the effect on this caltransoperation -- caltrain's operation, it's probably a century. i believe the c.t.x. should be allowed to go on first without being tangled up in this uncertainty. i've seen in the press already where they say that. well, that's not true. this is a brand-new thing. the heavy lifting of the transportation part of this study is yet to come because caltrain is currently doing an extensive operational and maintenance study, the results of which are not out here. that involves things like the relationship between that yard and this particular decided. it's certainly better than third street. that doesn't make it the best, nor does it make it necessary to decide it right now. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank

you, mr. kaufman. miss bokin. >> eileen bokin with speak on my behalf. i would like to concur with the previous two speakers on this issue. i would also like to concur with supervisor fewer about outreach to the outside lands, also known as the western neighborhoods. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on this item, number 7? seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor peskin: would any of you like to respond to the public comments that you have heard? i certainly have made it abundantly clear over time that i share mr. lebrun's concerns as it relates to surface disruption and cut and cover. and i think that we have all but eliminated that, except for

at the throat, whegroat, but w want that to be torn up for years on end, but with that, the floor is yours. >> one of the reasons for doing the study is to look at tunnel boring technology that would prevent and negate the need for a disruption of all of those streets. you are correct for most of its length, the pennsylvania area alignment as we understand it today can be bored just like the central subway was bored. as you approach the terminal, that's simply not part simply because of the opening of the terminal at that point, it will have to be done with a cut and cover operation, but most of the length can be done with a boring machine, and that's one of the things about this piece of analysis, we think it makes sense to do that. the previous proposal would have been not to do that, and there would have been years to disruption to townsend and

second street in that process. >> supervisor peskin: and then with the western outer lands, as you go through the environmental process, are there any other questions or comments from commissioners? ha have any of you had a chance to look at the language suggested by some of the public commenters, and do you have any comments? >> i have not seen that language, i'm sorry to say. i'm happy to look at it. >> supervisor peskin: yeah, i don't know that it is necessary, but staff -- thank you, commissioner fewer. if you want to take a quick look at that and put any responses you would like on the record. >> i need to look at the --

what -- two things. one is just accepting the pennsylvania avenue alignment certainly makes phasing possible. we are in agreement on the issue of phasing. we have -- one of the reasons for choosing the pennsylvania alignment is the d.t.x. can move forward with its next phase of engineering. i would just want -- i think it's important, however, for the city and this board to make it clear that ultimately, pennsylvania is the way to go, right? that it isn't just -- choosing a phased approach is not about building phase one and walking away. that gets us into the same problem that we have today with the crossings, cutting off mission bay from the rest of the city. we do think it's important if you choose to have language something like that you make it clear that the ultimate goal is to choose an alignment that is basically underground for our farther distance, which is the pennsylvania avenue alignment.

>> if i may make a suggestion, we'd like to take a look at this language carefully, and we will respond to the board with our opinion prior to the next meeting of the board, when this item will come for adoption. >> supervisor peskin: okay. all right. then colleagues, is there a motion relative to item number 7? sorry? commissioner kim? >> supervisor kim: sorry. i was not clear. is that a request -- >> supervisor peskin: insofar as we could pass this on the first reading if the staff collectively thinks that some of this or all of this language makes sense, we could incorporate it at the second reading, which is what he was suggesting, which seems like a reasonable suggestion. >> supervisor kim: so then i'll make the motion to -- well, there's no motion, right?

we can just vote on this item? >> supervisor peskin: so what we have before us is the recommended alignment on pennsylvania avenue, and the c.a.c., of course, voted for it unanimously, and so that is what is before this body. all we need is a motion to adopt the pennsylvania alignment. moved by commissioner kim. is there -- seconded by commissioner yee. colleagues, can we take that on first reading, same house, same call? [ gavel ]. >> supervisor peskin: resolution is adopted. mr. clerk, next item, please. >> clerk: item 8, 2019 year five year project implementation update. this is an informational item. >> good morning, commissioners. i am pleased to present the first of the process to present

to you for adoption the five-year prioritization prom. i'm going to five it the 5-ypp update going forward in the presentation, and the strategic plan, i'm going to refresh why we're doing this. essentially, this is your opportunity, board members, to provide us with feedback on the draft project list for the projects that the agencies have proposed to be funded by prop k over the next five years. once a project is in the five-year prioritization program, 5-y.p.p., it is considered with an encouraging status. so looking forward to your feedback over the next coming weeks and months. so prop k, very high level approved in 2003. this is the expenditure that tells you what are the categories you can fund with prop k, the types of projects,

who can request the funds, however revenue is expected to be generated over the 30 years, how much that revenue is expected to bring in on top of the prop k sales tax, $13 billion in additional funds. including projects like central subway, and itthe only other thing i'll add is the expenditure plan allows for the kmulgs accumulation of debt. we just issued our bond a year ago and we've got 14 more years in the program. the expenditure plan and the strategic plan requires a five-year plan. the board adopted the strategic plan baseline where we did a

true up of the last 15 years, and how we expect things to perform over the next 15 years, we ran our financial model, and that's what ultimately tells us how much each category can expect to receive from their share of revenues peryear over the next 15 years. it does not tell you, however, which projects are going to receive those funds, and that is the purpose of the 5-ypp's, so that you can see the pipeline of projects that are ready to go or be a reasonable expectation of to be ready to go. it lets you see across the different programs, where you might see some overlap, where you might see some complementary projects, and it also allows for board feedback. as i mentioned these are the opportunity to fund those projects over the next five years. we'd like to make sure they

reflect your priorities and your district's priorities, and also what funding is available currently. we need to update this now because we are in year five of the 2014 5-y.p.p.s. so the process of updating this is, you know, i do this circle thing because i see the circle on step two. we are sort of nearing the end of step two and easing into step three. the agencies are going to be telling us how much they are going to be requesting in prop k funds, and we run the models four our strategic plan to see what we can fit within the program and then eventually present to you for adoption the strategic plan, concurrent with

the last of the 5ypps, which we expect to bring to you over october and november . so november , we would ask for adoption of the strategic plan. as i mentioned, we already updated the baseline, and we already brought to you the funding plans for the major capital projects, and the paratransit. basically anything that does not require a 5ypp was presented to the board in the spring. and once the board adopted the baseline for the strategic plan, it allowed us to then issue guidance to the agencies of how much money they would expect to have available and the type of information we would like them to provide to us. we also conducted a survey, an on-line survey, where we received about 1,000 responses, and we have provided you with those responses -- or with the feedback we received, and by the end of this week, we will be posting to our website and also make available to your offices what the agencies are going to do, what their

responses are to the public feedback that they've received, so we'll send a note out to the clerk this week with that information. july, agencies submitted applications to us, over 115 projects with scope, schedule, funding plan information, and we've been working over the last few months to evaluate and refine those proposals. and the proposals are what you will see in your packet. they are attachment three to the main packet, that the next level down is in your enclosure, where you can actually see which fiscal year the agencies are requesting funds, and then, the next project is information forms, which is the next level down, sort of the ground level, we're looking to refine those proposals and present

information to you. this is the basic format of the actual document. there is an actual scoring, the list of the projects with cash flow because that's what we need for debt assumptions, scope, schedule budget plan funding project, and project delivery status is another section where you will see for the 2005, 2009, 2014, 5ypp, as well as a percent complete for all of the projects that we have funded since 2003, so you get a flavor of how the programs are going. we look for how things will be going for these projects, how things are proposed to be going, are the projects ready, do they have a reasonable expectation to receive the other funds that prop k is expected to either match or to set, you know, prop k might be funding the early phases of

work. is there a reasonable expectation that the agencies will receive funding for design and construction, and then, we also look at the category and the whole program, because each category either has to spend its funding on financing costs or capital project costs, so we want to make sure there's enough money in each category to get to something around year 20 of the 30-year program, and that the amount of money that we are spending on financing costs for the program as a whole is not too excessive, so we are paying attention to that. so now, i'm going to get into the highlights. so for the program-wide highlights, the neighborhood transportation improvement program, which has -- which was created in the last 5ypp update in 2014, we are proposing to continue the program with another $100,000 perdistrict of planning funds, and $600,000 perdistrict in capital funds over the five-year period. and then, there are some districts that have used all of their funds, some that have

not. for the districts that have not, what we are proposing is you could carry forward an amount so that the total end funds in your district would be exceed $900,000. so if you have $600,000 now, 300,000 would carry forward into the next five-year period. let's see here...where the status quo and categories with modest changes are listed before you on the slide. as i alluded too earlier, we are proposing to present the 5ypps to you in two groups. this is likely to be group one, and the second group -- so this group would come before you in october, and the final group would come before you in november . on the local -- let's see here. on traffic calming, so you saw the first of the years of the school engineering program.

it's proposed to be funded for another five years, as is the application-based program. m.t.a. is also creating a proactive traffic calming program, the name of which will change. i think it's now referred to advancing equity through safer streets, something to that effect. m.t.a. will be using the department of public health vulnerable populations subset of the high injury corridor to inform the priorities for that program, but more to be determined and to be scene. looking forward to seeing that implemented. lots of corridors, and also for the pedestrian safety category, as well. you can see them on your screen. basic circulation and safety, continuation of bike to workday and classes, as well as several different projects throughout the city. creation of a -- what is the program called? neighborways program, so if you have particular streets that are ripe for traffic calming or for prioritizing bicycles and

pedestrians in your city, by all means, pass that on and we will pass that onto the sfmta, and also some bicycle parking at the transit stations. for the highway narrowing project, we are working with the department of public works and the m.t.a. and the federal highway administration to fund what's called the narrowing gap closure. this is as the great highway approaches the terminus at skyline. there is a portion that is in need of funding. it looks like we'll be able to fund most if not all of the design phase, but the construction funding is to be determined, and you saw the request for the rest up to sloat narrowing in the presentation. you see these other locations, sloat is related to the great highway as well, sister

projects, transit enhancements. and also, some f-line extension to fisherman's wharf that would advance -- that would advance to design. b.a.r.t. categories, lots of good leveraging with b.a.r.t. with their measure rr funds that passed last year. pleased to see improvements, particularly elevator improvements at embarcadero, montgomery, powell, civic center, and balboa park. caltrain, state of good repair categories. the sales tax has been funding the sf -- has been alleviating sfmta of providing the capital member share of caltran's annual capital budget for the last -- since 2003. the funds are predicted to run

out in this five-year period, most notably around fiscal year 2021, so we'll need to be having some additional conversations going forward about -- about that. muni vehicles, facilities, and guide ways, several place holders that you'll see in these categories, these are the biggest cash flow drivers for prop k, and the base drivers of our financing program. you can see the highlights in front of you, muni guide ways includes the quint street-jerrold avenue connector road, which the board approved several years ago to mitigate the impact of the closure of clint street. on the major capital side, each -- [inaudible] >> -- b.a.r.t., caltrain, and muni all have their own set aside, but there is also a

discretionary fund and set aside funds, in case the parties had projects ready to be advanced. we haven't had to tap into those funds yet, but we are proposing to tap into them in this next five-year period. for caltrain electrification, it would wrap that up, and then, for better market industry central subways, we have a long-standing commitment of $61 million to the central subway project. this was included in the original baseline concurrent w

second group, we would be bringing the final strategic plan, and i will also mention that the fiscal year 18-19 projects that are still in year five of the 2014 5ypps, some of projects are advancing, some will not be advancing. so we will be bringing amendments as relevant. either there's different

projects that are going to advance different than what they thought they would do five years ago or projects are not going to advance and they want to put the funds into the next five-year period to fund other priorities. so with that, this is the high level schedule you have seen many times. we are actually on schedule with this project, so looking forward to your feedback, and with that, i can take any questions. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, miss laporte for that presentation. i know as commissioners, we have been individually briefed. are there any members of the public that would like to speak to the five-year funding process? seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor peskin: and we will stay involved as this moved forward. are there any introduction of new items? is there any general public comment? general public comment, mr.

lebrun? >> so i'd like to very briefly address the command earlier. [inaudible] >> -- that is true if you are at the beginning of any economic cycle, that is absolutely true. but however, the reverse is true when you essentially are headed towards a recession. and in the letter that i sent to the board earlier this week, i quoted two examples, which was the wall of the central subway contract which is an absolutely project, and also, the -- [inaudible] >> -- 13 miles is $25 billion. all i want to say is let's just think about where we are with

the economic cycle, whether we are headed for a recession, how deep this recession is going to be, and tread carefully before we go around rushing around awarding multibillion-dollar contracts. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you for your comments, next speaker, please. >> hi. jim patrick, patrick & company. the salesforce tower, we really put that on-line, and jane kim, who's not here, led that effort for quite a while, and i think that system is working well, and seems to be playing out. i encourage you to take a walk around the park, i encourage you to take a walk around the food trucks and see the system is working, number two, now we have the alignment for the train that will come in there. that's a great idea. i see a tremendous void, where will a train go? what are we going to do about

going across the bay? no one, by choice, seems to want to talk about that. that's a strategic point that we need to talk about as a transportation authority. in order to complete this transportation, we need to complete the trains and get them onward to sacramento, san jose, you'eureka, chicago, etc. i think we need to look at that as part of the equation. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. is there any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor peskin: and the transportation authority hearing is adjourned.

>> hi. my name is carmen chiu, san francisco's aelectricitied assessor. today, i want to share with you a property tax savings programs for families called proposition 58. prop 58 was passed in 1986 and it was helped parents pass on their lower property tax base to their children. so how does this work? under california's prop 13 law, the value we use to calculate your property tax is limited to 2% growth peryear. but when ownership changes, prop 13 requires that we

reassess properties to market value. if parents want to pass on their home or other property to their children, it would be considered a change in ownership. assuming the market value of your property has gone up, your children, the new owners, would pay taxes starting at that new higher level. that's where prop 58 comes in. prop 58 recognizes the transfer between parents and children so that instead of taxing your children at that new higher level, they get to keep your lower prop 13 value. remember, prop 58 only applies to transfers between parents and children. here's how the law twines an eligible child. a biological child, a step child, child adopted before the age of 18, and a son-in-law or daughter-in-law. to benefit from this tax saving program, remember, you just have to apply. download the prop 58 form from our website and submit it to

our office. now you may ask, is there a cap how much you can pass on. well, first, your principal residence can be excluded. other than that, the total tap of properties that can use this exclusion cannot exceed $1 million. this means for example if you have two other properties, each valued at $500,000, you can exclude both because they both fit under the $1 million cap. now what happens hwhen the totl value you want to pass on exceeds $1 million. let's say you have four properties. three with current taxable value of $300,000 and one at $200,000, totaling $1.1 million in value. assuming that you decide to pass on properties one, two, and three, we would apply the exclusions on a first come, first served basis. you would deduct properties one, two, and three, and you would still have $100,000 left to pass on.

what happens when you pass on the last property? this property, house four, has been existing value of 2 -- has an existing value of $200,000, and its existing property value is actually higher, $700,000. as i said, the value left in your cap is $100,000. when we first figure out your portion, we figure out the portion that can be excluded. we do that by dividing the exclusion value over the assessed value. in this case, it's 50%. this means 50% of the property will remain at its existing value. meanwhile, the rest will be reassessed at market value. so the new taxable value for this property will be 50% of the existing value, which is 200,000, equaling 100,000, plus the portion reassessed to market value, which is 50% times $700,000, in other words, 350,000, with a total coming

out to $450,000. a similar program is also available for prepping transfers fl interest r from grandparents to grandchildren. if you're interested in learning more visit our website or >> president cohen: good morning, ladies and gentlemen. welcome you to another edition of budget and finance committee, our fall edition. welcome you back to the chamber and back in the legislative break and back and ready to get into action. a great agenda prepared for everyone today. announcements? >> silence all cell phones, completed speaker cards and copies of documents to be included in the files submitted to the clerk.

items acted on will be in the september 25th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> president cohen: great. the voice of linda wong, and recognize our friends at sfgovtv, and item 1 please. >> clerk: resolution approving a general agreement between the port and the national park service for 30-year term with two ten-year options allowing ferry concessions to alcatraz island and oat golden gate national recreation area sites and lease agreement to develop visitor amenities to commence upon approval of the board of supervisors.

>> president cohen: the port has a long deep bench of supporters and friends, elaine and then rebecca as well, and jay edwards possibly also on deck to present. again, just an item, long-term 30-year lease for the embarkation area out to alcatraz. and hear after the port's presentation, hear from the budget legislative analyst and their thoughts. i understand they may have a couple of amendments. thank you. elaine, welcome. >> good morning, chair cohen, welcome, and members of the committee. elaine forbes, port director, pleased to be here today to recommend an agreement to you that really secures the embarkation sites of alcatraz into the future, 30 years, up to 50 years. >> president cohen: for those of us who don't know, what does embarkation actually mean. those of you watching at home. >> using a port word.

embarkation where passengers board vessels. alcatraz has, we have had an embarkation site for the alcatraz island since 1972 at the board of san francisco. it is an incredibly popular place to go for visitors to the city. it's a wonderful national park, and we have worked very closely with our partners to develop an agreement that really is going to improve the visitor experience on the embarkation site, provide more retail, interpretation, get us a lot of investment into our pier, and the concessioner and the retail operator. this agreement is going to transform this embarkation site. i am here today not only with my team, rebecca and jay, but also with our partners, laura from the national park service, greg moore from the park's

conservancy, and i see mark buell is here and sonny from supervisor peskin's office has been helping a great deal as well. we also have provided to you letters of support from the inland boats union, pier 39, blue and gold, spur, sf travel and all the partners that share an interest here en the alcatraz experience. so, right now passengers board vessels to get to alcatraz from this area between 31 and 33. it's mostly unimproved, some substructure problems and we have recognized we can provide a much better visitor experience. the agreement before you would provide for $33 million of investment to transform what is today to the rendering you see before you. this has 43,000 square feet of outdoor space, and it's converted to pedestrian only.

25,000 square feet of historic rehabilitation, and as you can see, just a much finer visitor experience. we would also improve substantially the circulation to get on to the vessels. we would have a new public plaza, visitor interpretation exhibits, pier 33 canopy and a new cafe. and we have an additional berth coming to the site to allow us to more easily get the passengers to and from the island. there is a business framework that is included in this general agreement, and to recognize the national park service cannot invest directly in land they do not own. so the agreement before you is the framework between the port and the golden gate national

recreation area at that provides for all the terms and conditions. we will then enter into a lease with the concessioner that the national park service will select and the conservancy. -- provide a way in which we can all ensure the quality visitor experience is achieved for this long-term period of time. and this slide goes over the agreements and transaction documents that will underline this agreement. i don't know if i mentioned to you that this is the highest volume maritime operation on port property with one. million

passengers a year. when we came to you with the term sheet, we thought we would earn annual base rent of 1.2 million. i'm happy to report that has gone up a bit to 1.2 million, and this slide goes over the various areas in this footprint and where our base rent is coming from. this is the overall projected rent to the port, minus a rent credit we will be participating in the $33 million investment through a rent credit. and here is an outline of who will make investments in the site. the ferry concessioner will invest $30 million of which the port will run a rent credit of 2.5. parks conservancy, 3.7 million, less a rent credit for the total investment of $33.7 million. the port is also investing now 5 million in the substructure to prepare the site for the

agreement and new project. as i said, my staff can provide you much more information if you have questions about the framework. we do agree with the budget analyst and my staff can also go over that as well the budget analyst, but if you would allow me, i would like for our partners at the table with us since 2014 to say a couple words why it's good for their organization. laura, the superintendent from the national parks service. >> thank you, elaine. good morning, chair cohen and members of the board of supervisors budget and finance committee. laura joss. i thank you for the opportunity to speak and appreciate your thoughtful attention to this important project to establish a long-term embarkation location for ferry service to one of the golden gate's most popular

sites, alcatraz island. for over five years, they have been collaborating to identify the site location, develop the vision and solidify the business terms that will enable this long-term alcatraz island ferry embarkation to remain at pier 31.5 the next 50 years. benefits for all stakeholders and 1.7 million visitors. the next ferry concessioner and the conservancy together will invest in a $33 million port improvement project which will provide a new welcoming gateway to alcatraz island, on piers 31 and 33, in the 'em -- embarcadero district.

completed an environmental statement, e.i.s., studied six other locations, piers in san francisco before selecting pier 31.5, which was supported by the port of san francisco and local stakeholders. the planning process took public input at several stages and included agency consultation about protecting endangered species, consistency with the san francisco bay plan and preserving historic resources. the economic benefits of establishing a long-term home for alcatraz embarkation is also significant, in addition to the direct return of rent to the port, visitors bring nearly $200 million to the city, in total annual spending power. almost half of which is estimated to be spent in the vicinity of the embarkation site on meals, shopping and other attractions. the nature and structure of the

alcatraz embarkation partnership with the city of san francisco and the conservancy is unprecedented in the many ways. and genuinely enthusiastic about what the future holds. we are very excited to see this project move forward and know that it will be a lasting legacy enjoyed by millions of visitors. thank you for considering this opportunity. >> president cohen: thank you for your presentation. >> and greg moore from the conservancy say a couple words. >> good morning. i'm very grateful for your review of this significant project today. the golden gate national parks conservancy, we are one of the three partners in the project to create a permanent and improved gateway to alcatraz island. this landmark site serves 1.7 million visitors a year, allowing them to enjoy the

island's beauty, nature and history. and alcatraz won trip advisor's national award as the number one landmark in all of america. quite a landmark site. but not only do visitors from around the world visit alcatraz, but good to the local community. rangers provide programs for schools throughout san francisco as a regular part of their activity, and alcatraz has a community access program for the low cost visits to alcatraz, bringing thousands of people from san francisco neighborhoods and community organizations to the island each year. the national parks site as i said deserves an enhanced gateway and the plans as the port is presented improve views, improve public access, improve interpretation, and really revitalize this incredible gateway to a national landmark. and not only do the three partners endorse this project, but many people throughout the

city, many organizations have endorsed it. civic organizations like spur, san francisco travel, the san francisco chamber of commerce, waterfront businesses, waterfront workers, waterfront tenants endorse the project, preservation and historic, and community-based organizations. we believe the time has come to make this way into reality to benefit from your approval if you agree with us and the benefits of this project and we encourage you to give it your approval so that we can have a revitalized gateway, provide economic benefit to the city of san francisco and contribute to the travel and tourism industry of this great city. thank you. >> thank you. elaine, come on up. i have a couple questions. i know a lot of people are involved in supporting this, budget and finance committee, get into the agreement, and nuts and bolts of the contract.

yesterday i'll hear from you in a second. yesterday a similar item related to this one was heard in the rules committee, and i was wondering if you could summarize for us the labor harmony agreement between the ferry operators. >> so that is subject to a separate ordinance, and that ordinance would provide labor harmony requirements on excursions and operators that offer excursions from the port of san francisco and any waterfront location. we understand that is moving through the process. we have a similar labor harmony agreement as relates to hotel workers from my understanding, and we had our staff testify in the hearing yesterday. we do not find it to be an i

impediment to the port. it's in everyone's interest for labor harmony and have spoken to that ordinance. >> president cohen: thank you very much. pivot to the budget and legislative analyst and hear their thoughts and comments as it results to this lease agreement. >> good morning, chair cohen, members of the committee. this board would be approving two things in this legislation. one, approving the agreement between the port and the national park service that sets the conditions for the ferry operations and the lease that would be entered into between the port and the ferry operator. and the second would be to actually approve the lease between the port and the conservancy. the two things before you today. general agreement that's before you, the board approved the terms, the term sheet for that in 2016. what you are looking at today is consistent with that term sheet. but we do have a couple of

questions that we want to discuss. now, miss forbes did go over with the slides in terms of the fiscal impact, went over the same numbers and can answer any questions. but i think the issue raised in the report is the actual expected terms of the leases are different than what's in the general agreement and are different than what's en the term sheet. from our understanding this has more to do with the configuration of the space thank the actual, any difference in terms of the price per square foot, so not an actual reduction in rent, simply reckon -- reconfigu reconfigure of the space. we thought they needed to be brought together and the same. we did make a recommendation to that effect and since our report came out, we have talked to the port, submitted language that

incorporates the recommendations that we made. there's one change, but we are comfortable with the change, which is we said that the agreement should basically be consistent with the national park service rules that leases for ten years, in fact, there are some other caveats to that, initial lease with the ferry operator for 15 years, consistent with all the information we have been provided. so, instead of actually recommending that you amend the resolution, we maintain our recommendations that you request the port to do these things, and also draft language that incorporates language and we recommend approval. >> miss forbes an opportunity to comment on the recommendations from the b.l.a. >> we concur with what the budget analyst said and rebecca will walk you through the language changes we recommend. >> thank you. >> thank you, elaine. red lines we provided to the budget analyst this morning do confirm what miss campbell was

describing. ten-year term mandated under federal rules unless there are extenuating circumstances, the first contract for 15 years, what it's been advertised for, and clear, that's the first contract. subsequent contracts, the ten-year term unless m.p.s. determines other circumstances require a longer term. other edits confirming the total base rent in the g.a. to the leases. >> thank you. thank you. colleagues, do you have any questions from either the b.l.a. or any member of the port team? no, all right. what we are going to do is take public comment and then take action on the item. ladies and gentlemen, as a reminder, two minutes to speak, a soft chime indicating 30 minutes remaining on the balance of the time. if you would like to speak on item 1, come up to the podium

right now. perfect. commissioner, good to see you. good morning. >> thank you, very much nice to be here. my name is mark buell, and for 15 years i had the pleasure of being on the board of the golden gate national park conservancy and served as the chair of that board for eight years. so i'm familiar with the organization. over the 25 years they have raised as a partner with the national park, over $400 million in charitable money to support activities in the park and improvements. some of those you are very familiar with. the visitor center at land's end, visitor center at the golden gate bridge, muir woods visitor center and the warming hut at chrissy field. the level and quality of the work of the conservancy is second to none and these, all these projects have received local, state and national attention for the quality and i

think this opportunity at the port represents the same kind of project that will make all of san francisco very proud of the facilities. so i come today to highly recommend your approval and thank you for your courtesy. >> president cohen: thank you. any other members of the public to speak on this item, come. >> good morning. supervisors, thank you. my name is adam pulitzer, city manager for the city of sausalito. and on behalf of the sausalito mayor, mayor joan cox, happens to be at the annual league of california cities conference, she asked me to come and read her letter to the record. dear members of the san francisco budget and finance committee. as you take the final steps towards approval of this important project, city of sausalito would like to take

this opportunity to thank you and acknowledge a number of regional leaders who collaborated together to produce a positive result. san francisco supervisor aaron peskin, the port of san francisco, port commissioner and director elaine forbes who listened carefully and worked very hard behind the scenes to ensure the final project description addressed sausalito concerns. acting mayor mark farrell, jenny kaloway, marin county supervisor office, among others, and of course, laura joss. together we demonstrated the power of regional collaboration as all of us invested our best efforts to ensure the best possible future for incredible natural resources. san francisco bay, fort baker

and the golden gate recreational area for our resident and visitors. we are confident not only have we created a mutually beneficial solution for this current challenge, but we have also established a framework for collaboration, cooperation, between regional partners for the years to come. we sincerely thank you, joan cox, mayor of the city of sausalito. >> extend our gratefulness to the mayor, and also nice when our neighbors come and say nice things. welcome, please come back. all right. any member of the public that would like to speak on item 1, public comment is closed, thank you very much. ok. i want to ask a question to the b.l.a. the amendments that you spoke of, could you just recap them one more time? >> clarify, challenging our recommendation so you don't, not to revise the, amend the resolution but simply to request the port. >> agreed to do so and submitted

the red line. here it is in front of me. >> amendments are basically, read them. basically to request executive director to revise the general agreement to, a, specify the term of the initial ferry concession lease ten years or less unless the director of the national park service determines a longer term is warranted in accordance with code, and initial term of the ferry concession, 15 years, that's in the revised language. and b, make the terms consistent between the proposed port and ferry concessioner. >> colleagues, you have heard the amendments, we will accept

the amendments, thank you very much for being agreeable to the port and we can take that without objection, ladies, all right. without objection, accept the amendments and approve with a positive recommendation to the full board. thank you. >> president cohen: item 2, please. >> clerk: ordinance delegating authority to the public utilities commission to enter into binding arbitration for the purchase of electricity and related products in certain parameters and authorizing agreements for clean power s.f. with binding arbitration. >> president cohen: retroactive ordinance for binding arbitration between the p.g. and e. and the p.u.c., to support the, of course, infamous cleanpower cleanpower

cleanpowersf program that grows and is more popular. >> supervisors, good morning. michael hymns, director of the cleanpowersf program for the san francisco public utilities commission. before you is an action requesting the board to retroactively approve three resource adequacy contracts, executed by the general manager of the public utilities commission with pacific gas and electric company. critical to the planned growth of the clean powpowersf program. two years and five months from august 2018 through december 2020. the combined total cost of the three contracts is 13.7 million. through previous actions, the board of supervisors, to support the expansion of cleanpowersf. and limited delegation authority of the p.u.c. to enter into contracts featuring binding

arbitration without going back to the board, subject to a very limited set of conditions. resource adequacy is a state requirement applicable to all entities that provide electric service to customers. and hetch hetchy power. to ensure sufficient electric generation available to the state's power grid when unusually high levels of customer demand occur. resource adequacy requirements are based on demand forecast and methodology through state law. to seek the supply it needed to meet its resource adequacyable gaugeses through 2018 through 2020, conducted or participated in a number of competitive solicitations for these products. including solicitations in september 2017 as well as march,

april and may of 2018. the p.u.c. is seeking retroactive approval from the board to enter into the three contracts, to purchase capacity, support cleanpowersf compliance over that period of time. these contracts were essential for cleanpowersf to avoid noncompliance, and penalties, the p.u.c. staff estimates might have been as high as $14 million. while the contracts amount, contract amounts and terms individually do not require the board of supervisors approval, each of the three negotiated contracts includes binding arbitration for settlement of disputes as reared by p.g. and e. and require approval by the board of supervisors. contracts meet all other conditions established by the board. p.g. and e. would only hold the quantities if the contracts were

executed earlier this year. to secure the needed resource quantities and meet the california p.u.c. compliance schedule, the contracts were executed by the general manager and therefore, we are now requesting retroactive approval. in addition to authorizing the agreements, the ordinance would delegate authority to the general manager of the public utilities commission to enter into agreements requiring binding arbitration for the pch of electricity and products, with very specific parameters and only when necessary with legal requirements. authorized to enter into such an agreement if the agreement is to purchase electricity for electricity-related product, such as resource adequacy, and the purchase is necessary to meet a legal requirement, and no other purchase that would meet the legal requirement and does not require binding arbitration is available, and finally, the

agreement with not otherwise require the board's approval. so, this of course includes term and expenditure amounts. we believe it's reasonable and in the public interest to grant the general manager the limited delegated authority for power supply contracts, featuring binding arbitration, without further approval. that concludes my presentation of this item. happy to take any questions you might have. >> president cohen: thank you, appreciate that. any questions? see if the b.l.a. has any questions. i have a few that i'll ask after the budget legislative analyst makes the report. >> chair cohen, members of the committee, the actual legislation before you that you are being asked to approve has two components to it. one is to retroactively approve three lease, excuse me, agreements with p.g. and e. and p.u.c. for resource adequacy, summarized these three agreements on page 12.

as we say in our report, these are short-term fixed price contracts, but they do require binding arbitration, and they delegate the authority, the board's authority in that circumstance. the second piece of the ordinance is to delegate authority to the p.u.c. general manager to enter into future agreements for both cleanpowersf and hetch hetchy that could require binding arbitration. and he set out the conditions which that would be allowed, page 11 of the report, because this legislation does delegate authorities otherwise sit with the board of supervisors, we consider it to be a policy matter. >> president cohen: thank you. questions -- question for the deputy city attorney.