Be very honest about this we want you to sign this agreement because that places the burden on the developer to address the parking problem. To expend their funds to address the parking problem. It puts the burden on the developer to pay for the siqa process and to define what the plan is for the site, drawings and carrying out a public process as well. Commissioners, any more questions or comments . So i know that the conversation has been going for a couple of years and im sensitive to the concerns, but im not reluctant to move it forward. At the end of the day, weve been working on housing for the middle class and lower income and anybody in San Francisco for years and years and years and i dont think that this conversation belongs at Public Utilities commission, but were in a housing crisis. Its a crisis. I enjoyed the opportunity to work with the Teachers Union and the other unions when we did the San Francisco giants development, which was a similar breakdown, which had inclusionary housing component for the middle class and lowincome. When i reach out to a planning commissioner, what conversations did you have, they were meeting with supervisor cohen and they got assurances that labor standards enforcement would have authority over the site and we would know we have a prevailing wage rate and those workers matter, too. So oftentimes, there are comp e competing interests. I can say this im always available. I did not get a telephone call from the Teachers Union, despite our very, very close working relationship. I sit on the San FranciscoLabor Council executive committee. I want to associate myself with the comments made earlier with respect to the resolution in my hand and asking the secretary to make sure that this resolution is included as a packet moving forward on this issue. Im still going to support the item because i did take it upon myself weeks and weeks and weeks ago it meet with a couple of members of the board of trustees, none of whom are in the room right now, and had a conversation about the parking. Problem is, every place we good where we want to build housing, theres a different reason for not doing it. It might be views. It might be the sun. Whatever it is. Theres always a reason to not build housing. At the end of the day, we know we all need it. But nobody can get there. So you just have to have the courage, acknowledge theres a crisis, and move it forward. At the public utility commission, its simple. We have an obligation to make sure that we get market rate for this land. City college and those trustees have no intention whatsoever of paying market rate for the land. Our obligation is to the ratepayers. So im asking that this resolution be included, even though it didnt go through the executive committee. I have a lot of respect for the men and women in organized labor. With respect to the building trad trades, theyve been getting it done for about two years now. The folks at city college have been focusing on their effort to have the tax on the mansion that netted the money that they needed to save the college and i applaud them for that. I dont see enough here to not move that forward in this way today. So i will support the mission. Do i have a second . Second. All in favor. Aye. And i would like to make a comment. Im going to stay in my lane in my environment and the puc because i would like to concur that the conversation and the vote, thats why i want clarification on what the charter says and we need to designate it as surplus land, but sell it at fair market value. I also believe in the housing crisis going on in the city, but im going to look for my environmental seat for this negotiating agreement to include some clarity and consideration to be considered on the parking question and transit question and info question. We should be looking at properties for the city and throughout the region and need to address our parking crisis as well. If we can look at Public Transit and be sensitive to the students that need to drive, that should be part of the agreement. Thank you. If i might also, i think the one thing we didnt talk about is any development or any facility would come under the rules for development in the city including groundwater management ordinance and green roofs and that stuff. So that will not be like a the like a lot of stuff. I would like to thank the folks here today and who have communicated with us for the professionalism of the comments presented to us. I thought it was both in content and tone that it was convincing in many respects and also respectful, the tone for Public Discourse was correct. I do think that the parking issue is something that needs to be worked on, as we and the developer and city college proceed, we need to figure out an answer to that. What has been clear in the past is that the nature of nighttime classes and people seeking education there is such that Public Transit is not always a viable option, is not and will not be in any foreseeable time frame. So i think thats an issue as it goes through negotiation with the developer and siqa process, that that will have a lot of attention by the Development Team as well as this commission and everybody else that that proposal comes in front of. Thank you. And i would be remiss if i didnt add on what you said in compliance with our current regulations. I would love to see this from an environmental perspective, of course, look at solar panels, Green Infrastructure and the advancements weve made in environmental policy and technology as a model site so it can reflect us as public utility commission. Anything else, commissioners . Public comment is closed. So if you have something on another item. [inaudible] im going to have to interrupt you right now. Each person gets one turn. With respect, im asking you to sit down. If you want to share the materials, you can. You can submit it to the secretary and make sure that that information is passed along. Donna will take your information from you. You need to make sure that everyone gets one turn on each item. Thank you. Okay. Next item, madam secretary . We did vote. Do you want to do it again . I just saw commissioner vietor jumped in, but it was anonymous, right . Item 11, approve the selection of a pool of respondents to the clean power sf Energy Supplies pro. 0077 and pro. 0089. Authorize the general manager to approve conditional authorized general manager to execute one or more contracts and authorize the general manager to seek to approve from the board of supervisors to execute one or more contracts with the approved pool of qualified respondents, to the extent required. How are you today . Good. Thank you. I cleared the room. [laughter] today i have before you an action item to approve power suppliers and execute power contracts to complete citywide enrollment. I have a few slides here, about six. I will go through them as quickly as i can. They describe the authority where were requesting today and schedule for launching our next auto enrollment phase. As you recall, staff presented a clean power growth plan early this year. The plan identified the key issues and constraints and authorized recommendations for completing citywide enrollment. In may, the Commission Adopted two recommendations, including one that the puc complete citywide enrollment by july, 2019 or sooner, if possible, and, two, increasing the target Renewable Energy content for the green product to 50 by the end of 2020, sooner if possible. The growth plan identified the availability and cost support as critical needs and recommended moving forward to procure the necessary resources to expand clean power. To take action, puc issued three solic solic solicitation and bank rfp. Weve been reporting on this the last few months. Our contracting approval approach and strategy to growth follows the same process the puc took when it launched clean power sf in 2015. Were seeking a delegation of authority for contracts. It will require the Energy Supply needed to serve demand prior to making a commitment to serve customers in the next phase the strategy allows us to maintain a competitive environment until contract execution and provides staff and g. M. With the options to negotiate the best possible deals for our clean power base. Some of the companies that have been identified in the supplier pool are here on the slide. Today were asking the commission to adopt the resolution before you that approved the identified pool of suppliers selected through the competitive solicitation process for negotiation and conditionally authorize the general manager to award a contract to one or more of the identified suppliers subject to the conditions laid out in the resolution, which include but not limited to, confirmation that the cost of the executions contracts can be supported by program rates, consistent with ratesetting and will not exceed 175 million per year. Renewable Energy Supplies under contracts be rps california certified category one or two renewables. That theyre creditworthy or provide credit support or assurance, backing the supply contracts. And that the combined volume of power procured not exceed 435 megawatts of annual average demand, our projection of citywide demand to account for low optout rates. And that the duration of any Energy Contracts does not exceed three years for shaped Energy Contracts or 25 years for Renewable Energy contracts. The resolution authorizes the general manager to seek board of soupervisors approval if required. And it requires staff to present Risk Assessment for the proposed contracts prior to execution. So well bring the results of our program pro forma analysis with cost and revenue projections to the commission in january, as we did prior to making a final decision to launch clean power sf in 2016. I presented this slide at the last Commission Meeting to give you a better sense of what it will look like against future supply costs, to give more bounding and understanding of contract effort. The red bars on the chart represent the total projected annual cost, Energy Supply cost, and this is what we anticipate needing to serve all clean power sf customers through full enrollment and beyond. The blue bars estimate the forward supply contracts we expect needing in the near term to support contract growth. You will see that the blue bar steps up and then down before plateauing. So its illustrating the laddering approach to forward contracting, which is one of our Risk Management measures the portfolio of contracts were trying to assemble to support Program Growth would result in a forward contracting position that resembles the blue bars here. To give you a better sense of the annual costs. The other thing i want to emphasize is that this is a rolling process, which means it will be purchasing additional power for the Program Every year. Well come back for Additional Authority for future solicitations. Its not a delegation in perpetuity. And heres our last slide. Our proposed phase two schedule. Were in the second row of the table. With this resolution, well commence our phase two approvals process with the supply contract authority. An ordinance authorizing the puc to enter into supply contract will be introduced at the board of supervisors today as well. And well bring you the Credit Facility to you in january, as well as a presentation of our projected supply costs, programs Financial Performance and Portfolio Risk analysis. We anticipate final board approval to occur in mid to late january, which will put the general manager in a position to execute the contracts in the january and february timeline. The last planned Commission Item would be setting new green product rates for the july, 2018, enrollment. And weve identified that as an action for march. So well be able to have complete information on pg e rates, so well be able to adopt rates and understand the program costs. Once the rates are set, well then be able to commence our prepr preenrollment process. Were anticipating that well be able to enroll approximately 150,000 customers and 150,000 megawatts of average demand in addition to what were serving. And then targeting the rest of the city for enrollment in 2019. And that concludes my presentation on the item. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions . Yes, sir. Just a comment really that one of the things that i will be very interested in seeing is the item specified in the next to last resolve, that you will be coming to us with a Risk Assessment and Risk Management program. We need to be sure that were managing the risks associated with that appropriately, especially where were considering contracts up to 25 years. And one of the things that ive talked to staff a little bit about is we have a very good Risk Assessment and management program, which is comprehensive and in looking at all the risks involved, not just risks, but comprehensive and talked about a comprehensive review of risk on this program and as it grows it becomes increasingly important. So i appreciate that being in there. I will be supporting this item. Looks great. Thank you for your good work on this. Do we have a motion . So moved. All in favor . Opposed. Nicely done. Authorize the issuance of 400 million of 2017 series abc water revenue bonds, execution and delivery of related documents and authorize the general manager to sell the bonds on either a competitive or negotiated basis and delegate to the general manager each series of bonds to the highest bidder. While you are getting keyed out on this. One of the things that i was pleased to see in the materials presented to us, weve had discudi discussion by the City Attorney and the bond council as to what our responsibility is. And that the materials being presented to us in writing anticipated that and asked and answered the appropriate questions for our review ahead of time. I think thats, number one, i appreciate you doing that. And number two, it makes our task a lot easier. Of course. Great. Good afternoon. My name is richard morales, debt manager of the puc. Im here to present a water revenue bond, specifically 2017 series abc water revenue bonds, present this item for your consideration today. The last time we presented a bond sale to you was in september, 2016. So just over a year ago. At that time, you authorized two series of water revenue bonds. The 2016 a and b water funding bonds, that resulted in ratepayer savings and also a series of 2016 taxable bonds that sold in december. I wont go through it for the sake of time, but a few items that we need to cover. In september, you were presented with a Capital Financing plan for fiscal year 2018 that listed the transactions that you see on this slide. This transaction was the first of the transactions. So we are keeping to what we planned in the Capital Financing plan, moving forward with this item. Brief description of the transaction, the bonds consist of three sub series. Last time bonds were funded for wsup, 2016. B, regional and local water projects. And sub series c, hechi. It will be sold and not to exceed 400 million in a competitive sale. Theyre taxexempt, pretty standard, pretty conventional. I would like to note that sub series a will be designated as green bonds. We plan it use some of the bond proceeds to refund water commercial pay outstanding. We wont need to go to the board again for this and i would like to confirm that these bonds are being issued in compliance and accordance with Debt Management policies and procedures last updated and approved by the commission this past august. This is a table showing the sources and uses of the bond proceeds for the three series. I will not go through it in detail, but some of the high points are two years of capitalized interest, in accordance with the 10year financial plan. 277 million will be for projects and 90 million for commercial paper. And there will be no reserve fund needed for this transaction. So this slide is something new. Youve never seen this before. Weve never had to do this before. And in october, this past october, the state enacting regulation, sb450, that requires all local agencies in california to disclose estimates of bond financing. The information requires is the true interest costs, the finance charge, and the proceeds received, the funds for project fund deposits and total payment amount, which consists of debt service on the life of the bond, which is 30 years in our particular case. Sb450 allows for this information to be provided as estimates by our Financial Advisor and ask the Financial Advisor to provide these and these are estimates, and theyre preliminary, and thats fine under sb450. First time were presenting this to the commission. From here on in, you will be getting a slide with this information as well. Preliminary official statement, pos, describing bond terms and conditions. It will be supplemental inde indentures. And this is official notice of sale. It notifies the bidding parameters. It purchases a contract if the market turns on us and we have to retool, it gives the general manager the authority to do a negotiated sale and wed need this bond perfect contract, but we dont expect to do it for this transaction. And continuing disclosure certificate. So here are the two slides, disclosure q a. This is prompted by a disclosure training conducted in january, 2016, and, yes, a request from commissioner moran to ask questions given to a specific transaction. Heres the responses and i think weve gun through on this slide a lot of the information, bond repayment, repay for net revenues of the water e