general public that would like to know what is happening with the historic rigs. >> good evening commissioners, support services, good evening chief of departments. we have been diligently moving the antique rigs over to an area on treasure island which is currently leased by the san francisco fire department, our training facility. we also were able to procure a covering that we going to put on to the vehicles to preserve them. there is a moisture barrier that is involved with this covering. the vehicles won't be further damaged by being out in the open area. we are continually looking for indoor space? i know we have a couple of leads we are working on currently. real estate is tough to find in the city, but we are diligently

trying our best, and we should have all of the vehicles out of the art academy parking lot next week and on to the leased area on treasure island. >> thank you very much. chief nicholson. these committees, work group committee accident, we could have them come make a presentation to us at any time, correct. recruitment outreach come to make or the high rise committee come and make a presentation to the commission, is that correct? >> yes, we could certainly arrange that. >> my fellow commissioners have a request for these committees or at least the chair and vice chairs to make a presentation, we would welcome that. that is something we can again° in the future.

the fire department headquarters is undergoing a plumbing problem, sewage issue, finally it is done. now, you know, are you going to restore the lobby? is that going to happen? i believe you are referring to the pump station in the basement? >> right. >> i am not sure the timeframe on that, but they have tested much of it. again, i think the chief can give you more detail on that. >> it is a long term project. when is that going to be done? >> we are near completion. there have been delays. more of a revamping of the pumps.

those we have two pump stations pump station one part of the bond to upgrade that. >> huge project. >> subject to delays. we want not only did the working pump station but it is headquarters in the administrative offices. weep want to make sure it is safe for our employees as well. there was the project undertaken by department of public works and in conjunction with the puc because of the . >> when will it be completed? >> it is at completion. there is final testing, but we hope to unveil and place the 9/11 piece that we took receipt of right around september. we hope to not necessarily form a committee but we have folks interested and i am interested and commissioner covington i asked her because of her

background and expertise relating to repopulating that level to make it taste full and have it be a mini museum piece. >> an opportunity to bring back historic rigs, bring them back in. >> that is our intention. i would say a formal ceremony in the fall of this year. . >> that would be nice particularly with the 9/11 piece. we can have another ceremony on that. that would be appropriate. >> that ask our plan. president cleveland to let you know, the last test that has to be done down there is slated for march. they have to test the pumps and pump saltwater through them. it is slated for this coming month. >> all right. no further questions from commissioners. do you have a follow-up questi

question? >> thank you, commissioner. i have one comment to make. it was in regards to a well-intentioned statement that was currently made about these rigs and the lack of space in san francisco. i understand that san francisco has some real estate challenges. our challenge with the rigs so the public can understand this is not that we have real estate constraints in san francisco. we do not have real estate constraints in san francisco. our lack, our constraints with regard to the rigs is that we don't have enough people in power that are, one, talking about this, and two, to give a dam. that is the issue with the rigs. we have park and rec with three acres of parking and god bless them they asked us. we have port and other

department, muni, we have real estate resource this is the city. the issue is not real estate. the people listening to this, we are the only commission talking about this. these things not actually belong to the city and county of san francisco. they are rigs our firefighters fought on over the last 100 years. we are the only ones that care about this. we need to do something about it. i want to make that clear. thank you. >> there are several of us doing something about that. we are working. >> thank you for your report, chief nicholson. madam m secretary. would you call the next item. >> item 5. report on commission activity since last meeting february 14, 2018. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners. would you like to report on

anything? no one is jumping so i guess we don't have any report from fellow commissioners. >> item six. >> i have a quick update. this is on what has happened in the past? past two week also. big thank you to the asian firefighters on behalf of everybody on the commission. it goes without saying they put on a wonderful events for the city. they participated in a wonderful event. on behalf of the firefighters and chiefs, you guys did a great job to make sure the hundreds of thousands. there were a lot of people out there this time. >> estimated 1.2 million. >> a million people that our firefighters made sure. a couple had to jump into

action. graduated job on behalf of the fire department and police department everybody else that kept the city safe. secondly, i was able to attend -- i haven't attended a lot of these, and it is shameful, actually. last week i was -- this week i was able to attend the funeral services of our fallen firefighter wursch. chief, you did a great job representing the department there. i was able to see how these sad events are ceremonial in some ways. at the end of the event each of the firefighters i'm not sure if you have been to the funeral service for the firefighter. at the end of the service the active members give a final

salute it was consume. it was cool. i am not aware in the commission does anything. these are members of our department that have served i believe he served 30 years. >> correct. >> he served 30 years at various stations in different positions. i am not sure if there is anything the commission itself does to honor the service of these firefighters. i am sure there is something done at the time of their retirement perhaps but at the time of their death these members were members of a large family, as you know, we are a classy organization here at the commission. i would like to see the commission do something to honor these members who have passed away. whether it is something that we

send to the family representing in our capacity a final salute to the family members for their service. i'm not sure what that is. i know every member cares about the members of the department. that is the type of thing that i think everyone here, i think it is the type of thing that we should do, and it represents how we feel about our members. i think it is somebody we should do. i don't know what it is. i aming with to cough up some ideas on that. along those line was i would like to end our commission meeting later on, mr. president, at the -- to end the meeting in honor of her man wursch who served our department. nothing else at that time. >> duly noted.

you brought this up about a commissioner award. it is something that you need to flush out the idea. all of us as commissioners are open to the idea, under what circumstances would our medallion or award be presented and i think it is a worthy idea to have a commission award of some sort. we need more definition. what you were thinking if you could put thoughts together on paper that we could their share with the commissioners we could discuss that at a future meeting. madam secretary. next item. >> i just want to offer something in conjunction with that comment. thank you very much for attending.

it was very much anticipate appreciated -- very much appreciated. because you have the least amount of experience on the commission we have a retirement ceremony where anyone that has and it is in conjunction with the commission. it is the commission and i sign off. it is from the commission where every retired member has the opportunity to have the certificate mailed or come before the commission and each of commissioners sign the certificate thanking them for years of service. the secretary does a great job inputting it together in conjunction with my office on. we give hig highlights of their service and if they attend with families they can talk about careers or not. it ask very well attended ceremony. it is done not necessarily

annually but within every two years that is one thing. my observation has been that down through the years i have observed your colleagues and former commissioners to the extent that they can recognize in their schedules and i think it works well. you have some commissioners do some things and some do others. each of your colleagues have attended these funerals. i want to make sure you were aware of that. maybe it is easier from a third-party. they have been very supportive in active duty funerals but retired members as well. collectively, the department totally appreciates you being there monday as well as your colleagues that have attended in the past. >> chief, i don't doubt that these members have attended these services before. there is no question in my mind

that has happened. my comment was more towards something on behalf of the commission to the family, and i know you are the chief of the department and you do your own thing and great job at that. the members of the families appreciate it. on behalf of the commission i think something would be appropriate. i have been on the commission for a year. i haven't seen the retirement -- it is every two years. i haven't seen the ceremonies. i have to wait another year to see these. that being said i look forward to them. >> thank you commissioner. madam secretary call the next item please. >> item 6 agenda for future meetings. agenda for march 14 and regular meeting. >> public comment? public comment is closed.

we have a couple of things. mutual aid where needed. resolution of some sort. i don't think that is something we are going t to an agendize. >> we have an awiss at the next meeting. >> that is necessary. what else, commissioners? >> one other item, mr. president, that as you know we have been discussing with the city attorney. that is the item related to the resolution related to ems6. i received a draft today or yesterday from the city attorney. i would like to forward that to the chief so she could see it and perhaps even to the membership and local 798 so they could see it and get in put so eventually we can a gendize it.

>> yes, for the next meeting. commissioner covington. >> i'm sorry. i am thinking perhaps an offline conversation regarding what i was thinking might be best rather than taking up the time of the full commission. thanks. >> very well. any other commissioners have input? seeing none, we will move on. madam secretary gloomy tem7 conference received. e-mail dated 2/22/18 from sarah watson. >> public comment on this item. >> it is closed. >> i do have a question regarding that. >> yes, commissioner covington. i would like to ask the chief to give us a background on that

particular e-mail. go ahead and ask your question. >> my question was the the chief -- if the chief of the department and the chief of ems had received a copy of this letter, the e-mail? >> yes, they both received it. then i look forward to their feedback regarding the letter. the e-mail. >> we will put that on the agenda. >> i thought that because it was on the agenda. it wasn't specific. it was general. i wonder if this because this appears on our agenda quite frequently. perhaps we need a deeper level of specificity regarding this. correspondence received since last meeting. we are asking the public to

comment on it but we don't have any discussion, and the communication came to us. all right. >> i am not sure why we can't have the chief give background on the issue. it is on the agenda. e-mail dated 2/22/18 from sarah watson. >> i am happy to discuss it briefly. >> one of the other things and i will confer with the commission secretary is whether or not this would be agenda or if a report could be submitted to the commission, which i am sure would be available for the public. whether or not it needs to be on the agenda. this is dated february 22, 11:50 p.m. i saw it on friday, the 23rd,

and immediately it was received by the commission secretary to myself and to the deputy. i immediately directed him to begin analysis and report back to myself and the commission. that is all i would be comfortable reporting on. commissioner covington's request we will have further information with a further analysis. >> why don't we put that as part of your report for the next meeting? >> okay. >> sure. that would help draft a response to the e-mail. >> i think having the discussion and then the response would be. >> let's have the discussion. the advice from the city attorney is to keep it brief. it has not been on the agenda. >> do we need it on the agenda

for the next meeting or part of the chief's report? >> up for an agenda item. >> a separate agenda item? >> i thought i saw the deputy attorney here. >> she is here for the closed session. she has not been consultanted on that. in fairness. >> i thought she was hiding behind the chief. that is why. thank you. >> that is a good plan you came up with. >> all right. we will move forward. >> item 8. public comment on item nine. public comment on all items on item 9 including holding item 9-b in closed session. >> any public comment? seeing none it is closed. what is your pleasure.

we must go to closed session here i would like a motion. >> so moved. >> second? >> second. all in favor of closed session for personnel matter. >> we are back in open session. item 10 discussion and possible action specified in 549571a and code section 67.12b. [ inaudible ]

>> do i have a second. >> all in favor of not disclosing the conversations on this matter. >> it is unanimous. moved by commissioner varonese. >> item 12 adjournment. >> i would like to adjourn this meeting in honor of firefighter hermam wursch who passed away this month. with that said this meeting is adjourned.

. ourned. >> the meting will come to ord order. this is the february 23rd, 2018 special meeting of the san francisco local agency formation commission. i am sandra leigh fewer, chair of the commission. i am joined by commissioner cynthia pollock on my left and hillary rope then on my right. i would also like to thank the staff at sfgovtv, for recording today's meetings. madam clerk, do you have any announcements?

>> madam clerk, can you please read item number two. >> item 2 is the approval of the lafco meeting minutes of november 30, 2017 workshop, and the november 30, 2017 regular meeting. >> thank you. do any of the commissioners have any changes to the november 30, 2017 minutes? >> yes, i do. >> under opening remarks and proposals presented by the commission, i recall it says rise chair pollock provided the following two proposals, broad band and revisiting an affordable housing study. i believe there was also a third, an expansion of clean power sf. >> supervisor fewer: okay. are there any other changes to the november 30, 2017 minutes?

all right. seeing none, i will open this up to public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to comment on item 2. seeing none, item 2 is now closed. is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> so moved. >> second. >> moved by commissioner pollock and seconded by commissioner rhenown, those minutes are approved. madam clerk, can you call item number three. >> item three is lafco regular meeting schedule. >> i believe we have a message from angela calvillo, interim chair officer. >> thank you. i wanted to introduce item three. for the first few months lafco meetings were on an as-needed basis. now lafco is suggesting that we set the next couple of meetings, particular, march 16, 2018; april 20th, may 18, june

15th, july 20th, september 21, october 19, and november 16, we have the room space available for the lafco, and this will also assist us in aligning our meetings with the regular board meetings. >> thank you very much. colleagues, any comments? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item number three? seeing no public speakers, public comment is now closed. colleagues, can we have a motion to approve the regular meeting schedule for 2018? >> great. moved by commissioner ropenen, seconded by commissioner pollock, the item is proved. madam clerk, can you please

call item four. >> item four is nominating two members to the board, ending. >> i understand we have not received any applications for either of these seats, is that correct? >> that is correct, madam chair. >> commissioner pollock did submit her application right prior to the meeting but it did not make it into the packet. >> so seeing that, with that understanding, i'd like to continue this item, but let's first open this up for public comment, are there any members of the public who wish to comment on item number four? seeing none, public comment is now closed. to allow more time for applications to be submitted, i would like to continue this item for the next regular meeting on march 16th. colleagues, is there a motion to continue? >> so moved. >> thank you move. >> seconded. >> moved by commissioner ronen and seconded by commissioner pollock, without objections, item number four will be continued to the next regular meeting on march 16th. madam clerk, can you please

call item number five. >> item five is a community aggregate report and a community report. >> good afternoon, commissioners. michael himes, director of clean power sf for the sfpc. it's a pleasure to be with you this afternoon. i've got some remarks to update you on the status of program growth, work we've been doing since we last met. first and foremost, though, cleanpowersf continues to serve about 81,000 accounts within the city and county, and to date, our cumulative program opt out rate is 3.2%. it's been at that level for a while. probably the last time we reported it, it was there, as well. i guess another way of looking

at this is we have a 98.6% participation rate. 4 4.1% of our accounts have opted up to our renewable energy, super green, and that is the highest of any cca operating in california. and as -- well, we're also preparing a quarterly enrollment for customers that have signed up for the program since january , and that enrollment is coming up in april. that's a small enrollment of about 250 accounts that have signed up over the past few months. you might recall that in addition to the large enrollment fees is we've been inviting sign ups on an ongoing basis and then conducting these quarterly enrollments to bring those customers into the program on a timely basis. since we last presented to the lafco in late november , a

number of things have happened with respect to our program development work. first, on january 23rd, the puc approved some new rates for cleanpowersf. this is a limited rate action focused on two things. first, at reducing our super green premium for participating customers so effective march 1, next month, our residential super green rates will be 1.5 cents perhour on top of our green kilowith the hour, down from two cents. this reduction will allow the program to remain competitive with comparable offerings by pg&e. the other major actions we took were some modifications to our net energy metering. that's a program that supports customers that have roof top solar.

it's a billing credit mechanism that allows customers that own solar to get credits on their bills for any energy they produce and deliver to the grid. that's tracked every month. net credits that accumulate in a given month are carried forward for application to a following billing period. and then, every year, we look at whether the customer was a net producer of energy or a net consumer, and they were a net producer, we compensate them for that energy. so we made changes based on our experience to date in managing this program. after about a year and a half in operations, the changes were really to improve is simplify the customer experience, so those changes were first to -- we eliminated two net surplus compensation rates that we were using. that's the rates we pay the customer fore additional energy produced over the course of the year. we're now just compensating the

customers at the higher of those two rates, which is the average super green rate. we also adopted a credit carrie forward at the end of the period at our default mechanism. customers can also request a check rather than a carrie forward of the credit on their bills. and finally, we have adopted a policy of carrying forward credits for any customers that have been on the program less than ten months, and the intent of that is to avoid harming any customers that may be expected to get additional credits for the balance of the year. so that's a little bit in the weeds, but those are adjustments that have been made to, again, improve the customer experience, protect our koestner mers were any lost value, and also help improve the efficiency of administering the program.

also on january 23rd, the board of supervisors authorized the puc to enter into power supply contracts to support the next phase of program enrollment. that legislation was signed by the mayor on january 26th. and then lastly, the puc commission affirmed that the conditions necessary to execute the contracts had been met, and authorized the general manager to move forward with all actions in esto complete citywide enrollment for cleanpowersf. so really a major milestone for cleanpowersf. the elements are really coming into place now for a july enrollment. and towards that end, staff is -- we are working to finalize our power supply contracts and bank credit agreement. we're targeting execution in early march of our first set of agreements to come out of the solicitations we issued. we are also working on our

enrollment plan, taking into consideration the available renewable energy supply in 2018 to support our customer enrollment again while meeting our overall program content power objectives. we're providing updated program notices, program collateral and fine-tuning our outreach program for the next enrollment phase, and a lot of that is going to be centered around who we are going to be enrolling in the next phase, and that's something we're working on right now. and then, last but not least here, we're also evaluating a potential rate action for our green product. the reason why we've separated these rate actions is because we are waiting for pg&e to set its rates for this year, and pg&e had been delayed. normally, their rates go into

effect on january 1. last year, pg&e issued its rates for 2018, and those will go into effect next month. and what we're seeing is -- you might recall the pcia of the exit fee that cca customers paid pg&e. we are seeing that go up by about 14%. the -- but we are also seeing pg&e's generation supply rates also go up by about 8%. so the net result is that cleanpowersf rates will continue to belower than pg&e after -- than pg&e's comparable rates by accounting for the pcia. to the extent we do take a rate action in april, it will maintain that beneficial rate differential, and it would go into effect on july 1. and that actually concludes my update.

i'm happy to take questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. colleagues, any questions? yes, commissioner pollock? >> commissioner pollock: i just want to -- excuse me. first of all, congratulations -- >> yeah, thank you for your support through this effort. >> commissioner pollock: i know so many people are so excited to see how it moves forward. i just wonder if we can get a chart, again, of the new dates for the different parts of the roll out and just when we see the big launch and how that's moving along. >> absolutely. >> commissioner pollock: okay. great. thank you. >> yeah. be happy to do that. >> supervisor fewer: commissioner ronen, any questions? okay. seeing none. >> okay. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to comment on item number five? hello. >> good afternoon. commissioners, eric brooks for california energy choice and san francisco clean energy advocates. in the entire 14 kbraerz thyea

i've been coming before this commission, this is the most important thing that i've ever had to say to you. warren buffet and donald trump are trying to get ahold of the california electricity grid to bring coal back to california and undermine renewables. the trump administration has directed regional grid operators like this one would become under a bill in the state legislature and has directed federal agencies to subsidize coal electricity once this happens, so they will be able to make it cheaper than renewables even though it's not. there's a bill that's up last year that's coming up again this year, it's going to be rewritten so that it's easier to pass. the authors made mistakes last year and that's one of the reason they're going to be able

to kill it. the result of this bill would be to make our california nonprofit electricity grid turn into part of a regional private grid of which the largest company acting, and it would be warren buffet's berkshire-hathaway, who has attacked companies in other states. once our grid is part of a private grid than state grid, our california electricity grid will be under the control of the trump administration. this could kill community choice aggregation, and it could kill renewables in general for a decade, possibly more. this is the biggest threat we've ever faced, and it's vital that you oppose it. >> supervisor fewer: thank you

very much. >> hi, commissioners. jed holtzman from 350 bay area. i just want to say attending the sf meetings, we're ready to go full steam ahead. the one thing i would say for lafco's role, as going forward, as we discussed in the workshop, the role you could play in cleanpowersf, the puc staff has a tremendous amount of work to do to roll out the program, get everyone enrolled, make sure that they're happy, make sure that the city, the board is happy with the budgeting and contracting divisions. i think one role that the lafco can play going forward is as advocates, we get reports on -- and i hope mike doesn't get mad at me. we talk with him about this all the time. we get reports on what silicon valley is doing.

now i'm getting reports on what east bay is looking like, and now i'm getting some reports on the north bay. what i'd like to do is transmit a lot of those best practices where possible from other cca and kind of just instead of growing at our own pace, not enrollment wise, but program development wise, that can he can kind of take the best pieces of the east bay, north bay, and south bay wherever possible, and we'd like to talk to lafco at some point in the future. thanks. >> supervisor fewer: all right. thank you. seeing no further comments, public comment is now closed. there's no action for the commission to take on this matter. madam clerk, can you please call item number six. >> item six is the interim administrative officer's

report. >> supervisor fewer: miss calvillo, do you have anything to report? >> thank you, madam chair, members of the commission, angela calvillo, interim officer. i wanted to provide just a brief introduction to what i've done with the lafco's budget without permission from lafco, but i think it's a good thing. essentially because the budget process for lafco is not on the same timeline as the budget process for the board of supervisors and the city in general, what used to happen is the executive officer would provide me a ballpark figure from lafco that wouldn't be confirmed by lafco until june, so while we are, a city department, submitting our budgets to the mayor and controller as of yesterday, february -- yeah, thank you, 22nd, i asked the budget committee, and the committee has provided me permission to

put in the statutory amount that lafco is entitled to, which is $297,342. so by the time lafco does determine its needs and actually comes up with a figure, if it's lower than that amount, then, we'll just adjust the department's budget by that amount. this will make things a little easier for us in our conversations with the mayor's and the controller's office, so with your permission, i appreciate your indulgence to do that today. the last thing i'll say is that i'm the interim officer, and all of the work that we have done over the last couple months is all done with the great assistance of alisa, your clerk, especially the rfq for

executive officer. i'm available for any questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? no. seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this item. >> yes. >> supervisor fewer: oh, i'm so sorry. [ inaudible ] >> so eric brooks again, san francisco green party, local grassroots organization, our city, californians for energy support, which is a statewide organization for community choice aggregation and clean choice energy advocates. i would just urge you real quickly to make sure -- in light of what happened last year, let's make sure lafco has full leverage on its own budget and can -- and so make sure you

retain the power to not allow any shenanigans to go on in the future like we saw last year. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. seeing no further public comment, public comment is now closed. there is no commission action to be taken on this matter. can you please call item seven. >> item seven is a discussion on lafco's strategic plan. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. we have discussed a range of things worth exploring, but until we have an executive director, i propose we suspend any further discussion until our march 16th meeting. colleagues, does that sound okay to you? great. now let's open this up to public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item seven. >> surprise, surprise. eric brooks, californians for energy choice and all the other groups that i mentioned before. so the -- we've heard from the

interim executive officer that the bids that came in on the request for qualifications are proprietary, and they're not allowed to be released. the public, of course, really would like to see the applicants and who they are, and so that we can weigh in on who we think would be the best person, but we can't really do it without that information. this is a question for the attorney and for the executive -- interim executive officer, but if we can even get the names of applicants, then, we can look them up themselves and decide what we think and then maybe make comments before your next meeting. i don't know if that's possible, but anything you can give us so that we can, as the public, weigh in on the process, that would be great. thanks. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any other public speakers? and do we have a response for mr. brooks? >> thank you, madam chair.

>> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> in -- in -- in discussing this issue with mr. eng, who is working in conjunction closely with the office of the city attorneys on this, unfortunately, because we are still in the determination process about whether or not the named individuals that you were speaking about actually meet the minimum qualifications, we are not yet ready to present that information, but we will definitely provide the public that information relatively around the same time we provide that information to the commission. okay. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. seeing no other public speakers, public comment is now closed. i would like to continue this item until our next regular meeting on march 16th. colleagues, is there a motion to continue? thank you very much. great. moved by commissioner pollock and seconded by commissioner ronen, without objections, item number seven will be continued to the next regular meeting on

march 16. madam clerk, can you please call item number eight. >> item number eight is an update on obtaining executive officer services for the commission and possible direction to staff. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i want to invite our interim administrative officer to give an update on the rfq process. miss calvillo. >> thank you, chair. so at the direction of lafco our office issued an rfq for executive officer services. the deadline was extended to february 13th, 2018. the anticipated not to exceed contract raid is $75 an hour. the panel deliberation was scheduled for this morning, and we will issue a notice of intent to prequalify, we're hoping by february 27th. at this time, the details of the respondents are confidential in accordance with the administrative code chapter

67.24 for mr. brooks, but may be subject to disclosure once the panel scoring and the issue of the notice of intent to prequalify has completed. respondents are not gasuarante a contract if they meet the qualifications because it is on lafco for the qualification and certainly as the chair as she was authorized to conduct this r 23 q process, and the respondent's ability to complete the necessary administrative requirements in order to become an approved city vendor through the general services agency. respondents who are prequalified will remain eligible for consideration and contract negotiation on an as needed basis for five years from the prequalification notification date. we look forward to keeping you apprised on this issue, and i'm available for other questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> thank you. >> supervisor fewer: colleagues, any comments or questions? seeing none, let's open this up

for public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item number eight? seeing none, public comment is now closed. do we have a motion to continue this item to our next regular item on march 16? >> so moved. >> thank you very much. moved by commissioner pollock and seconded by commissioner ronen. without objection, the panel will continue item eight to our next meeting on march 16. item nine. >> consideration to approve the agreement with renne sloan holtzman and safai. >> supervisor fewer: i wanted to allow teresa tristricker to present on this item.

>> i am speaking here in my individual capacity and not as your legal advisor as the contracts before you pertains to the firm that i am currently affiliated with and the firm that i will be affiliated with starting next thursday. our firm that has been prproviding legal services to u is splitting. the firm will be splitting into two firms. a new firm is being created called renne public law firm, and that is the group that i will be affiliated with, starting on march 1. we will be located in the offices that are currently located in, and have a similar name, but it is a brand-new firm. in order to allow me to continue to provide legal services, we have made the request that the lafco agree to an assignment of the existing contract with the existing firm under the same terms and conditions without any additional extension from the old firm to the new firm for

services beginning on march 1. any services that are provided between now and the end of february , including, for example, my attendance here today, will be provided on behalf of the current firm, and the current firm will eventually submit a bill for those services for anything between now and the end of february . and so with that, i'm going to go ahead and defer to your interim administrative officer for any additional questions, but if you have any questions about the split of the firm or how that is going to work or what this means for you, i'm happy to provide that information. but as far as from my perspective, you will not see any change. the only change will be the name of the firm that i'm affiliated with. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. yes, miss calvillo? >> yes, thank you, miss stricker. the other point that i wanted to make is we had the city attorney's office review the

terms of the assignment agreement, and they have signed off on all of the language. we're happy to provide that to you, as well, members of the commission, and that beginning march 1st, the assignment agreement will take place, and we will have all of the files transferred from the hyde, miller, owen and troste to the new renne law group. >> supervisor fewer: okay. colleagues, any questions, comments? okay. let's open this up to members of the public. are there any members of the public wishing to comment on item nine snoo seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to approve the contract for renne law group, llc. great. moved by commissioner ronen, seconded by commissioner pollock, so approve the contract for the renne law

group, llc as our law group. madam clerk, can you please call item ten. >> item ten is public comment. >> supervisor fewer: this is the time for members of the public to address items on the panel's jurisdiction and not on the agenda. are there any members of the public that would like to speak. >> yes. eric brooks. this time i'll speak on behalf of our city, san francisco and the san francisco green party. as you move forward and start working on affordable housing, there's a desperate issue that's not being addressed in san francisco and that is small businesses, local small businesses. they are going out of business as if there's a wildfire going through the city. the costa hawkins repeal bill and ballot measures that are in planning are not going to solve the problem.

in my neighborhood, we've lost micano's possibly the best greek restaurant in the united states. polk street produce went out of business because of increased rent. the gangway bar, one of the most historic bars in san francisco for the lgbt community is going to have to go out of business or move. in commissioner fewer's district, she knows there's a natural food business that's being driven out of the district because of the decision by the building owner. we are losing key businesses so fast in this city that san francisco's not going to be recognizable in the next decade if we don't do something about this. so as you move forward on supporting affordable housing and the homeless, we also need to think that some of those homeless may be small business

owne owners that went out of business because no one can cap their rent. and that in turn is replacing all of our businesses with formula retail. it's just -- we're not going to have san francisco unless we solve this problem, so i'd urge you to put that on your future agenda. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. seeing no other public speakers, public comment is now closed. madam clerk, can you please call item number 11. >> item number 11 is future agenda items. >> supervisor fewer: are there any future agenda items that my colleagues would like to comment on or discussion. seeing none, let's open this up to members of the public. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item number 11. seeing none, item 11 is now clerk. madam clerk, are there any other items of business before us today? >> that concludes your items of business for today.

>> supervisor fewer: there being no further items of business, we are adjourned.

the meeting will come to order. welcome to the february 28, 2018 regular meeting of the public safety and neighborhood services committee. i'm supervisor jeff sheehy, chair of the committee, to my right is supervisor ronen and to my left is supervisor ronen and i would like to thank sf gov to have been for staffing the meeting. mr. clerk, any announcements? >> yes, thank you. please make sure to silence all