[inaudible] >> supervisor fewer: thank you. moved by commissioner ronen and seconded by commissioner pollock. without objections, these minutes are approved. madam clerk, can you please call item number three.

>> clerk: item three, community choice agreg ation activities report. >> good morning, commissioner, michael himes, director for the program for the sfpuc. y i have a verbal update for you today, and i'm going to cover the usual items with a couple of additions. i'll speak to our enrollment, outreach and status of service to customers. i'll also provide a planning update and some legislative work that we're doing. i am joined by suzanne murkelson of our policy and

affairs team to assist in that discussion later on. so with respect to enrollment service, cleanpowersf service and the currently enrollment effort continue to move along successfully. as we've discussed in previous meetings, this month, we're enrolling a large number of commercial and residential accounts into the cleanpowersf program, approximately 27,000 in total. i've been reporting that the opt out rate or percentage has been 3.2% for the program year to date. the opt out rate for the group of customers being enrolled is 1.6%. when we account for these two pools in the previous customers and the new customers, the cumulative rate is 2.8. so i've been reporting on these different percentages going forward. future going forward we'll just have one consolidated

cumulative opt out rates. we've also been reporting that our supergreen rate has been 4.2%. that's been fairly steady, and that is he ai anumber that we've built up to throughout the past couple of years through outreach to existing customers. the current large enrollment effort will bring this number down a bit to 3.4%, so that's a reduction due to the fact that we're bringing on a large number of new accounts. but we do expect it'll come back up over time with our continued outreach efforts to customers to sign up for supergreen. and i'll pause there and pitch for anyone listening to sign up for supergreen and cleanpowersf, you can do so on

cleanpowersf.org. on the outreach front, i wanted to provide a bit more information to you on this. our team is really doing a lot of work. cleanpowersf enrollment advertisements are up, they're on-line, they're on the radio, and they're in print. our early data indicates that our digital ads are performing really well, and above our sort of industry average metrics. i also wanted to comment specifically to outreach to communities of limited english proficiency. this came up at the last meeting. i just want to comment on a few things that we're doing to address this. we have program overview brochures that are in spanish and chinese. we're also in the process of translating them into filipino right now. we have print ads that are running in spanish and chinese

language periodicals. our website is also being translated into spanish, chinese and filipino, and we expect that to be fully live this fall, and that's -- just in terms of timing, this is ahead of the residential focused enrollment which we're targeting for spring of next year, so we're making a big push right now to make sure that we can communicate to our population. we're also looking at additional language -- languages for the website, including vietnamese and korean. we will of course partner with community groups ahead of that enrollment, that up coming residential enrollment. and then, one other thing that i wanted to comment on, and this is partly based on our discussion last time, we're looking into translating the

joint rate mailer, and i think that was some feedback that we got. it'll either be a direct translation of that document or some other version of it that'll use that information, so you know, thanks for that input. and then, you know, something -- we talked a little bit about lafco and the executive director's work plan. i know that we'll have some ongoing conversations, but we'd be interested in exploring further opportunities for programming around equity issues and disadvantaged communities, it's something that the p.u.c.'s already working on, but i think this could be another great area of collaboration. and in that convenient, cleanpowersf actually hosted an sf fellows. it's a fellowship program that the city runs, group praj that examined outreach to disadvantaged communities, so we'd love to build on that

experience? a few other outreach items. as you're probably aware, the governor's global climate summit will be held in san francisco in september, so we're doing a lot of work around that. for example, we're hoping to have some supergreen customer announcements and press releases around that time. we're also going to be doing social media and paid advertising campaigns to really encourage supergreen upgrades. i think a lot of what we're going to be working on is focusing on supergreen and using that opportunity to try to galvanize folks around taking that step. cleanpowersf is also a sponsor of the sf green film festival, and as part of that sponsorship of a film screening, there'll

be a panel on green climate and climate change. and some other activities that are ongoing, we've done them in the past, we're sponsoring events including the golden gate electric vehicle association meeting. that's an annual event. and sunday streets. we table all the sunday streets. we've been doing phone banking with the sierra club and 350 sf -- excuse me, 350 bay area, and those have been one really excellent vehicle for us to get these sign ups to supergreen. and then, we're doing presentations to various associations throughout the city, especially business associations now that we're doing this very commercial focused enrollment. so that's on the outreach front. with respect to contracting, and i wanted to inform you of one specific action that's

underway. on tuesday, we presented to the board's government audit and oversight committee, a resolution to authorize an amendment to cs 247-r. that's a contract with calpine energy service solutions? under that contract, calpine provides essential business services to the cleanpowersf program, including meter data management, billing, and customer service? and part of the customer service element, calpine staff manages a paul center for the cleanpowersf program. the initial contract under cs 247-r was awarded in november 2015. it featured a three-year term and provided the city with options to extend the contract for two additional three-year terms, so we're looking to exercise one of those extensions. and -- and calpine supported the support since its launch in

may of 2016, and this is really sort of a critical time, obviously, because we're growing the program, so having a business continuity of these services is really important. the extension -- the total value of the contract extension will be approximately $18.8 million. the contract costs are based on the number of customers served by the program and supported by the contractor. it's a peraccount service, which is why the overall size of the contract's going up. as part of this process, though, we did negotiation a price reduction, and that's going to amount to about $2.2 million in savings during the term of the contract. and, you know, wanting to comment, too, that this extension, you know, it ensures continuity of really critical business services for the program during the enrollment

period. it's also going to provide time for the sfpuc to further develop internal resources and capabilities to in-house some of these functions? and in particular during this next three-year term we intend to do that with the call center, so as part of that, p.u.c.'s budget has included new positions to start staffing a call center within the p.u.c. to support cleanpowersf, so that work is all underway. in fact, the contractor, through its local business enterprise requirement, is now placed for customer service representatives in the sfpuc, which will start picking up the phones for cleanpowersf probably beginning in august? so we're very excited about this development, and it's really heading in the direction that the city intended? so last point on this is that this item will be in front of the full board next tuesday.

and then, on the regulatory and program planning front, i wanted to let you know that our team, our staff have been working on an integrated resource plan or i.r.p. for the cleanpowersf program. an i.r.p. is a plan to examine how an electric service provider can cost effectively and reliablely meet its future needs while also meeting other program goals and objectives? the i.r.p.'s required under state law, and it's also a policy of the sfpuc that we prepare an i.r.p. every two years. this is good utility business practice, and the power enterprise for our public utility operation has also done this and completed a draft late last year. we retained the engineering firm black and fee at technical consult -- as technical

consultants to conduct the i.r.p. analysis and support the draft report. the -- you know, the intent, again, of this analysis is to help the cleanpowersf program and to help the p.u.c. make its form procurement decisions as it embarks on full enrollment and scales up its program demand? it's intended to identify resources and actions that will help us meet city and statewide mandates when it comes to renewable energy and greenhouse gas reductions? we do have a draft of that i.r.p. report, and we will share that with the lafco? and i am suggesting we present on the i.r.p. work at one of lafco's up coming meetings. and i also wanted to mention on the requirement side, the cpuc has responsibility for overseeing the i.r.p. process

for retail sellers. that includes the investor and utilities and c.c.a. cleanpowersf. and they adopted a decision in february that required a compliance filing on this in august, so we are going to be submitting a compliance filing on the i.r.p. in august. but one thing i want to emphasize is this is the i.r.p. process is a living process. it's an ongoing process, so there's a lot of opportunity to engage on this. we'll be preparing a report every two years. so any way, i want -- i want to introduce that to you because i think it's something that we can have quite a bit more discussions about going forward. >> and that concludes my report. >> supervisor fewer: i-- [inaudible] >> yes, it did.

>> supervisor fewer: as cs 27-r. >> cs 247-r. >> supervisor fewer: and then, another thing with the call center, there'll be people that can speak different languages? >> yes. >> supervisor fewer: and which languages are those? >> let's see...i think it covers all of the language ordinance requirements, but even beyond spanish, chinese -- i believe we have russian, tagalog. i would need to take another look to get you the whole list, but it's about six different languages that are supported. >> supervisor fewer: okay. that's great. >> and to be clear, the staff that are placed in the p.u.c. right now don't cover all of those languages themselves? we do outsource language translation services if needed? >> supervisor fewer: okay. got it. that's great.

seeing no comments, let's open this up for public comment. any public speakers, thank you, mr. hyams. hello, mr. brooks. >> hello. eric brooks, san francisco clean energy advocate and californiians for energy choice. so i just want to focus on state level legislation. thank you for in your last meeting putting a stop or saying no to ab 813. that was really crucial. the one that you've got on your agenda, sb 247 would be even more damaging to community choice. i was a little bit late and missed some of the presentation from the sfpuc, but the last conversation the advocates had with the sfpuc, it didn't look very promising to get them on board to hope oppose these bills and help get cal c.c.a. to oppose these bills. they're an agency that has very

specific focus on its own internal needs and objectives. san francisco public utilities commission especially, and also, other existing c.c.a.s are pretty much only looking out for their own back yard and they're not thinking about these bigger implications of these bills, and that's how we ended up with this vote at cal c.c.a. where seven of the people that voted supported ab 813 and five of them were, you know, were -- basically decided to abstain. one of those that supported it -- i can't name, but one of the ones that voted in support has actually change his mind so they didn't really even pass this at cal c.c.a. however without pressure from the sfpuc and real proactive action from the sfpuc, we're going to have a very hard time, and the only reason ab 813 got out of committee is because cal

c.c.a. supported it. the lejs laytors said so. so we -- legislators said so. so we need you to get them on board on the public front. >> supervisor fewer: all right. thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. colleagues, comments, questions? nothing? i would just say to mr. hyams that it would be helpful to have a written document to follow just because we have a lot of different -- i mean, i think when you're telling us verbally, i don't know about my colleagues, it's just easy toer follow when there's a written document for -- easier to follow when there's a written document for us to follow. now there's no further action on this matter. madam clerk, can you call item number four? [agenda item read] >> supervisor fewer: thank you, and i see our executive

officer, brian goebel, to address this item. and teresa strickler is reaccusing herself. thank you. mr. gobel. >> i just want to give you an update of the proposal for lafco public services. i have a draft r.f.p. that will be sent out in the next week or so. since the contract language for legal services hasn't been updated in many years, i've just needed a little time so review the duty so that i can be thorough in the r.f.p. i should have a significant update at our next meeting on sept 21 as the r.f.p. would probably have been issued by then and we probably would have received submissions, and i expect the whole process to be completed by november . >> supervisor fewer: thank you, mr. gobel. commissioner pollock?

>> commissioner pollock: thank you so much for working on this. i know we have been long overdue to take a look at our legal services. in the last meeting that we had, i had made some comments that in past years that our legal services specifically with ms. miller, that it was hard to know if there was a conflict of interest, and i just wanted to clarify my comments from the last time, which was this was in regard to the last time when there was a stall at the sfpuc in terms of the commission and we were asking for legal advice then. so it's not been in the recent years, and i just wanted to make sure that that was well -- that that was noted and that you understood that it wasn't a recent issue. >> okay. >> commissioner pollock: okay. >> thank you for the clarification. >> commissioner pollock: thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. okay. let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public? hi, michael. how are you today? >> legal services should also

be applied to the most vulnerable disadvantaged people to the city, people with disabilities, both mental and physical and wheelchairs and our veterans. the city is making millions off the backs of this class of people, and it's not fair. for example, the wynton hotel went for about 30 years, numerous health and safety code violations and violations of the americans with disability act. i got put in that building by barbara garcia, and i stayed in that building for five months. as a result, i had to conduct my own investigation and standup for my rights and the rights of other people who were living in the building nine and ten and 15 years. turns out a white skinned colored male to my right, he'd been living in that building for 12 years. hundreds of bed bugs, roaches, mice, all in his apartment. black skinned colored male to my right had been living in the building seven years, same living conditions. was wondering where this

infestation was coming from because both of these people both sides of me, not coming from me. so i ended up filing a complaint. and as a result, investigators came town. high team's looking at me like i'm crazy, saying we've got the best building we've got. i said if that's the best building you've got, i'd hate to see the worst building you've got. and then, i got a call from the health department saying the attorney general wants to use my testimony in a lawsuit. then, you used it and you sued the family for $1.5 million, and they don't get one penny. i had a heated discussion with the director about that. you should have gotten money for people living in those conditions. it turns out senior citizens were living like that get. now, it turns out you're doing that again. you need representation for people who are actually on the

receiving end and punishment of those kind of violations. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, michael. seeing no other -- oh, yes. >> sorry. so eric brooks with our city san francisco, san francisco green party, and the clean energy groups i mentioned earlier. i would agree with the commissioner that in -- in her comments that the relationship between legal and cleanpowersf moving forward has been a lot better recently, but i do want to reiterate what i said the last time, which is that especially when we're getting into public banks and what to do about housing and homelessness and issues like that, where financial interests are directly involved, especially in the housing and homelessness issue, it's really vital that we have a law firm that is local, here in our community, that has to give a darn about the community and has to be responsive to pressure from the community and

accountable, so i would hope that's where we end up, and also with a firm that hopefully is less -- more into public good and things like that and lesser into things like real estate interests. thanks. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. seeing no other public speakers, public comment is now closed. no action needs to be taken on this matter. madam clerk, can you please call item number five. >> clerk: item five, update on state lemgs lation. california assembly bill 813 and california senate bill 237. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. mr. gobel, i believe you have a presentation. >> madam president, i do. i just wanted to give you an update on 813. at the last meeting, you wanted me to provide a letter of opposition from lafco. i've prepared that and it'll be going out today in advance of the 'emly appropriations hearing in midaugust.

the -- assembly appropriations hearing in midaugust. the other thing i wanted to talk about today is sb 237. the legislation by southern california senator bob hertzberg also scheduled to be heard in the appropriations committee next month on the assembly side. i have been taking a look at this. environmental and clean energy advocates say this legislation really poses a direct threat to community choice energy programs across the state. it could certainly take a chunk of business away from cleanpowersf. that's because it would essentially lift the cap on the amount of electric service commercial and industrial customers can directly acquire from energy service providers. so these customers who would normally signed up with investor owned utilities or c.c.a. programs could choose to directly purchase power that would likely be or could be

cheaper dirty energy. historically, direct access customers from real -- have really done the bare minimum to comply with the carbonization mandates in contrast to c.c.a. which are collectively exceeding these mandates. so it could harm california's climate goals and san francisco's climate and renewable energy goals. cal c.c.a., our association of community choice energy programs has argued that this bill may cause california energy markets to race to the bottom for the cheapest power that barely meets state mandates. and they argue that it would lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions. commissioners, i could agree with the commission's greenhouse gas assessments, and i would ask that you authorize me to write a letter of

opposition on behalf of lafco. suzanne merkelson is here also if you have any questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you so much. commissioner pollock? >> commissioner pollock: thank you so much. mr. gobel, just looking at the draft letter for 813, has that already gone out? >> it has not. >> commissioner pollock: i want to ask if there's any way we could add language that sort of gives it a time stamp in terms of noting that we're opposing the legislation as it's written because i know that the sfpuc is -- and others are talking about some amendments to add. and so just to give, you know, that -- some air in the room in terms of the room that they're doing is to just clarify that we're -- guewe are opposing it it's written at a later date --

you don't need to put this part in the letter, but at a later date, we may become neutral or change our position on that. >> okay. i'll be happy to do that, and i'll also confer with miss merkelson from the p.u.c. >> commissioner pollock: thank you, and i would trust you on the language that went out. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. is it miss merkelson? so on sb 237, could you give us sort of the view of the p.u.c. or the opinion of the p.u.c. >> sure. at this point, we don't have a position on the bill? we find that it's -- you know, we have concerns about the bill and cal c.c.a. shares those concerns especially regarding decarbonization? and -- oh, thank you. so we think it's actually preferable and more strategic and effective to let environmental and at -- like, consumer ad row cass see organizations lead on this. we're supporting them, we're working with them, including

sierra club, turn, 350.org. so this bill would only impact commercial customers, it would not impact residential customers? and you know, we see these community choice programs are choice, and we're already competing with the i.o.u.s, so we'll have to do our best to compete with direct access providers should this bill pass. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. commissioners? commissioner pollock? no. any comments? none at all. let's hear from our public comment speakers, please. >> yes. eric brooks again, san francisco clean energy advocates and californiians for clean energy choice. i really have to strongly challenge what i just heard from sfpuc staff. the only reason ab 813 got out of committee is that cal c.c.a.

did not opposed it. had they opposed 237 in committee, it might have been held back in committee or at least would have gotten less votes which gives us a stronger ability to kill it in the future. i really -- and the idea that being in a neutral position and claiming that you're working with environmental groups that have an opposed position, when your agency, your trade association is the reason that these bills are moving forward, is not legitimate. and i'm sorry to get back into a position to have to strongly challenge the sfpuc, but this is one of those times. if direct access is opened up, every large city that has large commercial and industrial customers, especially those that have not established community choice yet, all of those companies will be decimated. all the companies will leave even if they're getting clean

energy because they're getting a better deal with bigger companies with lower economies of scale. so this is not really good. we need the board of supervisors to pressure the sfpuc. i'll mention this more on future agenda items, but these bills are now being conegotiated with some fire bills that i've notified the chair about and the executive officer. sb 1088, ab 33, and sb 901 that would all take the liability of companies like pg&e for fire damage that they cause and put it on consumers. so i'll talk more about that on the next items. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. >> my statement is related to senate bills, as well, but not the ones that's on point here. but you have senate bills by david chiu pertaining to testing assault kits, information has produced facts that there's a minimum of 1,600

untested assault kits. i suspect there's at least maybe -- no, 1,600 assault kits -- no, 16,000 assault kits that hasn't been tested. i suspect there's about 1,000 or more kits sitting at the hall of justice. i made a demonstration before the police commission, and you should create an additional bill to follow up on that $2 million that was given to the police department to test those assault kits. assault kits, i believe, wasn't put into the electronic codis systems. i talked to one of the police officers, he says they are. and i believe that the backlog that they admit that they have need to be tested, so i believe there should be some bills and legislations to enforce that because my demonstration pertained to continual injury where they're under the

impression that those old kits cannot be tested because of the statute of limitations is a false narrative. and if you do so, i'll predict that numerous assaulters will be caught because of the d.n.a. evidence. those are the most easiest kind of cases to prove because they've got your fingerprint of your body fluids, your sperm and your fingerprints and skill cells within that assault kit, and they're sitting on a shelf at the hall of justice. it's not fair to the female victims. i suspect mr. deangelo, you've got his evidence in other cases because you haven't tested all the kits. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. commissioners, questions, comments, would anyone like to make a motion? yes, commissioner pollock?

>> commissioner pollock: a question for mr. gobel in terms of senate bill 237. is there an idea when this will actually have a vote? is it a two-year bill? it's gotten out of committee, so do you know if it's been agendaized? very least that

we could actually write a letter because we can't speak for the san francisco board of supervisors, but we can actually speak for san francisco lafco, that on behalf of the san francisco lafco, we would write an opposition letter. >> commissioners, i would happy to work with you and your staff

to draft that letter and send it out as soon as possible. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. miss wong, do we need to have a vote on that to take action on that. >> clerk: no, not required. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. so let's call item number six, please. >> clerk: item number six, executive officer's report on executive officer work plan update, emerging mobility services update, and cleanpowersf 2.0 service updates. >> supervisor fewer: hello, mr. gobel. >> hello, madam chair, commissioners. i have a few updates, starting with the work plan which i approved at the last meeting. first of all, i wanted to let you know that i have been meeting exami meeting and talking with staff. we are mandated to monitor cleanpowersf, but the language in the m.o.u. in the original

2007 ordinance which commissioner pollock, we talked a little bit about at the last meeting, was written cleanpowersf started and really addressed lafco's role in the program's beginning stages. what i wrote in the work plan was my assessment after reviewing the m.o.u. and the ordinance, but i think it's probably time for that language to be updated, so what i would like to propose is that i continue to meet with sfpuc staff advocates, your staff, to come up with some more detailed language on how lafco will continue its important role monitoring cleanpowersf, how we can effectively work together and then update the work plan language and bring it back to you for approval after the august recess. >> supervisor fewer: great. >> second, at the last meeting, commissioner pollock directed me to move forward on an r.f.p. study on c.c.a. 2.0 or the next face of cleanpowersf.

quite frankly, as the new executive officer, i'm still trying to understand what c.c.a. 2.0 means, but i think in the broader sense, it gets us thinking about the future of cleanpowersf and energy independance in san francisco. so as we consider cleanpowersf's future and addressing your request for a clean -- c.c.a. 2.0 study, commissioner pollock, one idea that briefly emerged was how cleanpowersf can develop more programs for disadvantaged communities it would identify what under privileged meaned in a c.c.a. context and generate a list of program ideas. if we did this, it would be very useful for other c.c.a. programs across california. so i haven't really had an opportunity to get into detail on this, but this is something i've discussed with the sfpuc

staff and with some of your staff, commissioners, and i wanted to call your attention to it today. i'd be happy to develop a scope for this and bring it back for your approval if you're interested in pursuing it. finally, i wanted to briefly update you on the study on mobility services. i had a chance to meet with staff from the san francisco county transportation authority, and i'm working right now on completing a draft scope. hope to have that ready in the next few weeks, and i will have a presentation for you on the scope at our september 21 meeting, thank you at the last meeting, commissioner ronen, you asked me to include in that study how we can help taxi drivers who are struggling to payoff their medallion loans. so today, i'd like to ask for direction on this.

the m.t.a. as you know hired a consultant which has produced a draft report on how to improve the health of the taxi industry, and they do address briefly in their report some of the issues that medallion holders are having in terms of struggling to pay their loans. what i would like to propose is instead of doing a separate study on this, is that i analyze the m.t.a.'s report and other work that has been done in this area and come up with our own list of recommendations on how to help these drivers. so i'm proposing to do this separate from the study on emerging mobility services and labor. and lafco is authorized to do this work under our special studies authority. so with that, madam chair, i'll turn it back to you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. commissioner ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. that might work.

i -- what i -- i want to provide some relief to particularly the group of taxi drivers who bought their medallion at a very high cost, right when its value basically plummeted. and i -- i -- i -- i -- i'd move to ask chair fewer perhaps to talk a little bit about your conversations with these workers and with the m.t.a. because i know you've done quite a bit of work to give some feedback because the report that you referred to, it -- my sense of it is it's not going to help those workers to the degree that they need help, and they're -- they're in dire straits. >> supervisor fewer: so i agree.

>> supervisor ronen: yeah, go ahead. >> supervisor fewer: i have to say, that report is inadequate. after reviewing that report, it doesn't give them any relief, and actually, it doesn't explore how the m.t.a. could give them financial relief, which i think they shied away from. i think after speaking with the director of the m.t.a., it is his position that they will not offer financial relief but rather incentives to make the medallions more valuable, and i think quite frankly we are we're at a point where the medallions have lost all value. so i welcome a deeper analysis. i cannot believe we are the only city that are suffering under this, the impact -- the financial impact of t.n.c.'s. so if you could expand your search to the medallion sales

in cities such as new york, which their taxi drivers are suffering from the same thing, too. that if you could look at these same types of situations where they have sold these to taxi drivers, and they have found these permits now or medallions are a burden, but there's no way to give more value to the medallions or the permits. i think that's the situation we're under, and so we can compare and bring some ideas forth. i think we waited for the study. i think i found the study wanting and also inadequate, so i welcome a fresh set of eyes at it in a deeper analysis to do that work. and so if you don't mind, mr. gobel, i actually think this is something we're very much involved in. if it's within the scope of lafco, even better. commissioner pollock? >> commissioner pollock: thank you so much.

it's so good to hear commissioner ronen and fewer's comments about just clarifying the need and the importance and the sort of gap in and what the m.t.a. study is really getting at. and so i would support doing a separate study where you do analyze -- you analyze the existing draft but then also to create a scope of work for any additional study that you might want to recommend to the commission to direct your work further. i mean, that would -- that would be sort of step one is yes, do what you've proposed to us here today, and then, step two is if then, now what? what do we do going further? i mean, there's clearly going to be a gap that you identify and -- and how you explore that, i think we just don't

know yet, but i would be eager to hear what you say at that point. >> okay. thank you, commissioner. i -- i would be happy to develop a scope for this and to come back, also, at our september 21 meeting to make this separate from the labor study on emerging mobility services, and i'll bring the scope for that, and the scope for this study back to you for a presentation on september 21. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, mr. gobel, that's perfect. let's open this up for public comment now. are there any members of the public that would like to speak? >> i have a lot of respect for city hall and board of supervisors, even more so for the females whom i'm always willing to standup for, and i'm quick to react when i see a violation that's taking place when somebody's trying to undermine them. i've come to a board meeting one day, next thing you know, i'm surrounded by about 10 to

15 and indian descent cab drivers who want me to speak up for them because they're being charged $250,000 for a medallion. that's a discrimination bases on rents. you've got taxi drivers that work for lyft and uber. the majority of their staff are on or about the skin color of white. all these medallions that's given to the arabic drivers and drivers of indian descent are people of color. you've got a situation enjoyed by one class of taxi drivers but not another. you're deliberately charging them $250,000 for a medallion in order to drive a taxi, whereas lyft drivers and uber drivers are only paying, what, 125,000? some, probably not even paying it off. why are you price fixing and charging those arabic and indian descent taxi drivers

more than when you're charging people of different nationality? that's a violation of the civil rights act of 1964. you're discriminating based on skin color 'cause you've got a skin color that's enjoying not paying $250,000 for a medallion, and then, you've got another skin color that's having to pay $250,000 in order to drive a taxi. so that's enough right there for you to penalize it. whose idea was it to do this, way -- [inaudible] >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. thanks. >> hello, again, commissioners. eric brooks, our city, san francisco green party, san francisco clean energy advocates and californiians for energy choice. so first, real quick on the taxi issue and the ride hails,

i want to just second what all the commissioners said about making this become a real independent report and also a report that focused on solutions that we can actually use. the main one that i can think of is either fees or taxes. fees if taxes won't work on the ride hail corporations, uber and lyft, and the others, and chariot, so that we can get the money we need to bail out these taxi drivers from those corporations that don't -- they and their drivers don't pay any of these medallion fees. so on cleanpowersf, i definitely want to give a big thumbs up to continuing with community choice 2.0 because it's vital. right now we've got a situation where moody's is predicting that 80 -- within a few years, 85% of the load in california will be taken up by community choice. if community choice programs

are not building local renewables efficiency and battery storage then there's going to be far too much demand for renewables supply. the cost will go up and threaten the whole movement of community choice. and also on these bills we're facing, we would have a lot more autonomy if we had our own local renewable sufficiency battery storage, if we had our own independent local energy systems, we would be able to withstand bills like this much better, but no community choice programs have that yet, and so we really need to get cracking on 2.0. thanks. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. commissioner pollock? >> commissioner pollock: thank you so much. just to build off of mr. brooks' comments, i know that mr. gobel has been working

around advocates around clean power 2.0, so just ask that you continue the work that you're doing in that. and in that, i believe the local buildout has been a feature of that ongoing investigation and that you continue to look at that. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: and mr. gobel, i would like you to expand your scope when -- of study around the taxi drivers and the medallion issue to include a racial analysis, also. thank you very much. thank you, michael, for that suggestion. >> you're very welcome. >> supervisor fewer: and then -- there's no action for this committee to take. madam clerk, can you please call item number seven. >> clerk: item number seven. public comment. members of the public may address the lafco on items that are within their jurisdiction and not on today's agenda. >> supervisor fewer: are there any members that would like to

spe speak? hello. >> hello again. this time i would like to speak to a false narrative and speak about the people coming to the board of supervisors line about the multiple millions and billions of dollars that twitter and other high tech companies is making and contributing to the city. sf, viewer, please. i demonstrated well over several times and showed how a minimum of $217 billion worth of tax-free money has been awarded to twitter and other high tech companies when that money should be contributed to the city and county of san francisco and used to the big who are in biggest need. in 2006, when the payroll tax had been cut by nearly half and gross receipts, taxes raised accordingly, nearly 400,000 more businesses paid gross tax than paid in payroll tax,

according to the october city receipt reports. now here's a graph on how payroll taxes have decreased and less money has been contributed into the city of san francisco. as you can see here, in 2012, all the way up to 2018, the payroll taxes decreased, and that money that's being decreased contributing to the city is going into the pockets of the high tech companies, okay? now, as far as other companies, multibillion dollar companies, according to the committee executive summary, last year's city hotel tax brought in $370 million, okay? annual payroll pertaining to taxes in tourism and the industry exceeded $2.5 billion, which increased the tax contribute to over $700

million. how come that's not applied to -- [inaudible] >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. [inaudible] >> supervisor fewer: thank you, michael. thank you very much. public comment is now closed -- oh, so, so sorry. >> never mind. i'm going to do it on the next item. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. [inaudible] >> supervisor fewer: would you like to come up, sir? public comment is now reopened.

>> i remember when the city had a -- how do you say, a maybe 15, 20 years ago when things looked a lot different than they do now, and i'm proud of san francisco for, you know, just continuing in its development, and that's all i had to say. i'm happy with the city and its socioeconomic competition and it's willingness to do things like bring back public pay for -- so people can go to school for free at the community colleges here and whatnot. we haven't had that since 1980. so i'm proud of san francisco. i don't see any racial issues. i just see big going on and, you know -- and we work with business. it's part of a community. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. public comment is now closed. madam clerk, please call item

number eight. >> clerk: item number eight, future agenda items. >> supervisor fewer: are there any members of the public who would like to speak on item number eight? okay. good. >> take that as an indication that you don't have any future agenda items to talk about. well, i do, and in a way this is a future what the chair might decide item and also what the chair might decide to take to the board of supervisors item. so i mentioned these fire bills. so as happened last year, governor brown, who wants ab 813 to go forward, he's got family that's in the -- in the fossil fuel energy industry and that's part of the deal, really wants ab 813 to move forward, and the way he tried to move it forward last year, but we managed to block him, but last year was a different story, he tied the passage of sb 100 to

ab 813. and now that the big fire bill issue has come up, and the liability of companies like pg&e have come up, he's now tied both of those, the clean energy bill, ab 813, now those are tied to negotiations on the tire bills, and so -- and -- fire bills. and the intention of that is to bring pg&e to support the other bills, to kind of give them something in the fire bills so they support the other bad bills. so this is a really cynical conflagration. it's a huge problem. you won't be able to take action on it, but sb 1088 -- it's 1-0-8-8, ab 33, and sb 901, which is the same author at 1088, are all being opposed by reform and a lot of clean energy advocates because of the

dynamics and also because they would take the cost of fire prevention and fire liability off of the utilities and put them on customers. and as soon as that liability goes away, they don't have to care about whether they start fires or not. that's just fundamentally crazy, and so we need the board to take a position on this whole badpackage of bills. >> supervisor fewer: okay. so thank you very much. hello. >> hello. [inaudible] >> -- and extreme serious and willful misconduct. i already mentioned to you that i spoke before the police commission pertaining to assault kit situations. and during that hearing, an additional topic came up to breast center and how they wanted to change to support the police uniforms putting pink patch to support breast cancer. i supported that response and i

explained that part of the reason a lot of females have breast cancer is because of cancer causing agents out at that shipyard. that's your source. that's one of the main sources of breast cancer, and also out at treasure island. and by the same response, i want to point out that that scanner van that was used to detect radiation is not qualified to take care and detect the radio active materials that's out there. there's several kinds of cancer causing agents in that soil. [inaudible] >> -- such scanner vans are supposed to be used only as gross screening tool to help focus on subsequent soil sampling which is done by taking thousands of samples and the fill and then sending the dirt for testing in the

laboratory. okay. the scanner van is incompatible in screening -- incapable of screening most radio active levels of health concerns. the van simply cannot be used to declare sites safe. so you're using a machine that's not qualified to detect these materials. not only are you falsifying the samples, but you're using a machine that's giving you false data. and i'm real up yet about that because as i -- [inaudible] >> i'm real upset. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, michael. >> okay, because you killed my grandmother. >> supervisor fewer: yeah. >> okay. cancer killed my grandmother out there at potrero hill, and i didn't know that. my grandmother died in my arms, and i did not know because she is dieing because of cancer causing material out there at potrero hill, and now that i know that now, i'm even more

upset than i was before on any other topic that i'm working on here. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, michael. thanks for fighting the good fight. public comment is now closed. madam clerk, is there any further business today? >> clerk: there's no further business. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. the meeting's adjourned. thank you.