we contacted over 180 organizations in the community that represent our electricity consumer base in one way or other. we conducted over 35 presentations, and we staffed 68 communities events with content in six languages. and we -- recently our team was at the one richmond community party, and we've been participating in every sunday streets events, and last week we were at the mission, and we're getting positive reaction from people at those events. that's sort of a snapshot of what has been accomplished. i think it really has been a banner year for clean power in san francisco, and so with thanks for being here i'm goinwith that, ie

rest of the presentation to susanne, and we're happy to take questions when she is done. >> chairwoman: if you don't mind, let's see if we have any questions about this portion. >> sure. >> chairwoman: commissioner singh? >> yeah, i have a quick one. i was wondering is it possible for disclosing businesses -- are there businesses who are willing to disclose they're participating in the super green program, to maybe promote in their physical locations, if they have any? that they're a participant? >> yes. in fact, all of them do that. >> oh, they do? >> yes. i think that has been a motivator for them, too. i think they see in many cases our values are very aligned, in terms of our mission, and they want to promote to their costumers that they're participating. >> great. >> so we have decals and other things we do. we've been doing sort of events with some of those

costumers as well. >> great. that was my only question. >> chairwoman: thanks. commissioner mar? >> thanks for the great presentation and all of the great work over the past year. it is really exciting to see where things are at with clean power s.f. i just had a question about the move towards renewable -- california certified renewable energy in the portfolio. it looks like you said there was a slight increase from 48% to 50% in 2019, of renewable energy in the portfolio. i just wanted to know, very briefly, what sort of the plan is to get to 100%, and what the timeframe is. >> yeah. so...one thing i want to also point out is there

are different definitions of renewable out there. there is the state renewable portfolio standard program which defines deniewbles that renewabt are eligible for compliance in that program. and there are other ts technologies, like large hydro, that deliver clean energy, that while not eligible for that state program are still renewable resources. and when you look at clean power's total portfolio, when you account for some of the hydro electric that we're also acquiring, it is much closer to, like, 90%. so i weren't to point that wantt out. there are two things coming up in this next year: one is the capital plan that i mentioned before. the other is our 2020 integrated resource plan, which is due in the spring of next year.

so we are starting both of those. those are happening on sort of a parallel paneling. and that integrated resource plan is a -- it's an 11-year plan, and it's out to 2030, which happens to coincide with the city and county's target of eliminating greenhouse gases from our electric supply. we use that plan to support our long-term planning effort to get the city to renewable power. we prepared one in 2018, our first plan. we're building from that. and really diving much deeper into local resources. but to answer your question, that planning vehicle is really where the pathway for achieving that goal will be developed. and i think we're going to be looking at a number of scenarios, but our sort of base case is that we will

ramp our sort of certified renewable power supply up to about 70% by 2030, with something like about 30% of hydro in our mix to achieve that overall goal of eliminating greenhouse gases. but in this next planning cycle, we will look very closely at various scenarios, how decarbonizing other sectors may impact that, and whether we may need to source from other supplies, other than hydro, for example. so i hope i answered your question. there will be more information coming on the how we're getting there over the next six months. yeah. >> chairwoman: i just have a question, also, about your partnership with businesses. are you also partnering with the department of environment about their green business -- >> yes, absolutely. very closely. >> chairwoman: is there such a thing as a super green business award? >> there heartbeat hasn't been,.

>> chairwoman: you might want to think about it. >> interesting idea. >> chairwoman: the ones that are already green, they may want to up it to super green awards. >> certainly for a company that helps us get other companies involved. >> chairwoman: yes. and they actually really like that they have that award because it makes them look green be environmentally-friendly. i think if they were a super green -- and then your outreach, are you doing an evaluation on how successful every outreach event is? >> yes. so we keep records of how every event went in terms of contacts with individuals. we track upgrades that happen either at the event or around the event. sometimes consumers actually sign up through our staff that are located at the event, at a table.

other times there is just a conversation, and they go home and do it online. so we keep pretty close track of that. if you'd like to hear more stats about how it is performed over the past year, we'd be happy to come back. >> chairwoman: i just want to make sure that we are getting good response from our costumers who are not english speakers, or mono lingual chinese or mono lingual spanish, that we're doing adequate outreach and that we're getting good results from them. >> sure. another initiative of the s.f. p.u.c., is we've established an equity project, really focused at ensuring that the program and any services we provide sort of related to clean power s.f. prioritizes equity in its outreach and its design. that is something that is

ongoing now, and we're going to be gathering some information from the community to really try to inform that work that i mentioned ementioned earlier on programs. it relates to who is aware of the super green opportunity and who is taking advantage of it, too. >> chairwoman: great. and also our use of non-english newspapers, that type of thing, i think is really great. okay. thank you very much. so, mr. merckelson, maybe on legislation that is pending at our state level. thank you, mr. heims. >> name is susanne merckelson, and i'm happy to be with you today. we're currently at legislative summer break. that means that all bills must have passed, at the policy committees, in their second house. we've seen some movement

on a few of the bills that we've been watching. some will not be advancing this year. the first one i want to talk about is ad56. we updated you on this before. the s.f. p.u.c. is opposed to this bill, along with cal c.c.a. it would designate an existing state agencies as a central buyer, procuring energy, including c.c.a.s, like clean power s.f. last week the bill failed enough to get votes, which makes it a two-year bill, meaning it will then carry over to next year's legislative session, but will not pass this year. the author has indicated he is interested on working on different proposals. we plan on engaging on this issue, via cal c.c.a., as well as on our own. the next bill is sp155. this concerns p.u.c.'s

review of renewable portfolio standards and integrated resource plan requirements for low-serving entities such as c.c.a.s cal c.c. as has been opposed to this bill, and we have shared their concerns. it would reduce c.c.a.s flecks abilitc.c.a.sflexibility. cal c.c.a. has worked to negotiate compromised amendments, and the author has agreed to put those into the bill. they address those concerns we had with p.u.c. procurement. we are expecting to see the amendment in print very soon and we'll continue engaging on that bill as well. and then lastly, i wanted to talk about a ab1054. it was the urgent see bill

concerning wildfires and utility financial stability. it passed last weekend and was already signed by the governor. this one one of the governor's top priorities this year. it was motivated both by wanting to make victims of recent fires whole, as well as, you know, looking at a potential credit rating downgrade. so the bill establishes two separate wildfire funds that the utilities can choose to participate in. a liquidity fund and an insurance fund. it also requires additional grid-hardening measures. and it also includes a safety certification process for those utilities. as you're probably aware, there were some additional amendments added friday evening, on july 5th. these are problematic. if san francisco does decide to go ahead with the acquisition of pg&e assets in the city.

these late, last-minute amendments would expand p.c. u.'s authority over those that acquire the for-profit assets. given that it was urgency legislation, the timelines did not allow us to make amendments to the bill during the bill process. our entire delegation, senator weiner and schue voted against the bill. and the mayors of san francisco and oakland called out concerns with some of the last-minute amendments, and then a resolution from the board of supervisors which supported the bill, only if amendmented amended to removt last-minute legislation. right now mayor breed's office is in contact with governor newsom's office about addressing these concerns.

meanwhile, we're continuing to move forward with our study on public power options and remain committed to finding a solution that provides safe, reliability electricity for the city. >> chairwoman: any comments or questions? >> are there any sort of limitations -- due to the fact that this was an urgency bill, are there any sort of limitations within its provisions that might sort of help us get around it is hampering the ability for us to potentially look at municipalization down the road? >> it is an urgency bill, but it is still a bill, and it actually takes affect immediately as an urgency bill. what we would be looking to do and what the mayor's office is speaking with the governor's office about is about other ways of amending that bill. you can amend laws that are already in existence. so that's essentially what we would be looking to do. >> so looking towards the next legislative session, potentially? >> yes, or potentially

this year. >> chairwoman: i have one question. if senate bill 155 is amended, we would support that? >> i don't think we would support it. we have to look at the exact language and really analyze it and make sure it addresses all of our concerns. but at the very least, we would -- we're currently not opposing the bill as s.f. p.u.c. we have been engaging with the bill as cal c.c.a., and so we would talk with cal c.c.a. about removing their position and going towards a neutral position. >> chairwoman: any other questions or comments? seeing none, no action is required by this committee, were l we will take public comment. any members of the public who would like to comment on item number three? >> good afternoon, again, eric brooks, san francisco clean energy advocates and californians for energy choice, and i'm with the california green party and

the local green party. so i'll focus more son on future agenda items, ab1054 is far worse than just blocking public power, is does some profound things that are even worse than that. i want to focus, again, on local buildout. it is reassuring to hear from mike heims that they are going to have a plan next year for some kind of renewable energy buildout, but i don't think that's going to change what i said, that it is not the s.f. p.u.c.'s role to do the kind of build-out we're talking about. the numbers we just saw are really troubling. so 70% is not 100% by 2030. and, also, it doesn't make any sense to count large hydro because that's already there. it's not newly built renewable energy. that doesn't solve any of the problem of the climate

crisis. we need to build new renewable energy resources and efficiency and storage, and we need to do it locally because of line loss over long distance transmission lines, and because of the fire danger of long-range transmission lines. we need to build renewable energy in our own community and in this region so that 100% of our energy comes from renewables by 2030 from our region. the more we're locally independent that way, the easier it is to turn off the long-range transmission lines when there is fire danger. the more autonomous we, and the big, huge rate increases that ab1054 will hoist on rate-payer, will be something that we -- [buzzer] >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> jed holtzman, 350 bay area. certainly back in 2013, it did not look like this was going to happen. i'm surprised that i haven't heard about, like, the party yet, like the city has finally enrolled party. i'm sure they're too busy fighting off bad legislation, but i look forward to my invitation. the advertisements that we see around town for our city, our power, i think it is a lot more affective than what we had going on before. my hope is hearing what they're planning on focusing on over the next year with customer programs and kind of increasing super green buy-in, that we're on the right track in terms of getting messaging out that people actually pay attention to. in terms of customer programs, i want to highlight the need for us to pay attention to heat-pump water heating and space heating, and how

people are going to pay in existing buildings for kind of decarbonizing their homes. berkeley just passed an ord naordinance to ban natural gas pipes in new construction. we'll be pushing that throughout the bay area. that is all good for new construction, but for existing buildings, how is the decarbonization of space and water heating going to be financed. [buzzer] >> we might look at how we may transition, folks, to building decarbonization, at least in more low income communities that will be less able to do that. to the point of 70% renewable energy to commissioner mar's question, we should really aim to get to 100% california renewable energy. if we still have hedgy

power, if we're lucky enough not to have doubts -- [buzzer] >> chairwoman: thank you very much. any other public comments? seen none, public comment is now closed. the committees is not required to make an action on this item. mr. clerk, will you please call item number five. >> item five is an authorization to accept a grant in the amount of $100,000 from the bay area work founders collaborative for on-demand workers. >> chairwoman: so this is a super-exciting item. i'm looking forward to hearing more about this area of work since we're getting some national recognition on it. so do you have an update on this item? >> thank you, madam chair and commissioners. brian global, executive officer. i'm very excited about this today. the resolution before you would authorize lavco to

accept a $100,000 grant. it will help with our survey of on-demand workers. this will be the first time in history of san francisco lavco that the agency accepts outside funding. we will be able to develop partnerships with outside funders to support the work we do at lavco. it is made up of funders, workers, advocates, and employers, who are working together to build an equitable regional economy. the san francisco foundation, as i'm sure you know, is one of the largest community foundations in the country, and committed to expanding opportunity. and when i first met and presented to them, they were really excited about the study. the grant is going to support the survey team's

work in phase 2, which is the actual data-gathering and survey of thousands of on-demand workers in san francisco. not only will it be one of the largest surveys, we're hoping it will provide the first truly representative survey of platform work anywhere in the country. we're going to get some unique insights into the economic circumstances of people working on these platforms. i'll be getting into a little more detail in my executive officers' report. i just want to thank rob hope and kaila at the san francisco foundation, as well as the work force funders collaborative for their investment in our efforts to help improve the lives of on-demand workers. for early advice, when i was just starting the fundraising, i want to thank carmen rohas, and rudy gonzalez, and a big thank you to our survey team who have just been

wonderful. thank you, commissions. >> chairwoman: any comments or questions from mr. global? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public that would like to comment. i see a thumbs up from mr. brooks. public comment is now closed. i'd like to make a motion to move this with a positive recommendation. second. >> chairwoman: seconded. take that without objection. thank you very much. good work. and mr. clerk, will you please call item number six. >> item number six is the executive officer's report. >> chairwoman: mar global, havmr. global, you havea presentation for us? >> yes. thank you. i have a couple of items. i would like to give you an update on the budget and fundraising progress for our study of on-demand workers. the team is putting

together a revised budget, and it is very possible that the budget is going to increase -- actually, we're hoping it will increase and be somewhere in the neighborhood of $450,000. we have been planning and seeking funds for a budget of $300,000. why the higher cost? it has to do with the options that they're considering for the survey. the first option would be an online survey. and there are some pluses and minuses to it. it would cost less, but the downside is they really couldn't guarantee a representative survey. even though it could potentially cover a larger amount of workers. the second option would be to hire survey administrators, and these would be students who would be paid $15 an hour to do in-person interviews by using the services of, say, the top 12 platforms. so, for example, they would order food on door

dash, and when the food arrives, they would invite the worker to complete the survey. and the worker would get paid for their time. so the cost of this option would increase because we're paying students, we're paying workers, we're paying for the services. and they would interview thousands of workers. the exciting thing about this option is that even though it is more expensive, it would be a representative sample. and as i mentioned earlier, based on the review of the academic literature, it would be the first truly representative survey of platform work anywhere in the country. so the team is going to do some pretesting, try it out, and we're hoping it is a strategy that will prove affective. if it doesn't, we'll revert to the online survey. i am fundraising for a budget of $450,000. i'm confident that we will raise the funds. as you know, somewhere e a

great relationship with the san francisco foundation. and generally speaking, the steady is garnering a lot of interest. this week i received two media inquiries, including one from a national online publication. so i'll keep you posted on that and provide an update -- what i think will be a significant update at the next meeting on september 20th. i'm happy to answer any questions about this, if you have them. >> chairwoman: great. >> the other item that i have for you today is and update on our r.r.f.q. this would allow lavco to add some expertise to staff for the local build-out of energy projects.

completing this has taken a little longer than i expected, but i am in conversation with s.f. p.'s staff, with the advocates, and i hope we can come to an agreement on the exact language and scope of the work, and i expect to have the r.f.q. posted in the next few weeks. >> chairwoman: any comments or questions from leagues. >> i do. >> chairwoman: commissioner singh. >> i just have a question -- this might be putting the cart and horse in the wrong order, but in terms who actually -- in terms of who actually makes the final decision between how you envision that going down between, like, lavco and p.u.c. and the advocates -- in terms of where the buck stops, how are you going to get to that decision, collectively?

>> right. i'm working with the chair's office to convene a meeting of p.u.c. and the advocates, to where i'm hoping -- there is some disagreement, and i'm hoping we can reach a compromise. and i will be reaching out to all of you for your input. the r.f.q. -- correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe the language does not come back to lavco for approval. is that right? >> in general, the commission does not approve r.f.q.s, but any final contract would come before you before approval. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. any other comments? any public comment? >> good afternoon again, commissioners. eric brooks, san francisco clean energy advocates, and californi californians for

energy choice. this second item is really crucial for all of the reasons that i previously stated on the previous item. especially now that we see there is a disagreement with what the s.f. p.u.c. wants, and what advocates like myself and jed and others are looking for that is much more aggressive. and that brings me to repeat the same thing i said about this r.f.q. previously, which is that the person we hire for this task needs to have as their number one job putting together the r.f.p. to hire a contractor to do a city-wide local build-out plan, that will build regional and renewable energy and battery, so that we're energy-independent 10 years from now with 100% clean flearg. anenergy.and we need to follow t with transportation as

quickly at possible. just to drive home part of the reason, i talked about hydro. if you remove hydro to what was presented to us bibby the s.f. p.u.c. that brings out down to delivering 50% renewables by 2030, that is half of what we need. this clearly needs to be a process that is driven by the public, by the elected body, the board of supervisors, and by the agency that has done the most over the last 15 years to make sure the board of supervisors has the information and the tools that it needs, and that's the local agency formation commission. this commission has driven the whole process. this is the commission that will get us to 100 particulars local clean energy in 10 years. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello, jed holtzman, 350 bay area. i wanted to provide a

little bit of, i guess, context for folks who maybe weren't dealing with this over the last several years. when we talk about -- you know -- this is the first time hearing that there is a disagreement. i can only imagine what it may relate to. i would just like to say that the last time the s.f. p.u.c. was doing their intergrated resource planning process, which only happens every two years, and the last time they were involved in capital planning, they also told us we needed to delay our discussion of local integrative build-out that we'd been talking about before i got involved in 2013, until that was done. those were done. it didn't happen. and we're now on the next cycle of those. and i can only imagine that we're going to hear folks wanting to wait for the first s.f. p.u.c. plan, and for them to put

out their getting to 2030 i.r.p., before we start looking at what we might like to do. you know, if we take over pg&e's infrastructure, clean power s.f. won't even exist. so all of the stuff they're doing will be for naught. we as the city, including s.f. p.u.c., but external of silos, like clean power s.f., we need to be looking at what we want to get to. [buzzer] >> and how all of the cylinders of the city can work to get there. that will be the same whether it is clean power s.f., whether it is public power. i think it is time to break out from letting one part of the city government to sit on this issue, which has been happening for six, seven, eight years. we need to have this happen at the 30,000-foot view. i'm hoping that the -- [buzzer]

>> chairwoman: thank you very much. any other public comment? seeing none, the public comment is now closed. mr. clerk, can you please call item number seven. >> item seven is public comment. >> chairwoman: any members of the public like to make comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. mr. clerk, item number eight. >> item eight is future agenda items? >> chairwoman: any future items to note? mr. global. >> i want to bring it to everyone's attention that i am expecting a fairly long agenda at our next meeting on september 20th. we're going to have several presentations, including some of the work that lavco's interns have been doing around programs for communities of concern with clean power s.f., and also some of the local build-out projects that have been previously considered, and we'll be bringing a presentation to you on that for background. >> chairwoman: colleagues, please note on

your agendas that that meeting will take at least three hours, and to allot that amount of time so we can give our full attention to all of the work the interns have been doing. any other items on a future agenda. seeing none? how about public comment on this. >> the september meeting sounds like my kind of meeting. eric brooks with all of the groups i mentioned before. now i want to talk about you may need to call a special meeting in august. and that will be around legislation. as you heard, ab1054 passed, along with a companion bill, ab111. you should take a look at both bills. ab1054 does not just outrageously block public power. what it does is even when

the monopoly utility like pg&e, even when its equipment is at fault for starting a fire, it guarantees that there will be a $21billion fund that rate-payers will pay half of to pay for fires. that's not the way it used to be. the way it used to be, whenever it was pg&e's fault or their equipment, pg&e paid, and had to work really hard to get any rate increases to pay for part of that. that's not even the worst part. once that $21 billion fund is exhausted, and we spent in the last two years $30 billion on the current wildfires that just happened in two years. if we go above the $21 billion, 1054 allows the monopoly utilities to do their own private bonds and link those to rate-payer increases to pay any further wildfire costs. [buzzer] >> so consumers,

costumers, rate-payers will end up paying more than 50% of costs they are not responsible for. the reason that matters to our local build-out is that the more -- and to other community choice programs starting up -- the more rate-payer have to pay, the less they're willing to do clean power s.f. [buzzer] >> chairwoman: any other public comment. any other items before us? >> madam chair, there is no further business. >> chairman: thank you very much. this meeting is adjourned.

>> it had been rain for several days. at 12:30 there was a notice of large amount of input into the reservoir. we opened up the incident command and started working the incident to make sure employees and the public were kept were safe there is what we call diversion dam upstream of moccasin. the water floods the drinking water reservoir. we couldn't leave work. if the dam fails what is going to happen. >> we had three objectives. evacuate and keep the community and employees safe. second was to monitor the dam. third objective was to activate

emergency action plan and call the agencies that needed contacted. >> the time was implement failure of the dam. we needed to set up for an extended incident. we got people evacuated downstream. they came back to say it is clear downstream, start issuing problems and create work orders as problems come in. >> powerhouse was flooded. water was so high it came through the basement floor plate, mud and debris were there. it was a survey where are we? >> what are we going to do to get the drinking water back in. >> we have had several emergencies. with each incident we all ways operate withins dent command open. process works without headache.

when we do it right it makes it easier for the next one. >> we may experience working as a team in the different format. always the team comes together. they work together. >> our staff i feel does take a lot of pride of ownership of the projects that they work on for the city. we are a small organization that helps to service the water for 2.7 million people. >> the diversity of the group makes us successful. the best description we are a big family. it is an honor to have my team recognized. i consider my team as a small part of what we do here, but it makes you proud to see people come together in a disaster. >> safety is number one through the whole city of san francisco. we want people to go home at the

end of the day to see their loved ones. we don't want them hurt. we want them back the next day to do their work. >> there is a lot of responsibility the team members take on. they word very -- they work hard. they are proud of what they do. i am proud they are recognized.

>> supervisor walton: albert incident a -- quintanilla is our clerk. mr. clerk, would you please call the roll? >> clerk: yes. [roll call] >> clerk: we have quorum. >> supervisor walton: thank you so much, and i will be filling in for our chair until he arrives in a few minutes. so with that said, are there any questions or comments from colleagues for the minutes? seeing none, let's open this up to public comment to -- for the minutes. any comments from public? no public comment. colleagues, can we have a motion so second and a -- to second and approve the minutes from may 21st? do we do a roll call or vote? >> clerk: we do a roll call for the first action item. [roll call] >> clerk: the minutes are approved. >> supervisor walton: thank you, and mr. clerk, would you read the next item. >> clerk: yes. recommending awarding three-year professional

services contracts with an option to extend for two additional one-year periods, to nossaman l.l.p., meyers nave riback silver & wilson, and wendel, rosen, black & dean, l.l.p., in a combined amount not to exceed $150,000 for on-call general legal counsel services. >> supervisor walton: thank you. do we have any comment before considering the item? >> the firms are nossaman, wendel, rosen, black & dean, and meyers nave riback silver & wilson. meyers nave riback silver & wilson have been working with

aztc and other entities. our c.a.c. board heard this item. we have a unanimous motion and will be supporting it with prop c sales tax fund. >> supervisor walton: any other questions or comments? no comments, we will take public comment on this item. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. can we move this item forward without any objection? item is moved forward without any objection, and with that, mr. clerk, please call the next item. >> clerk: update on yerba buena island updates. this is a presentation. >> good morning, eric cordova

here to discuss the leadership update, led by tida as well as caltrans, basically. basically, the concept that you have in front of you shows the three major construction projects that are about to embark here and actually already started. i'm going to start from the top of the screen there that shows the michaela road construction. it is planned to be completed by the spring or summer of next year. there we go. my apologies. the project that the transportation committee has been leading is the off-roading

of that off ramp, and the realignment project, taking south gate road there and realigning it. and the other major project that should start probably the summertime of 2021 is the west side bridges. as you see there in kind of a light orange color, that we anticipate starting in 2021. we're at approximately 60% design. i will get into details now on all of these. right there, what you see is basically an artist's rendering of the final completed in essence construction project that we're about to start hopefully this fall. we're very close in that regard. we're frankly at a point where

at a primarily funded effort there. we've been working with the state and to get the federal funds for this. we're at a point where we're targeting the fall construction advertisement. frankly, we're shooting for september. final processes here will require us to get the final funding allocations here so we can get it out to bid. we're also working with 1 treasure island to establish a local hire program and to get the appropriate program, so in september, when we're starting to advertise this before the board in the fall, we'll be back to present a lot more details.

this is a project that's going to take about 16 months, and there's sequencing here that's interesting here. u.s. coast guard has security here where they put us in a position. this project, deemed the south gate project, will be completed here. and then, we will move on to the next project, which is the west side bridges project. total cost, $83 million, and once again, primarily funded with federal and state funds with contribution from tida. as you heard in the past, we went ahead and are using the construction-general contracting method. we have chosen a contractor to work with us on the final

design. we're currently at 60% final design, working with them and the team to establish with what they call in the industry a guaranteed maximum price, so we're working towards going on head and completing all the final design and starting construction in the 2021 time frame. once again, i do want to add, we will have as part of our job program, local hires. we want to make sure we put in the specs local hires and aspirational goals working with 1 treasure island as needed. we are also studying overall bicycle and connectivity on the

island. there was a proposition k9 grak9 -- proposition k9 grant approved. there's some missing links for overall ped and bike connectivity on the island. let's start on that side, which is pure e-2. that's the caltrans pier that they're actually leaving and repurposing as a pier for the general public. then getting folks up to vista point. vista point is the point that is currently open to bicycles and pedestrians that is part of our y.b.i. ramps project that we completed in the latter part of 2016. we actually opened the vista point in may 2017, so folks can come from the east bay or folks can come from vista point and go across, and what we have there is a real nice setting for folks to basically take a

break, use the rest rooms, park their bikes, rest, etc. we have a shuttle established to go ahead and get folks on the weekends to make sure -- because during the weekend is when we have a lot more people on the island. during the week, it's more at this point construction, so that's been a success story in that record. but the key to this is to show you the top points, and the connect data that caltrans has performed some concept development. and then down to the ferry terminal. it's going to start construction later this summer. but the thought process is to really make sure we do the proper planning so that we can facilitate bicycles and pedestrians getting down to the ferry terminal and getting across to san francisco once we start ferry service. we anticipate having some

concepts developed later this year. this is an artist's rendering of what was pier e-2 -- what is pier e-2, and if you were to go out there today, you would see that it's almost completed. caltrans has gonna head and had a contract with cmtc contractor kiewit construction. what you have i just want to note on the right is the torpedo building. >> supervisor walton: quick question. when did the water get so blue? >> that's kudos to abe, one of our graphic artists. we think this'll be a major attraction on the island. caltrans, to their credit is

almost complete with this effort. i did want to mention the historic torpedo building. it was constructed in the late 1800s, and as part of our south gate road efforts, we're going to put on a new roof and seal it up as much as possible. so caltrans is anticipating opening this in the later -- latter part of october 2019, and we'll make sure we get you information and specifics. i mentioned the data and caltrans western space bicycle span. they've been studying the connection from the eastern span dropoff all the way to san francisco. this is a rendering in essence what i would call the northern

point standing on the western side of the island at the yerba buena tunnel, looking towards san francisco. and then finally, i just want to quickly update you all because we are working on all of the issues that were brought to our attention at the end of last year and earlier this year in terms of our affordability program. we're updating our travel demand and financial demand analysis right now, looking at congestion, financial effects, etc. we anticipate completing this work in the latter part of the summer here, probably in that august-september-october time frame, and then go ahead and start some outreach efforts. we've already started outreach with the business community, working with them at the ground level. we anticipate followup what we

call cocreation workshops later this summer and additional outreach. and then bigger picture, we're still targeting and going ahead and launching some ferry service, initial ferry service from the east bay, and paying for that with some of the tolling that we need to install and the affordability program up and running 2021. so that's my presentation. any questions? >> supervisor walton: can you just go back to slide 7, i believe that was. >> yes. >> supervisor walton: that's more like what we see. >> yes, that's right. that's right. >> supervisor walton: supervisor mandelman, do you have any questions or comments? >> supervisor mandelman: i'm very excited about this extremely pricey bike extension.

i think that's more than 300 -- >> it's 400. >> supervisor mandelman: more like 400. although tomorrow at budget, i'm voting a $900 million project to install some can canopies on market street. so given the budget, maybe $400 milli million isn't as much as i think it is. >> supervisor walton: do we have any public comment on this presentation? seeing none, public comment is closed. we are now at the point of the agenda for any general public comment. do we have anyone here in the audience for general public comment. >> clerk: we do have item 5, introduction of new items. >> supervisor walton: i'm sorry. any introduction of new items? sorry. i skipped number 5.

sorry. from t.a.? my apologies, and seeing no one here for public comment, any other items? >> clerk: no, there's just adjournment. >> supervisor walton: thank you so much. this meeting is adjourned.

shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shopping and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco. by supporting local services within our neighborhoods, we help san francisco remain unique, successful, and vibrant. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> my name is ray behr. i am the owner of chief plus.

it's a destination specialty foods store, and it's also a corner grocery store, as well. we call it cheese plus because there's a lot of additions in addition to cheese here. from fresh flowers, to wine, past a, chocolate, our dining area and espresso bar. you can have a casual meeting if you want to. it's a real community gathering place. what makes little polk unique, i think, first of all, it's a great pedestrian street. there's people out and about all day, meeting this neighbor and coming out and supporting the businesses. the businesses here are almost all exclusively independent owned small businesses. it harkens back to supporting local. polk street doesn't look like anywhere u.s.a. it has its own businesses and

personality. we have clothing stores to gallerys, to personal service stores, where you can get your hsus repaired, luggage repaired. there's a music studio across the street. it's raily a diverse and unique offering on this really great street. i think san franciscans should shop local as much as they can because they can discover things that they may not be familiar with. again, the marketplace is changing, and, you know, you look at a screen, and you click a mouse, and you order something, and it shows up, but to have a tangible experience, to be able to come in to taste things, to see things, to smell things, all those things, it's very important that you do so.

>> public take this opportunity to silent your phones and other electronic devices. public comment, during the meeting, is limited to three minutes per speaker unless established by an officer of the meeting. state your name, completion of a speaker card while optional will help ensure proper spelling of the speaker's name and the written record of the meeting. please place speaker cards in the basket. they will be called in the order they were placed. if you do speak, this is a special notice, the room is very hot today, we have a large fan in the background. if you could please speak closely into the microphone so that closed captioning can pick up what you're saying, that would be very helpful.