eric mar, madame clerk, could you share with us your announcement. >> please make sure to complete all electronic devices and speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk. >> that is our clerk, alisa somera and our meeting is broadcast by sfgovtv staff. bill and jesse. i would like to ask for a motion to excuse commissioners breed and campos. >> so moved. >> and that is seconded by commissioner crews and we'll take that without objection. and madame clerk, if you -- i'm not sure if we need to call roll call or go to what makes more sense, 1 or 2. >> all right 2 is approval of the lafco minutes from the may 15, 2015 regular meeting. >> okay, colleagues, any changes or comments on the minutes? okay. nothing forthcoming. we can open up the item for public comment. any member of the public who

would like to comment, and seeing none come forward, we'll close public comment and also announce the arrival of commissioner lindo. welcome. >> thank you. >> and if we have a motion on the minutes. >> so moved. >> a motion from commissioner crews, seconded by commissioner mar, and we'll take that without objection. okay. item no. 3, please. >> item 3 is community choice aggregation activities report, a, the status update on cleanpowersf program and timeline for program launch, b, status update on the proceedings at the california public utilities commission and c, status update on state legislation and d, the civil grand jury report entitled "cleanpowersf at long last." >> thank you, we don't have barbara hale, but we have michael here to present on our cca activities are going in san francisco and i know they are going forward in a way that we'll be very happy about.

look forward to the report. >> thank you, good afternoon, commissioners. happy friday. michael heims, san francisco. so i think what i'm going to do, last time we met, there were a number of questions about the renewable energy market. and we made a commitment to address those today. so i'm going to do that and i do have some slides but before i go to that, that portion of my presentation, i'm going to kind of go through the agendized update. so with respect to the cca program status update, and

timeline, we've been making steady progress with the implementation of the community choice aggregation program. since we last met, on july 14th, the sfpuc adopted an update to our community choice aggregation implementation plan. this is a plan that is required under state statute for filing to the california public utilities commission. the city already has a plan that is on file and has been certified by the cpuc, but because of some of the program design changes, and slightly new direction that we have taken with the program, we have made some updates to that plan. and that has been submitted to the cpuc submitted this week. and we'll be concurrently submitting that to the board for review as well.

also, earlier this week, we announced the results of our request for proposals for c cca back office and customer care services and we'll bring the results, the rfp and recommendation for an award, enter into an agreement to our commission at its august 11th meeting. and we will be recommending the highest-scoring proposal, noble america. >> what is the name of that. >> noble americus. >> are they from rome? >> they are from san diego. and they are also the provider of similar services to the other community choice aggregation programs in california and sonoma and lancaster. >> that is for the back office

administrative function? >> yes, for meter-data management, billing services, and to support our initial customer care activities, call center support. with the launch of a program like this, we're going tospect expect a large volume of calls and they will help us bridge to the point that the city can take on that service and run the customer care service on their own. >> will they be working on our web interface? >> they have been doing that with the other ccas, yes. we do have a web page already up. so the next major milestone in our schedule is the release of the request for offers for power supplies. we're -- i can say that we're on-track to release rfo in early august and targeting august 3rd, so that is very soon.

i would also like to note some communications, website-type activities. on june 30th we hosted community aggregates engagement meeting at the puc, to talk about our communications and outreach strategy and commission crews attended and provided some great feedback. we have also hosted a follow-up meeting with advocates at the puc, to discuss sort of targeted community organizing activities. we, the puc attended its first sunday streets a week ago or so in the tenderloin, including information about the cleanpowersf program and we're also on-schedule for next sunday in the excelsior district. related to that, we are setting up a number of internal

meetings with broader puc staff, to help educate puc staff around the cleanpowersf program. so that folks attending public events like the sunday streets, are as informed as they can be and can engage in citizens to help educate them about the program. >> so next sunday is that jerry day? sunday streets in excelsior is later in august, but next sunday august 2nd is jerry day. >> jerry day. >> where we enjoy the music of the grateful dead and jerry garcia from the excelsior, could be a place for outreach. >> yes, could be very nice:a couple other things that we're working on in this area. we're planning on issuing our

first e-newsletter to volunteer list that we have developed over time for the program. so we're really trying to get the message out that we're going to be ramping up cleanpowersf. we're very close to finalizing a new brochure. we are making website upgrades. and we're going to have some swag pretty cool t-shirt to distribute. so with that, i'm going to shift gears, unless there are any sort of follow-up questions about the schedule. >> commissioner crews? >> thank you so much. every time -- every time -- [laughter ]are you also doing some meetings where the department of the environment as well? >> we are. we have met with the department

of environment recently, principally focused on energy-efficiency programming and we're the department of environment is developing a proposal for us for a number of different potential efficiency programs. we do -- i think as we mentioned at the june 30th stakeholder meeting we do intend to engage with department of the environment on the outreach strategy, once we finalize on our end our enrollment approach. >> you mean having the department of the environment either staff or interns or someone doing part of the outreach and communications to potential -- >> yes, to support the program outreach and education. >> i would really support that. i think that is a great idea. their outreach efforts have matured a lot in the last years. so i think their ability to do that on behalf of cleanpowersf would be a great

asset. >> yes, we know they have a lot to offer and we look forward to having that cooperative relationship with them on that. >> thank you. >> okay. >> okay. so i'm going to address regulatory proceedings at the cpuc and get into the slides that i have. so there are really two things that i wanted to note with respect to regulatory proceedings at the puc. the first is the green tariff proceeding. last time i was here we talked about that and the city filed a protest to pg&e's advice letter, implementing the green tariff program. just a couple of things that i wanted to highlight from that. one area that we took issue with was pg&e's proposed bill presentment for the green tariff. they have collapsed a number of charges for the program into a single line, which we think sort of obscures the ability to

make comparisons between green tariff and our cca program this. is an issue that we didn't raise alone. other ccas raised this issue as well. and the other is that pg&e had proposed some customer switching rules on their terms. such that if a customer deenrolled in green tariff, they would not be able to re-enroll for a year. and the issue that we raised there is just that during the cca enrollment period, there is a chance that pg&e customers that have signed up for the green tariff will be pulled out of that program. they may want to stay in that program, and so the rules shouldn't inhibit them from reentering. so we didn't want a draconian policy that could

hurt customers here that want to be in the green tariff program. those are the two principle things i wanted to flag for you. also in june, the cpuc issued a decision on residential rates, electric rates. and that decision implements assembly bill 327, which was put into law in 2013. and the decision sets forth a number of changes that are going to be implemented over several years. but among those changes, what residential rate-payers will see is an increase in minimum bills. and what that is, if you -- if you haven't used a certain amount of energy you are subject to a sort of minimum bill. so they are raising that amount. it also compresses pg&e's

current four-tier rate structure into two. and what that is going to do is increase the total cost of electricity for low-usage residential consumers. and decrease the cost of electricity or high-usage residential consumers. >> that makes no sense. >> well, it's been -- that problem has been raised by particularly the environmental community that likes this increasing block-tiered structure. >> [ inaudible ]. >> that is right. the argument against that is that the current rates aren't consistent with costs. and essentially what is happening the high-tier users are subsidizing the lower-tier users and the reason for that really is that the state legislature in the early 2000s set a cap on the low-tiers,

basically froze those rates during the energy crisis. that has been in place until 2013. so for about a decade. as a result, pg&e hasn't been able to increase their rates for that usage. so they've had to assign the cost to those higher-tiers in order to recover their costs. so now the design should be more in line with our costs. of course, there are going to be fewer tiers and it's going to res did reduce the incentive for high userers are rooftop solar energy. that is a concern. the flipside is that the low-tier users will have a greater incentives more so than they had before. so it's going to be interesting to see how it plays out and it's going to be implemented over time. but it may -- in san francisco, because we have so many apartment dwellers on average we're lower than the

average pg&e user and could provide incentive to do more efficiency in san francisco, but that is something that needs to be looked at closer. >> is there greater impact on energy-efficiency for the lower income users versus the upper income users? >> so i can't really speak to the correlation of usage and income. >> i misspoke. i didn't mean "income." for the people who use less electricity, is there greater opportunity and greater impact for energy-efficiency versus people who use more electricity? i would imagine that people who use more electricity have greater opportunity for energy-efficiency and you get the bigger bang for your buck by creating some incentive for

that tier to be more energy -efficient. >> yes, that is correct. the large users have larger spaces. they have more heating and cooling requirements. they may have more appliances. so there is just more opportunity. that is true. but the increase could provide -- could make certain investments in say led lighting or anything like that for the low-usage customers, more cost-effective. one critical point, aside from the efficiency and solar issue, we don't expect this to have an issue on cleanpowersf because what they are doing it in rearranging or collapsing the tiers, they are reassigning the transmission and distribution costs. so the generation costs, which is the portion of the pg&e, the current pg&e bill that cleanpowersf would be providing in the future, is a

flat charge today across all of the tiers. so it is indifferent to how much you use. >> thank you >> thank you. >> so with that unless there are any other questions, i'm going shift to addressing the renewable energy market. some of the questions that came up last meeting. could i get the -- thank you. the way that i have structured this, we tracked all of the questions that came up at the last meeting, and so the content of these slides really just follows the questions that were asked. so the first one was what types of products are available from the market? and

what i wanted to do was just sort of set the tone for my response by putting it into context with our upcoming requests for offers. so what we intend to be soliciting in that upcoming request for offers for cleanpowersf are energy supplies required to meet a demand that is at least 30 megawatt in size and that will include renewable energy requivalent to 33-50% of our default or standard products and 100% of our premium product. and in all of the renewable energy to supplied to meet that portion of the portfolio and the premium product demand will be sourced from bucket 1 resources. so this is the energy that is delivered directly into california, and is principally resources located in california. and then finally we'll be

asking for other electricity products that are required by regulation, and that -- by that, i principally mean something called resource adequacy capacity, is which a whole topic in and of itself, but requires load-serving entities provide a capacity reserve to the grid in case of demand and supply are out of whack, or there is greater demand than expected and for some reason, there is less supply than expected available. that reserve is 15% above the peak forecasted load. and you do that contractual with generators. we expect that we'll get some of that capacity from our renewable contracts. some of that capacity may come from the hetch hetchy system. so we'll be looking at a mix that meets our cost criteria when we do that.

i'm going to focus -- >> some of that will come from non-renewable sources? >> it could. the capacity could be with in-state natural gas facilities, and really what you are doing with a capacity contract is you are ensuring that generator is available to the grid operator. we're not transacting to buy energy, but it's sort of like a reserve payment; right? and i should just be clear that that capacity can come from any resource. it can come from hydro, and renewables. there are certain requirements about attributes. we have to have local capacity and we have to have a certain amount of it, but what we do we will report to the california iso, so that they know all of the different

load-serving entities have secured a sufficient amount of capacity on the system in case -- and that -- well, to meet forecasted demands plus 15%, but also to manage variability on the grid. that is the only reason i mentioned the natural gas because the iso, is required to have these natural gas facilities today to help balance the renewable resources that are increasing on the system. so i have sort of started to get into this a little bit, but so the types of products that are available on the market california is equipped to supply a diverse need. and that includes renewable energy supplies to meet our expected cca demand, but also as i was just referring what we

call "conventional resource," those resources ineligible for the rps and that is required to meet system balancing requirements. the suppliers of this product include power marketers. and project developers and owners. so an exemplar of a power marketer would be a company like constellation or energy cal pine. some of these entities overlap, some of them own power plants. others are just contracting with power plants and they bring energy supplies to a retailer. and then project owners can be public utilities. so one thing that we're hearing is that utilities are -- some utilities are currently long in their renewable energy purchases, meaning they have excess. so they may be in the market selling some of their excess energy and that could be

at a competitive price. the good news sort of -- this is probably the message i want you to take home or take with you is that we're receiving reports that renewable energy rfos are receiving ten times the bids than they are asking for in terms of energy volumes. so there is a lot of suppliers out there in the renewable space today. >> would we call that a buyers market? >> we would call that a buyers' market. yes, it's a favorable time to get into the market. >> which wasn't the case four years ago, when we are first doing our rfp for suppliers. >> that is right. i think it's a testament to california's program that it has worked. that utilities are out there in the market, buying renewable energy and they are asking for new capacity to be built.

and it's happening. and it's really revved up the market. >> where is shell on there? >> shell, i would put in the category of a power marketer. so they are among that category. >> do we expect it in terms of our rfo, they would be responding? >> i'm really not sure. they would be free to get into it. so you also asked where would you supplies come from? i sort of addressed this aly little bit already, but we're asking for bucket 1 resources. the resources by definition under state law have to deliver into a balancing authority. that is what this map here shows. the california iso is the biggest balancing authority in

the state and the balancing authority that the cca will be part of. under state law the energy could be delivered into any of these other balancing authoritis that are identified here. so ladwp is another example of a california balancing authority. isthese are principally in-state projects. a bit more on the issue of where the supplies might come from? to give you a couple of examples, this map here was produced by marin clean energy. now mce. it's a little data, it's a couple years old, but identifis where their resources were located in 2013 and where they were developing additional resources. you will see that there is

similar biomass, hydro, located in california, and there are also resources in the pacific northwest. so the bucket 1 resources here are the ones that are in california. the stuff in the northwest is either bucket 2 or bucket 3 type of resource. i do want to add, too, actually, because this is a little dated, that marin has really been ramping up its procurement of in-state projects. i think since this was posted, they have signed contracts with the cottonwood solar projects located in kern and king countis to 24 megawatt solar project. a project called recurrent energy kansas, another 20 megawatt project. they have also contracted with

cal pine for output from their geysers geothermal project and another recurrent energy project called the mustang solar project, where they are procuring 30 megawatts from fresno county. >> recurrent is a project here in san francisco? >> they are the developer of the sunset reservoir project in partnership with the city and they are one of the major renewable -- solar project developers in california. >> just a question about that. i think might be apropros, even right now. the recurrent contract we set up, so we could look at it within -- i think it was seven years and i think we're close to the seven years now, as to whether that could be taken up by the city? and we gave the city opportunity to be able to purchase the power,

purchase agreement from them. i'm not sure do we -- do we have the ability to have that explored through the offering? >> it's certainly on our radar. we're aware of that. i think the issue will be trade-offs. about what we put our capital towards? and whether we want to use that capital to build another new project, versus take over ownership of the sunset project. that is sort of a debate for another day, but it's certainly an option. and the sunset reservoir has been a great project for the city and really a milestone, i think, sort of urban energy, renewable energy. i did want to show you this, too. this is a map that pacific gas

& electric produceded that shows one of their recent solicitations for projects that are sized between 3 megawatt and 20 megawatt. this is from 2013, but they have conducted similar solicitations recently. this is the most recent map i could find. really i want to show you sort of this, because it gives you an indication of where the bidders are locating projects in the state. and they have moved around over time, with these bids. but the other piece of it is that pg&e has been getting 10-20 times the number of bids than they have been looking for. so again, it's a competitive market. and that has been reflected in pricing. you also have two of the other

players in the market that we would be competing with, obviously pg&e is one of them. they sort of range from utilities are the biggest segment, but it also includes private and non-profit entities, businesses. so for example, the university of california is in the market. kaiser permanente and safeway and marin, sonoma cca programs and the municipal utilities like alameda. and this graph here i included i wanted to sort of give you an idea of scale. and also the renewable content,

the current renewable content of some of these portfolios that utilitis have. and so the way you read this is the bar underneath the entity's name, or the bar underneath the entity's name applies to that entity. the number -- the first number that is not in brackets is the amount of renewables that they have and the number in brackets is their total average sales. and these are in megawatts. so you have entities as small as alameda, and then of course, with the big investor utilities in the state, at the bottom there. and the green coloring represents the renewable portion of their portfolio. >> just seems like kaiser and safeway are very different from all of the other ones. what are they actually providing?

seems like smaller amounts clearly. >> i don't have their data. utility data tends to be public and customer data is confidential. so we do know the kind of transactions that they have entered and they have press releases, but i wouldn't know how to do that against their total usage. yes, kaiser -- safeway is in the direct access market that. is how they are engaging with the market. as is the uc system. the ucs have become their own service provider. safeway i believe contracts out with another energy service provider. kaiser is unique, because they are doing sort of new types of transactions, where they are entering into long-term agreements for renewable energy credits and these are within the state. but these -- their contract

helps support the development of a new project. so that energy isn't necessarily delivered directly to kaiser, but their commitment to buy the renewable energy credits over a long-term from a given project, is helping build new projects in california. >> they also do co-gen as well. >> cogen? absolutely an entity like kaiser is doing cogen within their facilities and that is sort of thing that is behind the meter; right? i know too that kaiser has done a lot of rooftop ppa for solar and how they got for comfortable with this. okay, my last slide here -- excuse me. >> through the chair, can i ask, i see marin clean energy and la department of water and

power and sonoma and at the top of the chart, looks like very new renewables and city of palo alto. >> great question, i will apologize to the city because the way i lined this graph makes it hard to read. but i should say this data is based on the 2013 power content labels. so it doesn't reflect an incremental growth that happened in 6789/ 2014. those constant labels haven't been filed yet. i don't know specifically what their mix is. i know they have some small hydro, and they have some wind. i think they probably have some solar, but i can't speak really to all of what is in that. the city of palo alto here i

think it's just they are over 20%. but i have heard that just over the last year or so, they have really ramped up. so i think they have a number of projects that have come online. so i do apologize for the slight little stale data, but to give you an idea of the scale, too. and that a lot of these entities still have a long way to go to build the renewable content in their portfolios. but palo alto has issued rfps the last few years for new supplis, and we have been talking to them about their experiences and have learned a lot from that. and i'm going to take a bit more about that here with respect to the size of contracts in terms of production and capacity. so this past year, palo alto issued an rfp and they requested 30,000 to 80000 megawatt hours of energy.

starting in 2021. so they don't have a near-term need for renewable and they are sort of asking the market to develop new stuff for them to come online down the road. to put that into perspective, it's 15-45 megawatt of solar is what that range encompasses. and nce has an annual open season program for procuring energy. each year they sort of post what their forecasted need, and this year they posted forecasted need of 40,000 to 50,000 megawatt hours, starting a little bit later as well in 2019. and that is equivalent to 20-30 megawatts of solar. so put that into context, our upcoming cleanpowersf rfo will seek 150,000 megawatt of renewables

beginning in 2016. to put that into something a little more concrete for you, that is about 85 megawatt of solar. i wrote out the math there, in case you were wondering why 85 megawatt is out of sync with 30 or so megawatt program? and the basic answer to that is that it's related to solar, the solar sort of efficiency in production relative to its capacity. so that is the end. if you have any other questions i'm happy to answer them. otherwise, i'll turn it over to the executive officer for his portion of the report. >> okay, mr. lindo. >> thank you, chair. thank you so much for the report. and i know our director will touch on the legislation, and

civil grand jury report and i was wondering perhaps if you are going to discuss it and we can reserve it for your time and the tone at the puc on those particular issues? >> i will let michael hyams. >> thank you. >> for state legislative updates recently assemblyman phil ting got an originally tax and revenue code bill and turned it into a bill about greenhouse gas reductions -- not reductions but how we report greenhouse gas. there are several different formulas used by different organizations. i believe that the theory he was going for we should have one set standard that everyone reports the exact same way and that should be reported out to the general public, so they aware of what greenhouse gas are? unfortunately the way it was written it was created a lot of

opposition from marin, sonoma and lancaster ccas have filed that we currently don't like what you doing, but we like the concept that you are going for. so they have also submitted and in your packets you will see the letters that they have submitted. one thing, once i became aware of it, i reviewed it and there are some similaritis to that bill that are in the ibew. and so i have had some very basic discussions already with the assemblyman's staff to talk about what this means for cca and behind the meter generation, rooftop solar and they are taking comments right now on that. i don't believe that the sfpuc

has come out with an official view. they also have the general utilities side of their power generation to worry about as well. so it's going to take them a little longer than the other ccas to generate their position on it. so as of right now, i don't believe that they have a position that they have officially taken, but still working on that. what i would be recommending for us today to support the fellow ccas across average, and take an oppose unless amended on similar stances that they have in their letters, should and when the sfpuc come out if they have issues or concerns or changes that they would like to, very with incorporate that into our comments and finally, two things i would add in that aren't necessarily in the letters that you see in front of you, one is the discussion of the behind the meter generation and how we should be making sure that whoever is doing whether it's the cca or iou or public utility, whoever is doing gets credit for the generation as part of how they do the calculations, because i

don't want to discredit the small, you know, rooftop solars hot being ghg-free for some reason and also add in there, since it's an extremely technical area, normally bills are completed by the end of august, beginning of isn't that in next month we would get everything right, but to see this as a two-year bill. it's brought up one year and worked on and not completed and everyone understands that. it becomes next year at the legislative session that they will bring it up and we'll have the chance to have the discussion. since this didn't become a greenhouse gas bill related item until it went through the entire assembly process and got to the second chamber, we didn't have the first-half of the year to have the discussions about this, which i think would be have been needed. those would be the two things i would add on top of being supportive of ccas and whatever sfpuc position ends up coming out, once they issue it. would be what i would be

recommending to lafco and staff could write the letter and work with the chair, because unfortunately by the time our next meeting is, the process will be over and done with. so we need to get a letter out within the next week or two to have any real influence on the process. so i would encourage you to let staff write and work with the chair and finalize and send that out accordingly. i can continue on to the civil grand jury. >> mr. lindo. >> a couple of questions and i had another question on the report. sorry i didn't get to it. the bill sponsor's staff, how open are they to the idea of a two-year bill? >> i don't want to comment -- i told them what it was and they listened to what i had to say and they were not

committal, but to check with the assembly member. since it's coming from san francisco, it probably carries a little more weight than coming from somewhere else. >> great. as far as beyond the letter, is there anything else we can do to support to make sure we are in line with the other ccas and knowing this could be an important bill for us, and the other ccas that are around the area? >> there will be -- but the letter is kind of opening part of it. there will be committee hearings in sacramento as it moves through the process. you know, potentially meetings with staff and other key people, in coordination. i would assume there was agreement that we wanted to do something on it, i would be doing all of that coordination and if there was a hearing in sacramento, i would let all of you know in case any of you were available. because a lot of hearings will be happening in august and you may be around and available or you may be out of town and

can't get to sacramento. but i would make sure you with aware, if this body took a position, and if anyone wants to join me in sacramento to participate in the committee hearings and everything else. so we can definitely take that very active role depending on what the commission decides to do today. >> thank you. last question. i'm going to bring you back to the report you gave, but you mentioned the size of the contracts. i noticed ours is requested much sooner than the other two you mentioned here. mce is for 2019 and palo alto for 2020 and ours is 2016 and asking for nearly double what they are asking. i was wondering of an issue potentially of acquiring that amount of energy? >> a hope i hope not.

in the perspective of the market, this is actually not a lot of energy and, in fact i think what the other entities are doing that i have identified there is sort of each year they are adding a little piece and that is also a risk-mitigation strategy, you don't want to overcommit to a given period of time, because the market could move. and then you may be out of market. so there is sort of layering in a little piece into their portfolio and staggering it. and so this will be our first piece, but of course, there will be much more to come as we phase in the rest. it might be a lot of energy just strictly from a solar perspective, but we'll be looking at a number of different resources and trying

to create a diverse portfolio of resources in the first phase. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner crews. >> thank you, mr. fried for your report. i would actually move that we take an oppose-unless-amended stance, if you can incorporate any comments that you get from the puc, and also just keeping in mind that we want to credit the behind the meter efforts for ghg-free and to talk to assembly member's ting office about becoming a two-year bill and that you write the letter along with chair avalos. if you need my help and support on that throughout the break -- i don't know if you have

vacation plans, but i will be around in august. i would make that motion to make sure that we keep an eye on this throughout the break. when is our next meeting? september 24th. so this could be something that could potentially move while we're not watching it, so i want to make sure that we have our finger on the pulse here. >> okay. >> can we all concur on that? that sounds great. >> okay, in that case i will go on to the final item, which is the civil grand jury report. last week, the san francisco civil grand jury issued a report on cleanpowersf called "cleanpowersf at long last." it's actually for the most part an extremely well-written, well-documented report, it gets into all of the issues and all of the questions that have ever arisen around cca and why it hasn't gotten launched yet and

why we're moving forward now? it goes into a good discussion of what renewable credits are and how they can be good and they are a positive thing for the environment as a whole. i encourage people to read it and really digest what is in there. it's written in a very simplified language on a very complex issue. there are three bodis that they requested comments back from, and lafco is not one of them, but to respond back to them on five specific topic matters in the document that are part of the pack, et cetera. we do not have to make any comments on this, but one of the things that we do have the ability to do is write a letter either to the board, mayor, puc, and/or the civil grand jury. there were a couple of very technical issues that they didn't quite get right in the report. particularly they referred to some of the stuff lafco did that i don't agree how it was stated. they also make reference to the commission on the environment's

stance, which they had a very heated and lengthy debate at their august 2013 meeting about what their position was? but they didn't actually change their position at that meeting and the way it's written in the report makes it sound they may have taken a position other than their official position, which is something that they did back in 2012. so there might be some ability for us to write a letter, expressings they issues and maybe explaining them a bill better toes it's on public record so people have a full answer to that. that would be, if the commission wanted to, i could write that, once again working with the chair or the commission to do that during august. not a major rush as far as the legislation goes because the hearings at least on the board side won't be occurring until september. so we do have some time to put our thoughts down on paper, if we wanted to do so. that is my updates >> thank you. i can be

available to help with the letter and my signature is only a few hours away during the month of august. >> okay. >> any other questions, colleagues? okay. thank you mr. hyams and mr. fried for your presentation. we'll open up the item for public comment. any member of the public wishing to comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. first to start with, kind of second to last item, ab 1110. i want commissioners to be fully aware that scott the very powerful lobbyist and representative of the utility workers unions including ibew on the 13th of this month was side-by-side with the bill author in committee promoting

the bill. so it's clear that not only was ibew involved with the local ballot measure, but also with this bill. that is not to say however that we cannot work with the a ssembly member, californians for energy choice, which i'm also a co-coordinator, the coalition last year that successfully fought off ab 2145, scott's previous attack on community choice on behalf of pg&e, basically. we have engaged with assembly member ting and spoken with him. he seem like he is going to work with us. i think the 2-year bill is looking like probably the right option, because i discovered by talking to analysts that the behind the meter issue is a little complex, in that if we made it so behind the meter solar, et cetera, was access

accessible to allow pg&e and their territoris to suddenly count all of those resources. and actually make it easier for them to compete against us. so we have to be very careful how we do that and that means 2-year bill should definitely be in your ask. other specific asks that we have been asking from the assembly member, he seems open to them, but it would be help if they were reinforced that new community choice programs like ourselves to adjust at the beginning of launch to any games that pg&e plays with rates and things like that, or shortages of hetch hetchy power. we need the flexibility for our first few years a community choice organization. and i think director fried is familiar with the other points that need to be asked for and could probably bounce those off

of you. finally there is a problem with the rate case at the cpuc that could be a big issue. those rates are going to come into effect in in a couple of years and will dramatically reduce the rates for top-tier users. they will see before we roll them in and sign them up for us, that pg&e lowers their rate and pg&e will say that to them. this might be an incentive to them, to think i better stick with pg&e, especially since their incentive to do renewables and efficiency will be so much lower, because their bills will be so much lower. >> thank you. any other member of the public who would like to comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. and this is for information item. although we did express actions that we would like to take. let's go on to our next item item no. 4. >> item no. 4, amendment to the legal services agreement with miller & owen until the

merger are renne sloan holtzman sakai is completed. >> we approved the extension of a contract for our legal services with renne sloan legal service because at the time we had thought that miller and owen who have merged with them. unfortunately due to some other complications outside that have nothing to do with lafco the merger has not occurred yet. during the period of last meeting and today, chair avalos instructed me to sign an extension on the theory that we wanted to keep ms. miller and her service and it wasn't the new law necessarily we were looking for, but to retain ms. miller and her fine work she has done over the years for us. this is more a report to you that we're doing that and you could take an action that simply affirmed that the chair was correct in the actions to retain mismiller and we should continue down the path what has

already been started by the chair and staff of this commission. that is all. >> okay. so yes, i had written a letter to the clerk of the board, that would extend the current contract until the new merger is finalized. and i think it just made sense that we could actually ensure that ms. miller was able to provide her support for the work of lafco in the interim period. so i think it's pretty consistent with what our goals are. so before we actually -- if you folks want to comment, or members want to comment? we'll do public comment first and then make a decision upon whether we want to actually make any action item? so why don't we open this item up for public comment. any member of the public who wants to comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. colleagues? commissioner crews. >> thank you. i think certainly we want to

agree that chair avalos was acting in the spirit and intent that we would like to retain ms. miller's services. i think that perhaps i should make a motion that we are in agreement and we would like to extend that until the merger has been completed. >> okay. and we have concurrence from the commission. so done. very good. item no. 5, please. >> item 5 status update regarding the study on the implementation and opportunities for undergrounding wires and expansion of fiber networks in san francisco. >> executive officer again, earlier this week you received from me a final version of the report we did. we have gotten -- we did get feedback. i took all of that feedback and made edits. it's my understanding that supervisor tang and her office

are satisfied and happy with the work that was completed. what i would say at that point, what i would request that we accept the report and have it be completed. there might be some next steps that come out of this in future. but the next steps in some ways are sitting with the city and county at least and we might come back to these items later on. on the undergrounding utilities side, one the next steps that i'm recommending to the city and county of san francisco that they put together an implementation plan and the costs for street resurfacing and sfpuc work underneath and fiber expansion and if they also incorporated undergrounding of utility wires with a real cost estimate. at that point, somebody would figure out where do we find the money to pay for that? there are several options in the report that could be available for folks, but at this point is, i would consider lafco's work on that side to be completed. on the [kpa-pbgs/] of

expansion of the fiber networks, what would be my next steps recommendation is something that supervisor farrell asked to look at a business model perspective of what would it take? would it be smart for the city potentially to use the fiber that we have and expand it and create its own fiber network system that it sells or has some sort of public-private partnership? i would recommend that if lafco wants to get into this to wait for that report to be done to give us the next steps to move forward. that would have been what i would have actually recommended what is being put into the report or at least what i understand is going to be put in the report and wait until that is done. at this point i would request that we accept the report and wait to see what the city and county does on the report and the undergrounding of utilities once we get that information back, at that point to come back to the item as individual, separate pieces. >> thank you. i thought we had a presentation on the undergrounding of

utilities, poles, at one of our last meetings. but we didn't really go into a summary of what was explored in fiber, is that correct? >> we did the entire report at that meeting and so i didn't bring a powerpoint with me today. but can i talk about it if you want -- i can go into a little more detail. >> how is the report being used at this point? >> well, it's my understanding supervisor tang has it and is reviewing it. on the fiber side, what i would honestly consider the next steps, is there a potential business model that the city wants to get into a full public ownership or private-public partnership and how do we use

it throughout the city? they are doing that report and i would wait for that report to be done because that would have been next step i would have taken. i don't want to repeat work that they are already doing. >> in terms of supervisor tang, and her office, have you been given clear direction on what to do next? she had requested the utility pole undergrounding effort in the report. >> i believe the report covers what she was looking for at this time. >> i believe in terms of fiber undergrounding that was supervisor mar, commissioner mar had discussed that and commissioner mar, if you would speak to that? >> i just wanted to say that i'm supportive of mr. fried's suggestion that we accept the report and take a wait-and-see for what the budget and legislative ao whether it's municipal broadband or

public-private partnership. i wanted to thank eric brooks and bruce wolfe from various community groups for raising the various issues and thanking jean glenen one of the activists from our neighborhoods for continuing to bring the issue of undergrounding. hi mope whether it's lafco or budget analyst or any effort that involves organized groups work on this issue. i want to say that with supervisor farrell's office and others and senior organizations who are working on a digital inclusion task force that would look at how the economic and tech boom doesn't believe behind low-income communities and that there is always a process where we engage our communities so that the city is doing everything that we can. so that the public institutions that we set up are really serving our communities and not

just the various departments that set them up. so i wanted to say that we always have people from the various organizations speaking here and my hope is that even though we're accepting the report and looking at a budget analyst's report that we're always seeking that input from the community entities. i wanted to thank you, mr. fried. >> okay. very good. so we have had public comment on this item. any member of the public who would like to comment? >> good afternoon, i'm jean glenen from the san francisco coalition to underground utilities. i mainly wanted to thank mr. fried and the commission for their attention to this item. and i think it's going to go a long way in our pursuit of this goal. and i hope we can count on your continuing support, as we try to put into place a plan that

will actually rid our city of these ugly telephone poles. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon again, commissioners, eric brooks, san francisco green party, our city san francisco and also, co-coordinator of public access san francisco. so i just want to thank lafco for geting this rolling. what is happening with the budget analyst sounds like it's an exciting next-step. it's a little funky because it sort of sounds like they are deciding weren't we should do a public broadband system. i don't think where we are at. the issue is clear especially because of underserved communitis that we should do a universal citywide broadband system owned by the city and not a public-private partnership. i don't know if director fried

can speak to it, but supervisor ammiano, when he was on lafco got the city to commission a very good study, i think back in 70 2007, i may have the year wrong, but scoping out public broadband in san francisco if the budget analyst and others who are not looking at, should look at it and as soon as whatever word we get from the budget analyst and the others working on this, the next step for us should be to drive hard to get the ammiano study renewed. in other words,, spend a little money to bring it up to date with current times, which shouldn't cost very much and either have the board or lafco do that. so that we can get this thing rolling and instead of discussing whether or not we should do it, discuss how we're going to do it? so that is what i would recommend is

making sure that we do an update of that study, either through lafco or the board of supervisors. thanks. >> thank you. and see nothing other member of the member of the public come forward we'll close public comment. we'll move on to executive officer's report. >> madame clerk. >> i. 6 executive officer's report. >> thank you, jason fried, executive officer. first i wanted to introduce the person sitting next me, jabari, who has been interning with us over the summer, and lives in the east bay and we got him through james tracy, for those who know him, sent him to us and he has done an excellent job filling in random questions on various subject-matter and he has been and able to do the research. he likes to study non-violent

direct actions as something that he has an interest in. so i know that fits well with a lot that goes on in san francisco. i wanted to thank him for his work and introduce him, if you haven't met him yet. very smart, intelligent and has done a lot of very good work for us. first off i wanted to give a status update on the open source elections. as of kind of taking a step back and remind you, this was a report given to us through the board of supervisors. when we originally talked about doing this report, it was actually something that we were not going to be starting until right about now. because we had so many other things going on, but we were able to find a very good and talented intern out of ucsf, who did her cornerstone project and she passed her cornerstone and was so talented she was already hired after graduating. so we no longer have access to her and brings me where we are

now. what i am look at this point is probably taking the next probably next couple of months, i don't have a lot of spare and free time to work on it. to put in a little time and effort and recirculate it again comments. because there were a lot of comments. the thing is to remember it's a very technical item and you had myself and angie, the one who helped us do this report, starting brand-new and fresh. so i wanted to take some of the technical comments to figure out how to merge into a document for a non-technical reader, for lack of a better term, because that is actually who the audience will be for this. right now we have the comments that i will come back with you in future, once i have had a chance to get all of the comments put into place and recirculate it out, nor a second round of comments from everybody who gave us comments on the first-round for that report. the other item the cal lafco

conference -- this time around they have an afternoon session on one of their days and they have two breakout sessions. one of them is on climate change. the other one is on broadband and i felt that fit very well within our purposes. i mentioned this at our last meeting. and there was some interest of possibly wanting to go. just for that afternoon session. it's an expensive conference to attend fully. but what i got back from cal lafco if we wanted to attend just the afternoon session they would charge us $100 per person. it's $265 if you attend the full day, including meals and other things that are going on as well. if anyone is interested in attending please let me know. if no one is attending, i'm planning to go and can report-back. but i'm planning on going and i

will report-back, if no one else attends with me. if someone else wants to attend, i would be happy to carpool. i might go the full day, because of the items relevant to staff rather than commissioners. >> if folks are interested, chime in; commissioner lindo. >> i wanted to thank jabari for coming and doing a lot of work and helping director fried. i know sometimes he is running out and pulling his hair out and having an extra set of hands i'm sure is appreciated and the work you have done is high-caliber. hopefully we can discuss going, i'm very interested in attending the conference and that is a conversation that i would like to have. that is all i have. thanks. >> great. commissioner crews. >> thank you. director fried, i spoke with him earlier today and let him know i have a work commitment.

so i won't be able to attend. how to i thought it was really interesting to see that they are covering more of the special reports-types of areas that our lafco is involved in. so i would be very supportive of you going and reporting back to us what you learned on the climate change and also the broadband areas. >> what is the date again? >> date of those particular sessions is september 3rd in the afternoon; it's in sacramento. so if anyone is interested, we would probably have to leave late morning if we wanted to carpool or to go on our own, i would get you the details >> commissioner crews. >> chair, thank you. just going back to the study on open source elections. i just want to echo the importance of having a pipeline and having studies in the queue.

i think that was very important that we had that lined up. and whenever we have the opportunity to work with interns that are going to help you with those types of reports, i think we should very much take advantage of it, and have things in the queue. that is sort of leading into another agenda item. i don't want to get on that, but i do want to say that we should back up to agenda item 5, chair avalos. >> okay. yes. we need to make a motion to accept the report. so can we do that now? commissioner crews. >> just to accept the report on undergrounding and finalize it, so it can be released. >> seconded by commissioner mar. colleagues, can we take that

without objection. >> mr. chair, that motion was under item 5, not item 6, correct. >> correct. >> do we have any public comment on the executive officer's report? >> hello, commissioners. my name is brent turner. i wanted to first start off by thanking mr. fried, and also angie, who did report on the open source voting. i just wanted to mention to you that the speaker earlier talking about the community work for the electrical aggregation mentioned the words -- well, he didn't use the words "green washing." but the nuancing of standards is something that is also topical to our issue here regarding open source elections. and since i'm here, east even

though we're rolling it over to a later date, i thought it would be a good time to mention that the main thing for us to remember here there are intellectual property groups coming into the conversation, purporting to be open source groups. the main thing for you to remember when we get to the point of looking at the report, there are national/international standards attached to open source. the people that are adverse to open source will try to blur the lines and say, that this will no discernible standards. i would encourage you to take a look at what is called "general public license version 3." this is what the open source community per open source initiative has defined as the "standard for open source." particularly in the application of voting systems. so we have good information available to you on this, and want to make sure there is no confusion coming in from the proprietary

intellectual property community on this issue. because we're seeing them show up now. also, i don't know if the commissioners noticed but the -- the u.s. house of representatives recently, upon years and years' of urging by our groups and groups associated, has now embraced open source for their internal systems. which is a major step for us. because this proves up the argument that of course, open source is a good security environment, and also, there is an economic driver attached. we are currently, when i say "we" i mean california association of voting officials, are currently working with the white house office of science and technology policy, making sure that they are aware of these issues. what we call "open washing." which is akin to green washing, but in the open source arena. so we want to make sure there is clarity for you on this point. we're glad to provide that

clarity and evidence and make sure that you, like the u.s. house of representatives, is well-aware as we move towards open source there are well-defined standards per open source initiative. if you want to look up that website, that is open source.org. we're available for you for all of these purposes. i just wanted to also mention that the timing of this is -- if we started now in san francisco county, working with the current secretary of state padilla, we could have a system put together. unfortunately not by 2016 for the presidential e election, but likely within the next couple of years. the amount of money necessary to do this project we're estimating at approximately $5 million. whenever that money comes from we'll figure out, but the idea being that we're also seeing the same groups that are trying

to bring forward software code that is not technically open-source. they are also spouting numbers like $18 million $20 million. and we reject all of those figures and just want to again add clarity to any attempts at confusion. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other member of public who would like to comment? and seeing none, we'll close public comment. and go on to our next item. >> item no. 7, public comment. >> now we have general public comment for anything relate the to the lafco work, and seeing no member of the public come forward we'll close public comment and go on to the next item. >> item no. 8, future agenda items. >> okay. commissioner crews. >> maybe i should turn this over to director fried.

>> jason fried, executive officer. at the last meeting there was a request by vice-chair crews to create a list of potential items that we had talked about in past, that had not actually gone into any deeper action on. in your packet, you will see a document that brings up two items that we have had discussions about in the past. one of which is the municipal banking idea, which is still an open thing we can work on today. there has not been much activity on that as far as lafco is concerned. i know there is a working group working through chair avalos' office and supervisor, putting this together. they are trying to finalize stuff, according to supervisor avalos staff, we got a couple more months before we would potentially be active on that. the other item that i think is more directly to what commissioner crews was looking for was there was -- when we were talking about how vacancies for elected offices get filled there was kind of a second part to that discussion that we never got to, which was

how do commission seats get appointed and what does that process look like in we never got to that part of the study. we stayed to the first part and at the time it was completed, there was an interest in folks notice looking at that just yet. so that was an item brought and discussed as a potential future item. i thought those were the two that fit this item. two things to keep in mind looking at future agenda items, i think it's always good to have items in the pipeline. as commissioner crews mentioned earlier, one thing to keep in mind that anything that we take now, because i'm going assume that cca continues to be my top-priority and it's going to be an extremely busy topic for the next several months, but not to stop talking and looking at future agenda items. on that caveat, the work that

we did with the usf and the intern from that program, they have sent me a name if we had another item fiting in that program scope would be interested in potentially working with us. at the time when they sent it to [ph-erbgs/] i didn't have items pore them to work with at, but, but they are look for someone to do a cornerstone paper much like angie did. :if there was an interest i could check if there was an interest and it become a lot less work on my part, managing a person, but that is something that i couldezly manage within my scope of work. on that, i will leave that and the other thing to keep in mind we may eventually come back and talk about undergrounding of utilities and when the city or bla report comes back on fiber network, those items could come back, but i wouldn't consider them current right now, but

things to think about moving forward. with that, i will yield back to the commission. >> commissioner crews. >> thank you. i really like the idea of having an intern work on the report for how commission seats get appointed. i think that is something that we should set on the agenda to discuss as a new study, especially if we will have help for staff, and that we do so with the thought that cca will be your priority until and probably immediately after launch. but as along as we're looking at things with the priority-rating and timing-rating, where we're taking into consideration what the commission's priorities are? i think that is shing something that we should move forward with.

i would certainly agree that municipal banking is something that we should look at. i would like to work with supervisor avalos and his office, and see just in terms of the working group and what the status is on that? whether you think that it's something that is viable to have on the lookout, or if we should be looking at it more in terms of putting it on the agenda for a future meeting to get something going on that? and then the last thing i would say is that i would be interested in whether or not a special study could include something like transportation? something that was floated by me was looking at the impact on public transportation in terms of delivery services. and how apt delivery services are impacting transit

corridors, bike corridors? whether or not it would be something that we could look at in terms of congestion pricing? so that is something, if that would fit into a special report under the jurisdiction of lafco's. >> pretty much -- and if i'm getting this wrong i will yield to legal counsel to correct me on it. pretty much we can study anything that occurs or happens within the city and county. we have no power to implement anything burk we, , but we can study the heck out of anything. do i have the expertise and is the data available to be all able to do that had ? that would be the big question and to create a work plan and budget around that work burb it's definitely something that the general concept is yes, we could do that. >> i think they are great topics to address. when it comes to looking at our

streets and congestion management, we do have an organization that is part of the transit authority that does a lot of those studies. >> have they done a study on that? >> we haven't. there was discussion about looking at certain parts of the city, but not, like, particular transit corridors or anything like that. it seems like that is kind of purview of that organization. >> sure. >> the public bank, i think would be a useful effort of lafco, and i would welcome that level of work from lafco. i think that there are also -- my office has done a lot of work on the notion of a public bank and we have gotten very far and not so far on the effort. and i think having another

entity within city government and county government to be able to help could be useful. i'm not exactly clear what that would be at this point? but i'm open to lafco playing a role. i have been open to lafco playing a role. my concern is there were a lot of structures within city government that are not necessarily open to the idea of doing this kind of work. so we hit natural barriers, but that is the kind of work that we have seen with cca and with building a fiber network and other things. but there is also issues, i think, that are real external to the city that get in the way of public bank and that is the whole banking system; that i think we're up against as well. that determines how we as a city will seek bonds, or other

financial tools to be able to accomplish what we want to accomplish? and starting to muck around in that world, creates a lot of resistance. i'm not sure if it make a lot of sense for me to be saying this in lafco, but i am saying it. so i do welcome it. i just don't know how far he can get with it. maybe that is my own bias after working a number of years and feel like we have done a lot of work on it and not getting very far in the effort. so i would love to hear my fellow commissioners. >> do you think that could be our next ten-year fight? [laughter ] >> it's quite possible. hopefully it wouldn't be longer than that. we're dealing with in the case of cca, we're dealing with the electrical generation and history and in particular, the local monopoly of pg&e.

and in the public banking arena, we'll be dealing with an industry that is more oligarch ial and the influence on cities and counties and states being able to assert their own financial tools, that they have funds to do. but the banking industry, i think will try and do everything that they can to inhibit that from happening. i believe just the effort that we have had so far in creating a public bank in san francisco, that has seemed to happen. we provide lots of different pathways to looking at the mortgage crisis that is external for the most part to all of san francisco. but within certain communities of san francisco, that is an issue. and there really hasn't been i believe a lot of support

within the mayor's office of housing, within our financial structures that we could create to deal with the local manifestations of the mortgage crisis. and i think that is just one part of the work we have been doing on looking at how we can assert local, financial measures to support some of the functions of a public bank. and so i think it would be great to maybe, if we have a report, and summarize kind of where we have come so far? and what are the difference barriers that we're seeing in terms of how we move forward? i think that would be one aspect of the work. just separate from actually how do we actually create the public banking entity? because we already have a report that suggests that, but now we're shopping around and getting support within city government is kind a challenge. >> thank you. >> commissioner lindo?

>> i will give a few of my thoughts. i'm glad commissioner crews you brought this up. as far as the municipal banking topic goes, the way i see this commission, its role is to look out for issues, or topics, that after doing diligent research could potentially help the city and county of san francisco. and i don't see how doing a research on the municipal bank could hurt, but with deference to the chair in that let's have it be strategic in type of research that we are doing that hasn't been done already. the research that perhaps your staff isn't able to do, whether it's because of timing or whether it's because of information, additional information needed. that our staff could reach out to, could look into, and has

the capacity to find the tools or information that could really help us understand and help the city understand how municipal bank could be incredibly beneficial to the city ? so i'm actually quite in support of it. as far as additional topics having in the pipeline, i think it's a great idea. i think i have a topic in mind as well, having gone outfield some concerns from community members. one that continually comes up is that of voting access in san francisco. especially to communities of color, especially to low-income communities, and while san francisco has a practice where it has extended voting and physical voting here at city hall, there are a number of people who just aren't able to make it. and looking around at different

municipalities that have some innovative approaches to accessing the ballot for those communitis and seeing if there is a better for for us to do it, if at all? is one that i fielded, but in that process of fielding this topic, it kind of raised a light bulb for me is perhaps getting more engagement from the community could be sought through the process of having an online issue-gathering platform for community members to say here is some ideas that perhaps you could research? i know you may be scared of that idea, jason. you thought the caveat that you wouldn't be tasked with every single one of them, because there might be quite a few, but giving us really a pool of topics that we can pull from. and identify, hey, this is a great idea that we hadn't

thought about, because i don't want to leave us in a vacuum discussing amongst ourselves what are good topicks to cover, but seeing some intelligent minds out in community with topics that we might look into? that is what i have. >> commissioner mar. >> i really appreciate and like the recommendations made by commissioner lindo. i know with supervisor avalos work with the youth commission to extend democracy for younger people, i think to me, everything that he said about equity and voting, it's about voting rights 2015 in many ways, what are new key strategies? not necessarily for example tech workers or the tech-savvy to be able to snarkly comment about committee meetings or board meetings, but

to engage disenfranchised communitis to be able to lou allow them to participate more and utilizing lafco's abilitis to expand not only what supervisor [ao-frs/] avalos is doing to communities that have been historically locked out, purposefully, based on race and so many other reasons and to look at strategies for how we change that and point it out and think about what we do as a municipality to address that? so i really support that. >> commissioner crews. >> thank you, commissioner lindo. i want to echo commissioner mar's statements on looking at voting access as a whole. i think that there is a number of things that could be under an umbrella of access in voting.

you know, if it's say for example, extending the voting days, the times, same-day registration? a lot of looking at how do we make democracy more open to san franciscans, of all, all types of people, all-access to voting mechanisms? so i think that is something that we should certainly put on the agenda to look at. but then just also echoing commissioner lindo's thoughts on opening up to community groups. i would love to see the two of us go on a road show, you know? we're the public seats. i would love to see us talk to communities and really get a sense of what the community is looking for from lafco? maybe they just need a lafco 101 on what it is that we're

doing in this room and the value that we bring to other legislative bodis in san francisco. so maybe the two of us can do that. thank you. >> jason fried, i just wanted to jump in on one of the issues that commissioner lindo brought up how if there is a better way to do a voting system. i have worked on political campaigns across the country and what they do in clark county, where they have regional voting centers 30 days out of it's a bigger county, much larger than san francisco, but the major mall and major areas where people naturally go, they have voting booths and anybody can show up during that period and vote. they have what i refer to as the roving voting booths with to two days it's in front of a library and then moves to another part of the area and have a group of them. so there were 15 of them that moved all over the county and every two

days they were in different spots and was well-advertised, so you know where they were going be and people who couldn't gets to the centralized voting ones like city hall, but new and more innovative ways. i'm talking about clark county in nevada, but to look at state laws that don't allow for us. so to balance what can you do now and what you might want to promote at state-level to change the law to do it similar to another area? i'm happy to bring up whatever items that you like and look into them. a lot of times what has occurred in past, someone has come to me and i have -- because i happen to know enough people in the city and said someone is already doing this. so i don't want to repeat work, but to check back before it gets to this level of discussion here. there have been several items

occurring behind-the-scenes and said here is what is happening and if you need more, let me no and they haven't come back because there might be a natural home for it already. i'm one that doesn't like to repeat work. >> i think you are absolutely right. we wouldn't want you to do that. i think you exactly the right idea and to understand the options that we have within the parameters of the state law. so we can figure out what is available? what needs to go to the state-level? what can we do here locally? and after doing research and hearing a number of people comment to me, what really triggered with me is the demographics are changing dramatically and the

number of absentee ballots being filed are exponentially higher and the demographics of those who file absentee ballots are not usually the ones that go to the polls and physically cast their ballot. and using those are ones that of communities of color, low-income communitis or is or communities working two to three jobs that can't make it off work for the hours that we have here at city hall or that tuesday. so i think as a discussion and i appreciate commissioner mar bringing and the topic of equity. there is a lot of equity discussion that can be had with voter access and i think availability of voting places is a great avenue to look into. but it's also what can the city do with respect to having it when you submit paperwork dmv,

perhaps you become a voter at 16. i don't know what the city can do, because there is federal that could potentially preempt, but it would be great to have a great guideline of what is available? >> so what i would recommend at this point, and i have taken notes on this is that we bring back to the next meeting in september these as the physical items. so it's properly agendized. and we can then make a decision whether or not we want to have them on our list of things to work on. what i'll do in the meantime is see if an internal intern is available to help. i have that and the commission appointment being two potential items to have as official agendized items on their own and have the discussion. determine if anyone has any other ideas? there was some stuff talked about, but i wasn't sure if it was necessarily asking me to bring it back to the next meeting agenda. if anyone come up with an idea between now and the next agenda, we have time that i can

add them in and have a more full-fledged discussion about a work plan going into what i would call at this point 2016 work plan to start working on that. in all likelihood, if i don't have an intern doing it we wouldn't get started on those items until 2016 either which way. >> great, thank you. so to summarize what do you see you will present in terms of subject areas for next meeting. >> two subject areas that we have right now are the commission appointments and how that process works? and i'm still figuring out what the exact title, but around how our voting booth and voting access to elections works? so something like a clark county model and what we can and cannot do around expanding access to polling locations? beyond just election day, but can we create polling locations out in field for longer than just the election day? and how

people can access more than just vote-by-mail, but access an actual physical ballot location outside of just city hall and the 30 days prior like they do right now in the city. sound like a fair assessment? >> that sounds great. can we add to it how to maximize the volume of voting by mail in san francisco, as well as part of that? because i think that is also another area that we probably can maximize as a city. >> we can make it about how do we increase voter turnout? what are the various avenues and various ideas? part would be how do we increase -- people that don't want to go to a polling location, to increase their voting my mail? maybe those who want to go to polling locations and to increase availability? we're talking about a very large subject-matter, but it's something that can be looked at. >> great. i would also think at looking at what is the voting call,

when you submit a ballot -- when you vote not in your own voting precinct? >> provisional ballots. >> provisional ballots. i think it would be good to explore how that is being done and if there is a sense of how accurately that is being done in san francisco? i do recall in 2000, when i was doing a lot of work on the election i wasn't able to get to the voting booth and wasn't voting by mail and my provisional ballot wasn't counted and so it's on the record that i didn't vote that election when i was actually spending months working on the election for certain candidates at that time. so it would be important to see as we're looking at expanding voting or looking at how we can do that, how well we're doing right now with the kind of ways that we provide greater access for voting in san francisco. >> okay. i will definitely be following up with each of you,

because i think there are some technical questions. but definitely question do the bigger-picture thing. there might be two or three parts to this, because it's becoming a pretty large one. it might be two or three parts based on availability of either interns or staff time to put together that information and perhaps voter election might already have that information. i'll come back in the september meeting with a work plan. >> i'm not in favor of exploring public bank, so if you want to work with jeremy and my office and with commissioner crews as well to see what ways that lafco -- it would be relevant for lafco to do that work, that effort? >> i've been check in with your office, seeing anything that is coming up that we should be aware of.

it has always been the outside group is doing stuff and needing to complete work before it come to the lafco side, but i will incorporate that into your discussion at the next meeting. >> thank you. that was a good discussion. we can open up this item for public comment? on future agenda items for lafco? >> good afternoon again, commissioners. eric brooks with all of the groups that i mentioned before. so first a quick note on mail-in voting. you need to be careful with that one. when i first moved to the city, i i was living in south-room occupancy hotels and i had moved, but voted with my old address. in my second re-election, i had discovered when i went in to vote that someone used my absentee ballot. so to secure and ensure there is no corruption. i have a feeling i wasn't the

only case. so one more future agenda item, but don't wore it's community choice-related. san francisco clean energy advocates have met with the general manager and the agms at the sfpuc about making sure that we continue the local build-out and jobs track of cleanpowersf. they are interested in doing that, a little bit hesitate. hesitant. we were told because of staff limitations it is was difficult to focus on that. that seems a little bit hard for me to accept. so san francisco clean energy advocates would like to ask that either lafco or the board hold a hearing, where we have the mayor's office of workforce development, the san francisco development of environment and sfpuc and lafco staff come and report about their progress on planning for the final plan for

the local build-out and jobs piece of this thing? because if we don't have that as advocate it's hard for tus to us to go and sell the program to the whole city. we need jobs and a break on their energy bills and that kind of thing. you need to be able to adopt in the lower income communities such as much solar as high-income communities. so that build-out piece is important and i think we need a hearing about that either at lafco or the board. i want to chime in on public bank. that, if you look at what is happening in greece right now, it becomes really clear that the global private financing and banking system is becoming so incredibly powerful that they can literally hijack a country and go against the will of over 60% of the voters in that country.

let's not forget back during when gerry ford was president and president ford basically said, sorry, so we need to be able to protect ourselves in the case that the global banks become even more powerful and even start trying to leverage san francisco. we need to figure out a way to have a public bank available, so we can avoid the kind of thing that just happened to greece. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. again, very quickly, i just want to reiterate, that i appreciate the conversation with mr. fried about moving forward on some of these more general voting issues. it's our opinion that the more places to vote the better. i'm not really clear on the roving part, because i think if somebody is going to think that a voting booth or availability is one place, it probably

shouldn't then evaporate. but aside from that, i like the idea as many places to vote as possible, precincts, of course the mail-in issue has to be secured. there is some security issues there. we are seeing a trend towards mail-in balloting. i think that also gets into some equity issues that we need to recognize. in the everybody is a homeowner with a constant address. also, i want to just make mention that i think first and foremost, when we talk about voting we have to get the system security in order, which i know we're focused on doing here in san francisco. i want to mention to you that is leading the country right now. relying on the eac or the feds is not smart, because of course, in speaking with the eac, the current commissioners and the chair there, they're also looking to california for leadership on this exact issue of open source voting. interestingly, we know that california is looking to san

francisco county. so everybody is looking at each other. the project that is going on in los angeles county may seem like a fairly good one, but the report coming out of lafco also recognizes that there are issues attached in los angeles county. we don't know if they are going to use general public license or not? and by some of their sole-source contracts it appears that they may go down a bad road. so we're hoping that they self-remedy in los angeles county. right now in your our estimation, san francisco county is the one with the fresh slate and the one that really looks like we're going to lead the rest of the country towards proper voting systems. once we get that far, we can consider the surrounding circumstances and a lot of this work has been done. when we talk about this equity issue, i don't want to marginalize myself and i'm not speaking for california association of voting officials. but as far as access goes,

there are -- there is technology now available that will enfranchise the youth and the masses. and this is just to say as far as studies go, we probably need to include smartphone voting for those studies, if we get the security proper with the google android, that that people will be able to vote easily and that will eliminate the running around in circles looking for a place to vote and the masss will turn out simply. that is not an opinion to reflect any of our other work. i just wanted to mention it to you, because it sounds like we're dancing around that. thank you. >> thank you very much. see nothing other member of the public come forward, we'll close public comment. and i believe we have no other items. is that right? >> yes, that concludes our business for today. >> okay, colleague, we are adjourned

. (laughter). >> thank you, scott so equilibrium everyone to the presidio it is traditional summer day in san francisco the sun it shining not a cloud in the sky and traffic is undergoing easy. i want to equilibrium everyone here it is an amazing today to be here here in the presidio in building 211 if so the center of press over the last few years here the doyle drive presidio parkway project that is such an amazing project that is decades and

decades in the making. there is a service safety reasons. it happening so much visualizing over the past decades in san francisco and to think that now we have the presidio parkway in place it is the gateway to san francisco and will be for generations to come an amazing piece of art and transportation infrastructure hub for our bay area but simply more than anything or anything an amazing asset for our bay area region when you go out to the presidio parkway which you look 30's 30's thorough this is you can vision to the parks over to the freeway onto the beaches simply a vision that is crafted over decades and i'm so proud we're here like

supervisor wiener i want to take a mom to thank you, supervisor wiener certainly as charged i have transportation authority for to project in particular make no mistake supervisor wiener was critical in his role with the executive director and thank you, supervisor wiener >> i want to thank our home team the transportation authority thank you tilly and jose and someone that retired a few weeks ago has sense moved to austin, texas lee thank you for you're under arrest hardy want to give a round of applause (clapping.) lee promises he'll continue to have sf giants in the back of his pickup truck we'll hold that

you i want to thank hearing officer and others for working on this (clapping.) and to caltrain to gotten link and the golden transportation authority and thank you to everyone from of the government prospective there are a few people individuals i want to thank first and foremost the person when is the driving force behind had vision that's michael i don't know where michael painer is michael (clapping.) for those who don't know this is michael's design this is michael's vision and we had a chance of run into each other with the tour to meet i there in the middle of construction thank you for your hard work make no mistake this is your project to

the many members as supervisor wiener mentioned a circulation of the fables to our citizens advisory committee and all the people that tricked to it i live on on behalf of the many district 2 residents that picking up put up with the late night beeping and the hoptsz a few years ago we're finally here this is the construction not ended yet a lee low to clean up and a time to celebrate and finally i want to thank the mayors in particular mayor newsom and mayor ed lee who is sick but on behalf of the board of supervisors to the sfmta and the police department aid the fire department and members of laborer and the other mr. mulligan and to the highway patrol and state mash and thank you for your support the final

sign is ouch thank you. >> (laughter). i'll end with this i'll say about two years ago i had the future of waking up in the morning joining jose and tilly and my parents i grew up here in the marina we took a muni bus starting owe golden gate bridge we were the 1 people to drive across the one part of the presidio we plan to do with molly first a big round of applause for molly back there (clapping) rightfully gets the loudest round of mrous applause weighing we'll do it this morning but low and behold thanks for the hard work the reside opened earlier i

came with my daughter and jose and tilly and parsons and others to take a tour to be the 1 people to drive on the presidio parkway it is an incredible experience for those who who didn't come i hope you leave here do create a traffic jam it is unbelievable makes it amazing a different experience and something that we will all be proud of to all involved on behalf of the a grateful city this is a product for generations thank you all for your support (clapping) thank you supervisor farrell and supervisor wiener for those wonderful remarks that captured the moment mayor ed lee and supervisor farrell mentioned was unfortunately unable to come he

felt ill he called our office and he sends his congratulations to all of us and we are pleased and effort to have the mayors partnerships of the office of economic workforce development will be telling us a little bit more about the roll in partnering to create jobs and economic development as a result of this project ed mulling begin the new director mr. michael carr joining us to say a few words >> (clapping). >> actually pat is still the director of the city of city build system changes in the last few weeks the mayor is sick and sends his regrets

san francisco is a city of innovation i'm sure you're aware of and it is a place where inspired people turn great ideas into realty as you look to the leaflet they say an infrastructure is not sexy but it beautiful and it is vital to our city this project is special to the oewd it a great collaboration between caltrain and the plazas sector in the city of san francisco we participated introduce the city build group and put a hundred percent of our folks to work this project created jobs for the local san francisco bay area residents a partnership between oewd and ta one last things i'd like to congratulate the many community members and planners and engineers and construction

workers that worked hard and long to cooperate this project all the partners here especially g lc for hiring the workers thank you very much on behalf of the mayor and the city of san francisco job well done thank you very much (clapping.) >> thank you michael i'm sorry i didn't mean to get that wrong i'd like to mention our fell highway they're providing critical funding and coveted a long time federal financing we're fortunate to have the california administrator inconvenience vince to represent the administration and represent mr. kim that that a family issue please help me in joining my

guest on his thoughts of thank you. i appreciate thank you for the opportunity to come today greg immediate our acting administrator is prepping for his nomination hearing later this week i get to play and saw mr. kim he apologized for his family emergency he's a native xalg living californian first congratulations to everybody i wouldn't point out, too many groups here but some struck me when we walked in the door they would can you see the project and someone looked at this and said no, that's the point you can't see the project you can't see the project from here that's why this project is where it is at a beautiful and expressive view as you come through you're

not seeing the construction i'm from the east coast i have a brother that will be flying out here in a couple of weeks i'm going to bring him by bring him into this room if you can leave a couple of sandwiches he's a big guy other thing we had 12 funding sources we have recovery act money $83 million in recovery act and 46 money that medians if there's 12 there are 12 eyes look at this i want to thank the eyes janice williams and poppa john can you raise your hands they were part of the team (clapping.) and i know i've heard malcolm say thank you to the people that live around here for your

patience to allow us to do this type of work but? the type of innovation we at federal highway one of our job is look don't be front yard of taco an aon a project it takes a village but it strikes me in california the leadership in the bay area this great coordination a lot of people focusing to get the work done so on behalf of the acting administrator greg immediate and secretary antonio fox thank you and keep up the great work thank you. >> (clapping). >> thank you so much benson and thank you to mr. foxs leadership next to the next transportation we're fortunate to have

representatives in the california transportation commission the cpc one minute bob one minute let me say a few nice words i want to sorry the cpc prioritized funding for the transportation cross our state and a few folks thank you for being with us the funding and the oversight doyle drive is the first partnership on the highway network and focuses on taxpayers investment and insuring this investment benefits our local community i'm pleased to recognize the hard men and women of the building trade from local 261 to the 4ru7 and local 377 and local engineers on local 3

and 6 they're the ones building this project from the ground up and deserve our premeditation please join me in welcoming all businesses and labor mr. bob. >> (clapping). >> thank you and you know it there's a lot of thanks going around i want to take a moment and give a special thanks to the men and women of the building trades there's michael came up with this beautiful idea and vision to replace doyle drive but it takes the men and women someone to implement that vision and dreams with two of those one of those and a whole love of this that is a pleasure to be here to

celebrate the opening of doyle drive california first c-3 public-private partnership to be approved by the california transportation commission i wanted to be here to celebrate as a key gate to the heart of san francisco this project is a significance it will have a positive input on the commuters and the visitor that use the bridge the commission has a long-standing interest in seeing the state and local and federal partners to deliver the partnerships those partnerships are important and we must continue to work together to make the projects a reality on behalf of the california transportation commission i want to thank caltrain and the transportation authority golden link and all the other partners for in their dedicated efforts and contributions and

congratulations and thank you for letting me me be a part of this and on behalf of the men and women in the building trades thanks for making the last couple of christmases pretty good to go (clapping.) >> thank you very much vice chair alvarado now continuing with the rule we turn to caltrain the owned and operated of doyle drive san francisco has been fortunate to work with the caltrain in the region led by our project manager and others we have a great team dan and others (calling names) i'm sure i'm missing many, many folks at district 4 i hope you feel proud as headquarters we have our partners led by malcolm and tom and also cit teen from

the headquarters thank you for your hard work and partnership earlier this year the department was recognized by the green roads sustainability certificate program for the orchestras think the doyle job this recognized the green methods and materials sweethearts the sustainable design of the project as well as the exclusive community-based process that came up with that decision to i'd like to thank build f this alternative our joined team have the discover of the plan you'll recall this plant was considered extinct it was excited to find it a preserve it for our management felt program in envelope governor jerry brown pointed out the director of caltrain and since then lead a

push towards sustainable design at the department today in secretary kelly's leadership the team as led critical support to the aspects of our project i want to acknowledge the former secretary of housing who at the time served in governor schwarzenegger and was instrumental in securing the funding for the p-3 that led to the final close of the project thank you all for your strong aspirin now malcolm to share his thoughts on this happy day (clapping.) >> thank you tilly i'm glad to be here i want to express my prediction for all of you this is a good today, the good news

tilly thanked everyone i'll probably repeat because some folks deserve to be expressed by my appreciation for their work you'll agree there are few locations like the presidio parkway it is second to number in california and the bay area and likely in the entire country therefore it calls for a project that is a unique project and one of a kind project that is what we're delivering here today we confused shefk safety in phase one and now phase two we've achieved the mobility but still not done and we've got a long ways to go and escape work will land a dramatic improvement not only on mobility but a positive for the connection of the presidio park and thus, the presidio to the waterfront

i've mind recently you can do a transportation project but if that transportation project is a negative to the community or negative to the businesses or negative to the sourndz then tonsillitis that's not the right project it is the right project for mobility as well as the context of being here ♪ great location of studio presidio we celebrate this significant e significant milestone thank you to everyone and after another extended closer that was completed of the 79 hours that recommends me of the 55 hour closer we have traffic on to ultimate reside and it is a drastic change if you've not a had a children. >> to drive on it i want to thank iron and hewitt on the

concessioner for the work i've been talking to peter they went into the weekend with 8 hours and i want to thank flatiron and keeping you informed witness and all the men and women who worked with that organizations for they're successful work for the past weekend if you could give them a round of applause (clapping.) several of my team members have been highlighted and i certainly want to thank b june and his entire staff but i always want to put a point on the team in our organizational of public and private partnerships christina and express my appreciation for the former secretary without those champions we couldn't have done it without you as a

public-private partnering partner when caltrain and the san francisco transbay joint powers authority were tasked with replacing the drive we wanted to have a design for safety standards but rehabilitate the communities needs and reduce impacts to the local environment and if all all possible many improvements that was accomplished and ta that challenge met we've improved the traffic safety but it made a contribution to the beautiful presidio park we were initiative in delivering this project it's our first public-private partner and not create challenges because of the complexity of the challenge of the work it happens to the ingenuity in every speaker talked about the

partners and the partnerships are from both sides public and private and there are financing advantages to the deliver but access to streets and incongruity of all the folks ultimately traffic safety is our goal but improving the surrounding area happened it was talked about this project having 12 different funding sources i want to reiterate the number of partners it is not easy managing a project are that many financing mechanisms and contributions afro-from funding but not that easy to navigate through all the partsd involved it this group came together and certainly the san francisco tangle, the federal how administration and the prurd trust california transportation commission

department of veterans affairs and this department of the golden gate bridge and the municipal transportation agency and the city of san francisco and local community i can't get a project done without successful partnerships we'll continue to reconstruct streets and replace skaipz but as we drive in the new tunnels i'd like to remembered us all public and private perspires got us here thblgs you make meaningful investments in transportation and infrastructure and i want to congratulate you for a successful partnership and thank you for those who had the patience during the construction that was referred to not only in the counties to the north but san francisco congratulation to you all and thank you for coming

>> from congresswoman nancy pelosi please welcome alex lazzaro to say a few words (clapping) >> thank you tilly ambassador congress is in session and she says this is a great moment for san francisco as we complete the transformation of doyle drive and open the new presidio parkway that parkway insures safety in a earthquake and eliminates the proximate causes for the offer 1 thousand vehicles this represents the best of our city our initiative thinking and imperial spirit the respect for the natural resources and beneficial partners between the public and private sector i was proud for

this fight in congress to carry one hundred and thirty in the act and others and an initiative hundred and $50 million for this alone for the public-private partnering as we enjoy traveling along the new presidio parkway construction continues with extensive landscaping and restoration that will integrate the roadway into our magnificent presidio connecting the post with the field and establishing 13 acres of new presidio parklands as the congress races towards the transit trust fund on july 31st this remind us how our infrastructure creates jobs and improves of quality of life

for all the harding families that commute over our roadways we must make long time investments locally and nationally to achieve better paychecks and better infrastructure for oil hard work america families thank you to all who made this project a reality (clapping.) >> thank you alex thank you for leader pelosi leadership on the grow america act i hope in their successful in delivering a dedicated long time transportation doyle drive was to there the access for nancy pelosi another project it was a treasurer plays if the start we partnered with the presidio trust to expand assess while preserving its natural resources

now is where he a direct off-ramp from presidio parkway and the tunnel tops that provide more opportunity to expend the biking between the presidio and marina thank you to superintendent of the parks services and your staff and i'd like to acknowledge greg middleton who recently retire today, we're honored to have the presidio trust planning programs michael to say a few words on this historic occasion. >> (clapping). >> thank you tilly welcome to the presidio everyone it's a beautiful day you're right the sun does always shine here i have the great pleasure of talking about the future of the presidio in particular the

important role this project plays in troovrment this army base into one of the greatest parks in america think back to the moment the presidio transition from presidio to a national park a hundred acres of hard packed dirt and asphalt and it went from an army office it was about 15 or 17 years ago and look out the window how this has pan transformed it is a vibrant park full of thousands of people you come to here on sunday and off the grid and enjoy a beautiful picnic with our families and the rich history but regardless of those improvements doyle drive is a barrier between the two park experience so this project by transforming the intermediately

zone creates the opportunity for us to create and urban park ensemble on the waterfront it is unlike any in america we're grateful to all of the organizations that got involved in this we're grateful to caltrain and the transportation authority and we're grateful to everybody who worked to build this road the g lc and others but mostly grateful to the community the community worked for decades tirelessly to make sure that was not a freeway but parkway it honored the rich history and ecology and came up with a vision i think will set a new standard for design in national park settings and any settings frankly it is won into that

features that go beyond the tops we say see we're to the other set of tunnel tops and the christie field that allows us to expand this to meet the bay this is a project that has myriad benefits to the presidio i want to know or think this will be the cherry on top that makes the presidio the would have park my hats off to everyone in the room that played a role thank you very much for our ongoing roll in the presidio thank you very much. >> thank you very much michael thank you, michael we're looking forward to see what happens your final speaker the ceo of the consortium peter is the private

entity that build and will operate and maintain the project just as cultivates before them g lc keeps the traffic moving while constructing their portion of the road our trpt said this is like doing surgery on a tense player while she's playing intelligence folks worked around the clock and congratulations to the entire team please join me in welcoming peter on this wonderful accomplishment (clapping.) >> thank you very much tilly this is a very special moment for all of us on behalf of the gotten lincoln in their and our

contractors trans field i'd like to thank the agencies that support us during the 71 hour closer specifically caltrain sfmta, golden gate bridge, and not c h b they were there ever minute of the day and the tdr trust and all other agencies i forgot to mention when the golden link began in project a little bit over three years ago there was only one very duct and one tunnel we installed 3 additional tunnels between 8 hundred and 50 and one thousand foot long and a second 50 feet high and 12 hundred feet long viaduct you know structure and an improved highway 101 to the scombaj and roads to the

beautiful presidio park we get a lot of questions why did you need to close the are road for 74 hours this was necessary from richmond and the marina and golden gate bridge obtaining and the tunnel and the other tunnel a massive undertaking as you've seen on tv and photos we worked krunl that tie together i know we've recognized them before i want to recognize flatiron that orchid 10 thousand man-hours in 70 without a single injury and that's worth a round of applause (clapping.)

now for all reasons they're not not room their sleeping and getting deserved rest not only the 71 hour closer but the weeks and months leading up to the closer then the 3 hundred and 50 construction workers their managers and others again without a single incident they excavated millions of dirt and placed 28 tons of asphalt and removed almost that much and put down concrete and placed 7 thousand feet of cable and striping all in 71 hours not to for the software engineers and not to forget the state fire marshall that working or worked

around the clock to get state of the art systems working commissions and made safe and worked the way they were supposed to work thanks again for that and finally i'd like to recognize molly graham for responding to all the media responding to the public your outreach efforts is second to none anyone else i've missed thank you for your support we're proud to be part of this one of a kind setting and one the california's project the tlc will continue to be part of this beautiful project for the next thirty years while we operate and maintains thank you for the achievement of that major milestone

(clapping.) >> okay thank you passport now i hope you and your team can rested and sleep for the next 71 hours this project that the result of several of individual many large and small businesses i want to recognize our expert advisors of the joint speaker hearing officer and others thank you for your principle support and advise to our project team and local small businesses and women and minority owned firms did amazing work julie from cal pumping they provided the pumping services and rooftop of both tunnels and from solutions i'm not sure if dot is here they provided the monitoring to help us carefully around historic buildings only a couple of examples of small and minority

owned firms that helped i want to thank our hard work spokeswoman molly again for leading the communication molly you're amazing and we're grateful to you to our hard work and finally i'd like to thank our aids staff and the ta led by many and my final thanks to our transportation authority led by jose who dedicated himself to this project and led the organization through many stages from planning and approvals and designs lee saga our fearless project manager carried the project introduce and the task force so many members jackie and others and we also had support

from spur i saw jim and others thought that process our staff and as planning deputy work hard and deputy director who is here and anna and cheri and bob from our staff thank you very much well with that, on behalf of caltrain at transportation authority thank you for joining us for our celebration now time for the ribbon cutting practical stay for that ceremony and enjoy our newly presidio parkway presidio parkway our newly presidio parkway presidio parkway

>> >>[gavel] >> i guess we are ready. okay. good morning. the meeting will come to order. this is the meeting of the government audit and oversight committee for july 16, 2015. i named his supervisor yee and chaired a committee to my right is supervisor christiansen, vice chair. and on my left will be supervisor read. the committee clerk and the sfgtv. we have jesse larson and cameron smith who recorded each of our meetings the transcripts available to public online. mdm. clerk, do you have any announce