income bracket people. you don't have to charge no fees. get rid of the developer that is charging and interested in private only. you won't have this problem. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> peter cohen. support the legislation seems like really kind of low hanging fruit and we've been trying to trim margin inover the last couple of years as construction costs were driven by materials cost have really skyrocketed. anything we can do is helpful and there's a i want to really

commend y'all for thinking about how to use this extr strategicay whether it's for the small homeowner or building homeowner or across the board. i've leave that to you. but again, the city is foregoing money so it's using it strategically who who is tipping point are you trying to help is a good policy discussion. and the reporting amendment that you suggested supervisor mar is great. we really need to learn from these kinds of policies. sometimes we have a tendency to some up with great ideas and hope for the best and we move onto the next item. this report back is great. i just want to conclude, this legislation is an example of the kind of collaboration that can and should happen on everything around affordable housing. i mean, everyone supports affordable housing. it's not as competitive as sometimes it seems to be. when we're doing legislation for

whatever it is to advance our affordable housing or to incentivize new ways to create affordable housing or changing our zoning systems or finding money, let's all work together. it's a great example of how we can come up with a good idea, talk about it, workout the fine edges and i'm sure this will move through the board unanimously. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> are there any other members of the public that wish to testify in this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there someone from the b.l.a.s office that is able to shed light on these questions that we've been discussing on a.d.u.s either permitted or applied for that are in larger -- like four unit buildings and maybe more than 10 units or larger? >> good morning chair mar and members of the committee. we did report on this item in

april. at that time, we did note that we estimated that approximately 280a.d.u. projects would be subject to the one year fee waiver program based on the first six months of fiscal year 2018-2019 that had 92 a.d.u. project permits so we estimated that if that pace remains steady for the remainder of the year there would be about 200 units and we estimated that the amount of fees, the dollar value of fees for those projects would be about $3200. fortunately we did not have any data on the size of the building and the a.d.u. projects were in. i would defer to the apartment at this time for that and we

noted it was a policy matter for the board. >> thank you so much. is there additional information, mr. strong, that you have to present on this? >> i've been given some break out of some data. i would be happy to share it with you. i would also like frankly to take it back to the department and run our own numbers to make sure we're all giving you correct information. i'm happy to share these with you. this does provide some estimate -- i'm assuming it is from this past fiscal year a year ago many of the top line apparently represents the single-family homes and then two units, three units, four units and up to 10 units. i'm seeing it for the first time so i'm not really able to give you any specifics about that

until i go back and talk to our i.t. people to take a look. >> based on these numbers, this is the entire history of a.d.u.s right? >> i would assume. probably dating from 2014-2015. >> we're at about 1200 and this is 1,038 so this captures the vast majority of them. >> the largest cluster is in six unit or larger buildings. 314 is the big number and that's six unit buildings.

this is about 2% of the average project cost. this is not going to make or break it whether you are a mom and pop or whether you are a large corporate apartment owner. if this thing isn't is a cash flow and it's a good investment and you can get a loan to do the project, you are going to do that if you are a small person with a $3200 fee and d.b.i. or you are veritos. it's a month's rent is basically what the building cost is. i don't care. it's a 15-month pilot program. i defer to chair mar but it's kind of six one half-dozen and the other. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. and also thank you for this

additional data that we have on the a.d.u.s so far and again, what we're looking at here that was provided shows that the largest number of a.d.u.s significantly has been in buildings of -- properties of six units. so, i think given this and all through just my sort of feeling that we really do not need to provide a fee waiver to incentivize larger or real estate developers and landlords of larger apartment buildings because they're adding a.d.u.s to their building. where we really need to target the incentives and the single-family homes and the smaller apartment buildings that are just mom and pop owners.

you my strong preference is to stick with the threshold that we had agreed on yesterday and that is allowing a fee favor on four properties of four units or less and then through the evaluation of this 15-month pilot program we can see how things play out and consider adjusting that the threshold, the unit size threshold in the future. >> thank you, chair mar. yeah, i mean, i totally understand what you are saying and believe me, i don't want to give certain large landlords and i know supervisor peskin named a couple and i have them in my district holding their feet to the fire. any advantage, i mean they should be paying this if they want to have another unit. and the number of a.d.u.s proposed for property between 2014 and the first quarter of

2018 has ranged from one to nine units. so just wanted to get that to us to give us a perspective. tofor me, i want to push this forward, chair mar, and i really appreciate you opening it up to small property owners to four units. i want to push this forward so we can give people a chance and actually just have them think about doing an a.d.u. and their property. i'm fine with moving this forward and i really thank you for your work on this. >> thank you. >> colleagues, can we accept the amendments as introduce without objection and recommend this to the full board without objection as amended? great, thank you. mr. clerk, please call item

number 3. >> clerk: agenda item number 3 is resolution to authorization -- approving the sheriff department home detention and electronic monitoring and approving evidence of financial responsibility demonstrated by the program administrator. fentanyl offender services llc for the 2019 calender year. >> thank you. i'd like to recognize the chief financial officer here to present on this item. mr. hollins. >> thank you. good morning supervisors. i'm here requesting approval of the resolution for the sheriff's department's electronic monitoring program rules and regulations. i'm joined here today with chief michelle fisher, who until recently managed the department's alternative division that handsels the monitoring. she can speak to program details including rules and regulations.

i have some handouts and paper as well. just some program history. the electronic monitoring program was established it provide alternatives to incarceration were in participation is ordered by the courts. we had a fee structure based on ability to pay for sentenced participants. and then last year there were a number of events that caused growth in the program. there's an appellant court ruling and non monetary alternatives when setting bail or release conditions at the same time sheriff hennessey waved fees for participants. all of this pre seeded the significant growth and the program monthly program participants increased from

about 100 in february 2018 to 400 as of may 2019. and we had a contract with leaders and communities alternatives that we went through competitive bid process where the new contract was awarded to term of the proposed contract begins august 1. the rules and regulations are essentially the same. if you go to slides 3 and 4, you can see the growth of the graphically you can see the growth of the program. you can see the a pal enter appd the cost of the program has increased quite a bit but still the contract is for under $10 million. we're not here for that but just rules and regulations. finally, the last slide, slide 5

shows the snapshot showing the increase in release on alternatives back in 2016. we had a total population that the sheriff's department was charged with of 2238 and of those 1371 were actually incarcerated in the jail with another 866 out of custody on pre trial release or sentenced to alternatives including electronic monitoring and that meant about 40% of people were out on alternatives as of late last week. the jail population has remained roughly the same. with that, i can answer questions myself or chief fisher. >> thank you.

any questions? >> thank you so much. are there any members of the public that wish to testify on this item. please step forward, you have two minutes. >> go ahead morning, supervisors, i am at california attorney in 20-year resident of the city. the title language of file number 190673 is misleading and incorrect. the ruse and regulations of the program are not contained in appendix a. appendix a is is the contract or's responsibility. the rules and regulations of the county program are contained in separate documents that are not before you today. if you approve this legislation this will be the sixth time in five years that the board, the city attorney and the sheriff's office have misleadingly represented to the public the obligations imposed by state law regarding the operation of the county's e.m. program. the personal code does not authorization the she ever to

operate the program and they authorized the board to permit the sheriff to operate the e.m. program. they must approve contracts between the sheriff and the e.m. program in addition to its obligation to approve the program rules and regulations. the upcoming contract is set to begin august 1st has never been approved by the board. according to the controllers' office of the sheriff staffing practices released last month, they have a program report a 2,382% increase in e.m. program violations by participants over the past four years. if the city's attorney office is advising the board that it does not need to provide public approval of the e.m. contract at a properly noticed public board meeting the city attorney is giving you bad information. your colleagues and other countries across the state including l.a., san diego are well aware of and fulfill their open government and public disclosure obligations regarding the operation of e.m. programs.

why is it that san francisco board of supervisors repeatedly violates the obligations under the c.p. c. including approval of the county's e.m. contracts and annual approval of the programs rules and regulations. thank you for your time. thank you. public comment i comment is clo. any additional comments or questions? i'd like to move we send this item to the full board with positive recommendations. can we take that without objection. >> great. mr. clerk, please call item number 4. >> clerk: agenda item number 4 ordinance and many of the administrative code to create office of division of the human rights decision department to create a city wide racial equity framework and assist the racial equity, analyze and racial equity and carry out various

other policy and recording. to require city department to create racial equity action plan and updates of such plans and require city departments to designate employees as racial equity leaders and require the department of human resources to produce an annual report in the city workforce and mr. chair, this item has been requested to be a again diesed as a committee report for next tuesday the 23rd. >> thank you, supervisor brown, the floor is yours. >> thank you, i'm asking you to join me and move forward with the creation of the first ever office of racial equity. i want to thank supervisor fewer, her staff and my staff and especially all the community members who came last week and provided important testimony on this ordinance. i ask our community continue working with us. we have a funded mandate. let's get the data to make better decisions on crafting legislation and funding.

let's hold our departments accountable and hold the city. let's do right by our community of color and chair mar, i'd like to move to make a positive recommendation of this item and recommend that move to the full board and be scheduled for july 23rd. >> thank you, supervisor brown. do we need to take public comment? >> we must. >> is there any members of the public that wish to testify on this item? you have two minutes. mr. wright. >> we have a long way to go. you want to do racial equality and what you did to black people. you got that? this goes back not only to your slavery treatment of blacks. it goes back to the city didn't

do a damn thing about it. it expanded to treasure island. you got testimony that each and every god damn department here in the city and county of san francisco in san francisco discriminates against black people. and you did it to me when i used to work for muni. you get more respect to undocumented, illegal aliens and in the country in-housing and employment. about affordable housing controversy over studio apartments for 3,500 god damn dollars a month. and you are arguing over that from both sides but yet you say nothing about undocumented illegal immigration getting brand new apartments that you having controversy about paying $3 a month. you hear me? it's disgusting. and then on top of that, you've

already had hearings and testimony from black people explaining the way they've been treated and discriminated against by every employer department in your city. you talk about analysis and your input. you have 50 to 100 of us come up here and speak and you only one to give us one minute. that's harassment in its god damn self. how are we going to tell you what happened to us in one minute and when other nationalities speak, you let them speak for two minutes and the alarm goes off and they still get to speak. you discriminating your god damn self and the fro speec free sped constitutional rights. >> is there anyone that wishes to testify on this item?

mr. wright. >> michael! michael! >> this is a peculiar place and one would receive dis a dance against social practice and substance. i grew up on the peninsula where every block was diverse and they learned towards whether black, asian, jewish, latino, gay, et cetera. i believe the proposal is based in a desire and a attempt to deflect and channel unwanted but warranted criticism which might otherwise confront the board or committees directly or force the reinterpretation of circumstances to alternative framework of presentation not necessarily one more truthful or

accurate. with the poorest performing of schools in the city and state are denied material resources and teacher pay, when the recommended amount is more, then trouble at $7500 a year and in an effort to create a stable classroom environment and when a request to hire is denied for a very modest number of attorneys to a number for forensic analysis while they might review and assess a judicial rulings of juvenile cases and jobs are slashed at the housing authority and retraining funds are greatly diminished, this might be interpreted as structural racism and tribalism in the city. >> thank you. is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. so we have a motion to send this item to the full board with positive recommendations.

can we take that without objection. >> is the motion to request as a committee report? >> yes, thank you. it's a committee report. thank you. >> mr. clerk, please call items 5-8 for closed session. > >> agenda items 5-8 are various ordinances and resolutions authorization settlements of lawsuits against the city and county of san francisco. >> thank you. do we have a motion to convene in closed session. >> so moved. >> mr. chair, before we take a motion to convene in closed session we should take public comment on the four called items. >> sorry. is there any member of the public that wishes to speak on items 5-8 before we go to closed

session? mr. wright. >> >> talk about this lawsuit here. this is example of a lawsuit that was filed unlivable conditions. i was the one that documented and foiled filed a complaint ae family. i got put in that hotel by barbara garcia and found out that senior citizens been exposed to infestations of bedbugs, roaches and mice. i'm the one that took pictures and filed the complaints for the environmental health department to come down there and address my issues and none of them believe me. i'm the one that was told by the god damn hot team that that's the best building that we got, michael. what are you talking about? if that's the best building you got, i sure hate to see what the

worse one looks like at all my evidence together before i confronted them. i'm the one that was doing pest control in the building and helping the tenants out. i realized the upper floors, the three floors above me with bad. i was living in that building for five months. i got more work done in that building in five months than your executive director for the building inspectors got at 31 years. and yet you give her a recognition for doing a good job for taking on the family. you have the executive director for housing and placement and call me and tell me the city attorney wants to use my pictures to file a lawsuit against the slum lord. the slum lord knock on my door and ask do i want him to do. i started construction on that building, renovation of that building. you have a white living next

door to me and have hundreds of roaches and bedbugs and the black to my right living in the same manner. i'm the one that got their apartments renovated. you hear me. >> thank you, mr. wright. is there anyone else that would like to comments on items 5-8? public comment is closed. so again, do we have a motion to convene in closed session. >> so moved. >> thank >> we are back to open session. we clarified that the sediment was for petitioner claims for attorney fees and the committee

record for consideration by the board in the 23rd. agenda items 6 and 7 were also recommended as committee reports to july 23rd board meeting. agenda item number 8 was a recommended asper usual business. >> thank you, mr. clerk. do we have a motion around the closed session proceedings. >> clerk: we would take a motion to disclose or not disclose the deliberations in closed session. >> i will make a motion not to disclose. >> can we take that without objection? >> thank you. >> any further business. >> clerk: there is no further business. >> this meeting is closed.

>> our clerk is erica major who is delighted she will not see us for the next month. do you have any announcements. >> i guess sf gov tv has to run the title. >> okay, there is no fine for this.

do they have to run the title? >> please make sure to silence all cell phones on electronic devices. replace speaker cards and any documents to be submitted to the clerk. [reading notes] item number 1, 180777, ordinane amending the planning code to require a conditional use authorization for employee cafeterias, as defined, within office space, except for existing employee cafeterias; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and adopting findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under planning code, section 302. >> we had to make some amendments i had to set for one week. anything you would like to add about this legislation? . >> clerk: just to reiterate that we were to considerable amount of time with all of the stakeholders in i feel like we've got most i think we are in good shape.

>> it is an honor to be your cosponsor. does mr. sanchez, nothing from planning, is there any public comments on item number one? seeing none. public comment is closed. if there is no objections, we will finally send this to the full board with a recommendation , without objection. madame clerk would you please read the next item? . item number 2, 190702,e amending the planning code to permit new floor area or building volume on the rooftop of a noncomplying structure that is designated as a significant building under planning code, article 11, located on assessor's parcel block no. 3707, provided that the rooftop has an existing parapet at least 17 feet in height along the primary building frontage; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and making findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under planning code, section 302. >> this is a site-specific piece of legislation. i authored a very similar one, a few years ago for a rooftop terrace on an article article 11 designated building.

this is the same for the first building, which is undergoing, the subject of a renovation to a hotel that preserves the significant features, it has gone before the historic preservation commission which recommended i believe unanimously. on behalf of the department. >> good afternoon. planning department staff. item number two before and as an ordinance. a floor area or building volume on the rooftop of a noncomplying structure at five jik third street. it will confer office space into a tourist hotel on the first 12 floors and demolish the existing top structure. the project would maintain approximately 11,000 square feet of retail use of the basement and ground floors. the historic preservation commission presented this item on march 20. the planning commission heard this item on april 25, 2019.

during both hearings the commission's recommended approval of the ordinance. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions. >> are there any members of the public you would like to speak to item number two? sounds like a good plan. i want to caution you about these rooftops. rooftops are not made for weight , for entertainment, and the use of putting a lot of weight on top of them. in the event that the roof is not calculated to be strong enough to carry excess weight, you are putting the lower level section of the building at risk for collapse. i think you should do engineering measurement, and pressure test on that structure before you start adding a ton of

weight on top of any building that you want to perform this type of noncompliance structure design. >> thank you, mr. wright. i will just say, for the record, that there actually rooftop structures there now, and the proposed rooftop structure is very modest, mostly consists of a canopy. this is just to allow that use on the rooftop on an article 11 building. the floor is yours ms. gomez. >> good afternoon supervisors. we've come to the planning commission, and various subcommittees, for the past several years with regard to this project. we have a long-standing relationship and a very productive collaborative relationship with the developers of this project. they have proactively come to us early, early on and signed

agreements that would ensure that's whatever workers are employed at this hotel, including who served drinks, or beverages on the rooftop bar will have a fair process. it's very important to us, and for that reason we have continued to support this project. we are asking for approval with regard to the rooftop to be presented today. if you have any questions, please feel free to get in touch. >> next speaker, please. >> connie ford from the good jobs for our program. i am here to proudly say, about 1.5 hours ago we finished our negotiations with the developer, and actually i have to sign it, i have not signed it yet. we are very happy with it. we are trying to keep all of this development that is happening in our city accountable. in serving the needs of disadvantage communication is a barrier to get these in a -- level jobs and all of this good development, particularly. we are working really hard, we

are really happy and we are here to recommend that this go forward and we look forward to working with jama ventures on establishing the program that we are talking about. thank you so much. >> congratulations. any other members of the public here on item number two. seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor haney, this is an district number six, the . >> supervisor haney: thank you. i was really excited to hear that there was such strong collaboration from a very early stage on this project. folks from local 2, ms. gomez on ms. ford from the good jobs for all coalition. i'm glad there was able to be, all of the development that is taking place, whether it's hotels, housing court, or commercial space. we want to make sure that those

are available to the people in community. they are good jobs. the developers are investing in training on the front and. i'm very happy that we were able to come to an agreement on this project. i'm also excited about the rooftop, i think rooftops are great in san francisco. rooftops have gone up very successfully on rooftops. not just putting a lot of people to work on i think it's good for tourism industry and generally for economic developments. i am excited about this project. i'm very happy and thankful to this developer and the folks in the community for coming together for an agreement. there are some minor, technical amendments. some of the existing text in the code has sons headed, we have

drafted the no amendments to add that text back in. it looks like a big amendment, but it's actually just replacing existing text with the same language. >> if i may, having just read this for the first time, and i think i was actually the author of the previous text that did sunset for a similar project that was never built. the language sons headed -- -- sun set. you change it to 5 third street. is there a reason, are you just doing that in the short title so people know where it is? >> that is right. i am not sure whether that short

title change was recommended by the clerk's office or by someone in my office. yes, that is the purpose of the short title change. . >> supervisor peskin: in so far that there is nothing in here that correlates the short title to the long title, either in the short title it should say 5 third street for assessors parcel block 3707, or in the long title it should say 5 third street. the two so far do not cross reference each other. >> fairpoint. we can make the change to the long title to reflect the address. >> thank you. sorry for being such a nit picker. this is not substantial. all right, we have had public comment. supervisor haney, would you like to make a motion to adopt the amendments described? . >> supervisor haney: forward as amended.

. >> supervisor peskin: we will take the amendments and send the item with a recommendation to the full board of supervisors without objection. madame clerk could you read the next item. . item number 3, 190594,e amending the planning code to revise the zoning control tables of the chinatown mixed use districts to make them consistent with those in articles 2 and 7, to apply the use definitions in section 102, to set an abandonment period for use size maximums, and to allow general entertainment and nighttime entertainment uses with conditional use authorization; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and adopting findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under >> supervisor peskin: colleagues , this is part of aaron's stars favorite job, and life mission to reorganize the code and they have now gotten to article eight , in the chinatown mixed-use districts. this is similar to a number of other pieces of legislation that mr. starr has brought, and the commission has recommended in this case. i believe it was unanimous

recommendation on may 9 of this year. i do have one very minor addition, which i believe staff is aware of, and i will talk to you about in a minute. but first, i would like to give mr. starr the opportunity to regale us with his life's work. >> thank you, supervisor, i like to think of it as my elbows. aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs, this is part three of the code reorganization project. it brings consistency to the code by consolidating all use the definitions in the code and standardizing these control table formats. this phase focuses on chinatown. the first phase focused on article two which include our residential pdr and downtown zoning districts. the second one focused on zoning seven. the next phase and final phase will reformat the remainder of article eight. supervisor haney, i will be coming after you next.

which includes our easter neighborhoods district. i would just like to note that the new zoning district that was created by central selma uses a centralized definition of format. the commission heard this item on may 9 and recommended two of -- approve. we do have one proposed amendment today. . >> supervisor peskin: which was discussed by the commission and does not require re- referral? >> it narrows what the commission approve so it does not need a throwback. . >> supervisor peskin: before we open it up for public comments, i want to explain to my colleagues, and the public, what that small amendment does on page three, which is to accept from the maximum use size abandonment provision, a change of use for legacy business or institutional use, or legacy business or institutional use

after -- after the abandonment timeframe. that is set forth on page three. with that, why don't we open this up to public comment. first speaker, please. >> this is a good way for me to get my point across to you. i want all of you to pay close attention to this. you set rules and regulations that gives preferential treatment to yourselves, and people in the same income brackets as yourselves. you have a redevelopment rule that says 15% of all brand-new housing, is supposed to be for low income, very low income, and moderate households. you have the audacity to talk about the homeless issue, act like you want to help. by the same response, peskin, even you when you point out your

proposal, pertaining to the congestion in san francisco, you include the homeless in your conversation to try to make it act like your proposal is going to help the homeless situation. those two apartment buildings in your broadway district, okay, you are not including the most vulnerable people that is homeless out in the street. you said the lowest income at 30% of the ami scale. that means everybody's income that is below 30%, is not included in the housing opportunity. but, you still want to administer rules and regulations that you want to enforce, and follow, to benefit people that is in the same damn income bracket as yourselves, and personal god damn friends to yourselves. you're a bigot. you are. all three of you. you sit up there and act like you are concerned, but you are not. if another center is not a solution to the homeless problem, why are you doing it?

a $400 million a year is not a solution to the homeless problem, why are you spending that per year? it is called professional stupidity, and you don't give a damn. that is why you have so many god damn homeless people out in the streets. then you give multibillion-dollar tax companies multibillion-dollar tax breaks and talk about you giving them a break. >> with regard to item number 3, welcome. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is roy chan, chinatown community developer first off i want to acknowledge aaron starr and a planning staff for working closely with our organization and with supervisor peskin's staff, this past year, on this project to ensure consistency with the originally intended projections of the chinatown zoning adopted in 1987. this zoning as you know, has

been vital in preserving chinatown neighborhood character by keeping high-rise developments from displacing residents, small businesses and shadowing our parks. this process has been really important and thorough. i want to recap the rationale for the amendments that we requested in the chinatown visitor free. the first change responds to feedback we have been hearing from chinatown business entrepreneurs by the code's restriction that requires entertainment used be tied to an existing restaurant. the proposed change in this ordinance would remove this requirement and instead make entertainment use conditional. with that said, to continue ensure that large nightclubs and other large-scale uses, when there is a change of use in a nonconforming structure. the only exception we believe

should be allowable, is the proposed use of the institutional, or legacy business status. with that, thank you for your time and your support to move this to the next process. >> thank you for working with mr. starr, and the community and for those suggestions that you made to the commission, and thank you mr. starr and the commission for adopting them. are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on this item? public comment is closed. i would like to move the amendment. we will take that without objection and send the item, as amended and come into the board with recommendation without objection. mr. starr, you will not be hearing from any of us for the next month. supervisor safai you might hear from. madame clerk can you read the fourth and final item. . item number 4, 190477,g to receive a report from the san francisco public utilities commission on options for

improving electric service through acquisition, construction, or completion of public utilities, pursuant to resolution no. 174-19, adopted april 9, 2019, and in accordance with charter, section 16.101; and requesting the san francisco public utilities commission to report. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i would like to first acknowledge the great work of the san francisco puc. i always break for station identification and say not the california public utilities commission, very different organization that actually is trying to do the right thing for the people of the city and county of san francisco. as we all know, this has been the subject of many hearings, many resolutions, and a lot of work and the expenditure of a bunch of money to get this project on its way. it is a long-held desire that was in the old days held by some, not by all. in recent times is now, i think

held by every one of the 11 members of this body and the chief executive officer, our mayor, london breed. we are all marching in the same direction although there may be some other parties that are not marching along with us. i would like to, first of all, acknowledge and think the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission. the assistant agm, ms. barbara hale from our power enterprise for your work. i would be remiss if i did not acknowledge teresa mueller from the city attorney's office. there are many other people i could acknowledge including my colleague, hilary ronan who wanted to be with us this afternoon. unfortunately got stuck somewhere outside of san francisco. with that, why do we turn it over to ms. hale to regale us with a good, the bad, and the ugly and the aspirational vision that we all share. hold on one second.

supervisor haney? . >> supervisor haney: i have a statement that supervisor ronen asked me to read. she had to be in los angeles to be at the swearing in of her friend, lily garcia, and she asked me to share these brief remarks. these are her words. "i am relieved we are here today to take the next step to ensure we have a, affordable and energy system in san francisco. making it clear that pg&e is a wreck. the chronicle reported that the preparation itself and some of its employees could be soon facing manslaughter, or murder charges for last year's fires are yet while the court rejected a request for ratepayers to have any voice in pg&e's vagrancy negotiations, but continue to battle for control between pg&e's stockholders on potential hedge fund adventures, and surely the customers come last.

what we are seeing is the inevitable outcome of having an investor owned utility that profits above reliability, and safety above its customers and its employees. certainly above our urgent need to respond now to the climate change. we can't keep going down this failed path. lucky for us, we already have a functioning public utility. the san francisco public utilities commission, which has been providing safe, reliable energy for our city facilities for more than 100 years, as well as delivering fresh and clear drinking water throughout the city. san francisco public utilities commission has had a high bar for a partnerships and a real commitment to community education, arts, environmental justice and workforce about me. taking full ownership of our power system, opens exciting opportunities for san francisco to invest in green jobs and infrastructure, to make our grid smaller and saved her and and make environmentally sound decisions about energy sources. it is time, beyond time really, to break the tie to pg&e and

create a green, renewable, publicly owned system ". i agree with what chair peskin's head. i'm excited about this hearing and appreciate the work that has i believe there is not just a broad majority that shares the perspective that chair peskin just articulated. a full consensus on this approach. i appreciate the work, and i'm looking forward to doing whatever we can to support it. >> ms. hale, the floor is yours. >> thank you chairman, thank you supervisors for the opportunity to present our preliminary report today. i am going to briefly -- excuse me, having a little trouble here. i'm going to briefly review the history of city power services and describe the context in which this report has called for and prepared. then i will send a little more

-- spend a little more time reviewing the options that the and the recommended next steps. . >> supervisor peskin: very similar to our june presentation, is that true? nevermind, go ahead. don't listen to me. >> the puc is a party of the city and county of san francisco. we service programs as well as water and wastewater services that we referred to earlier. those two retail electric service programs are public power utility, hetch hetchy power. we have been serving city functions like the general hospital, police and fire stations, public schools, and new developments like the shipyard at hunters point. mission rock and treasures i went. our second retail electric service program is the clean power sf program. providing electrical supply to businesses and residents.

historically, the city has paid pg&e for distribution services for both of those programs. together that is about $300 million per year in distribution fees, paid by san franciscans to pg&e. that is $300 million per year for use of pg&e's distribution wires and facilities. over time, san francisco has been reducing its reliance on pg&e, increasing our energy independence. that effort began in 1918 when we first started gathering electricity of our own, that is the carbon free electricity reproduced on the hetch hetchy power system. and the associated transmission services. the system has expanded over time, since 1997, san francisco has assumed more responsibility for operating distribution services. first at stretch around boyne islands, then at the shipyard at hunters point and then the sales force transit center.

as we build transmission and distribution to serve the improved southeast weight -- wastewater treatment facilities, new treatments along the southern waterfront. in 2016, we further reduce our reliance on pg&e, by launching our cleanpowersf to serve more clean energy to residents and businesses. as a result of these activities, san francisco is now the dominant supplier of electricity in san francisco. pg&e is the dominant provider of grid services, the delivery of that supply. san francisco is very dependent on pg&e for delivery. in that dependence, that reliance we encounter difficulties. these difficulties are reported to the board quarterly. in june of 2018, a hearing to the public safety and neighborhood services committee made clear the pg&e rule of obstructing distribution services. in that context that this report

was requested. increasing costs to city projects has resulted from these delays. city projects like senior affordable housing, swimming pool renovations, health and community centers and electrical vehicle charging installations. >> and bus driver toilets? >> that is correct. meanwhile pg&e faces ongoing reliability, safety and financial challenges. alarming safety violations. they filed for bankruptcy protection. mayor breed in the of supervisors requested this report ask in the puc to explore electric service options. city staff prepared this report, it is based on publicly available information. it is preliminary. the options are discussed in the preliminary report on the report is available on our website. the report describes three options, limited independence where we continue to pay