The more we can be brief, the more you can give us information on. If theres anything we can do, we are happy to participate in that process. We appreciate the thoughtful and well laid out report. Thank you. Supervisor peskin tomorrow in closed session we get to hear about the over 20 pieces of Outstanding Litigation and actions where pacific gas and electric is the Adverse Party to the city. Something to look forward to tomorrow. All right, why dont we open this up to Public Comment. I have a number of speaker cards. If you will line up to my left, youre right,. If you will line up after the speakers i have called. I will be using the overhead. Eileen bogan, coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods here at the july 22 meeting of the Capital Planning committee, there was a presentation of the 2019 Building Code update. The presentation was made by the department of the environment. The presentation stated that the cities current admissions that come from private sector natural gas are 35 . One of the proposals will be to encourage all electric, new construction. The issue of reliability was brought up by a Committee Member similar issues were brought up at the july 25 meeting of the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services committee on overhead wiring. I believe under grounding should be considered with this hearing, and would propose the following priorities. Areas adjacent to police and fire stations to protect emergency response. Areas adjacent to hospitals for the same reason. Areas adjacent to muni routes to protect transit services. Areas adjacent to schools to protect students. Areas adjacent to commercial corridors to increase their competitiveness with online retail. Finally, at the Public Safety committee hearing, pg e stated that in terms of under grounding , San Francisco is fortunate, unlike minnesota we do not have a a gophers who could impact underground wires. The west side does have gophers, lots of them. A fact that pg e seems unaware of. Thank you. Next speaker, please. This is thrilling actually. I know there are hundreds of people out there that didnt probably know about this stage of the program. You could feel them. We are so thankful for the supervisors putting this forward , and for the wonderful report that you gave that was so clear and concise. Also that we would have be really jumping ahead because of their bankruptcy, to deal with the Climate Crisis is fantastic. Also no more secrecy so the people actually know what is going on with our system. It is so important. As many people now, it has been one i want to mention labor. It is so important that the people that work for pg e know that they will be transferred with pension and wages equal, or better than, to what they have now. That we would finally get rid of a corporation that is just for profit, felon, and has broken the agreement for over 100 years. As a part of extinction rebellion, we are extremely excited about this move forward that we can really have a public system that is for clean power. No more nuclear, all of those things are gone. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Its wonderful to appreciate what our representatives are doing in this way. Supervisor peskin thank you, next speaker, please. Good afternoon supervisors. Eric brooks with californians for energy choice, San Francisco green parties and the local grassroots organization. It would clearly be better for this city if we had public power. Some folks might remember back in the day, the San Francisco guardian did a study that showed we would get 200 million more per year, by not throwing money at pg e. With that said, weve got to be mindful that we are in a Climate Crisis. Getting a bunch of extra money every year does not necessarily solve that. Los angeles, the biggest public utility is dismal on Renewable Energy. Sacramento, one of the best leaders on Renewable Energy is not doing as well as a Community Choice programs. What that means is that we must have mandates. Whatever we passed here or at the ballot, that we have 100 local Renewable Energy master plan baked into that thing, like the document i sent to you, that showed you sydney, australias master plan. That is number if it doesnt have that, climate activists will not support that, especially community activists. All we need is a democratic electric elected board. Most consumer advocate are going to be deeply concerned about another agency that is ran by five people appointed by the mayor. Whether the mayor is good or bad is not the issue. We need democratically elected representation. That means we need to set up municipally elected board for this thing. Lastly, we wont even get a chance at this unless we amend ab 1054, and ab 11 that just passed in San Francisco. It makes it much more difficult for us to get public power. Those of us that are advocating need your help to push for those amendments and in sacramento, next month or next year. To end, with regard to ab 1054, this board is on the record and very clear, i think we indicated that we would oppose it if it was not amended, and indeed we opposed it. Next speaker, please. I am robin david, i am a retiree, i am retired from ibew 1245. I was also very active in the 2,001 campaign for public power. I am extremely designed delighted and excited that the seeds we planted in 2,001 are beginning to bear fruit. It is important to note, that not only this report, to my knowledge is secondhand, but as i understand it, not only does it take note of the fact that public power is concerned with the environment, but its also concerned with rates that are at least as good as better, and better than pg e. I would like to specifically address two issues. The first issue is that adopting this reports, and going through the whole process, is not the end, but the beginning of a very long process. When sacramento voted to institute smiled, pg e dragged on the battle for 22 years if memory serves correctly before smud was established. We have to be aware that we are in for an expensive battle, and be proud paired politically prepared politically and financially for a period the second issue, the report takes up the transition of the pg e labor force into the city workforce. In 2001, the labor moved in on the whole, was very much behind public power. The city union, the biggest local, and lead was chomping at the bit and salivating over the pg e workforce. Supervisor peskin wait one second. Number one, its good to see you after all of these years. Your time has expired, i would like to ask you a question about pg e, the city, and the workforce . Go ahead. Okay. Its a very important, despite whatever connection supervisors have to the city union that the pg e workforce remain a 1245 bargaining unit. A unit that has use to working together, without a lot of divisions, craft, trade and department. Whatever divisions come up are settled within the union, rather than dragging city officials, and managers into it. I think also, from a political point of view the city unions have nothing necessarily to gain out of this. 1245 has significant to lose. If they face losing it they become a formidable enemy, as they have been in every effort for public power since 2,001. I think it is very important that not only did the transition be smooth and generalized way, but that it remains a 1245 bargaining unit. Supervisor peskin thank you for those comments. Ms. Hale, i suggest you might talk to mr. David. Good to see you again. Next speaker, please. Hello supervisors, a Community Organizer with the sierra club. The sierra club supports the takeover of pg e infrastructure, only if the city would commit to dramatically increasing the local build up pace since the new Renewable Energy, and efficiency upgrades. We urge that San Francisco makes the creation of new Renewable Energy resources part of the takeover proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Supervisor peskin thank you, next speaker, please. Thank you. Senior policy analyst for 350 bay area. It is surreal to be having this conversation having voted on public power every chance i have had since 1999. The whole city family is isnt working together towards this, and having reviewed the preliminary report, have thank you very much for the analysis. The quality of pg es infrastructure, as ms. Hale mentioned, looking at a deeper analysis on the quality of the infrastructure. I know none of us want to spend billions of dollars on a lemon, or infrastructure that will immediately require huge Capital Investments on top of the bio. To that point because, it was mentioned that the buyout would cost a few billion dollars. I just want to highlight, since 2013, advocates for Community Choice on Renewable Energy have been pushing for a citywide local build outs of, efficiency and demand response that was originally estimated at 100 million per year for ten years. Which adds up to 1 billion area that got laughed out of the room, every single time it was mentioned. That would have resulted in 50 local Renewable Energy, and 50 nonrenewable local energy for 1 billion. Estimated. The idea that we would be buying potentially faulty, and garbage infrastructure for a few billion dollars while i am not opposed to that, i think we need to put into perspective, what we would consider spending money on what is considered a laughable idea. Lastly, we really do need some kind of public oversight, besides a an to appoint a board if to have a system like this. That was mentioned before. I want to back up supervisor haney that we want to see governance change. Supervisor peskin thank you, next speaker, please. First of all, youre not going to get first dibs on becoming an owner of equipment of pg e. Pg e owns their Insurance Companies multi quadruple billions of dollars, is that clear . That is why they might want our money . No, the persons in the Insurance Companies get first dibs at the property. The best way to take care of this problem, yall ready you all are ready on the right track, you have to build your own system to distribute your own electricity to the city and county of San Francisco. Get rid of pg e altogether. How many more examples do you need to demonstrate that pg e is not dealing in good faith, and by the same response never had intentions of reaching a legal agreement on this matter. About this contract agreement that you referred to, in may, if that contract was signed by pg e and they made a deal with the city, that is a breach of contract. If they pulled out and did not keep up their end of the bargain, understand me. That is an additional lawsuit that should be filed against pg e. Pg e has been busted by investigator that showed that well over several years ago they were told about their defective equipment and the electrical wires, and the electrical poles could cause a fire hazard. They did not do a damn thing about it. That is further proof. A minimum of 89 people have lost their lives in that fire, that took place, on the other side of the bay. Its disgusting. About you, talking about you want to take over their system, and their defaulted equipment is a waste of money. You can start by going and gathering god damn new semi get that 21 billion that he put in, and stop rebuilding and build your own system to distribute electricity that you already didnt it demonstrated that you can generate on your own behalf. Also, sorry. Your time is up. Next speaker, please. Hello supervisors, i am a resident of district one. I am also an electrical engineer, retired, a graduate of davis and berkeley. I think i am probably the only engineer, graduate engineer in this room, of the presenters we saw today. I appreciate, mr. Peskin, you are a person with with attention to detail. That is what engineers do. Supervisor peskin i think the general manager of our puc is an engineer, but go ahead. Many people who talk about being an engineer, there are many with different flavors. My degree is in Electrical Engineering specifically. I wanted to speak to the risks, and challenges, little bit and say am probably in favor of the option that nobody wants. One of the things pg e has now is what they call a scale. The city will lose some of that. It costs that the city wont increase almost certain because of that. Im not going to go into details, but i think you understand what the scale is. Things like distribution facilities, maintenance facilities, all of the things that needed for infrastructure to support the operation are distributed along its territory and can be shared within the territory. We will lose out in San Francisco. Supervisor peskin we have some of that upcountry. May be some, not all. Not to the extent that pg e in terms of responding to largescale things like how many power lines down. Im not going to get enough time to speak. In terms of the cost, we just talked about the park escalator canopies, and the unexpected high cost, and that is typical. It is a very common thing. Im not going to go into that any further. Finally, about the employees, it has been reported the employees already saying if theyre only in San Francisco they will lose the ability to transfer out. They will be competing with tech employees for their salaries. Supervisor peskin thank you. No, sir. Are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on this informational hearing . Seeing none. Public comment is closed. Ms. Hale, general manager kelly, godspeed. Any additional comments from Committee Members . We will be hearing from you quarterly about the red, yellow and green lights of which i think around that long list you last furnished us which was pages long. Everything else was predominantly red, little bit yellow. If anybody out there, from pg e is watching and they have legions of lobbyists, Governmental Affairs people, would you at least be decent to the city on that issue. This is amounting to extortion. This has nothing to do with the rest of the conversation we are having. Why dont you stop that nonsense with that. We are adjourned. Clerk is there a motion on the item . We will continue the item. Supervisor walton good morning, everybody. We will now call this july 29, 2019 rules committee to order. Im going to be sitting in for supervisor ronen, who is absent today. And then, i want to thank supervisor mandelman for sitting in and taking my place today. Our clerk today is victor young. And who do we have for sfgov . And today, we have Michael Baltazar and samuel wick. Okay. So first, id like to have a motion to excuse supervisor ronen. And with that, ill take that as a majority. With that, do you have any announcements mr. Clerk . Clerk yes. Please silence all cell phones and electronic devices. Completed documents and paperwork should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today are going to be heard on the september 1 meeting or as otherwise stated. Supervisor walton with that, mr. Clerk, would you please read the first item. Clerk item number one is a motion appointing supervisor gordon an mar, term ending june 30, 21, to the bay area governments executive board. Would you like to make a motion to excuserecuse supervisor mar . Supervisor walton yes. And supervisor mandelman, supervisor mar on board . Well take that without objection. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak on item number one, please standup. You have two minutes for Public Comment. Coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods here on my own behalf here in strong support for supervisor mars appointment to abag as abags role in casa. However, casas role is changing. Abags role has become more critical especially in terms of ab 1487, david chius legislation. Originally, ab 1487 was a Housing Authority bill with financial capablities. Now david chiu has gutted his own bill so it is a regional authority, a taxing authority. Even though abag is a public committee, they met privately with representative chiu. The abag meeting stated that the vote was whether or not to have the authority to place a Regional Finance Authority on the ballot. Despite this description, it was unclear what ballot this would be placed on and what the ballot language would be. Based on my subsequent discussions with Committee Staff in sacramento, the most likely scenario for the vote was to place abag as a candidate for a floor vote. I would urge supervisor mar to look at these from a fresh perspective. Supervisor walton next speaker. Permarsupervisor mars been excused, but i appreciate the way youve been handling this. I made those presentations, and you moved accordingly. And yet, the board of supervisors got all the credit. Yet that happened that happens to me all the time. Even though president yee got most of the credit for that, i know youre the one that initiated that. Id like you to follow up on my demonstrations by means of including all the income people who are on the documentation thats used to produce the income rates for socalled 100 Affordable Housing. You claim its 100 , but yet every housing is targeted to the lowest income in order to be a tenant that come out of the Mayors Office on housing is higher than the income thats reported on a requirement in order to be a tenant in the building. Cant get you on discrimination based on race because the people in office is discriminating