Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  April 28, 2019 8:00am-9:01am PDT

8:00 am
ceqa review with city planning, note to file, so went to city planning, tida and the departmental staff, to questions, note to file. they found that the proposed project is very close to what was done in 2011, included in that ceqa. so they approved this project going forward as note to file. >> they reviewed what we are proposing. >> and i think i also read that one of the next steps, conceptual report. >> doing right now. >> will come up with a spec in essence for the project. >> bridging documents will then go into an r.f.p. if we go
8:01 am
forward with the design-build-operate. >> alternative analysis report, 10% design. engineering, 35% design and part of the r.f.q., r.f.p. process. >> thank you. and wastewater treatment and some recycling? >> yes, so the proposed plant, every drop of water that goes through will go through the membrane bioreactor. the plant is so small, made sense to do a single stream. so all the water produced recycl recycled water quality. we can take every water drop from the plant. >> collection system in the scope of this as well? >> built and financed by the developer. this treatment plant is the only item on the island that's actually being built and paid for by the p.u.c.
8:02 am
what we are proposing is build the plant, and once we accept it, the d.b.o. operator will operate the collection system, includes the existing and new. we can fully remove wastewater enterprise from the island and reallocate to other projects. >> part of the r.f.q. -- >> from the time of, as the plant starts we will include the collection system. >> and how does this fit in with an overall plan for utilities on the island? i'm thinking we have the wastewater, we have drinking water, we have electric, there is some gas out there that somebody, pg&e is doing that. >> right now we are -- we are operating the gas system out there as well as the under contract. we are -- we, the p.u.c. is operating the gas system under contract with tida. >> so within the three services
8:03 am
that we are providing and intending to continue to provide, is there a vision as to how they met together? >> yes. there's a master utility plan the developer has submitted to the city. we get to review that, we get to comment on it, and once that is done and vetted with all the city departments, that's what they are building. those are the specification that goes into their construction documents. right now we operate water, wastewater, power, energy, and gas. there is no decision yet on, you know, the gas element. i want to make sure you understand that of who would operate that in the future. right now we are the operator of that. so, the old and new fitting together is a big issue and we are working on that, and especially when we talk about location of the wastewater plant, also might be where the substation goes for the electric service, and so trying to fit
8:04 am
all the utilities together. and as a build, we will go through the city acceptance process of accepting the entire sandwich as we call it, the street and all the utilities underneath the street. >> i ask because it seems like basically developing utilities for an island has some challenges, also some opportunities there, and i don't know if it's established any overall goals, you know, in terms of carbon footprint or, you know, related issues, removal of all gasses as a carbon measure. staffing issues, you know, how do you locate, manage and deploy staff, not just for this facility, but for others as a whole. is that part of this utility plan? >> part of the utility plan includes, or part of our
8:05 am
development agreement with the developer is the additional lands that will be dedicated to the p.u.c., we have the wastewater treatment plant and how do we have the corporate yard, and we are discussing with the developer as they locate different phases of their developments. the issue here is more that we will have people living on that island as it's being developed and they need to, we need to provide them services, and so we are going to have a lot of like old into new for some time, and there's just a lot of risk associated with that. >> understand that. one request that i would have is that as these various efforts proceed with the utility plan and the conceptual engineering report, a lot of interest that this commission has in what that
8:06 am
product ends up looking like, both from a utility service standpoint and also from our impact standpoint, not in the legal ceqa sense but how good stewards are we of the environment. so, i would ask staff to find opportunities for this commission to be involved in those discussions as we go forward. other questions have to do with really the subject of this item, which is fairly narrow as i read it, and that is to approve of the use of a c.b.o. technique, and as i look at that, what's unusual about it, i guess what part of it that requires board of supervisors action is the o. part. the operating part of it. and my first reaction this is what we do all the time.
8:07 am
so why are we contracting it out and i think you have discussed some of the reasons for that. part of my concern, though, is -- do we do, do we contract operations anywhere else? in the utility? i can't think of one. >> i don't think so at this point, no. >> there are some issues around that that are important, and not included in this action, but i want to talk about them anyway and see what that demands going forward. part of that is the length of term of the operating part of it, and i see that it's ten years with five optional add-ons. so without penalty, we could terminate at the end of ten years, earlier with some penalty. and then we had the opportunity to reup for two five-year
8:08 am
increments. i would hope the development on the island has sufficiently progressed in ten years' time that we would be able to take that on, and not have to continue the contract. that's why for the 20-year contract i would have real problems. if it's a ten with two five's it can work. the other is one of labor representation and our workforce development efforts. what are we able to do with a contractor to make sure that -- what i hope, jumping to the end, what my hope would be is that whatever process of staff development and training and supervision is taking place out there to be fully integrated with job development activities and that there would be a very clear path, even within the term
8:09 am
of ten years for somebody who has been fully certified to operate on that, could become a city employee in some way. that's my wish. how -- how do we do that in a way that comports with -- >> a couple of items. first of all, to step back a little bit to your comments about what is the nature of the facility that we end up with out there, since it's not going through a complete design and also in terms of environmental footprint or metric such as carbon footprint, etc., that may be important to the city. tom, i think used the term bridging documents earlier and we alluded to the fact what's different about this delivery method, we take it to about the 30% design and then it gets turned over into more of a complete set of contract documents that emphasize performance outcomes rather than prescriptive pieces of equipment and layout. what that means, we have every opportunity between now and the
8:10 am
issuance of the r.f.p. to think about what types of outcomes are important to the city. so whether that's maximizing energy efficiency or minimizing carbon footprint, two sides of the same coin, whether it's making allowances for specific access for staff training opportunities, those are all areas that we have the opportunity to develop and put into the contract bridging documents that the parties responding would be taking into account and obligated to provide. >> i guess this is a question for the city attorney. are there restrictions how we can do that? if we want to say the city and the utilities uses classifications represented by -- we want you to use the same unions, that labor
8:11 am
workforce development programs that we have are aimed at preparing people for both public and private employment, and we want those programs to have access to these jobs as well as others. how do we make that happen? >> i think one way you've done that in the past is by putting particular projects under the p.u.c. existing p.l.a. >> okay. >> that would be an option for this contract, which the commission could approve, adding this contract to the p.l.a. and that would then go into the r.f.p. >> am i correct, typically we don't get to do that when we are awarding contracts. p.l.a. -- we don't have contracts that say you will be part of local 38. >> the p.l.a., i'm, i would defer to staff on the details what the p.l.a. says. generally requires the use of
8:12 am
union labor. >> right. >> i don't know the specificity about the local. >> i think we have to build in that language right now the p.l.a. is only for construction and does not deal with operations. >> ok. >> can i ask, add one other thing. so, we are looking at the facility not just for people to come in and operate it, but a training facility for our own people. a lot of these types of small plants are actually going into a lot of developments in san francisco over the next 10 to 15 years, and we are going to have to create a strike team that knows how to operate these smaller plants, and this is a good opportunity to have like a training facility where we can put in the contract that they have to train our people and how to operate these types of facilities going forward in the future. so we don't have just a need for the small plant on treasure island, we have a need for a lot of the new developments in san
8:13 am
francisco that will have plants of this size going in that we are negotiating, whether or not we are going to accept them and run them in the future. >> yeah, and i was wondering, even if they are just package plants, that would be available. but that's -- >> right. >> that's not what i'm primarily interested in. i guess the -- this item itself is fairly narrow. it says we want to use and we want to pursue a variance of the board of supervisors so we can use this kind of contract. i'm fine with that. but i want to make sure is that as we go down that road, assuming we get the variance, and we do the overall design, that we are -- we, p.u.c. staff and the commission itself are
8:14 am
able to make sure that is consistent with our environmental objectives, the one water policy that we have adopted and take advantage of opportunities that are really pretty unusual starting from scratch for all of it to come up with a small community to design and build and run the way we think a community should be in this day and age. so, i would want to make sure that this commission is involved in the review and approval of those designs at a point when they can still influence things. and we don't typically approve r.f.p.s. i think something prior to an r.f.p. would be appropriate for us to review in this case. it's kind of unusual. and also to deal with the various labor issues throughout there. because it's important to us,
8:15 am
it's important to the city, and we need to make sure we find out how we can do that, and matter of changing the p.l.a. for operating positions, i don't know what bucket of snakes that is, but if that's what it takes to get it down we should be thinking about it and talking to people about it. so i want to make sure as we go down this path that we have review and approval opportunities and they don't just sort of go on. >> i would like to echo particularly environmental components to see if we really could use that as a test bed. i know a lot of conversations over the years and sustaining planning in 2011 was done, which was probably the last time we even talked about this in-depth. as well as, i think it was also slated to be a clinton net 0 site at some point, and c40 has done work looking at treasure
8:16 am
island, the same reasons lifted up, that it's a brand-new development and a lot of opportunity to showcase some of the work, not only at the p.u.c. but happening in other places and to look at water and energy and the things that are sweet spots, and also what does the carbon footprint look like, green infrastructure, sea level rise, resilient strategy be. so, what could be some key components that we could put into the r.f.p. to attract some of these great thinkers and doers around environmental resiliency and climate resiliency. >> we are putting out the design guidelines put out by tida for the project, and i agree. >> we do know somebody on the -- >> on tida? >> on tida. some familiarity. >> stakeholder that we can bring in. >> there may be some opportunities for some real
8:17 am
collaboration there. >> yeah. >> i would like to move the item. >> i'll second. >> president caen: public comments on this item. all those in favor? opposed? certainly had quite a bit of input. next item, please. >> item 15, approve a form allowing cleanpowersf customers to receive supergreen 100% renewable energy service under a multi-year service agreement. >> utility specialist with cleanpowersf, here to request
8:18 am
your approval of a form agreement to allow cleanpowersf customers to enter multi-year green service. primary goal enable large commercial customers to enter into the agreement, but anticipate the agreement could be used more broadly for my customer who wants to demonstrate a commitment through green power and cleanpowersf. a little background. lead as you probably know is a widely used building certification system for green buildings. administered by the green building council and the latest version, v4, includes a green power and carbon offset category, allows up to two points to use 100% renewable green power, carbon offsets to cover a project's energy use. if you choose power, must be green certified and all the power within that mix should
8:19 am
come online. cleanpowersf meets the requirements and they wondered if we could have an agreement to get the green points for new projects for services they are already getting. so the agreement presented to you today replaces our standard month to month service with the multi-year commitment. it offers no special pricing or cost protections, it's simply a term of 1 to 5 years that the customers select and upon completion of the term, return to the normal super green service. should the customer terminate early, we have structured a one-time fee that varies by rate class and is equal to one month average super green premium. we see this agreement as a really easy way to offer benefits to both customers and the cleanpowersf program. potentially adding additional value to the super green service
8:20 am
they have, and for cleanpowersf, a good way to promote super green service, customer retention and satisfaction. there's little additional cost or administrative burden to offering this sort of agreement. and finally, we see this agreement as really laying a foundation for future product offerings. we are considering agreements that would be tied to specific renewable energy projects or ones that would offer special rates, and those agreements would have different terms and would be presented to the commission at that time, but we see this as a step in that direction and a straightforward agreement that allows us to provide some real value to customers asking for it. so with that, thank you, i'll take any questions. >> a couple. the lead requirement to get the couple points is about a five-year commitment? >> yes. >> for power? >> commissioner moran: looking at the agreement for the termination provisions, i understand the logic behind
8:21 am
them, they look fairly gentle. and that a person, if they were not acting in good faith, could sign up for five years and then after they got their certification could say well, never mind. and the price for that would not be very high. so, and that would primarily be a lead concern, i would think. on the other hand, i don't want us offering a product that ends up being a sham. so, what i'm trying to figure out is if there is a way that we can either time limit this program or, and basically monitor any kind of termination history that we have, and give us the opportunity if it looks as though people are exiting prematurely, that we can change the offering in an appropriate way. within this program as it's laid out, is that something that would be subject to review and
8:22 am
revision as far as new offerings of contracts as we go forward? the individual contracts would be for five years, i assume. but if in year two of this program we decided we don't like it anymore, we would have the authority to terminate or change the program? question mark. >> the question is yes and we can bring it back to the commission. bring reporting on customer participation and activity on a regular basis so that the commission understands how customers are behaving, that have signed up. and we can set a term to come back for reconsidering the form, too. if that's of interest. >> commissioner moran: i would like some routine reporting on this kind of thing that i expect there would not be a whole rash of activity that would need
8:23 am
frequent reports but something frequent enough that keeps us on, stays in our mind that this is something we need to pay attention to. and you know, so if we had an annual report on that, that would be fine with me. i would also ask that if you start seeing activity, that is of concern or note in any particular way that you come back to us and inform us of that. >> absolutely. >> commissioner moran: the integrity of the program i'm most concerned about and i don't want it to be, i don't want us to be such good guys we get taken advantage of. that said, i think it's a great program. >> president caen: residential? >> we think this is really primarily to benefit commercial but for residential customer they may want to demonstrate a commitment to the program, they may want to kind of make a more formal commitment, like the p.r. value, the bragging rights for being clean energy over multiple years.
8:24 am
>> vice president vietor: and what if the house sells? commercial, the commercial business sells. they have to pay their fee, i would imagine, but -- is there an opportunity to pass on the contract? via deed or what not, to the next homeowner? >> the agreement is with the account holder, so it would terminate at the time the business or a resident -- >> vice president vietor: and pay a fee. a lot of motivation for a homeowner to do it, besides a gold star. but -- >> commissioner moran: green sticker. >> vice president vietor: green sticker, gold star, same idea. especially if at some point people move relatively frequently, and then they would have to pay a fee to terminate. >> forgot to introduce myself,
8:25 am
michael himmes, to be frank, i think you are right, we are not sure how much this will attract residential customers as is, aside from the -- for the reasons that miss almond just mentioned. there may be some residential customers that are very motivated, and exception to that, though, could be a multi-family building, which of course is residential, but you know, has a commercial purpose and they may want to receive lead certification potentially. but miss almond in her remarks mentioned we think this is kind of a first step. what we are trying to do is act quickly to respond to our customers' interests. our customers have told us that they would like to be super green customers, partly because they want the lead certification, stamp of approval for the buildings. so we think this is something that we can provide under the
8:26 am
context of our existing super green offering, but one thing we would like to do that we have been talking about is a multi-year agreement that conveys additional benefits to customers like a fixed price for example, or i think as miss almond mentioned, associated with the specific project that gets developed as a result of their commitment. now, for that type of product i would anticipate we would have much more significant termination fees because we would be making a real multi-year commitment and fixing costs and making commitments on our end. but under this agreement, we are not necessarily changing our behavior or risk profile as it relates to the super green products. >> commissioner moran: and i think -- i think you are probably right about the single-family home. but multi-family developments, lord knows the permitting process is competitive in the
8:27 am
city and if that's part of the mix to come before the permitting bodies and say no the only are we going to talk a good game, but here is a commitment. i think that there is real value for our office building, we have bragging rights that we use all the time about the nature of that. so i think there's real value here, even though it does not come out in rights or anything like that. >> vice president vietor: yeah, i think it would be nice to hear back from you in a few minutes, what the incentives should be to encourage the multi-year commitment. and you don't have to pay a bill every month or something, you know. you could -- and some people might like that, it's like they are taken care of for the year, one bill, right? because it's multi-year agreement or something that would make an incentive or whatever speaks to the people's desire, and part is the green star. it might be permitting question,
8:28 am
it might be, you know, that you want to build, you want to see a project come to fruition in your neighborhood or in california, what have you. so, to understand for us to understand like what the incentives could or should be for this program, i think would be great. moving along. >> commissioner moran: let me just ask, i'll make a motion to amend the resolution to include annual reporting requirement. >> president caen: thank you. >> vice president vietor: i'll second the amendment. >> president caen: ok. public comments on the amendment? all those in favor? opposed? the motion carried. now we vote on the amendment -- excuse me, the resolution, that includes the new amendment. >> vice president vietor: i would like to move the resolution as amended. >> commissioner moran: second that. >> president caen: public
8:29 am
comment? all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. [please stand by]
8:30 am
>> asking you to approve the project and adopt the mitigated negative declaration that is contained in here. it does not include funding that is part of the annual budget process that you see coming forward. so we recommend approval of the project as it is. >> second. >> comment on this? >> next item. item 17 i prove the selection of aecom technical services to provide construction management services for the proposed mountain tunnel improvement project, not to exceed $24.5 million.
8:31 am
i would like to notice that the commission did receive two additional letters this morning, one from deputy agm of the contract administration bureau dated -- i'm sorry, that was from steve wing dated april 21 and one dated april 19 from ms. fine and there are companies in the public binder. >> good afternoon. assistant general manager for infrastructure. this contract would be for $24.5 million. it is for construction management services because we will have continue to have multiple shutdowns for mountain tunnel and construction to do repairs, add a shaft, do road work, slope stabilization work. we went through the interview, the rfp process had interviews and evaluated written proposals and the firms were ranked. and acom was the top ranked
8:32 am
firm. epc responded shortly after, but staff feel pretty confident we should move forward with aecom. i can answer any questions. i also have the city attorney here who worked with us on the response. >> i read the letter and reviewed the materials and i'm ready to make a motion. i'll move the item. >> second it. >> thank you. comments on this item? seeing none. all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries.
8:33 am
so, shall we read items to be covered in closed session? >> yes. item 20, is existing litigation, joseph versus city and county of san francisco. 21, existing litigation. 23, existing litigation, pacific gas and electric. 24, existing litigation, pacific gas and electric. are there any public comments on the items to be addressed during closed session? seeing none, may have a motion on whether to assert? >> i'll move to assert. >> second.
8:34 am
>> president ye all /* we are going to take five-minute break. maybe eight minutes. >> [laughter]. the commission has now reconvened in open session. the announcement following the closed session is the following. item 20 was settled. items 21 through 26, no action. >> just to clarify on item 20, it was a recommendation to the board of supervisors, so there is not a final. >> recommendation to the board of supervisors. thank you. that's because of the amount of money, correct? >> correct. >> may have a motion regarding whether to disclose? >> move not to disclose. >> second. >> all those in favor?
8:35 am
opposed? the last item, other new business. i have something to bring up. i was wondering why the commissioners have not gotten a raise -- [laughter] -- or, i don't know, how many years? and that's true of other commissioners that serve on commissions that have compensation. could somebody look into that? >> who? >> i think it's hard wired to the charter. >> i'll have to check if it's charter. >> i think the rate of compensation is the charter. by the way, which bargaining
8:36 am
unit rcmp -- are you in? >> back in 1932, that was a special amount of money. >> it's in the charter? >> good try, ann. >> we'll research it and get back to you. >> okay. all right. any further business? seeing none. this meeting is adjourned at 3:45.
8:37 am
8:38 am
8:39 am
8:40 am
8:41 am
8:42 am
8:43 am
8:44 am
8:45 am
8:46 am
8:47 am
8:48 am
8:49 am
8:50 am
8:51 am
8:52 am
8:53 am
8:54 am
8:55 am
8:56 am
8:57 am
8:58 am
8:59 am
9:00 am