Skip to main content

tv   BOS Govt Audits and Oversight Committee 21617  SFGTV  February 19, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PST

12:00 am
alto and silicon valley, for example, i'm happy to see the go solar program in the city is still going strong and that we as a city are continuing to invest in incentives like this particular program. we must continue to support renewable energy and energy-efficient programs so it's accessible to everyone. since the program started in 2007, go solar has helped low-income residents, nonprofit organizations and businesses install thousands of kilowatts of solar energy units on their rooftops across san francisco. this has helped not only reduce participants' electricity bills, but our carbon footprint in the city. there will be a few amendments to this today, and i know that ms. mitchell will talk about that in her presentation, and with that i'm happy to turn it over to ms. mitchell to discuss the program, the changes, and the proposed amendments.
12:01 am
thank you. >> thank you very much, supervisor breed. my name is laurie mitchell and i manage the renewable energy group at sfpuc and we have slidess on the ordinance here. i'm not sure if you can see it. there is something -- there we go. really what we're trying to do with this ordinance is to look forward and to expand on the success of the gosolarsf program to include additional programs such as rebates for electric vehicle infrastructure, energy storage and to expand upon our energy-efficiency programs. so the new programs, as well as the current gosolarsf program is funded by the cleanpowersf and hetch hetchy power rate-payers. the agenda of what we'll cover today. one of the many things does is to integrate the program with
12:02 am
the go solar sf program and it's important to know that they have both common policy goals. both programs seek continue vest in local programs and projects such as energy-efficiency, storage, ev charging and affordable, cleaner, climate-responsibility electricity and to invest in local jobs [sph-fplt/] background on the go solar sf program was established in 2007. and it designates the puc as the program administrator. it states the objective eh providing an appropriation of $2-5 million annually over the ten years, which can commence in 2008. it also directs the puc to review solar and to adjust incentives and coordinate administration of the program with the implementation and administer of the cleanpowersf program. so here is the summary of what we have paid out over the years since 2008, when the program started.
12:03 am
so you can see in total we paid just over $24 million. the majority of that has gone to residential installations with a large portion of that going to low-income residential. >> i'm sorry before you move on, could you explain what you mean by low-income residential? >> we have several categories of incentives that people can apply for. they can apply for residential, so they don't need to make any type of income requirements for that incentive, but for the low-income incentive they get an additional incentive-level if they qualify to be low income. >> no, i understand that you provide additional incentives, but what qualifies? >> so we work with the mayor's office of economic development, and we use the hud guidelines in san francisco. so for a family of one, it's about $60,000 a year, and for four, i think it's about $80,000. >> you use the hud ami definition? >> yes for san francisco.
12:04 am
>> and what ami-level and below did you select? >> so we get guidelines from the mayor's office of economic and workforce development. so the numbers that we're using today for household of one is $68,000. for a household of four, it's $98,000 >> so roughly like 90% of area median income and below, is that the threshold maximum income? >> i can double-check and we can can get an answer. >> i know it's ami, but what ami, 90%? 60% of ami and below? >> i'm not sure. it's median. i can get you that answer and can definitely come back to you on that. >> okay. so we're talking about middle-income households. >> right. >> okay. >> so what is residential low-income? is the red stuff -- what is the difference between the dark blue
12:05 am
stuff and the red stuff? >> the red is just a normal residential incentive and the dark-blue is residential low-income and those are applicants that quail hollowed qualified for the additional incentives. >> i'm curious of the range of household incomes that apply to what you consider "low residential income." it still seems with the installation cost going down and incentives it's still really expensive for actual low-income household to actually put on a solar panel. do you have a range of households that have applied over the last couple of years. >> you mean the range of incomes for the holidays? households. >> we don't have that today, but we can get back to you. >> sure. >> i'm sorry did you have any additional questions? >> no. >> this goes to your question on what the cost of solar is. so this table shows you first column is
12:06 am
installed cost of solar. you can see in 2008 a 2.5 kilowatt project is typical in san francisco for residential project costs about $25,000. at that time, we offered an additional -- i'm sorry, at that time the regular go solar incentive was $3,000 and they would are have qualified for the california solar incentive, about $3400 and the net cost of solar would be $17,000. you can say today the solar cost have dropped pretty dramatically and that same system today costs $14,000 and qualified for $17,000 from the go solar sf program that make their net cost over $12,000. today we have some of the lowest net costs in the program's history. and this is just a review of some of the changes in the market
12:07 am
and what other california utilities are doing with their solar incentive programs. so most programs have ramped down their incentives and many are fully subscribed. so the california solar initiative was fully reserved in 2014, although low-income program does continue. the city of palo alto is fully reserved. alameda is reserved. silicon valley and smud is fully reserved in 2016. so we knew we wanted to look forward with the go solar sf program and engage stakeholder as round make the good solar more efficient and work better and also to get feedback on new programs that they would like to see us develop. so we met in april of last year and gathered fee bac and came back in june with recommended changes that you will see today and we continue to follow-up with them and
12:08 am
brought the changes to the commission in oct. . one is to require go solar sf recipients to be a customer. so they would either need to be a hetch hetchy customer or sign up as cleanpowersf customer available to all residents and businesss in the city now. we are also recommending that we market and outreach the programs together. so providing assistance and outreach to demonstrate the benefits of installing on the rooftop and becoming a super green sf customer and attractive net metering. another one of the changes that this ordinance will do will allow us to simplify the go solar sf incentives to dollars per kilowatt, which is how most solar incentive programs are run.
12:09 am
currently we have a pretty complex table and that will make the program more efficient. we're also proposing to step-down all incentives to reflect the lower cost of solar and stretch the program budget. the last time we adjusted incentive was in 2013. and we are proposing to step down incentives to make sure we grow here in san francisco. another of the proposed changes is that we -- i believe it's really important to continue to support nonprofits and low-income residents and we're recommending to continue to offer higher incentives for low-income and nonprofit customers. and we're also recommending that we develop an invertore replacement incentive for previous low-income and nonprofit customers. so the inverter allows it to connect to the grid and many of those components will be at the end of their useful life. this is when the new
12:10 am
incentives will look like. you can see residential customer gets about $500 a kilowatt today. if this ordinance isa approved, in april, reduced to $400 and still would qualify for the additional low-income incentives of $2,000 and the environmental justice inverter in staller is applicable. and then the last thing this ordinance would do would allow us to develop complimentary distributive energy programs. so we know it's important to not only install solar, but to be complimentary programs like electric vehicle infrastructure and energy storage. so there is a couple of clean-up items in the ordinance i wanted to mention. no. 1 we wanted to clarify that we want to continue our support for go solar sf and our commitment to develop these new programs. then we just needed to fix some typos and no. 3 is inserting the
12:11 am
correct fund balance of the program. so should read $7.275 million instead of $11 million. that is the end of my program. >> i had a couple of follow-up questions on the low-income and nonprofit programs. do you require them to be a cleanpowersf or puc customer? >> today? today we do not. this ordinance going forward they would be required to sign ups a cleanpowersf customer, but today they are not required. >> i just remember -- by the way, i'm a big supporter of cleanpowersf, but i remember one of concerns about the program was because there were -- it's a slightly more expensive program. that we had concerns about low-income residents, you know being a part of the program. for budgetary reasons. so it seems to me counterintuitive to require low-income residents to be a
12:12 am
cleanpowersf customer when it's a more expensive power in order to qualify for stay deeper subsidy for a solar panel. shouldn't we provide an exception for low-income? >> that is a good comment and we can definitely consider that. we have made a commitment to not enroll customers if the clean foyer sf program is more expensive. what they would otherwise pay pg&e. so the requirement is that had he sign up for a cleanpowersf customer, but they would not be automatically enrolled unless the rates are at or below parge. >> i don't think i really understood that. >> sure. >> if i qualified to your low-income program, and i did not want to opt-in into the cleanpowersf program, would i qualify for the deeper subsidy? >> not under the new ordinance, if this ordinance goes forward. you wouldn't qualify. >> i just feel like how are you going to get low-income
12:13 am
customers if they are not willing to pay more on a monthly basis? it just -- >> it's a good point. so right now about we want -- we had a commitment to clean power affordability and our rates where below pg&e. today due to some of the pcia changes, our costs are slightingly higher. but it's very slight. and we're currently researching whether we need to do a rate adjustment to catch up with that? but we had made the commitment to our commission not to pre-enroll additional customers until at or below the pg&e rates. >> i appreciate your work to protect our customers and i want as many of our residents to sign up as possible. i'm just worried about requiring
12:14 am
low-income residents to be a cleanpowersf customer in order to qualify for the deeper subsidy for go solar sf. but to move on to my second question and maybe i can understand that in the course before this comes to the full board. so i'm looking at the cost today, and it's amazing how much it's gone down. over such a short period of time, but even with the subsidy it takes you down to about $10,000 or -- well, the incentive, i'm curious how low-income residents can consider that and i don't consider myself low-income and don't qualify under the ami that it seems that you work with. but i don't feel like i could afford $12,000 for solar panel. >> it's a great comment. just a couple of things to clarify: that $12,000 does not take
12:15 am
into account the additional $2,000 a low-income customer would get. >> you said it's $14,000 today. so i did take the $2000 into account. $14 minus 2 is $12,000. >> they qualify for the $1700 on top of that. >> i thought it was $400 plus an additional $2,000. >> so it's $500 kilowatt. >> oh, i see. by kilowatt. >> 2.5 kilowatt system and would qualify for the basic incentive, which would give them about $1200 on top of that they would get the additional $2,000 for being low-income applicant and on top of that, if they lived in an environmental justice district, and use a city installer, getting additional incentives. >> that takes them down to roughly $10,000 -- how do low-income residents afford? >> it's a great point and one nice
12:16 am
thing about the solar market right now there are financing options available. so there are many companies now that will allow them to enter into a power purchase agreement or a lease. so they can spread that cost over the life of the system and they can still reduce their bill from what their paying on their pg&e rates. so there is a lot of additional options that are available to people that are considering solar in general right now, which is nice. but yeah, we understand the other important point is the california solar initiative still runss a program called sash and they provide additional incentives to low-income applicants that they could also qualify for if they are in the right locations for that. so we are really trying to incentivize low-income residents to be able to afford solar, as much as we can. >> i would love between now and the full board meet ig would love to understand how that actually works for a real person?
12:17 am
>> sure. we can get you some specificks. >> and also the area median income-levels that are eligible for the low-income program. >> sure. >> thank you your work and i appreciate supervisor breed's leadership on it to incentivize our residents to go solar. >> thank you very much. >> any other questions or comments from committee members? >> i would like to move the amendments. i think you received a copy of the amendments sfpuc language clarification. fixing the typo, and changing the amount which were explained by ms. mitchell. so i would make a motion to move those amendments. >> subject to public comment, i'm happy to vote in favor of them. >> so we have a motion and we can move those amendments without opposition [ gavel ] so if there are no further comments
12:18 am
from committee members? we'll now move into public comment on this item. >> hi jason fried executive director of lafcko and wanted to speak to some of the items supervisor kim you brought up about the low-income and a couple of things to keep in mine on the rate structure, the sfpuc set up a once a rate structure rather than changing the rates quarterly as pg&e does. so right now while the rate is slightly different, you will see in the summertime, hopefully, if everything is worked out correctly, you'll actually see cleanpowersf customers paying less than what pg&e pays. over the course of the year, you need to average it out over the course of year and while i get your comments about low-income not being able to pay more and being profocus of tective of that, which is extremely important, in theory, it should be the same -- they should be paying the same. you might pay more in one month, but less in another month. to keep in mind a lot of
12:19 am
other ent or incentives and programs, doing low-income installation. taking gosolarsf funds and money from other organizations and groups and are able to put it -- able to be much more cost effective for low-income customers. the final thing i would put in on the low-income side, we're lowering their bills. so while even if there is a is a slight price differential, their overall bill will go down. we're not just talking about generation, but transmission, distribution and the other line items. so they are able to save a lot of money in the program. i appreciate supervisor breed's legislation and would encourage to you move it forward to the full board. thank you. >> thank you. >> if there is no further public comment on this item, public
12:20 am
comment is now closed on item no. 1 [ gavel ] can we take a motion to rescind on the amendments and take it again after public comment? we have a motion to rescind and do that without opposition. [ gavel ] , we'll take a motion to move the amendments as proffered by president breed and que do that without opposition. [ gavel ] is there a motion on item no. 1? >> i just want to say thank you to mr. fry for pointing out specifically the balance of what we are trying to accomplish with our clean power program, which i believe is definitely a better program than what pg&e has to offer and i would encourage everyone who is interested in signing up for clean power, go to thank you, with that i would like to move this item as amended to the full board with positive recommendation. >> thank you, president breed and we do have a motion to move this forward with positive recommendation and i see a second and we can do that again without opposition. [ gavel ]
12:21 am
>> thank you. madam clerk, please call item no. 2. >> yes, item no. 2 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the sheriff's department to contract with global tel*link to provide inmate telephone services which will [phao-eurpl/]ize inmate phone call rates that reduce the cost of the average local call by 34%. >> thank you, madam clerk. we're joined today by the office of the sheriff. and today by crispin hollins, thank you so much for being here. >> thank you very much and good morning supervisors, crispin hollins the cfo from the sheriff's department and happy sf clean power customer and i'm here before you today to request approval with a new contract with global tel*link to provide inmate telephone services. global tel*link has provided services for san francisco since 2010. oover the years the
12:22 am
department has made progress in reducing call rates and most recently recussing the cost from $2.35 to $1.54 in june of last year and the contract before you today memorializes the june 2016 rates and 3-year contract with two one-year options to extend. as i think you know the proposed rate caps and while these rate caps have been challenged and not yet implemented the rates in the contract before you today are lower than the fcc proposed rates. the main point of had this slide is to show progress to lower the cost of an average call and finally this last slide shows the benefits of lower calling costs inasmuch as it results in greater call volume and greater call duration. when the rates were just
12:23 am
last june volumes and duration increased roughly 20-30%. >> great. thank you so much for the presentation are or are there any questions from committee [stph-ebz/] supervisor peskin? >> thank you, madam chair. a appreciate the fact that the reduction is in the amount of 34% and i had one house cleaning question, why the retroactive nature of the resolution? and after the fact contract signing on december 1st of last year? >> we were anxious to move forward with this contract, and we wanted to make sure these were memorialized, but we had it signed with the understanding that the contract would not be formally approved by the city
12:24 am
until it was approved by the board of supervisors >> so somewhere in this 24-page contract is some clause to that effect, counselor, mr. givner. >> not looking at the contract in front of me so i'm not sure, but all of our contracts become effective only if the board approves the contract, if it's subject to 9.118. so occasionally departments will enter into agreements, but those agreements are not binding on the city unless the board approves. i don't know whether that is memorialized in the contract itself -- i believe we have some boilerplate in our contract to that effect. i can double-check as i see you are right now. >> it's okay just as long
12:25 am
as you don't make a habit of it. >> understood. >> all right. any other comments or questions? president breed? >> thank you. so when i first became a member of the board, i made it my mission to address these particular issues, specifically with the contracts as it relates to phone calls for inmates and also the commentary, which i know former sheriff ross mirkarimi worked with the team at the sheriff's department to come up with what i believe was a fair change, a significant change and drop in rates. and the drop in costs overall for inmates, who rely on these services, and who i believe sadly we're being taken advantage of. so in this particular case,
12:26 am
with the phone calls, i do appreciate the significant increase and the continuous decline, especially in light of the fact that calling locally is traditionally free, and i know that there are some other layers that go with setting up the appropriate phone systems in our jail system. i realize there are costs associated with that. but the one thing that i'm continuously concerned about, and wanted to know if you could address that with some more specifics: the money that is collected, and used specifically for programming for inmates, and we have had this conversation in the past, and expressed the desire to see an alternative, and not to develop these programs on the backs of the families of these individuals. and so just wanted to know what the
12:27 am
breakdown is for the anticipated revenues annually for this particular program? and what is anticipated to go specifically where? because it's not necessarily spelled out in that way in the contract. >> we estimate roughly that this contract would bring in about $500,000 to the inmate welfare fund and then the inmate welfare fund provides services -- it's required to be spent only on services for inmates. it funds salaries for prison legal services and other jail program staff. the other big expense that it funds is for community-based organizations, primarily community works, which provides our one-family program and our "stop the violence program." >> have we done any work -- because i know that again,
12:28 am
when this contract was up before, i had expressed a desire to look at alternatives in an effort to reduce the costs associated with this particular program. so have we explored alternatives? is this the only money for this particular program? are there other means to support this program? >> well, so we have reduced our reliance on inmate welfare fund by reducing the costs here, but there is still half a million dollar amount that comes to the department to help provide these programs. if we were to go significantly lower than this, we would need to come to the general fund to ask for it to make up for that difference. >> so do you know what the amount is from the contract for the commentary?
12:29 am
that goes into this particular fund? >> i know that in -- for last fiscal year from 2015-2016 that amount was about $600,000. >> so the total is a little bit over a million dollars for this program. do you know what the cost is to have this program in general? separately from -- we're talking about $1.1 million and the total cost to operate the program? >> total expenditures in 2015-16 were $1.2 million. >> and it all comes from basically -- the inmates themselves? >> yes; we had a beginning fund balance -- july 1, 2015, fund balance of $2 million. there was an addition to commissions and phone calls there was commission from some of the signage in the jails. it brought in total of $1.3 million
12:30 am
and we expended $1.2 million and ended the year with fund balance of $2.1 and this year, the expenditures will be roughly maybe $1.5 million. >> and then where does the additional .4 -- i mean, because this contract along with the commissary generates $1.1 and there is still an outstanding need and where does that money come from? >> from the general fund. i mean, these -- the programs that it funds are larger programs. we do quite a lot of work with community-based organizations, and our prisoner legal services program is much larger than what is funded by just this program. so those funds primarily come from the general fund. >> and for the inmates that are in 50 bryant, the biggest feedback that
12:31 am
i get is there is no location for services and so how is that particular population getting served? even though they are clearly paying into a fund that is supposed to be used to serve them? >> 850 brian -- there are challenges that go with 850 bryant. but we do have programming at 850 bryant, particularly with regard to this program. we have the one family program operates there. and recently we have augments that program, if you will, by inmates who participate in that program. we have been giving them phone cards $20 phone cards. so that once they -- after having contact with their families, with their children, through the one-family program, they can then make free phone calls to their loved
12:32 am
ones after the program is done for the day. >> thank you. again, i appreciate the continual efforts of the sheriff's department to try and make sure that these programs are cost-effective for the inmates. because ultimately, as you know, the families are the ones who have to deal with the bills associated with the phone calls, the commissary and all of the different layers that exist. because clearly, as these inmates are in custody, they have no means to generate any revenue and this money comes from a lot of these families, who unfortunately, tend to be low-income families. so i appreciate the work done by the department to continue to decrease these expenses, as much as possible. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, president breed. i appreciate you bringing up all of the comments and concerns that you raised.
12:33 am
when this contract came to us before slough then sheriff ross mirkarimi, i expressed a number of concerns about the high cost of staying connected with your family and friends, which evidence clearly shows supports rehabilitation when the inmate returns into the community. so charging them a lot of money to do something that we know will help our community later on, seems counterintuitive, but also to use the program to charging the families in order to provide additional services to the inmate also felt somewhat wrong. so i do appreciate the work to reduce the costs. allowing inmates to stay in better contact with family and friends. thank you for your work. >> thank you, seeing no further questions or comments from the committee. at this timely open up for public comment on item no. 2. are there any members of the public
12:34 am
that would like to speak on the item? seeing no comments public comment is now closed. mr. hollins thanks for presenting to the gaoc committee. do we have a motion on the item? >> so moved with recommendation. >> supervisor peskin moving forward with recommendation and without opposition. [ gavel ] . >> thank you, madam clerk, please call item no. 3. >> would you like me to call all of them? >> yes, please call all the remaining items on the agenda. >> except for-- >> item nos. 3-27 are various collective bargaining agreements between the city and county of san francisco. >> thank you, madam clerk. nicki callahan, director of human resources for city and county of san francisco and thank you for presenting on the mous before the
12:35 am
gaoc committee. >> this is a fairly simple thank you for calling all of the items together. we were successful in reaching tentative agreements with every -- regarding every expiring contract for the spring of 2017. and as i sat here i just learned that seiu ratified by 94% margin. so at this point all of the unions with the exception -- the second page is sightly out of date now. the largest remaining union to ratify is local 21 and they'll ratify in the first week of march. a couple of smaller groups, three smaller groups we expect to hear from the attorneys next week. but ratification margins, low est we heard is 59%, but some have been unanimous and been in the 90s. so i think our labor partners agreed with us it was a good plan
12:36 am
of action, given the uncertainties we're facing as a city. i'm happy to address any questions. i'm sure you have seen the terms. it's 3%, each of two years. which what i will call a little safety net in the second year, if we should have major drop in revenue, or recession, we'll be able to save some money by delaying the increase by six months. although we wouldn't have to go back into bargaining, which is good for he everyone. we'll know the outcome. and i'll be happy to take questions. >> madam chair, i just want to note for the record we have been briefed about this as an entire board in closed session, as the negotiations were ongoing. and i have a question, which is should we -- do you want us to remove the ones where the tas have not been approved, item 10 for muncial attorney as the association and twu items and continue those? or do you want us to move those
12:37 am
ordinances while they are still voting? >> we would request that you move them all forward in unt unlikely event that someone fails to ratify, we would request it to be pulled off the board's agenda. >> thank you, mr. callahan. see nothing questions or comments, we'll open up for public comment on these items. so any -- >> thank you. >> good work. >> thank you. >> any members of the public that would like to speak on these items? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [ gavel ] ms. callahan, thank you so much for all of your work. we appreciate on behalf the board. so committee can we take a motion on this item? >> i would move items 3-27 to the full board with recommendations. >> we have a motion to move items 3 through 27 to the full board with positive recommendation. we have a second only that. and we can do that without opposition. [ gavel ] >> thank you. ma'am clerk,
12:38 am
do we need to take the motion to convene into closed session? can we make the motion to convene into closed session? >> public comment? >> before we do that, can we take public comment on these items? >> 28 and 29. >> seeing no public comment on items 28 and 29, public comment is now closed. [ gavel ] >> may we take a motion to convene into closed session for items 27 and 28? >> would you like me to call the items? >> excuse me. >> would you like me to call the items? >> that is what i asked. >> item 28 is ordinance authorizing the lawsuit file by yu ern phan and gai thi fan nguyen again the city and county of san francisco and item 29 authorizing settlement of lawsuit filed by willie crawford filed against the city and count of san francisco. can we make a motion to convene into closed session? >> so moved. >> we have a motion and do that without opposition. [ gavel ]
12:39 am
. we just ask members of the public >> all right. we're now back in open session. >> our city attorney jon givner. >> during the closed session, the committee voted unanimously to forward items 28 and 29 to the full board with positive recommendation. >> thank you, mr. givner. can we take a motion to not disclose items from closed session? >> so moved. >> we have a motion and we can do that again without opposition. [ gavel ] >> madam clerk, any other items? >> there is no further business. >> thank you. meeting is adjourned [ gavel ] to
12:40 am
12:41 am
12:42 am
12:43 am
12:44 am
12:45 am
12:46 am
12:47 am
12:48 am
12:49 am
12:50 am
be. >> hi, i'm average i'm a personal analyst that the human resources examining and recruitment unit and suffix i started my career as a san francisco state university and got my bachelors in psyched and orientational psyche if they had we have a great relationship
12:51 am
that the san francisco unified school district i exploded for american people interim shopping mall and become eligible for a permeate job. >> okay. perfect. >> i love working for our human resources services because of the agriculture we're laid-back with a professional mindset although human resources is a challenge we're light a hearted started as a intern guided through the process eventually one day a a deputy director or staying with the puc is where i love it - >> san francisco is known
12:52 am
worldwide for its atmospheric waterfront where spectacular views are by piers and sight and sounds are xhanl changing we come to the here for exercise relax ball games entertainment, recreation market, exhilaration a wide variety of contributions easily enjoyed look up the bay the waterfront is boosting for activities boosting over 25 visitors every year the port of san francisco manages 7 may have million dollars of waterfront from hyde street and fisherman's wharf to
12:53 am
the cargo terminals and name shoreline the architecture like pier 70 and the ferry building is here for the embarcadero and a national treasure the port also supports 10 different maritime industries alongside with the recreational attractions making san francisco one of the most viable working waterfronts in the world but did you think that our waterfront faces serious challenges if earthquake to damage the seawall and the embarcadero roadway rising seawalls will cause flooding at high tides and major repairs to a safe many of the piers the port is at a critically turnl point time to plan for the
12:54 am
future of san francisco's waterfront this year the port is updating it's marts plan the plan working group to invite a wide variety of poichdz from the city and bayview and other advisory teams to share their expertise if intense and maritime operations the waterfront land use plan has guided the use and development of the lanes for the last 20 years major physical changes take place along the waterfront and now is the time to update the waterfront plan to continue improvements that will keep our waterfront vibrate, public and resilient the biggest challenges facing the waterfront are out the site an aging seawall along the embarcadero roadway and seawalls
12:55 am
that will rise by 21 hundred to provide and productivity of tides seawall is built over weak soils and mud the next earthquake will cause it to settle several feet without the urgent repairs that will damage the promenade and other things we've been fortunate over the last hundred years less than one foot of seawall over the next hundred years scientists say we'll have 6 feet of seawall rise imagine the pier 30/32 will be floated, the embarcadero will be flooded our transportation system is fog to be heavy impacts unfortunately, the port didn't have the financial resources to repair all the deteriorating piers let alone the adaptations
12:56 am
for sea level rise. >> it is clear that the port can't pay for the seawall reinforcement or deal with the sea level rise on its own needs to raise money to take care of the properties at take care of the maintenance on the properties no way absent anti funding the issues of sea level rise or the schematic conditions of seawall can be development. >> as studies talk about the seawall challenges the working group is look at the issues please come share our ideas about recreation, pier activities, shoreline habitat, historic preservation and transportation issues and viral protection. >> we know this planning process will not have one question and one answer we need the diversity of the opinions
12:57 am
how people feel about san francisco waterfront and want to hear all the opinions. >> the challenges call for big decisions now is the time to explore now and creative ideas to protect and preserve san francisco waterfront. >> now is the time to get involved to help to shape the future of our waterfront. >> we need the debate please come forward and engage in the process. >> this is your waterfront and this is your opportunity to get involved be part of solution help san francisco create the waterfront we want for the future. >> this is really to dream big and i think about what our waterfront looked like for all san franciscans today and generations to come. >> get involved with the planning process that will set the fraction for what is coming at the port. >> find for in upgrading dates
12:58 am
on the ports website. >> (ship blowing horn in distances) ms. mendoza-mcdonnell dr. murase ms. norton mr. sanchez mr. walton ms. eng and ms. zaragoza. >> thank you. >> please stand and join me in
12:59 am
the pledge of allegiance. and superintendant lee has an announcement regarding tints agenda. >> okay. thank you mr. walton i'd like to name and occupation withdrawn is 16, 12 commemorating the korean memorial and the curriculum introduced by commissioner wynns and commissioner murase that will be horde this coming
1:00 am
thursday, february 16th thank you. >> thank you superintendant lee item a puns of january 24, 2017, can i have a motion? >> i move approve the minutes second. >> corrections? >> no correction roll call vote. >> ms. eng ms. zaragoza mr. cook mr. haney ms. mendoza-mcdonnell dr. murase ms. norton mr. sanchez mr. walton thank you that's of i's. >> thank you. ms. casco as has been announced at the past meetings members of the public are reminded if they wish to address the board of education please complete a speaker card and present it to the executive assistant. speaker cards will not be accepted if an item is already before the board presentation to the board of education.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on