tv BOS Land Use and Transportation Committee SFGTV January 31, 2022 1:30pm-4:01pm PST
>> good afternoon. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the january 10th 2022 -- january 31st regular meeting of the land use and transportation committee board of supervisors. i am chair of the committee, joined by vice chair supervisor jean preston and supervisor erin peskin. the committee clerk today is erica major. i would also like to acknowledge the good folks at san francisco government t.v. for staffing this meeting. do you have any announcements? >> thank you. the minutes will be happening
through videoconference to the same extent as if they were physically present. the board recognizes that public assets to city services is essential and invite public participation. public comment will be available on each item on the agenda. san francisco government t.v. are streaming the public caller number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed to minutes to speak. comments are opportunities to speak. these are available via phone by calling the number on your screen. if you are interested in making public comment, please dial star three to be added to the speaker
line when the item is called. when connected you will hear the meeting discussion but you will be meet -- muted and in listening mode only. when your item comes up, you will just need to press starve three. press it once and you will be added to the queue. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak quietly and slowly and turned on your television or radio. you may submit public comment in the following ways. you can e-mail myself and my e-mail address is... if you submit public comment via e-mail it will be forwarded to the supervisors and made part of the official file. comments may also be sent via the postal service. items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors' agenda, unless
otherwise stated. >> thank you so much, madame clerk. will you please call item number 1? >> item one is motion adopting findings pursuant to the california environmental quality act otherwise known as ceqa. the guidelines improving -- including mitigation measures and adopting a mitigation monitoring or reporting program. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call the number on the screen. press pound and pound again. if you have not don't so already, you can press starve three to line up to speak for item number 1. >> thank you very much. this is in items that are being fostered by supervisor --
president walton, but he is not here today. we have chief janine nicholson from the fire department and staff for public work. i think he is here from public works. we also have several staff on standby to answer any questions that we may have. with that, welcome chief nicholson. >> i don't have chief nicholson here. >> is anyone here from the fire department? or perhaps we can bring up brian dolph from public works first. [ indiscernible ] i was asked to provide a few opening remarks. would this be appropriate?
>> i am a regulatory specialist with regulatory affairs with public works. >> supervisor tang: thank you. >> supervisor tang: so the reason this project has come about is that it is expiring with the fire department's training facility on treasure island. this is a problem and it opens up the opportunity of consolidating the various training facilities that the fire department has. there is one south of market as well. the fire department had identified a parcel in the far southeast of the city on the coast. the owner of the parcel, however had a very short timeline for selling. they wanted some information about the beginning of this year and whether this city could be
purchased. you cannot actually make a commitment to purchase without them taking care of it first. we basically did a rush job on getting the mitigation out in six months, which is humiliating. it is a third of what it usually takes. we have a lot of pulling together of public works and planning staff and good consultants to thank for that. what we have now is the document and the findings before you, which has asked that you review the document and if you deem appropriate adopt the findings before approving the project. do you have any questions? >> thank you. supervisor peskin has a
question. >> i do. i think this is probably for council. i have read the s. -- the ff md and the findings that are before us in this item and looked at all of the things that are less than substantial and can be mitigated. i'm fine with all of that good work. my question is, it is very rare that the board adopts these findings. they are generally adopted by planning. we usually adopt them when we do -- when we take an action, we incorporate and find a new the findings that have previously been found by the planning commission. the planning commission did improve -- approve the final mitigated negative declaration. why is this here?
is it because of the acquisition action? why is this a standalone? i am curious. i am cool. >> me too. >> i have the exact same question. so i spoke with a number of other people. there is nothing in chapter 31 that prohibits this. i think this is just convenience. the idea is to keep all of the cake pieces moving. it is more typical as you stated to have the adoption happen at the same time as the project approval. the board will be taking the project approval for this project and this is the body that does need to adopt this. there's nothing in chapter 31 that says you can't adopt it. separated from the project approval either.
>> i was wondering, i was trying to figure out. i found a brilliant lawyer through the chair is the reason for this, we wanted this to be the first action to trigger the appeal, but i don't think that works. the appeal period runs for the adoption. it's not like someone has to take an action that starts in appeal period.
you are correct. it is not start the cloth sooner. it is about taking care of this because you can. it is changing the order. and if other folks start doing this, i'm not sure. go ahead. >> good afternoon, chair and supervisors. i'm the director of real estate. thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond and speak to the item in your question. the city attorney is absolutely correct. we are taking this item to the board for environmental review and approval as a practical matter. first off, i would like to say that this project will be coming to you for your consideration of the full board in march. as you may or may not know or
recall, we have a purchase option to acquire this property that runs out at the end of may. one of the reasons we acquired the purging's option is only to give you time, but also give us time to pursue the port property, which is adjacent and part of the project. the state legislation that is needed for the port acquisition has lagged a little bit. and having the board approve these findings, we believe would be helpful and moving state legislation along. there is somewhat of a synergy in showing the state legislature that the city is committed to this project and to the property, and does put a little bit of pressure on them to do their part to move forward with the acquisition of the port property because we need both the private property and the port property in order to move forward with the project. we are egging your indulgence to
put the cart a little bit before the horse by a couple of months for the environmental, but the project approval will soon be coming to the board for that's -- for its consideration. i add the environmental review does not bind the hand of the board when you consider the project as a whole. >> thank you. that makes more sense. supervisor peskin? >> when i raised my hand, i just said what i was going to say or ask, which is the adoption of the findings does not tie the board's hand. that is fine. >> thank you. i want to note that chief nicholson is here. welcome. i see you there and you're standing up desk. >> thank you for being late. i was in back-to-back meetings. i know you guys have no idea what that is like.
anyways, i really appreciate the opportunity to speak and this is such a critical project for us. we are in dire need of this facility. i really want to thank the director for doing everything he possibly can for getting the state to move on this, as well as keeping you apprised of it. we need to be out of treasure island in 2025-2026 the latest. we really need to ensure that all the pieces are in place to get it moving forward. thank you very much for your consideration. >> thank you so much, chief. okay. if there are no other comments or questions from colleagues, madame clerk, let's take public
comment on this item. >> thank you. we are checking to see how many callers we have in the queue. if you have not done so already, please add -- please press start three to be added to the cue. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been on muted. we have matthew supporting as today and we have six listeners. >> no speakers, madame chair. >> okay. thank you. with that, public comment is closed. colleagues, does anyone want to make a motion to send this out with a positive recommendation?
>> thank you, congratulations. that motion passes. >> i appreciate your time and attention to this matter. >> thank you. please call item number 2. >> it is an ordinance to create the housing innovation program to develop, finance and support additional housing opportunities for low income and moderate income residents including loans and technical assistance for certain low income and moderate income property owners to access dwelling units or other new units on their property. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call the number on the screen. the meeting id today is... press
pound and pound again. if you have not done so already, please press start three. >> thank you so much. colleagues, i introduce this legislation with supervisor marr to help provide parameters to the $10 million in funding that was approved by this board during the previous budget cycle. the intent of these dollars was to invest in ideas for housing that are currently not being financed. particularly for residents and geographic areas that have not been traditional. this legislation establishes a general program, but provides funding guidelines and eligible uses to help inform the project -- the process.
the funding is intended to be managed by an outside entity like a community development financial institution or studio five are nonprofit organization, but it is fuelled in this time -- this type of work and has connection to historically disenfranchised communities, which is what we are trying to reach. we have been making some progress in building up our affordable housing stock in san francisco, the portfolio that the city manages to the mayor's office of housing and community development is limited. i also want to think my colleague -- thank my colleagues for the work they have been doing with the proper i committee and the work that they are trying to put together to elicit ideas and innovation for the broader community in san francisco to build social housing. this particular pot of money is not for social housing.
it is mostly geared towards house rent and cash for homeowners. the problem we were trying to solve for is to include all of the displacement and gentrification that is happening in lakeview, ingleside, sunset, areas where there has traditionally been low income homeowners, folks who are aging who have more house than they need but have very few options. they want to stay in the community where they are involved and they love. the status quo right now is not going to cut it for our neighborhoods. we keep hearing concerns over a few laws that are coming out right now, which really gives the advantage of the value being created to folks who have the
capital to invest in capturing that value. it is often not homeowners who are on fixed income or seniors or people who don't have access to the banking institution they have limited options to age in plates and their assets would usually be lost to the community or their family, black and brown communities that have been completely devastated by government's action, redlining, and what we saw happening during the foreclosure crisis, the problems that we have have not really targeted those communities, nor did they support building generational wealth in the communities by allowing units to be passed down. and the equity that has been built up over the time who moved
here from the south through the 1950s about a home in the bayview or lakeview, and don't have the option to pass it on to the heirs, the easiest thing is to move up. we are trying to address those constituents. and the next couple months, this committee will be deliberating on a number of proposals, allowing for plex is in san francisco and my hope is that with this program, we can start piloting some proofs of concept. that we can see what works on the financing side, which is not the zoning side, which is a whole different issue. my hope is that we can come up with a good project, abe would -- a good pilot project that we can move forward on. in summary, what this program could find -- fund are the
following things. the first is grants to the organization to create marketing and educational material about homeownership. there could be construction design prototypes that could be approved for smaller scale buildings and offer zero interest, zero payment loans for an low income and moderate income homeowners to construct 80 use and other units on their homes on their property with the built -- goal of supporting multigenerational living and aging in place. down payment assistance loans to low and moderate income tenants. for the acquisition of a
licensed childcare provider. this is folks who would be buying a resident -- resident as a first-time homeowner and have a home-based daycare there as well. that is a double bottom line of adding childcare slots and also providing the homeownership opportunity to a largely female low income workforce. and last, but not least, co-op conversions for existing land trusts buildings that are converting from rental occupied co-ops to owner occupied co-ops. it would be not for the acquisition of the building, but for the share loans of each individual owner occupant. so to be eligible, the properties must be owner occupied. the folks who are worried about
landlords or property owners, they are not eligible for this fund. and in exchange for these loans, and the loans are not subsidies or grants, the loans will be deed restricted and must be under rent control if they are creating new units. we have put a considerable amount of thought in establishing these general guidelines, and i think that they can be strengthened if we select the correct provider who has experience with this population and trust. i want to add that earlier, about an hour ago we received a letter from the coalition of tenant groups who were worried about some of the provisions in this legislation and we are asking for a continuance. i do have some nonsubstantive amendments to clarify some of the provisions and they must be
repaid. even though there nonsubstantive, i will support a continuance of the items we can have a chance to meet with the tenant groups and get their feedback and make sure that the legislation reflects our intent, which is to support low income homeowners and folks who want low income homeownership and not providing any avenues for displacement of tenants. in fact,, what our legislation intends to do is to add tenant provisions or rent control to the adu under the state way -- the state program that aren't under rent control right now. with that, i will -- supervisor peskin, did you have a question before i bring up the mayor's office of housing to do the presentation?
>> may be we can ask them now, but they might have some answers to some of it. we did want to nitpick on page 5 and appreciate, and this is something the board has been doing for a number of years. properties where there are certain types of evictions that would not be eligible, but i want to suggest that the language could be a little bit tighter because the way it is written is that within five years prior to property owners' application, the property owner has not engaged in one of those
types of evictions. i think it should be the property hasn't had those types of evictions. we want to discourage a buyer from buying a property with that history from then applying. >> if you could just hold those and ask in the presentation. i would be happy to take all of the suggestions of the committee. that is what the process is for. we did sing quite a bit on the -- think quite a bit on that issue. if we would indulge me, if we could go to the mayor's office of housing, we have sheila here. welcome. you could remember sheila from her planning department days. now at the mayor's office of housing. who has a presentation on this? >> wonderful. good afternoon.
let me pull up the presentation right now. what i want to do with the presentation is give you an overview of our understanding of the program and how it alliance with some existing programs and other opportunities that are out there. this is, as you described, the housing program has a four has for problematic areas. the second is around providing loans to low-income owners to construct the a.d.u. the third is down payment assistance for low income residents and the fourth is around loans to low-income owners to build limited equity co-ops. now i will jump to our programs and i will bring them back together and talk about what is in the housing innovation program and where there is some
alignment there. broadly speaking, they provide programs in three areas. community development, homeownership and new construction. and mostly what this program do would do is fit into the second bucket with homeowners, which currently we have programs for lending. bmr ownership, bmr rentals. there is a dream keeper initiative, which we want to highlight and we also do monitoring and compliance around that. since i mentioned the dream keeper's, and i want to emphasize this, there's a lot of potential alignment and synergy. the dream keeper initiative is investing a hundred $20 million over the next two years in san francisco black and african-american communities. it is seeking to increase opportunities for black communities through programs a focus on education, economic mobility, homeownership, and health and well-being. it is currently providing half a million dollars in down payment assistance and loans.
every -- offering wealth building grants and working closely with communities to help achieve these goals. and just to provide a snapshot, they did talk about how mohcd's portfolio is where the programs and housing opportunities are. these are, as you can see, concentrated in central and eastern san francisco. they are affordable opportunities on the western side of the city. these are our state and federal funded systems. same concentration pattern where we have housing opportunities really concentrate in the central and eastern parts. our pipeline does show that there are new projects coming out on the western side of the city, which is great, but clearly not as much as we see in other parts of the city. i want to provide a snapshot on the demographics.
i hope you can see this. this is our bmr ownership in the past year by race and ethnicity. the darker blue's current owners, and then the lighter blue is low and moderate income san francisco residents. you can see where there is proportionality between the number of folks in the population groups. in this large data bar is where we have so many bmr folks that have been in residences long before we started collecting data. we don't have data on those. this is what we want to highlight. there is a huge discrepancy between black bmr owners and our population of black," and income -- low and moderate income residents in san francisco. that is specifically what the dream keeper's' initiative is focused on. here is another one where we will be talking about the down payment assistance. we want to highlight the assistance loan program.
you can see that there is some alignment here. it does look better for the black population in terms of those who are purchased. mohcd partners with homeownership s.f. which acts as a one-stop shop to provide education, technical assistance and research to homebuyers, homeowners, renters, and educators. and in partnership it was
attended by a thousand people. it has been virtual for the past two years and we hope to bring it back to in person soon. the dream keeper's initiative is focused on education for african-american san franciscans to make the gap in serving the population. in 2018 with three for -- african-american households participating in homeownership programs, and with the dream keepers there are 250 black households working towards homeownership. dream keepers and mohcd are working together with home ownership s.f. to provide capacity building to housing counciling agencies focused on implicit bias training and building competency. in the area prototype design, they can simplify the production of new units. the planning department does have a detailed handbook that covers partial and sole garage conversions as well as backyard a.d.u. and the state has useful handbooks as well. for the backyard a.d.u., the
private market is offering a range of modular a.d.u. options. we need companies to offers -- offer permitting processes as well. there maybe interesting examples for the program to build off of. in the program area two, which would be loans for low and moderate owners to add the a.d.u., there are no public programs that provide this. this would be a brand-new thing for the program to offer. in the third programmatic area, it is down payment assistance loans for low and moderate income tenants, we do have a few examples. they have a suite of down payment assistance loan programs including those open to any applicants and programs targeting specific populations. the dream keepers are focusing on african-american homebuyers and we are also supporting educators and first responders and homeowners purchasing bmr units. all of these programs are designed for the purchase of homes or condos.
they are not meant for the co-op. and for homebuyers who offered childcare, the regulation is designed for the designated childcare unit that could be applicable. that is currently for rentals, but it could be an interesting model. in the fourth category of loans for low and moderate income tenants to form equity cooperatives, the san francisco community land trust currently operates similar equity co-ops where they held -- told found leases and there's the operation of the properties. that could be a model for this as well. lastly we want to offer a preliminary timeline of what issuing an r.f.p. is to have an organization operates these funds. and r.f.p. go out this spring. the notice of funding would be later this spring which we review in the summer and hopefully have a program launch in august or september.
and with me here today is maria benjamin who is the director of homeownership and bmr programs. we are here to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you so much, sheila. annika, do you have a presentation as well or are you here to answer questions? >> just answer questions. >> thank you so much. welcome and thank you for being with us. sorry about that. thank you for taking the time. i want to check, is supervisor mar here? >> i do not see him. >> okay. he told me he would come but he must have been delayed. thank you so much. with that, thank you, colleagues for considering this. i am excited to be supporting
some new ideas. some are in alignment with the mirror's office of housing. it already has existing programs. some of it is totally new. i am excited to start this conversation for how we can innovate and serve populations that have traditionally not been served in the existing programs that we have i heard from black and latino families constantly how the program compliance issues just didn't work for the hopes and dreams of families who have felt excluded by our system
and how it keeps homeownership and wealth putting opportunities from some. thank you so much. i will turn it over to you before we take public comment. and we can do some of edmonson do whatever we need to do. supervisor peskin, did you have any further questions or issues before we go to public comment. >> i did. what do you do about bankruptcies. >> we don't. the mirror's office of housing has existing policies around that. >> all of the affordable housing covenants got wiped out by the bankruptcy and we had to buy back the affordable housing covenants.
that wasn't real good. what did we learn from that? >> this is a deed of trust. the properties are not restricted. the loans are supposed to be paid back. this is a very similar model. i know that she let put it in the same category, but there are two very different models. the bmr program is a deed restriction on the property that puts an income cap while the down payment is a stuck in loan after the mortgage that is meant to be paid back. it doesn't falter the property. with a bankruptcy, you know, which is actually pretty rare for down payment assistance program, and perhaps miss benjamin can talk about it, i
would imagine it would follow the same. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm happy to talk about it. it is very rare. we are absolutely right. it is very rare that a bmr homeowner goes into foreclosure. and even during these tenuous times we are in right now, it is very rare. we do have systems in place to assist them prior to losing the problem that didn't exist before. >> as to my earlier comment, totally open to whatever we all land on, but it shouldn't run with the property owner.
it should run with the property as to whether or not it is a so-called dirty property with a bad eviction history on it. as i said at the beginning, this is all good stuff. the one thing i am concerned about is this notion that the co-op units or units that are subject to rent control could be turned into ownership stock and i want to tread carefully there. that maybe why the displacement coalition asked for a continuance. i don't know. i have the same letter that we all have, but definitely there -- it is worth policy exploration there.
those are my comments. >> that was not our intention. we are happy to work with the tenant's coalition and clarify what our intentions are. as for your first point, the thing about the five-year look back, these loans are income taxes. they are for people who are house rich and cash poor. it is extremely unlikely to purchase a single-family home in san francisco. and it would qualify for this pot of money. so even if we made it back 10 years -- i understand your point. we don't want to open this up to folks who would buy a property and then take advantage of the funding to give even more value.
that was not our intent. thank you. supervisor preston, did you have any comment or feedback? go ahead, please. >> thank you. thank you for bringing this forward. i think we are all looking at ways that we can address the affordability it needs of folks in san francisco. i appreciate all efforts to move that conversation forward.
supervisor peskin's committee earlier today was speaking earlier on that. maybe starting with the chair, i think it is a two-part question. i look at the slides presented about the program. there's nothing there about the $74 million that are in the stability fund and potentially more revenue in future. i wanted to ask mohcd about that. but more broadly to look at the relationship between the two. maybe that is because it is discrete and separate. as i read through, there is a number of types of housing that you are trying to create through
this. some seem separate and distinct and some seem to overlap with what may be considered by the house of civilian oversight. >> if i could go first, if that is okay, i think there is a little bit of overlap in what i understand is prop i. most -- by the definition of social housing, that the proper by folks are using housing that is owned by nonprofit and the
government. that is the working definition. this type of investment that we're talking about today is all privately owned. it is geared towards low-income homeowners. and if we are adding units, those units will be rent-controlled or they wouldn't have been before. going from single-family homes to two units. that is the bulk of this is for privately owned property. and where there is an overlap,
they get loans to buy their share owns. the land trust raise all this money to secure the property when it comes to them creating the ownership co-op in each individual unit that will have to come up with $10,000. that is what this money would be for. it is for the shared cost. eventually it will end up in the financing and the building to help the co-op. it is complementary. it is not an overlap or substituting in any way. i turned it over to sheila.
the housing innovation program is focused on those who already owned their homes but don't have the financial ability to leverage the equity, which then puts them in a position currently where they have to cash out in order to get anything. this is looking for ways to stay and build additional housing stocks simultaneously. where this other pot of money will be publicly owned housing. >> i don't know if you wanted to go to supervisor more. >> if that is okay, supervisor preston. >> thank you. i'm sorry i'm a little late. i hope i am not too late. i really wanted to thank you for all of your work on the housing immigration program.
this really aligns with a lot of the work that i have been doing through the sunset forward community-based planning process in district four and also with our a.d.u. pilot program in district four that we have worked on with the planning department. i think this is an example of how we can do our low-density neighborhoods in san francisco. it is not a problem. so many have tried to frame it, but our lower density residential neighborhoods, there is a tremendous amount of opportunity to expand housing in our neighborhoods and through new approaches, and particularly to create affordable housing for families and moderate income households. so having innovation programs is going to provide a really important new framework for us
to expand affordable family housing in our low-density residential neighborhoods, and even to stabilize a lot of the low-density residents -- residential neighborhoods that are predominantly working class communities of color, like many of them are and to help preserve their neighborhoods by preserving homeowners to build equity and expand their homes i am looking forward to working with you, caramilk are and the planning department. we have also been working with the planning department and aging income is one of our community partners. we have been working with them on a.d.u. -- creating affordable a.d.u. housing. >> thank you so much. if it is okay if we don't have more questions or comments,
colleagues, go ahead, supervisor peskin. we can go to public comment. >> just a housekeeping issue, which is it will be part of the file. it is great if we actually see these when we read them over the weekend or i will go on the internet. i generally only look at my board packet on the internet and i can absorb the powerpoint and ask questions rather than have to absorb it here. >> if we could -- if you could e-mail that to us, or the rest of the colleagues because it has some really good data on the investment of the mayor's office of housing. it is something i haven't seen before. thank you so much. with that, colleagues, there's a couple of amendments that i have on page 5, section d. i wanted to clarify that now it
reads as long as the borrower is not in default, repayment shall be deferred until the earlier of five years after the first certificate of occupancy is issued for the new unit or seven years after the deed of trust for the loan is recorded on the home. on the residence or a new unit. and also undersea, line 11, if the new unit is sold separately or in conjunction with the sale of the residence prior to the maturity date, instead of the end of the five-year term. so thank you so much. like i said, i will support a continuance of this until last -- until next week to allow us to meet with the tenant advocate and get it all straight. and with that, madame clerk, let's go to public comment. >> to the chair, i believe it supervisor preston put it in on the roster.
>> go ahead, supervisor preston. i didn't see you. >> thank you. i just wanted to continue and thank you for your comments. on the relationship, and i appreciate the comments on the relationship between the innovation fund and the housing stability fund, i think there are some things that, i can see there are things in here that are clearly different. there'll working with a low income homeowner to build and i'd -- and a.d.u. and that kind of thing, clearly i think they are outside. we can agree there outside the scope. but there is quite a bit, like the acquisition, the land trust model, things like that that to do, at least from my read, on the -- unleased -- at least -- unless they aren't intended to be, that are things that the stability fund oversight board has identified that we have provided the funding for, and as far as i can tell, it is the
definition here too. if we were talking about a situation where we were adequately resourcing all of these things, it would kind of be a nonissue. we may have talked about that this is more is better in some sense in terms of both and in terms of doing that. may be i want to inject the political reality a little bit into the conversation, which is that, you know, in the last budget cycle, the housing stability fund was funded despite proper bypassing. this was funded at $10 million when we have not yet moved forward in an ordinance and i think, my hope is that we are working towards a time where both of these endeavours, with the ordinance, you know, amended in whatever ways emerge during the continuance, but we are hoping both of those things -- it is concerning to me,
especially with the infrastructure that exists on the oversight board, if it is an area that the oversight board is looking to fund, where does that leave this? one of the questions i did have about this is in the decision-making. they set up a body of stakeholders and it is a very public process. people can call in and see what the recommendations are. here i am not clear what the innovation fund -- like if this passes and then the funds are there, what do you envision as the process for figuring out what gets the use of the funds? what gets funded and how can stakeholders weigh in on that? >> thank you, supervisor preston. this is not the proper i fund. it is a very different process. i think that we had envisioned
that it would be a very similar operation of the fund as was the nonprofit displacement fund where one that had existing relationships and know-how in lending would be able to create an r.f.p. and put out a set of qualifications that people would answer to their mission driven by definition. they support low income people. they are nimbler. it just happens more quickly than it does through the mayor's
office of housing. let me address the issue of the overlap with the community land trust. because the mayor's office of housing currently is supporting the acquisition of properties of by the land trust through the small sights program, which now, hopefully, will have more. i do know that it is a need. it is an urgent need that they have and i am hoping that it will also help support the mayor's office of housing knowing how to operationalize that and support the land trust in making that happen. it hasn't quite happened yet and i'm hoping that it will.
>> thank you. and i think following up on some of the comments that i was making before, and may be planting the seed. it is unfortunate when we have legislation pending. the committee can't sit down with each other and brainstorm on these things. i will do that here in public hearing, but i want to propose -- i don't know if it would be a friendly -- i don't want to propose the amendment, but the concept to you, which is linking this to funding of the housing stability fund we have a problem, also a disagreement between the board and the administration around funding
for the housing stability fund. i think i will just tell you, from one supervisor's perspective that my level of enthusiasm for a new fund, when we are not funding the one that is there, it certainly impacts that. i would love to send a message and figure out how we sent a message as a board that these things will go in tandem and that the fund will come -- become operational or move forward when we are also using the funds as intended on the housing stability fund. there is considerable override. but there are also areas that this innovation fund gets that that are different from some of the others. i would love to see both being funded moving forward in tandem. [please standby for captioner switch]
i think there isn't a small area of compliment under limited equity co-ops. it is very small in proportion to the entirety of the program area of the fund. it is actually very different to have a homeowner occupied home and social housing that is owned by nonprofit or government entity. they have very different models. for whatever it is worth in my district 7 it is two-thirds homeowner occupied. many neighborhoods that are low income one of the last african-american home ownership that is what we were trying to address, and obviously we are not restricting to just district 7 and 4. my hunch is that is where it is used the most because this is
the most of this type of housing, community in district 4, 7, maybe 11 and 10 as well, but i can't imagine that we are going to have a lot of take up in district 5, for example. they are a different set of needs. i think it is okay to address those. >> thank you. with that let's go to public comment, madam clerk. >> clerk: thank you. we are checking to see how many callers are in the queue. press star 3 to speak. those on hold continue to wait until the system indicates you are unmuted and you may begin your comments. we have 15 listeners with nine in the queue. first caller, please.
>> caller: good afternoon, supervisor melgar and committee members. i work at children's council of san francisco i am a district 3 resident. i am calling in support of supervisor melgar's housing innovation program. >> i am assuming for now, no. >> i am pausing. i have someone that needs to be muted. there we go. sorry about that. let's restart. go ahead. >> thank you. hi, everyone. i am nina charles, district 3 resident calling in support of supervisor melgar's program to offer new ways to support low
and middle income residents in purchasing their own home. family child care providers are often facing high risk of displacement if they are renters. most family child care providers are women of color. in san francisco we only have enough capacity to serve 50% of the infant and toddlers. this would allow more women of color to become homeowners and small business owners. we are in support of down payment assistance for family child care and long-term tenant occupants as this will help them stay in san francisco. we have the opportunity right now to move forward with the piece of legislation. i believe we must do so in order to protect family child care and expand for the needs. thank you so much for this time
to speak. >> supervisor melgar: next speaker, please. >> caller: this is anastasia. i am part of the anti displacement coalition. we would like to work further with you to make sure that there are no tenants who live in these buildings are displaced. also, one suggestion is to make these things instead of loans, turn them into grants so that these low-income people can build wealth into their homes. thank you. please continue.
>> supervisor melgar: next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. i am mamie underwood in district 10. child care provider. i am calling to support supervisor melgar's initiative program. some child care providers are so much at risk of losing homes, family placements and the continuity of care with the children due to the high rent in san francisco. many providers have been not able to keep their homes or their livelihood, their jobs due to the high increase in rents in san francisco. not only do they lose homes, businesses are gone, they lose
the connection between neighborhoods and friends and support of families and the children they have been taking care of. i truly hope that you continue to move forward on this initiative. it will truly bring more people to low-income people, the last people that are involved. increase wealth. it increases the number of african-american and brown people to live in san francisco where the numbers are dwindling as we already know. thank you so very much. i look forward to the outcome. thank you. >> supervisor melgar: next speaker, please. >> caller: supervisors this is lorraine district 5 affordable
housing for seniors and people with disabilities. i support supervisor melgar and mar's housing innovation if amended. it is moving us in the right direction but doesn't go far enough to help homeowners and renters who need the most help and suffer the most obstacles. if we encourage greater density in residential housing it must come with greater ownership and rental opportunities for low income and vulnerable populations and guaranteed protections. any density program must have read de-access to owner occupiers on fixed incomes. we have a hard enough time securing food not adding major debt. the frightening prospect of managing construction. this could be great for low income renters if their current status and return is ironclad protected.
any newly built units are truly affordable. a program based on loans is not adequate to overcome obstacles. i propose grants rather than loans to low income owner occupiers continuing in the residence after the construction. to guarantee low a.m.i.ren betals for the 50 year period. grants could be administered through the public bank with enforcement assistance from the housing rent registry and board. protection for current residents must be expanded and guaranteed with provisions regarding the tenant co-op members definitely need further scrutiny. it must be re-examined before any amendment.
>> supervisor melgar: next caller. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. i worked as early childhood educator 27 years. i am calling to support the housing initiative program. i learned two important facts in child care. first that fcc educators provide safety. reality most of the fccs don't own their own homes. we make the home away from home for the children and families. second fact i have learned children become part of our own families. this initiative prevents future displacement be providing financial needs to secure housing and give communities and neighborhoods across san francisco generational housing and continued care. i ask you to support family
child care now and in the future. please continue to advocate for more ways to support early kay and education in san francisco. thank you. >> supervisor melgar: next speaker, please. >> caller: i am director of the family child care association. i am a constituent of supervisor mar, district 4. i wanted to express my gratitude for this initiative. i think it will help provider in the city. it is an important step but i agree that there is definitely more that could be done for low-income people who may not afford alone. maybe there is more room for grants for those in existing, existing homeowners to expand and provide more income.
this is a fabulous event listening to your conversations about this. i learned so much throughout this thing. thank you very much, supervisor melgar and mar. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. i am liz. i work for low income investment and cpac chair. i support the housing innovation program to offer support to purchase their own homes which is much needed in the city. this will help family child care providers who face high risk much of displacement as renters. when they lose their home they lose the child care business and the neighborhoods they are serving and lose the child care spot that are much needed.
we hope up support this program and we look forward to ways to support the early child should educators in san francisco. thank you so much. >> supervisor melgar: next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. corey smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. i will echo the comments of previous speakers. i want be to extend appreciation to supervisors melgar and marfor leading these efforts. the name says it all. when we are innovative in creating more homes for middle and low-income people in san francisco especially those boxed out of the opportunities we commend you and look forward to
this process. this was certain for supervisor melgar to create these opportunities given the economic realities. anytime we can put generational wealth and put money in family's pockets from the one generation to the next that is a fantastic outcome. i know melgar and marare aware there is an architect in san francisco who has been talking about a program. the six-story apartment building designed to house middle income and think this could be a good fit. any conversations around this legislation and if there are opportunities on incentivize
homeowners to get low income housing and create generational house. absolutely love the way this is headed. it seems like an all options and ideas on the table. that is fantastic. let us know how we can be helpful. >> supervisor melgar: i apologize for cutting you. next speaker. we have 13 listening and four in the queue. press star 3 to speak. >> caller: i am mary thomas, district 11. child care provider for 40 years. it is so important for us. we appreciate supervisor melgar for bringing this out. we have those losing providers and we are one family and we
work together and we are essential workers. we want to let you know we are teachers, educators like you to fight the district. we are responsible to take care of these families. i thank you right now for your time. >> next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon. i want to echo what a lot of folks have said in supporting supervisor melgar's housing innovation program. new ways to support low and middle income residents to purchase their open be homes. child care providers face high risk of displacement as renters. they lose their home, business
in these much needed child care help in the neighborhoods are gone. we need this now more than ever. i urge your support. i look forward to ways to support you in the future in san francisco. thank you so much for your time. >> next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. i am calling in support of the continuance. we definitely need more time to discuss some of our concerns as part of the anti displacement coalition. there are many concerns. i appreciate the continuance. i also look forward to amendments. i think there are a lot of great things in this legislation. again, seeing a lot of what has
happened here in north beach with developers actually speculators coming in to buy up rent controlled buildings and delays construction or stopping and starting over a three year period where there have been constructive evictions. then when three a.d.u.s are added to see the prices right now at $4,700 a month per one bedroom units is a little scary. to avoid unintended commences to this i look forward to some serious discussions. thank you so much. >> that was the last caller in the queue. hell hell thank you, madam clerk. supervisor mar.
closing mark remarks. >> i do want to thank the folks that called in especially the child care providers. i think it is exciting how the housing innovation can help support family and child care providers being able to stabilize facilities and operations. i think that also the tenant rights and anti displacement advocates appreciate your concerns and you sept an e-mail. the coalition sept an e-mail also. i want to emphasize that i and chair melgar are committed to censuring the housing innovations created through this program have the strongest possible protection for tenants. i believe that the legislation
is good. we will have time for dialogue with you over the next week. thanks again. thank you, chair melgar. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. madam clerk tells me there is one more public comment that popped up. we will take that caller. >> caller: i am from the mission economic agency. we support this initiative and appreciate chair melgar and marraising a continuance. it sounds like you have ongoing
conversations. it is important to the key provisions that we would like to see go forward. tenant protections. i will mention the owner moved in and bought out withdrawn units and strengthening those in every way possible. we think this is a major step forward to mark increasing the overall participation among our low income families across the city. who have not historically not had access to participate in the growth that occurs. we know that there they talk about those facing the most likely possible displacement in that circumstance along with the family child care providers. those are critical areas that we would like to see this implemented and grow that piece
of the pie and making sure we like this idea of making sure we have a community serving implementation partners as part of the cultural ecosystem stabilization lens towards the whole maximizing impacts of the program. we strongly support those provisions going forward. we would like to bring the legislation we are seeing and making sure we have these ongoing conversations what are the impacts. >> madam chair. there is one more caller. quick announcement. we are on item 2. administrative code ordinance. press star 3 to be added to the speaker line. let's take the last caller.
>> caller: i am nancy. resident of district 2. former appraiser for affordable housing nationally. i also. [indiscernable] i did not mean to speak on this call. i was here nor the vacancy coming up. i want to bring up i hope the language, i am very much in support of supervisors mar and melgar. i lived in nine states. the lack of hispanic and black people in san francisco county is horrifying. i have multiple latino and native-american friends who moved out of the bay. please tie the language be to this based on very low income and low income. i am hearing a lot of the cash poor moderates.
if i look at any of the districts, all is 11 the majority of ownership is white male. asian or caucasian or white, whatever you want to call it. i hope you can focus on very low income and low income homeowners of color. they have been so affected by the gentrification in the greater area. additionally, to make it proportional based on representation in each district. i didn't see that spoken of fully. as i was pulling up the data from the survey coming out because of the census in 2020. i look forward to seeing how much it changed in the home ownerships. that my district 2 i am grateful
for my supervisor. melgar and marthank you again for doing the work and going to bat on this. >> thank you to all of those who came out to comment including the advocates who i will meet with and work with to make sure that there are no unintended consequences for any of that language to negatively affect tenants. that is not what we want to do. i will make a motion we continue to the call of the chair. i do intend to bring this back soon, however, i want to give us enough time to have all of these
conversations, including with my colleagues to make sure the language reflects our intention. let me add since a couple folks called in from low income investment fund that we drafted this to make sure we can leverage other funding as well. with the child care providers we have a child care facility fund that right now cannot -- is not usable. it should be. this is why we are having this open innovation fund to be able to have more flexibility around this requirement so we can leverage other funding that is available to this population and low-income people as well. with that i look forward to your partnership and creating something that is useful and practical and can help people. madam clerk, if there is no
other comments from my colleagues. did you have something to say supervisor peskin. let's take roll call on the motion to continue to the call of the chair, please. >> we will close public comment. >> yes, public comment is now closed. thank you. >> clerk: there was a motion to amend. >> supervisor melgar: let's amend it first. >> clerk: on the motion to amend item 2 as stated by supervisor melgar. is there a mover? melgar. >> supervisor melgar: yes. >> clerk: supervisor peskin on that motion. >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar.
>> aye. >> clerk: there are three ayes. on the remaining balance to continue to the call of the chair as amended supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, supervisor mar for joining us. madam clerk, please call item 3. >> clerk: hearing to learn more about pacific gas and electric company and the san francisco public utilities commission rolls in providing power to the city projects and affordable housing and about the impact of pg&e requirements on proposed
fine lines, budgets and power sources decisions. call 415-655-0001. if you would like to speak to this item press star 3 to be added to the queue. >> supervisor melgar: we are now joined by the sponsor and supervisor ronan. thank you for being here today. the floor is yours. >> supervisor ronen: thank you for hearing this hearing today. san francisco and pg&e have had a long and complicated history back to 1913 federal act to creator a public plow were system. over the years the negotiated
agreements and court decisions. san francisco and pg&e settled into a truce tolal lou san francisco to use the power on municipal projects on the infrastructure. it is important to note that the energy produce is reliable and safety. pg and be e has interrupted that and raised roadblocks without justification to powering new projects. pg&e is requiring expensive large equipment to power projects that don't require large amounts of energy. pg&e did not require similar equipment for their projects or any other customers they serve. last week the court of appeals
cited against pg&e and federal energy regulation when it found that by extension did not provide sufficient justification for demanding san francisco purchase this wildly expensive and unnecessary equipment to connect public facilities to pg&e's grid. the appellate court cited the untie competitive practices. while pg&e may site generic safety and reliability concerns for bogus and expensive requirements the dc appellate court called their bluff stated the corporations is holding san francisco host table to deny new customers. it is no coincidence that san francisco moved to broader use of public power and good faith efforts to purchase the distribution infrastructure.
pg and e is increasingly difficult to work with. this should concern all of us. from affordable housing projects to community repcenters, tombs, the safety and infrastructures. baths rooms for muni drivers. the actions delayed construction on the most critical projects in the city during a worldwide pandemic increasing costs $18 million over past three years. i wish i could say was unusual behavior. as we are acutely aware. it will finish the criminal behavior related to to pipeline explosion and facing criminal documents for the wildfires.
if this company post bankruptcy to turn over a new life shining attention on what it is doing reveals it is the same anti competitive dangerous practices in san francisco as it is throughout the state. some of is enough. i introduced a resolution that my colleagues joined urging pg and e to cooperate and calling the department to provide quarterly reports on the tat susof projects preparing to use city plow were. we have hoisted meetings where we crack projects along the city department staff we worked out one off and add hock agreements to move the projects along or more affordable housing in
december. the quarterly reports continue to tell the story of outrageous delay and expanse. they inflict by our resident bees. there were of of 68 projects in the 2021 report. every district is affected. the report how manies how pgae has unjessie electrical equipment to each and every traffic signal in the city which could take up norms amounts of public space that is not feasible. i look forward to this hearing today specifically from the san francisco public utilities commission to help explain these developments in more detail.
for the sake of time we invited two of the many city departments whose projects have been meg fill enclosed. we invited t g&a as well. i believe the vice president is here to present and answer questions. if there isn't any additional open remarks i will turn it over to sfpuc general manager for opening comments. >> thank you for calling this and thank you supervisors preston and peskin for allowing me to join you along with our assistant general manager for power who will speak later. thank you so much, supervisor.
you summed it up and identified why it is we are here. unfortunately, we are here today about an ongoing problem. this body is too much where. continued obstruction here in refusing to connect to the electric grid unless unnecessary and wildly expensive equipment is added. these projects include styles home less abtheir's museum. in june 2018, 31 projects faced the roadblocks. since then 1200 pro jets. there are 68 active projects that need to be connected to the
grid. you will hear from barbara heal. outside the rare agreement with several affordable housing the behavior has showed few signs of improving. they have delay the healthcare facilities now to muni shelters. one goal here. time me competition -- sometime styme competition. we are fighting to protect consumers. there was a recent bright spot. last week a federal appeals call over p.g.e. in two years that p.g.e. is using to delay or
limit the city's ability to serve long time customers. one you serve small power loads. long time customers we have served for decades. that other aspects later. the court sided with san francisco that they filed at attention to what they were doing so it was anti competitive. that decision was a clear victory in fair mess. it is clear they are holding public housing and public projects hosing this requires careful scrutiny which it doesn't get. it also underscores why we should own our own local
electric distribution network rather than regulators who is a convicted felon. the issues before the court centered on the pg&e whole same service under rules adopted by the federal agency committee. >> pg&e $20 million to serve facilities providing city services. pg&e is to stymie competition that been obstructing public projects for decades. the contractor limited the ability to serve customers. now demanding unnecessary equipment before hooking up to pg&e electric grid. one example.
pg&e equipment would have required 30 by 20 by 12-foot feet of space to serve the san francisco genhospital to power a light and hand drier for muni praiseters on van ness avenue. the cost was $500,000. appropriate electrical equipment costs $5,000. in fairness. pg&e backed down on that project. it doesn't dispute the fact that is their position at least initially. pg&e is demanding the city construct equipment for high voltage power connections. we maintain secondary connections with lower voltage are appropriate connection types for these projects. that is used for these customers all over pg&e.
we appeal to the dc circuit court which ruled in the city's favor. you may hear from pg&e this equipment for high voltage power is needed for safety. that is one argument they made to the court and the court reconvicted because it wasn't backed up by evidence. in fact, the court found the orders on the issue do not reference any specific risks to safety re rely ability with to the san francisco request. similarly, you may hear p.g.e. hear the high voltage standards are standard between utilities. the court also rejected that. san francisco connects to pg&e at numerous small.s of inter connection rather than large points as typical for utility
inner connections. the court found in favor of pg&e didn't explain why the industry norms reasonable and why the san francisco geographic configuration which differs from other utilities. close quote. the court found that they did not provide sufficient justification for the conclusion. i will note one more observation from the court on this topic. the court wrote. quote. this presents a troubling problem to potential anti competitive effects of administration of open access tariffs. more than a cents tree ago the congress authorized the system to provide the cheap power but also to ensure competition in its retail power market. faced with claimed that pg&e was frustrating that by treating its
own retail service preferentially and refusing customer service it fell short of muting the duty to ensure that rules or practicing affecting the whole says rates are just and reasonable. it is those anti competitive effects serious concern to us. i think should concern all of those in san francisco. residents win when they get clean power from safe reliable utilities. that is what the san francisco public utilities commission is. pg&e has shown itself to be something different. i will hand off to my assistant general manager barbara hale on the specifics of the projects.
barbara. thank you, supervisors. >> thank you, supervisors, for hearing this matter today. i am barbara hale, assistant general manager at the p.u.c. we operate clean power and meche power and the pedestrian lighting services. 70% of the electricity in san francisco as clean power. we serve 380,000 electric accounts. under the state's community choice aggregation model. under be that model we provide electric spry and program services. this is a partnership. pg and e provide the rest and customers pay the bill. the program which is the focus of the hearing today provides
retail electric service to 4600 customer accounts as san francisco's public reowned utility. they get a heche bill. we fund and operate our street and pedestrian lights. here is the basics how it works. we generate power putting water supply to work in the sierra. you see the clean power over the transmission lines we own and to what i will refer to as electric highway operated by california independent system operator and to distribution system pg&e opens and to customer. we pay pg&e $20 million per year for use of distribution. red on the slide. part of our cost that is
included in the he t.c.h.y power bills. rates are in the files. the wholesale service. the federal regulatory commission is responsible for the rate and certainlies of service are reasonable. the requirements are not necessary for safety re rely ability. i need to check. i am still seeing the first slide. are the supervisors seeing the slides change? >> we are.
this map on slide 3 was presented at the hearing in juno report on these issues. each icon is a project dispute with pg&e at that time. you can see the legends. civic institutions randall museum, recreation facilities like the pool, the senior housing renovation and infrastructure like the p.u.c. west side recycle project. city facilities providing service. by inconsistent process and equipment requirements. that was june of 2018. next slide 4. it shows the latest report. number of projects affected by
pg&e obstruction has increased. we have 68 projects in dispute more than double june 2018 impact. next slide gives detail among the examples. sf unified school districts. cleveland elementary is undergoing renovation. exciting times for the school district. pg&e requires oversized equipment. additional $500,000 in costs though that program. rec and park and s.f.m.t.a. are here to speak to their projects and i will hospital down to the mohpd programming area. here is an area of progress. pg&e and the city agreed for affordable housing to move forward. this is limited. only applies to new development with no existing rehab that the
city is funding. 100% affordable. no mixed income projects. it must be on city land. finally, some p.u.c. projects. where to avoid further delays we invested in primary equipment to add 500,000 cost. fingers crossed we make our opening. we can begin to provide service to the community there. we have recycles water pump station. if pg and e did not complete we will have to install primary switch care. this is important to offsets the use of drinkable water to irrigate golden gate park when is important in this drought period. these are examples of pg&e's
obstruction to the city meeting the priorities. we are talking delays in priorities more affordable housing, medical facilities, recreation centers. the de carbonization projects are at risk as they require unnecessary oversized equipment. this wayses dollars and time as we redesign the changing rules. we are talking $19 million in the last three years. you can see the details in the report we submitted. pg and e updated the tariff with a filing that went into effect april 2021. just exacerbates the issues. rates are significantly increasing. an $800 per month bill for distribution service under the proposal would be a $4 million
bill. thankfully together with other parties we got that knocked back to $1.6 million per month. we see the pg&e no longer want to include new secondary connections and new connections to the downtown would be prohibited. longer timeline for inner connections with the april 2021 filing. p.g.e. is no longer allowing unmuted load. this is significant impact to the city. we will dive deeper on this one with slide 8. the new filing prohibits all unmetered loads including existed connected loads by being served by the city. that includes streetlights, trafficnals, wi-fi, pg&e
requires all unmetered loads to be served by primary equipment. this wouldry choir as make or construction project, extensive work that would cost over $1 billion. not a good investment of city dollars. we still needy electricity service to these loads. they would become pg&e customers, not he t.c.h. y customers. they asked to make the determination effective februar. results for the city again increased electricity cost, loss of city revenues and reinvestment dollars. decreased control over city infrastructure. result for pg&e? more new customers, more
revenue, less competition. we protested that december filing and asked for the maximum five month suspension. pg&e asked to let it move forward irrespective of our protest and further consideration. pg&e said request should be subject to refund not in our view a business like approach. it is an approach that maximizes disruption. today was an or suspends matter of determination. we encourage efforts to reach settlement before hearing procedures commence. we have attempted to sit down with pg&e on these matters and continue in the about to do so. we have a small window of time for productive conversation. we hope pg&e come to the table
to be fair and reasonable distribution service provider for san francisco. i am happy to answer any questions. greg is with me from our power team to assist me. thank you very much for your attention. >> supervisor melgar: i want too leave this slide up to make sure i understand. this is unbelievable. pg&e is saying that the only way they will allow san francisco to continue to provide he t.c.h. y power to streetlamps something we have been doing forever we would have to put one of those boxes where? one of those boxes or how many boxes on the streets? >> what pg&e proposes is for
every point of connection of unmetered service to their grid we would need equipment like this. at each point of connection we may have one, three, six streetlights behind that point of connection. this equipment would be placed based on the existing connections. >> what does that mean in reality? does this mean one box for every industry streetlamps is that what we are talking about? >> yes, yes. >> we have 25,000 of those? >> 25,000 streetlights, yeah. >> i want be to do the math sheer really quick. >> you understand the streetlights are you there out san francisco. >> supervisor melgar: they are saying the only way we will let
you continue to provide clean reliable safe energy which you have been doing for the past hundreds of years to the streetlamps you own on your city streets is to put over 8,000 of these boxes that are massive all throughout the streets of san francisco? that is unbelievable. we can't do that. we don't have that much land to put 8,000 of those boxes. >> supervisor ronan and that we generate the electricity for from hetchy. >> it was outrageous enough when they were requiring us to put the boxes to power affordable housing unit and it took away one unit for families desperate to have that.
to now power the streetlights? unbelievable. couple more questions. i will turn it over to my colleagues. can you explain a little more what the decision today did. basically pg&e was says that decision on our streetlamps was was going into effect tomorrow. did they prevent them from doing that starting february 1st? >> yes. they granted our request to suspend the notice of termination. they said, yes, you have got five months to work it out. if we don't workout a solution with pg&e they will be ready to have hearings on these matters
and we will be back with pg&e saying let's move forward subject to refund. it would be today all over again. that is why i am saying we have gone along in the past. sometimes we are successful with affordable housing agreement. i would love to have similar conversations productive to address this unmetered load issue. >> unlike homes where families use different amount of electricity every month depending if it is cold or hot or cooking more or for whatever reason. i would imagine the america's use is consistent with streetlights because they operate in the exact same way, for the exacted same hours every
month much the year, is that right? >> that's right for decades they paid their bills by calculation of the lighting hours, conassumption. it is a known quantity. if pg&e is successful and they become the retail elect are trick service provider for the streetlights and traffic smalls they would be unmetered and would bill on such a calculation under the pg&e proposal. >> that is all my questions. colleagues, any questions? supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you. maybe this is a conversation tomorrow in closed session. the answer might be privileged.
it seems to me that the only venue shouldn't be in the nation's would tolwith appeals to the washington, d.c. court. is there a 17.200 business and professions claim, riko claim here? this seems nuts. it is insane. are there other things we can do in a court of competent jurisdiction to stop this behavior in san francisco or the state of california? if you are not comfortable answering that. that is a question for attorneys. we have the general manager, anyway. >> i will pop in here. something i probably would not want to talk about here. rest assured i am in continuous
conversation with folks in my former office about options that are available to us there. every option is looked at. >> thank you. we can talk about it tomorrow in closed session if it is appropriate. >> chair melgar. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. i had a question. there are other municipalities around the state that provide public power. i wonder if they have the same issues with pg&e if they are targeted as well. if there is an effort to band to do something along the lines
what supervisor peskin was questioning about. i will leave that for closed session with respect to the treatment of our municipalities. san francisco as they were reading from that case. san francisco is different. we don't have a standalone service territory as a publicly owned utility. we serve customers right next door to pg and e. we serve that and a third of the bank. we don't have a grid of our own. that is the way the system was built out over the decades. we don't have a fellowship with other municipal utilities who have clear boundaries between
geographic boundaries between their territory and the territory. >> their boundary is the entire island. >> no pg&e electric. >> thank you. if we quantify how much this costs us? >> we have estimated over $1 billion to save that load for he t.c.h. y. we include in the quarterly report the spreadsheet that shows how much too city departments and p.u.c. have incurred out of pocket costs associated with these disputes, redesigning, buying equipment, have to pay contracts because the project is off schedule
those are collected in a spread ship with the report that we do around $19 million at this point. that is actual costs the city has incurred historically because of these disputes since we started keeping track. >> thank you. >> i know supervisor ronan we have m.t.a. and rec park witnesses as well. i didn't mean to forget to call for them. >> i can call them up. thank you so much. i do want to appreciate aaron johnson, regional vice president. i will call up the project
recreation projects. they are on schedule delay and cost increases to fulfill our commitment be to the community are impacted. since the last time rec and park was here at land use in 2018 to discuss these issues, negative impacts pg&e had on projects increased. as an example these are two projects with issues finally now nearing completion and resolution. francisco park and the pool. both experienced cost increases due to the pg&e caused delay. the park was impacted by the unnecessary requirement to tie into power two city blocks away from the park. there was delay in the connection dispute, to reduce the project accepted the
requirement resulting in additional work and conduits, additional design review, unforeseen utility conflicts and delays in inspections. the cost and scheduled impacts are significant. it was energized on january 5, 2022 to set our opening date. pg&e caused delay at the pool to open to the community. the delay turnaround on reviews. the pool is now scheduled to open february 7th. those are great stories. we had huge delays. we are really concerned about the current projects and future impacts in relation to the wd3 interim agreement and primary switch requirement. on the right you can see the
averages we are looking at in terms of costs for delay and some of the issues we see across projects. the pandemic has shown parks and rec space are critical for everyone inault parts of the city. they provided a space to say healthy in social spaces. this is a space comparison for primary switch gear they are requiring on all projects. it is larger than a small restroom. about is size of an outdoor gym and quarter of the size of our clubhouse. this is space, recreation and open space permanently lost to pg&e infrastructure that is not necessary. new park improvements are coming
to the community late. delay means increase costs unforeseen. for contractor overhead and city staff costs during months the project is delayed. it creates domino effect leaving the next project in the pipeline delayed because rec and park staff are working on the delayed project. it has to absorb 500,000 to 700,000 to pay for this switch gear. we are losing an outdoor gym, community fund and dog play area. this is the majority of the budget for many of the rec and park trail projects. these are correct projects facing scheduled impacts. golden gate park. design called for moving the
meter 10 feet. in the plan view the red dot shows location of the existing meter and how that location is in the middle of the plaza. red rectangle to the right where we propose moving the meter is the size of the primary switch gear should we install. you can see impact that would have. requests were made to approve waiver. it would lead to unforeseeable delay and associated cost escalation without any sense the waiver would be approved. rec and park is moving forward with the project leaving the meter in the current location. the design. this rec center project does not change electrical load under wd3. it will require electrical service. on the plan you will see two red
boxes showing potential sizes ofthe switch gear. one bedroom apartment size is taken away. this has constrained budget funded through 2020 health and recovery bond and impact fees. this cannot absorb delay in cost including escalation due to delay. recreation and park is partnering for a new recreation center and gym. the center will provide a much needed recreation center south side of san francisco. electrical load does not require primary service. under wdt3 without waiver they require high voltage electrical service. on the plan you can see the size of the switch gear. space and size taken away from
recreation space permanently. we cannot afford delay. we are partnering for block 3 park. play features and gathers for trees and plantings and small restroom. the electrical load does not require primary service. this team has requested a waiver from the primary service requirement by applying for secondary service with a retail agreement. under -- [indiscernable] shown in the red box. placing the witch gear size of one bedroom amount surrounded by high density buildings does not make sense.
two parks in the network of waterfront parks in india basin. 900 inness is going to bid in weeks. the electrical service application before april 15th to be considered. pg&e required primary electrical service. it has been delayed. the project to remove the pump. ocean beach will avoid installing the switch gear
nearly equal size. all projects and those on the right side require service agreements with pg&e under the wdt3 agreement at risk of schedule delays and significant cost and permanent lost of recreation space. all recreation and park project electrical loads do not require primary electric service. the cost over ages are ripple effect on the next park train or rec center. reducing scope. the biggest impact is on the permanent loss to switch gear structures of one bedroom
apartment unnecessary. pg&e are barriers to fulfilling our commitment to the community. when we are required to build unnecessary infrastructure we are not delivering a new rec center or play field. thank you for calling this hearing today and all allowing us to share the impacts we have experienced and concerns about the future especially under the terms of the wdt3 agreement. we hope this hearing will result in changes which will improve city coordination with pg&e including honoring waivers for the community. that concludes my presentation. i am available for questions.
>> any questions? >> thank you. we will hear from mr. brewers. >> acting chief financial officer at m.t.a. my regular job is program manager for the agency. one element is our electrification program which is important to allow san francisco to move to an all electric transit fleet. i will talk about that. that is in the future. it is something we are very concerned about. as you know, as part of our climate plan we want to transform our entire bus fleet to zero emissions battery electric. we have been working towards moving to a full electric fleet for nearly a decade now. we are currently piloting vehicles and have the project to start with charters.
with the schedule risks time of police procurement is high risk for the city. these battery electric vehicles require power. we will increase power requirements across the city. i believe the mta is one of the highest users of power in the city. we are proud uses of the power. again, we are dependent on the infrastructure to get the power to the location and to the fleet throughout san francisco. this is going to require significant logistical planning to make this work. if we don't have the successful reliable partner it will put billions of dollars at risk with the transportation infrastructure and climate goals the city has for itself.
two very specific examples. with our first example trying to get in pilot chargers. the service agreement when we prepared the presentation was 5-12 months late. on the back end. imagine we are looking at hundreds of vehicles, billion dollar facility where we will require this level of power. there was an 8-12 month delay to get chargers for 5 to $10. imagine when we look at the entire fleet. barbara mentionedthe traffic si. they are key first point of keeping streets safe in san francisco. example we spent many years working on the traffic signals. pedestrian count down signals,
updating visibility of the traffic smalls in the city. we were not able to turn on until 12 months after completed. that puts the safety of san franciscans at risk. we are not able to start this important infrastructure. summing up, it is important. we want to transform the transportation system in san francisco. we want to move to electric and implement important safety improvements across the san francisco streets. we need a reliable partner. the risk and cost and delay we have seen is unacceptable and will make it very difficult to contemplate programs. i am happy to take questions. >> thank you so much. any questions? thank you. appreciate your presentation. now it would be great to hear
from mr. johnson, regional vice president for pg&e. thank you for being here. as you can tell we are troubled and frustrated here in san francisco. i am very curious to hear what justification you have for really holding our residents hostage with this anti competitive behavior. i am looking forward to hearing from you. please begin. >> thank you, supervisor ronan members of the board of supervisors. thank you for having pg and be e today. way of production i am aaron johnson. i am in a relatively newly established role as regional vice president. account ability for all
operations gas and electric and operating unit in the bay region. for us we have that defined as san francisco, sam mateo. contracosta and alabama meadda county. i hold a operating meeting every morning to bring together all lines of business to meet customers needs across the entire business. personal introduction i am a 23 year resident of the city. i was born in the city and grew up visiting my dad at the rec center. i live in the inner sunset. thank you, supervisor melgar for representation. i raise my family here. ride my bike to the office every day downtown and have been an active member of the community involved in organizing longer hours at the only outdoor public pool in the city, the mission
pool. this is my city, too, i am fond of it and excited to see the projects move forward. i am an engineer buyback ground and love getting things done. i spearheaded the project agreement. i came to energy to clean it up. i fell in love with the service in this business. in this role i would like to be a great partner with the city and get some things done. energy infrastructure is hard and complex. i think we will be more successful working together. that will always be my approach. i did want to go for a short presentation and then respond to questions. i would love to speak to a few items that have come up in the previous presentations. we have four priorities i want
to highlight with our relationship with san francisco. first is safety. reliability. continued investment. partnership. we will go through each of those. we start with safety. we have a new c.e.o. that has drawn a line in the sand. everyone and everything is safe. we know we have a long way to go to earn back the trust of our customers about our safety performance with the company. one of the ways we are doing that is setting very clear standards in the city of san francisco. we have a patchwork system of rules and regulations that have been enforced in some instances and granted many exceptions in others how we operate that system. we recently did a survey of the
15 largest utilities in the united states that provide 75% of the load. there is no other city or utility in the united states that provides the kind of service that san francisco receives from pg&e in this sort of patchwork and piecemeal fashion the way we provide electricity here. standards are critical to safety. our regulatory filings are designed to make the standards clear so everyone can plan appropriately. we are not moving through one off by one off basis. >> it has be far the highest and best reliability customers
experience less than one out age a year for 50 minutes. average is 90. average for p.g.e. is 100 in the rural areas. san francisco is by far and a way receiving the best reliability around. >> our investment in san francisco is quite impressive. we have been a partner every step of the way in the most important energy projects. 25 years as one of the projects i was able to work on was closing of hunters point power plant and then potrero power plant to leave san francisco which used to get 45% of the energy to transmitting the power to the city. we have built a nice solar plant
on the reservoy. the vast majority comes from the long transmission lines. pg&e made investments to make sure the power plants would close and we would continue to improve reliabilities. we have over $1 billion investment for several high profile projects. new substation on the south end of the city to address homeland security events with terrorist elent a number of years ago. relocating the outdoor substation next to where the hunters point power plant was. we are going to move that across the street to a world class ark secretary designed indoor facility at the request of the community and city.
we will move that and doing a similar project down in potrero illinois by the old power plant pier 70 on the old power plant site. these projects will improve reliability, increase redundancy, key to rely ability. they will make san francisco more resilient in the event of an emergency. move to the next slide, please. >> over the last several years we have a strong partnership with the city about how the various wholesale tariffs are implemented in the city. i will speak to that in a minute in more detail. we prioritized the priority projects in affordable housing to move forward despite change
in tariffs with exceptions for city-owned housing. schools and parks are prioritized. we have engineers to work through the projects anchored nation meetings with many city departments monthly to make sure we are working through all details of the project where we all have opportunity to come together and work more closely to make sure things can get built in a timely fashion in the city. i guess i will speak to the matter that first came up. we do have this relationship around wholesale and retail service. if i was to summit up in one phrase the city asks us to provide them retail level of service at wholesale prices. that is primarily the essence of the dispute. now what entity wouldn't want retail service and all of the
things that come about that at wholesale prices? there isn't a whole lot of difference in what actually is provided in the cost of how were or what it costs us to provide power at the retail for the secondary or primary level. what happens with customers that receive wholesale service from san francisco they avoid most of the public purpose program charges. they are able to avoid the costs of low income programs,ho income free home weatherization, energy, battery, solar support. the very values to me are why i live in the city. very much san francisco values that we would want to support. taking the wholesale service we receive a lower cost service and we are