here in california. if they would then assume that responsibility instead of the investors-owned utility. that the balance would sort of be shifting from the investors-owned utility being the dominant provider from and does it make sense in that scenario for the c.c.a. to take on the obligation of provider of last resort. that's been the way it's been described. mr. holtsman's suggestion that perhaps the c.c.a. communities could all characterize it as co found the bonding responsibility, is one of the things that kind of goes hand and hand of the shift of provider of last resort going to the c.c.a. community as opposed to the investors-owned utility. those conversations are happening and more informal

workshops at the california p.u.c. and at legislature, as opposed in an active proceeding where a decision is expected. more what the california p.u.c. has had and legislative hearings, these things have come up. >> keep us posted. >> you bet. >> thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? next item. >> that would conclude my report. >> dave on the general manager's report. generally not specifically on cca. last week i attended the committee on information technology meeting here at city hall, and one of the items that was discussed and approved was i think about 22 million for the customer care and billing system extending that to retail

electric customers not cca customers but the municipal direct and redevelopment area customers of which we have roughly 3,000, i believe. hopefully many more in the future. and i support having a new billing solution there clearly what we're doing now is extremely archaic and difficult and all of that. my concern is whether spending more than $20 million to get to a better solution is the best approach and my comment is prior to choosing orical or whatever it is to extend cc and b in that direction it would be prudent to check with other agencies that have these kinds of customers, whether it's sacramento m.u.d.,

alameda, santa clara to see if they have a billing solution that we could perhaps participate in at much lower costs understanding it would get us less functionality than having our own but it would clearly be more functionality than what we have now and would be substantially less cost. it just doesn't make a lot of sense to spend like $6,000 per customer in current dollars for this billing solution understanding we may expand overtime but it just seems like a lot to invest in that particular billing solution. it's something for barbara and her team and erik and his team to look at going forward. but clearly, there's the approval this place and i'm sure they'll be looking at all the opportunities and getting it right. thank you, very much. >> thank you. >> it was some large amount. >> i don't know. >> i just need to, it's barbra hale and i need to make sure,

i'll talk off line but i want to be clear that the budget proposal we put before the commission was less than $3 million. to modify the cb system. >> this was over a longer period of time. >> yes, this will improve our system for us to provide state of the art billing services for power both as we grow. so we don't invest off line so we can chat off line. >> we'll figure it out. >> thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on the general manager's report before we move on? >> item 9 is a bay area water conservation agency report.

>> good afternoon, president kwan, commissioner nicole sandkulla crow. c.e.o. i'm pleased to be before you today. first you see in front of you an updated graphic of water use and this is the one i've conditioned to use. interestingly enough, it does have now the february 2018 data on it which shows that in the service area, in the wholesale customer service area, water use was still down 10% in february 2018 compared to the pre drought levels of 2013. it doesn't seem like a big number but by comparison the state-wide number went up 2% compared to 2013. seeing a difference in what is going on in the service area compared to what is going on state wide it's too early to

draw conclusions but it was something that while i was talking with my staff about it and trying to understand what went on it was a dry february certainly. but the numbers were significant and something they were actually quite excited to see. lastly, i do appreciate the commission's action when you adopted the proposed changes. incorporating our recommendations. i informed the board and they were appreciative of it as well. i look forward to getting the financial information on june 1st so we can all fully understand what is in that financing cost forecast. and as well as the report next january on the ground water storage and recovery project and the test well yields and what that might mean for our drought year supplies. we look for forward to those ani appreciate your action. >> thank you. >> any public comments on

ms. sandkulla's item. next item, please. >> item 10 is the consent calender. all matters are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission and will be act upon by a single vote of the commissioner. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission or the public so request in which event the matter will be removed from calender and considered as a separate item. >> i move approval. >> second. >> any discussion? any public comment? all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. >> approved. next item, please. item 11 is confirm and approve analysis and conclusion set for in the water supply assessment for the proposed potrero power station project.

>> steve richy. this is a standard water supply assessment that we're required to do under the process for new development that we're not included in the prior urban water management plan. it's an assessment of the water demands that a development project would incur and our ability to meet those demands. this is provided to the planning department for the ceqa document. it's not an approval or disapproval or any action. it's transmitting this report to the planning department for the ceqa process for the development. >> can i ask a question about this? because i'm, i know that peter is not here but there was a question that was raised that i'm still not clear on around sort of the water supply assessments. it's not so much it's the allocations and how those are really determined as we're seeing so much development in

san francisco. i know that we have our caps that we've got to meet but, i just don't and mean we need to have further conversation around it because the assessment is different than the allocation per what you just said, as far as making an approval it feels like a big development comes along and we approve additional water allocation or assessment and then how close does that bring us to our cap and just to get a better understanding of that question? >> yeah, in the attachment to the agenda item itself, there is a memorandum we provide for each of these development projects and the final information here comes from an assessment by the developer that they perform on their anticipated demands and then within there we assess

where we are relative to our supplies so table four on that document, which is on page 6, gives the over all score card of where we are at relative to providing supplies in this case, we actually in normal years are able to provide the supply. we do have a challenge when we get into multiple supply years but that's true of our supply. if we take any other action relative to it we're not making an allocation we're just indicating that this will be the demand and this is where it appears to fit within our over all demand that we are able to supply for the city. >> and so as we move closer to this bigger state question of water allocation for the river, that will then appear in some format like this as well, correct? because even though it's not a direct allocation, it's an continued demand. it's a request. the state has made a q i know

it's being negotiated. but i just in the big picture i'm trying to understand how all of these individuals developments and a request also coming in around water for the river. all fit into our over all cap? >> i would indicate that what the state would do is not request. that's regulation and it's a whole different kettle of fish. this is all based on our assessment back in the e.i. r. for the which is i am where we looked at what we felt was achievable at that time and we were talking about the cap of 265 million gallons a day and for in city and that anticipated us being able to bring demands down by 10mgd which we were able to do and when i started this job eight and a half years ago now, we had plenty of room in

there that we were not going to use all of the water allocated to the city. since that time, with the growth and demand we're up against that so it's putting us right there so we're going to have to make decisions going forward how we want to feet future demands but it's a further conversation we'll have and of course it does take place in the context of what any i couldn't regulation might present and what settlement relative to that potential regulation might present. that's going to be a whole discussion unto itself. >> when is that discussion? >> well, it's really depends on the timeline for the state to take an action or not take an action but as soon as something is clear there, either a settlement or a state action, we will have a basis for having a hard, serious discussion about how we will comply with that

regulation. >> and i guess may concern is that we're seeing because of the growth and we're seeing quite a few of these come through and this question then of sitting up against our numbers is a bit concerning since we don't know what is going to happen at the state level yet. >> well, we had a meeting with peter drugmire and others last week and they kept coming back and saying what i think we've said in the public meeting that whatever the outcome is, you know, our job is to meet the demands of both environmental and actual by our wholesale customers and our customers in san francisco. so, will we meet those demands? yes, we will find find a way tt those demands. it may be through additional

unorthodox supplies we might not have anticipated in the fast but if the demand is there, jor jobs is to find ways to meet those demands if the plans of the city are to generate those demands.

incorporate conservation that is built in and required now so we're on the trajectory where per-capita demand is going to stay low and get lower but the number of capita is going up. and that is the growth that we're looking at and we have to find a way to deal with that if we can squeeze out additional conservation it's great if we have to go to more recycling or some form of portable use or wastewater that's great and if we have to develop a con junk tive use project that's our job. >> all right. i hope that those conversations

can happen sooner than later even if the state requirements have not been settled. because it just gives me pause when i keep seeing these coming forward and knowing we're heading up against those numbers without really, i know we have some plans that are out there and that we're to meet our needs but just to approach it from a cautionary perspective. >> it doesn't come into play seriously until 2035-2040 where we run up against those challenges more than anything else. but these projects take a long time to develop so they have to get started early. >> thank you. >> any other comments or questions? >> ok. do we have any public comment on this item? we have a motion to approve? >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor. aye. >> opposed.

approved. next item, please. >> item 12 authorizing the general manager to execute modification 1 to the memorandum of agreement with the united states department of the interior national park service, yosemite national increasing the amount to 14,677,857 and extend the duration for two years for four years such as to board of supervisors approval under 9.118. >> steve richy assistant general manager for water. this is an extension of a memorandum of agreement that we have had on this most recent with the national parks service going back to 2016, i believe it was. this is another two-year extension. we troy to do these in five-year increments but the national park service has had lots of personal changes and policy changes going on and they have a new

superintendent so this is another two-year extension and is roughly for about $7.3 million per year. so, this includes the cost-of-living increases which was not included in the prior two years so we're watching up a little bit and doing activities with the park. the vast majority relate to our filtration exemption. it's watershed protection activities as well as security as well as scientific work, we do with the park. i'm happy to answer questions about this but this is part of our package for our filtration exemption. >> i'd like to move the item. >> second. >> public comment? all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. approved. ex next item, please. >> item 13, approve the 2018 revised baseline scope, secretary and budget for phase 1, the sewer system improvement program project a subset of projects within the adopted

sfpuc10-year capital plan for fiscal year 2018-2019 through 2027-2028 hugh the wastewater enterprise. >> good afternoon, president kwan, commissioners. i'm karen, director of wastewater capital phase 1, the $2.9 billion baseline scope schedule and budget for the 70 projects we have on going was approved in march 2016. today i'll be presenting the proposed 2018 revised baseline scope schedule and budget for the phase 1 projects. in your commission package, there's a full report that has all the details behind it. if you can bring the slides up, please. revisions is a map of how we got to where we are today as shown

here. the results of all the work is months and months of work with wastewater operations. we want to make sure the most urgent needs are being met. we also had opportunities to meet on wastewater treatment and collection system priorities last year. the financial revisions were included in the wastewater 10-year c.i.p. which was approved in february by the commission. the revisions are consistent with the quarterly reports when i come up and give the red dot reports on scope schedule and costs each quarter. there's a number of reasons why we want to do this on a periodic basis. for a large program like we have, we want to look at the market and tracking impacts of that external tees they're having. we have changes and challenges with the bidding environment. this is consistent with how it was handled.

we have 70 different projects with lots and lots of different challenges. we want to make sure that the program is consistent with our 10-year c.i.p. and we want to continue to have our baseline that report against what the reasonable schedule scope and budget are so moving forward, we would be reporting against the revised baseline if approved today. so a significant amount of progress has been made on our 70 projects. since we baselined the program in 2016. in 2016 we had 49 projects in pre construction. now only 27 projects are in the planing and design phase. in 2016, we had 15 projects bid in construction now we have 19. most notably n.2016 only six

projects were complete now we have 24 on track to be wrapped up this year. within your packet on page 6, you can see the project statuses. work in the city is challenging, as we've been implementing the program there's been a number things we've been running into. some of our work is performed under contracts with other city departments, namely m.t.a. and public works, vanness is one example. we have a project that goes along with that and central subway also. we have a project going along with that. our projects are subject to things that are out of our control, priorities from other departments. when we're doing work at the treatment plants, our projectses are sharing space, it's pretty tight out there, there's little staging area. access routes, we've had challenges with shut downs and that means you are turning off electrical, shutting down the flows, getting the plant to come

back on. in some cases we have very complex interfaces where something has to be built by one project and connect to another. some projects can only be built during driveway weather because we have to have everything operating and they have to be tested during wet weather and that can push things out as well. it's october 13th to the 18th. on your typical year. some facilities can't be taken out of service so we have bypasses and projects and public streets can be more challenges and we're working on the embark adair yo and thanksgiving through m.l.k. we can't work on the cruise ships or when the giants are playing and soon they won't work when the warriors are playing also. when they're here. in the right of way, is very tough. i talked to you about some of the projects we had challenges

with those and the store projects. basically it's to relief flooding in district 10. we had to chain our alignment because we couldn't come to an agreement and we had a can challenge, we had a change to our power strategy going to a single power provider and enterprise expressed interest in being our power provider so we took a step back and that change has impacted our scheduling and for southeast projects. this is from a very high level. this is where we were when we baselined 2016 and the end date for our phase 1 projects were may first, 2025. now, where we are today, our end day projects and commission kaen, it has not changed, it's the same schedule. i want to highlight things that

are different. let's start with treatment. the head work schedule on this particular slide reflects a nine-month extension because we added in a demolition of our existing dry weather head works after our new head works is built. i'm going to show you more information on that later in our presentation. the old head works must remain functional until we know our new head works will work and it's passed all our tests and it meets the satisfaction of the wastewater enterprise. over all, all our projects at southeast plants are still on track when we roll all of them up and underlying in that, by switching power provider our power redundancy contracts that project has an extension or delay of 29 months. that so that we can do it sequentially and have the power enterprise build their supply and woel follow with an upgrade from the hunters point side. i'll show you a slide on what that looks like. with that pump station, it was extended because of our issues

with staying in dry weather periods and for construction because the facility must all be operational during wet weather. unchanged on the collection system side, we took a little step back on central bay side system improvement projects and we've extended our preliminary design, 35% design by 18 months. because the land challenges. we're working to get an agreement with caltrans. we took time to do some geo tech. we take a little pause to reduce risk so we can reduce costs later. if i can just go to the cost slides. these budget revisions were discussed in the capital budget presentation that agm how and sandler presented and reflects

the 68 million-dollar increase to the phase 1 projects. collection system has no net change. there are some ups and downs. treatment projects have an increase of that 68 and what i'm going to explain to you tracks well with the red dots that i present typically but i'd like to just run through some of the details on the treatment projects. again, no budget revision. the changes are within head works southeast plants, oceanside and north point. and what i'm going to do is run through the projects that are greater than $10 million. and let's start with southeast plants. we have two head works and power feed. and i want to run through details on the head works projects. it's an increase of $60 million. this project is located, this facility is at southeast plant

on the evans. it's a very critical pre treatment process. this is where all the flows end the plant. it is easily our most complex construction project that we have in phase 1. and this is for a number of reasons because we are going to be operating while we are taking it sought of service. consecutively, we're taking the heart out of the patient and keeping the patient running for about five years. this project has dependencies on other projects. we were originally looking at crossings in evans and evans is a very, very busy road. a lot of people are traveling on evans in order to build the new facility, we were looking at all improving a pump station across the street and building another new pump station. we spent a lot of time with our contractor, with our designers and with our c.m. teams to figure out how we can minimize risk on this because there are so many complexities.

i want to just walk you through what this looks like if we're talking about what we've got now. right now, the facilities we have out at the plant are influence control structure where the flows come into the plant and we have a dry weather headworks with the capacity of 150 million gallons. we have a wet weather headworks so if it's raining, not raining, where we are with the flow, a flow will be conveyed right in from the collection system to the dry weather headworks or it will from from the pump station, a deep pump station, lift the flow up and gets it over to headworks as well so both would be running in a wet weather situation. so, what we're going to be doing is we're going to be building the new headworks right where the wet weather headworks is shown on this side. we're going to have to build a work around, we're going to build a by pass, wore going to have to build another pump

station to maintain capacity and we can stay in permit complian compliance. ultimately, this is the red where now we'll be demolished our old headworks and the new headworks will be built in that same location. here is the new headworks. incredible ability to remove grit in all different flow regiments and we piloted this at full scale. for myself personally, i don't know how a.g.m. henderson feels but this is my least favorite part of the plant because it is odor us. the odor will be sophisticated but it requires all of those facilities to be built and they're right where we're going to be removing the old head work and paramount is the grit removal. we'll build a new lift station and we will also be improving

the bruce flynn pump station which is directly across evans so it will be very reliable because they're going to be really depending on that to work hard during this process. during our planning and discussion, originally this project had a lot of deep work that would come across evans and also it had davidson and we came up with other ways to engineer that because it was a lot of risk and a lot of cost and a lot of potential delays. we added in additional items. bar screens and electrical upgrades so we could count on it. this adds nine months to the schedule and this is the total of the largest increase that is to the phase one portion of the treatment plant. i'd like 20 go to power.

in the process of getting that going to build that. this is what that will look like. this is great for us because it truly is two independent supplies. jefferson martin supplies one and trance bait cable is supplying the other and the increase in cost is from 68.8 to $84.3 million. it secure our pricing for the future. if i can go on to oceanside, none of the improvements are over $10 million. these are all relatively small. the one that i did want to highlight is hard to see with the person typing.

was just an improvements to the oceanside digester reliability. we improved the power there too so that brian's folks would make sure everything was going to be able to be running. then if we can go to north point, the last treatment plant project to highlight is the north shore wet weather pump station. this project has a safings of $14.8 million. it has a schedule increase. this project was to provide redundancy for this critical pump station. any pump station is one of our most critical assets. the original baseline scope involves building a deep pump station which would have been sandwiched in square one or square two are. it was going to be very, very difficult to build. i had high construct ability

risk. we sat down with wastewater and we spent time talking about alternatives. and what we ended up with is a project that is actually going to be upgrading our existing pump station and meeting our redundancy needs. this resulted in a safings which was significant but it also resulted in us having to do redesign and that's why we had the schedule delay. now to collection systems they had no changes over all. still at $504 million. a lot of things have gotten done. we have e.i.p.s that have been completed and a few more that are still coming along. we're starting the grant program. we have a lot of things that are still going to be happening in phase 1. but the majority of the rest of the work will end up being in phase 2. >> on the grant program? >> yes. >> are you going to be running that by us? >> yes, i know that we will be

back -- definitely we'll be running it by you. i know we're coming back in a commission meeting or two with the monitoring of gren infrastructure but i'll talk to the project manager and team to make sure that they formulate that. they're not there yet to be able to bring it to the commission. >> ok. >> we'll make sure that happens. >> so with that, the reason to do this today is to keep it consistent with the 10-year c.i.p. this program is going to start the largest of the construction projects this year. that will be bio solids starting construction, head works has started, it's important to, since the team we can get your support here, so we're looking foray approval for the revision to the 2018 baseline. >> any comments or discussion?

>> we have one public comment an this item. >> david, again i'm in costume. very important. i should mention that i did not speak earlier on item 7. my experience with wendy aragon was negative when we overlapped on the c.a.c. we did not get along. it was not a positive experience at all. but i didn't want to dwell on that. i did want to support the new ssip baseline. i think that staff has done a good job of evaluating and re-evaluating all the projects and the complexities and the scope and schedule and budget. i think it's important to keep these projects on schedule and in particular, the new digester and head works projects out at southeast. i think again, together those will have significant improvements to the system to

the neighborhood and owe der and to the rate payers to everybody. so i'm a big fan of those two projects in particular. i just wanted highlight the inter departmental project in the book starting at age 37. those projects have a lot of complications with other city agencies in particular, m.t.a. and other agencies as well. i noted for example, that the taraville street project does not indicate, i think did not indicate a schedule delay or separate phasing but i had head that p.u.c. was asking to split that from sunset boulevard out to the beach and from sunset boulevard in because maybe it wasn't a sewer site change maybe it was the water side that couldn't handle all the connections that the same time so that was going to impact munis project. anyway, all of those inter departmental projects have all

these complicated and inter dependencies so i'm looking forward to your approval of this revised baseline and keeping things on track and i'm sorry i missed earlier in the meeting. has there been an announcement of the new a.g.m. for wastewater? >> no. >> ok. coming soon to a p.u.c. near us. anyway, good work to karen and all the staff involved in the ssip. thanks. >> thank you. >> i have a question. >> i'm just reflecting on the fact that there is no increase with the bio solids, which i find curious. it's such a big project. will we see an increase in the future? is this, we're not going to approach it right now because we have these other increases and

the other areas? >> >> eddie: we have some hard bid for head works. we are now going to be starting to put out some of the early packages for biosolids as we get into the late summer and fall and winter. i think then we will start to see how our bids are coming in. we took our latest firm estimate. the team still is in the process of design so those estimates will be redivided. we have three parties looking at it. our c.m., our contractor, and also an independent. so we just brought on a program c.m. that will assist us with some of those things. did you have anything? >> i would sigh that we are concerned given the president's tariffs in how that will impact steel prices. we're sort of nervous about

that. but, i think given the fact that we have this delivery method where we work directly -- the contractor works directly with the designer, we have some opportunities to kind of rescope stuff and troy to take advantage of opportunities. so we are -- but we also have a contingency as well. i'm hopeful that we are trending in the right way. i mean, so, but i'm just really nervous about the tariffs and what that impact will have on not only this project but all our projects that we're doing and water wastewater and power. >> the market is tough too. we work with a lot of our other colleagues at wastewater programs that are actively building and are seeing lower competitiveness, single bids,

trending high, so the sooner we can lockdown pricing the better we will feel. >> that reminds me the day that the president announced that, i left a message for harlen saying well, here it is. so that's a very good answer. i hope you understand the reason i asked the question. i'm not trying to stir up the pot. i'm just curious of the timing there. >> do we have a motion. >> second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. approved. so we are going to read closed session items. calling for public comment. >> item 16 is existing litigation pacific bell telephone proposed settlement of action with release of all

claims in the city to pay $67,500. item 17, louis versus the san francisco proposed settlement of action with claims in the city to pay $150,000 and 18 restore versus city and county of san francisco. >> do we have any public comment on matters to be addressed during closed session. >> ok. >> we need a motion? >> item 15. >> do we have a motion on whether to assert the client privilege regarding the matters listed below as conference with legal council. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> ok.

>> do we have a motion. >> motion not to disclose. >> second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. any public comments? next item is other new commission business. >> colleagues forgive me. i do have a couple items here. brian, can you come up to the front. we've been talking about the workforce development stuff for a while. i think we're all pretty much in sync. i am pretty proud to say that after pulling back some of the layers harlinen couraged me to meet with staff and that's not always a great idea because staff is not always that interested in meeting with us. i want to thank you, brian. i met the other day with brian,

carry and catherine curtis, as well as mr. harris, right. field coordinator for our apprenticiship. its wanted to share with my colleagues that our pre apprenticiship at wastewater utilizes a classification that is relatively new and came about as a result of president obama it's not a traditional building trades related scope and the p.u.c. hasn't utilized that class because we frankly don't have time for it in a lot of ways. somehow our staff was able to find a way to utilize that classification and very meticulously deliberately apprenticed for the stationary

engineers. and in meeting with catherine in particular, but with you brian, i learned a lot that i had not known before. that is that what i always assumed was that the public utilities commission pretty much does things better than most other city departments when it it comes to workforce development. i think catherine deserves recognition and i believe that we're going to find a way to do that. in the meantime, i'm asking that you have those individuals appear, make a report on the 22nd of may. to this group about how they came up with their plan and how many people have gone through their plan and real numbers is good. we don't need fluff, we have enough of that. but i believe and my intention is to promote catherine's work as the way. mr. harris in particular, the

way he approaches the case management, on the ground, boots on the ground, working side by side with these individuals, and being able to call balls and strikes. it's not always being the good cop, sometimes you have to tell someone that they ain't ready. we have that obligation not to the rate payers and the citizens and often times that's the piece that's missing. i want to thank you, brian, for allowing me to speak to ask that they make a report. if you had anything to add, please feel free. >> thank you, very much. i'll pass the word along to staff and i'll be glad to prepare a presentation. >> hopefully, catherine in particular. >> absolutely. i tell you what, we'll make sure she can be there. >> thank you, brian. thank you, very much. if it's ok with the chair the only, it's the end of the meeting but, we talked about

having a conversation with mayor farrell's office. i don't think there's a reason for us not to continue governing and doing good business and everything despite what the perceptions are about the uncertainties, et cetera, et cetera. we need to move the wall. we met not long ago with the environmental advisor tyrone. i did get feedback very recently that they're interested in continuing that conversation. we were going to have that conversation as a part of this body. i expect that we'll get back with them soon and then i've been asking to meet through you chairman kwon, with representatives from the mayor's office about the seawall, s. s.i.p., workforce development and the items we just discussed and our environmental agenda. i expect that we might do something towards the end of next month, i'm going to ask if

it's ok with the chairman that we ask donna to coordinate with the mayor's office on a date where we can get a full compliment of commissioners, as long as it's not in conflict with our general manager's schedule. >> good idea. >> anything else commissioners? any public comments? meeting is adjourned.

. >> the san francisco carbon fund was started in 2009. it's basically legislation that was passed by the board of supervisors and the mayor's office for the city of san francisco. they passed legislation that said okay, 13% of the cost of the city air travel is going to go into a fund and we're going to use the money in that fund to do local projects that are going to mitigate and sequester greenhouse gas emission.

the grants that we're giving, they're anywhere from 15,000 to, say, $80,000 for a two year grant. i'm shawn rosenmoss. i'm the development of community partnerships and carbon fund for the san francisco department of environment. we have an advisory committee that meets once or twice a year to talk about, okay, what are we going to fund? because we want to look at things like equity and innovative projects. >> i heard about the carbon fund because i used to work for the department of environment. i'm a school education team. my name is marcus major. i'm a founding member of climate action now. we started in 2011. our main goal it to remove carbon in the public right-of-way on sidewalks to build educational gardens that

teach people with climate change. >> if it's a greening grant, 75% of the grant has to go for greening. it has to go for planting trees, it has to go for greening up the pavement, because again, this is about permanent carbon savings. >> the dinosaur vegetable gardens was chosen because the garden was covered in is afault since 1932. it was the seed funding for this whole project. the whole garden,ible was about 84,000 square feet, and our project, we removed 3,126 square feet of cement. >> we usually issue a greening rft every other year, and that's for projects that are going to dig up pavement, plant trees, community garden, school garden. >> we were awarded $43,000 for

this project. the produce that's grown here is consumed all right at large by the school community. in this garden we're growing all kinds of organic vegetables from lettuce, and artichokes. we'll be planting apples and loquats, all kinds of great fruit and veggies. >> the first project was the dipatch biodiesel producing facility. the reason for that is a lot of people in san francisco have diesel cars that they were operating on biodiesel, and they were having to go over to berkeley. we kind of the dog batch preferentials in the difference between diesel and biodiesel. one of the gardens i love is the pomeroy rec center.

>> pomeroy has its roots back to 1952. my name is david, and i'm the chamber and ceo of the pomeroy rehabilitation and recreation center. we were a center for people with intellectual and development cal disabilities in san francisco san francisco. we also have a program for individuals that have acquired brain injury or traumatic brain injury, and we also have one of the larger after school programs for children with special needs that serves the public school system. the sf carbon fund for us has been the launching pad for an entire program here at the pomeroy center. we received about $15,000. the money was really designed to help us improve our garden by buying plants and material

and also some infrastructure like a drip system for plants. we have wine barrels that we repurposed to collect rain water. we actually had removed over 1,000 square feet of concrete so that we could expand the garden. this is where our participants, they come to learn about gardening. they learn about our work in the greenhouse. we have plants that we actually harvest, and eggs from our chickens that we take up and use in cooking classes so that our participants learn as much as anybody else where food comes from. we have two kitchens here at the pomeroy center. one is more of a commercial kitchen and one is more setup like a home kitchen would be, and in the home kitchen, we do a lot of cooking classes, how to make lasagna, how to comsome

eggs, so this grant that we received has tremendous value, not only for our center, for our participants, but the entire community. >> the thing about climate, climate overlaps with everything, and so when we start looking at how we're going to solve climate programs, we solve a lot of other problems, too. this is a radical project, and to be a part of it has been a real honor and a privilege to work with those administrators with the sf carbon fund at the department of environment. >> san francisco carbon grant to -- for us, opened the door to a new -- a new world that we didn't really have before; that the result is this beautiful garden. >> when you look at the community gardens we planted in schools and in neighborhoods, how many thousands of people now have a fabulous place to walk around and feel safe going outside and are growing their

own food. that's a huge impact, and we're just going to keep rolling that just going to keep rolling that [gavel]