>> good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the february 14, 2018 roll meeting of the public safety and neighborhood services committee. i'm chair of the committee and the constitution of which has changed over of the last couple of months.

so my right is vice chair supervisor stephanie and to my left is supervisor walton. welcome to both of you. our clerk is john carroll and i would also like to thank tom and jeff for taffing this meeting. mr. clerk, to you have any announcements some. >> yes, thank you, mr. chair. please assure you've silenced your cell phone or a copy should be submitted to the clerk. items will appear on the february 26, 2019 board of supervisors agenda. >> agenda number one is an ordinance amending the police code to rescind the police department to be a member of the national rifle association or to collect tournament fees for the national rifle association. >> vice chair we're stephanie, this is yours. >> colleagues, i find this fitting we have considering this

ordinance one year ago a gunman opened fire at a high school in florida, killing 17 people, 14 students and three staff members. in six minutes and 20 seconds, 14 children died in parkland that day and were taken away from their parents. three educators died trying to protect their students. in the year since, nearly 1200 more children have died due to grandmothegun violence. i would like to read the names of the years that passed, scott martin, nick, erim, himey, chris, luke, karr, gina, meadow and we will never forget and remember the thousands of victims of gun violence in the last year and the hundreds of

thousands of survivors and family members whose lives have been forever changed. this ordinance might not be that big of a deal, but i think it sends a message. it would rescind the police department's authority to be a member of the nra and to collect tournament feeses on behalf of the nra in connection with holding firearms' tournaments. the nra has become a toxic and dangerous organization. following the mass shooting in parkland, they fervently fought against all guns violence prevention and argued for more guns in schools. the nra has demonstrated that it has no interest in the safety of our people. yesterday in washington, d.c., in the house judiciary committee, six years after sandyhook, hr8, the universal background check bill passed out of committee. significance years since sandyhook and fine let's we are

seeing a bill pass out of committee for universal background check. the nra tweeted today the democrats don't want to end universal, just end at universal background checks. hr8 will lead to a national gun registry which always leaves to confiscation. nra members and gun owners see through their sneaky agenda. are you kidding me? our sneaky agenda? our agenda is to fight for common sense gun reform. i am so inspired by the three women i see here today in the audience and the millions across america who continue to not accept this level of gun violence in our country. i am inspired by parkland who organized in march. i'm inspired by our own students across the bay who have joined their call for common sense gun safety measures. i'm inspired by the women i've worked with and the men i've

worked with over the last two decades on this issue and it is about time we are making the progress we need to make in this country. this legislation sends another message that san francisco stands against the gun violence epidemic in america. the existing code being changed may be considered antiquated and the sf police department has not. a member of the nra for years, but we still must remove the section of the code because words matter. word telwords tell us what we vd fight for in our society. san francisco and this board values lives of our residents and we do not support the nra and they do not belong in our police code. chief scott and the san francisco police department support this situation and i hope to have your support,

colleagues and to the nra, we will not let you profits over people. on this day, i remember the victims, i sent love to survivors and i recommit myself along with the thousands of others to honour all victims of gun violence with action. thank you. >> thank you for your passion and if we don't have any questions or comments, we will go to public comment. if there are members of the public who would like to comment, i ask that you stand up over on your right. speakers will have two minutes. please state your first and last name clearly and speak directly so the microphone. those who have written comment can leave with the committee clerk and no applausing or booing and speakers are encouraged to avoid repetitious

of previous statements and i will call our first speaker. >> thank you, i'm a san francisco resident, district 8. i want to thank supervisor stephthy for bringing this issue to light. it was shocking for me to see this on the agenda and know that in the time of our most horrific gun violence our country has ever seen we have a law on our books to authorize the sfpd to be a member of and to help collect funds for the nra and i completely agree, words matter tremendously and i'm happy to hear the sfpd supports this and not collecting funds. the nra oppose the most common sense of the gun laws and they fight for every effort there is, including the repeat lawsuit written up, i think just last

week, suing california for laws implemented after proposition 63. we should not have any relationship with the nra. it's against our san francisco values, against what the sfpd stands for which is fighting violence of all kinds and i strongly support this bill and very appreciative you bought it tbrought itto our attention andg forward to this becoming law very soon. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning. my name is maddie scott, i'm for the brady campaign and mothers in charge across the nation. i lost my son 22 years ago to this epidemic. i lost a nephew in 2007, lost a niece in 2011.

just recently lost a dear young man from the bayview, mr. powell, to this epidemic, as well, representing a lot of mothers and fathers who could not be here today. tso i'm grateful and thankful fr you all having this hearing and allowing us to speak our peace about this, that we're totally against sfpd with any relationships with the nra and i just got back from d.c. with the families and friends from around the country and young men and women from all over who helped support the bill, hra. so i'm just glad that shamam is here, who has been at the forefront supervisor, from district 10, who we all know seriously affected by this epidemic, where most of our

homicides occur and for you supervisors for being at the forefront always, as well as you supervisor valley brown. so i definitely appreciate your support in this and not allowing our sfpd to become members of the nra. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> my name is mary fryer. i want to thank you for what your doing. i lost my cousin to gun violence and the nra has stood blocking sensible laws background checks on military assault weapons. and in our case we found out that no background was checked down on a man that killed my cousin and came here to california with a goal of

seeking asylum at the russian consulate in 2013. so many people have died this way and what's most anguishing to me is this is preventible. and the nra is toxic, their record is clear and they've done nothing to make us safe. and today for those children and families a year ago today, i want to honour them as well as all the victims and you guys for bringing this to our attention. this not our value in san francisco and the fact that the man that took my cousin's life was seeking asylum here, he was caught in moren county and came across lines with guns and bullets and high magazines to come here and he was stopped. god knows what could have happened. this is my cousin kirsten, last

year, we know that gun deaths in the united states, according to cdc, was the highest level ever. and i am grateful to what you're doing. i thought it would be easy for every time i think about what happened to someone else, it brings back my cousin who did so much for other people and her children who will never have their mother and for my cousin. ok. thank you for what you're doing. thank you. >> thank you. >> are from any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item before we close public comment? >> i was wondering if the nra has a existing relationship with the local law enforcement agency. i was hoping you could tell us when the last shooting was held

and if any funs or fees have been collected in relation to that idea. i would like to be certain that i perceive your measure accurately so that i might better understand you hope to achieve. i believe the nra has not had a relationship with the san francisco police department for at least the last decade and a half and that no tournaments are held at the range but i do find it discomforting and disconcerting that some officers may feel alienated from their weapons. i would like to know that local law enforcement is competent, proficient, comfortable and familiar with their firearms and that they are adequately trained. so i was wondering what is the periodic range requalifications?

what's the schedule like? >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to speak? if not, i will close public comment. public comment is now closed. supervisor walton? >> thank you, chair. first, i just want to thank everyone who came out and spoke and i want to thank supervisor stephanie for sponsoring this. and just one thing i don't agree with in terms of your statement that this is not that big of a deal, because it is a big deal for us to set a tone, for other municipalities that we do not support the nra and their efforts to continue to push gun violence and continue to be a part of why we are in the state where we are in this country. as we look at gun shows at the cow palace we're trying to eliminate in our city from happening, that one don't share

our values but also, the opportunities for guns and magazines and things that violate our state laws to be sold or near our municipality is very problematic. so i just want to say that i'm 100% in support of this and i want to thank you for stepping up with this. it is very important that we let everywhere know that we don't want our law enforcement to be connected with the nra in no, way, shape form or fashion and even the fact that there is law on the books that talks about the opportunity to even be able to fundraise for an opportunity for the nra is despicable and i'm glad you stepped up with this change that is vital and important. so thank you, supervisor stephanie. >> thank you, supervisor walton. did you want to say anything else. >> thank you, supervisor walton and just to respond to this i tk this is a big deal, i would not

have proposed this if i didn't. some people said because the san francisco police department hasn't participated in these firearm tournaments for a long time, that it wasn't really necessary, which, of course, i disagree with. but i completely am so grateful for your support on this. i know as m absoluteaddie scotti know you have been working on this for a long time and we have people on this board and all people are connected on this issue, so thank you for your support. >> thank you. , vice chair stephanie. sounds like we're all in support, as it's know we are, is a motion for the full board with recommendation. >> so moved. >> so moved by supervisor walton and we'll take that without objection and thanks to all of the folks who came to speak to us today and for all of the work that you do.

>> thank you. >> mr. clerk, please call the next item. >> agenda item number two, a resolution supporting california bill number 23 to expand the definition of vehicle burglary to include any unlawful entry. >> great. we have been joined by supervisor valley brown from district 5. this is your item. >> thank you, chair. and thank you for letting me present today and thank you supervisor stephanie for cosponsoring. and today, tara reed from the d.a.'s office is here to speak about this also. today i'm here to speak about my resolution supporting state senate bill sb-23. san francisco has the highest rate of property crimes in the state. in 2017, there were over 32,000 auto break-ins in san francisco. according to the city analyst, it's over the state-wide average

and that number has come down a little bit recently but it's still who high. i receive calls an e-mails every week from my constituents asking what is city hall doing about this and i imagine the other supervisors had the same calls an e-mails when you're walking down the street, and you see broken windows, car windows, on the streets. when you have to go to your car and you're trying to get t to wk and the window broken and you are to deal with that, people are frustrated. what sb-23 does is clarifies the definition of an auto break inform or burglary. it defined auto burglary as entering a vehicle unlawfully with the intent to commit theft. it removes a wide loophole. currently when an auto burglar is arrested prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the vehicle was locked.

this addresses a lot of the criminal rings that come into the city that prey on tourists and residents alike. often victims are unable to attend a hearing to testify. they may be tourists who have returned home or a resident who just can't take the time off from work or school to testify. what isn' sb23 does not do is increase any penalties or anybody convicted of auto burglary. this loophole removes a barrier to proving the years, that a window was broken to gain entry to a locked vehicle. sadly car break-ins are now an epidemic in california cities and we have to be smart when parking but san francisco and tourists shouldn't have to think twice when considering parking. we shouldn't have to step over blown glass in our neighborhood

and we shouldn't have to prove that when our car is broken into it was locked and was an intent to burglary. when someone breaks into your car, they're usually breaking into steal something. so i hope you will send this resolution with recommendation to the full board today for consideration for nex next week. could we have the d.a. come up, tara? >> absolutely. >> thank you, tara anderson. >> heli'm the district of policy for the district attorney's office and i want to echo thank yous that supervisor brown also shared. thank you to senator weiner for introducing this important legislation which is cosponsored by assembly members. thank you, as well, to supervisor stephanie and president yi for the cosponsoring of this resolution that's before you for consideration today and i'm hopeful that i can answer any

questions that you may have. i want to reiterate that auto burglaries are on the decline and we've had a 17% decrease here this san francisco but absolutely, there's still work to be done. a lot of great prevent preventin efforts, a lot speaking with the san francisco police department, the crime's strategy unit within our office and also collaborations with the community, including sf travel. under current law to secure conviction when a person committing auto burglary is arrested one one of the elements prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the vehicle was locked. unfortunately, the fact the victim's window was broken does not by itself establish that the vehicle was locked. as was referred to, approximately 25 million visitors every year come to sanfrancisco and 55% of auto

burglary victims are not from san francisco and therein lies a challenge when they're called upon to testify about whether or not the doors were actually locked to the vehicle. when arrest is made, it's essential we give prosecutors in my office the tools they need to meet their burden of proof. and while we prosecute over 80% of the arrests that come to us, legislation for consideration under sb-23 will close a loophole that has allowed some individuals to escape consequences. common circumstances where it can be difficult, again, where an individual has broken a window and entered a vehicle to complete a theft and then proceed to leave the door open or unlocked, if a person broke into a window and the victim returns to their vehicle and opens the door before police are able to take a police report and establish that the vehicle was locked, or if a victim forgets, did i lock the door? did i not like the door?

i know my window was broken but this can prevent us from meeting a be threshold that the vehicle was locked before entry took place. i'm happy to speak to how this legislation has evolved. this is the second session it's been introduced and respond to any question or concerns you may have about a resolution in support of this. >> thank you, miss anderson. are there any questions? supervisor walton? >> thank you, supervisor. definitely something that i know is prevalent here in the city and i have been a victim of having my window broken in and some of my possessions taken and sent me back about $1,000. i was not a happy camper and this is something that even know the actual crimes are down and car break-ins are down continues to be an issue in the city.

also always focused about preventprevention aspects of evw and i know in the conversation, there's a thought process that this would actually deter contract from breaking windows and just wondering, what about this law makes us think that it would actually deter people from doing this? >> because we see the particular targets of individuals to our great city, when they know it's not a requirement that they would have to come back and testify, obviously that has delayed deterrent effect for individuals in community. i would say that part of that is what i spoke to earlier, the ongoing collaborative efforts where we're meeting not just with sf travel but what actually came up in the autoburg hearing

back in october, if i'm not mistaken, where we've been able to use crime data analysis to partner with the areas that are the greatest hot spots for auto burglary and some of this we've seen concentrated in certain parking facilities and so ensuring that there is adequate posting when folks come in, that they are remindedded not to leave belongings out. so prevention from both perspectives of an individual leaving things in plain sight. and if we are hole be more individuals accountable and near not getting out of meeting the consequences for their conduct because of a loophope, i think we'll see this reduction we're on the decline i in terms of new reports of auto burglary. >> vice chair, stephanie? >> thank you, chair. first of all, i want to thank

senator weiner for bringing this bill back and i want to thank senator brown for supporting this bill. i think it's extreme important. we tried last year but it didn't pass muster at the state level. as a former prosecutor, this crime is too easy to get away with. it's a 459, you have certain elementaries you have to prove and you have to prove if someone locked the car and you have certain witnesses, it's too impossible. just the fact that the window is broken is evidence enough that somebody has broken into a car. my car was broken into right after christmas. and unfortunately, my husband did leave something in the ca, my daughter's brand new shoes. but at the same time, this can't keep happening. we have a property crime epidemic in san francisco and we're working on it, it's going down. but the fact that prosecutors get cases from the police and we

we would have to determine what laws have been violated to determine any charges, if you don't have this one element, you can't charge the case. it's not that you can't get it charged, you can't charge the case. i think this is a step in the right direction and thank you for bringing this to committee. >> supervisor brown? >> yes. yes. tara anderson, can you please tell us about the criminal rings that come to the city because that's one of the things -- if you can. i've been told we have criminal rings that come to the city that prey on people whether tourists or someone leaving a bag in a car. i actually, two weeks ago, got a call from a person that lives in the western district and her mother came to town, she went to pick her up at the airport. they took her bags in but she left another little bag she

forgot. the woman came out to her car, the window was broken and one of the things it affects people with low income because she's low income, she doesn't have comprehensive insurance and she can't replace her window. she has to replace it out of her pocket. she called our office upset and an officer said there's criminal rings looking for that. can you speak to that? >> i want to thank you and thank you what you bring to bear in termses of the economic consequences. it can be significant for individual and families associated with this crime. we've had individuals who have had to drop out of college because of the nature of the materials that were stolen from their vehicle. so it really has far-reaching impact, so thank you for bringing thi that to light and n

the room. in terms of the individuals engaging in this, we see individuals where it's a crime of opportunity and within a moment and we are seeing some elements that are more organized and that's why it has been essential having this ongoing relationship between the crime strategy's unit within the district attorney's office and the police department, to be able to isolate where the hot spots of the activity and what are common elements associated with it. if there's cars seen driving away, where are they connected to? i think also what we saw associated with great work and collaborative operations were bringing down fencing operations where people were going to then sell the items that they had stolen and so bringing those down has impacted and contributed, i would say, the decline we're saying. people more expert in my office and in the police department to speak to some of the trends and who the actors are, but that is

the best summary portrayal i can provide. >> when we think about pris and all of us have been saying we need officers on the street, we need beat officers, i know supervisor, you have a fixed post for car break-ins in twin babies. peaks. i have one in alimo square and they want more beat officers on the street. i've seen seen where the officer, someone runs a stop sign and the officer is not enforcing it. i'm like, what are we doing, i have an officer that is stuck there for ten hours a day and he can't be anywhere -- he or she can't be anywhere in the district but sitting in a car in

alimo square. i think you have the same situation in twin peaks. so i'm just feeling that i keep rattling the police department that i don't want a fixed post in alimo square and i want them walking on streets, if i have to go to eddie's cafe and they have signs in the window that say don't leave anything in your bag because we have people stealing out of the cars, that maybes it just really tough. i just feel if we can something forward that -- a resolution is a resolution because if something can come forward and maybe have them think twice about break-ins, it's something we should do and it's responsible. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor brown. seeing no further comments or questions from my colleagues, we have been going by our former member, supervisor ronan, welcome back. you can have a seat and we'll

take public comment. so just to -- well, are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, i will not say the things i will normally say. public comment is now closed. i actually -- so i'll invite you back up. [ laughter ] >> i thought there might be some public comment. so -- i have a legal issue. >> ok. >> which is that my understanding of this legislation is that it does -- and that some of the opposition to it is that it does create a new fellly an felony and i had a conversation with senator weiner about why that is and why that needs to be but i'm wondering if you could -- does it create a new felony and why does it create a new felony? >> thank you for that question and there is currently no active opposition to this bill.

i just want to make that clear and senator weiner's office, in addition to ourselves and others providing education to the process have been working with the aclu to ensure the language is refined in a way that kind of speaks to the concerns that you brought up. last year's iteration of the bill, we received feedback from the aclu that altering the burglary statute within itself opened up some issues associated with the felony murder rule and so by creating -- creating a new law but there is a carve-out, penal code 459 includes a number of different spaces that could be broken into. anything from a warehouse, a shop, an apartment, a room, a stable, an outhouse, also a vehicle.

so having this carve out actually serves a number of different purposes. it helps mitigate any issues with the revision subsequent to new laws that have passed around felony murder but now we're not having to worry about expanding the scope and that was the biggest criticism when we did the revision of penal code 459 and that's where there is a new set-aside and more narrowly defining what burglary constitutes inside a motor vehicle and threshold about whether or not the vehicle is locked and whether that loophole is closed. >> just to make sure i'm understanding this. the existing felony that folks might be prosecuted for with a car break-in, is one that falls within felony murder with the potential to charge felony

murder with murders committed with that break-in and that the concern was that by making it easier to prove this felony, we would be making it easier to prove felony murder, as well, by someone who has not committed a murder but where a murder happened to happen with breaking into a car somehow? >> yes. >> and that in response to that, senator weiner created a new felony, it's true, but a new felony that would not give rise to a felony murder charge so that it would not make it easier to prove a murder. is that right? >> that is correct. >> am i sort of getting it? >> yes, sorry if i wasn't clear. >> ok, that seems reasonable to me. are there any further comments or questions? and with that, i'm actually comfortable adding my name as a cosponsor for this. but are there any -- is there a motion to forward this with

positive recommendation? >> yes, i would like to forward this to the full board with positive recommendation. >> great. thank you vice chair, stephanie and we can take that without objection. thank you, supervisor brown. thank you. mr. clerk, please call our next item. >> number item 3, to learn more about pacific gas electric company and san francisco roles in providing power to projects and housing and pg & e requirements on power source decisions. >> thank you. supervisor ronan, this is your hearing. >> thank you very much and thank you for scheduling this item. last june, i held a hearing to look into theegregious practice to access clean affordable public power. i was so appalled by what i heard, random and unnecessary requirements, unreasonable costs and extensive delays that i

followed up with a resolution requiring quarterly reports so we could track every single city project. we are here today to hear sfp's most repeat report. in my open district, the affected projects include seven affordable housing developments now in design and under construction and garfield pool, one of a series of public pool renovations but across the city, pg obstructions has critical projects including public schools, affordable housing, healthcare facilities, streetlights and traffic controls, the port and basic city infrastructure. these are life and death essential public resources and it is unconscionable that these are being held hostage by pg & e. over the past months, i've hosted frequent meetings bringing affordable housing profits to walk through in

detail each and every project repeatedly. i truly hoped that all of this focused attention would get us past these difficulties by now but here we are again. obviously, pg & e is in a different situation than it was this last year. their ceo resigned suddenly. they filed for bankruptcy and just this week, i heard they will be replacing the majority of their board of directors and certainly, we are gaining momentum in weaning san francisco from pg & es. i introduced the green new deal fund and the mayor has directed sfpuc to study the steps to transition to public power. but regardless of future changes, it remains critically important that pg & e and the city maintain a functional working relationship now and that pg & e agreed by regulations and i've invited the puc and pg & e to update us on

the status of these projects. i will note that just a few minutes ago i received a letter from pg & e using the excuse that there is litigation ongoing at the furk about these issues and they will not be attending. i think that's a weak excuse and i'll talk more about that later, but first, unless my colleagues have any questions or comments, if we can call up barbara hail from the fsp crusuc to report. >> thank you supervisors. i'm the assistant general manager for power at the fspuc. i appreciate the opportunity to present our rutte report to you. on june 24, 2013, resulted in a resolution that the mayor and board enacted requiring quarterly reports from the puc on the status of all city projects with the applications for electric service before

pacific gas and electric company. our first report was shared with you on november 7. our most recent report, january 25th . the reporting period that the january 25th report covers is november 2018 through january 2019. i propose propose to give you af summary of that report and take any questions you may have and i understand you'll be hearing from other departments, as well. so i'll be here to answer any questions that arise from that part of the dialogue as well. so the report includes a handy info graphic that shows you the kinds of projects and the locations of those projects throughout the city. we're talking about affordable e housing projects the city is sponsoring, infrastructure projects like the auxillary water system that the fire department relies on, the water department facilities, waste

water pumping facilities. we're talking about health projects like new health center down if the southeast part of the city. we're talking about institutions like our libraries, our municipal transit facilities. we're talking about recreation facilities like parks and pools. and what we're talking about is making sure that those projects receive affordable access to pg & e's electric grid so they may continue to receive their electric power from the puc and that's our greenhouse gas free power supply where we're putting our water to work, generating electricity. we've been the power provider for these departments, for san francisco, for some of the new neighborhoods in san francisco start -- well, for over 100 years we've been generating this electricity and providing

services to san francisco and what this january report summarizes, just to highlight a few, is the fact that we've been working with pg & e to overcome some of the difficulties we've been talking about since the june 13th hearing. we've compromised in some situations where we're accepting a higher cost service. that's the primary service with low side metering and low side protection, rather than secondary service, just to move projects forward. in particular, six affordable housing projects were identified by pg & e where they were willing to allow us to take service to keep projects moving. we are, unfortunately, even in those situations risking further delays. so abou in the face of agreemen, when we try to move to the next level, we encounter

difficulties, questions about the load that's served there, questioned about the metre configurations and i can give you flavour an examples on that, if you like. we also identify in the report cost impacts. we're seeing about $8 million so far of additional costs to the city as a result of the disputes with pg & e, as a result of the difficulty we're having and just getting basic service that the federal energy regulatory commission says we've been entitled to. to. >> we are meeting regularly with pg & e. we have meeting scheduled that are biweekly and we've been able to meet four times during this reporting period. typically pg & e notifies us the day before that they're unable to join us for various reasons. sometimes a holiday, conflict,

kind of thing like that. sometimes it's not clear why they're not able to meet and i want to note that the report covers 53 specific city projects. eight of those are new since our novembe.since our november repoo projects have been preven redon. they're not covered in the report summary and as supervisor ronan mentioned, pg & e filed for bankruptcy and we filed our first complaint on these self-years agoseveralyears ago e period, we continued to have

conversations with pg & e and we recent filed another complaint, january 29. it addresses a number of issues. we've asked for the federal regulatory commission to comply with the tariffs by offering the city the secondary and primary plus, wholesale distributions services that they provided and we have asked ferk to pay the city refunds consistent with the rules that are on file there. and to take any other actions that they deem necessary, to make sure that we get fair service from pg & e. so with that summary, i'm happy to take any questions or if you wish to hear from the other departments?

>> from the time you reached agreements to move forward on a number of the other projects, have any of them been finalized. >> so we have four projects actually get energized, ok? permanent power or temporary power? >> with permanent power. >> ok. >> so, those, the balboa pool has been energized, the randall museum has been energized, rest room at rec park facility was energized. >> that's good to know. i don't know that you'll be able to fully answer this question but i'm curious of your thoughts. >> i'll do my best. >> we are all wondering what does pg & e means for city projects. but have you encountered any situation where pg & e is using the bankruptcy as an excuse to

delay and not to move forward on energizing any of the projects? >> so i would say that pg & e requested of the bankruptcy court and as i understand it, the bankruptcy court in the first week approved its request to allow it to conduct business as it normally would, right? so there's that. the federal energy regulatory commission's tariff that pg & e has on file is part of its routine business. so one could argue that that with that position by pg & e at the bankruptcy court, that the bankruptcy court granted, they should be able to continue to implement -- to go forward with the application process and process requests under that tariff. we have, as i mentioned,

compromised in order to move some projects forward. those compromises were reached prior to bankruptcy. pg & e has told us that they believe that in order to implement any other projects under a similar compromise they would need bankruptcy court approval. so it's my understanding that is pg & e's position, on how the bankruptcy would affect the processing of actses. actions. >> even if they were engaged in that prior to the bankruptcy, they're saying now because of the bankruptcy, they don't know if that's a regular course of business. >> they said we need bankruptcy court approval to implement that type of compromise with more than the six projects that they agreed to prior to the bankruptcy. >> again, the games. it's just incredibly

frustrating. i heard you say that up until now these delays to all of these critical projects in the city have cost the city up to $12 million. today you said 8. is the 8 in addition to -- >> no, i'm sorry if i misspoke earlier. 8 million is what we reported in the november report and the same number we're reporting in our january report. >> ok. and then when -- that 8 million is because there's been unanticipated delays. it doesn't take into account that figure, other problems that result from those delays like when a family continues to live in a tent on a sidewalk because they can't get into that affordable housing and drum up hospital bills and having been exposed to the weather. we're not even really capturing

the true costs to the city of these delays. that's just in terms of construction delays and projects, et cetera, i'm assuming. >> yes. it's definitely an estimate an understatement for the additional indirect costs that you're calling out. these are more direct costs. you know, did we have to do additional engineering work, did we have to pay a contractor to mobilize, demobilize, because the project site wasn't ready because we have delays on the electrical configuration. it's more hard costs the city is improvisincurring, as opposed te costs incurring within our community beyond that. balboa pool example is one where we heard from a number of constituents, randall museum as well, about the packs they were

experienced and those aren't included in the 8 million but they're definitely real. >> and since the bankruptcy, have you noticed that progress on these projects being any better or any worse than prior? >> i would say the progress is limited. it was very limited before. it remains very limited. the prospect of having to take any possible resolution on the 53 projects individually to the bankruptcy court tells me that we don't have good prospects for more expeditious treatment. >> last question before i turn it over to the representative from rec and park. at our last hearing we heard

from the san francisco unified school district they were forced to do costly engineering to protect the district against any last-minute pg & e decisions to eensure the deadlines of the school calendar. unfortunately, nick kissner was unable to be here into speak for the school district. can you talk about any of that? >> so the two projects we've been working closely with the school district on most recently are lafayette elementary school and tulark early education. both those projects are not making any progress right now. the puc had to withdraw our second temporary power request at lafayette and that temporary power is needed for

relocatable classrooms that will house students during the actual construction. so this is trying to make way so the construction can happen without disrupting the educati educational experience and because of the delays, we've had to stay we'll stop fighting with pg & e about getting temporary construction power to site and the school district is applying directly to pg & e for temporary construction service. when they do that, they incur a considerably higher electric bill for that time period. so that's a direct and measurable impact of the disputes we're having. and so neither of the projects are moving forward as planned. >> i would just note that we had a long discussion at the board to kind o cover the cost of saly

increases for teachers because the school district doesn't have enough revenue to provide a living wage to teachers in order to sell recor fill record vaca yet, pg & e is requiring our district to incur extra costs because they're trying to prevent the district from getting power from the city, which is clean and renewable. it's truly disgusting behaviour. it boggles the mind and i wish that were more that we're able to do about it. but what -- i think that the change in public opinion our efforts to municipalize the distribution and transmission of electricity here in san francisco is absolutely directly related to this behaviour.

it is reprehensible and i would just urge my colleagues to understand why supervisor paskin and i are fighting so hard to take over the infrastructure here in san francisco because if we are to longer dependent on pg & e to deliver energy to these projects, we don't have to play these games and we don't have to delay these critical city services and infrastructures. so i just want to use the opportunity of the hearing where we have, unfortunately, very little direct power to force pg & e to be a responsible company and help us provide these critical services to our residents and instead take that power from them and really just provide this energy directly. it is a basic human need to have the energy in our modern world and we can't be dependent upon a

company engaged in such ridiculous behaviour. that's just my plug with that. i want to turn it over to my colleague to ask additional questions before we call up representative from rec and park. >> senator walton? >> thank you. just a quick question. so am i understanding some of the projects that get held up, we end up paying a higher rate for grid access for projects to move forward? >> that's correct. >> how is that not extortion? i know i'm sitting here with three lawyers. [ laughter ] >> but how is that not extortion? whatever excuse they may give for holding up a project, we simply solve it by giving them more money, how is that allowed to happen?