not enrolled in cap, but we also heard there are not a lot of people who are eligible who are enrolled in cap, so it makes me wonder how much information you actually have on this population. i assume these are low income people, and they're not paying because they can't afford it, but i didn't see that. is that true -- and then, i appreciate that you need to get a little more data on them, probably, to let us know that. >> so a lot of the data that simone was able to pull was from the census. the data for the shut off purely comes from puc, so the census doesn't track, for example, you know, if someone's water was shut off, so knowing their age, gender, racial identity, we don't have that info. all we really have is, you know, are they cap, are they enrolled in cap, what's their address, basically, the basics that we collect. >> commissioner moller caen: right. >> and so -- but it's a very challenging question cane ca. >> commissioner moller caen: i'm just wondering -- what i'm

getting at is if this population were enrolled in cap, would they not be going through this process of getting their water shut off because they'd be able to afford theoretically, and i know the answer is not that simple. >> i think the answer is yes because cap has very strict rules about payments. so one of the reasons that only one cap customer was go and

do that or fill out the form. >> but they are going to end up showing up at the office any

way. >> no, we don't go to their house. we just go outside and turn the meter off. >> commissioner moller caen: it just feels like there's some connections that could be made between, you know, the cap program, the -- you know, the water shutoff piece, this work with the mayor's office to really support these people who are struggling to pay their bills and what that could look like. i know the data challenges, but just -- i agree. yes. yes. >> i completely agree. >> well, i think it's a brilliant idea. i didn't at first. i thought no, no, keep it the old way. but i'm convinced -- but i'm curious. it seems that the key is the 90-day -- 60-day, when the notice goes on the door. i have a similar situation with a tree, that a notice went on the tree, and i never knew it was there. so if there was a notice at my door, i would have known it. but i'm curious, the other

conditions that have so many turnoffs compared to ours, do they have a similar notice on the door after a certain period of time? do you know? >> i know that in california there are very strict regulations. there's very strict regulations on turning folks off, and so why that's day 70 to day 74 is when the california regulations say you can turn the water off. i don't know the ins and outs of michigan's requirements or maryland requirements. i'm happy to do more research. >> i don't mean the exact day, i'm just asking if there's a notice. >> i don't know if there's noticing built into these regulations, but our regulations require noticing, require certain day shut offs, so we just follow those regulations, so yes, anywhere in california would have similar noticing requirements. >> i just want to kind of gauge my colleagues. i find that charging a fee for

turning the water off is nothing less than punitive. that's my personal opinion, but charging a few for turning the water on could be considered more appropriate, especially if we're dealing with repeat offenders, and we want -- we obviously want to make the assumption that everybody is having a problem, that we want to be conscientious about, but i think you were touching on it, and i think we all are thinking it, there are circumstances out there that people are in that they bring on themselves. it's not about being seniors, it's not about being down on your luck, that's just that you don't want to do it, so i would encourage looking at the water fee, before we eliminate it altogether. >> it's for the 48-hour posting, not when we turn it on

or off. you're proposing one fee for the 48 hour notice in. >> correct. >> and believe me, we had a lot of conversation, you know, and i was like, why are we giving away any of the fees, why do we have fees? you know, because staff did a really good job of really articulating what they thought the challenges were. where we ended up or at least what i feel very comfortable with is the initial notice seems that 88% of folks respond to that, so i think that's comfortable, and i think everyone here would tend to agree with that. and then, we felt that turning off the water was just you know, motivation for people to pay the bill. and then, we felt that turning on the water, we actually received our money, or a portion of the money, so we'll turn it back on. so i think it was just the motivation of why put in a

2350e whfee when we know that people went in and paid the bill. so that's one of the reasons i felt comfortable eliminating that fee of turning the water on because it resulted in us collecting some of the money, or not all of it. >> so i'm clear -- thank you, harlan. so there's three fees, and they're all the same: 55, 55, 55. what we're talking about is a future world where the first fee is reduced to something, maybe 35 or something like that, and then, the turnoff, turn back on, we just don't have that because it's not nice? >> well, yeah. >> and it really doesn't make sense, based on what you just said, now, it doesn't make sense to me, either. it took a while for me to get there, so... >> first of all, thank you both for -- very much for doing the deep dive on this. one of the things that started

it was just the observation that every time we come forward with a rate package, we talk about it being less than 2 p.5 of median, and then that's something in the 70 or $80,000 range, and there's a whole lot of folks that don't earn that kind of money. so if that equals hardship, there's a whole lot of hardship out there. that is a simple minded reaction to data, and to solve the problem, or to really understand the problem, it takes a much deeper dive, and to have done that, i really appreciate that. and it's also going to be, i think, food for thought as we go forward as to what kind of assistance we provide for people who are struggling to pay their bills, and for whom a water bill is a meaningful portion of that struggle. so thank you very much.

>> thank you, commissioner. definitely want to point out aaron franks, kristina cordero, marge, i wanted to point out, it was a real team effort, for sure. >> yes. >> commissioner moller caen: i just wanted to add one last thing, way back at slide nine, the cost -- the process that you went through for the cost of service analysis, system to the customer-based views, i think it's very important for all of this. i mean, it -- i'm sure it was difficult to do, and it's something that we were very not clear on for quite sometime, so i think that's a very valuable addition to your study. >> great. thank you, commissioners. and so thank you to all the great staff work, thank you for listening to the presentation, and if there's anything that you want more information on or

you'd like me to cover at the april 10th hearing, please let me know. you all have my contact information. >> eric, i will say if you are going to use a comparison to others, other municipalities, i think a metric would be useful, otherwise, it's not using it for an apples to apples comparison, if you can. you know what i mean, shutoffs? >> shutoffs will not be discussed april 10th. that will be may 8th. >> yeah. thank you. >> thank you. >> so we have two public comments, and i'll open the floor up afterwards. the first one is ann stildrehare. did i pronounce that right? [ inaudible ] >> well, all right then. welcome. >> good afternoon, and thank you for having me. my name is christa brown, and i'm with the financial justice

project. we're housed with the treasurer and tax collectors office here in san francisco, and our office look at how fines and fees may disproportionately impact communities of color. so we are greatful for the leadership you all have shown in this base. i just want to share that first, we are in strong support of the recommendations outlined here today. over the past year, we've been working with a variety of city and county departments, including sf mta, the superior court, the human services agency, public defender, district attorney, to think about the fines and fees they charge low income families, and what solutions might be that result in real reforms for low income people and that are workable and manageable for the city and county department and take revenue considerations into mind. and we think that the proposals outlined today really reflect

those guiding principles. we've seen over and own again across the city and county that flat rate fines and fees, particularly when they're charged to people already struggling to make ends meet can actually push people deeper into poverty, and they can be really counter effective sources of revenue for our city and county, and so we appreciate the thoughts that went into the elimination of the two, the shutoff and the turn on fees and respect that the notice is an important prompt to folks to ensure that their water will be shut off. for the three water shut offs perday, we think that the several hundred fee reduction is no small amount for people who on average make less than $1,000 a month. [please stand by for captioner switch]

>> all matters constitute a consent calender are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission and be acted upon by

a single vote of the commission. there's no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission questions which event the matter will be removed from the calender and considered a separate item. >> i move approval. >> i request to remove item 14. >> we're on consent. >> we're on item 11. >> sorry, my bad. >> we'll move to approve. >> second. [laughter] second it. do we have any discussion? any public comments? let's take a vote. null a favor. >> aye. >> opposed. approved. all right. >> item 12 authorizing a general manager to negotiate and execute amendment number one to the men mum of understanding for the portable reuse exploratory plan to add red wood city and city of

san matteo so expand the study to include additio addition anay 28 months and increase the share funding by up to $50,000. >> do i have a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> any public comments? any discussion? all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. next item, please. >> item 13 approve amendment number 1 to cs211a, approve amendment number 2 to agreement cs11d and authorizing a general manager to negotiate and execute these amendments, increasing agreement cs211a by 1,500,000 and increase agreement cs211d by one million with no change to the contract duration. >> do we have a motion? >> approval. >> second. >> any discussion? >> any public comments?

all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. next item. >> item 14. ward 3 interim greenhouse grand programs. 009g.a-c. cold school cafe and authorizing a general manager to execute three grand agreements with the duration of two years for amounts not to exceed $350,000 for hunters point family and 175,000 for old school cafe, and 175,000 for san francisco conservation core with an option to extend the agreements by one year each and by cumulative amount not to exceed $300,000. >> before we get the motion, we're going to approve the resolution with amendments. >> very minor. first of all, i want to applaud staff and obviously the prevailing parties, old school cafe, hunters point family and the san francisco conservation core. obviously their reputations pre

seed them. but given the commission's action resolutions 160233, and the idea that we have workforce development kind of incapsulated in these grants, and i don't know to what extent each party is going to be required to participate in any actual workforce development because there's other roles and responsibilities here. but also, one thing with respect to the process. i would like something from staff because we formed a committee. for purposes of reviewing the applications, six applications i guess it was, and on that committee was to staff from the p.c. former elected official and agriculture expert and someone else, when we do -- it would put me in a much happier place, if we're going to engage a conversation about folks that are trying to get grants support

from the agency, and that conversation includes workforce development. it seems more appropriate to me to have someone reviewing those applications and engaging those individuals in workforce development techniques, best practices, lessons learned, dos and don'ts, et cetera. i'm not sure we checked that box here. i don't know it matters given the nature of these grants. they're not that big, if you really think about it. but i would like staff to consider that when we move forward, if we are in that workforce development world, we have somebody there who understands our career pathway objectives and understands the necessity i think that we all agree on to linking career path ways, et cetera and so fourth. with that being said, i would like my colleagues to consider the following amendments to the resolution and this is at the

fourth whereas on the second page. which starts with the selected grantees. after this semi colon, following related green sector industries. my amendment will include the following -- grant use must maintain a regular presence at the secf by providing regular updates to the secf commission participating in cohort activities and pre apprentic apprenticeships. facilitated by the sfpoc and partners and ensuring all program participants are exposed to and may participate in pre-apprenticiship programs that provide career pathways to full-time union employment. even though i can't really see, based on the size of these

grants, and the duration of these grants, that we're going to be dealing with young individuals who are going to be doing field work. i don't see how that fits. with this size and duration. when we talk about workforce development grants, it's important to make sure we use consistent terminology and consistent approaches to career pathway administration and development and so that everybody's kind of has a fair shot next time around. when it's probably a little bit more significant. so, i hope i was clear about the amendments but they're nominal, right. they don't change? >> the only question for staff with the consistent with what was stated in the rrsp to perform the limitations. if the r.p.f. did not put them on notice they have to perform, it can't be included in the grant agreement itself. >> david grey, community

benefits. i think the amendments stated are fine. which are alluding to clearly the language is what we've communicated to the grantees both in spirit o spirit of the d the process. it doesn't significantly change the expectations that we've already established with potential grantees. >> i wouldn't think it would. we've been talking about this for years and years and years. back to the councilor's point, so i want to get into that a little more. am i supposed to believe that they have executed some kind of agreement that now i'm already bound to some other terms before we adopt this resolution? >> my understanding is the department issue and r.f.p. sets fourth the expectations of what they're looking for the grantees to say and if we are awarded the grant here are the things we will do. and so when you award the grant,

it is in accordance with what they have proposed. and so to add on the new requirement outside of the scope of the r.f.p. would be a problem. it sounds like mr. grey says this is within the scope of the r.f.p. so it doesn't pose that problem. that's the general principal that applies. >> which want to just really focus on the task at hand, right. because i think what we would want to hear from council is, whether this is within that scope or outside of that scope, not well if it is or if it didn't. >> we can certainly continue the item and i can look at it. i haven't seen it. so this is a new issue that just popped up. i don't know whether it's a material change for the grantees with what they have to propose. >> julie ellis, the r.s.p. did reference pre apprentice and commissioner courtney reviewed the r.p.f. before it was

released so we had met with you and showed you drafts so you have eyeballed it before we released it. >> i think it would be a stretch. i think it would be extremely unwise for a grantee to suggest that changing apprenticiship to pre apprenticiship or one to the other or adding both, would materially change anything. >> i think the urgency around making a decision today versus conditioning the item is just in the spirit of us trying to put a temporary interim greenhouse plan in place while the greenhouses aren't operating. and so there's been a lot of interest in urgency around, we have a mitigation specifically around the southeast community center programming and the workforce development strategy died to the greenhouses and the greenhouses are now out of commission while they get rebuilt. >> this is a big step.

this is a glorious moment in time for us, for the southeast, it's great work. i would be remiss if i didn't -- it's very clear in my mind but to the workers, what a pre apprenticiship, what an apprentice ship is and what a journeyman is. i have to just say, right, ok, as long as we're cool then we're cool. >> that's my amendment. with the potential grantees in the conference we talked about this very issue we want to make sure they're connecting all of their trainees or at the least expos them to pre apprenticiship opportunities as well as apprenticiship opportunities because those lead to the long-term, stable living wage paying-jobs down the line. >> if you think about just the justice peace, you have a lot of

workers with the conservation corps. they can stay there for a long time or they can move up, you know. and sometimes and i tell you i have the same problem. sometimes folks that have good folks working for them ain't really that motivated to move their good folks up, right. so we got to -- we have a right to do it. we have to just give them a little push. >> yes, sir. >> ok so are we ok approving as amended as stated? >> ok. >> do i have a motion -- >> that's my motion. councilor, am i allowed to do that. >> the motion is to adopt the resolution with the throw amendments to the four clause on the second page that you read into the record. >> thank you. >> i'll second. >> any other discussion? >> i just -- just to make sure that there's no undue burden on on the staff it's one thing the grant agreement and i appreciate where commissioner courtney is

going with this. but just to make sure that -- i think that's what you said but i just want to confirm that because of the timeliness of this and we all want to move this project forward that this isn't going to add a layer from the staffing perspective that might delay. >> commissioner vietor, staff is prepared to execute on this and it will not add undue burden on. >> great, thank you. >> excellent. >> clarity. >> absolutely. >> you know me. [laughter] >> yeah, we know you. >> any discussion? any public comments on this item. >> ok, all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. congratulations. >> nicely done. >> exciting. >> item 15 is a work shop update on the power of business plan and affordable access to distribution. >> barbra hail assistant general manager for power.

so today we're going to have a workshop discussion no action. the workshop is for us to discuss a key to our service and gives us the ability to provide electric service to our customers. it was highlighted in our two business plans that we had in 2016, two business plan workshops in 2016. today we'll update that and that is affordable access to the power distribution grid. going over quickly here what the agenda will cover. we're going to cover background on hetchy power, some of the challenges to provide affordable access to distribution. benefits and lost opportunities and some examples of the impacts of the roadblocks we are currently experiencing.

our customers include general fund departments. like muni. enterprises whose funded by revenue that they collect from services that they provide like the airport, the water department. we're also expanding our customer base to include new green communities like pier 70 and the shipyard. all of these customers receive carbon-free electricity. we generate that power as we flow water from the see era to sasee air a.we connect it to bis operated by the california independent system operator to get the electricity into san francisco. pg and e will move power within san francisco and we deliver it

to our customers. we meter and bill our customers. we pay pg and e $10 million each year for this wholesale distribution service. containing the costs associated with distribution service ensuring it's affordable access is a strategy in our business plan. pg and he control and e providen service to san francisco and that's been the case since san francisco began providing electricity service in the early 1900s. here is a condensed summary of the efforts the city has undertaken to overcome the difficulties and accessing distribution services. the city attorney and p.u.c. have worked together on this effort.

you can see that beginning in 1913, with the breaker act san francisco's been providing electricity service from the early 25 to 45 timeframe, we had access to distribution, only through pg and e by selling our power and pge delivered it to our customers. we overcame that challenge after the u.s. supreme court said that that was not a lawful implementation of the rate rack s it took us a little bit but we did get together with pg and e and came seath as the inner sex agreement to make sure that pg and e provided that distribution service to us.

>> in the 90s the law changed and there was a open access era to transmission and distribution services. when our inner connection agreement was scheduled to expire in 2015, we began work to prepare for that regulatory regime where we would receive open access to the distribution service through a federally regulated tariff. as opposed to through a contract. we had difficulty securing that service as you are aware. we're currently receiving that service under the tariff but in the context of waiting for a federal decision on some of the implementation issues that we took exception to. so you can see that san francisco has had distribution system charges working with pg&e

for almost a century. it's the benefits to the city that make it important to persist in our efforts to ensure affordable access to distribution. those benefits are summarized here along with lost opportunities if we don't prevail. when san francisco uses hetchy power it saves the city money and reduces greenhouse emission. the $40 million a year in savings to san francisco taxpayers. carbon' commission to 40,000 cars off the road each year. those savings occur throughout the city in every neighborhood and department. the yellow dots on this map represent the 2,500-metered customers we serve in san francisco. you see the geographic dis persion on the map, our service and benefits are everywhere in

soon fran. the icons are current active department facilities hitting roadblocks, getting access to pg&e's grid as they implement maintenance and upgrades. the icon's map shows projects that are civic institutions, like museums, recreational facilities like pools, swimming pools, health and safety facilities like the fire department's boat berthing project and the ambulance deployment facility. housing projects like our low income senior housing. infrastructure like our own water and wastewater pumps. these departments are facing roadblocks that would increase their project costs unnecessarily. most are connected at secondary or low voltage, with the facility maintenance and upgrade project, pg&e is requiring connection at primary or high voltage.

this road block increases the cost of a project to connect. it's sex times more expensive for that equipment and the primary connection equipment takes up more space. that's another cost that takes up nine times more space than secondary equipment and primary equipment to connect these customers isn't necessary for safety, reliability or legal reasons. >> so why are they requesting it? >> the two on file different the impression to implement the tariff and they are exercising that discretion to make this requirement. we don't have -- i can't explain why pg&e is requiring this. it's not needed for safety, reliability or technical reasons and you will see as i proceed that they don't require it for customers that they serve.

>> we don't know why they're requesting it. >> correct. >> they're not requesting, they're requiring. >> yeah. >> so for other customers, pg&e requires primary equipment when it's 3,000kve or more and for us that would be like zuckerberg general hospital takes service at primary because it's over 3,000k. v.a. private sector engineers hired to work on these city projects are told by pg&e secondary service is acceptable when it's clear the project is taking service from us then pg&e says primary services required if the project is 75 k. v.a. or more.

>> the sfmta toilet, this is a toilet at the end of a bus line. it's a toilet for the use of bus drivers. pg&e required for that facility, which the electric draw is a light, a hand dryer for that facility the city would need to conduct primary equipment. that primary equipment is about eight times the size of the toilet itself. and another example, balboa pool. so a swimming pool, going through renovations is part of the bond program that the park is implementing. that one made the newspaper so senior affordable housing at the jfk tower. everything there is constructed and waiting for the final approach from pg&e on how

service will be provided at that service and north, you see it on the slide as well. pg&e stated that secondary service connection would be appropriate but subsequently these projects were all told that primary equipment was required. and each of these projects is significantly impacted by the pg&e requirement. and providing city services for balboa pool, just to pick an example, that's over a year of no neighborhood pool for swim lessons and fun. given the size of the primary equipment, each faces the potential for loss of public benefits as scarce valuable square footage would be taken up by primary equipment. for pin u.n., the housing

authority project the improved community room that was part of the project improvements, had to be forfeited in the dis agreement with pg&e. these trade offs are impactful to our residents. these negative impacts are avoidable with a reasonable partner providing distribution services. and they're accumulating. effecting many san franciscoans with the lost and revenue, wasted city funds in trying to remove the roadblocks, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, slowing our affordable housing improvements and compromising health and safety improvements. hetchy power services is critical to reaching san francisco's goals and living our values. we will continue and persist in our efforts to overcome these roadblocks to ensure affordable

access to distribution. with that i'm happy to take any questions. >> barbra, is it ok if i just kind of ask a few questions. >> absolutely. >> this is all the inner connection agreement, right? >> it's our inner connection agreement and the replacement for it now that the inner agreement approach is not consistent with federal law. >> the replacement for it includes the super conductor approach they're putting on us. >> primary service. >> is there any other example of an outside utility doing the same to municipals, do they have anything they're showing us that they've done before? >> no. >> is it a can we join them from continuing to require the

additional resources. >> we did file a complaint with firk when we saw the approach that they were taking in the tariff itself. the issue of primary service at 75 k.v.a. we're confronting today and daily practice with pg&e isn't in their tariff, so we didn't include that particular issue in the complaint we filed. however, as we connect customers, pg&e submits quarterly filings at the federal energy regulatory commission describing the approach that was taken for each customer and that gives us an opportunity to flag that issue to the federal energy regulatory commission and we've been doing that routinely.

so we're filing protests there. and that is currently the sort of the legal tools we have available to us. and we are using them. >> when you talk about -- i'm sorry. when you talk about the continuing losses that we're suffering, right, the bus drivers can't use the rest room and the kids can't use the pool, right, and we can't house people that need to be housed -- >> correct. >> we've prohibited from getting federal declar tory relief? because we know it would come, right. and we knee this was the response and this is the beginning of it. are we prohibited from going to get like an injunction? >> now you are asking me the answer a legal question and i'm not an attorney. i will tell you that it's my understanding that we need to

pursue legal remedies with the federal energy regulatory commission first before we can go outside of that venue. >> got it, ok. >> we're on the road pursuing it but that's the only -- that's where we need to start. >> that was what i didn't understand. but i get it now. i also would say that our customers are you know, our city family that we're providing services, they feel the impact and not the p.u.c., you know, they feel the impact. they've been very concerned and passionate as well as the supervisors because they're loosing services in their communities and so there have been a lot of conversations with pg&e like why. why are you holding a pool hostage on this game that you have against the p.u.c. you are costing the rec and park

pools and you close down a pool for a year that's 1/6 of a sid's summer life enjoying the pool. i think we are really motivated to try to deal and solve this because it's really impacting a lot of projects and a lot of customers. i think that the thing that really, there's a lot of stuff troubling about this but it's just that when they go to the customers and say if you take power from us, you can do secondary. and it's unfair. the departments may want to move forward on this project because they don't want the delay but their cost of paying pg&e they will lose that 40 million-dollar low cost of power and so that's been one of our conversations with the department is that, yeah, you want to go to pg&e you have to pay a higher cost.

that's one of the ways we've been keeping the city family together is just explain that to them. >> and the over all g.h.g. benefits as well have been a compelling part of the conversation with the city departments. i'm really just -- as the general manager says, these are impacts to the p.u.c. but they're really impacts to the customers we're trying to serve so we're just trying to give voice and daylight for you what the customer experience is as well. >> yeah and i want to speak up for the planet too and some of the goals that we're trying to achieve as a municipality with climate change. just to follow-up on this thread. the game plan, because it sounds like the federal and the legal recourse route could take some time? >> it has already. >> and it could additionally. i am wondering if there's additional actions that could be taken, what the game bla plan i?

do you need to way until firk or some ruling before taking any other action. not necessarily legal? >> yeah, first of all, you know, we're pursuing at firk and pg&e is there and we have all these meetings to help try and resolve this. but i would say one of the reasons we wanted to update you here is because the board of supervisors is calling a hearing on this and we wanted to make sure that we present what some of the challenges have been because they've been involved firsthand. we've been called to the office of some of the supervisors along with pg&e to explain why you are not hooking this up and balboa pool, they're modifying, renovating and requiring primary

service which will take up a large portion of their facility space. it seems like they're willing to work on certain projects and for us it becomes like ok, you know, we got to come to you and every project and wait for the delay and we just feel that you know, that's just -- inappropriate. so hopefully we're hoping things get better. we just wanted to make sure that you were informed because we're going to hearing has been upon. >> i'm trying to figure out how to get through these log jams. >> constant conversations with our customers and pg&e until we

pursue all of the legal courses before we can do another maneuver. >> we are hoping that as we find solutions for individual locations, we can convince pg&e can be replicated in other locations so that is an effort we have been pursuing. weather it will prevail i can't predict. we've tried to kept dialogue open to make sure we can identify early when conflicts are coming up and how we can overcome them constructively. so that the pool doesn't stay closed too long or the affordable housing facility doesn't stay empty waiting for folks to move back in while this dispute continues. you did mention commissioner,

when you asked your question about how long do we have to wait for this to be resolved. part of the challenge we're facing is we can't wait. even though we have this uncertainty, even though we have this disagreement, we're still having to connect customers, right. and keep the city moving. so that has been part of the challenge is the lack of clarity and rules and the rationality and rules has made it different for us but we are going forward and connecting customers and making sure that we do get the services opened. >> all right. >> thank you. >> excuse me. i have been working in this area it seems like too much of my life. and it is confounding in that the relationship with pg&e. you laid out some of the timeline. during that time, the relationship has not always been

sour. there have been ups and downs. my observation is that it seems as though those ups and downs are driven by corporate policy. and corporal policy changes overtime and the relationship changes overtime. and i find it unfortunate in regretable that the a parent policy at this point in time was to make life difficult in ways that are difficult or impossible to explain. and i would hope that pg&e has a long history in this city and there are a lot of constructive and good things that they do in this city. i think it's regretable that in this particular area that they have chosen, i think an indefenseable and impugn tive approach and i hope they see it

clear approach. this is also in the closed session, after this meeting so we'll have a chance to discuss it further. >> thank you, very much. >> thank you. >> all right. any public comments on this item? so with that we're going to enter closed session. item 18. can you talk about that? >> i'll read the closed session items and call for public comment. >> ok. >> item 18 litigation city and council tee of san francisco versus county of alameda. 19, existing litigation pacific gas and electric. 20, existing litigation pacific gas and electric. 21 existing grid laying pacific gas and electric. item 22, existing litigation,

pacific gas and electric. 23 exiting litigation pacific gas and electric. and item 24, existing litigation, city and county of san francisco versus pacific gas and electric. >> do we have any public comments on items that will be heard during closed session? ok. >> we need a motion. >> i will move to assert. >> second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> t time.

>> all right. any other new business, commissioners? all right. this meeting is adjourned; thank you for your time. .

>> my name is jan an wong a

regional paralyzing in the bureau i did not see might have as at management in the beginning which my career i have a master in civil engineering i thought i'll follow a technical career path i scombrie being able to create a comprehensive plan implement and shape it into realty love the champs of working through cost quality schedule political and environmental structuring and finding the satisfaction of seeing the project come into fruition i've also take advantage of the sfpuc training program yunt my certification i see the flow from the pipeline

into the tunnel one by one and i also had several opportunities to attend and make presentations at conferences also as a tape recording san francisco resident authenticity rewarding to know the work i do contribute to the quality of life my life and those around volunteers. >> my name is mark a proud grand date i didn't all over san francisco residents are adopt rains to keep our sewer system healthy i'm adopted a grain draining i thought of a simple illusion to a big problem it will help out the neighborhood and be responsible for the places we live i want or apparent to the web site and

>> all right. welcome to our land use committee meeting of april 2, 2017. i'm katy tang and to my right is supervisor jane kim. we will see if supervisor safai will show up. our clerk is not erica major, but victor young. and from sf -- do we have any announcements >> yes. completed speaker cards and k07