Transcripts For SFGTV Special Joint LAFCo BOS Public Safety Committee 121115 20151221

Can draw from in the United States . There are white papers, academic papers and the longestrunning program that we looked at was washington, d. C. They have had their Program Going for 15plus years and the effectiveness that we included in the report from washington, d. C. That would show kind of longest perof periods of time and other than there are academic articles that speak to the effectiveness. , as well as london and other cities as strategies you only looked at the speed camera and not other strategis is that right . Correct, as part of the research we just looked at that is a bit of administrative difference rather. One other to point out the citation fine schedule varies, new york with a 50 flat fine and chicago two two tiers for 10 Miles Per Hour and three of the jurisdictions are the same as traditional tickets and three are citations. For enforcement is for the purposes of safety and not revenuegenerating technique and to show how effective it has been in other areas not just within the United States, but elsewhere and that have been used for a very long time. Also to direct revenues to safety improvements and include school zones in the designated enforcement area we found that the studies that we looked at stated that the public is much more likely to support esu1 in school zones and cameras in highpriority areas where there are issues of speeding, encrypting data to ensure privacy and requiring reports of the metrics and evaluating the effectiveness is something that we have talked about here today. And in looking at these measures and seeing how effective they are. For example, new york is doing a fiveyear Demonstration Program and at the end of the five years including meetings with members of our own delegation to bring that joined voice. We have met with each member of San Franciscos legislative delegation and i would characterize our meetings at this point, prior to the city taking official action on legislative programs as building support, answering questions, looking for the kinds of issues that we and other cites are going to immediate to be mindful of as we develop draft legislation. San jose has you know, they have the chair of the Senate Transportation committee from san jose. San jose has adopted vision zero. Los angeles has adopted vision zero. So the conversations that were having now are really trying to build capacity on this issue and how it fits in the context of those cities that have already committed to vision zero and recognizing this will not be the single tool, but its a tool that we need to have the state give us so we can use something that is already proven. It sounds like a tremendous step forward. Yes. And now with vision zero growing it sounds like there is a context of people really supporting this, hopefully. I want to believe that is true. I feel like there is reason to be at least optimistic, and we will need you all as leaders to be part of that. Its not going to be the staff; right . So its going to be really important that we find ways to enlist you in that effort, too. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner yee. Just wanted to say that i want to add more evidence to the fact that there is more interest in Pedestrian Safety issues. Last month i was at a Board Meeting of the league of california cities, and so they went through the threepriorities for next year. And i think only had to mention it once about Pedestrian Safety to be part of their one of the priorities, in which by itself, it did not make , but in terms of one of the priorities was actually talking about infrastructure. Transportation infrastructure and so forth. And well be saying much more and other people saying what about Pedestrian Safety . And its actually part of the language for the three priorities, which i dont think last year that would have happened. You mean with the league of cities . Yes. That is great to know. I will tell that you megan im on the subcommittee of the league of california cities and sometimes when i sit in that room and represent San Francisco you get a reaction. And in this case, when megan weir presented last june to the League Transportation committee, there was a City Council Member from the city of fremont who came up you and was so inspired. They have since adopted vision zero. So i really appreciate knowing that. Thank you. If you can let us know how specifically each of us can be helpful . Absolutely. Making calls or visits . Yes. I know each member of the committee wants to help make it a reality or looking through a list of legislators that were trying to target, im sure everyone on this board is willing to pitch in. Thank you, really appreciate that. Yes. And i also want to thank the Controllers Office for their report as well. Its actually really helpful to see how this policy is implemented throughout the country and other cities. You know it was interesting to see how low the fines were. And also how the citation was done, whether vehicle and driver . I didnt think about how the policies are implemented and there is a lot of flexibility in how the policy can get written you and hopefully helps us make progress in sacramento. There is a lot of different ways to implement this and still get drivers to move slower in San Francisco. Did you want to add to that . . No, just again where were at being open to the very points what should the fine be . What should the threshold be . What is palatable . I like the speed zone idea with a lot of schools. I see some nodding from commissioners farrell and yee about liking the speed zones. Okay. So see nothing further comments from Committee Members, well know open this up for Public Comment. We would expect walk sf to speak on the item. Hello again, chair kim and commissioners,age deluca, the policy director with walk San Francisco and we have been working closely with the mta on the campaign. Were really excited that ase has been proven in reducing crashes and deaths and we feel in order to reach our ambitious goal of vision zero in the city we need every tool available and we really want this tool to help us reach that goal and walk sf has been doing Different Initiative and we have a petition on our website at walkSan Francisco and anyone in this room can go sign it now to help the cause. We also are getting our Vision Zero Coalition members, the organizations to pass resolutions in support of ace and also send letters of support to their state legislators and were also very happy to help this committee in in way possible with the ace campaign, as well as individual commissioners. So please lean on us if you need us. We urge you today to support this resolution and get us this tool we need to reach this goal. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed [ gavel ]. Colleagues can we take action on this item . We have a motion to move this forward with recommendation . Well take a rollcall vote. With recommendation. So well take arollcall vote on item no. 7. Item 7 commissioner farrell. Aye. Farrell aye. Commissioner kim . Aim ky. Commissioner mar, mar absent. Commissioner eyre, yee aye. Item rests. Thank you, and thank you for all your work on this and look forward to moving this forward. Mr. Clerk, can we please call item 8. Introduction of new items, this is an information item. Are had will any new items . I do have one. I want to take a moment to recognize an individual who has been a leader, an initiator and i will even say a troublemaker. He was just here he was sitting here the whole meeting. When did he get up and leave . Tim . Oh, he left. Okay. Well, [laughter ] he was here we did have a certificate to recognize tim for his work as the vision zero cochair along with megan weir and i know he is stepping down as cochair, but we wanted to thank and recognize him for his leader and say its been a real pleasure to work with tim, even if he isnt here to hear this, he has been a real pusher and believer and certainly given me and my office a lot of ideas on how to help move vision zero forward and its so helpful, because i dont often understand the technical aspects of the engineer and even the education and enforcement side and he has been super helpful and what i appreciate the most, he really believes in this and expediting through bureaucracy and not coming up with the reasons why we cant get it done, but really pushing on how we can. So we had a commendation for him. You i will leave it from someone from sfmta to give to him later and he can listen to our remarks at another time. So seeing no further introductions of new items, mr. Clerk, can we please call the net item. Well take Public Comment on item 8. So at this time were open up for general Public Comment. Yes. This is christmas season, ho ho, inside the church of jesus christ, parishioners worship and sing and the joyful Christmas Songs and holy cross bearing the heavyduties of mission of works and for husband and wife, for father and son, social leaders and followers, all holy pathway and [speaker not understood] bible teaching and instruction the law about the holiness and virtues of humanity and we start our the only way to change all of that back to security is to talk about holiness and discuss virtue of humanity [speaker not understood] joyfulness for christ to come to our world again, for meditation for establishment of good virtue and all realistic areas to provide open mercy and holy law holding true in principle. God all mighty bless us all for this christmas holiday, amen, hallelujah. Hello, for the last time image from walk San Francisco and i just wanted to mention something that is a big priority for walk sf and we want to make sure keeps moving forward. With all of the development in the city were seeing more and more projects that are intensifying their usage, but arent subject to the requirements of the better streets plan. So parcels that move from pdr to commercial have a lot more residents and people commuting to the site than they used to. But they are not required to have the same street improvements that other uses would have through the better streets plan process. So projects are falling through the cracks and i know chair kim you and your staff have been working on trying to maybe have a legislative amendment to sort of fill the gap. So we just want to encourage that, and let you know were really looking forward to working on that. And making sure that we get ahead of the curve, before sort of new areas intensify. We dont want to see them become highinjury corridors. So i think if we get those improvements on the ground beforehand we could really make a big difference and encourage you to work on that still. Thank you thank you, cathy and thank you for speaking on each of the items. My name is sylvia johnson. I think that our abilities that we look into vision zero [speaker not understood] freedom has always been [ music ] [ music ] [ music ] thank you. Thank you very much. Is there any other Public Comment for general Public Comment . All right, Public Comment is now closed. I do want to thank all of the members of the public for coming to speak. Its a really important issue citywide and always important for the subcommittee to hear feedback from our residents on the issue. Mr. Clerk, are there any other issues . Item 10 adjournment. Great, meeting is adjourned and happy holidays to everyone [ gavel ]sf. Good evening, everybody tutor coming im patrick the chief director of earthquake for the city of San Francisco this is an information been the private school ownerships well be talking about what is required and walk you through some of the steps well have time to do q and a theres a microphone well be happy to talk about any issuance restrooms with right around the corner we have coffee and cookies not back feel free to help yours which of you sought report that was the product of almost 3 years of work that was put into looking at our cities private schools weve known nor a longterm the state has treated public and private schools different this is a no one at acquisition theyve been regulated differently in the past private schools are essential inform San Francisco one in 3 or 24 thousand kids are educated in San Franciscos private schools we know that not only is this an important part of the childrens safety but we know that after a major disaster getting the school up and running it essential with you cant have education without engaging the private schools when he think will be able to get back to work to put our kids in school and get back to normal like a cat Tropic Health starting in the 30s we starting thinking about the Public School this is the distantly from 133 earthquake we took steps to make sure that you are picking up Public Schools were symmetrical ready for earthquake we started talking about this what do we do we look at the policy interventions was was mcall schools retrieved we know that Information Programs are great but not effective in causing change the way we change behavior we know that schools yes, maam the private schools have all different kinds of revenue and if we treat them the same well see schools close so eventually ample a long discussion we met mount middle to do American People evaluation so as the all thats required in the evaluation the schools do a seismic evaluation to make decisions the charlotte is an explanation of that not actually looking at specific schools but schools in general and looking at 9 types of schools that were under whether concrete and wood frame and the approximate year thats how were performing in an earthquake the pie chart on the right there was a huge part we didnt understand again quite a few reinforcing the idea of an evaluation those i realize we have a mix of engineers and contractor and School Administrators so im going to talk at a level that hopefully everyone can follow me were happy to explain that but essentially schools under the Building Code ann are an e occupancy they have their use and jobs because of that we want to make sure that is an easier place to start by evaluating outlets occupancy schools are complex sometimes audios Church Associated or a a residentialcy those buildings have not tied up to be elevated so after a lot of months working with the stlrld is stakeholder a group of over 4 hundred and having of you create trademark from so people are comfortable moving forward people are asking me is there other things all this information also available open our wednesday night but 3 exemptions for the evaluation not required for buildings occupied by 24 private or more persons for less than 12 per yearbook or any given day this draws on a previous Building Code but were working with the stakeholder this is expressed as a great way to give definite fraction on the hours and whether or not it should be evaluated and second exemption 25 or fewer students not to say were not concerned of the students survivalists but the overall risk is so with the universal agreement 25 or fewer students should not be required to evaluate speaker the evaluation is not required for buildings not classified and a Group Occupancy we mentioned churches and other buildings that are exempt from the evaluation process so two things that are required law went into effect of november 2013 in the next few months a scope report that is required to be submitted that could be completed by a School Administrator if you work with a Design Professional work with in the relation but it is not intended to be a technical document this gives us a chance to look at the building open campus and based on the requirement of the ordinance meets this requirements to be evaluated we know clearly from the be perimeters that are buildings not evaluates that our chance to have that conversation if theres curiosities it as to who is sub or not were happy to help we have a Difference Team policy experts and others while well not do the evaluations well set i up for success as i mentioned the two evaluations im going to walk you through the scope documents who what is required at the top part basically, the Building Code section truly about the restrictions and what you do this is a free document to submittal no cost from the city as we go through that youll see other things the deadline for the scope is 2015 for some reason the document is not 134i78d please let us you know in theory if you dont submittal that the department of building inspection will give a notice of violations and or sftv. Org you, you want us to do a site inspection you can send a dvd again do worry about the address and things like that it will be available it on the website two location sftv. Org back slash e extensive is part of the administration bulletin for the private schools again on the website well you work u walk you through the process we know that most engineers when it comes the evaluation use the template it is user friendly we donts o see those as harp the first section does this replace another report yes or no the scope document maybe filled out incorrectly well work you, you about it you send it in a second time well document that we want the school name and address and the block and lock number addresses are complicated in San Francisco we rely on a block and lock map some of the schools maybe on multiple lots please give us the lot number to see the size and scope the Contact Information whove you want to appoint this would be the person ahead of the schools the principle it doesnt matter on if its the identified person for the project section 3 repeating the school name on top sometimes papers get separated and one of the thing is resources how are we going to find this as i mentioned some engineers or arithmetic wisconsin you can use maintain licensed in california we have a comprehensive resource lift we work with the association of Northern California theyve surveyed their plea bargains 23s it is a nonprofit Structural Engineers and they provided a resource list weve put together a resource list of the engineers of San Francisco Unified School District theyve used for the retroactive and evaluation between those sources there are several names that guess posted on the website other wwwsftv. Org back slash e s i p stand for earth quaked just to make sure we get the audio please come up to the microphone. Good afternoon paul with San Francisco will the scope part be determined to decide whether or not we need the evaluation or are we to have the evaluation done thats one question and schools that have been had major seismic roller coasters will they can didnt want or have the evaluation done. Thats an excellent question at a point of contact ive been working with the city for almost 3 years prior to that i was the Building Code consultant so ive had the privilege of working with the schools and many as they went through the renovation process there was a huge retrofit the work was done you have a safe this and ive seen the entryway so 0 doing the engineering evaluation is a simple you have access to the existing plans and calculations so the engineer should be able to do that quickly thats an important point if youre schools have done revving use the engineer feel free to use whoever you want if you have plans and information thats going to make their job easier. Thank you im with the sterns school our hyphen highly is in a church weve got more than that 25 ask the fulltime do we need to evaluate. Without seeing the document im assume there was a permanent Building Permit to change the school in addition to the in such u church so if you said you didnt want to evaluate it church youll have to move that school as long as the kids are there its evaluated and so a single building yeah. The whole building. Not part of the evaluation so for those of who you who didnt hear the question is ada triggered as part of the evaluation with that said, if you choose to do a retrofit theres a remit in chapter 11 this have to be complied with and sorry to keep come back to this so our school is in a church we dont own the church were that renting the spaces who guess responsible for the program. Thats an excellent question we have self schools in San Francisco that are owned by others and rent this assumes the owner is the responsible part with that said, it is complicated open who is responsible when you talk about the lease terms the owner is responsible but they obviously need to work in conjunction with the school i should have pointed that out but it gives spaces and option to identify that to say the school is owned by the person were the tenant and between the parties decide who the contract is and well decide who the law son is. How soon is the relieving contractors come up in the summer this is 2, 3, 4 two months for Summer School so during two months are you supposed to finish the retrofitting and again, it good afternoon, supervisors actually its done how it is proposed and i think that is important leaving relieving is volunteer if the school choose to theres no deadline or requirement if they want to do it in phases their more than welcome two too. If San Francisco Unified School District owns the property and lease the building to a private school since its not in your is it in our jurisdiction. The siren way to talk about theres a couple of works the Charter Schools sometime theyre related to in San Francisco Unified School District owned buildings in d s a is the authority having the jury instruction theyre not required to follow the San Francisco Building Code if it is something that the city is is there a way to hide as a Charter School because theyre on City Property and not in d s a. I havent seen a case like that. It property comes up where they skis through the krangdz. Anecdotal it is profoundly d s a. The second question i have you mentioned when were going through the revving there are a lot of private schools that are very old were going to be going through preservation alsz lights; right . And correct. We did a s i there was a trial i want to let people know that is a full review by the building inspection and all the parts of building inspection. Yeah. I think that is a previous thing to talk about for Case Management what we want to do is set i up for success if youre planning on doing a construction project lets have that conversation we worked with others thirg things did you think about accessibility if you do this it will trigger xyz thats what we want to do walk you through it and give you an idea construction k is expensive and downtime for school is hard to keep with were going to minimize the downtime and maximum the time for a Building Permit Historical Review if youre doing exterior work think about having a conversation with the denial having we have a Interagency Working Group weve identified one key person in every City Department with the plan process department of building inspection, San Francisco Fire Department work sf puc and everybody else that touches is dph we have point people in the departments its on our website those are the right people to talk to we recommend if you have general questions start with us were happy to make the connections the late thing call a number and get passed around we want to give you a superior service to get you set up. One quick question i apologize to the audience more of a question to you david i was curious about the evaluation form whether or not it recognizes the benchmark from the a s 41 are we still required to fill out the form if its a benchmark building. Im david i was the Structural Engineer answer is yes, the engineering criteria tore this evaluation tlaits theres a National Standard i get the advantages for s c 41 one it the relatively New Buildings are benchmarked structural nonstructural so that goes to the question of those who had a retrofit that meets the safety standard i can use that to benchmark and be done. We talked about the possibility of fingering ada issues b what about california energy. It is triggered on a couple of things youll trigonometry envelope the way your building reattains energies so if youre basically changing opposing thats something you want to consider basically, the only time for example, you touch the lighting this transitions the lighting system it is localize so it will work with the right consultant and same thing for your mechanical. Do daefrz come under this or two or 4 unit buildings or large. So it is about singlefamily daefrz not intended to be under the ordinances theres a couple of examples first of all, say the kind of at home a singlefamily home and someone b is watching several children it is not e occupancy no, not required a subsequent requirement less than 25 children no requirement to evaluate so seems like the situation is not required unless a larger daycare well, if i dont see anyone else well conclude we have a list of engineers just a prompt if you want to look at it is were going to take the recording it will building available twentyfour hour a day weve hosting this on a friday night 6 is 3 day weekend were here to help with questions or services you myers guides might need so thank you very much for atteokay. Good afternoon, everyone this is the friday, december 11, 2015, meeting the Public Safety and neighborhood safeway committee of the board of supervisors im eric mar the change and to my right is supervisor campos and ms. Alyssa were being televised by sophisticating thank you to jim smith and charles kremack to this is not live but will be posted on line and give us our announcements devices. Completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today will appear on the january 5th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Thank you. I would to begin with voices of young people that are outside of city hall and marching on San Francisco streets today. Dont shoot. repeated. you guys hear me do not shoot. repeated. do not shoot. Reverend black lives matter. As wear meeting hundreds of young people that walked out of Mission High School and high schools around San Francisco from the reports of the weekly San Francisco Community School june gordon and galileo and lincoln and mission and gateway and many other middle school are participating i think a lot of the mercy housing are hands up dont shoot my hopes many mroflgz will treat them with respect their and right to protest is represented with that, could you please call the first item autopsy an ordinance amending the police code. People leaving or storing a load vehicle with a gun the sponsor sponsor a supervisor campos that if you i want to note that this is a very important item for us and the scope of the original ordinances that focused on Law Enforcement personnel leaving fire arms in vehicles expanded to now politically to anyone that finds themselves in the city and county of San Francisco who is a gun owner and makes the choices of storing their gun in an unattended vehicle we wanted it so in San Francisco certain rules and procedures are followed we want to keep those guns from ended up in the wrong hands i look forward to hearing the Public Comment i want to say at the outset from the beginning we have pushed to move it this legislation forward as quickly as possible legally, however, things we have to do which one of the things it is critical to meet and confer with the Law Enforcement personnel that work in the city and county of San Francisco that can be a process that takes time and so we have started that process were on a the middle of the process because of that once Public Comment is completed im to ask to continue this item to the call of the chair because of the meeting confer process not have this ordinance move forward until the process is completed we hope will happen in january of this coming year. Thank you supervisor campos i wanted to acknowledge supervisor yee is a cosponsor as well as myself and lets open up for Public Comment we have one card i know that r0sh89 wants to speak and ms. Brown anyone else be please come forward that will be continued to the call of the chair after Public Comment. Sir. Go ahead walter. Please store those guns safely because of those guns there is no no where to run no where to hide once e would you store them safely no where to run or hide keep is safe and raw youll be safe by and by thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Were going to close Public Comment if people dont come up to speak right now. Next speaker. Hello my name is Paulette Brown im here in respect to my son who was murdered august 14, 2018, he was shot with an semiautomatic gun thirty rounds into my son today his case is not solved im concerned about the gun violence thats been going around it says here that gunfire firearms are the third leading killer of children alps 1 to 17 how many guns are going to be on the street killing our children how many guns are brought out of trunk we think about the young man that did the mural was shot and that gun was stolen out of a Police Officer vehicle how many guns are going to be stolen and whos account for our children where the guns are out of the Police Officers vehicles or whether their came into from our children buying guns illegally how long will the mothers suffer we say all lives matter black lives dont matter but all lives matter all i have left my sons death laying on a jury necessary and this is what cabin violence did for my son we want justice for our children keep our cases open and make those Police Officers accountable for what happened to laurel woods because u because the mothers never get over the pain by police or black a black all lives matter thank you ms. Brown. Next speaker. My name is robert carrageenan supervisors regarding the storage of firearms in unattended Motor Vehicles some provisions in the section are unworkable for the ordinance one method of storage is to have a lockbox affixed to the trunk another allow able to have a lockbox permanently affixed to the vehicle underneath wants seat and shout out guns and rifles are covered under this case a lockbox would be bigger . Not going to fit under the seat of a car and many cars whos trunks are two small and having a lockbox in plain sight is an invitation for thieves to steal and in addition people you get or often travel with people that go to fire ranges and permanently attach two or three lockboxes is unworkable thank you. Is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak Public Comment is closed. Mr. Campos. Thank you very much again, i want to thank the speakers and i especially want to acknowledge ms. Brown for coming to this board time and time again to remind us of the tragic lives that the tramples that have taken the lives of so many people because of gun violence and noted because of the meeting confer process im going to make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair in the hope that the meat and confer will meet in january and finally take action in San Francisco on this ordinance in january what i would say to the gentleman that spoke about how complicated and difficult to store firearms in a vehicle what were saying here is that if you choose to leave a firearm in an unattended vehicle there are certain things to do in the city and county of San Francisco you can choose not to leave a firearm in an nonattended vehicle and this is not in any way infringe on anyones Second Amendment rights when you are the owner of firearms there are certain responsibilities you should you have and certain things you have to do consistent with those responsibilities with that, id like to again make a motion to continue this to the call of the chair and thank you to my staff and hope to have a vote as quickly as possible in january thank you. Well do that without objection thank you madam clerk, is there any additional business to come before this body . Theres no further business. Thank you very much meeting adjourned i should announce 5 meeting the joint meeting of lafco good afternoon today is tuesday, september 22, 2015. Welcome to the local Agency Formation commission of the San Francisco Ethics Commission my name is john avalos the chair of the commission and will be a joint commission joint meeting that the Public Safety and Neighborhood Committee ill allow the chair of the committee to open up that meeting. Thank you chair avalos im eir mar to my right is supervisor avalos and were always Police Department of pleased to have joint meeting with lafco. Our clerk is alyssa and todays joint meeting is broadcast by sfgovtv staff jim smith and charles kremack also erica major is coclerking this meeting madam clerk, any announcements . Electronic devices. Completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. Thank you and could you please call the roll for lafco commissioner avalos commissioner breed absent. Commissioner campos and commissioner crews commissioner lindo commissioner mar player you have a quorum how do we want to do this mr. Chair. A motion to excuse commissioner breed. To excuse if lafco supervisor breed commissioner breed a motion from commissioner crews and seconded by and excuse the newest appointees from this meeting and seconded by supervisor campos well take that without objection. Okay. If you could call the first item. Item within we think the board of supervisors urging the California Public Utilities Commission to reject the Pacific Gas Electric proposed increases to net be able to metering fees. Just want we want to call them at the same time call 2. Item 2 the board of supervisors file urging the California Public Utilities Commission to reexamine fairness of increases. Okay. Very good thank you m madam clerk and colleagues two resolutions before us that are very, very important, important our cleanpowersf effort pg e has filed with the California Public Utilities Commission two motions seeking to one to get changes in the Net Metering Program that will be similar harmful for people in San Francisco and over lafco our cleanpowersf program also theyve proposed a new fee for the exit fee for the power electrical power from pg e when people customers go into the cleanpowersf program the proposed fee is called the what is is called mr. Fried actually trying to draw that up. Youre talking about the exit fee. Yes. The public charge in different power charge in different adjustments. The power charge in different adjustments. Correct yes. So the impact of those two fees own the program for cleanpowersf would reduce the funds we have available for build out and could make our program less competitive with pg e and preventing us from the robust roll out and less funds to do build out this is a direct attack against our cleanpowersf Power Program two resolutions to say ask the California Public Utilities Commission not to approve those increases that is dramatic two increases for the residents i think that is important to talk about some of the things going on behind the scenes thats been going on earlier this year we put on two measures on the ballot the lafco and city put on proposition h that was really about move forward with our cleanpowersf program and have a clear statement about what kind of energy were producing the iuoe under stern have put out their own version of the property g do undermine our effort would be they realized that the city was probable going to prevail on our measure that would not be good for them and their measure would lose and it very well well, did to you make sure theyre not attacking our measure and stern from i b w worked very much to try at one end promote the measure he was going to try toy kill prop g earlier this week, i was tarnishing to mr. Stern he said the energy fee that is working its way to the Public Utilities commission was all but settled our resolution before us today regarding the metering was really not important anywhere i dont believe that is true and talking with lafco jason fried sdrook interest the California Public Utilities Commission has not made a decision on the Net Energy Metering and talking to a liaison who is here in 9 puc whos name a cody he said the decision is not made either so heres what howard stern told me are signed the metering decision is pretty much set nothing it changing and i dont believe that is for what ive been hearing that is true things are locked up between ibw and the California Public Utilities Commission to present and let us know what we have before us. Sure jason fried executive director for lafco on those matters ive invited speakers if a statewide level and have presentations on each of the items into a local level how it impacts San Francisco directly so we will take them in the order on the agenda and our presenter from solar to present followed by a receptionist in the San Francisco Environmental Department talking about the impact the lafco and the pc i a and having lean energy present on a statewide prospective and have the sfpuc how to impacts us with that, ill call of sue huhuh h h sue is an do the presentation and the next presenter after that. Convalescent Committee Members thank you. I am supposed to say sfgovtv goes to the power point so, yeah im susan the west coast with go solar a nonprofit Advocacy Organization that is working around the country to bring solar into the mainstream about the efforts to slow down the rooftop by attacking and policy called net meters were in the middle of the debate the commission has not made a determination i could talk about this topic for many hours but keep it to 5 minutes as a context to start important to note were reilly in the midst of a rooftop innovation in San Francisco we serve 3 percent of big incurs demand the average price has dropped by more than half by 2009 and tripled the solar on the rooftop since 2011 and seeing 2 3rds of the rooftop solar installation happening in lshgsz neighborhoods it is good news for the state but prompting a backlash that seize it as a threat is their directly attacking net meters not only in california but dozens of other states across the country an explanation of what net metering and simple method for crediting people so when a roosevelt is producing more energy than the confers needed it get sent back the grid owe the skpz sell it so the metering makes sure that the similar customers get credit it allows their meters to roll backwards and give us full Retail Credit for kilowatt for the clean theyre paying the utility when necessary buy the hours so legislationer passed it in the early 2000 and have it in place across the country but in 2013 in response from the utility the legislator passed a law that told the commission by the end of this year determine what the net goals should be when they reach a 5 percent cap what 5 percent of the peak demand is served by the rooftop solar and pg e will hit that cap around the middle of next year and so all 3 of the utilities as a proceeding in the puc have submitted proposals to end that 3450er9 and drastically reduce the solar bill saves and each utility proposed a different proposal but at pg e they have a host of different proposed changing reduce the bill by more 50 percent that ends the metering you get the same credit for what is returned to the grid and on top of to add a 3 theres per kilowatt monthly demand charge it is pegged to the maximum demand that a customer buys from the utilities so it is hard for residential customers to predict we see anywhere in the country the utility has levied levied a demand charge the customers dont know their maximum demand will be and it is difficult charge to manage more them as well to pg e is proposed to disallow rolling over the bill credit that is part of our net metering structure and theyve made other proposals ill not get into detail but you know it is essentially if pg e proposal was adopted by the puc it will drastically reduce the savings to the customers and dramatically slow down continued solar growth and so you can all utilities theyve proposed this combination of reduced to credit for exported clean energy and add fees on top of that for solar customers so you might be wondering you know how which of that is impacting the solar customers bill in pg e territory and that gets complicate because it matters what the customers demand and the size of solar ray and so on we crunched the numbers in an analysis to the puc look at an average residential scloo solar customer in fresno a hot spot for the state right now this graph shows a customer who is under net meters the status quo and have got solar with a no down payment even though up as many solar customers do on net metering the customer saves over 20 percent a month before they got solar but pg es process is adopted by the puc the savings go down to 3 percent youre talking about a decline of more than 80 percent in solar savings to customer under the pg e proposal compared with net meters so you know in response to those attacks from the utilities weve got a number of pro solar voices including my organization is advocates for the preservation of net metering and for californian not make it more expensive for low and middleincome and an out power of the preserve more comments as in the puc has seen on any issue we have a very Broad Coalition of voices from City Government to save organizations not only organizations urging the commissions not to adopt but stick with the metering so where we are in the process raw the c puc about issue their appropriately decision and another a round of applause do comment and thirty days before they adopt a final decision wont happen until middle january so definitely time for the city to weigh in and definitely think that is a great idea if they decide to do so ill stop there for any questions. From our last comments were nothing is definitely soda up. The proposal has not been issued so by no means decided. So permanently no decision on the proposed decision. No proposed decision out yet. And the proposed decision public input and we get to see that public input can influence what comes out in the final. Exactly often changes between the changes and the. Youve answers my next question. How common is that. It is quite common the commission seize heavy lobbying by stakeholders who want to make changes so, you know, i think in this issue thats been so important to the public and controversial i think there is absolutely more time to look at this from the commission. Thank you. Commissioner crews. Thank you so much for your presentation it is remarkable that the different solar customers in fresno 0 no will see to have the net metering changed do you have numbers for San Francisco. Unfortunately, i took this out of an analysis earlier this year i think that the results will look not too much different than San Francisco but fresno customers buy more energy so probable the impact on savings would be somewhat less in San Francisco but still looking at pg e proposal adopted a severe reduction in savings all throughout pg e territory. I more example friends that bought a house looking to add solar panels and people that are you know financing their solar panels and theyre looking for the cost association the cost Savings Association with the build in order to pay for the solar installation do we see them going underwater with solar panels. One thing to note the puc potential of net mooefrt will apply for customers that go solar in the future after the utility hits the 5 percent cap if i have solar the Commission Says you get to keep the program for 20 years and move over 0 the new program is the puc is you know theyre seeking to provide certainty so if youre under the current rules youll stick with the rules the question what are the rules for the future customers. Right so people who before all of this financeing you know flexibility is offered to go solar people that went green early on are going to stop being the seeing the benefits. Yeah. For current customers and customers went solar in the early days when is serve years ago they will see good savings but this is going to throw you know a possible big change in added fees for solar customers and create communication in the market for customers that have solar and those going solar if you look at a whole bunch of confusing fees and demand charges it is really going to put a chill on the market from the simple system of solar to a complex and thats one of the reasons weve urged the puc we have a program that works well, were macro solar affordability to ordinary californians now is it so not the time to change could you say but to maintain this program and keep reaping all the benefits. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner campos. What is the what could possible be the rational by the utilities for what theyre proposing well open this up for Public Comment what are they saying trying to understand. The one side. Yeah. Can anyone keep a straight fast, no pun intend. As ive said i think their ulterior motivates on in their part the argument making sure that all customers including the solar customers pay their fair share for the grid what is the fixed costs every customer should be paying pg e incentive to have their rate basis is the idea is were moving into a future with a distributed grids customers will provide clean green choices the idea not for the utilities to build out the expensive grid and require the customers to pay for it ever they dont need it yeah pg e argument has been around solar customers shouldnt be allowed to zero out their bill and not pay towards the sgridz the fact solar customers pay not zeroing out theyre bill theyre paying their fair share. Okay. Thank you commissioner mar. Thank you for the presentation i just wanted to add my 0. 02 he feel pg es out arraign and the other utilities out arraign forecast it disincentivizes but grad glad you made it clear i have a question im not sure you can answer may cal or other from the department of the environment but in the materials it says about 5 thousand San Francisco homes we know of have solar installations or 5 thousand solar installations around San Francisco that that are similar 10. 5 megawatts do i know how is are low and you mentioned solar in homes is expanding to more low income and middleincome homes. I dont know that offhand i know there was recently a report that look at the average incomes of the zip codes for solar being installed over the last 5 years a distinct move from solar in higher income neighborhoods i dont know what the politician for the solar already installed by the across the country as the costs come down most of the installations with disconnecting of in case of less than 70 thousands or less. Maybe cal knows about the 5 thousand installations are we seeing an increase in the lower and middleincome homes. Thank you commissioner, i cant answer that question but certainly try to get an answer for you. To finish up my political 0. 02 pg es actions are outrageous bus the climate submit and the protests around the woodland is out praejz what is happening around the Public Utilities commission. Thank you commissioner mar and sir, thank you for your presentation so i have two maybe hear Public Comment or an explanation of the changes from mr. Frieds and Public Comment. Before we do that we have cal has a quick presentation how to impacts california before we get there. Commissioners, thank you very much i said to painted a picture of a larger picture were electrifying our electric vehicles moving away from natural gas to electrify our spaces heating we need more electricity resources and we the more we have in house in San Francisco the better off we are what is proposed with the net metering is more difficult part of the charge of the department of the environment to think about Green House Gas emissions so i want to point out that the pucs our puc sfpuc go solar with the metering has installed the 7 hundreds plus solar installations in addition those are providing about 23 megawatts of capacity the late number and want to make the point weve been employing people prosecute Disadvantaged Community in those programs as well as installing solar throughout the city including the southeast and other parts of city that are lower income and finally the point i think not been in the comments before those improve the reliance were working on a project to provide batteries and scombrrg storage to back up the systems when we have a major broadbased quarter we have resources that will come from rooftop solar not a solar installation in the valley the more we can do to put the solar on our rooftops that improve our conditions here thank you. Thank you. So chair avalos to have Public Safety and neighborhood chair wiener to take the a good deal of and read in the amendments those amendments are a quick synopsis they are clarifying and clearing up up a few things weve produced that and gotten feedback from go solar about technical changes that are necessary we took the comments and your staff he provided edits and something that the Public Safety committee tapes not a lafco item ill get into that at the ends the difference and what the Public Safety Neighborhood Services committee and after reading those amendments sgoerd and then we should if you want to get Public Comment on this item or have a presentation on the pc i a ill yield. Do pc i a read the comments or do the presentation all the stuff together. If you like. Im not clear what i have. Maybe. So i would do at this point call up shawn and shell do the presentation on the pc i a and have sfpuc do that and the amendments then. Okay. Thank you he everybody nice to be here im shawn with lean energy jason can you help me with queuing up those slides. Super. Thank you. Before i get started into this topic i think that will be helpful to set context and let you i know i was asked to give a 5 minute presentation highlevel and brief ill be happy to answer any questions but what is the definition of this power charge in different adjustments this is a long term form f 50 an exit fee it is also categorized as a departing low charge an annual calculations based on the advantageing the Pacific Gas Electric has engaged in or entered into on behalf of the customers and so in order to keep the fundamental rate payers whole you have to pay a departing low charge for the case of Community Choices aggregation or cleanpowersf and want to be clear at this point we are not disallowing the need for a low charge we understand that is an obligation in particular not necessarily so much of the utility but the fundamental ratepayer is not unduly impacted by the departing load has to do with with the way the p kay is calculated and the mitigation strategies to handle some of these more intense rates we see proposed this year with that, well sort of recap what we see as the owner currently before the c puc. 2016 it is scheduled to go up nearly 100 percent in cleanpowersf case actually a little bit over 100 percent this is the highest in history so it is unprecedented that estimates or calculates out to 2 point 3 cent and kilowatt hour the communities have to add into the generation rate to for the wholesale power rates from the market in order to then come up with a full rate at the end of the day needs to be competitive with pg e you can imagine a 2 pointed 3 kilowatt hour charge is actually pretty hefty charge but this means for cleanpowersf is a potential hit of 8. 4 million in 2016 that is just for a partial year and only for phase one customers you have youre rolling out a modest phase if i look at 24 over the course of the Program Actually a potential for a much larger financial hit Going Forward Peninsula Clean Energy the ambulance in san mateo that is 40 million in 2016 and that is also 2307 for the Phase One Program and the pc i a has a hard hits on care customers they rely on programs that help them meet in their olympics low Income Customers that are undial burdened by 100 percent increase in the fee per it also reduces cleanpowersf and other cia ability for the clean power this is something to have into our rates it effects our revenues and the ability to have the excess revenue and definitely creates uncertainty in the marketplace we believe the effect is anticompetitive it is essentially contrary to save policy the policy requires corporation from the utilities 19 it also requires the urban bundled customer is made whole but some things in the calculations that satisfied both needs the other issue at hand the calculations are done in a black box manner commissioner last week knowledgeed how calibrated those calculations are the costs in ass not to my knowledge uhhuh annual calculations are unknown because of the cost information was not available to 9 parties our question what are the assumptions underlying and what is in this quote quotes black box it spits out a fee that potentially approved by the c puc we know undermines the California Public Utilities Commission go credibility of the end result that brings us here today to a number of remedies that have been proposed we are hopeful an additional decision to the proposed decision before the puc potentially schedule to be heard on december 17th and potentially defer a final decisions into january giving me additional time for mitigations to be povrnl considered one of those to increase transparency and craigslist by conducting and third party audio and verification of the calculation and more importantly the assumptions underlying those calculations what are the contract that are going into this black box and spitting out this number we dont know what is going into that we that will be helpful for the puc to have the third party verifies theyre given comfort theyre about to approve is valid the second mitigation that has been suggested is to consider a balancing or smoothly account to mitigate those types rates as i mentioned this is unprecedented doing so will is an annual came it could be 15ers or 50 percent but something that provides some relief with the ability to amnesties the balance of those over a period of time so you have a smoothly effect and not have this hit on rates the figure out is to request to open a preceding at the sfpuc other issues about the exit fee including a potential very visiting obvious iuoe circulations u calculations work the memories and the policy behind that as well as how long does the p ccii kay cia we dont see a theyre no longer able to procure but monopoly has been defined so those are the remedies that lean as suggested and many others that have merging with the commissioners we dont know for sure there is relief for the 2016 fee some indication of a willingness to engage if the structural fixed to the p cia that is a step in the right direction if you can join us for to press conference next thursday december 17th prior to the Commission Hearing wed love to have supervisor avalos or anyone else a number of local officials to talk about the impact of the p cia on their program and the Program Going forward so with that, i the finish my remarks and im available to answer any questions. Thank you for your presentation and thank you as well for the invitation actually, i will not been able to make that i have my kids i take it school at it time in the morning but well, my fellow commissioners to be able to go if theirable. Thank you. And work with jason fried to see which one of us can be inherited over to the press conference. Very good thank you. Okay commissioner mar youre name is the only the roster okay. Commission. Thank you. I have one question. It was a great presentation thank you. I thinks that is very complicated and to stay within the timeframe was highlevel going back to one statement you said you thought no relief in sight what do you mean that pg e is not required to procure energy on behalf of the p cia how did it play into the p cia a continual charge. As far its been a continual charge ongoing discussions when a when does it at the end pg e entered into a contract maybe 25 to thirty years at what point is there a cross over between that timeframe when the p cia halls procedure the power on behalf of the parties and is obligation to pay the load theoretically it should be wrenching down over time and go away at some point some said it should go away after the first year it is not feasible but after 10 years they have the ability to go on the market and sell the contract the p cia is calculated on the benchmark price and what they cracked for we want to make sure we are innovate liable for the loads and the calculations is fair and that there is in no way a double dipping or making money and turning to and chair mar us. Forgive me if im new to understanding p cia it is a dual component theres a something that the ratepayer pays and the p cia pays isnt that correct. Yes. But the way it works the cca agency scombetsdz the p cia charge so ultimately it is bundled into the overall rate for the customer. So the customer doesnt get this you know thanks for leaving you owe us x amount of dollars its rolled into the future bills with cleanpowersf. Yes. If i understood you correctly but the bottom line in other words, for the program whether it is cleanpowersf or Lean Clean Energy for them to retain competitive they have to take into account the generation layer in the exist fee and the administrative costs and come out hopefully competitive to pg e and this year we know for sure for example, lean energy will be more expensive. Thank you. I understand it but thank you for clarifying it thank you so much. Any other and colleagues, any other questions okay. Anything from staff . Ms. Harold good afternoon barbara hale assistants general manager for powell at the San Francisco puc thanks. Taking the time to review and lean and marshall for reviewing the p cia since for the last couple of weeks weve been pulsing over how to reset our cleanpowersf plan to in the event if pg e is successful in their request at the California Public Utilities Commission our commission on december 8th adopted a resolution similar to the resolution bra you today it rejects or urges the California Public Utilities Commission to reject the proposal pg e offends it ports it asks the puc to support the ultimate resolution as ms. Marshall described that helps mitigate the impact of the p cia request ton cca programs and p cia customers and finally the sfpuc urged the p cia to reexamine the calculation method and the application to cleanpowersf program and other cca programs in state law requires that the investor on collect this fee to maintain the differences for the remaining customers to other domineers departing the San Francisco Public Utilities commission it in challenge it san franciscans San Francisco is made up of bundled customers and you know customers that will join the cca program we need to keep both the ratepayer groups incomes and were asking the California Public Utilities Commission to do the same they should be keeping in mind the bundled customers by the but the cca customers it is not at all unusual for the California Public Utilities Commission to apply its practice on a rate making issue and see the result oh, that is has a heavier impact on customers and rate payers than we think is appropriate quarry moderate that the puc resolution requests them here and the resolution bra requests the California Public Utilities Commission to do to moderate the impact weve spent sometime today, i spent time talking with California Public Utilities Commission staff i think that the issue one of the issues that is most troubling ms. Marshall be mentioned it pg e the proceedings that pg es asking for making in request is a proceeding that started back in june of this year parties had an opportunity to review the materials, to put their point of view on the formal records on november 5th is when pg e changed their request to make it a more dramatic higher than previously requested in june that was november 5th, november 13th shortly after the assigned Administrative Law judge grantdz pg e request when we look back then on the filings the filing that pg e made on november 5th i have with me going to the transparency issue this is a filing that pg e made with tremendous amount of redictated we cannot see a this is a more than a tremendous amount of redacting. We cant see the calculation so part of what were asking the California Public Utilities Commission to pause look at the real calculations here make sure that they understand it can and moderate the impact on our customers and Going Forward look to see how can we assess a charge that protects bundled customers and didnt unfairly hits the cleanpowersf and other cca customers commissioner crews. You were asking a question specifically how to affect cleanpowersf customers like other ccas were doing when we are proposing rates for the cleanpowersf program as were trying to make sure that customers will be neutral to whether you you know on a bill basis to whether theyre in the cleanpowersf program or in the pg e program we know that pg e is going to include on the cleanpowersf customer will include on their charges page the exit fee times the kilowatt hours a separate charge each customer will see weve tried to do in setting our generation rate to take that how far take into account it means we have to be 25 percent cheaper in our our Electrical Supply has to be 25 percent what we were cheaper in other words, to be cheaper pg e so were when ms. Marshall said were amending that were saying youre costs have to be cheaper by the cost of the p cia in order for our customers to have no bill impact by joining our program. Okay. So that i think this is ill stop there and take any questions you may have thank you. Thank you very much i dont see other questions so why not go ahead and hear from our director jason fried. I want to do a quick summary and giving us an understanding from the board of supervisors you know we have a couple of resolution in front of you i understand technical amendment to the resolutions today and thats a good way for the board of supervisors to go that is best if they do it set up a Committee Report so go in front of the the board of supervisors on tuesday and they vote prior Internal Revenue to the meeting the c puc especially from the skraik from a lafco prospective looking for the final reductions on the letter writing side and things like that lafco what about more nimble and support what the sfpuc and lean is doing stone the p cia and support what the department of environment and the go solar and other net merchant well be taking part thats little directions ill be encouraging to give the instructions when 33 these 24e7kz occur between the merge and draft letters the chair then reviewed them and gives the final sign off thats generally, the way it is downey done in a supervisor has a on or about well incorporate you into 0 that loop but draft the letters with the chair giving final approval with the lafco ill recommend at this point and still, of course, have to have Public Comment on those two items actually. Great so why not do Public Comment first actually what we have before us a technical amendment i passed out to my colleagues adding a few words here and tloo there to see the expectations of the California Public Utilities Commission could be just changes in the title that referenced to solar customers and changing language that go helps to clarify around the Net Energy Metering and it is really minor changes here and there on the second one around the power charge and different adjustments adding a line that jason fried discussed a therefore, be it resolved and this is not underlined by the board of supervisors directs the clerk of the board to transmit copies to the California Public Utilities Commission and the San Franciscos representatives of the legislator thats the last on the line that of that the power charging adjustment resolution thats new okay. So we can decide to bring those well vote on those amendments or the Public Safety Neighborhood Services committee will vote on those amendments after Public Comment lets go to Public Comment. Good evening commissioners eric brooks with the San Francisco green party and the local grassroots i come forward with the clean power advocates and are for the Energy Choice that hepatitis to lead the charge in sacramento to stop bad bills that will undermine Community Choice so ill just stick to the exit fee the plaintiff cia fee because of limit time i lean has done a great job of calling your attention and dust kicked up and getting Public Comment unprecedented Public Comment to the commission on this but i would kick it up a notch we have a number this p cia charge was happening and now a situation where there are 40 the last number i saw 40 city and counties cities and or county pursuing the choice and la that county is pursuing 20 or more so pg e and the other utilities know full well the market is drastically changing and a lot of the Services Territory will be taken over by Community Choice program what the p cia ill call you to ask for it to be rapidly changed it is left the the way it is it sets up a situation where corps like pg e not only the Choice Program will stand up to the territory can sign up for 20 and thirty years knowing the next year x number of customers and those customers will be dinged in perpetuity for the 20 and thirty year contracted so this is hi a point of order we should get double the times im jed i cocoordinator and spent time on the board a party to the puc and definitely involved in the p cia weve worked on the deconstruction of fossil fuel and provide a Healthy Future not without turning on the clean power those issues are extremely critical a Climate Crisis we need more 5 percent of residents to have solar on their roof and heard from the gentleman about the resilient so it benefits everyone and the only party is the corporation that didnt benefit that wear discussing as far as the puc ill make sfpuc and make the comments again, the pentagon proposal is to instill fear statewide and effect the Public Policy that by g a dictionary dispensation is economic terry recidivism a hostage taking with 8 and a half millions pictures rotted away from us money from the peninsula it is unacceptable the public didnt have a big role with the San Francisco public works ill urge to get involved with the c puc supervisors to move the pools actually this hearing an is 17 despite all the feedback theyve heard the p cia charge patrol is still it on the consent calendar this is the level of respect for the process we have over there this 8 and a half Million Dollars is real money well have here on behalf of the appellant. Do you have imagine to add. Yes. Thank you. We heard from the sfpuc hearing theyll been losing be potentially 8 and a half Million Dollars in this the plaintiff cia increase goes through weve think thinking how to use this money back into the Promissory Note Program we tell them the mask of the Community Choices going devotes this is is transfer of wealth and for money for build outs going instead to a maneuver in a conceptual way it is poor planning by this Year Corporation to be back stomped by the public not happening in any other industry ill back up under brooks we need to look at the blunt of this but the funding of the p cia thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Dashing through the snow in a solar powder slay over the city hills we go green power all the way. Bells are again to ring keeping spirits bright and bright i hope the item turn out right hope that goes well and hope it is swell and hope it sells oh, what fun to ride in a solar powder sleigh offering oh, no place like solar and green be able for the holidays and no matter how far away you room if you want to be economical in many ways for the holidays it great powder energy way to go. clapping. . Well, i guessed that is taking my green ride to a whole new level is there any additional Public Comment seeing none, Public Comment is closed and i think this is where the Public Safety Neighborhood Services can take over. Chair avalos any questions about the amendments can we adopt the amendments for the net metering item without objection. And thank you let me say two different items before us and if no questions weve heard Public Comment can we. The new on the power charge on the adjustment resolution that you combined asking the board to send a letter to the California Public Utilities Commission and to our representative that serves the city for this c puc not only a lafco motion but for the Public Safety committee and it this is for the Public Safety committee. So for the p cia can we accept that amendment without objection great on both items support 0 those with the with a positive recommendation. Look forward as a Committee Report. So moved. And moved to the full board of supervisors on tuesday december 15th and doing that without objection thank you. Back to the chair avalos. Other items for the Safety Committee or close that one out so we can adjourn the Public Safety committee and go on to the lafco. Any other business before the Public Safety committee. Theres no further business. Well conclude that Public Safety and mr. Chair they need to witch over to lafco. Okay. Well pause a switc okay. Well pause a minute. Sfgovtv is really. Very good and so those items are open on our lafco agenda jason fried. Theyre open on the lafco staff 80 so we have it read into the record to take part in the letter writing campaigns and to work with the chair to get those letters done in a timely fashion. Okay commissioner crews. I wanted to make the motion to have the staff to write the letters on both matters please. Okay. Thank you and i think thats a motion and seconded by commissioner mar and take that without objection ill work with jason fried on working on the letter. Okay thank you very much and lets go to our item number 3. Item 3 the approval the lafco minutes from the october 23, 2015, with the San Francisco Public Utilities commission. Colleagues, any questions or comments on the minutes okay lets go on to. This is related to our minutes so no members of the public well Public Comment is closed. And item 4 you need to take a motion to approve the minutes. So moved. Okay thank you and seconded by commissioner mar and well take that without objection. Item 4 the Community Activities report for a report on the clean power and b status on the California Public Utilities Commission. Okay ms. Hal welcome. The general manager for power at the San Francisco Public Utilities commission i wanted to provide an update if i may how were doing with the clean Power Program marching towards launch on the november 10th we made a presentation to the commission that dooementd the Business Plan the reflex that we were facing and our strategies for mitigating those risks the revisions relief talked about the p cia we reran our model and looked at the stability of the program we on the 10 were able to an november 10th able to inform our commission it looks like a 8 percent operating margin that well be funding an operating reserve well funding a Rate Stabilization and providing a gastroproduct with very a good basis of financial so well be able to grow the program and ultimately get a Credit Rating more sufficiently reinvest and along the changes that pg e is asking for in the Administrative Law judges is saying yes and we ran the fingers it shrinks with the new numbers and funding an operating reserve no longerable if edging successful no longer able to fund Rate Stabilization reserve the importance of the reserve having that reserve allows us a returning give us an account we can turn to for contingencies like a change in the p cia well not have to immediately pass those costs onto the customers but absorb them until the next opportunity to adjust our underlying costs so that cushion having that lost that cushion is concerting we made the presentation to our commission of the changes on the 8 of december we are still moving forward their comfortable with that we are watch a number of factors the pg e change being one that is was the one more impactful between now and the first of the year or the first week the first of the year of the new year well be getting a price refresh from our suppliers and hoping to see those costs come down and we are going to finalize the negotiations with those bidders 3 active bid option one bidders were talking about with two active specified renewable projects we expect to finalize those over the next two weeks and have the pg e raised come in on january 1st, well know what the rate is were competing against the generation and the p cia not only will we expect to be acted think or defenders by the commission on the 17 of december; right . On january 1st pg e is scheduled to publish new rates based on a number of decisions the California Public Utilities Commission is making is on january 1st, well have a new rate well have a calculator on what the p cia is and able to do the math to fourth we know what our costs say we have the best and finally over from our suppliers and know what pg e rate is costs are on the plaintiff cia and able to say okay. Can we cover our costs and including funding and operating reserves at a rate that is. 25 percent less than the rates pg e is charging today, if we are able to say yes, well continue on our large number path in not at this point thats when we pittsburgh hit the pause bottom in between and then continuing to work on refinancing the numbers looking at and ooefg what sort of a mitigating factors we might be able to recommend to our commission if we do finds ourselves on the pause path also known as to the launch path wear expecting to be on the launch path blue in the expectation were wrong so our schedule remains the same. Just im going to pause you right now. Yes. What do you mean if we were to pause what will the range looked like and the time i understand you have to look at contingencies im not what that means illegally how our program is considered by the California Public Utilities Commission but in terms of their Decision Making but i get nervous when i hear the word pause it feels like all the work youve done and the puc has done could seriously be a waste of time so, please let me know what you mean by pause. To what i mean by pause staff has been given direction to launch this program assuming were able to over service at a rate that is affordable theyve defined affordable as being a rate that is zero 25 below pg e. I heard that. Yes. And so we will know what pg es recreate is on january 1st, well know weve been estimating our costs; right . Using the bids weve received from the suppliers those the approach were taking consistent with outing how things work in the electrical market theyve over us a best and final price wherever we ask for that we will when we know in the pg e rates are that supply is 70 percent of our costs of the overall operation of the program is it it is a fundamental piece of our cost pie reporting or; right . Once we know what the actual supply costs are and the actual pg e rate then well be able to judge when a whether we meet the affordability yeah. Our costs below can we offer services as 25 below pemgz and recover our costs. Well ton do so if he can well got rid of if not the question about the pause part. Okay. Is that like a pause that is a better rate if pg e. What i mean us looking at i know weve not been able to change pg e rate quickly; right . Thats a long term advocacy efforts but well be looking at with the pause what are some of the other tools we have available to modify the cost of our program we for example, have a target power content our green offering of 35 percent if were not able to launch the program not meeting the cost benchmark consider reducing the 35 to 240 well be in compliance with stating an option that lowers our operating costs we could look at it and were 86 looking at modifying the mix of customers that independence the receive stream eco system a mexico of customers that have more business than residential that might provide us with a revenue stream that allows us to afford to provide the service at that you know extensively affordability. I have a lot of resistant it is down the pathway of paws im worried about that i have a lot of questions i feel like it is a slippery slope to Start Talking about what the pause i was not contemplating that right now. Im trying to demonstrate to you that we, keep is short. What. If were not successful with our advocacy at p puc if the costs coin higher are reprepared and thinking that is, yes we are. I. Now is not the time to discuss that. I would rather do is that closed session. Commissioner crews. I have a question on timing if we should have a pause to reevaluate to configure the program to still lead with affordability what can that mean in terms of launch date . Were Telegraph Hill knowing to minimize the launch date we need to begin the opt out process in midjanuary to stay on our path of the lauven in march so any dwla on that in january would cause a delay in the actual start of program and again, were not expecting to be there but i just want to assure you, we are prep and thinking it through if we find ourselves put in that position. Thank you. Director fried. Jason fried exclusive officer i dont want to jump go into a hornets nest but what is the worse Case Scenario they have not yielded participated and right now their staff is foouth kwhaepd in pg e they like to mess with San Francisco what if pg e is figuring out a way to come in cheaper weve testify grafted not higher than per diem and so theyre trying to figure out what happens in those cases there is not a pause in the program i do feel that the staff and everything theyre working towards getting getting the launch theyre doing their Due Diligence to anticipate if pg e 2r50iz to mess with us and put a price out there thereless lower than other anticipated lake the p cias charge they mess with our finances you know with feed to is have a discussion the financial needs to be there i will or know theyve been wards on the avenues what occurs the one benefit we have pg e is getting a lower price we should be getting a lower price for any contact wire mirroring the market in pg e is laboratory lover our hopes are contracting will be lover it therefore well oath set and well get a launch i see the work their staff is doing internally everything is full steam heads but calm the nerves no one is expecting a pause the staff is part of their commission wanting to make sure that he everyone is on board from a financial stand Point Commission said hes happy with the work theyve done all the worst Case Scenarios theyve been able to deal with any worst Case Scenario and theyre continuing to go down that pact one thing i wanted to highlight i dont see a pause not any their staff is foouth how not to be a pause in the program and i heap that one january comes around well see the program moving forward. Yes. I dont want to cast anything on the puc staff but get freaked out there isnt a lot of carol about what