potential potential stationless bike companies proceeded that november 27th date? >> much of it preceded that and the discussion with the operators continued during the discussions during october and november. and in the settlement agreement with the one-time exception in its exclusivity in that ebikes were not part of the motivate contract, what does the settlement agreement, which appears to be silent, contemplate after 18 months. do you go and invoke the dispute resolution because the settlement agreement seems to be silent on that? >> what happens after 18 months is dependent on the result of the pilot evaluation and happy it talk more and have more discussion in the presentation about what we'll be evaluating

but in terms of what will happen after 18 months, we really don't know until we see how the program performs here in san francisco and stationless programs perform in peer cities around the city. and the settlement agreement advances our policy goals around stationless bike share as well and we're particularly excite ford the potential of ebikes. and there's different operators. jump was the first operator that was eligible for a permit under our program. jump submitted its initial

application in july of 201 prior to any other company. it developed as the first and only company to fulfill all the permit requirements with the november 2017 submittals. one requirement was the data sharing requirement. that's something we heard a lot of reluctance from from other companies and jump was the first to operate e-bike. >> was there a set of criteria about what the sfmta was looking for? did it say in october when these got ahead of transportation technologies did you say to the potential world of stationless

bike sharing companies, we are looking for e bikes. that is a criteria. we're looking for data sharing as a criteria. if you do not have these you'll be considered incomplete. >> yes. we developed permit application materials based on the legislation that were very detailed in what we were requiring from the operators including detailed data sharing provisions and making sure they had a plan for us that made sense to us about how they'd maintain the public right of way. one of the things we're happy that jump provided is the bicycles have integrated e locks which are shown on the slide there.

they lock right to the bike rack so they don't take up the sidewalk. >> it looked like the agreement -- i have a question, supervisor cohen there's communication to all the companies and were they notified, all the other applicants? >> was there only one e-bike company? >> we didn't promise anything about number of permits it could be zero or any number. we never made any promises. >> did this go to all the companies or just one company or no companies? >> we provided the same information at the same time to

all the different operators. do you have more to your presentation? >> i have one more slide i think. the main thing i wanted to end with is the pilot evaluation. there's an important piece of this. we are really hopeful to use the 18 month period to learn how stationless bike shares fits into the san francisco context and how it can play an important role in our transportation system and make amendments to the program as required. the pilot evaluation really falls on two different axis. first is what kind of transportation service is really be provided. is the demand high and who's in the system and where are they going. fundamentally it's stationless bike share is it filling a gap in successful travel options and

the second is whether there's secondary impact including blocked sidewalks, broken bikes, proliferation of graffiti and additional costs for city crews and if there's any other impacts compared to transportation benefits. i'll stop so we can get into details i wasn't able to cover but my summary is we're eager to promote bike sharing information and we're confident our approach is starting with a similar pilot with bike sharing and commuter shut als to ensure we're putting the public interest of people of san francisco first in the process. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you for the presentation, mr. parks. >> thank you. i have about three and a half questions and has to do with my

original question. i'm under the impression and heard no one was advised of the terms of the settlement and the other companies were not advised it would be a one-permit e-bike only and quite frankly applicants only became aware in january when mta issued a memo. it came out saying the permit was awarded to jump only. how do you explain the discrepancy. how do you substantiate the claim? >> the terms of the settlement agreement were not shared until january 8, 2018. that process was a confidential process was not discussed with any other companies while

underway. >> okay. my next question. the bike share universe is very different than the ones assigned between mta and mtc and the ford go bikes. at the time there was quite frankly fewer bike share operators interested in the space and now there are a number of companies and i understand mta recently signed an agreement that we'd consider all e-bike applicants. following the execution of that settlement agreement why didn't you advise the industry you'd only consider e-bikes or put out a public statement at a minimum of this new position? again, my issues are with the process. >> we shared the results of the

settlement agreement as soon as we could and it take weeks to finalize the process and brief the mayor's office and with the sudden death of the mayor there were a couple weeks delay in there in terms of getting the unsportsmanlike getting the information out there and at the settlement agreement we felt comfortable moving forward with the jump company and they were the only company that offered the settlement and fulfilled the term of our requirements after six months of discussions. and so we were eager to get start with the pilot and put something out in the street and get something going forward.

>> in an e-mail dated january 8 from director you state the vection for jump was quote, based on the thorough review of the permit application documenting it meets or seeds all san francisco stationless bike share permit requirements, end quote. if you could describe for me this thorough review, i would appreciate it. was this a comparative review that included other companies or just a review on the individual application itself? >> it was not a comparative view just based on our legislation and that's how we reviewed all the applications and reviewed independently from each other. the specifics of the application itself there's a lot of detail in there. several of the key things that

we're looking for that were i think challenging for some of the operators to come up were detailed lab testing documenting the safety of the vehicles used and insurance requirements and data sharing requirements shared and not let some data be withheld. affordable membership for low-income members. the jump system offers a $5 annual pass that offered one hour of reuse for the day. that met our affordable membership requirement. and to a broad geographic area. those were some of the key things we looked for and happy to provide more detail on that

or the application submittal itself if that's of interest. >> how did you know jump was the best company for san francisco? >> they were the first company to meet our requirements and we wanted to proceed cautiously with the program and not issue a large number of permits. >> you didn't do a comparative analysis with the other companies so how can you discern one is better than the other when you don't take into consideration the others? the other companies application materials were also reviewed. >> but they didn't know the

criteria. >> the requirements meeting all 47 permit requirements or whatever was in there those were shared with all companies and they were all aware of those requirements. i think my point is they didn't know you'd only approve e-bikes. it's a little bit flawed and unfair. >> i just want to get on the record or clarify, were other companies notified, yes or no there was a requirement to have e-bikes? at the same time? they were all given the same

requirement at the same time and would not dispute the e-bike permit we were grant. >> i oversee jamie's work in the bicycle safety and since this is such a key point nor -- for the committee i want to clarify. there was policy discussion at we reviewed the applications from what other peer cities were experiencing. >> sorry, what's your name? >> luis montoya. >> and your role is? >> i oversee jamie's work and he's our bicycle program major and i oversee his work as well. based on what we were seeing in the industry we were prepared to make a recommendation that as jamie described this was the best fit for san francisco.

however the decision hasn't been made to issue jump a permit until january. as jamie mentioned there were intentional discussions about that and motivate indicated they may have a problem with issuing permits for a stationless bicycle. that's why they initiated the settlement negotiations per the contract. so we had to clarify with them what san francisco's intentions might be and then we had to confirm what san francisco intentions were and it wasn't until january the policy call was made to give jump the permit. we were steadying it up to that point and once the decision was made the permit was issued, we offered the same information to all the applicants at that time. >> if i can hop in and i have the same memorandum i received

twice, as far as i can tell just paging through it, it speaks to everything you're talking about. the is dated december 11. and the second is dated january 8. the december 11th one seems to come to the conclusion you came to not in january but in december that there was only one company that you recommended which is jump. are you referring to the e-mail from jamie to ed. >> from ed through tom mcgwire, luis montoya to jamie parks and the staff and interested parties. as far as i can tell the exact same memo. it seems to me you call came to the come conclusion. >> we had done the natianalysish

the recommendation but hasn't issued the permit. i'm trying to get to the point of the permit issued and we shared the information more broadly. >> if i can from a high-level policy standpoint as the author of the legislation and thank you to all my colleagues who voted to have a permitting scheme for stationless bicycle in the onslaught and i think we wanted to get ahead of the technology and you promulgated your own internal legislation in the code we oversee. i realize i was not on the board at the time we have this exclusivity arrangement with motivate. what i think i'm hearing from

supervisor cohen and what all members of the panel share, is that whatever went down was done fairly. i think the concern is if you have other parties that didn't know the rules of the game or until the settlement agreement that the primary criteria was electric assisted bikes in addition to data and safety and other provisions. -- i don't want to put words in my colleagues' mouths but i think that's the source of concern you're hearing and maybe the right thing is what you've done which is whoever won it fair and square gets 18 months of stationless rights exclusivelity. i'm not pushing back on that. i'm pushing back on the one criteria, e-bikes had to be apart of their application. if other folks didn't know that, that might be a problem in terms

of a fair playing field. >> okay. so supervisor peskin is somewhat correct. it's important to note you came to the decision in november and that's the same day the settlement was signed. it's almost like a cya move. in the same january 8 e-mail it states jump was recommended for approval and i can show you i have a table to share with you on the same day the settlement agreement with reached with motivate. when did you and the team decide jump would receive the exclusive contract? and again, we're talking about a memo -- the decision wasn't made

on 11/27 and dated on january 8 and get approval for a jump. >> if i may let me try -- i feel like we're getting the same questions and getting answer aren't quite meeting the mark. so i want to re-emphasize after the board of supervisors adopted the legislation to authorize the permit program the directors then approved legislation that laid out the requirement of the and this was all at the same

time and i think up to six different applications one of which the first one in was the first one complete and the only one complete and then it was in the intervening time that because of the dispute resolution mechanism that was invoked with the contract the board of supervisors authorized the city to enter into with motivate and then dc that we arrived at the settlement agreement. the settlement agreement essentially what it says is that motivate will not object on the basis of their information of the excusivity provision in the contract -- exclusivity provision issuing a permit for

e-bikes for the others there. our signing the agreement did not preclude us from issuing our permits legally. it's just an agreement acknowledging our ability to issue this one-e-bike permit not specifying who the provider would be without compromising the exclusivity clause. that was the resolution of the dispute resolution process that was invoked i don't remember fit was invoked by motivate or ntc. throughout the process we were communicating closely with folks in the mayor's office because the whole contract came about through the mayor's office and approved by the board of supervisors. we wanted to make sure we were keeping in line with the policy intent of the motivate contact to be the region's bike share provider recognizing the industry had significantly

change from 2015 to where we were in 2017. so the time lag from the signing and the authorization of the single permit and the notification to the rest of the providers that that was our intent to finalize our deliberations whether we wanted to issue just one permit or more and we were engage the mayor office and undergoing changes of this administration and that's the lag between the settlement agreement was approved and notified all the providers at the same time this was our intent. we did not have a requirement for e-bikes at the start but

after we approved the settlement agreement we decided the best panel with you to start slowly and modestly and it was the one permit application that was complete it was e-bikes that distinguished themselves and the bikes locked to an existing bike rack and that was the basis and we notified the industry of that information all at the same time. >> director, are you saying you did notify or communicate the decision to the people analyst -- in the queue. >> to everybody in the beginning of january. >> i actually now compared the december 11 and january 8

memoranda together. do i have permission to do that? >> yes. >> there's one line that's different and the one line is "so this is table one on page 3, summary of stationless bike share permit applications and there's a list of the six operators where they have an e-bike, yes or no and locking mechanism, yes or no and the status and the one thing that's different is for the second one line bike it indicates on december 26, 2017, advise application was received. was that substantially different than their original application from july? in other words, did they get a memo to be competitive they need

to have e-bikes? >> they made a number of changes to their application with the december 26, 2017 submittal. the data sharing they were suggesting a different way that wouldn't allow us to access the data. they were some of the lab testings related to the safety of the bicycles and insurance requirements they did not submit as well. it was revived substantially but still did not meet all requirements. >> supervisor safai waiting patiently. >> it's been good to listen and have the settlement agreement in

front of me. the real problem i have with all of this is it seems like it start started with an outcome you tried to back your way into it. this is the problem when have you an exclusive monopoly for one group and that's fine, that was negotiated 2015. but here we are very with one company with technology with removing from private spaces and since then the technology has changed rapidly and there's multiple companies doing this around the world not only in the public right of way but sidewalk. one question i have is how many of the other companies doing stationless bikes are electric? >> currently zero. >> so they've expressed an interest. according to the says

settlements were made to they'll be competitive in the 18 month period. it doesn't seem to me, who i represent, which is the public, which is the people who put us in this seat. it doesn't seem like a good deal for the public but ford go bike and maybe the msnts but not the general public trying to gain access to bicycles. what i don't understand is if you had an intended outcome and wanted to choose one group why not have everyone apply and have a certain date and choose the company on the parameters you set but what i heard from colleagues based on information and other information provided to us you continued to adjust until you finally got to where you wanted to be. that does not seem fair to

anyone, the public, other companies, other organizations, and then that gets me to my last point. supervisor peskin and i put forward a charter amendment to put forward a way to deal with things exactly like this. it seems to me this was being driven by one branch of government to appease a contract before i was even on the board and now we're faced with choosing and jump might be the right company. they might be the best one. they may be the one the public deserves to have and have access to but the process by which you got to this point does not seem defensible. i've listened for 35 minutes, the same question was asked by all of us and all the answers should have been was no. that's what the answer should have been instead we have

different explanations to get to the point where you started at the conclusion you wanted to back into is what it seems like to me. and i understand have you an exclusive agreement with one company you're trying to avoid litigation but the sidewalks are the sidewalks. maybe you need to litigate that and we need more competition and choice for the general public. we put forward a piece of legislation now interim to our charter amendment that allows or an appeal process on curb management and right-of-way. i would encourage you to not approve this and go back to a better process and allow all the companies to apply and you still may end up with the same conclusion and that would be more defensible. >> thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam chair.

one over arching question while i have you on stationless and station bike share. insofar as we're put premium on the safety. one thing that occurs to me when i see this is none of these stationless or stationed facilities come with helmets. i know we want the bicycles to be safe but no one has a brain bucket that rides them and what's the response to that? >> in general, we encourage everyone to wear a helmet but the reality is it's not required by law. it's a recommendation for your own personal safety and there are a lot of public benefits to bicycling regardless of whether

you're wearing a helmet. we have educational programs around bike sharing and there's way to get helmets for free or low-cough dorn low-cost but the benefits of the bike sharing is something we saw as the public interest. >> the scuttlebutt is jump is to be purchased by uber. do you know anything about that? >> i don't know anything about that. everybody in capital society has the right to buy anything for sale so i'm not challenging that but i am to the extent that could happen worrying one mode share interest may sabotage another mode share interest in order to stifle other modes of transportation. so to the extent this is true or

for that matter not true but could become true you may want to structure whatever permits you have whether it's for jump or any other type of stationless or of that matter, stationed facility to make sure you don't end up with what big oil, car manufacturers and tire manufacturers did what was colluded to make sure everybody would buy cars and gasoline and tires by ripping out the system. so keep that in mind. the caveat emptor. >> thank you, supervisor cohen. >> i'm going to ask we move to public comment at this time.

i have two cards but if there's any member of the public that would like to speak and hasn't filled out card and if there's anyone else that wants to speak feel free to speak after sam. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm sam joanin on behalf of wine bike in san mateo we serve 40 counties including washington, d.c., seattle, dallas and many communities around the bay area such as almeida, walnut creak and south san francisco and burlingame and would like to provide a comprehensive

responsible and truly dockless bike sharing program. we submitted several application for regular pedal dockless bikes and electric assist pedal bike with the hope we can immediately serve community do not have and will not have access to bike sharing in the near future. we meet the requirements the sfmta put forth including providing property insurance, testing certifications and a willingness to share data which we already do in the 40-plus communities in which we operate. we were also never notified of the electric bike requirement or preference for electric bikes even after asking multiple times. as a local company, we understand the unique environment that is san francisco and the challenges that lie ahead for dockless bike sharing. we were commit to hiring locally and enacting a robust outreach campaign and would work with the community. our bikes and operations are

changing the way people are moving around. wherein the last six months of 2017 we supported half a million users that have taken over a million trips over 40% of which started or ended at a mass transit showing they are being used to solve first and last mile transportation challenge and ready to support san francisco the same way. on behalf of line bike i urge to you reconsider the process and move forward with the permit -- >> when you're mike cuts off it means your allotment of time is up. >> three minutes, correct? >> two minutes. >> i'll be brief. >> there's a timer in front of. >> i'm matt sheehan. i'm just an interesting citizen and fourth generation in the bay and spent time in china as a journalist and saw the rise and

fall there and since returning back i've been interested in the proliferation of bike share. in china i saw dockless and shareable and they had something like ford go bike and you move it from station to station and lock it up and it was okay. i probably used it three times in a year and after six months after that you saw the explosion of dockless bike share and it was the best thing that happened to transportation in the five years i was there. it changed the way you get around on public transportation and short distances it provided the last mile resolution that made public transportation the choice rather than hailing a cab and getting stuck in beijing traffic. i've been a big fan of the dockless bike sharing and over the last year the streets have been flooded because a lot of money has rushed into that in china. there's been clutter and blocked up some sidewalks and stuff like that.

on balance it's still a great thing but i think it's a solvable problem through resolution. simply limiting the number of bikes. those three faces of docked bikes and dockless bikes and i think the middle phase is perfect. dockless bikes that open up the city in a new way and regulated in terms of number. i think the number i heard of 250 for the city of jump bikes. which is not enough. people need to be confident they can get a bike to resolve their problems. i hope the supervisors will get enough bikes on the street to make it useful without overcrowding. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> i'm from bay city bike rentals and parkway bike rentals. i'm here representing the didn't. in 2011 we were strategically

omitted in the establishment of a city-condoned bike share program. all we were promised is it was a transportation solution and we have come to the table to co-exist with the motivate program. when the city got into a contact with motivate it didn't anticipate the new sponsor would be ford and when it got in the agreement with ford it didn't anticipate the new sponsor would be uber. it's time to create real protections for small businesses. you need to be mindful of the small business industry already exist before skrauquashing themh big technology in and it didn't want to get sigh -- sidelined with the tncs.

like the laws for formula retail, you can now legislate this and find a way to control the disruption of a small business market. you can bring us all to the table, bike share and bike rental and find a way for us to co-exist fairly and preserve locally owned small businesses in the process. thank you. >> good afternoon. blazing saddles bike hen -- rental. we have been told for years that the city condoned bike-share program was a transportation solution. we wanted to co-exist and it would not compete with small

businesses and be a different product from recreation. a non-compete agreement was made between the port of san francisco and go ford bike to keep the industry from being wiped out and the jump map excludes fisherman's wharf suggesting they recognize the distinction between recreation and short-term bike share. city sponsored bike share cannot be a transportation solution if it's cannibalized by bike share and we in the bike rental industry have been meeting with motivate, supervisor peskin and his staff and the mayor's office to ensure our small businesses will not be obliterated by the city-response

city-responseed -- site-sponsored city-sponsored companies. all bike share companies need clear guidelines. we need your help to differentiate to the public the difference between transportation and recreation product. please continue helping us. thank you. >> i'm with a local bike company, san francisco bike rentals. i don't have real organized prepar prepared comments but it may seem to those of us present i think the discussion was called because a brewing conflict between large actual

billion-dollar companies such as ofo, jump, slash, uber and ford. so here we are, the small bike rental industry. i just want to re-er reiterate this agreements in place such as between the port of san francisco and protect and honor a natural distinction between the bike rental and bike share market and ford is doing its best to honor and we're meeting regularly to make sure it's honored but nonetheless they're trying to honor it and we're hopeless introducing ourselves to this discussion how are we going to deal with uber, ford, ofo, how

are we going to handle the needs of the bike share market. we think there's a natural distinction. it comes down to a long-term recreational transit option such as bike rental, two hours-plus and two hours under. those are basic principles. we hope we'll be invite head to table and confident a fair solution can be reached for everyone here. thank you. >> i'm here on behalf of broader issues of coordination of mta technical implementation team. beyond bike share i believe there's quality control and capacity. it's my understanding plans go from the lead planner like the lean forward plans to the mpa

engineering committee reviewing a review by senior staff. this could have a significant impact on quality control and be the root cause of mta missteps and examples the mta has reconfigured the area for the third time. i urge the committee to conduct a hearing on quality control with mta checks and balances issues. on the issue of capacity, the chair of the bond oversight committee asked staff if there was adequate capacity to manage the large new mexico of capital projects the agency is implementing concurrently. though the response is yes, that could be question. the mta posted signs however they weren't prominently post. people parked and when they came

out the cars had been towed. this could be an cation -- indication of major issues. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public who wish to speak? seeing public comment closed. all right so this hearing has been held. our sponsor of the hearing has departed the hearing but i think our main point is we just wanted to ensure there was fairness and transparency in terms of the process in which the permits were issued around bike share especially the dockless or semi-dockless bike sharing. i was excite about the types of new bike sharing that would be rolled out in the city especially because with the current contract we have we found in the west side districts would not have seen bike share for years and years on out and i think many of our residents

would like to see bike sharing out there just the same as those on the eastern side of the town. with that said i think we have gotten many questions answered here however, i think the korchks will still need to continue. colleagues, do you have further questionses or comments on the hearing item? okay. so supervisor cohen requested it be filed. can we get a motion. okay. all right. so we'll do that without objection the hearing is filed. mr. clerk are there any other items? >> the clerk: that completes the agenda for today. >> commissioner: thank you, the meeting is adjourned. this meeting will come to orde.

welcome to the february 1, 2018, special meeting of the rule's committee. i'm chairman safai, and normal yee, and kathryn stefani, and

victor, and i would like to thank you sfgov tv for staffing this meeting. >> supervisor yee: make sure to silence all cell phones and electronics devices, and all documents should be submitted to the clerk. items acted on will appear on the february 13th, board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> clerk: item number one, term ending october 19, 2019, to the eastern neighborhood citizen advisory committee. >> supervisor safai: thank you. unless any initial comments from the committee, i don't believe, do we have anyone from supervisor cohen's office -- great. identify yourself. >> thank you, chair safai and members of the committee. i'm a legislative aid to supervisor cohen.

requesting the committee confirm the reappointment of irma lewis to seat two, the eastern neighborhood citizens advisory committee. miss lewis was appointed a few months ago by this body t serve out the remainder of a term and up for reappointment. miss lewis has been an active member of the dog patch community, working with our office on the cushioning process and in particular, advocating for green spaces. and toes and paws, for more dog friendly infrastructure in a growing neighborhood. supervisor cohen is grateful to miss lewis for continued involvement and asks for your support in that reappointment. >> supervisor safai: any questions from committee members? seeing none. so we'll just, i guess, before we do -- both at the same time before we do public comment?

great. call up the second person, and who is actually here today, jolene yee. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is jolene yee, i brought my son and husband along, too, atlas and jeff. i am very excited for the opportunity to serve on the eastern encac. my background, i've been working the last 4 or 5 years advocating for friends of franklin square, it's a park at 17th and bryant street, and actually, i had an opportunity to go to one of the encac meetings to advocate, and able to successfully get some funding from them, that's the experience with the committee. i'm just very excited for this chance because it's something that i've wanted to do is

continue my work in public policy and also to just represent the voices of young families in the neighborhood. i have two young boys, atlas, who goes to a preschool in the dog patch area, and my other son, paxon, eight, goes to c clarendon, elementary school. and experience of a young family member in san francisco and i would like to advocate for the changes that we would like to see. any questions? >> supervisor safai: questions from committee members? supervisor yee. >> supervisor yee: who is your supervisor, what district are you in? >> district ten. >> supervisor yee: have you spoken to supervisor cohen? >> yes. >> supervisor yee: she supporting you? is there a letter or anything? >> i can give it to you. >> supervisor yee: i don't see

it in the package. is it in here? that's ok, i mean, i trust you, as you said you have a letter. >> sorry, i thought they had given all the paperwork. can i just walk up to you? >> i have it, i have it. >> supervisor yee: my fault, i didn't see it. >> i just showed it to him. very direct and to the point. they have the documents. >> and this is from -- sorry, i thought they forwarded it. oh, they have this, ok. >> is this the original? >> you can have it, it's a copy. >> thank you. >> sure. >> supervisor yee: wonderful. and you know, just, i was not picking on you, just more or less, i like to know that you are in a particular district

that your district supervisor would be supportive. so, that's why i asked. >> supervisor safai: any other questions from committee members? i don't have any myself. thank you for your public service on this important committee. we will go ahead and take public comments. any members of the public that wish to come forward and comment on this item, you have two minutes. clearly state your name. seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> supervisor yee: i'll make a motion to appoint irma lewis to seat two and jolene yee to seat three, and pass it on to committee with positive recommendations for the board and i would like to say thank you for someone that actually has young children that want to step up and be part of the community. >> supervisor safai: yes. i'll second that, being a parent of two small children. appreciate your commitment, and it's really important, a lot of

work that has been done over the last decade and a half on the eastern neighborhoods. we are still seeing the impact of that work in many different categories, child care, affordable housing, infrastructure improvements. to take that and participate in that commitment is very important. i need to entertain a motion for a five-minute recess. thank you. and we'll -- can we adopt this? after you adopt the motion. so the motion was first and seconded without objection. we'll send it to the full board with full recommendation. thank you. >> thank you, everyone. appreciate the recess, so welcome back.

we'll go to item number two. >> clerk: item two, charter amendment to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to authorize the public utilities commission to issue revenue bond for power facilities, two-thirds vote of the board of supervisors and scope of the water and clean water utilities. >> supervisor safai: great. thank you. so, unless there is any initial comments from the committee, we were going to have, i believe we had sonny angulo, on the way back after the recess. maybe we can have the folks from the p.c. come forward and address the committee. i know we made an amendment last night and maybe you can give us an update and when she comes we can have her speak on that as well. >> happy to. barbara hale, assistant general manager for power at the p.u.c.

what you have before you is an amendment, i'll cut to chase on the amendment. i understand that's what you want me to talk about. and this amendment -- >> you can give the public a background. >> great, great. >> summary and then -- >> so this charter amendment would allow the public utilities commission to issue revenue bonds for facilities that are needed to produce and deliver clean energy. only when the facilities have come before the board of supervisors and received a two-thirds vote for approval to be funded through a revenue bond. >> supervisor safai: i have a question. right now you all do, you do bonding. >> we do. >> supervisor safai: but it's not bonding specific to clean energy or energy production. >> yes. so, what we currently have authority to use revenue bond financing for are improvements

to existing facilities. most of our facilities, our power facilities, at least, are not inside san francisco, they are up-country, so the bonds that you've authorized for revenue financing in the past associated with power have been associated with those up-country facilities. so, what this -- >> supervisor safai: and amending to expand it. >> right, so we can take revenue and spend it on new things clean power-related in the authority of the public utilities commission. the water and clean water enterprises, water and wastewater folks already have the authority that i'm requesting, that the p.c. is requesting for power facilities, so it's the same approach would be taken with the power facilities that's been taken with the water and wastewater

facilities in terms of how we would implement that. revenue bond authority, oversight committee and such would apply here as well. >> supervisor safai: what would be some examples of some facilities needed for the purpose that we are authorizing today? >> on the power side, things like distribution facilities to serve new customers, it could be, you know, to serve them with our clean power. it could be electric vehicle charging stations, it could be on-site generation, other innovation that we have been seeing in the power market that allows customers we serve to take less grid power. >> is it all related to clean energy? >> no, with the new amendment, the new amendment that was proposed at the last, that was provided to the committee at the last hearing would allow, would

amend the charter to clarify the p.c.'s authority to issue revenue bonds for water and clean water, and to the extent that the purpose is consistent with existing law. so, if there were benefits to water, wastewater or power customers, to invest in a facility, that perhaps was not on city property or was a nontraditional utility use or utility asset, this authority, this amendment would allow us to revenue bond finance that as well. >> supervisor safai: essentially the main edit is on page three? >> yes. >> supervisor safai: the back? so already it's saying water, the way it stands right