we cannot rely on their numbers right now because we cannot see their numbers. >> i speak a little bit more. that was one of the recommendations that we let out back in 2017. we believe that if the san francisco housing authority leveraged the new system that we have, that it incorporates finance purchasing and human resources, that there will be some deficiencies. and i can -- it will connect the way they process things. from the staff is provided by the authority, i believe they have not implemented that. i know that they have been in dialogue with the city. >> but you have made that offer clear to them? >> correct. >> they have not yet availed themselves of it we? >> i will have the authority speak on that. >> in the list of recommendations, we did say that we have not implemented --

implemented that. we have worked with the city auditor on a number of special projects. but we have not tried to incorporate our financing into the city. i don't know if you want to hear from b.d.o., but the voucher management system is very complicated and very unique and does require special expertise. >> i hear you. there were 26 recommendations in the report. twenty-five in the city service auditor's report. twenty-five of which you accepted and 19 that you have implemented and five you have partially implemented and to you have not implemented. this her once you agree to implement. i understand the two-year tool is complicated and that vouchers are complicated but i also understand that the city is only going to be as good as we can interact with your numbers, particularly if you are going to be incorporated by the city. without getting into the details of it, i would love for that

recommendation to be implemented first as quickly as possible, if we are going to absorb you. >> thank you. yes. >> thank you. madam chair, in the interest of time, i will truncate this. we can do this all afternoon, but why don't we open for public comment. >> at this time, we will open up for public comment. it is not that any of us need to eat lunch, but we do lose coram at 2:00 pm. supervisor brown wanted to make sure she was available. we will open up for public comment. >> i will show you why you have this shortfall. i talked to hartley k.? one of the department building -- apartment buildings that came available out of her office, the lowest income requirement for one of those builders was 80% of the a.p.i. it is like 80 or $90,000 a year.

i made an appointment to talk to her to demonstrate that she is discriminating against low income bracket people. by you setting the requirement to move into each and every building that comes out of her office, it is so high that the housing authority is giving vouchers to pay that much money results in a sucking of their funds. that is why they have a negative cash flow now. because of hartley and the developers. they are paying an exception for the klute -- inclusionary rules of the developer won't have low income tenants in their building and pay that fee. the department is making $2 million a month. is that clear? you better audit on her department on how much money they have in their reserve. you will find that when a developer pays that fee, so he won't have to have the most vulnerable people will be attending in their building,

they take that money and start up a new construction project and sets the requirement at a higher rate with still low income bracket people, the most vulnerable people who can't afford to live in the building and you displace low income people out of housing. she is scandalous. i tried talking to her about that. i said how can you say that is a low income affordable housing when you have the lowest income to move in that building at 80% of the a.p.i. and that is about $90,000 a year? since when is a low income, affordable housing project, and the lowest income is like 80-90 god damn thousand dollars a year do an audit on her account. that's why there is so much money in that account and you are shortchanging the housing authority. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> mr wright. thank you. >> oh, my god.

listen. i only have two minutes. first of all, let's clear the air. we will talk about it later. it is not her fault. i commend her department because her department was ran by -- when she came on, she is doing a fantastic job. we will talk about that later. right now, peskin you are the master of legislation in city hall. because you are the one, years ago, when they had to reenvision , you are telling them they were wrong then. here they are again. i commend you. valley, district five, i see you here and i hate to say it, you are protecting room 200. i not say any names. that is why you were appointed. i call it a disappointment. here we go now. you are talking about the housing authority and accountability. peskin, did you know who is running oewd? that is somebody named -- what

is his name? he is the director of oewd and he is also the president of the housing authority. therefore, how can you have mr torres as the president of the housing authority and now he has been selected, like you have, bad selection, london, i have to tell you. i agree to disapprove. you have two individuals that come from oewd that are protecting d. you know who i am talking about. somebody there. i am so glad that mr pestis -- mr peskin, the master of legislation is using the real thing. i am glad i'm here to get all this information. i am appalled at city hall. i am appalled. and i want to talk to h.u.d. they have the money. h.u.d. controls everything. that is a federal government. that is why i want f.b.i. to investigate city hall.

that is all. >> are there any other public comments on this item? saying none, public comment is closed. >> thank you to the folks in the housing authority and the mayor 's office of housing and the budget and legislative analyst and the controller's office for spending your afternoon with us. i think where we need to focus is on how the transition process of s.f. ha to the city will work i would like to have some oversight over that and i would like to continue this item to the call of the chair so that perhaps at our next visit, we can talk about what the plans are and make sure that they are actually going to work and so this continuing trouble department will not remain troubled when it becomes a closer part of the city. i do totally acknowledge and

appreciate the r.a.d. program has been, despite this great risk and challenges, a remarkable success. an increase in the amount of vouchers that we all support. we have to live with inapt -- within our means. when we are having conversations at the board of supervisors about minimum compensation ordinance and all of the analyst competing priorities, we have to know when we are getting an unexpected cash call. with that, thank you, colleagues for your indulgence and support. >> i want to thank vice chair peskin for calling for the hearing. i think, as you have seen in the number of cosponsors, it demonstrates the amounts -- immense amount of concern of the board of supervisors has about what has occurred. i just want to concur with his comments. if we decide to determine that this is a priority for the budget, dollars should be allocated. we need to ensure better

oversight process for this moving forward. i want to thank supervisor brown who extended her time in order to be able to be at this hearing because she has public housing in her district as well. i will take that motion. >> before we do it, to miss partly, the reason that it is important it is because -- this has happened in my experience. the board has come just come back and said, pay, one -- what unallocated money from previous budget cycles is out there? we vacuumed that all up and redistributed it after having a policy conversation. had i known there was $31 million, we might have had a conversation and said that we want to put it in small sites acquisition. i realized that the colour of money is a different colour of money, without is actually conversation that we got elected to have. so it's important that you, back in with the 11 of us. this is an opportunity to do it.

>> thank you, again vice chair peskin. at this time, we have a motion to continue this to the call of the chair and we can do that without objection. are there any other items before this committee? >> there is no further abyss -- no further business. >> meeting is adjourned. women'

sustainable future . >> san francisco streets and puffs make up 25 percent of cities e city's land area more than all the parks combined they're far two wide and have large flight area the pavement to parks is to test the variants by ininexpensive changing did new open spaces the city made up of streets in you think about the potential of having this space for a purpose it is demands for the best for bikes and families to gather. >> through a collaborative effort with the department we the public works and the municipal transportation agency pavement to parks is bringing initiative ideas to our streets. >> so the face of the street is

the core of our program we have in the public right-of-way meaning streets that can have areas perpetrated for something else. >> i'm here with john francis pavement to parks manager and this parklet on van ness street first of all, what is a parklet and part of pavement to parks program basically an expense of the walk in a public realm for people to hang anti nor a urban acceptable space for people to use. >> parklets sponsors have to apply to be considered for the program but they come to us you know saying we want to do this and create a new space on our street it is a community driven program. >> the program goes beyond just parklets vacant lots and other

spaces are converted we're here at playland on 43 this is place is cool with loots things to do and plenty of space to play so we came up with that idea to revitalizations this underutilized yard by going to the community and what they said want to see here we saw that everybody wants to see everything to we want this to be a space for everyone. >> yeah. >> we partnered with the pavement to parks program and so we had the contract for building 236 blot community garden it start with a lot of jacuzzi hammers and bulldozer and now the point we're planting trees and flowers we have basketball

courts there is so much to do here. >> there's a very full program that they simply joy that and meet the community and friends and about be about the lighter side of city people are more engaged not just the customers. >> with the help of community pavement to parks is reimagining the potential of our student streets if you want more information visit them as the pavement to parks or contact

>> good afternoon, i'll like to call this meeting to order. it's october, 23rd, 2018.

madam secretary, roll call please. [roll call] we have a quorum. >> thank you. next item. >> clerk: approval of the minutes of october 9th, 2018. >> colleagues. >> approval. >> it's been moved. i'll second it. >> second is, is there any public comment? hearing none public comment is now closed. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> and opposed. the motion carries. madam secretary, next item. >> clerk: general public comment. members of the public may address the commission. and are not on today's agenda. >> thank you. i have one speaker card. it is renata decosta. good afternoon.

>> today i want to focus on water. i know that you have a long agenda and you are going to be speaking on various aspects of water. what i want to speak about is how many miles of sewer pipes we have. how many miles of clean drinking water we have. and if we can monitor to see how much of that water is leaking. so, if in our slogans we say that water is precious and we care for our water, we have brought this to our attention before. in real terms, when we see what

is happening with your infrastructure, nothing much is done. you are very fortunate to have on the commission a few people who have a good history about the water departments and the san francisco public utilities commission, which was formed in 1996. not long ago. having formed in 1996, only a few of the commissioners and only a few of our department heads can go to the times when the water department was there to make a comparison when it comes to standards. what i'm seeing now, from my contacts at the various

departments is that the institutional experience and memory of our workers who are retiring, they are leaving and the new people coming in really have no understanding of how things are working properly. if you look at our system, it's the sewer system and some other systems, especially our sewer system which is a duel system, we have real problems with that. so we cannot speak in terms of generallalities and create a rosie picture that everything is ok. we know. i'm here for a reality check. i read your documents. i also analyze them with imperical data.

thank you, very much. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? going once -- seeing none. public comment is now closed. madam secretary, next item. >> clerk: item 5, communications. >> colleagues. is there any comment on communication? seeing none. public comment is now closed. madam secretary, next item, please. >> clerk: item 6. other commission business. >> colleagues. is there any public comment on item number 6? no. >> want this to be 6? >> do you want speak under communications or other business? item 5 or 6? >> other commission business?

>> it doesn't discuss anything under item 6. there's no public comment. >> maybe under 4? >> street lights. >> that would be item number 5. >> that's good. i missed you guys outside. if there's no objection, we'll go back to item number 5. colleagues. that's the order. item number 5. larry godsburg. >> street lights? >> yes. >> oh, ok. >> well, i have noticed that the interim lights have started to be put in place on hyde street. we're still waiting for the -- what are we calling them.

the historic lights we were promised to be put on the street. i'm just wondering when that will happen? i notice there are historic lights being put up on poll polk street and post street but we still haven't had our lights put up on hyde street. >> if it's ok, we'll hear the rest of the public comment. the general manager will probably -- i had a conversation with someone but i think the general manager will be able to summarize it. let's do it at the end of public comment on this item. is that appropriate? >> we'll ask for the general manager to comment when we've heard all the public comments on this item. >> ok. >> thank you, very much for being here. i have simon bertrand. thank you, simon. >> good afternoon. my name is simon on the executive director of the tenderloin community benefit district. for property assessment direct representing 30 blocks in the

tenderloin. including the area that the tenderloin lighting project is underway. i just wanted to show up here today to let you know that we are very excited about that project because of the quality and scale of pedestrian lighting that's been brought to the neighborhood. however, we're very disappointed it has taken so many years. we still do not have that pedestrian lighting. so the point i would like to make is that, for the businesses that need the additional lighting to remain open at night and for patrons to vis et them , and especially for pedestrians making their way around the streets, in term of safety. the tenderloin of full of high-injury corridors where most of our cities incidents between vehicles and pedestrians are concentrated. for the people who live in the tenderloin and want to just make their way safely during the nighttime, during the evening hours, we really need those

lights. so what i was going to ask the commission is could, while we're waiting for the historic fixtures, which there have been repeated delays to the ability to deliver those, could we get the lights up? is there a way we can immediately install some kind of lighting so that we can have the benefit of the lighting during this darker season while we wait for whatever the construction issues are with the historic polls themselves. it's important to the neighborhood we get lighting sooner rather than later. it's been several years of delay. the sooner we can get it the better. >> i'll move with the next public comment on the lighting. i have bryant davincia. >> thank you. good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to speak here. my name is bryant. we organize the residents in the tenderloin to fight for improved

inhabit ability. as a background, we recognize the need for improved safety in our neighborhoods. our residents organized and negotiated a community benefit agreement with cpmc to fund 100 lights in our neighborhood. that was approved in 2012. the original was to start in 2016. however, due to unsatisfactory bid process and a pg&e dispute with sfpuc regarding correction fees last year, the project was delayed start in 2018. the first face of installation was completed in march. there was a report there was a problem with the manufacturer. first a supply problem with

caps. next was the arms. and we were told that it will be done the end of august. there was another delay. after that it was delayed until october. when the supplies were delivered october 5th, it was reported to us that we'll have to wait eight weeks before installation can resume. in the meantime, while we wait for historic lights, we were promised there will be 54 to 56 temporary lights to be installed in the neighborhood. we waited for the past seven years and we are still waiting. this repeat inattention t will t be accepted in other neighborhoods. we in the tenderloin are treated very differently and we condition accept that. we demand two things. first, is for all the 100 polls to be installed with corporate head lights while we wait for supplies and also, we need --

accountable for whoever is overseeing this project. thank you so much. >> thank you for being here, adam. i'm sorry, brian. next speaker, adam lessing. thank you, adam. >> my name is adam. i'm a resident of 315 hyde street for almost 15 years. i also started the lower hyde street association, which is the neighborhood association of merchants and residents near the 300 block of hyde. i'd like to reiterate what the previous speaker said and when projects like this drago drag on the neighborhood, it makes us feel neglected. we already feel like we're marginalized and the tenderloin is containment zone. when projects like this drag on for years, it reinforces the impression that the city doesn't

really care about us. so, i think when you are dealing with projects like this in areas such as ours, you really need to keep in mind that this is a marginalized area and we were trying to develop pride and moral. when you do project like this, it would help to keep in mind things would be perceived a certain way because it's the tenderloin. >> thank you for your comment. next speaker. >> hi, david elliott louis. i'm a tenant leader with the central city collab are tive and i'm also a community organizers with the tenderloin people's congress. for the last 12 years i lived near the corner of farrell and lar kin. i've had to suffer the ill effects of insufficient

lighting, insufficient' loom enation. all along larkin now, teasing us are half installed light polls from this project that started in 2012 and has been delayed through a number of screw ups from disagreements with pg&e and puc on connection fees and wrong parts ordered and having to be sent back. i don't know all the causes. it's horrendous. it's cost blood, sweat, tears and actually blood. in my building we've lost a tenant being hit by a truck that's backing up because it was too dark to see. there's been actually lives lost due to this darkness that is actually preventable. for the exact parts to a arrive i agree with the prior comments. let's get some temporary lighting in. something. anything to brighten the neighborhood. these are dark streets. our police have captains and the tenderloin have stated there's a

direction connection between lighting and public safety. the brighter streets are the safer they are. lives are saved. we have a lot of vulnerable people in the tenderloin, seniors, disabled. very poor people. people who are vulnerable due to these dark, dark streets. if you tour the tenderloin at night, you will see what we mean. you will see the darkness i'm talking about. it hurts commercial businesses as well. it hurts the commercial viability. we have a lot of vacant storefronts. this making part of the reason. there are other reasons. so you would be helping revitalize business. you would be helping improving safety. you would help to save lives. thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. >> thank you for being here. >> public comment is from calista. >> hi. so, good afternoon, commissioners. i don't want to repeat what folks said.

i work in program and the reason why we're here is two things. one is the delays that we have seen and delays in the last one year. we hope that this next delay that is eight weeks is what we were told, they would have the manufacture deliver them. we hope it's not another delay. we want to make sure that you guys are on top of it. second thing is p.u.c. we met with p.u.c. heads, folks here, not the general manager but barbra and other team members of hers. they basically promised to deliver about 56 lights, that's what they said. it's been delayed again so we demand 100 lights. all the polls up there should have lights on it.

temporarily. that's what we're asking and it should be done immediately rather than wait for another weeks. >> thank you for being here. francisco. >> commissioners, the tenderloin needs help. there's no doubt about it. other districts impact the tenderloin. that's why i'm coming here to speak on this topic. whoever is the project manager has to study the migration from other districts into district 6. that adversely impacts the tenderloin. as one or two speakers have stated, in order to have quality of life issues, respect the seniors, lots of seniors it is very important to have light.

we know this but we don't know this. whoever is a project manager. whoever is in charge of external affairs. all the fancy titled they have. they make a lot of money. they have to be held responsible. now if i stop, does this micky mouse happening between the sfpuc and pg&e. we have need to have outreach. we need to have mediators. if you do not have mediators, i can be a mediator because i know more people at pg&e then y'all think y'all know. we'll sit down and talk to the people. the vice president them and asked them if their parents lived in the tenderloin would they have tolerate this nonsense? pg&e ask sfpuc have been feuding for a long time. in feuding for a long time, i

know, personally, that y'all have lost millions of dollars. we need those millions of dollars to have th help the peon the tenderloin. these connecting foods and other hurdles, now, these all happened because of c whatever california pacific medical center. giving so many millions of dollars. ok. it did not happen because of sfpuc. but sfpuc chose to take the lead. in taking the lead they dropped the ball. so i know we have a good president now. i'm looking at you. you are supporters on the commission. and we have a goal and timelines. i'll be following it. if not, i'll initiate what they call a freedom of information act. thank you, very much. >> thank you for your comments,

francisco. thank you, everyone for being here. general manager, might you be able to comment on the topic. >> i can comment under report of the general manager. >> if there's no objection to that, we'll have a comment under the report of the general manager. that will be the order. please hold out for that. is there any other public comment on item number 5? hearing none, public comment is closed. next item, please. >> clerk: item 6. >> colleagues. >> is there any public comment. hearing none, public comment is closed. >> clerk: item 7 is annual policy and government affair updates. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is emily lamb and i'm the director of policy and governor affairs for the sfpuc.

i am pleased to provide you today with an update on our activities of the last year. so, first, i want to thank my boss for her support and my team meghan scott, john scarpula, chris whitmore, caro line bridgeford for their tireless work. i want to thank the enterprise liaison and our lobbyist for all their hard work as our suck is s is a collective effort. as you have our written memo, i'm just going to chose today to highlight a few things. at the local level for 2017-18, sfpuc we handled 43 business items approved at the board and tracked 218 pieces of legislation that impacted the sfpuc. most notably, we successfully add va indicated for critical

legislation that secured the kia approvals for ssip allowing our agency to begin construction on the bio solid and head works projects. staff also significant clean power legislation allow our for power and related products and services. this type of contract was the first of its kind and it was vital to allow buy power. finally pga received 209 requests from elected officials and working with the three enterprises all constituent requests in timely manner. at the state legislature, they marked the end of a second year of a two-year session. it was a busy year with pga reviewing over 400 bills, tracking nearly 300 and actively engaging on 70. for the water enterprise we worked on several conservation bills including securing amendments to move a bill we and fellow water agencies across the

state oppose to one we supported in the end. for water, we successfully sponsored sb966, which was carried by scott wiener. with risk base water quality standards for on site systems that align with the most advance and protective health nation wide. this is helping local communities establish consistent oversight and management programs for these on site water systems. this bill is a continuation of our leadership primarily of paul keyhoe and on site water reuse. first at local level mandating every project over 250,000 square feet on site. and now paving the way for other local tees to do it with this bill across the state. finally, we engage on high-impact and complex bills for the power enterprise around regionalization, wildfires and direct access. much of our activity, however,

lately, has been focused around the cpuc's reform of the power charge indifference adjustment or exit fee. on october 11th, however, the cpuc passed a exit fee modification harmful including clean power. pga working with a team of coalition of stakeholders helped organize a joint letter and three press statements from the mayors of san francisco, oakland and san jose calling for delay or no vote. we were able to secure signatures from mayor breed and all 11 supervisors opposing the modification to the exit fee. the team is working closely with enterprise with the power enterprise folks to determine next steps in appealing the decision. on the federal level, the pga team helped finance achieve the largest loan in the country at almost $700 million and work closely with the leaders nation wide to get a pilot grant program to fund water workforce

coalitions in the water bill which the president just signed today. and last but not least, we continue to engage our elected officials at the local state and federal level on the state water board's proposal. so we're working with enterprise staff to communicate the impact of this proposal and also securing support of elected officials for the negotiated settlement process and to mitigate the board of supervisors current revolution n on this issue. >> colleagues. >> any questions? >> is there a report on what we just heard, item number 7? francisco.

>> i have the real report. in san francisco we have tax paying constituents and i feel that it's important that we have a town hall meeting on this issue. it's about time. because, i was reading at the policies but i'm missing in the policies are how we subsidize large entities like cell force and so on and so fourth. and i know y'all get some benefits from it. the citizens, the taxpayers want to know that if initiatives and

incentives that are given to sales force and all, why can they adversely impact us in this totality. and they do. people don't know that. that's like y'all have the 525 self-contained mechanisms where y'all save on energy and sewer, et cetera, et cetera. sales force is depriving the city of thousands of dollars. which will lead to millions of dollars. and where we need to talk about that in a very general manner but also in a very definitive manner. so i was looking at this document. it makes for interesting reading. i was trained in the military. if you want to the general with such a report, he would really make you rewrite it. i'll tell you why.

we have standard operating procedures and we look at each of the paragraphs and we see, ok, you are talking the talk but are you walking the walk? and i like to walk the walk. so you know that sfu is an enterprise department. there are over 2,000 employees. a lot of your employees are retiring. i spoke a little bit about that. we want to know, in the short term and long-term how do these policies really have the community. about 850 residents in san francisco. in general, one and a half million in the daytime and people come here to work. they still use our water and still use our sewer. that's what i want to know. thank you, very much. >> thank you, francisco.

that's public comment under government affairs update. >> we have one more. >> is there any further public comment under item number 7? >> thank you, chair courtney. peter jackmire with the river trust. i want to thank you all for giving attention to the letter that the n.g.o. submitted on september 24th. discussing that at your meeting on the 25th. also, we appreciate an opportunity to speak with some of your staff about the three points we made. the third point, i think we were a little too subtle on that. that was related to communications with federal agencies. our concern was that the sfpuc, along with the irrigation districts have been lobbying the trump administration to essentially get agencies to back off on the recommendations. you might have seen that on october 1st, the u.s. fish and

wildlife service, which is under department of interior, rescinded its recommendations from the ready for environment l analysis. fish and wildlife staff spent years basing the recommendations on the best available science. they were told from above to rescind those recommendations and embrace the tal amir river management plan. i will read something from their letter. it says, the service proposed the set of recommendations included in the usdoi response letters based on studies from multiple river systems, including the river. success is achieved in other areas and on best available science, however, following discussions with licensed applicants, the service recognizing the flow proposal included in the usdoi includes proposed volumes of water as a

license condition difficult for the licensed applications to mange without significant effect to over water supply and operation of the projects. for this reason, the service proposed is focused on flow beyond the license application. essentially they're saying we based our recommendations on the best available science but now this is a political move. it came from up top at the lobbying of the sfuc, your staff and the irrigation districts. i just think that this is not the way san francisco operates. you might have seen the editorial that alludes to this. we're very concerned that your staff is taking advantage of the trump administration to undermine the state of california and our environmental laws. it's unacceptable. i really hope you will look into that. i do have a background on the

u.s. fish and wildlife service letter i'll leave with you. >> thank you. >> yeah. michael, can you just kind of share with the commission your thoughts about the trump administration and what kind of dealings that that is having? >> so michael, deputy general manager. i think what we have to focus on here is we've been working with multiple administrations since the conception in 2012. it's not the administration, as you call it, the trump administration, it's the career staff that we've been dealing with and working with on these issues over the years. while the u.s. fish and wildlife service submitted a, i would call a refined 10j recommendations, it superseded what they had already submitted. there's a flow schedule in there. there are requirements they recommend for the river that lead to restoration of the river

based on what the project impacts were. and i think that's important. not over all restoration of the river system based on all the activities there. so we've been working with the career staff here in california. those recommendations came from them. didn't come from the administration, as been portrayed. i would like to say ta basically we have not gone in and said we wanted to sit down and ask the science on the river and what is possible. so i think that's what the tenner of what we've been discussing. not that we've asked for changes, blanket changes to what they recommended. it's a little bit different than what has been characterized here and i'd be glad to answer questions about that. >> colleagues -- >> thank you for your comments. thank you for shedding light. i imagine this will continue.

>> item number 7 public comment. it's closed. madam secretary, next item please. >> clerk: the general manager. >> the first item, if we can, can be start with d. and i wanted to give an update on the tenderloin street lights and barbara hill. >> thank you, assistant general manager for power. i did want to acknowledge the frustrations and frankly share the frustrations with the members of the community on the tenderloin lighting project. you got a accurate overview of the circumstances. we did have delivery. we did have a competitive bidding process through the o.c. a. procurement approach. we did receive delivery of defaulting product. it was returned. the manufacturer went through a retooling process. new product was delivered.

we were told it would be delivered october 5th. instead, we were told on that date that they, again, had product fit problems. the three or four components won't fit together properly for in stallation. that has been the hang up. in order to meet some of the community lighting needs and the public safety needs and the tenderloin, we took from stock what we had available and installed temporary lighting. i'm hearing from the community, today, yes, they want -- they appreciate that temporary lighting but they want all the poles to have temporary lighting. we put two temporary lights up per block. and the crews did that just over the last week. we expect to hear today from the

manufacturer what their new delivery schedule is of product. as soon as we receive the product, we will install it. i think once we know what the tommy lintimeline is we'll be ir position to know whether it makes sense to install additional temporary lighting. we've done with what we can with what we had in stock to provide for temporary lighting. we'll evaluate whether we should go forward with additional temporary lighting, depending on how much wait time we have between now and when the new product will be delivered. that's what i know today. >> general manager kelly. >> i want to ask a question. if we were to purchase more temporary lighting, it would take some time. so maybe we want to see how much time it would take to get the temporary lighting as well? >> exactly. that's kind of ththat's the trae facing.

>> colleagues? can we get an update at each commission meeting and then a little clarity on the difference between two per block, 56, and 100. which i think was the new community demand. just make sure we keep the conversation out in public. >> sure. happy to do that. i didn't know we would be talking about this today. i have a map that would be helpful in this conversation. we can come to the next meeting prepared with what the scope of the situation is. what we've accomplished so far in terms of lighting. what poles have no lights attached. and we have worked with the community to help identify what the priority locations are and that is where we put the temporary lighting that we put up. happy to continue to work with them as we go through these. >> maybe what we can do is part of the weekly update, we can

include that. give you a weekly progress update? >> yes. >> the only thing i would suggest is, i don't know who else in the region still uses cobra head fixtures but there may be some out there. people might be willing to unload. >> that sounds good. we'll try that too. >> ebay. >> i have a question for the chair. >> we can't do ebay but we can talk -- [laughter] >> the city will allow us to talk to other cities because we might have some spares we can purchase off of them. >> a couple of folks said they were flabbergasted with the delay. time wise, what are you looking? i heard 2012 and 16 and 18. >> that's the timeline that i'm waiting for by close of business today from the distributer. we demanded they provide us with a new schedule when we will see product and they committed by close of business today. i was texting folks but we haven't received it yet.

>> thank you. >> commissioners -- thank you. >> thank you. >> so, should i take public comment. i'd like to call for public comment on the general manager's report, specifically 8-d. public comment is closed. next item, please. >> so, the next item is clean power sf update. >> thank you. bacbarbara hill. it will cover service to customers and take a deeper dive into our regulatory activities. clean power sf successfully serves customers. our program enrollment stats haven't changed since my last report. so we have opt out percentages of 3.1%. a 97% retention rate.

super green upgrade rate exceeds. our opt out rate at 3.6% of our customers. it's 0.1% uptick since i reported on october 9th. that all sounds good. i have been reporting on the regulatory aspectses. they've been reconsidering the methodology of how the exit fees, known as the pcia are set. it's to recover the unavoidable above-market cost of power supply commitments that pg&e has made. while all customers, all pg&e customers pay these above market power costs, c.c.a. customers see this charge as a separate line item on the pg&e side of their bill and these charges are levied on our clean power sf customers by pg&e. historically, clean power sf generation rates has been set to absorb the impact on our customers of that pg&e pcia

charge. the commission, as ms. lamb mentioned, the california puc issued two proposed decisions in the rule-making proceedings, one by the judge, one issued by the commissioner assigned to the case. that's referred to as an an alternate and on october 11th, the california puc voted unanimously to approve the alternate proposal. the cca community vigorous leo posed the alternate proposal on the ground it underestimates the market value of pg&e generation resources. that underestimatation results in more of pg&e costs being recovered through the exit fee that is charged to our customers. so how they set that market value is important in this calculation. it also unlawfully allows the above market costs of generation assets owned by pg&e to be

recovered in this same exit fee. with this decision, we expect that the pcia will have increased by more than 200% since san francisco committed to begin the service in 2015. that's a pretty steep incline over a short period of time. california p.u.c. staff and pg&e will need to prepare information to implement this decision. at this time, we expect that the decision will be implemented starting january 1st. what are we expecting to happen as a result of the decision? we anticipate that january 1st, 2019, the pcia rate will increase for clean power sf

customers and pg&e generation rate, what they charge bundled customers will decrease relative to our current levels. based on the best available information we have today, we estimate that clean power sf customers could pay 40 to $50 million more per year to pg&e. if we take no action to absorb that change. that is 25% of our forecasted revenue from the clean power sf program. these figures that i'm giving to you are based on pg&e's most recent rate forecast, which is scheduled to be updated in early november. we're anticipating that the outlook will improve with the november updates. again, based on best available information of what that update will likely show, we estimate that the typical residential

customer will experience about 1.50 to $2.50 monthly bill increase as a result of this california p.u.c. decision. if this agency takes no action. we'll be waiting to see the pg&e november update before making any specific proposals to what our next steps will be. the valuation of next steps includes a number of issues. for example, how can we reduce our program costs to absorb the pcia increases? and the pg&e generation rate decreases. should we make changes to our supply portfolio choices so we can lower our costs that way? at this point all are working on what the universe of options could be. what the consequences of the

options are. worworst-case scenario is we postpone our april or operate at a higher cost for some amount of time. it will setback our efforts to procure new california renewable resource and begin programming to support our local build out and affordability objectives. in partnership with our colleagues at cal cca we'll be examining our options for recourse at the cpuc. in the meantime, we'll continue to provide clean, reliable and affordable service to our customers. clean power sf continues to offer generations service that's is about 2% lower cost than pg&e. so customers are receiving savings today for a product that is cleaner and reinvesting in