tv Government Access Programming SFGTV March 28, 2018 9:00am-10:01am PDT
28 months and increase the share funding by up to $50,000. >> do i have a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> any public comments? any discussion? all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. next item, please. >> item 13 approve amendment number 1 to cs211a, approve amendment number 2 to agreement cs11d and authorizing a general manager to negotiate and execute these amendments, increasing agreement cs211a by 1,500,000 and increase agreement cs211d by one million with no change to the contract duration. >> do we have a motion? >> approval. >> second. >> any discussion? >> any public comments? all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. next item. >> item 14.
ward 3 interim greenhouse grand programs. 009g.a-c. cold school cafe and authorizing a general manager to execute three grand agreements with the duration of two years for amounts not to exceed $350,000 for hunters point family and 175,000 for old school cafe, and 175,000 for san francisco conservation core with an option to extend the agreements by one year each and by cumulative amount not to exceed $300,000. >> before we get the motion, we're going to approve the resolution with amendments. >> very minor. first of all, i want to applaud staff and obviously the prevailing parties, old school cafe, hunters point family and the san francisco conservation core. obviously their reputations pre seed them. but given the commission's action resolutions 160233, and
the idea that we have workforce development kind of incapsulated in these grants, and i don't know to what extent each party is going to be required to participate in any actual workforce development because there's other roles and responsibilities here. but also, one thing with respect to the process. i would like something from staff because we formed a committee. for purposes of reviewing the applications, six applications i guess it was, and on that committee was to staff from the p.c. former elected official and agriculture expert and someone else, when we do -- it would put me in a much happier place, if we're going to engage a conversation about folks that are trying to get grants support from the agency, and that conversation includes workforce development. it seems more appropriate to me
to have someone reviewing those applications and engaging those individuals in workforce development techniques, best practices, lessons learned, dos and don'ts, et cetera. i'm not sure we checked that box here. i don't know it matters given the nature of these grants. they're not that big, if you really think about it. but i would like staff to consider that when we move forward, if we are in that workforce development world, we have somebody there who understands our career pathway objectives and understands the necessity i think that we all agree on to linking career path ways, et cetera and so fourth. with that being said, i would like my colleagues to consider the following amendments to the resolution and this is at the fourth whereas on the second page. which starts with the selected
grantees. after this semi colon, following related green sector industries. my amendment will include the following -- grant use must maintain a regular presence at the secf by providing regular updates to the secf commission participating in cohort activities and pre apprentic apprenticeships. facilitated by the sfpoc and partners and ensuring all program participants are exposed to and may participate in pre-apprenticiship programs that provide career pathways to full-time union employment. even though i can't really see, based on the size of these grants, and the duration of these grants, that we're going to be dealing with young individuals who are going to be
doing field work. i don't see how that fits. with this size and duration. when we talk about workforce development grants, it's important to make sure we use consistent terminology and consistent approaches to career pathway administration and development and so that everybody's kind of has a fair shot next time around. when it's probably a little bit more significant. so, i hope i was clear about the amendments but they're nominal, right. they don't change? >> the only question for staff with the consistent with what was stated in the rrsp to perform the limitations. if the r.p.f. did not put them on notice they have to perform, it can't be included in the grant agreement itself. >> david grey, community benefits. i think the amendments stated are fine. which are alluding to clearly
the language is what we've communicated to the grantees both in spirit o spirit of the d the process. it doesn't significantly change the expectations that we've already established with potential grantees. >> i wouldn't think it would. we've been talking about this for years and years and years. back to the councilor's point, so i want to get into that a little more. am i supposed to believe that they have executed some kind of agreement that now i'm already bound to some other terms before we adopt this resolution? >> my understanding is the department issue and r.f.p. sets fourth the expectations of what they're looking for the grantees to say and if we are awarded the grant here are the things we will do. and so when you award the grant, it is in accordance with what they have proposed. and so to add on the new
requirement outside of the scope of the r.f.p. would be a problem. it sounds like mr. grey says this is within the scope of the r.f.p. so it doesn't pose that problem. that's the general principal that applies. >> which want to just really focus on the task at hand, right. because i think what we would want to hear from council is, whether this is within that scope or outside of that scope, not well if it is or if it didn't. >> we can certainly continue the item and i can look at it. i haven't seen it. so this is a new issue that just popped up. i don't know whether it's a material change for the grantees with what they have to propose. >> julie ellis, the r.s.p. did reference pre apprentice and commissioner courtney reviewed the r.p.f. before it was released so we had met with you and showed you drafts so you have eyeballed it before we
released it. >> i think it would be a stretch. i think it would be extremely unwise for a grantee to suggest that changing apprenticiship to pre apprenticiship or one to the other or adding both, would materially change anything. >> i think the urgency around making a decision today versus conditioning the item is just in the spirit of us trying to put a temporary interim greenhouse plan in place while the greenhouses aren't operating. and so there's been a lot of interest in urgency around, we have a mitigation specifically around the southeast community center programming and the workforce development strategy died to the greenhouses and the greenhouses are now out of commission while they get rebuilt. >> this is a big step. this is a glorious moment in time for us, for the southeast, it's great work.
i would be remiss if i didn't -- it's very clear in my mind but to the workers, what a pre apprenticiship, what an apprentice ship is and what a journeyman is. i have to just say, right, ok, as long as we're cool then we're cool. >> that's my amendment. with the potential grantees in the conference we talked about this very issue we want to make sure they're connecting all of their trainees or at the least expos them to pre apprenticiship opportunities as well as apprenticiship opportunities because those lead to the long-term, stable living wage paying-jobs down the line. >> if you think about just the justice peace, you have a lot of workers with the conservation corps. they can stay there for a long
time or they can move up, you know. and sometimes and i tell you i have the same problem. sometimes folks that have good folks working for them ain't really that motivated to move their good folks up, right. so we got to -- we have a right to do it. we have to just give them a little push. >> yes, sir. >> ok so are we ok approving as amended as stated? >> ok. >> do i have a motion -- >> that's my motion. councilor, am i allowed to do that. >> the motion is to adopt the resolution with the throw amendments to the four clause on the second page that you read into the record. >> thank you. >> i'll second. >> any other discussion? >> i just -- just to make sure that there's no undue burden on on the staff it's one thing the grant agreement and i appreciate where commissioner courtney is going with this. but just to make sure that -- i think that's what you said but i just want to confirm that
because of the timeliness of this and we all want to move this project forward that this isn't going to add a layer from the staffing perspective that might delay. >> commissioner vietor, staff is prepared to execute on this and it will not add undue burden on. >> great, thank you. >> excellent. >> clarity. >> absolutely. >> you know me. [laughter] >> yeah, we know you. >> any discussion? any public comments on this item. >> ok, all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. congratulations. >> nicely done. >> exciting. >> item 15 is a work shop update on the power of business plan and affordable access to distribution. >> barbra hail assistant general manager for power. so today we're going to have a
workshop discussion no action. the workshop is for us to discuss a key to our service and gives us the ability to provide electric service to our customers. it was highlighted in our two business plans that we had in 2016, two business plan workshops in 2016. today we'll update that and that is affordable access to the power distribution grid. going over quickly here what the agenda will cover. we're going to cover background on hetchy power, some of the challenges to provide affordable access to distribution. benefits and lost opportunities and some examples of the impacts of the roadblocks we are currently experiencing. our customers include general
fund departments. like muni. enterprises whose funded by revenue that they collect from services that they provide like the airport, the water department. we're also expanding our customer base to include new green communities like pier 70 and the shipyard. all of these customers receive carbon-free electricity. we generate that power as we flow water from the see era to sasee air a.we connect it to bis operated by the california independent system operator to get the electricity into san francisco. pg and e will move power within san francisco and we deliver it to our customers. we meter and bill our customers. we pay pg and e $10 million each
year for this wholesale distribution service. containing the costs associated with distribution service ensuring it's affordable access is a strategy in our business plan. pg and he control and e providen service to san francisco and that's been the case since san francisco began providing electricity service in the early 1900s. here is a condensed summary of the efforts the city has undertaken to overcome the difficulties and accessing distribution services. the city attorney and p.u.c. have worked together on this effort. you can see that beginning in 1913, with the breaker act san
francisco's been providing electricity service from the early 25 to 45 timeframe, we had access to distribution, only through pg and e by selling our power and pge delivered it to our customers. we overcame that challenge after the u.s. supreme court said that that was not a lawful implementation of the rate rack s it took us a little bit but we did get together with pg and e and came seath as the inner sex agreement to make sure that pg and e provided that distribution service to us. >> in the 90s the law changed and there was a open access era
to transmission and distribution services. when our inner connection agreement was scheduled to expire in 2015, we began work to prepare for that regulatory regime where we would receive open access to the distribution service through a federally regulated tariff. as opposed to through a contract. we had difficulty securing that service as you are aware. we're currently receiving that service under the tariff but in the context of waiting for a federal decision on some of the implementation issues that we took exception to. so you can see that san francisco has had distribution system charges working with pg&e for almost a century. it's the benefits to the city that make it important to persist in our efforts to ensure
affordable access to distribution. those benefits are summarized here along with lost opportunities if we don't prevail. when san francisco uses hetchy power it saves the city money and reduces greenhouse emission. the $40 million a year in savings to san francisco taxpayers. carbon' commission to 40,000 cars off the road each year. those savings occur throughout the city in every neighborhood and department. the yellow dots on this map represent the 2,500-metered customers we serve in san francisco. you see the geographic dis persion on the map, our service and benefits are everywhere in soon fran. the icons are current active department facilities hitting roadblocks, getting access to
pg&e's grid as they implement maintenance and upgrades. the icon's map shows projects that are civic institutions, like museums, recreational facilities like pools, swimming pools, health and safety facilities like the fire department's boat berthing project and the ambulance deployment facility. housing projects like our low income senior housing. infrastructure like our own water and wastewater pumps. these departments are facing roadblocks that would increase their project costs unnecessarily. most are connected at secondary or low voltage, with the facility maintenance and upgrade project, pg&e is requiring connection at primary or high voltage. this road block increases the cost of a project to connect.
it's sex times more expensive for that equipment and the primary connection equipment takes up more space. that's another cost that takes up nine times more space than secondary equipment and primary equipment to connect these customers isn't necessary for safety, reliability or legal reasons. >> so why are they requesting it? >> the two on file different the impression to implement the tariff and they are exercising that discretion to make this requirement. we don't have -- i can't explain why pg&e is requiring this. it's not needed for safety, reliability or technical reasons and you will see as i proceed that they don't require it for customers that they serve. >> we don't know why they're requesting it. >> correct. >> they're not requesting,
they're requiring. >> yeah. >> so for other customers, pg&e requires primary equipment when it's 3,000kve or more and for us that would be like zuckerberg general hospital takes service at primary because it's over 3,000k. v.a. private sector engineers hired to work on these city projects are told by pg&e secondary service is acceptable when it's clear the project is taking service from us then pg&e says primary services required if the project is 75 k. v.a. or more. >> the sfmta toilet, this is a toilet at the end of a bus line.
it's a toilet for the use of bus drivers. pg&e required for that facility, which the electric draw is a light, a hand dryer for that facility the city would need to conduct primary equipment. that primary equipment is about eight times the size of the toilet itself. and another example, balboa pool. so a swimming pool, going through renovations is part of the bond program that the park is implementing. that one made the newspaper so senior affordable housing at the jfk tower. everything there is constructed and waiting for the final approach from pg&e on how service will be provided at that
service and north, you see it on the slide as well. pg&e stated that secondary service connection would be appropriate but subsequently these projects were all told that primary equipment was required. and each of these projects is significantly impacted by the pg&e requirement. and providing city services for balboa pool, just to pick an example, that's over a year of no neighborhood pool for swim lessons and fun. given the size of the primary equipment, each faces the potential for loss of public benefits as scarce valuable square footage would be taken up by primary equipment. for pin u.n., the housing authority project the improved community room that was part of
the project improvements, had to be forfeited in the dis agreement with pg&e. these trade offs are impactful to our residents. these negative impacts are avoidable with a reasonable partner providing distribution services. and they're accumulating. effecting many san franciscoans with the lost and revenue, wasted city funds in trying to remove the roadblocks, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, slowing our affordable housing improvements and compromising health and safety improvements. hetchy power services is critical to reaching san francisco's goals and living our values. we will continue and persist in our efforts to overcome these roadblocks to ensure affordable access to distribution. with that i'm happy to take any
questions. >> barbra, is it ok if i just kind of ask a few questions. >> absolutely. >> this is all the inner connection agreement, right? >> it's our inner connection agreement and the replacement for it now that the inner agreement approach is not consistent with federal law. >> the replacement for it includes the super conductor approach they're putting on us. >> primary service. >> is there any other example of an outside utility doing the same to municipals, do they have anything they're showing us that they've done before? >> no. >> is it a can we join them from continuing to require the
additional resources. >> we did file a complaint with firk when we saw the approach that they were taking in the tariff itself. the issue of primary service at 75 k.v.a. we're confronting today and daily practice with pg&e isn't in their tariff, so we didn't include that particular issue in the complaint we filed. however, as we connect customers, pg&e submits quarterly filings at the federal energy regulatory commission describing the approach that was taken for each customer and that gives us an opportunity to flag that issue to the federal energy regulatory commission and we've been doing that routinely. so we're filing protests there. and that is currently the sort
of the legal tools we have available to us. and we are using them. >> when you talk about -- i'm sorry. when you talk about the continuing losses that we're suffering, right, the bus drivers can't use the rest room and the kids can't use the pool, right, and we can't house people that need to be housed -- >> correct. >> we've prohibited from getting federal declar tory relief? because we know it would come, right. and we knee this was the response and this is the beginning of it. are we prohibited from going to get like an injunction? >> now you are asking me the answer a legal question and i'm not an attorney. i will tell you that it's my understanding that we need to pursue legal remedies with the federal energy regulatory commission first before we can go outside of that venue.
>> got it, ok. >> we're on the road pursuing it but that's the only -- that's where we need to start. >> that was what i didn't understand. but i get it now. i also would say that our customers are you know, our city family that we're providing services, they feel the impact and not the p.u.c., you know, they feel the impact. they've been very concerned and passionate as well as the supervisors because they're loosing services in their communities and so there have been a lot of conversations with pg&e like why. why are you holding a pool hostage on this game that you have against the p.u.c. you are costing the rec and park pools and you close down a pool for a year that's 1/6 of a sid's
summer life enjoying the pool. i think we are really motivated to try to deal and solve this because it's really impacting a lot of projects and a lot of customers. i think that the thing that really, there's a lot of stuff troubling about this but it's just that when they go to the customers and say if you take power from us, you can do secondary. and it's unfair. the departments may want to move forward on this project because they don't want the delay but their cost of paying pg&e they will lose that 40 million-dollar low cost of power and so that's been one of our conversations with the department is that, yeah, you want to go to pg&e you have to pay a higher cost. that's one of the ways we've been keeping the city family together is just explain that to
them. >> and the over all g.h.g. benefits as well have been a compelling part of the conversation with the city departments. i'm really just -- as the general manager says, these are impacts to the p.u.c. but they're really impacts to the customers we're trying to serve so we're just trying to give voice and daylight for you what the customer experience is as well. >> yeah and i want to speak up for the planet too and some of the goals that we're trying to achieve as a municipality with climate change. just to follow-up on this thread. the game plan, because it sounds like the federal and the legal recourse route could take some time? >> it has already. >> and it could additionally. i am wondering if there's additional actions that could be taken, what the game bla plan i? do you need to way until firk or
some ruling before taking any other action. not necessarily legal? >> yeah, first of all, you know, we're pursuing at firk and pg&e is there and we have all these meetings to help try and resolve this. but i would say one of the reasons we wanted to update you here is because the board of supervisors is calling a hearing on this and we wanted to make sure that we present what some of the challenges have been because they've been involved firsthand. we've been called to the office of some of the supervisors along with pg&e to explain why you are not hooking this up and balboa pool, they're modifying, renovating and requiring primary service which will take up a large portion of their facility
space. it seems like they're willing to work on certain projects and for us it becomes like ok, you know, we got to come to you and every project and wait for the delay and we just feel that you know, that's just -- inappropriate. so hopefully we're hoping things get better. we just wanted to make sure that you were informed because we're going to hearing has been upon. >> i'm trying to figure out how to get through these log jams. >> constant conversations with our customers and pg&e until we pursue all of the legal courses
before we can do another maneuver. >> we are hoping that as we find solutions for individual locations, we can convince pg&e can be replicated in other locations so that is an effort we have been pursuing. weather it will prevail i can't predict. we've tried to kept dialogue open to make sure we can identify early when conflicts are coming up and how we can overcome them constructively. so that the pool doesn't stay closed too long or the affordable housing facility doesn't stay empty waiting for folks to move back in while this dispute continues. you did mention commissioner, when you asked your question about how long do we have to wait for this to be resolved. part of the challenge we're
facing is we can't wait. even though we have this uncertainty, even though we have this disagreement, we're still having to connect customers, right. and keep the city moving. so that has been part of the challenge is the lack of clarity and rules and the rationality and rules has made it different for us but we are going forward and connecting customers and making sure that we do get the services opened. >> all right. >> thank you. >> excuse me. i have been working in this area it seems like too much of my life. and it is confounding in that the relationship with pg&e. you laid out some of the timeline. during that time, the relationship has not always been sour. there have been ups and downs.
my observation is that it seems as though those ups and downs are driven by corporate policy. and corporal policy changes overtime and the relationship changes overtime. and i find it unfortunate in regretable that the a parent policy at this point in time was to make life difficult in ways that are difficult or impossible to explain. and i would hope that pg&e has a long history in this city and there are a lot of constructive and good things that they do in this city. i think it's regretable that in this particular area that they have chosen, i think an indefenseable and impugn tive approach and i hope they see it clear approach. this is also in the closed session, after this meeting so
we'll have a chance to discuss it further. >> thank you, very much. >> thank you. >> all right. any public comments on this item? so with that we're going to enter closed session. item 18. can you talk about that? >> i'll read the closed session items and call for public comment. >> ok. >> item 18 litigation city and council tee of san francisco versus county of alameda. 19, existing litigation pacific gas and electric. 20, existing litigation pacific gas and electric. 21 existing grid laying pacific gas and electric. item 22, existing litigation, pacific gas and electric. 23 exiting litigation pacific gas and electric.
of calls and radio communications i enjoy coming to work i still find it challenging i still learn everyday and i'm going to have the level of activity if zero to 60 in a matter of minutes i take bride pride in handling the emergencies. >> have are you available the work order is 2817827 that's one of the great things of sfpuc they offer work shops to help you get ahead you have to care about the job and go above and beyond to find out as much as you can the three puc i so no
glass ceiling the opportunities are eit. >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their shop & dine in the 49 within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services in the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so we're will you shop & dine in the 49 chinatown has to be one the best unique shopping areas in san francisco that is color fulfill and safe each vegetation and seafood and find everything in chinatown the walk shop in chinatown welcome to jason dessert i'm the
fifth generation of candy in san francisco still that serves 2000 district in the chinatown in the past it was the tradition and my family was the royal chef in the pot pals that's why we learned this stuff and moved from here to have dragon candy i want people to know that is art we will explain a walk and they can't walk in and out it is different techniques from stir frying to smoking to steaming and they do show of. >> beer a royalty for the age berry up to now not people know that especially the toughest they think this is - i really appreciate they love this art. >> from the cantonese to the
hypomania and we have hot pots we have all of the cuisines of china in our chinatown you don't have to go far. >> small business is important to our neighborhood because if we really make a lot of people lives better more people get a job here not just a big firm. >> you don't have to go anywhere else we have pocketed of great neighborhoods haul have all have their own uniqueness. >> san francisco has to all i want to thank everyone for coming here, all of the guests and leaders standing behind me. we're here today because history, earthquakes and climate change compel us to protect our city.
history. over 100 years ago, the 'em sea wall was built and we're fortunate it lasted this long. it was built at a time when they didn't know how to stabilize against earthquake risk. we know the big one will strike us at some point over the next three decades. and if it does, we'll see flooding along the water front. climate change, despite climate deniers we know that the estimates of sea level rise by the end of the next century are 4-10 feet. we need to fix this sea wall. what is it that we're trying to protect? millions of san franciscans and californians who live work and play along the waterfront. we see 24 million tourists visiting our waterfront every year. it's imperative we protect this
asset not just for san francisco, but the bay and the california economy. i want to again thank everyone standing behind us, our mayor, board of supervisors. when i was on the board of supervisors, i served on the capital planning committee, where we planned for how we took care of tens of billions of dollars of assets. this is at the top of the list. i want to thank my current colleagues in the legislature. you'll hear from scott wiener. in 2005 they established the financing district we're talking about today. she had drafted the legislation to ensure we're investing in infrastructure as well as historic resources, the bill we're discussing today is to ensure we're expanding what it is that we're protecting. protecting our shoreline, ensuring we can rebuild our
seawall. before i introduce our next speaker, i want to say two things. we're here in part because we have to come together as a community. you'll hear about the efforts at the local level, as well as at the state level and what we had hoped was going to be the federal level, but despite what donald trump is saying what he is doing about infrastructure, none of us are holding our breath. so san francisco and california need to act. we're here for our kids. and our grandkids. none of us are going to be around when the next century turns. but my hope is my son and his friends and his next generations, will look to this day as a day that our city leaders came together to care for and steward the assets of our city. our next speaker is someone who has children of his own, and i know that he cares very much about ensuring that the future of our city is in good hands. i'm delighted to help introduce the mayor of the city and county
of san francisco, mayor mark farrell. >> thank you, david. i am proud to be here as the mayor to thank -- [horn honk] i'm going to start off. i want to thank mr. chu along with assembly member ting, but specifically on this issue here. leadership is critical to the future of our city. critical to the future of the waterfront and proud to be here at this announcement today. our waterfront is one of the most iconic parts of san francisco. it always has been. subjects of pictures, it's why tourists come here. it's one of the most beautiful parts of our city. and holding up the waterfront is our seawall. these are the buildings, the
waterfront, the restaurants, the small businesses, but it's been holding back the bay to make sure that our tunnels are not flooded. holding back the rising tides of our san francisco bay to make sure we can walk along the waterfront in front of us here today. it is critically important to san francisco today and to the future of our city. we need to do everything we can as a city to make sure it survives and it's strong for the next generation. this project is not cheap. i want to really thank elaine for her leadership and the entire port commission for making sure we plan for the future. it is a $5 billion project that we have to plan for. the voters of san francisco will have a bond on the ballot going toward this effort. and the bill is going to play a huge start in kick starting the project.
and let's be clear, this is about planning for the future of the city. it's about infrastructure and making sure our city is resilient when the next earthquake hits. the next earthquake will hit. it's not a matter of if, but when. we need to be strong and ready to respond and make sure our infrastructure is ready to protect the residents of our city. proud to be here today and really want to thank assembly member chu for his leadership. thank you, everyone. >> thank you, mr. mayor. some 13 years ago in 2005 when they established the legislation to take what were known as public trust lands owned by the state to turn them over to the authority of our port department for stewardship, i want to thank elaine and her department and commissioners for bringing this to our attention for so many years. i championed the earthquake
safety emergency response bonds. there were two of them over the years. unfortunately, we were not able to the bonds to develop or create the assets to protect what we have here at the port. with that i'd like to bring up elaine forbes to tell us where our seawall infrastructure needs to go. >> thank you so much, assembly member chiu. i'm representing the port staff. we have the port commission president by my side and she'd she's been a steward of the waterfront for 20 years. i can say this is a dream come true day for us. it's remarkable to see the leadership behind me embracing and supporting the need for investment in the waterfront. as our mayor and assembly member has said, this seawall is a work horse for the city. so much economic activity. the infrastructure. and there is other things, too, that the seawall does that goes
unseen. it's going to be the place of emergency response. we expect people to go out by water in the event of a major earthquake and goods to come in by water. this has to hold up. if we're preparing and preventing disaster, it will be five times less to do so proactively. this represents how we can get this done. how this daunting task of a $5 billion effort will come to fruition because the leaders behind me are making this a priority. we start with the $500 million phase, laying out the improvements for 20-30 years and then tackling the most critical pieces first. i want to give a huge thank you to naomi kelly behind me. she pole vaulted this project
along with mayor lee by identifying it as a critical piece of infrastructure for the city. so we're so -- port staff, port commission and i are so excited for the day, so thankful for the state leadership for assembly member chu, ting, getting us $250 million for the project, should this be approved, we'll work hard to get it done. we're so thankful the leadership has heard our call and is going to prioritize a safe and vibrant waterfront. thank you so much. >> i'm grateful to my colleagues for representing this effort. phil ting, as well as our next speaker, senator scott wiener. >> thank you, david, i want to
thank assemblyman chiu for his leadership. when we served on the board of superviso supervisors together, we all care about infrastructure, but david took so much leadership on not just the sexy infrastructure, but on the infrastructure that we depend on but the people don't see. and the seawall is certainly part of that. i want to thank the port. i am really trying to work and support the port's effort to move this bond to the ballot. i want to thank elaine, my neighbor, and the entire port staff for its leadership on this critical issue. this is really about two realities of life. sea level rise and earthquakes. and as much as we want to wish them all away, we can't. the big earthquake is going to come and unless we take radical, radical action today around reducing carbon emissions and fighting climate change, we're
going to continue to see sea level rise. and sadly because of the disaster known as washington d.c., there is no bold action happeni happeni federally to address climate change, and we're doing what we can but this is a national problem we have to resolve. we're going to continue to see significant sea level rise. our downtown is so at risk of inundation, we're doing what we can to reduce carbon emissions. doing what we income the bay area. just a year ago we passed a tax to start restoring the wetlands destroyed in the bay area 150 years ago, because that will help us to mitigate sea level rise. but with everything we're doing, we have to have the seawall. it has to be intact, has to be able to with stand an earthquake
and be able to protect us from the bay. we love the bay, but the bay is going to cause us problems when it floods the muni subway tunnel and downtown areas. we need to get this bill passed. this is just one step. we need the bond. we need this bill and a lot more work to fund this project. i look forward to collaborating to get it done. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, senator wiener for reminding us we're putting the sexy back into infrastructure. i want to thank everyone for coming together. i want to invite the next speaker, someone who has been a champion for infrastructure in our city, supervisor london breed. >> thank you, everyone for being here today. you know, it's easy to talk to residents of san francisco about the need for more housing. the need to address challenges
with public safety and homelessness and things we can see. what is harder is trying to help people to understand the significance of the things that we can't see. the infrastructure needs that hold our city together. we know the consequences when we don't do what is necessary to protect our infrastructure. we only look at new orleans and what happened with the levies and how that devastated that particular city. and so we in san francisco, we must be proactive, we must take these kind of bold moves and creative solutions. i want to thank assembly member david chiu for finding a very creative way to help us pay for it. i want to thank the voters in advance, because this fall, we're going to have a ballot measure that is going to help with $350 million to help in this effort. we know that there is so much
work to do in san francisco. and as the president of the board who now serves on the unknown capital planning committee, the needs of our infrastructure are at the top of my list on a regular basis. i want to thank not only noemie kelly, but also elaine forbes. she would reach out and say, supervisor, i want to meet with you about the seawall, i say, wait a minute, i have to work with this challenge. she always brings it back to how important it is not just to protect my district, but to protect the entire city. her leadership along with port commissioner president kimberley brandon that been outstanding. they've been in sacramento, in d.c., they've been all over the place trying to put together the
money for this particular seawall and i know with their leadership and the work of all the policy behind me, we're going to get this done for the people of san francisco. thank you so much. >> thank you, president breed. our final speaker is someone who represents the district we're currently in who knows that it is her residence and businesses that could be flooded if we do not invest in the infrastructure. please join me in welcoming supervisor kim. >> thank you, assembly member chiu. as someone who represented your sister district when we both served on the board of supervisors, we understand the importance of strengthening our seawall, shield that prerkts our residents and workers and many of the tourist attractions up and down the waterfront. mayor mark farrell, myself, supervisor cohen and peskin represent the districts that are along the boundary lines of the seawall lot that we're here
about. so much of what we love about our city is just along the waterfront, our housing, offices, jobs, transportation, the giants who i see in the audience today. it is important to make prudent investments today to strengthen the seawall shield and strengthen the unbreakable bond between the city of san francisco and the waterfront we love so much. i want to thank our san francisco delegation in sacramento, for making sure we're prioritizing the very infrastructure that will keep the city beautiful and running, thank you very much. [applause] >> that concludes today's press conference. again, appreciate everyone coming together around a plan to protect the future of our city and our seawall. any final questions? we will end the press conference and open it up to folks to ask individual questions. thank you very much.
order. welcome to the march 14, 2018 rescheduled meeting of the public safety and neighborhood services committee. i'm supervisor jeff sheehy, chair of the committee. to my left is supervisor peskin, and supervisor tang is here today. the clerk is john carol, and i would also like to thank sfgovtv for sin