>> meet will come to order this is the july 13, 2022 budget and finance meeting. i'm supervisor hillary ronen chair. joined by supervisor mar and we should be joined by vice chair safai. our clerk is brent jalipe and thank mendoza from sfgov.org from broadcasting. >> with return a reminder to make sure to silence cell phones and electronic devices we have hybrid meetings for in person attendance and public comment via phone the board recognizes that it is essential and taking comment as follows. first taken on each item on the

agenda. those in person speak first then those on the phone line for watching channels 26, 28, 78 or 99, and sfgov.org the number is streaming it is 415-655-0001. and enter 24954145466. pound and pound again. 24954145466e mail to the

committee clerk bentjalipe at sfgov.org e mail will be forwarded to the supervisors and also included part of the official file. and send written comments via postal service to the office at city hall 1 doctor carlton b. goodlet place. items acted on today will arc pear peer on the agenda of july 19th unless otherwise stated >> thank you. can you call item 15 first. >> yes, item 15. an ordinance faendzing the public works code to require to create a pilot allowing property owners in commercial areas to opt in graffiti abatement at no cost to the property owner and under the california

environmental quality act wish to comment on this ordinance police call the public comment number at 415-655-0001. and enter id of 24954145466. press pound twice. you need to press star 3 to enter the line. will indicate you raised your hands when you have been unmuted that will be your queue to begin comments. >> i believe we have jennifer from supervisor melgar's office. thank you chair ronen. thank you for giving me the opportunity to sum rise this. i will sum rise it. we have superintendent john than vein from public works on teams if well are questions about how it would being implemented. the ordinance seeks to create a

2 year pilot so this property owners can opt in to have public works carry out graffiti arc baitment along external corridors at not no cost to the businesses will support small businesses through so much during covid and revitalize our street scapes. graffiti spiral out of control. and then the entire commercial corridor surface. judging from the calls we think the public assumes it is the city's responsibility on private property like it is in new york and los angeles. so we need this legislation so that the property owner can give permission on the public works and wave liability issues for the department. we worked with staff to craft a

pilot that would work for them. we leave the details to their discretion as we know best how to do this work. and they suggested that they would create regular routes that they would check every few days and paints over graffiti as they see it which is more current. if this passes, we businesses will have the chance to like -- sign up for it. but also if an owner does not know about the program if they receive a notice of violation they have time to opt in and arc void any fines. as you know, this there is 4 million over 2 years for this program of so, it is already funded. in the bla reports the cost analysis they used this term, seasonal, which i think is

confusing. there is not a graffiti season. so -- as i understand it, that means the public works can adjust the schedule so it is regular but may not be the same volume every wrooer week all year. we heard from many small business owner in our district and neighbors anxious to get this launched. this monday the small business commission unanimously recommended it. so. i will step arc side in case there are questions. thank you. there is a bla report on this? >> thank you. nick from budget legislative analyst office. so, as it is now, under the public work's code property owners that have graffiti are responsible for abating it the board waived the fines during the pandemic but that expired.

item 15 is an ordinance that would amend the code to transfer responsibility on an opt in basis from property owners to the city to abate the graffiti and a pilot program for the next 20 months and there is an add back of 2 million dollars a year to funds this program. we showed the budget for the program as provide by public works. on page 59 of our report. i think it is reasonable given the work load data that we reviewed from public works. said that, this is a policy change we consider to be an anthropologist matter for the board. >> thank you very much. and i had a couple questions. first, thank you to you and supervisor melgar for this needed legislation. graffiti and specifically the mission district has never been worse. it is a major, major problem

that you know my office is looking into how to hold stores accountal selling the materials used for graffiti because what we are seeing is large groups of people go buying going to a store buying paint and right out in the store graffiti the neighborhood it it is a disaster. you know origin a new senior affordable housing building in the mission district was destroyed and to a cost to a nonprofit affordable housing developer of thousands of dollars it is tragic. and so i'm wondering how does a business sign up for this program? for example, the affordable housing development on 24th and harrison that has been graffitied from the moment it opened. could that the minute this

passes could that -- property call dpw and apply for membership. could you describe how that works. gi believe so. we will work with public works to create the form and make it very public. so people know about temperature so -- [laughter] sorry. um -- sorry. could you repeat. >> no problem. is it up to public works to create the application process and who is eligible will every business be eligible. did you put program terse within the legislation to allow inclusion or eccollusion of types of businesses? is it first come first serve? >> yea. it is by zoning. it is along commercial corridors unless they have a cbd that

takes care of graffiti. and if there is a residential building on that corridor they would also be part of it that could be if they sign up for it. so that's all >> as long as you are a business or residence denos a commercial corridor you are eligible and in terms of signing up for the program. as far as you continue is first come first serve upon funded at 2 million dollars i imagine there is a limit to how many would not want to sign up for this, right? i'm wondering how it will work or if there has been thought or that is saved for the next part of the regulations. >> yea. that's why it is a filot if successful we could expand it i agree to -- 2 million for the entire city is small and -- we definitely hope this will help with graffiti you know -- its

difficult. you know the point is to sort of arrest it when it happens and hopeful low there is in the more spiralling out of control temperature is something that we can study with 3 eleven requests and see if it is working and adjust it. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. i also wanted commend and thank you and supervisor melgar for your work on this. i would love to be added as a cosponsor. i had questions about the scope of the problem and then the scope of this pilot program. in the bla report they site average monthly service orders city scombied on commercial corridors city wide -- it is like 3-4,000 service order and it is commercial corridor it is

5-700. is that -- what is a service order. is that representative of how representative of that is the scope of the problem on the commercial corridors that 5-700 a month. >> that number is a baptist an over estimate. some of that is public property which is exclude immediate this legislation. i think the numberers 400 over 400 a month in the report. approximate so we this -- we looked at that relative to the staffing proposed. and thinking about how long it takes to -- get out there. address graffiti and do all the work that is necessary after. we thought it was a reasonable staff work load. yea. not quite i'm trying to

understand. it looks like the range of the commercial corridor average montly service orders is 562 to 7 where are 9 over the last 4 years. is that -- like a 311 -- what is this service order? >> i believe these other numbers of graffiti abatement orders public works had to under take each year. >> got it. and -- what -- bpw, yea. graffiti abatement orders and how representative is that of the over all problem in the commercial corridors, do you have a sense? i guess i'm not i'm you mean like to what how much graffiti are they getting to with the

orders. or how does it compare to the number of citations. we have not issued citations but is that the full scope of the businesses on or the properties on the commercial corridor, that need graffiti abatement. i don't think so. sometimes the property ordinance abate it. there may be more abatement work done privately. that would not be captured in the data. >> okay. and then for the pilot program with the resources that in the budget the 2 million, um -- is there a sense of -- how much that -- will cover. of say of the is that covering all of the roughly, the monthly

service orders? >> public works would know the answer better than me. i believe they are on the line. . good morning. >> hi. i think the estimate is pretty much for the corridor area. itself. it can cover 2 million dollars again a pilot program first of all, i'm glad the program is implemented or start to implement because the way we tackle the graffiti the faster we abate. it should cover it is a pilot we will try to see and tackle as soon as possible. only in the corridor program. major corridor. >> got it, thank you. you say with the additional was

7 full time staff working on this that the plan or goal is to have that be able to cover the what has been the average number of service orderings monthly. 562 to 709? >> correct. and those are from 311 but also the proactive requests we would generate our requests if we notice a problem next door that has graffiti and generate that order to take action on that. >> great. this sounds great. thanks again to all of you for your work on this. >> supervisor safai. >> thank you, chair. so worked at public works i know about this and thank you

jonathan. sounds like this will be a pilot to shift the burden away from private property owners to the city. but what i also want to hear is what's going to be don coordinate with the police department and the da office because a lot of the taggers are the amount of tag we have a lot of the taggers are repeat individuals. when you look at when i worked there the police would and public works would document the tags. they would estimate the value of the damage. as supervisor ronen says and sometimes in the millions of dollars. and there needs to be a level of accountability. is that written in. as far as charging people they

catch >> as far as coordination with public works and the police department and the courts and district attorney's offices. if we are just covering up the paints. i'm for that. since we had a vacation on graffiti enforcement, we have seen an explosion of graffiti more than we ever have. it is the bigef complaints we gechlt i'm happy this is moving forward. but if we are think burglar this in the long-term, what used to be done was a level of coordination. a lot of people think tagging and so on is gang related. a lot of the individuals that are involved in this ends up being 30 year old white males. that is the truth. it is not young -- there are

some level of small tag with markers the people that dot spray paint and that level of tagging all along our commercial corridors over and over are 30 year old white males. a lot don't live in the city. and so -- what i want to know if we are doing this level of pilot program, it would be great to see if public works will work with the police department or asking these staffers to document. we can paint over the tagging because it is tagging not graf feet paint over the tagging we node a follow up plan to really see this decrease. jonathan are you on the line? >> yes. >> can you talk a little bit about the coordination and the

follow up? that might be planned part of this pilot? yea. i'm not sure about the public works have existing program that we are coordinate with pd with the pretrial diversion for graffiti abatement. you hit all the spot there. thank you for up. most of the tagger that get caught are adult male. and we all working with the san francisco police department to actually have them abate graffiti in an area. as far as coordinate with other city agency or the city attorney. not familiar with that. is is this something your office thought of. >> the legislation is silent on that. we had a big weekend graffiti incident in the westportal and reached out to our local police

and they explained they have you know this they try to prioritize the people that it is obvious the same person doing a lot of damage. and building case. and -- i believe they can fine them for the property damageful so. everything happened quickly during the budget process i'm happy this happening i did not have a chance to talk about this. i do see that there is general labor supervisor, 3 positions. 2 street inspectors. i just it would be great if there being be a level of coordination blin this. since we do this pilot one of the metrics i would like is a level of coordination with the

police department and the district attorney's office. as a way to show -- you know how we are trying to decrease the frequency of this. so jonathan said they work with pretile and pd that would be helpful. >> good feedback. thanks. >> thank you, chair. >> thank you. and i am curious and hope that there will be information given to our office when this is in affect. so we can inform the businesses in our district how to sign up. we have not worked on that yet. i hope it will be easy and online and public. >> thank you. so with hacan we open this for public comment. >> yes. members of public when wish to

speak are join nothing person line up to speak. however those remote call 415-655-0001 and id24954145466 then pounds, pounds, star 3 to enter the line. for those in the queue wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. that is your queue to begin comments. no one in the chamber. and no callers in the queue. >> public comment is closed. i understand that supervisor melgar might be online. are you there? supervisor melgar? accountability supervisor melgar

is not online. >> i guess she needs a link from you? >> may be. may be we can move to the next item and will not acts on in item and wait for the sproirs to come online and in the meantime, the inritation was sent. and i don't know if you wanted to wait a minute or we can go forward. etches let's wait a minute and call item one. >> item 1. a resolution authorizing office of cannabis extend i grant award from economic development for the equity grant program for local jurisdictions 4.4 million

for a term march 15, 22 through october 31, 23 thurzing office of cannabis to execute with the governor's office of business and economic and any extensions, amendments or contracts. on behalf of the city ask count and he the governor's office of business and economic development limelight arc rising out of the performance of the contract. members remote and wish to comment on this call 415-655-0001id24954145466 pounds, pounds and then star 3. the prompt will indicate you raised your hand. then you will be unmuted. >> i do have see supervisor melgar now. now online. let's call on supervisor melgar. >> thank you.

chair ronen apologies from not being there i had a dentist appointment that was need. thank you for considering this. this is a pilot program jennifer from my office explained. we fully expect to be working with dpw staff to get some of the inspirational details right. and we are absolutely committed to working with your offices to make sure that everyone you know gets the word out. and that it works for the different needs of the different commercial corridors and as to your point as supervisor safai about the coordination with pd, we have been doing that in westportal where things got out of hand during the pandemic but absolutely want this to be a

coordinated effort to interrupt the cycle of tagging. but also to gather strategic alternatives who is doing what. it is the same folks. so, thank you so much we do commit to work out the kinks and involving your offices to make sure it works for everyone. >> thank you for your work. we are excited to see how it work and agreed it is needed urgent low now all over the city. thank you. i would like to make a -- could i be added as a cosponsor and i would like to make a motion to send this to the full board with positive recommendation. can we have a vote? on that motion to forward this to the board with positive recommendation spries chair safai. >> aye >> member mar.

>> aye >> ronen, >> aye. >> that motion passes unanimously. now for item 1 i understand it we have jeremy schwartz here to present or online? standing by. good morning. madam chair and vice chair and supervisor mar. i'm jeremy schwartz office of cannabis i'm joined by deputy director john pierce we have a brief presentation for you. and would be happy to address questions. i believe board staff might have the presentation available. we will pull that up mr. young.

>> give me a mobile home i will pull that up. i will pull that o i will pull that up.m i will pull that up.e i will pull that up.n i will pull that up.t i will pull that up. excellentful thank you, before us is an accept and extend resolution for the cannabis equity grant's program for local jurisdictions. the purpose of the grant is to veterans economic justice by supporting our verified equity applicants with start up and costs associated with their cannabis business. this is the fourthity rigz of

equity grant program. eligibility criteria in collaboration with cannabis oversight committee, for the grant in front of us has a run way. i know they need it now. i thought daniel's contracts were about to be awarded why can't they use those contracts. jot term of the program is from march of this year to october 30. why asl is not part television. >> mr. can you if you could hold on while we. >> apologies. we are checking to see who has their mic hot. >> departments that node to use the asl translators.

it is coming from the public comment line. one second.

[conversation on mic not related to meeting] i'm sorry all the mic's are mou exclude we are having a voice coming across. i think we need to reassess for a couple minutes.

apologies. >> we will recess for 3 minutes.

>> is upleting the cannabis grant program is free technical assistance available. we are grateful for partners. for collaborating on this and providing supplemental services. which looked like permit and grant support. legal support. pro bono assistance. business development compliance. and with that, we can go to the next slide. and i would be happy to address any questions.

>> thank you so much. if we could hear from the bla? we do not report on this. >> sorry. >> i read this wrong. sorry about that. >> i don't have questions, colleagues? questions. >> open this up for opinion comment. why yes. members who wish to speak and in person lineup now. for remote call 415-655-0001 and enter id24954145466 then pound twice then star 3 to enter the line. those on queue wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted that is your queue to begin. we have no speakers in the chamber and -- we have no speakers on the phone. >> public comment is closed. i like to make a motion to sends this to the board with positive recommendation.

>> vice chair safai. >> aye >> member mar >> aye >> ronen. >> aye >> 3 aye's >> thank you that passes. call item 2. >> item 2 is a resolution authorizing the department of the environment to accept and extend a grant 2.3 million from the california energy commission alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology program to implement an electric ready blueprint to accelerate for the period of march 28 of 22 through march 29 of 24. agreement gev go and others will provide in kinds services and equipment for use bite public and the grant agreement charter section 9 penalty 108 subsection arc. members who are remote and wish

to comment on this call 415-655-0001id24954145466 press pound twice then star 3 to enter the queue. system prompt will indicate you raised your hand and when you have been unmuted. madam chair. >> thank you. good morning director. >> thank you chair ronen. acting director for d. environment. chair robe sxen members of the committee i will provide a brief over view over this accept and extend. since this last 4 the committee on april 6 there are a few change i will review. i want to note that this grant predates my tenure at the department and when this first came on april 6 and so -- upon arriving what i asked the team to do was to take in all the

feedback we heard at committee and review this item with the office of contract and city's attorney's office to make sure hathis we could address the issues. so -- one of the things we were able to address was -- the questions the waiver issue. and so what you will see is that the retroactivity was removed because it is not retroactive. and based with the office of contract and city attorney we removed the sole source waiver. this is in the a contract and identified partners as coapplicants as part of our grant application. this does not address the occurrence that were raised on the competitive solicitation part of this. that is something that is not able to be addressed base on the fact this grant was available

back in and applied for in 2020 and so what we have looked as what are those compet hi upon opportunity within the grant that are available and so there is a 150 thousand dollars ability for us to go out for a competitive solicitation working with local cbo's to work with community on implementing the project. outside of that we want to confirm with office of contract administration and the city attorney of whether the appropriate rules and procedures were followed relative to this application. and they have confirmd that it was done. but i do hear the concern of this committee as far ass the node to have i more transparent press as we go through putting the applications together and submitting for them. for these person projects. i don't think anyone will argue

that these are not person project and it is more the process the team usa were formed and how the application was done. i think as the acting director, you know my commitment is to work with administration with the city attorney on figuring out there process. there is a bit of lack of clarity for how we are able to select coapplicants for grants within especially with this grant was applied for. i will go to the next slide just to provide a brief summary of what the grant will do. so there are -- a couple major components of this grant. as you see the grant acceptance is 2.4 million dollars and for context, this is equal to the machiney the board of supervisor added back to the department's budget to continue the climate action plan it it is a significant

investment to electric infrastructure for the city and support the staff working on this. the 4 major parts of this, this that will be moving forward are the mapping tool. having an ombudsman for direct service to the public on ev charging. a project in the bay view to install fast charging hubs which is need in the this portion of the city. and program for food delivery inspired by the lafco study. just to summarize the amendments that are before this committee, again, the grants partners are correct low labeled as coapplicants and subgrantees and we clarified the waiverers not

required and removed the retroactive portion. i am here to answer questions. okay thank you. we have bla >> reporter: on this item. >> thank you. hour upon analysis of this grant agreement has not changed. we provide the full report. it is a miss the opportunity. i want to emphasize there are no rules competitive process selecting the applicants. i think it is something the board could address in future legislation to close that gap. and you know i would point out that it it is not impossible to have done so. the department of homelessness

applied within a two month window for state funding for the first home grants the city got with a coapplication with community services selected them through an rfq process. i think you know, given this is phase 2 of a grant cycle that will is fund projects identified in phase one, which was a planning document produced in 2019, i think that really was a missed opportunity to identified partner in a competitive public way. that the department could work with going forward. happy to answer other questions. why supervisor safai. >> thank you, those other conversations we had the other day. my the way this was brought to us initially was -- sole source contract it has been changed to be coapplicants on a grant

proisz. i want to preface by saying the new director is a couple mont in his job if that. and he is coming in to look at a process that was not his making. so i want to acknowledge that we had a conversation this morning, i know your attempt is to been going forward and how to prepare to make the department. i feel uncomfortable how this came together it is hard to operate hafrom the good work that could be done with the money. we need charging station in areas of the city that electric car company don't believe are their prime target. similar conversation we had with scooter companies or any mobility style company forward thinking that is think burglar the environment that is new and advanced. they are often over look the

southeast part of the city including my district. idea is for them to put a charging station bay view hunter's point is a lotable goal as well as get knowledge delivery by delivery individuals. off of polluting vehicles and putting them on you know electric vehicles. i want it state i think those are all lotable goals. our job is to look at the process by which that was put together. for me my question is, the -- grant coapplicants were hand selected. there are other i mean -- i don't know if i'm able to say qualified i'm not judging based on a criteria. there are other organizations local low that do similar work. i will say that. and so for me it it is hard to think, how this was other than

just saying that -- individuals within the agency knew the organizations and hand selected and said, come on. >> the processes we have seen are usually once there has been an rfq or rfp the department will with a nonprofit or noncity agent, coapply for state funding or grant funding. that is after there has been a process. upon want to giveut opportunity to respond to this and see how we can do better going forward the other aspect i understand you applyd and usual don't find out until you are arc worried the opinion and he start date is a year prior when you received the money >> thank you. i think those are good points

raised and things we have to work on and looking for the opportunity to have that transparent process. i think the example around like project home key that was raised, you know there is a resource issue not saying this was here for this situation but you know it does take a resources to be able to not only dot rfq but keep that list fresh as well. and up until now until this board had money back to the budget to fund positions we had 1 and a half positions in the department devoteed electric vehicle transportation and both of the positions that funding has been grant funded. and so, this has been the nature of like they had to look within the constraintses of how they are fund today apply for opportunity that advance the goal. we have been in this loop of

trying to bring in money to the city and i think in this case, they you know every grant they apply for takes an amount of time. the team pulled together when they believe was the -- the best team that they could to be successful at getting the grant. and i'm certain that happen in the this case. there was not like we like this company more than the other. it was if you look at the experience qualifications, once the qualifications came out from the grant application, they said, who can we partner with to make sure this money benefits san francisco? going forward. i agree we have 50 projects out lined in the 2019 road map. there will be some. not sure it is visible for every single one just because to maintain an rfq for that those number of projects begin there is in certainty when this

funding will become available does become a bit of a challenge because you know i think if we look at when the road map came out in 2019. if we play out where we had the resources and did not rfq to the best our ability not knowing what the future grant opportunity the be we could have a certified list in 2019 and in this case, it was in the 2 years later until there was funding available for a specific projects as part of that road map. and so the qualifications did in the become known but imagine if we had that rfq list from 2019 and not funding for 5 years this is could be a possibility, too the cdc does not provide money for projects for 5 years. we have to be in this mode of updating the rfq to make it fresh if we are in the relying on an rfq5 or 7 years old.

those other challenges i raised them we have to figure out as we figure through what that transparency process looks like. and then figuring out that balance of maintaining transparency y. how many staff do you have? >> so, there are approximately currently there are 75 staff, 100 if we are fully. >> i thank you is aer matter i not the model of department of environment is grant fund work. and so this also might be a function of your department now grow to a point where you now have to rethink some of your practices. and so you know given the context in which we are in now, you know with regard to sole source contracting and with regard to nonprofits hand selected. all of the things we are concerned about seems to me that

it is really hard to justify that you there would be this process. i mean, seems that you could have broad categories again. i know you are thinking about this. broad categories that people that do, x, works, that allows a list of people you work with in broad categories to sigh these other people we want to and choose from. that has been our practice i have seen with other departments. you know when we opened the therapeutic community. d ph was how is this happening quickly? adult probation had their list and done an rfq, they were able to go and choose the vender doing that type of work. when it is opportunity became available. and so i think if were like we did this now in 2022 how long is

this valid. that is part of the work with contract administration and city attorney can give guidance. the idea of saying we hand selected the folks that's who we knew does good work temperature is hard to defend that. i feel bad. i want to say i feel bade think the work the implementation of the work is extremely important it is important work. i feel conflicted about this choice. supervisor mar? >> thank you chair ronen. i share supervisor safai's concern around the process and with selecting and going with the coapplicant. since they are for profit business in what is an emerging new sector and -- from what i

see competitive. but i do appreciate you know -- acting director chew and theed sf staff on coming back to yous for this today. you know after we discuss third degree previously. and you having you having really looked at -- um -- yea. at the process and huthat can be sort of -- um -- tightened up and ensuring that moving forward. that there is as much transparency and clearer guidelines on how we select. we are talking about coapplicants and subcontractors for grant applications and i appreciate you responding to the bla's recommendations, too. i had a question around ev go. they other private for profit subcontractor here. i believe the others are

nonprofits and the largest amount are there other electric vehicle charging companies that could have potential low been a coapplicant or subcontractor in i know they are a little difference as far as technical and market focus. >> thank you for the question. yes, there are a number of charging providers out there. ev go was selected because of their expertise in experience in installing fast charging stations that was a component of the grant application they were selected based on history delivering successful projects and also their experience delivering on fast charging stations, which was key component of the grant application. >> got t. i know some of other ev companies issue not necessarily doing -- as of now

fast charging stations, there are others, too like electric america. i use that sometimes. >> yes >> but my question is, would there have been another company that could have also filled the same role as ev go creating a fast charging plaza? >> certainly. like i'm not going to deny there could have not been another provider that filled the role of ev g. i can only speak to why they were selected begin with. but i think that comparison to the other companies i say they have had more experience and success getting guarantees to do this fast charging work throughout california and the bay area. >> thank you. and i had a question around the -- the -- specific project this they are wing on. this would be to create a fast charging plaza. that is like a

new ev version of a gas station? in -- would be located in bay view or equity community. youville nicole it come up and talk about the details of project. >> thank you. >> hello. for the fast charging hub that is differents in it functions like a gas station there are multiple charging stations all located at 1 site, and the plan is to have that installed in bay view hunter's point as part of the grant woad install 2 additional fast charger hubs with locations to be determined. >> so there will be 3 -- 3 fast charging stations one in bay view and 2 others in >> yes and total 25 total fast chargers across the city. >> great. and i know -- there is already other company

catharsis -- ev go as well moving ahead with creating the stations without a public subsidy from what i understand. in my district on 19th avenue there hen a site under discussions about converting it to a fast charging plaza. ev go was involved in that, too. i know there will need to be public subsidy for us to really jump start you know all the differents climate action and infrastructure needod the ev side is building decarbonization i have been working on. i guess my question is. the subsidy for this really needed because it is equity community and they would not otherwise do it or is it needed just to get -- in order to get support more fast charging stations and hubs created?

>> so for charging hub type of project, there are increased costs associated the for the hardware and software applications but also for upgraded electric capacity which would be something this would be i think -- more necessary due to the initial chargers per site. so it would not necessary low be related the location of fast charger hub in a disadvantaged community but the number of chargers going in and related electric capacity upgrades may vary site to site. >> got it. and again, i'm sorry, just because i have been aware of one ev go and different ev charging provider that has been planning a fast charging station on 19th without a public subsidy i'm want to understand you know -- >> i think to answer your

question supervisor mar. in order to get the fast charging in bay view hunter's point you have to provide an incentive we have seen this through the district data you be incentives provided bite state or air district, they will go with the ev adoption goes. they will go toward the affluent areas which have a higher adoption of ev and leave area this is don't typeset does in the fit their funding model or profit model, otherwise. providing incentive we direct them like in order to encourage and in order to expand ev adoption we have to provide the resource like bay view hunter's point limited partner is obviously more historic knowledge and issues around air pollution have you to provide

that for them to install the charging then can then extend ev adoption within the neighborhood now there is charging options to that community. >> that is helpful that is what i wanted here inform my district we got fast charging stations installed without a subsidy 2 safe ways. good on see this moving forward with equity. thank you. >> thank you. so doumit an amendmented us you wanted to amend the sole source and the retroactivity i don't see amendments. i believe they have been submitted. i don't know they are on file they should have been submit federal they were not. any of us have the amendments? okay.

right. brent did you receive any. i have not. i'm sorry i missed the question madam chair. budget and legislative analyst and the presentation from department environment say that the department going to submit amendments but i have not seen the amendments. i did circulate them on monday. madam chair. >> i did not see those. colleagues do you see them. >> i have recirculated them to you. >> thank you, i don't. see them yet. as i'm waiting to finds those amendments, you the oh. i have not got them. um -- so you said is anyone here from office of contract administration. here they are. because i would love to hear when they are plan nothing terms of issuing guidance and

regulations for a competitive process when there will be coapplicants to grants. >> thank you, i believe director correla is on line. from the office of contract administration. >> yes. >> hello. good morning supervisors. and i apologize for my interruption of the meeting the office of cop tract administration has been work width city attorney to understand better what departments are doing. and in terms of selecting applicants as you -- noted essential low there is a bit of a gap here. there are no rowels and regulations that governor how departments select but departments have been doing that in different ways. someplace do a sort of solicitation and i think sometimes other departments don't do that. so, that said, under chapter 21 goings the purchaser is authorize topside issue rules and we can address the issue

through rules and regulations we want to w with the departments to understand their grant making needs first. thank you. >> okay. and then can you explain, so, why is this no longer retroactive. why on the original legislation it said that the grants started on march 28 now it does not start until august first? >> so i believe they were planning to use the funds and retroactively apply them to cover staffing costs but that was not done. they have in the spent any money for that was projected to be used for this. >> okay. i want to just echo what my colleague supervisor safai said and we are just we are really

uncomfortable with the process. in the that this -- grant went through. but at the same time we are in between a rock and hard place we like the substance of the grant and don't want to lose the money. but this puts nus a very uncomfortable situation. i think we had enough public vetting of exactly what happens. so -- what i would like to say in the future is you know to you and all other departments don't do this to us. don't sends us a grant application or contract where there has not been a competitive process. where partners are hand picked especially when one of the partner system a private profit making company and -- an organization outside of san francisco when we are pleviny of organizations that are inside

san francisco that are really well suited. to providing this type of service that happened to be in communities of concern. that work with low wage workers. i can't tell you how perfect a pull there would be, for example, for the bike messenger part of this organization. it is an organization in my district that works with low next communities of color that -- that has this intersection with environmental justice, bikes and helping low wage workers create co-op and have living wage opportunities. it really like i'm sure in any competitive press they would rise quickly to the top t. foals like a wasted opportunity for some of our home grown organizations that might be better suited to be part anywheres with our department of environment. than you know, nothing against grid but saying, i don't know

they share the same components. of working with under represented communities in ways that promote environmental justice. so, with that supervisor safai du have other. >> i have a couple more questions i'm sorry. the other thing i noticed 150 thousand dollars to hire a community based organization to engage residents and businesses. impacted by the new charging. you plan top have that go through a competitive process. >> thank you for the question. supervisor. yes. that would go through a competitive solicitation process and we will put that out there as a grant for competitive and open process for community based organizations to do that work. >> and the other thing and may be it said, i can't find it but -- is this charging station this is going to be constructed says 8 stations those are free?

no. they are not. >> so -- and they are operated by ev go? they will be operated by ev g. getting monfreus to insfaul stations that they will make money on. >> they will be getting monfrethe california energy commission grant. getting money from the state through this california commission grant. >> i get it. why okay. somehow i thought this was the pilot was going to be seems the pilot portion is the 30 out base deliver tow see how that works. this is about fast charging stations... and their receiving grant money and they will make, do you know is it competitive?

and how many stations does ev go operate around the city? >> reason i ask is because as someone who owns an electric car when i go to the stations they are broken remembering my biggest frustrations with electric stations they are useless. you spend 15 minutes trying to get it to work and it does not work. so -- can you tell me more about so00 eye get it they are getting monnet grant. they will put machine in. they build the station. they will make money off it but what is the over all you know -- design, will it be managed. how often maintained. what is the over all focus of this aspect of the contract? >> i'm nicole i'm an energy specialist with department of environment. in terms of design of the project, they plan to be 8 fast chargers at this location that

will be in operation and our intent is to make sure they have up time of over 95%. customers and community members don't run in the same challenge urs identifying. our department is dedicated to making sure the chargers that we try hard to get in the city are maintains and operational so that when an ev driver goes to get the needed charge they are wing. we are working with the electric vehicle coordinating council and looking at data testing to make sure this liability is increasing because published paper identified the same occurrence, we're are work nothing other counties to combat that. dpch especially since we will be helping manage this grant, and working so closely with e vushgs go ensure the up timeser

maintained ensure it is maintained longer term we will work with the project leados that to ensure the up times are met and continuing that community engagement to ensure that it is an operational site that remains safe and accessible. >> do you know how many stations ev go has in the city. >> i don't know the number but manage similar fast charging in the bay area that has more than 5dc fast chargers. are they going to own the stations in perch taoist. why they are going to own the stations. i'm not sure what the length of time is. i understand it is 1.6 to build the station who where is the lands who is owning the lands has this been identified the location. i think there has been a po serb sight for bay view and mentioned for 2 other stations active low

looking for site opportunity. and using our blueprint mapping tool to identify opportunity for sites that would benefit communities and provide shared charging applications across dwelling. single family home ordinance and work places. so. what i read here in the report is that it is designed for 8 stations and arc soul they will number the same location. why right. 1 plaza. and there will be a couple more what -- single charging stations installed in other places to be determined y. yes 2 additional charging hubs. that will feature 15 chargers between the 2. manage like 8 chargers and a second to be determined location and 7 in a third to be determined location. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. i'd like to make a motion to

amend the item as described by mr. chiou. roll call to many. >> ahead of that. open the item for public comment. why members of the public wish to speak and in person line up to speak. for those remote call 415-655-0001id24954145466 press pound and pounds then star 3 to enters the line. for those in the queue continue to wait until the system indicates you are unmuted that will be your queue to begin your comments. we have one speak in house. >> good morning. of supervisors and chair ronen jeremy pollack from local agency formation commission speaking in favorite e bike portion of the grant this came out of a 2020

survey economy workersment to transification to electric bikes and recommended the pilot program along this lines and one of the coapplicants offering in kinds service of staff time in support of that. and all of that is before my time when i came on board. and fully appreciate the your uncomfortableness and challenges with the grant procurement press and appreciate the efforts to try to rectify that going forward. as far as looking at the e bike pilot program, we are excited about the data that will come out of having the control group of drivers versus data tracking what happens when drivers are given the e bikes will show a benefit across the board to workers and the city and to the restaurants and the like. and looking forward to looking at what are the obstacles than i

face we see through biking across the board of storage and security. weather and this sort of thing and look whatting future models to expand on this at the hear nothing may we heard a report on this and the commissioners were excited about the possibility for how to expand this for neighborhoods specific programs. there is a lot of models across the country similar to this and we are looking forward to ways we can build on this and to futurityerations and ways to involve community groups and organizations in the process. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. >> thank you. jeremy pollack for comments. seeing no more in person in the chamber... there are no speakers. why public comment is closed. now can we take the vote on my motion to amend? >> on that motion to amend the resolution as stated bite

department of environment safai. >> aye. >> member mar. >> aye >> chair ronen. >> aye. >> we have 3 aye's. why i don't know how you want to sends this forward to the board. anyone want to make a motion? i'm supportive i would be -- supportive of sends thanksgiving with recommendation but i hear you guys seem more yea. of unconvinced. >> supervisor safai? comments? [cannot hear supervisor safai] i think it would be good to sends with no recommendation then we have the opportunity to explain to our colleagues not only why we sent it with no recommendations but what will happen going forward so we will not be in this place in the

future. supervisor safai make that motion? sure. >> [laughter] [cannot hear supervisor safai]. this resolution be forwarded to the full board without a recommendation as amended. vice chair safai. >> aye. >> member mar. >> aye >> chair ronen. >> aye. >> that motion passes unanimously >> mr. clerk call item 3 >> item 3 an ordinance amending the code to provide that section 54522 of the code requires publication of financial statements. in the more than 120 days after the close of each fiscal year shall not apply to airport revenue bonds members joining remote and wish to comment call

415-655-0001id24954145466 press pounds, pound then star 3 to enter the queue. a prosperity the indicate you raised your hand had you have been unmuted begin your comments. >> thank you so much i believe we have diana from the airport to discuss this item. >> actually. before i call you on could you read item 4 and present at the same time >> sure. >> yes. item 4, is a resolution approving award professional services agreement for airport contract number 5024 where are to operate maintain and repair airport boarding bridges. and baggage handling systems in the domestic terminals professional business providers inc. and the city and county by the airport commission.

amount not to exceed 13.1 million. for the period of august 1, 22 through july 30 of 25. members who want to comment on this resolution also should call 415-655-0001id24954145466 press pound, pounds then star 3 to enter the speaker line. a prompt will indicate you raised your hand wait until you have been unmuted then begin comments. why thank you, i'm sorry about that. if you would not mind presenting on items 3 and 4. >> yes. definitely. regarding item 3 the airports seek adoption of an ordinance exempt airport revenue bonds from 24522 of the california code requires the publiccasion of year ends financial statements within 120 days after the close of the fiscal year.

due to additional time needed to court nay with staff and the city's outside odd tors and implementing government accounting standards's board. financial reports requirements since 2017 the airport commission approved amending the 91 masteder bond resolution to allow the commission's audit financial statements to be provided to the bond trustee within 210 days after the close of the fiscal year pending the oranges before you today. in addition to arc luing 90 additional days to provide financial statements to the airport revenue bond trustee and arc i haved a technical default the ordinance make the process consistent with one, the issuance and sale of refunding ref now bonds bite city, which is exempt from section 24522. 2, the time frame for the airport commission disclosure certificate and 3, the >> reporter:s of other city departments and the city's

annual comprehensive financial report. controller submitted a letter of support dollareded in the file i'm happy to answer questions with clothes from finance there was not bla r. i will present on item 4. why yes, please. >> okay. for item 40 airport seeking approval to award professional business providers inc. or to operate, maintain and repair airport owned bridges and baggage handling systems and the domestic terminal for 3 years with a 2 year option to extending everextend not to exceed 13 million dollars. the operation will will be sufficient to passengers and luggage and on aircraft. the airport completed a competitive procure am process this year the highest ranked was

prohibited due to administrative code chapter 12x. the next highest rankd and met all requirements for award of the contract the company has 20 year's response in aviation providing operations, maintenance and installation searchses for passenger boarding bridges and baggage handling systems such asas detroit and new orleans i'm happy to answer questions along with members from our eva chong management of airport services. >> thank you. >> if the bla could report on item 4. >> item 4 is a resolution approve a new contract with the airport and professional business fro vieders. this contract allows the airport to maintain boarding bridges and baggage handling systems at the

airport owns. we showed the budget for this contract on page 12 of the report shows the cost for the 3 year term is 13.1 million dollars. those costs are charged to the airlines. and the contract provides for an optional 2 year extension if the cost exceeds 500 thousand dollars require board approval of the amendment. we recommend prove of this resolution. >> thank you. any questions, colleagues. can we open this up for public comment. >> members who wish to speak on both items 3 and 4 and join nothing person line up to speak. for those remote call 415-655-0001id24954145466 press pound and pounds then star 3 to enter the brian. the system will prompt you when you have been unmuted that is your queue to begin comments no

in person in the chamber and -- we have no speakers on the phone line. >> public comment is closed. i would like to make a motion to send 3 and 4 to the board with positive recommendation can we have a vote? >> the megz to forward both 3 and 4 to the board with positive recommendation vice chair safai. >> aye >> member mar >> aye >> chair ronen >> aye. >> those motions pass unanimously. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. clerk read item 5. >> yes item 5 a resolution approving and authorizations the general manage of the public utility's commission to amend the lease of property 1980 oakdale avenue with christian a and lilly b. individuals in [inaudible] investment corporation a california corporation as land lord a rents of 1 million a year with annual

consumer price index increases extending the term for 8iers a total of january of 2017 through december of 2030. subject to right to terminate without penalty after december therein of 27. authorizing says documents make modifications and take actions in future of the first amendment and authorize the general manager of the puc to enter in amendments or modifications to the first amendment that the do not increase the rents or otherwise materially increase the obligations. for liabilities of the city. and are necessary or advisable to the lease or this resolution. members who are joining remote and wish to comment call 415-655-0001id24954145466 press pounds, pounds then star 3 the prosperity will indicate when you have been unmuted that is

your indication to start your comments. we have mr. bart over from sfpuc. why yes. why if you could keep your presentation brief we have a long agenda. you will be brooefr. good afternoon madam chair i'm tony barto i'm the assistant real estate director at puc the proposed resolution before you today approve an amendment the lease the city as tenant and the access family. as landlords for 48400 square feet of property at 1980 oakdale in san francisco. used by the puc for warehousing of per and supplies and

invenntory and he office facilities for field staff. the puc city distribution division is responsible for management and operation and maintenance of all potable and nonpotable water system in san francisco. including over 1200 miles of water mains and reservoirs, pump stations and other facilities within the city of san francisco. main facility is 1990 newcriminal, 1980 oakdale is cross the street. operations at both will be relocateed a replacement facility under construction on city owned report 2,000 marine. once they are completed. and that is expected the end of 2027. i will touch on highlights of the lease. the current lease expires the end of this year december of 22.

the first amendment extends 8 years to december 31, 2030 with a right to terminate after year 5 with no penalty. and this extension will provide the puc the timer st it needs to complete construction of the new facility at 2,000 marine. where the lease will be terminated. a proposed base rent increase from 874 ,000 to 1 million 2454 and based on comparable properties at or below market rent. land lord will make ad a improve ams to accommodate field staff. with this i'm happy to take questions. >> thank you. we have a bla report on this item? >> next. item 5 a resolution approving

lease extension with the puc and ordinance of 1980 oakdale avenue. it the amendment extends the lease by 8 years from december of 22 through december of 2030. increases the base rent for the initial extension year to from 874 thousand dollars to 1 million dollars. we show the lease terms on page 16 of our report. which also shift the responsibility of maintenance obligation from thes city to the landlord. and we recommend approval based on this lease market rate. we think that the use of spags is reasonable by the department. >> thank you. any questions. >> can we open this up for public comment. >> yes. member when is wish to speak in person line up now. for those remote call 415-655-0001id24954145466 press

pound, pound then star 3 the prosperity will tell you when you are unmuted and that is your queue to begin your comments. we have no speakers in person in the chamber. and we have no callers in the queue. >> public comment is closed. i like to make a motion to sends this to the board with positive recommendation. can we have a vote. >> voice chair safai. >> aye >> member mar y. aye >> chair ronen. >> aye >> that motion passes unanimously. read item 6. >> item 6. an ordinance amending the code for use certain form contracts to purchase and sell electricity bipuc grant labors specifies >> reporter:s and the administrative and environment codes for the transactions and

delegate to the general manage puc9.within 18 to execute contracts and terms for 10 years or exanticipated revenue of a million or more through june 302027. members joining us remoted and which to contact us on the phone call 415-655-0001id24954145466 press pound, pounds then star 3 to enter the queue. madam chair? >> and mrs. hail is here from the puc. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm barbara hail assistant

general manager for power ordinance before you today addresses the authority of the puc's general manager to execute contracts for purchase and sale of electricity and related product it is the wholesale contracts support clean power sf programs the hemp y program serves 4500 generate electricity ourselves to serve this program through the water and power system. we purchase electricity to meet customer need when is not generating and sell generation when we have it in excess of needs. the budget and financial plans project 30 million dollars a year for the purchase of electricity in related products over the next 5 years. our clean four power sf serves 385,000 customer accounts.

for this program we most lee purchase electricity in related products needed through competitive bid and sell products from the customer when we have product in excess of needs. the clean power sf budget and financial plans project 250 million dollars a yearch for the purchase of electricity and related products over the next 5 years. together, these programs provide 70s % of the electricity consume in the san francisco. the proposed ordinance delegate to the puc general manager the use of form contracts for the purchase and safely electricity products under limited conscience for a limited number of years. these contracts standards form contracts. which the board has approved for

use for both programs. these are form contracts are used the most by our staff to transact electricity related product in the industry. and in addition the puc staff developed now and resunrised form purchase agreements with the city attorney's office with the joint power authority, california community power, to address powers on going power supply requirements. these agreements leverage industry standard terms and incorporate san francisco specific requirements. for example our -- limited payment obligations. our guaranteed max costs. we are asking to you approve the on going use of the form agreements that are described in sections a9 and a10 and 11. if the draft ordinance. the agreements build on the prior authorizations of the

board. recognizing that new products are now available mriek stand alone energy storage not available just a few years ago and the need for simple term when is we are transacting for small are projects like the mauler renewable projects. along with the use of these form agreements the ordinance would delegate authority to the puc general manager to enter in the agreements for the safely purnot just purchase but also the sale. charter section 9.118 requires contracts result in revenues more than a million or more to be approved bite board of supervisor this is delegation will allow power and clean power sf to cell excess electricity for the benefit of repairs and the ordinance would delegate authority to the general manager to execute power supply contracts with terms greater

than 10 years or require expenditures of 10 million or more capped at 150 million per year. and for the anticipated ref now in excess of a million or more subject it a revenue limit of 10 million per year. the expenditure and revenue caps could be increased by a board of supervisor's resolution. and then the ordinance includes a reporting >> reporter:. so i have spent a bit of time describing the what. and now i'd like to yous take a bit of time to discuss the why. why are we asking for this frank low, the success of our power programs requires the city to operate and act at a commercial pace now more than ever. the markets volatile and very competitive and the regular >> reporte

requirements are floud. commercial pace the requirement that all contracts that are 10 years or more and 10 million or more in cost, go before the board of supervisor. creates a challenge for us in participating in the electricity markets at a commercial pace. some of the products we need to protect our rate payers from volatility are offered with short pricing windows. am we entered in agreements for the products at terms or in quantities constraining ourselves to less then and there 10 yers or less than 10 upon million dollars in contract costs. this means that we men missing out on opportunity to procure lower cost energy supplies for customers. a longer commitment could get you a lower price. products that are available in attractive process were purchasing up to that stay in

the 10 million cap. >> market volatility. past year we seen increase in volatility in the power supply markets made it difficult for to yous successful low transact begin approval time lines the market price volatility reduced the ability of supplyers to hold price submitted in our longer serm solicitations for the amount of time required to obtain approvals. when there are market price volatility when we mode to most be sponsive to make sure products are affordable. the competitive mark we have seen growth in the number of buyers. you remember -- that back in 2016 when we began serving under clone power sf we were the fourth to start. now there is 24 operating cca's in california that it is a great

statement about progress but it means we have more competitors, there are more buyers in the market and a significant increase in demand for scarce electricity resources and limited new shovel ready renewable project this is demand means more are pursuing limited set of offers sellers have alternatives to doing business with san francisco to the extent san francisco cannot act at the pace or on terms required in the market. the electricity resource will contract with other buyers. it is a fact of a competitive market the 40 and final element was requirements. they are fluid. we see new on going new procurement requirements all the time. most low from the california puc. issuing procure am under and ares capacity requirements. failure to meet the requirements

has financial and reputational consequence the delegating authority to the puc general manager will help us move more quickly and acquire the most cost effective power supply resources to serve customer and meet requirements. it ensure when is we are products to sell, we acts as commercial pace to achieve the best price. thank you for considering this item today i'm available to answer questions you may have. >> thank you impressively we have a bla report on this item? >> yes, thank you. an ordinance that would delegate authority to the puc to enter in certain contracts. broad low speak the board of supervisors has to approve contracts that exceed 10 million dollars or 10 years and what this legislation would do is

arcllow puc to enter in contracts without coming to the board so long as the contracts don't exceed twitch years or total 150 million dollars a year or do not total 10 mission a year in revenue. legislation also waves code requirements that are typically included in city contractless. and i would note that we did work with the department to better understand the need for the delegated authority. the board granted in prior years. they did provide documentation of different energy market transactions the contracts would be used for. including some projects where they have to close within less than a day. and then some projects like resource adequacy like the >> reporter:s the general manager was tuck burglar take a

couple weeks but that could happen any time of year. i think this delegated authority is consistent with what the board has done in the past. but it is still giving up board's charter authority for this reason we consider prove to be a policy malice aforethought for the board. >> thank you so much. supervisor safai. >> my question is have you had examples where you have gotten a lower price. real had opportunities to procure more energy supply and to be allocated more resources to the process. where we could have transacted at a higher volume. at a process that was attractive. but unable to do that. in the setting we are allocated

through california puc process resources that are rate payors pay for through the power charge and difference adjustment. they pay for the base cost. we are being presented with an opportunity for renewable resources with pg and e and pia portion of those costs. we submitted a request to pg and e limiting ourselves to a value at less than 10 million dollars. because of the constraintses that process we -- per schedule the california puc allowed pg and e to move forward we have to transact in 10 days. we knew wield not have this authority and ooze it or have the ability to process this.

through a standard city practice. >> i understands the what you described in purchasing and selling. but you also referenced energy contracts that it is one this came before us. and it included a number of the different provisions and administrative code we very much i don't know why you would tlaefrn we did that successful low that is a longer term infrastructure investment. sometimes on puc land sometimes not. >> yes. that does in the make sense in your reasoning you presented j. sure. in that circumstance these i believe supervisor you are referring to the goal line and tumble weed projects that were approved by our commission and the board so thank you for that. and that circumstance we are partnering with a collection of other cca's through the joint power authority california community power. and in that setting, we were

able to shape the rfo process and the expectations together with our partners. we were able to say to them, we will need 90 days between commitment of the counter party to move through our -- approval process. so we got that 90 day commitment going in that rfo process. that is a -- an important element, the fact we got the 90 day agreement up front. we have included those contracts. as form agreements in this delegation authority request. and we have dhan in part because which 90 day matters? right? if -- familiar the 90 days happen the board budget consideration and recess period.

>> no, i get it i understand. i'm saying personal low. i don't feel comfortable with that. you brought the contracts in the past. we moved and infrastructure development long-term place am. and it is lasting. what you described to us in the entirety of that the bl arc presented is to move quickly to buy and sell energy i'm in agreement with that i'm not comfortable with the part you don't come with the long-term energy. there are environmental impacts and community impacts. energy storage facilities get large and smaller. a number of different codes that would be applied. that persian i don't feel comfortable the rest of it i agree with. and i think that one day 2 weeks felony days we can't move fast

to do that and want to be competitive and rate payors have the best option for purchasing good energy. i think that makes sense. but lumping in energy storage and the other small are contracts does not make sense to me. >> if i miwe find energy storage products available on the market not when it is something this built but something this is built already and counter party vs portions of the product under contract but not all we would like to be able to include energy storage among those contract products we have exercise a delegated third degree authority sto so we are not limited through storage products with a long-term agreement as tumble weed projects were. and to have that flexibility to be responsive when those

products are on the market. them is a question for city attorney or sfpuc is have have this ever been doneful for any sitting department the board has waived authority cord to charter 9 opinion 118 and allowing a city department to just skip the process. so -- we do have you see in the ordinance. have the opportunity to have delegated authority in the past. the budget legislative analyst mention today for the commodities. those are not, this is a really

competitive market. the prices can change. fairly quickly the requirements we face can change quickly. i think it is under those circumstances that the board heads delegated authority to the puc in the past for these products. and as those products available and treatd that way in the marketplace change we like to bring those new types of projects forward as we are the energy storage. i will defer to city faern there is anything further, pleasech >>an pierson. i was going to say the same i know there are a precedent with this del gigz for puc. as to other departments i think there have been other delegations the board delegated to settlements and other things. i have to look to see which

department it is where they have delegated that authority. why thank you. my question is one, have we done this before? is this setting a situation and it is not. een though i'm uncomfortable, again. not about because of as a puc but general low that the board of supervisors allowing any city departments to skip charter for condition tract oversight that reason chair ronen, i respectfully suggesting to amendments to this item today but if -- it is possible. it is the idea coming from arc accountability. the first is to change the annual reporting >> reporter:s to quarter low. i believe they are already doing for the commission.

this i would like to be that consistent if the commission if the commission is getting the quarter low report the board should, too receive that. i can confirm we are committed to provide being a quarter low report to our commission. i think the seconded metropolitan i know it it is not easy to have this conversation but torous the terms of the delegation to the generaling manager from now as written from 3 years from 5 years to 3 years. i think it has a lot to do with the fact i think that this statute board that have some institutional knowledge and experience. and dealing with this. i think this 5 year system too long. i think 3 years at least allow you perhaps come back before it xriered to have a conversation with the board whether this is a successful practice and should we continue and allow the board during budget time to look at

the contract that wills have been issued and evaluate whether we want to extend the delegation of the general manager's authority. >> the concept of 5 year being reduceed 3 is something this we can work with. i think that we are expecting then that money we have about 2 years worth of experience before we come become through the process. and seeking additional authority. >> i appreciate it. that means that like in 2 year's time, 150 million dollars each year about 300 million dollars you can well almost uncheck but accountability quarter low. coming back with report and understanding how the progress is being made with a contract and the event the board can see this is working well. puc sees it is working well and

the city attorney's support consider the extension of the delegation. that's all i have, thank you, chair ronen. appreciate it. >> thank you. and -- supervisor chan thank you for the amendments. supervisor safai were you suggesting additional amendments. >> so my concern is that i think all of the other arguments that have been presented make sense the idea of -- on -- page 4 section b under area 10 line 11 storage purchase agreement and puc renewable power and energy storage agreement. are the same thing and over limited partner? it is fair it say they over

lap. we sometimes purchase now in the opportunity on purchase stand alone storage that is what 10b addresses. and felony a addresses when approximate solar and storage are colocated and cooperated. we need separate terms. >> got it. >> i again i appreciate everything you presented. it makes sense. i think upon given past privacy you gos having the review the environmental imfact the community impact it makes sense you would bring those in front of body and (examples of where you hit road blocks and presented a problem i'm happy to consider and amend it going forward. why we -- may i give an example now. >> thank you. >> we conducted air request for offers. we received bids. we began the internal city process for review and prove.

in the projects we would recommend they were project this is fell in 10a and 10b. if memory service correct storage was an element and solar. we had process through city internal approvalless. working with the contract admin bureau and others. and a number of the bidders with drew bids during that press because it is taking too long. part of what the reason why this is shaped as an ordinance is to make sure that everyone understands it is a delegated authority and we need to act fast so we don't lose the opportunities. >> i understand. how much capacity and energy storage does the agent anticipate the need. we had the review and talked about the impact it a low income

latino community in the southern part of the state. there was environmental impacts. there is considerable community impacts. for me i would feel comfortable this it this body have the opportunity to review those contracts everything else i'm in agreement with. were we to be the sponsors. a project approximate -- where we would i will back up. any project in any of the contracts they dependsant on complying with ceqa. were we to be bringing a project to completion on city owned land. right? where we were responsible we would also be add here to ceqa. those projects -- i would expect

although we have the authority to potential low to -- execute without through the commission and board process. i would expect we bring those through the city and board process. city owned land is a different circumstance. we need to directly come ploy as opposed a contract term. community interests take a different form. >> i understand seems to be represented you were able to stay up front in rfo you needed 90 days or less that worked. >> yes, >> you could continue to use that as a practice and if was impedament you could show it has been a major problem i don't see it we don't have to keep going back and forth i'm trying to avoid it being a problem where

we lose opportunity and ends up with a less affordable program. >> so. i heard -- director hail saying that they lost bidders in the process. >> we approved 2 contracts. >> i understand that. i'm -- what because they said up front they needed 90 day in this recent incident i did not hear her say they med that clear as part of the rfo they need team they sm say some bidders dropped out. >> right but for example did the biders that drop out offer i don't know if you did a complete analysis but were they more competitively processed? >> thank you for the question. supervisor, yes, the more attractive 2 of the bidders this dropped out were more attractive

bidders. we are prenl not going to sign any contracts after going through that rfo process. we are hopeful a fresh process that acts at better commercial fits will result in us able to get good bids we retain. per of the challenge we face is that we are not only ones in the marketed try to strike deals. >> these are developers who have opportunity to go other places and it is in the just a passive opportunity they got other aggregation program and public u stillities saying, here sign with us we will do it today. why are you waiting around. why would they and they are business people and commercial interest is get a deal. if we are saying yes, you have a deal we think pretty sure 3 months from now the marketed will change in this 3 mont period they want to be

capitolizing on higher prices. >> situation this body does in the like to give up our authority of oversight and responsibility. we take it seriously. and do not give it up easily. having said this, i am quite frankly shockd and thrilld and grateful that they did not increase rate this is year given what the havoc that is our energy market at the moment. i think supervisor chan's amendments are very thoughtful and -- give me more confidence that we will get regular updates not annual but we will understand how and why you exercise this option. it is t is limited to 3 and not 5 years gives us an opportunity to review and decide if we want to continue this delegation

moving forward. so -- you know -- for whatever it is worth i the be manslaughter -- i think i'd like to give the puc the opportunity to delegate the authority storage purchase and monitor it close low and see. i just -- i can't imagine how competitive this market is now especially given the worldwide energy needs given the war. russia and ukraine i know this it is renewable and not oil but the markets are interlinked and -- i want our rate payors to get the best deal and i want to see the puc continue to keep rates the same and not raise the

rates. i would be am i'm okay with delegating this under the terms of 3 years with quarter low reports. >> okay. with this can we open this up per public comment. why yes. members who twoish spoke in person line up. remote call 415-655-0001id24954145466 press pound, pounds then star 3. witness unmuted begin your comments. seeing no in person in the chamber. there are nest speakers in the queue. why public comment is closed. i have eighty-one last question. is per of the delay that you

have to go through your own commission and then come to the board of supervisors? is that really what the delay is? >> i think that is a factor. the cca's they -- have a one stop shop. right. they go to just their governing board. >> that is a factor. the 30-day waiting period the city process things they don't have rules like that. so -- when it goes to their governing board it is a brown act meeting with brown act notice requirements but not some of the added features that the city process has. >> right. >> okay. >> i would points that out something for the board to consider newscast future. one thing rather then and there

giving away our authority require that contracts of a size do we have the ability to say it does they could say not go to the commission and come to the board of supervisors? this seems what they do in, places. >> you are asking whether or not the board could ordinance bypass a commission. i think we have to look careful low because the commission is the oversight body i don't know if you could upon without a charter metropolitan to chos to review contracts. why got it. >> thank you. >> okay. the puc commission delegated authority to the general manager this this case. >> they already delegated. >> du want to make your amendment on the record. >> sounds like you are not supportive. it is okay. >> i don't. >> i mean if you want to weigh

in supervisor mar. you were willing to have it come if pu c lander government you would come back that would be a compromise where we add that language in the ordinance. rather than voluntary doing it would that be a substantive amendment. >> an amendment >> reporter:the puc to provide additional reporting to the board? no. i mean you had said that in du want to retate that hai was trying to express. this is a delegated authority we

would not we would not rely on. for everything it covers 50% of our budget for power supply. so -- that means 50% of it -- not going to be able to be delegated. i think it is also fair to say there are circumstances and -- the city owned property s is the example i gave. where i thought we would be bringing a project like that where we are in control of the project. much more then and there we are when we are out in the market. and so -- we are -- there is puc ownership involved. >> acceptance and instances of city owned property. >> i think we can do that. and i don't want to do it on the

fly. i think that it would be a nonsubstantive amendment you are scaling back the scope of the delegation if this committee wanted send it to the full board we could have that amendment made at the board >> that sounds great. >> i agree with vice chair's ma'am. i understand like the impact of the weather local bill out or a type of storage agreement that contract that impact our neighborhoods and i think that is a meaningful amendment. thank you. >> thank you. >> so -- with that i will make a motion to amend the item by supervisor chan. a vote on that amendment? or motion. >> on that motion, to amend the ordinance as offered by supervisor chan. vice chair safai.

why aye >> member mar y. aye >> chair ronen >> aye y. we have throw aye's >> and i other than that supervisor safai will work with the city attorney's office to prepare the second amendment at the full board. but -- i think we are prepared sends this as amended the full board with positive recommendation. >> on that motion to forward this to the full board with positive recommendation vase chair safai. >> aye >> mar. >> aye >> ronen >> aye >> thank you that motion passes. >> thank you. mr. clerk and thank you. supervisor chan. read item 7. >> ordinance authorizing the human services agency on amend hotel booking agreements on or before february 10 on provide shelter people experience being

homelessness and extending the terms through august 30 of 23. leaving for agreements requirements in the administrative and environment codes approving agreements with expend tours excess of 10 million and modification was agreements that don't create liabilities to the city and members ginning remote and wish to comment call 415-655-0001id24954145466 press pound, pound then star 3. madam chair. >> thank you. good afternoon. now. >> >> reporter:

>> reporter:i'm dan cap listen i'm the human service department director for administration and finance this ordinance before you allows for the extension of subset of the booking agreements that we and turns to part of the city's covid response urn the mayor avenue emergency we were authorized to extend agreements to august therein of 22. and at holingses used for shell and isolation quarantine during the pandemic. extensions beyond august 31 of 22 would be possible with an ordinance by the board of supervisors and allowing for extension and this is that ordinance. under the 45th supplement booking agreements with not to exceed amounts over 10 million

dollars. continue today require prove by the board and continue to in the future. under charter section 9.118 the ordinance before you grants the authority to extend agreements beyond august therein, and i'm going to describe 3 groups of hotelless we will use this for. the first are 5 hotels that are specific low mentioned in the ordinance itself. and these are 5 hotels that will have in the to exceed amount of over 10 million dollars the arc dante. buchanan. vertigo, monarch and kova. there are 2 other hotels that the board approved extensions for back in march. those other americana and the

whittcome and the way written hsa had the authority to extend the agreements up to august 31st of this year. and with this ordinance which was contemplated at that time would be able to extend the agreements further. and the not to exceed amount in the contracts in approvals would not change because the later dates were contemplated the time the board actless on those resolutions. and then the third group are a group of smaller agreements will not reach the 10 million dollars level and those are with hi san francisco city center. banea viv the good hotel and the day's inn hotel. the majority of the cites will be demobilized during this calendar year, the ordinance

does authorize hsh to extend and assign a limited subset of the extended green lights to hsh to be used as none congregate shelters with an end date of august of 2023. and it is our intention to do that with 3 of the agreements that are mention in the this ordinance those other a dante the kova and the monarch. >> bla has done a report. the recommendation is to reduce the not to exceed amount of the buchanan holing 1.4 million dollars. from 14.1 million dollars to 12.7 million dollars reflect an

end date of september 30 of 22 rather than december 31 of 22 which is the date in the ordinance. and we are comfortable with this recommendation. so -- noel simons and i will be ready it answer 83s after the bla report. >> thank you. >> an ordinance that allows the department of human services agency to extend hotel agreements that were in under the covid emergency through august therein of 23. and also approved 5 agreements noted exceed the threshold require board approval. show on page 28 of our report the 11 agreements extended some are -- hotels wounds down over the next 6 months and 3 of them

are noncongregate shelters one converted to that and one is used by the public health department as alcohol sobering center. noted now we did review the occupancy of the sites and noted the buchanan is empty. there is no plans to have more guests on that site. we had a recommendation to end that agreement. there was funding to be term nitted at the end of assessment. we think this is sufficient time to line that program down and the departments does agree to recommend approval. >> thank you. >> i have a few questions and -- i'm not sure who is the person to answer. feel prix to come up. so fema is still reimbursing the

city for 90% in >> the terms of the fema reimbursement changed over the course of -- the trump administration less generous and biden add administrator started eligible costs about 90% of the costs of the sip program were eligible costs. and most recently as we got in this local fiscal year, the fema terms changed again exactly reimburse 90% of eligible costs. that gets us to eighty-one % of. why that is helpful y. and this is true, too for the sites that you will extend and turn in to

noncongregate shelters. we are contemplating funding those with state room key money. >> how much will that funding source cover? the allocation that we have is about 32 million dollars. so -- we are hobbling together -- a list of funds. that include fema the largest but thing also room key money. hud money from emergency solutions grants. and community development block grant money. and -- a bit of prospect c shelter money >> i'm confused so -- fema -- covered you know 90 to 81%

depending how it changed over time of the sip hotels. fema does or does not cover any of the expenses when you no longer have the sort of -- vulnerability under covid but are just using those noncongregate rooms as shelleder. does fema cover that given that covid existed. and given so many of the individuals are seniors or otherwise -- very ill or disabled individuals. dealership clear

>> what i'm getting at and frustrate to me from the get go. is this we have this funding source that we don't know when tellen. get 30-day's notice when it does end. but despite the fact that fema is covering the majority of the costs we have a raging homeless kriechlsz mission has not had this many tents with people sleep nothing it since i started this job 6 years ago and no capacity in the shelter system or low capacity you can't do

anything to resolve it. why are we prematurely. i never understood this and complain all the time. decommissioning the hotels when i say if not 50% you know if in the 90 than 50% of the people on the street fall in the vulnerable categories. under the covid relief fema dollars. . why would we not access those funds its give those individuals a safe place to be and dignified accomplice to be and alleviate the hell it is it live on streets and for communes where they are living. i never understood it. clearly, you need third degree capacity because you are extending 3 of the holings for the emergency shelter system. i understand them it is a very expensive type of shelter but

you are extending 3, which i'm in favor of. exit think it it is good but begs the question for me >> have are we decommissioning all of the hotels when we have a raging krois on our street. the number of seniors sleeping on the streets of san francisco is appalling >> inhumin and should in the be allow in the a city this rich. they knowledged be in the hotels now. why, why this policy that makes no sense and never has, i complained about it any item come before us and i will continue to because it is nonsensical it me. >> thank you for this question. i think there are a couple of things i will invite my clothe to one factor the first thing we have taken every opportunity to leverage foama and state room

key funds for this program. we are not leaving the dollars. >> wee have it we decommissioned the holings. we are getting funded for them. true supervisor but above and beyond the federal and state dollars for the sip system we made a general funds investment in the temp refer hotels beyond what the state and feds will pay for the currents fiscal year that is 15 million dollars in the general fund. and so we have been willing to do this we wanted honor the commitment no one will exit the sip system at this time street the. we committed to keeping hotels open who i we rehouse. but prefer the general fund dollars to go in housing solutions. >> understand that let me explain why this makes no sense the amount we spends on stock. the 10 street response teams we

pay for is above 15 million dollars of general fund allocations and kept the holingless open the the fact that the kempton buchanan empty for months where we could have begin individuals on streets reprieve from literally every mnth they are on the street their life span shortens it is so hard to live on the street and took the budget legislative analyst to force you to the tune of 2 million dollars to hasten the closure of an empty hotel we are wasting millions on. it feels like poor administration and we want to say we did not release anybody to the street to feel good but we did not give anyone reprieve. neighborhoods in crisis. individuals are not getting reprieve and goo