we really appreciate puc's partnership in this project. puc's role on an ongoing basis will be to monitor the actual electricity usage from the shoreside power facility and report back to the port and to the bae. we estimate -- these estimates are based on taxable debt of $6.3 million capital outlay, based on the project cost of $5.7 million. we have a debt service reserve of just over $600,000, and a very low $50,000 cost of issuance, because we are proposing to combine the debt issuance with the debt required for the cruise terminal project. the long-term financing would probably be certificates of participation. we paid by port harbor funds. we are estimating that over the 10-year timeframe of financing that we would recover at least 75% of the project costs through the sfpuc contribution to the project and the 4¢ per kilowatt hour equip in charge. >supervisor avalos: just a question related to the electricity charges, there is a story in the business section today about the ferry building. it looks like pg&e could be -- i think it is s

i would like to say thank you to the puc. they have purchased all new sewing equipment for that class. we were able to keep our capital leases. we have been provided with a custodial program here in the building. we are in continuation of conversation with the puc in regards to the renovation of the building. city college i believe we have reformed our relationship with the community and community leaders. we are working very closely with community-based organizations. city college, we believe, that we should have a solid relationship with the community , and with government entities. city college also has a one-stop service center that is working extremely well. a student can come into our service center and they can see someone from enrollment, financial aid. we have to do counseling and we just began the program. i want to say thank you to the chancellor because he oversees this program and implemented it. our students are really grateful and i'm grateful because they don't have to go to the different campus to be serviced

the framework that is not -- does not require the puc to comply with plans and policies and in that way can deprive the community of a voice in that this position of lands in their own neighborhoods, in nearby locations, or even juror out the city. i have made a recommendation for a change to the language on under community criteria which is the last criteria on page 7. which makes good common sense, the public relations and good public policy. that language is your language as standing, community criteria, land may be sold or transferred when -- and i would like to offer an additional item, number five, that says the sale for transfer -- or transfer is not out of compliance with city plans and policies. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? commissioners, what is your pleasure? >> i think we addressed item number five, right? her requested amendment. correct? >> for the owned. >> there was a discussion that the deputy city attorney was explaining. >> yes. i would like to introduce the single amendment around adding the word owned, roman number ii, sfpuc land. pres

i am saying, we need to get behind the puc and incurred them. we're asking 50 people, 50 people is not a lot when you look at the amount of trade within that facility. from clerical, engineers, superintendents, they can do it. we have actually work force developers here. they have a lot of plans. we also have a lot of plans. we need to get together, form a committee for the 9910 program that would consist of the community and the waste-water facility. we need to them to oversee what is going on at the facility with this program. we can do a lot better than we have done over the years. for those that don't know this, this is a program that is based in the bayview hunters point only. you must live in this area to enter this program. thank you. >> hello, my name is deborah warren burger. i have been a business owner and san francisco for 20 years and have been associated with this program since 2005. you heard a lot tonight about the wonderful programs that we have and you have heard our use speak. one thing that i can add is a word about the staff

puc is really embracing technology. we wanted to make sure we really had a system that would elevate all issues so we could address them in a timely manner. as you know, time is money. we have a construction management information system. it is a great tool to help us address construction and make it successful, as it is today. cmis is one of the first major tools we put in place. the next one is the san francisco online invoicing, where we are now working with the contractor and consultant to have them submit their invoices online. we are also working on electronic bidding systems. another way we can reduce the paperwork and all the other issues tied with the procurements. i live in san francisco. i am a rate-payer. i really care about the way we spend our money. systems like this that will allow transparency, clarity, accountability, and efficiency -- i think systems like this need to be applied to all parts of the city. we really strive to lead and embraced technology so we can be ahead of the game. [applause] >> we

commissioner campos: we want to thank puc and lafco staff on the previous item. this is an item we discussed in a couple of prior meetings and directed staff to begin their work on a study of the voting process by including ranked joyce voting. -- rank choice voting. >> jason fried, lafco staff again. we have gotten most of the data that we needed to the system right now, we are continuing to refine or review the information that is available to us. over time, what has been available has gotten much better. some of that information isn't as a parent horas clear. we're trying to look at ways of comparing -- have there been any patterns with rank choice voting, are they good or bad? we are doing data crunching in the system. we also have the opportunity to sit down and talk with people about rank choice voting. there was a study done in 2004 and 2005. there is hope that we will get an updated version of that study. this number-crunching, i have a very talented in turn that can help with a lot of that data crunching. he has been able to utilize that. commissioner av

in the meetings that we have had with lafco and puc staff, more and more this concept of rolling and customers at the beginning of the project has renewable and efficiency share owners. but buying in the shares for billing code-ownership, things like that, what local power is coming up with, an opportunity to introduce customers to a couple meetings ago, how they think that they can use this method of getting people to sort of buy and stood of rent into the system, buying instead of renting electricity. the main thing that they think they can accomplish is price parity with pg&e. we need to make sure they are still cooking the data, once it comes forward, that will be an exciting opportunity for us to get this project under way. thanks. commissioner campos: is there any other member of the public that would like to speak on this item? public comment is closed. these are informational items. to clarify, is there any action that is required of us at this juncture? great. if you can call item no. 4. >> update on study on the voting process including ranked hoyas voting for the local off

staff or the general manager to conduct a feasibility assessment of the urban agriculture program on puc pilot sites. through that process we have identified two sides -- sites in san francisco. the bernal heights neighborhood, college hill reservoir. this site is 6000 square feet and is adjacent to the reservoir. the second site is in the bayview hunters point community in the southeast sector of san francisco. it is adjacent to the southeast sewer treatment facility. this again is 6000 square feet. since the commission meeting in october, the sfpuc staff have been working to determine the feasibility and logistics of moving forward with urban agriculture on these two sides. we have been partnering with several organizations, including the san francisco urban agricultural alliance as well as garden for the internment to conduct a feasibility study of the sites looking at issues around some exposure, microclimate, average rainfall, agriculture restrictions, and logistical challenges that could pertain to each of these sites. in addition to the studies, we have been working with staff in

>> >> we had conversations within the leadership of the puc. historically, we have used lobbyists in sacramento and they have done that quite well. they have discreet, concrete work plans that they go off of. there was not a lot of interest in stepping up. you will remember that this past year, we hired a director of the budget of legislative affairs to town in how we are using our work locally. that was seen as a priority more so than hiring an additional position. >> it has always been a five- year contract? fa>> the last ones were five years. did you know for how long? >> the last contract, and i have been here for the state and federal legislative lobbyist, it was two one year terms. >> at the same amount? >> yes. >> three year, plus two one- year's. >> yes. >> that sounds similar to what we do at the citywide contract in sacramento, right? >> one was the five-year, right? why the change? rather than a 311? >> as we have talked about at both the state in the federal, we landed on five, assuming the time it takes to actually go through the p

san francisco properties that are discussed on page one as being included in the jurisdiction of the puc and management including disposition, i would suggest adding a criteria to the disposition section which includes the city policies that are addressed in page 4. i do not see mention of incorporation of city policies in the disposition section under criteria. city policies do fall under that category. i know that it's confusing. that was not clear to me and i went to make that point to you. thank you for your consideration. president moran: thank you. commissioner vietor: i would like to ask mr. carlin if -- to add the word owned on sfpuc land. >> that is on the title. >> the title, roman number ii. the disposition without the word owned. >> it says owned lands. >> the title should have the word owned by annett. unless there is something outside of the owned land definition. >> you cannot dispose of land in the city and county of -- that the city and county does not own. maybe it was omitted because you cannot sell something that you do not own. whereas in leasing, elease other people

>> the solar installation would be paid for by the puc. it would be owned and operated by gas. the generation from that system would be meters. the school district would pay for the productions, for the generation they are using. they would pay, at the same rate -- it would pay, but did they say, at the same right? >> correct. >> it increases the amount of power that we have to sell on total. >> correct. >> it increases the average cost of that power. >> correct. very modestly. >> in it would be our hope to recover that by selling it to customers at the full market rate at the bank. >> yes. >> the reason that i mention this, commissioner, is that it is not unlike some of our water system acquisitions, where we are adding capacity and not adding demand, and it has the ear -- if that of adding the average cost of the resource we are selling. the bottom line is how it works, that we have indicated we are one to pay premium in order to maintain certain environmental benefits. that this is the case in point and i wanted to make that point. >> correct. any system that would be invest

it also allows us to wait and see some of the things that happened at the california puc. that said, i think we are headed in the direction that makes a great deal of sense. i want to thank the staff and think the -- thank the puc and the advocates for their input on this. unless there are comments or questions, why don't we open it up to public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. eric curkes, -- burkes, san francisco green party and our city. i want to let folks know that advocates do, when we have been coming together on this and discussing this -- we definitely do want to see this finalized and under way by the end of august. we have a sense of urgency about this. we do not think waiting until after then would be a great idea. as to the improvements on opt out, it sounds like sf puc is headed in the right direction. however, in advocate discussions, we would see anything that is about a 25% up out rate, we are aiming for something pretty low. to that end, and also with regard to timeline, we know from being in stakeholder meetings with the sfpuc and local power,

eight apartments coordinating themselves together from our office of disabilities, public works, mta, puct managers. and including our own fleets, we can make sure that we transition. the weather is the chevy volt that i have had the pleasure of writing in or the nissan leaf that is the newest coming out in the market very soon, i believe that these are the cars of the future. while we embrace transit first in the city and it will be forever our number one priority, to the extent that we must use vehicles, at some of us have to to get around in different schedules, that we do so in the most environmentally supportive way. it is a reminder that we can get off of oil. the reason why i think the popularity of these charging stations are coming at such a fast pace is because people like the assemblywoman have done what they can on the legislative side. she has passed a very valuable law that allows these stations not to be considered as utilities. that incentivizes the private sector to join the public sector. i want to remind everybody, i know that they have this on his mind. hydroelectric p

district pursuant to an executed written agreement between the parties, the school district and the puc. any agreement as is this one would come back to the commission, any written agreement would come back to the commission for consideration and approval. president moran: thank you. we do have a motion by commissioner vietor, i do not believe we have a second. >> second. president moran: seconded. any further discussion on this item? any public comment? ok, all those in favor of tax opposed? the motion carries. -- all those in favor? opposed? we do not have any items for closed session. remind me to continue that or -- do i have to dispose of that in some way? >> i think if you do not move to go into closed session that takes care of it. >president moran: that will take care of that. >> we should remind you and the public that the next meeting on march 27 will be at 4:00 p.m. as opposed to the 130 pm regular meeting. it will be at the southeast community center -- facility as opposed to city hall and that will go into a joint meeting at 5 or thereabouts. president moran: thank you for

we're also making progress on the water supply system, the hospital, the puc headquarters and so forthrting to go into some of these cisterns, draining them, looking at renewal were. -- renewal work. it is about a $25 billion program that includes $5 billion of general funds for general fund apartment investment, enterprise departments of about $11.4 billion, and a lot of the extra no private led development. some of the hunters point shipyard and some of those things is part of the redevelopment agency are included in that figure along with the school district and a similar other partners that affect us. let's move on. thank you. so the capital plan, here are some of the highlights of what we have for the general fund program. this is slightly new. i should say that the shelling of percentages is slightly new. we are funding about $5 billion if you remember from the previous slide and it shows how has broken out. we are deferring about $1 billion, so that is one of our primary concerns at the capital planning committee. enhancement, it is primarily for earthquake safety. you can see t

>> one of the opportunities is that it has allowed the agencies to work closely like the puc to get tehe streets cleared for water and sewer. they have also passed a master plan. by looking at projects coming on line for the bond, it allows us to begin to plan and see what is coming ahead. hopefully, working closely with the mta, there are projects coming on. hopefully, this team in-house will be able to do some of the work. there are also other streetscape projects coming on line. the bond is a small portion that will fund the needs. there're tons of opportunities to apply for grants and funding. hopefully that will take us beyond the bond itself. projecting what should be done now, when the work force will be to continue to improve the right of way. at this time, that allows someone to complete a training program as we figure out how to move forward. one more slide, a think we talked a lot about what proposition b will do. supervisor avalos: just a quick question that was brought up to me on the street in my district, someone was concerned about how when the repair sidewalks, it is jus

we should find some way to find -- involve him in the puc. the more people who are paying attention to the big important work at puc, the better. i wanted to see those comments. i have no problem with continuing this item. supervisor kim: thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you for being here. i was really impressed by what you had written in your application. it seems like you do know about the water system and it is not something our average denizen knows that much about. i appreciate your interest and for your experience. also great to have a fourth generation san franciscan applied. that would make supervisor farrell quite happy. being that we could not hear from the other applicants, i would feel comfortable continuing trade or on the record and we have heard you speak. -- comfortable continuing. you're on the record and we have heard you speak. supervisor kim: i understand the desire to hear the other applicants. i am happy to make a motion to continue the call the chair so we have

i commend the staff and puc and everyone involved in making this happen. it has been a challenging project. the only thing i would like to raise is something to consider to look at is the reconditioning of pier 27. i realize with all that is coming on with the america's cup that right now, the shoreside power is going to be reconnected in the second half of 2014. i am sure everyone is doing everything they can to hook it up before then so that the full benefits will be seen as soon as possible. in the long-term big picture, we will have two projects along the waterfront for the future to protect the air and water of san francisco bay and the resident. thank you very much. >> thank you. commissioners come any comment? >> i was going to ask -- i was confused in the beginning, thinking we were moving all this equipment down. ultimately, we would have two installations. >> that is correct. the pier 27 shoreside power facility is being decommissioned by our cruise terminal general contractor. that will be stored. it will be reconnected in phase two of the cruis