if the p.u.c. can guarantee the residents of the richmond district the potable awss fed by a single source out of sunset reservoir will provide protection equal to what we have on 12th avenue, the residents in the outer richmond would be very happy, i would think. i don't know if they can do that and you might want to ask them if water from sunset reservoir will produce the same pressure. i think that would be very telling bit of information. >> and then ask you, too, that placement of hydrants. in your -- since you've had so much experience in this, in your opinion, how frequently should we have a hydrant along our corridors in the richmond? >> let's say for example, the design is to have a line of hydrants down 43rd avenue. one hydrant on every block. >> excuse me, is it one high pressure hydrant on every block? >> one high pressure hydrant on every block, that's correct. the reason being, that best water stream, 300 feet and a long city block is 600 feet. you have to be able to fight it from a hy

you know, we offer a lot of advantages at the p.u.c. that you know, i think the system didn't really enjoy. we have over 80 plumbers and so we are very familiar about exercising valves and leak detection and i think we brought that expertise to the system. the other thing that i wanted to point out is that in all our water systems, the first thing we want to model the system, so we worked with public works to model the system and the fire department and really come up with a strategy of how you can make sure that you get enough coverage throughout the entire city so that you can identify projects that give you the most bang for the buck, and by modelling it, it really showed us the deficiency on the west side, and we need to make those investments and so we came up with options to really bring that home and john will go more into that. and so you know, when we went through we originally came up with ten options, and our steering committee, public works, fire department, and p.u.c., we actually noticed we did not have enough coverage. we

the p.u.c. ultimately adopted a much-improved resolution. i think largely as a result of that participation. we still remain concerned about the process that was used and are evaluatesing with the city attorney whether we should be filing an appeal at the cpuc over those process concerns. it engendered quite a bit of activity at the cpuc, this item. they took over an hour of public comment prior to conducting their business. that's not typical at that entity. so, the c.c.a. folks came out and made sure that the california p.u.c. understands the concerns of the community. at that same meeting, the cpuc also adopted their integrated resource plan approach. they've establish add two-year cycle where all load-serving entities -- those are entities that provide retail electric service to californians that are subject to cpuc regulatory authority need participate in that two-year cycle. our cleanpower s.f. programme will be subject to those regulations and will participate. you know because we already adopted or presented to you the integrated reso

very supportive of the p.u.c. and cal c.c.a., you know, fighting at the california p.u.c. and at the legislature, but ultimately as long as the utilities are able to set the ground rules that we have to play on, in my opinion, at the california public utilities commission and through certain legislative offices, we're going to continue to face this reactive roller coaster, spiral like you are suggesting. and i think anything that we can do to increase political pressure and bring kind of the full weight of the city and county to bear on the california p.u.c. and the legislature, we have a much larger hefts than any of the other operating c.c.a.s. l.a. county will obviously dwarf us. but as of now, i feel like we in alameda county have a big voice. lastly, you know, reducing our exposure to the market where we need to buy energy to spend money and create costs for the programme. that is really the other way off of this hamster wheel and that is why we're advocating for sklerltsd local bill. once we have products generating energy and we can sell that to folks and don't have

the p.u.c. would have available to them in terms of financing large infrastructure projects. if this item could be referred to the end of the meeting or -- >> that's what we said. you didn't hear us. window we'rwe're going to refere end of the meeting. please call item four. >> clerk: number four is the charter amendment for the june 5, 2018 election to establish as a condition for non-citizen voting in an election for members of the board of education, that the board of education, that the board of implementing ordinance 270 days before that election. >> thank you miss somera. unless there are initial comments from anyone else, i'll hand it over to the primary sponsor, supervisor fewer. >> thank you. i recognize any proposal impacting the hard-fought victory, they need immigrant communities to be united in support. i've heard from leaders about the need to protect their communities to have the voices of the parents heard. this charlotter amendment came out of a year of discussion sphrdiscussions

i look forward to continuing to work with the p.u.c. and the fire department as well as my colleagues on the board to finalizing this plan and identifying funding to make it a reality. any additional comments from my colleagues? seeing none, i would like to make a motion to file this hearing. >> so, we have motion to file this hearing, and we can do that without opposition. you have the gavel, sandy, you are welcome to gavel down. [gavel] >> and thank you for being here today, and mr. clerk, please call the next item. >> number two, ordinance approving development agreement for the proposed mission rock project, seawall, 337 located east of 3rd street between basin channel and china basin park and attributing the park, pier 48, marginal wharf between pier 48 and 50, and p20. >> thank you so much, mr. clerk. and thank you to supervisor sandra fewer for chairing the committee until i got here. i know that this is the second hearing before the board of supervisors, just heard mission rock at the land use committee earlier on monday, and so

we've used as consultant to help us on all of our capital projects as well as for the p.u.c. whenever we have right-of-way issues whenever we need to negotiate with both public properties and government agencies. >> i'll move the item. >> second. >> any discussion? >> any public comment. automatic in favour? >> aye. >> opposed? approved. thank you very much. >> item 15, please. >> approve the selection of parsons water and infrastructure group, award agreement number pro-0104 southeast water pollution control plant programme construction management services to provide programme level c.m. oversight and supervision for the ssip phase one construction projects subject to board of supervisors approval. >> i'd like to move the item. >> second. >> any public discussion? public comment? approved? >> ay efrjs >> opposed? motion caser. item 16. >> affirm that the conditions necessary to procure energy supply needed to expand the cleanpower s.f. programme have been met, direct the general manager to continue to take all steps necessary to pursue expansion of clean power s.f. service an

the p.u.c. feels that it will give them more flexibility. so to that end, i think -- because you don't have another special meeting. >> we would have to schedule an additional meeting to have an additional hearing. maybe john, can you come forward? or -- i didn't see you there. >> general manager for power. so as the supervisor mentioned, we've taken some additional input from former general manager and controller ed herrington who has been working in his retirement on change tots rules. the rule changes will be coming out. they're the accounting rules that apply, lay the foundation for bonds and our relationship with the bond community. the legislation will provide us with more flexibility, the changes that are coming forward through the accounting standards board are allowing for additional assets to be capitalized. we want to make sure that the language in the city charter supports that. so we are supportive of the amendment that the supervisor has brought to you. >> now to read it into the re

the p.u.c. continuing to install new street light poles and additional lighting along avenue h between california and 8th and 9th. with the upcoming closure of avenue of the palms, we wanted to increase and improve some of the lighting along avenue h, which will become the main thorough fare in and out of the north island. someone from tida staff has been doing a lot of work over the last month or so to make information available to residents about summer youth employment programmes throughout the city, coordinating with the p.u.c.'s project pole whose application deadline is february 26. but also about the upcoming career resource and employment fair that will be held on march 17. the stewardship programme has installed a native plant demonstration garden at the corner of 13th and e next to the playground. so there is a variety of native plants from the island that have been planted there for people to take notice of. one item that is on the consent agenda today is the agreement to extend the l

cordoba to work with the p.u.c. and the c.a.c. for upcoming land use and projects to impact all parts of the bayview. roads closed for the next ten years off and on and access to, and within and out of our community is severely impacted by all these projects and we don't have a lot of major roots, so bay shore and 3rd street are the only ways to get out of the bayview and getting around some places is becoming quite difficult. so, i appreciate you taking the time to listen to this, and look forward to further on this. thank you. >> chairman peskin: and your chairperson has his eyes on this matter. is there any other member of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed and we will file that item. next item, please. >> clerk: update on the connect sf vision document, this is an information. >> chairman peskin: miss mickel. commissioner tang's favorite subject. >> good morning, chair peskin and commissioners, linda mecel, i'm joined with doug johnson from the planning department also involv

and getting nam approval from the p.u.c. commission, the development agreement.as mentioned, negotiating numerous documents with the help of port council. at this point, i'd like becca to talk about the project's finances. >> thank you, phil. rebecca benacini. very pleased to be here, summarizing the returns all the parties. the reason we're all getting involved in this is not only to produce this wonderful neighbourhood, but also to make sure that the investments we've all made in our time and dollars will be well compensated. so i wanted to note that the developer return and investment at the site is identical to what was shown in the november 2017 informational presentation. they're anticipated to achieve an 18% i.r.r. and you'll recall that this project has two key return threshholds for the developer, including the multiple. so, in the base case performa that we're running today, the governor of the return either the 18% or the multiple and it is 18% in the base case scenario. so they're anticipating a 18% and 1 30i8 on the multiple investment on the site. t

barbara hale, assistant general manager for power at the p.u.c. what you have before you is an amendment, i'll cut to chase on the amendment. i understand that's what you want me to talk about. and this amendment -- >> you can give the public a background. >> great, great. >> summary and then -- >> so this charter amendment would allow the public utilities commission to issue revenue bonds for facilities that are needed to produce and deliver clean energy. only when the facilities have come before the board of supervisors and received a two-thirds vote for approval to be funded through a revenue bond. >> supervisor safai: i have a question. right now you all do, you do bonding. >> we do. >> supervisor safai: but it's not bonding specific to clean energy or energy production. >> yes. so, what we currently have authority to use revenue bond financing for are improvements to existing facilities. most of our facilities, our power facilities, at least, are not inside san francisco, they are up-country, so the bonds that you've authorized for revenue fin

actually working with the city's office to finalize a slight tweak to expand a few more options that the p.u.castructure projects. if this item could be referred to the end of the meeting or -- >> that's what we said. you didn't hear us. window we'r

staff also co-ordinated with other city agency, including the p.u.c., ndph to make sure that they understood the permitting process. at the hearing, supervisor cohen's follow-up questions referring thome some other staff was appropriate. staff was able to convince the board that there was no foul play in issuing the categorical exemption and given the scale and type of proposed use there were no unusual circumstance and the project could lead to significant environmental impacts. by unanimous vote of 11-0, the board of supervisors upheld the planning department's categorical exemption. the appeal for 2918 mission street was continued to june 19. and then the special use district passed its first read. and that is all i have for you today. thanks. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tim frye, department staff here to share with you two items of note from yesterday's historic preservation commission hearing. prior to the commission hearing, the architectural review committee met. in particular, they provided a design feedback to the department of public works regarding the replacem

some of my neighbors have been clamoring for housing at that site and the p.u.c. has been resistant many of this is not within your purview but as a sister agency and an agency tasked with really making sure we maximize the investments in infrastructure that we've had and that the bus rapid transit that will be coming out of the shipyard is most useful, i urge you to send some of your planners to talk sense into them. i'm going to try to do that myself and a number of people will as well but it really does seem to be a shame that we're going to essentially waste a three-acre site on a small space when we could be building hundreds of units of housing there, hundreds of homes for people and office and administrative facilities to maximize use of that site. >> next speaker please. >> there are no other speakers. >> my more public comments? items not on the agenda? no. sees none. public comments items not on the agenda closed. moving on item 10 is consent calender. we have had three people ask that items be 10.2r, item 10.3c and item 10.9. >> 10.2r, 10.3c and 10.9. di

agency cooperation agreement memorandums of understanding with the other departments, so staff time really spent by department of public works, p.u.c., etc., in reviewing the development programs on the shipyard, in terms of the actual permits for infrastructure that constructed. to dig deeper, we are looking at completing on opening the public parks in shipyard phase one, and that's our disposition and development agreement with lenar as opposed to shipyard phase two, d.d.a. with five points. so, moving on to phase two in candlestick, planning and building infrastructure on the second phase of the shipyard, as well as building and planning and completing infrastructure on candlestick, which is exciting. most of the work is there to support the rebuilding of alice griffith. we are also going to be approving the vertical development designs on shipyard phase one as well as on candlestick point, continuing to ex pend those federal grants that we have, and we have an obligation to seek outside funding to plant and support the development and investment that our master developers have, this is an instance of that. it's a federal grant

the san francisco bicycle plan. since then, san francisco public works and m.t.a. p.u.c., s.f. l-transand sfhwa have been working in partnership to get this project to move forward. we are currently in construction for the second street construction project. the major goals for the project are to improve safety along the corridor, provide a more attractive, pedestrian environment, provide a dedicated bicycle facility as identified in the san francisco bicycle plan and sa f.a.a. sill tate muni operations. -- facilitate muni operations. key elements include repaving second street from market to king street. curb ramp upgrades. pedestrian improvements, including widened sidewalks, traffic signal upgrade, raised crosswalks at all alleys, new bicycle facility, landscaping, streetscape amenities, including pedestrian lighting, trash ceptacles and utility undergrounding. the existing conditions of second street, this section that we're showing here shows the cross section from harrison to townsend streets where the undergrounding district is being proposed. the right of way 128 1/2-fee