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? >> the grid operator and sort of gatekeeper are one in the same. and they are a competitor of hours in providing this service. (please stand by).

reasons they give us is not that we would like more money, right?

they say they hold it out for etc., and i think that i understood you right -- if we offer more money we can move faster in some cases. >> in some cases, yeah. >> it's very problematic. and like supervisor ronen and supervisor peskin, i'm excited about the opportunity that we have to provide our own power to residents here. definitely why we foughto hard for prop a and i just want to make sure that we have the sources to do that. but i'm 100% behind that. and i would lose no sleep over that. but just want to make sure that we have the ability to do that fiscally. but thank you. >> thank you, supervisor. supervisor stefani. >> i agree this is maddening, and it really is and it is in my district and it's been vacant for a while now. i didn't realize that exactly was the hold-up. also i have noted j.f.k. towers,

is that still a hold-up? because we have a loss of residential units because of it. >> so that project was delayed but it's receiving electric service now. we do still have some loose ends to tie up with pgn and e on that project but it's my understanding that it's no longer holding up the occupancy of that senior affordable housing project. >> what does it take to energize these locations? when they give you excuses, do you just look at them like you're lying? i don't understand how they can just blatantly lie? >> on many of these is projects they're already connected to the grid and that our existing facilities connected to purchase g and -- pg&e grid, now that the

projects are improved they touch the electric grid and we have to submit a new application to pg&e and they're re-reviewing what the appropriate electrical configuration is. in that context they're putting up these higher hurdles for us. we believe that -- and we have filed at the energy regulatory commission that we have a right to continue service at secondary under the federal power act and that's an open issue that is pending for action at the federal energy regulatory commission. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you, vice chair stefani. and thank you miss hail. i thank we have -- is that everything from rec and park? >> good morning, chair and committee members. i'm beverly ing with the san francisco recreational and parks

department. thank you, super ronen, for bringing this legislation forth. since june we have had some progress on a few projects and i want to highlight a couple of them. margaret haywood playground that broke fall last year, it was an application for electrical service demo and transfer -- transformer removal. which pg&e we were appreciative of the efforts that mike reardon has put forth where they'll have removed and scheduled for february 27th. another one for burtrill hill, they're doing a renovation project out there that is also scheduled to be energized by the end of february as well. and so those are just a couple that have changed and kind of progressed since june which we were appreciative of. but there are still a few outl outliers and any delay further adds cost and also for the

community benefit it just has a drastic effect. and the civic center right out here in front of your offices, as you have noted, we have had a couple great additions. we had the helen gillett playground and the café and the ice skating rimpg during the fall as well. and that also adds in more power. so one of the things that we have asked from pg&e and we have submitted an application in august and we're waiting for them to get back in terms of reevaluation and analysis on the load for that area. and in particular if they could expedite the review of the system impact study itself. next is corona heights state street. and it was one of the items that was problematic. and during that time period of construction they had the constuks continue. when they did that they inadvertently cut power to the restroom at corona heights right nearby and, unfortunately, since

then we haven't gotten a clear timeline when the power would be restored and we're urging pg&e to work to identify the next new section. >> when did the power go off? >> so we asked for power to be cut off when construction was happening in about early fall or so. and then that's when we noticed that it wasn't -- our staff noticed that the lights were not turning on. so we did further investigation and we realized that it was a connection to the randall museum and that cut off. so we're hoping that a little bit more is resolved. >> there's no power in a restroom in a park for six months? >> from my understanding, yes. and next up, supervisor ronen you're quite familiar with and as you understand, it's a $19 million bond renovation project that is the community is kind of itching to get ready to jump in the pool when the

weather is warm. one of the things that we're asking for is removal of the existing metering by february 28th. if it doesn't happen by then we'll continue to delay the project further and impact construction. next is geneva car bond, a renovation project. it's moving along in a slow slide metering but any resolution to further advance that would help with construction of the project moving forward. and, lastly, one of our biggest public tennis facilities that is coming forth with a renovation project that we hope to break ground actually in april and pg&e had indicated to us in january they were going to help to energize and finalize service and we're still waiting on that and we're hoping for the end of february so we can break ground in april. so that is kind of the summary of the latest and the greatest. if there's questions, feel free to let me know.

>> thank you. >> if you wouldn't mind can i ask barbara hale a question because i'm not sure if she would have an answer. but both stay tuned. so for this restroom in corona heights, if this were just a private customer whose power went out in a restroom -- so, in other words, are they not energizing the restroom because they're punishing the city for using clean power, assessed power, to energize the restrooms? >> so, you know, i can't attribute why, right, they're doing it. but it's definitely clear that pg&e did not know when they performed the work and disconnected service what the consequences of that would be. and this is more like an asset management challenge they're having, right? they didn't know that when they

took random museum offline they'd also take off another facility, the restroom. and then typically if the power is out as a pge and retail customer, you're right, you call and they send a crew out and it gets fixed. that was not our experience here. and we called and said here's the problem and you appear to have accidentally disconnected this service as well. and instead of saying oops, we'll fix it, we went through a dialogue with them over a number of months to get them to the point where now they're saying, okay, yes, we'll fix it. >> but it's still not fixed six months later? >> it sounds like we have a path forward for it getting fixed. >> so it's either complete incompetence or it's direct punishment and extortion in the words of my colleague.

so if it's incompetence, no wonder they're in bankruptcy. they didn't realize that they were cutting off power to another facility and then when made aware of it they haven't been able to turn on the power for six months. and if it's extortion, then that's criminal behavior and no wonder they're in bankruptcy. but, you know, we only have the bully pulpit here. we, unfortunately, don't have the power to directly regulate. so i hope that the press is listening to this conversation because pg&e will not turn on lights for a restroom in a park for over six months. i canno mean, you cannot make ts stuff up. and it's extraordinary. and the city of san francisco, yes, we filed a complaint before the regulatory commission, but it's just unbelievable to me that this is happening and we haven't gotten movement. and we could sit here all day in

this hearing and go over the 53 examples of egregious behavior that we have here, but i think this one bears shining a light on because we're -- power was inadvertently shut off and we haven't been able to get it back on in a restroom in a park. it's just extraordinary. i just had to underscore that. >> thank you. >> thank you both. i also think that we have erin carson from the mayor's office of housing here? >> good morning, supervisors. thank you, and thank you supervisor ronen for your leadership on this work. it has been immensely helpful, even as it continues to be immensely frustrating and difficult and challenging. at least we have seen some movement and some progress. and it has been really been useful for me at least to see pg&e in the room with us and with you and with our non-profit

affordable housing sponsors to work through every single project, its schedule and where the. so it's been very helpful. and as you know though we have two projects that are not sort of agreed upon in terms of their design approach going forward. and that is very tenuous for them. and so to barbara's point that pg&e says they can continue forward in its current business, they're saying that those two are not part of their current business because they didn't have that agreement made. so that is a challenge for us because if we cannot get what we now call primary plus, we used to call it secondary -- i don't understand any of it -- but if we can't get that same agreement made with the other six, they face $175,000 to $200,000 in costs and we lose housing.

and it's just a waste and it's a waste of time and it's a waste of city resources. and it's a waste of affordable housing. so that is something that is really upsetting and frustrating for us all. >> yeah, can you -- so, there's 14 projects in the housing pipeline that aren't included in this primary plus. >> right. >> so how do you even plan for those projects when you have no idea what type of extortionary practices that pg&e might subject us to? >> i think that, you know, thanks to your work we are basically proceeding and negotiating every one-off project. so it's a challenge for each one. and our design teams, electrical engineering designers are amazing and they have found solutions and they've found ways of trying to address the things that pg&e brings up that they

think are valid to try to address those concerns or those issues. so we're really relying on our consultants and our sponsors to push and to negotiate and to submit those applications through the -- through the p.u.c., and the p.u.c. has to submit those to pg&e and they review or rejects them or accepts parts of them and we just go through it constantly and it's a constant challenge. and we hope that we can make our targets, make our milestones, and not lose housing or services space. >> thank you. colleagues, any... -- supervisor ronen, you have any additional speakers? >> i believe that benson is here from the port. brad, were you planning on presenting? >> mr. benson.

>> brad benson, the director of special projects for the port of san francisco, representing for director wayne forbes. and thank you for the chance to speak. the port, all of the port's projects are really trying to connect to sfpuc clean power. and we are always navigating this issue about interconnection with the p.u.c. system. i can speak to our major development projects along the port, primarily mission rock and pier 70. we have one affordable project at 88 broadway. we have our chief harbor engineer wab washana who can speak to our other projects along the port so he can come up and speak after i'm done. with pier 70, we're looking at up to 3,000 housing units in a phased development at that site.

30% affordable housing. and we're in the process of working with the city's infrastructure departments on processing the infrastructure permits for phase one of that project. and we think that we have a strategy to power phase one of the project and there is a piece of pg&e infrastructure that are in 22nd street which is one of the main entrances to pier 70. and it's really critical that we're able to work with -- our partner at pier 70 and pg&e to relocate those feeder lines at 22nd street so we can timely build the new 22nd street so that phase one can open. so far we don't know that there is a delay that would force a delay to phase one of the

project. but it's critical path for the project. and so when we come back and report next time we'll give you an update about that. it's very important. the mission rock development has up to 1,800 units of housing, 40% affordable at different income levels. the first phase of that project is looking to need power in 2020. and so there will need to be intervening facilities installed and negotiated between them at that time. again, i can't report any delay in that work. i know that the tentative map for the first phase of the mission rock project has been circulated among the city departments. so the infrastructure work and planning is pressing ahead in that project as well. and it would be very unfortunate if the inability to connect to clean power were a delay to that phase one. and then, finally, the 88

broadway project, we appreciated the board's approval of that project last year. i'm less familiar with the timelines for that project and i believe that bridge is hoping to complete the financing and to start construction in the next year to 18 months. and, again, that, like the other affordable housing projects requires a timely resolution to this issue. so we really appreciate the board's attention to all of this and it's critical to the work that we do in trying to reconnect the city to its waterfront at multiple locations. and i'll stop there and see if you have any questions for me and if you don't i can invite rod up to speak to the committee. >> you want to wait? okay. thank you. >> thank you.

>> good morning, supervisor, i'm the chief engineer for the port of san francisco. so brad has talked about our big development plans and i wanted to highlight a few of the other projects that we are relying on for power. that need power. we have the mission day ferry terminal adjacent to the warriors' new stadium. that will come online -- our ferry terminal is supposed to come online in the first quarter of 2021. that will need power. in plain cove park, that will come on in early 2020. and the backlands project, at pier 94. it is a lay down area that we are developing right now. it's almost complete i think.

and we have had delays that have caused us to make -- or take temporary measures and to redesign some of the electrical supply so we could get power out to the site. and the weeda ferry terminal is not a port project but it's on port property. they have also had to do intervening -- not intervening measures -- interim measures to supply the ferry floats at the port. and the last project is pier 43.5, for the red and white fleet. the red and knigh and white fles built a ferry ship that needs shore power and they're in the process of trials right now but they will need power to recharge

the batteries at that site. those are the -- those are the projects. >> great, thank you. supervisor walton. >> i just wanted to say and this is actually not for the port but thank you so much, and i appreciate miss hill and mr. scarpula from being here, but this is why we're reluctant to enter into any agreements with pg&e at this particular time. i mean, not just the bankruptcy, but everything else that's been happening. so i just hope that as we continue to do business with them in the circumstances where we have to, that we are really mindful about trying to avoid any path forward with this corporation when we can. because the things that they're doing to our residents in this city, our constituents, and to, you know, the p.u.c., is

despicable. so i just want us to remember that as you bring -- as that involves pg&e and why we're so reluctant to move forward. >> thank you. supervisor walton. >> i'm happy to make closing remarks. >> we should see if there's any members of the public that want to speak to us on this item? i -- any colleagues want to say anything before -- i'm going to say a few items and then maybe i'll speak and we can close. yeah, i mean, it seems to me that pg&e, you know, as an unregulated monopoly, has all of the bad attributes that people sometimes ascribe to government in terms of unresponsiveness and inefficiency without the commitment to serving the public that is government's, you know,

chief beneficial attribute. so, you know, the conversation about municipalization and about making good on the promise of the reiker act which is, of course, more than a hundred years old. i think that i have engaged around every ballot measure to establish public power in san francisco over the last two decades. and, you know, repeatedly we have come to the brink of doing something about these problems and then hold back and not moved ahead. and i think that one of the things that seems different maybe about this moment is now seven months of being inside of this building it does seem to me like there is at least among the city's elected leadership more of a commitment or understanding of the challenges of our unhappy marriage to pg and even and an

interesting -- pg&e and an interest in looking for ways to change that relationship and to do something different than i have seen over those two decades. and so i think that is a happy thing. but i also think that, you know, although supervisor ronen spoke about a sea change in public opinion, i hope that is right. i think that it is very beneficial to have hearings like this, to are reports like the reports that are here that identifies the 53 projects where we are having a problem with pg&e that shows the $5 million in direct additional project costs, and the $3.5 million in lost revenue, and to at least have the conversation to begin to speculate on, you know, the unquantifiable cost to our communities of not having access to an affordable housing development, a park bathroom, all, you know, all of the other

ways in which we are not being well served by pg&e. so i'm -- so thank you, supervisor ronen, for having us to have this conversation today. thank you to all of the folks at the p.u.c. and in the city's attorney office who have been fighting this fight and trying to get a good deal for the city under difficult circumstances for a long, long time. and to all of the city departments that are also laboring under these difficult conditions. so with that supervisor ronen. >> yes, thank you for that. you know, i just want to note that the mayor is putting forth all of these proposals to streamline and hasten the review and the approval of affordable housing projects and cutting lowal fees that we change -- local fees that we charge to these projects and p pg&e undo

that great work because they increase the cost to those projects and they delay them. so the impact on the city cannot be overstated. and some of the good works that we're doing to try to deliver these essential units even faster is completely undone by the behavior of this company which is actually regulated. i would just say, not sufficiently regulated, to the point that it feels like it's unregulated. >> exactly, unregulated. >> you did say unregulated and i understand why you feel this way because it certainly does feel that way. you know, i would also encourage my colleagues if you can get pg&e at the table the way that i have been able to and to sit down with the city departments and to go over every project in your district, it's also illuminating. i can't say that it's any less

frustrating, but having them in the room and having to respond in detail, you know, and to give, you know, try to give explanation to the delays or the ridiculous requirements, puts them on the spot in a different way. so i would recommend that you do that with projects in your district. but i finally just want to end by just saying, you know, again, i'm so disappointing that pg&e didn't show up today. i don't think that it's too much to ask to come to a hearing and to respond to these critical projects in our city that they are directly impacting. and their last-minute excuse they're not coming because there's ongoing litigation is absurd, we're not asking them to respond to a complaint in this forum, we're asking them to respond to their responsibility to provide power to these critical projects. and to explain the cause of the

delays and the justification for the infrastructure requirements. and that is completely separate from litigation and there's no reason they couldn't be here today to respond and to justify if they can their actions. and they did last time when we had a complaint, so i don't know what is different about this time. so i would just have to say that once again pg&e, surprise, surprise, we're disappointed in you, not that it seems to matter. so i -- you know, i wanted to echo supervisor mandelman for the good work of all of our city departments and particularly the city attorney's office that is trying to get action, you know, in the regulatory courts and then the courts of law and i hope that, you know, for the public and for my colleagues this hearing continues to

illuminate the urgency, i think, to divorce ourselves from this irresponsible corporation and to provide public power for public good. and we have the ability to do that. and i think that we should act as soon as we possibly can on that. and with that i would ask one of my colleagues on the committee to continue this hearing to the call of the chair because we're going to bring it back every single quarter until it's no longer necessary. because we don't have many venues to bring -- to shed light on this situation and to push this company to act. but we will continue to do so here at this committee. >> great, thank you, supervisor ronen. thank you to our clerk for reminding me that i need to close public comments. public comment is now closed. and i had a request that we continue this item to the call of the chair and i will make

that motion and we can take that without objection. mr. clerk, do we have any more items? >> clerk: there's no further business. >> great. then we are adjourned. thank you.

>> ladies and gentlemen the chair's called the meeting to order. can you please turn off your electronic devices as they tend to interfear with the equipment in the room and please rise for the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. good evening. this is the february 20th, 2019 meeting of the san francisco police commission. we have a full agenda both open and closed session today so i'm going limit public comment to two minutes and i would like to start off with an acknowledgement of sergeant