually our work for the fixed wharf is taking thating into account and with the analysis work that we've done, we don't face any in the next 50 years any significant -- >> i don't think we want to make it some sort of legalistic term in our lease, but i think that we need to understand both sides and we want to be able to partner on your sea wall resiliency and adequacy projects so that we know both ends work. >> i would ask if you learn any tricks of the trade and specific techniques, we would be happy to share.

>> you need to invest and somehow don't get federal funding and all of a sudden becomes a problem so your intention is to maintain and then there is a problem with funding and delays,etc. so i'm thinking that we at the port should be aware of that contingency. as jay said, we thought about everything. that is another one that we have to think about, dwroun, just as a contingency, what do we do? in response to that. i think we want to be kept abreast of your investment plans and projects regarding that. i heard you mention, and i know we had this before, but you needed to refresh my memory. too many pages in line by line items. there is a $30 million investment and i know the port is putting in $5.7 million. the other $30 million is the park service and ferry concessioner and golden gate conservancy. any way to break out how that $30 million investment is shared across all the stakeholders? >> just a little intro.

about $25 million will be put in by the first ferry concessioner. so, the first one that comes along will put in that amount. the commission will put in $5 million as a current estimate. this is all in conceptable design now. once the ferry concessioner comes on board and as the conservancy continues their design, we will get even more refined numbers. since term sheet, it went up by about 20%, kind of through the design process and then through improvements that they were making to some of the visitor experience elements. so just a note that that note continues to rise. >> ok. i assume that once the park service looks at picking a ferry concessioner, i don't know who is going to be responsible for making sure that they have the financial wherewithal to do the $25 million. is it the national park service or will we start looking at the lease? >> good question. as part of their analysis, they will be looking for adequate

financinging and i cannot remember where we landed, where we review once they select a concessioner, we have thable ability to review their review of the adequate financing to provide our concurrent prior to signing the lease. did i get that correct? yes. oh, and i'm sorry, commissioner. jay has one other item to add. >> sure. thank you, jay edwards. senior project manager. thank you for the questions. we have received an estimated breakdown of what those potential investments would be. i'm sorry we don't have it for you right here. we're certainly prepared to come back and give you more information on that in our next presentation. there is roughly, kind of rough numbers, roughly $5 million is goinging into what we call the waterside improvement. that is the new ferries and -- not the ferries, but the new docks, the new piers, the new embarkation part of it and the

remaining 2k4r0r million will be put into the surrounding facilities into actually our port property. so, that is the rough breakdown of it. interest's categories that they have gone through and we've looked at those. i just don't recall those off hand. >> i would appreciate if you do include that in your final report. obviously that is an important part for us to understand as the funding comes to play in who's responsible for what. i think we understand that the port's responsibility, you made that very clear in this report. lastly on the golden gate conservancy and their part and their financial wherewithal, i know they're going to check that. but how is that process going to work and when are we going to have -- what are we requesting of them to demonstrate that? have they raised the funds already? where do we stand? >> that is a good question. i'm about to turn the mic over to somebody else. [laughter]

so we will -- they're part of the investment is a lot smaller, of course, than the ferry concessioner. their typical way of funding things through the facilities that they currently manage and their capital programme. is there anybody from the conservancy who want to add anything about how they think they'll fund that initial phase? >> the conservancy has a capital investment fund that we use to improve park facilities so that's at the ready and we forecasted the cash flow needed for this project and we'll have the cash available when we need to make these investments. >> so, ok, you'll be raising i. it is not necessarily on hand yet. >> we have money on hand that would be adequate for it. that money is refreshed every year as we go through that physical year. and in our forecasting, we anticipate at the time the money isn't needed for this project and it will be available. >> ok. when we have a sort of financial forecast off of their concession in terms of understanding how that is self-funding over time?

>> the concession operations that we will put on, yes they will definitely be self-funding and they're anticipated to produce revenue that will go into the conservancy into the port. >> ok. that was not included in this report. >> you have to ask these guys. >> i'm sorry. do you remember the revenue from the port -- >> just to understand what that forecast looks like. >> yes. two will provide that in the next report. the term sheet analysis, which was those prior charts were pasted into this report. they haven't changed since then because all of the rental terms have stayed the same. so we do have both of the -- we can break out the rental projections from the conservancy and ferry concessioner. they're lumped into one chart. >> i would appreciate it. i think you're obviously making sure that we're dotting all of

our is and crossing our ts and making sure that -- as i said, we do believe this is a winning partnership. we just want to make sure that we actually document it. >> thank you. commissioner adams? >> thank you for the presentation. i got some questions here. kind of stuck. veronica sanchez, i guess we got a copy of this letter asking questions. and then reading leader pelosi's letter. leader pelosi says there are pragmatic history with the parks service. one of my concerns is that, this is one of the thing tas she says here is that . -- has the domestic of labour updated wage surveys? if so, when. has she been contacted? i'm concern.

i look at this letter here. i'm sure you've seen it. and is there a national standard for tugs and other special project vessels? they said the compensation is below the wages of the workerss that live in the barrier because san francisco is the most expensive city to live in the united states. we surpassed new york. and then it says a local prevailing wage. so, where are we at and how do you get everybody together to try to work this thing out? because i'm a little -- i'm confused on this. and are there -- are there any kind of protections? and this is what i don't understand. the other stuff sounds good. i don't have a problem with that. but there seems to be a couple of issues here. and how do we work it out is this and leader pelosi evidently didn't get her letter and her questions answered and she is not satisfied.

it seems like the m.m.p., and then the lady from the park service says all the information i can give you. so, how do you intend to make this thing work? >> thank you, commissioner. i'll start off and i'm sure i'll be joined by a lot of others to help answer. this is a complicated question. for the dpraoems part, we have included all the city provisions we would normally include in this time of a lease. so we're satisfied on that end that we'll treat the tenant just like we treat all of our other tenants. the complicated question i can't answer, and i'd like to have others kind of jump in a little bit, our agreement also states that m.p.s. will comply with federal law or in default of our agreement with them. if there is any other comments to be made by others, those art parts that i have personal knowledge of. i don't know what happened with

leader pelosi letter but i can tell you within our documents and how we're moving toward -- we're able to treat this tenant like our other tenants, but i'll step back to see if there is anything else we can provide at this time. we're very thankful -- thank you, veronica, for sending us this letter before the meeting. we didn't have a lot of time to get together to respond to it. i'll take one more moment or otherwise we can see if we can have a little bit more conversation provide at the next meeting. >> i would like that and maybe leader pelosi's office ought to sit down with this to see what we can do. i don't know if she can or not. but it says the intention to require ferry concession, to comply with the federal service contract and pay prevailing wages. and so you want to talk? >> i would actually like the representative, vice superintendent to speak to this issue to address speaker

pelosi's questions and when we may be able to get answers to those question and then make a couple of comments to my commissioners. >> unfortunately i'm not going to have the answers to the questions, but i can say that we are in receipt of the letter and we did draft a response and our procedures are that they have to undergo reviews up the chain. so, the letter -- the response letter has not been issued yet. we're hopeful it will be usual used shortly. i can just reiterate that we'll be following the service contract act parameters and we've heard these concerns raised and unfortunately that's all i can share at this point in time. >> and i understand that. i know that everything is just back in washington with the secretary of ther into i don't. er i understand that. >> thank you. >> thank you. i think that is right. we'll wait until we hear from m.p.s., the answers to leader pelosi's questions and share them with you. as we said, this is a matter of federal law and lead easier

pelosi is speaking to national park service, a federal agency, and it's very appropriate for that dialogue in exchange and we're encumbering for our tenant how we would encumber any other tenant on the property and our tenant would need to conform and be in federal compliance with our lease. we need to wait and learn more information and this is an open question and we'll make sure that you have the relevant information. as much as we have it. thank you. >> elaine, are you saying that we'll have the relevant information before we're asked to finalize? >> i would hope so. again, the this is an issue for whether the secretary of the interior issues this letter to leader pelosi. because the m.p.s. is required to comply with federal law. and wait until we see what we have in the hearing and

brainstorm how we may respond to this question. >> other than that, i'm happy. this is a great presentation. and i'm really looking forward to the completion of the project. i know a lot of hard work has went into this. this thing has been going on for a long time. finally we're close and i want to make sure that all the final touches get on there and i hope it can be a win situation, not only for the part, but the park services and more tan anything, it would be the citizens that go back and forth every day to come to our beautiful city and take ferry back and forth to alcatraz. thank you. >> thank you, everyone, for that presentation. this was a great presentation. very thorough. this has been a long, tough negotiation. and i'm really happy that we've been able to come to terms.

that will be a win-win for both agencies. we're almost over the finish line and hopefully by the next -- by the -- not the next meeting, but the meeting in february, we'll have answers and be able to approve this project and move forward. thank you for everyone for the hard work that they put into this. >> thank you for your questions. we'll come back with answers. >> thank you. >> item 14. new business. >> i would like to ask what that wonderful piece of art work is over by the podium. >> thank you so much for asking that question. so, early in commissioner adams' presidency, he made a trip to south africa to capetown and went there several times. and he brought back a piece of art for capetown for the por. and i had it frame of minded. i listed the term of president adam's tenure as president. and i wanted to make sure that

it hangs in the executive director's office and in perpetuity because you presided on the selection panel that was so well-run that did result in me. but just to reiterate your desire to broaden the port's view, to think internationally, to think nationally and locally and that is a real ode to you and to your time as our president. >> thank you. >> thank you. any other new business? commissioner? >> yes. i guess i mentioned -- referenced earlier that we would like the request that we do have more or less a futuristic view of what the impact of self-driving cars will be. since we have different points of view and we don't really understand the impact particularly as we operate a lot of parking lots on the the port. and there is a lot of different

speculation projections of what is going to happen in the future in terms of how much parking is needed in san francisco and we just need to have some futuristic vision of what that means so that we can be more educated, informed as we deal with some of the transactions that come up for it. so, if we can find some futurists from some of the companies in the bay area and silicon valley, and maybe commissioner cass can help with ideas since she seems to be involved with some of that. [laughter] that would be helpful and nice. >> any other new business? commissioner adams? >> i would encourage our commissioners. you know, we approveded two new restaurants on the waterfront. and i encourage all the commissioners to go by there and give them some business. let them know who we are. we approve them so we should give them some business. and then there is another

seafood place down the street there and i would say we need to patronize as commissioners anything that is going on in the ports. go in and spaenl little money and let them know we're supporting them. queens is a small business end. we want all of our tenants to make it. we need to go interest and show them a little love. thank you. >> any other new business? commissioner katz? >> can i ask that we explore ways of doing a fittinging, tribute or honour to mayor ed lee who was such a support of the port give than we have some things coming up. there may be some opportunities to acknowledge all of his contributions. to the waterfront. >> thank you. can i have a motion to adjourn in the memory and with the boundless appreciation for the life and public service of the honorable edward lee, 43rd mayor of san francisco, may 5, 1952 through december 12, 2017. >> so moveded.

>> second. >> all in favour. >> aye. >> the meeting is adjourned at 5:55.

>> all right. good afternoon. happy new year. i want to call to order the first meeting of 2018, tuesday, january 9. madame secretary, item two, will you call the roll. >> president kwon? >> hear. >> vice president courtney. >> here. >> commissioner vietor. >> here. >> commissioner moran. >> here.

>> and commissioner caen is expected to arrive later. >> there will be no closed session today and we'll move to item three. approve after of the minutes of december 12, 2017. do i have a motion to accept the minutes? >> approval. >> second. >> commissioner kwon: any discussion? any public comment? ok. all in favour -- >> aye. >> commissioner kwon: opposed? all right. it carries. and now to item number four, the time for general public comment where members of the public may address the commission on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda. do we have any public general comment? ok. item five. communications. any discussion on communications? ok. any public comments on communications? going easy on us. all right. item number six.

other commission business. any discussion? commissioners? >> we have one real quick. i did want to quickly report to my colleagues that we managed to launch our first class of 2018. [feedback] at the -- at the academy out there at [feedback] in connection with the massoud, todd and the young community developers, the human services agency which granted necessary extensions candidates as well as the mayor's office of i.p.o. interim, predict and organize, we had a total of 18 signups. 13 participants started at 6:30 in the morning in the dark and the rain yesterday out at the academy. a number of support person fell was on hand. -- personnel was on hand. i wanted to make you aware of the fact that additionally the six-week curriculum has become an eight-week curriculum and

now includes a component in connection with asphalt, which is intended to put folks into a better position not just employment seekers opportunities in the private sector, but also in connection with the sewer system improvement project and i'll just continue to report. there is a dispatch piece that i'm working internally with staff on. that's supposed to commence within the next couple of weeks. but i felt really, really good about how everybody's kind of come together on this. i can tell that the students feel really good about it. we were also able to put together a last-ditch effort before the end of the year to provide certifications pursuant to request made by hope s.f., a number of individuals from bayview community. we received a number of certifications and that will be going -- ongoing with help from oewd and city built. so, i think we're doing what we said we would do. we we're keeping the promises that we all made together and

we should be proud. >> commissioner kwon: great news. thank you. anyone else? any public comment? ok. moving right along. i think we have item seven. >> happy new year to everyone. and hopefully this year will be better than last year. so, the first item i have is clean power s.f. update. barbara hill. >> thank you. happy new year. assistant general manager for power. i have updates on our clean power assess programme with respect to enrollment and service, contracting for our growth. and legislative and regulatory activities. on the enrollment front, our clean power s.f. programme has grown since i talked to you last. we reported in december. we're completing our small

enrollment just this month so right now we're currently serving about 80500 sites. so, it is up 500 from the last report. our opt-out rate is the same. 3.2%. so, we're steady eddie on that front. our super green upgrade continues to exceed that. and we're at 4.1% now. that is a .1 increase since my last report to you. so, that's a snapshot of who we're serving today. looking ahead, our next small enrollment will be april of 2018. so just a couple of months away. that enrollment will include folks on our wait list. we have 230 customers on the wait list now. and that will -- about 65% of them are seeking super green service. so if you want to be part of that enrollment, go to cleanpowersf.org/enrollment

before january 21 and we'll be able to include any additional customers in our april service. but, of course, the big next enrollment is for july. right now we're very involved in a number of activities to support that city-wide enrollment. our goal, of course, is to enroll all of the city by july of 2019. we're expecting to have about -- to get about halfway there with our july 2018 enrollment. the work that we're focusing on right now is procuring supply and the related financial support. so, the financial support comes in the form of a bank credit facility. i've reported to you before that our finance team is working to finalize those contract terms with j.p. morgan. we're on track to bring that to you for a vote of approval at our next meeting, january 23rd. on the supply front, we are

actively negotiating and finalizing those contracts with the short listed counterparties. we intend to present the programme risk management, portfolio assessment, and proforma results to the commission on february 13. so that is two meetings from now. at that time, we'll propose updates to the business practice policis that we've been operating the programme under for your approval as well. you initially approved those in december of 2015. and so with this next big enrollment, we'll refresh those and bring them back to you for approval. on the legislative front, consistents with your vote in november, i believe it was november 14, an ordinance was introduced at the board

requesting the board provide a limited delegated authority to the p.u.c. to enter into our supply contracts and that will support the completion of our programme enrollment. the delegated authority would include annual expenditure limitations and conditions imposed by you at that november meeting on the general manager's authority to sign contracts. that item is -- was heard at a special meeting of the board, budget and finance committee on december 12 and i was moved out of committee with full support. and so right now, today, it's at the board for its first reading. at the capital, cal c.c.a. is preparing for a lobbying day that we we're participating in later in january. and that is to educate and raise awareness about community interest and local energy programmes like clean power s.f. we want to make sure we keep our legislative folks aware of our interests.

then on the regulatory side, we are continuing to. a lot of action on the exit fee tpcia. the annual adjustment will be delayed until march. it usually happens in january. i reported in december that it looked like it wasn't going to happen january 1. we've gotten additional reports from the cpuc. they're saying march 1 is when they will authorize adjustments. we're also going to be participating in workshops on january 16 and 17 in a general reform to get to some agreement. we'll be participating as san francisco and also as part of the cal c.c.a. coalition. the staff at the cpuc surprised us in december by issuing a resolution on resource adequacy. that staff draft resolution was issued for comment.

it would result in delaying c.c.a. expansion. and start up for at least a year in california. the stated objective was to avoid cost shifts from departing customers to remaining customers. associated with resource adequacy obligations. and what the commission said they were trying to do is align the c.c.a. expansion and startup dates with their planning process for resource, for assigning resource obligations. comments are due in that proceeding january 11. they were actually due like a very short amount of time after the resolution was ish used and we petitioned for more time as did others. they reluctantly granted that and we're grateful that they did. there's been a lot of coordination activity on how to

participate in that proceeding over the holidays and many legislators and local elected officials have written the cpuc expressing their concerns about the process that the cpuc is undertaking. including our board president and acting mayor breed, sending in a letter. so, stay tuned on that front. we'll see where that goes. we see it really as a cost allocation issue, not an urgent drop everything and pay attention to this matter. the kind of matter that the cpuc takes time through a rule-making process, with comment and possible hearings, discover. a lot of opportunities to understand viewpoint and get input. we thought the process alone was reason to be alarmed about the approach the cpuc was taking. we'll see how they respond once they see folks written comments.

and then finally, pg&e has filed for at the cpuc for revisions to its solar choice and green tariff programme. that is the part of the programme offerings that competes with our super green offering and we will be addressing comments on cost allocation issues to make sure that the costs of that programme with are being borne by the right rate payers so the competition there is fair. with that, i'm happy to take any questions you may have. >> i have a question about the enrollment. can you remind me. the 80,000, that was by district, right? didn't we shift strategy now, focused on business as well? >> it was district and we did shift strategy to focus on some districts so it was business customers in district 10. all customers in five and eight. the smaller enrollments that

we've been engaged in have included net energy metring customers in those districts and customers who have been on the wait list. >> and then the next enrollment in july, it is going to be targeted at who? >> we'll -- we'll continue to work that -- those details out. it is going to be about 150 megawatts of customer load. we're pretty much going to be serving customers in all districts between our auto enrollment and our wait list signups. >> it would be great to get -- the opt-out rates are still so low, but it would be great to get a better understanding maybe at your next presentation briefing on, you know, a little more on the daem graphics of the enrollment. you know, are the small businesses, are they big businesses -- >> sure. >> how many of the supergreens with individuals versus businesses. kind of a little bit more of a profile? >> happy to do that. happy to do that.

>> quite interesting as we move into the big push here. >> sounds good. >> thank you. >> there was a piece in the paper this morning or yesterday about pg&e proceeding to shift customers to time of day rates. how does that affect us? and refresh my memory. we do not have time of day rates, is that correct? >> no, we do have time of use, time of day rates, seasonally adjusted rates for both our clean power s.f. and our hetchy customers. yeah. so, our rate design mimics pg&es. so, those same time of use periods and seasonal periods apply to our customers. >> ok. thank you. >> thank you. >> great, thank you. any public comment on this item? ok.

item 7b. >> commissioner kwon: actually, i have no other announcements and that concludes my report. thank you. short and sweet. >> thank you. very short and sweet. any public comments on the general manager's report? ok, madame secretary, the consent calendar. >> item e is the con sent calendar. all matters are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission and will be acted upon by a single vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these item fls a member of the commission or public so requests in which event the matter will be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate item. >> i'd like to make a motion to improve the consent calendar. >> second. >> any discussion? any public comment? all right. all in favour -- >> aye. >> opposed? carries. >> item nine, authorize the general manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the san francisco

recreation and park department to establish authorized entry and access to recreation and park properties by s.f.p. representatives in other words to inspex, install, modify, repair, remove, replace and test a temporary overhead power line in mclaren park. >> i'd like to move the item. >> second. any discussion? all in favour? >> aye. >> public comment? >> public comment. forgive me. all right. all in favour. >> aye. >> opposed? it carries. item 10. >> a proven increase to the existing contract cost in the amount of $7,635,800 and any future modifications to the contract. >> second. >> any discussion?

any public comments? all in favour? >> aye. >> oppose? ed carries. item 11, please. >> item 11 approved the selection of kennedy jenks consultants a.g..joint venture, a.e. com technical services incorporated and stantech engineering incorm rated and award dpraoems number pro-880076a through c and authorize a general manager to execute three professional service agreements each with an announcement not to exceed $4 million and each with a duration of five years. >> i'd like to move the item. >> second. >> discussion? any public comment? all in favour? >> aye. >> opposed? >> 12 , please. actually, we have no closed session items. so we go straight to item 23 and 24. any new business from the commissioners?

ok. i think this is a record. [laughter] wow. the meeting is adjourned. >> i told you it would be a good year. >> have a good one.good afterno

everyone. >> the disaster council meeting. as many of you know we have not been particularly diligent in the last year in meeting quarterly which is what we should be doing and we take full responsibility for that. it's been very difficult to schedule. but we have our meeting schedule put out through the next year and i hope you picked that up as you come in and are going to be able to join us each quarter. we have regular meetings scheduled. i feel this meeting is extremely important especially in the light of everything going on in the world and certainly not what has happened in houston or miami but we have