>> by calling (415) 655-0001. again, it's (415) 655-0001. best practice is to turn down your tv or radio. you may submit public comment to myself. s as in sam.

omera madam chair, that concludes my announcements. >> chairman: and i understand we do not have vice chair cynthia pollock with us and that we should make a motion to excuse her. >> clerk: we do need a first and a second may i have a second. >> commissioner: second. >> chairman: i hear a second by commissioner mar. >> clerk: on the motion to excuse vice chair cruz-pollock

from today's meeting, [roll call] there are three ayes. >> chairman: thank you. and, do we also need to do a roll call i will stay for the roll call. we have chairperson chan, commissioner mar, and commissioner singh present today. >> chairman: great. i appreciate that and, with that, madam clerk please call item number 2. >> clerk: item number 2 is approval of the lafco meeting. members of the public who wish to call for public comment should call the public comment number. if you have not already done so, please press star 3 to line up to speak. please wait until the system

indicates you have been unmuted and then you may begin your comments. madam chair. colleagues, do you have any colleagues on this item which is approval of our minutes from april 16th do we have anybody in line to speak for this matter. >> we have one person in queue. >> clerk: thank you. thank you, caller, please proceed. hi, commissioners. eric brooks. i wanted to alert the sfg tv folks that at least on my computer and browsers, the

sfgov tv 2 program schedule thanks. >> sfgov, i see maybe you guys can look into it and report back. madam chair. >> right. a motion to approve the regular

meeting. i think for all the presentation items 3, 4, and 5, given the fact that we are limited with time in quorum. we want to make sure item number three and four and five. please go ahead for item number

three. >> hi good morning i don't have a power the first is i'm asking for your support for this is a non controversial legislation that would make technical nonsubstantiative changes to the court tv government act which governs all lafcos in california. the executive director of cal lafco says that the changes are necessary. and small inconsistencies are found or clarifications needed to make the law.

so i've included in your packets, a letter of support, and as i said, this is a noncontroversial legislation. it wouldn't directly affect san francisco lafco, but in the spirit of supporting other lafcos, we have been asked to provide and i am submitting a letter of support. and i apologize i did not put a clear letter of recommendation on this. it does require a second vote. the second question is an update on our renewable energy consultant. as you know, jenny woodson who was the lead as our renewable consultant, announced recently she was leaving and she has since departed. so over the course of the last month, vanner has assessed its staffing situation. in the beginning we thought

that rose marie amphill has done a lot of the writing and reports for lafco. have had a chance to assess staffing resources and has informed me that they do not wish to extend their current contracts when it expires on july 20th won't be continuing. they left a great. [please stand by]

-- for me to catch up with the work that they have done. i want to do -- from your report i want to make a motion to support -- to send -- to support ab-1581, is that the correct number? >> that's right, madam chair. >> chair chan: so i want to make the motion to draft a letter of support and to send a letter of support for ab-1581, do i have a second on the floor? >> second.

>> chair chan: thank you so much, commissioner singh. madam clerk, can we have a roll call on this motion? >> clerk: madam chair, we need to take public comment before we do that. >> chair chan: got it. >> clerk: so the members of the public to provide public comment, press star 3, to be added to the queue. for those who have done so, wait until the system indicates that you have been un-muted. mr. smith, do we have anyone in line for this matter? >> we have one person of two. >> clerk: thank you. go ahead, caller. >> caller: good morning, commissioners, eric brooks, californians for energy choice and the local grassroots of our city, san francisco. i wanted to first of all clarify that the public will still have -- the three minutes each to speak, and then i wanted to

note that in july that perhaps it might be a good use of those funds to direct them and to get a request to the board of supervisors for a draft of local build out plan that we'll discuss in more detail. hopefully in item 4. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. do we have the next caller, please. >> caller: thank you, chair and commissioners. (indiscernible) and a resident of san francisco district 5 as well. thank you for the presentation.

-- and in the next several months that we'll take -- we'll need to take some time to basically to replace both of those positions and -- or both of those roles. so i guess i would ask and suggest that we start trying to backfill or to figure out what we are going to do for consulting, if any, prior to when executive officer is departing, and we are replacing those roles at the same time. and we were interested in a proactive and positive local buildout plan with workforce development, and disadvantaged communities, more than monitoring sfpuc and watching

what they're doing, but i do think that there is probably a role for renewable energy consulting for lafco,. >> clerk: anyone else in the cue? >> that was our last. >> chair chan: public comment is closed. now,. >> president maxwell: , if you could call the roll for the motion. >> clerk: item 3 to send a support letter for 1581. [roll call] there are three ayes. >> chair chan: great. this was unanimous. so we can move on to item number

4. madam clerk. >> clerk: item 4, the activities report. for members of the public to provide public comment on this item call 1-(415)-655-0001. and meeting i.d. 187 097 3853. and then pound and then pound again. if you have not already done so, please dial star, 3, to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates that you have been un-muted and you can begin your comments. madam chair. >> chair chan: thank you, we have sfpuc here, we appreciate you. >> good morning, chair, and good morning lafco members. this is michael heinz, with the clean s.f. program for the public utilities commission. i do have a presentation for you this morning. and so i will bring those slides

up. are you able to see the slides? >> i for some reason cannot. >> no, not yet. okay. try it one more time here.

are you able to see that presentation now? >> clerk: yes. >> okay, great. thank you. okay, for the clean power s.f. update today i'll cover our usual update on program enrollment and service statistics. i will also cover customer bill delinquencies and relief measures, something that we have been speaking about regularly in these meetings. i'll share updates on our clean power s.f. power rates and finally i'll provide an update on the legislation, specifically senate bill 612. the clean power s.f. program provides reliable service to its

customers with the enrollment of 409,000 accounts, clean power s.f. has city-wide enrollment of eligible customers. since we started serving customers in may 2017, there's been a 96% retention rate or cumulative opt out rate of 4.1% and in addition, 2.1% of our customers have upgraded to our voluntary super green product that is almost 8,000 residential and commercial accounts here in san francisco that are receiving 100% renewable energy, and that represents more than 5% of clean power s.f.'s annual retail sales. as we have discussed in previous lafco meetings, the covid-19 pandemic has generated economic hardship across the country and right here in san francisco. and over the past year we have observed an increase in bill

payment delinquencies among our clean power s.f. customer base. and in the next few slides i'm going to present the latest data on bill payment delinquencies and the status of relief for our customers. i wanted to start with context. the pie chart here shows san francisco's power supply by the amount of the electricity supplied by different service providers. the city and county of san francisco through its public utilities commission operate its two electricity services. hetch hetchy power, our power provider, and clean power s.f., our community choice energy program. those two programs are identified as green and blue slices on the pie chart. and as you can see, san francisco's programs now supply more than 70% of the city's retail electricity demand.

the other two provider categories, pg&e and the direct access suppliers, together now provide 20% to 25%. the data that i'm going to share with you in the next several slides is focused on clean power s.f. customers. all of the data that i'm going to share in this next few slides is as of the end of april. the map here depicts a percentage of clean power s.f. residential customers are more than 90 days delinquent by zip code. it represents the number of customers that are delinquent out of the total number of customers in each zip code. in total, there are 16,250 or so residential clean power s.f. customers that are 90 days or more delinquent on their electricity charges.

this represents a 3% decrease compared to the data we presented to you at the last lafco meeting. this map depicts the percentage of the commercial accounts that were more than 90 days delinquent on their electricity bill by zip code as of the end of april. there are approximately 1,685 commercial clean power s.f. customers in this category, and this also represents a slight decrease compared to the data that we presented to you during the last meeting. this map depicts the average past due balance for residential customers for each zip code. this is for all clean power s.f. customers that are delinquent and not just those more than 90 days. the dollar amounts here only represent the amounts that

customers owe clean power s.f. as a reminder, since clean power s.f. customers must also pay pg&e for transmission and distribution service, in total they may have an outstanding balance of their electricity service that is two or three times the amount shown here. the data s and lastly, this map depicts the average amount delinquent by zip

code for commercial customers. the data indicates that there has been a $6 increase in the average overdue balance for commercial customers compared to last month, again, to get a sense of the total amount owed, as these charts show you multiple it by two or three times seen here. the p.u.c. and the city have been leading the way in terms of protecting our residents and businesses from utility shutoffs as our community and the world responded to the covid-19 crisis. at the mayor's direction, the sfpuc suspended the utility shutoffs for hetch hetchy water and power customers and suspended the return of clean power s.f. customers to pg&e for their generation supply due to non-payment back in march 2020. about a month later, the california p.u.c. directed them to suspend the utility disconnections for non-payment as well. that policy is currently scheduled to end at the end of june. on april 27th of this year, the sfpuc extended the temporarier torres yum on shutoffs, liens

and fines through march 31st of 2022. the sfpuc commission also directed the general manager to return to the commission with recommended revisions or other actions consistent with the decision that is expected to be issued very soon in the california p.u.c.'s covid-19 debt proceeding. and, of course, last week the board of supervisors adopted the resolution brought forward by commissioner chan, urging governor newsome and the california public commission to extend past june 30th, 2021, and torgive utility debt beginning -- beginning march 2020. that resolution couldn't have come at a better time as i just indicated that the california p.u.c. is preparing to issue a decision addressing disconnections and covid-19

debt, and that proceeding the sfpuc has advocated for san franciscans through the california community choice association or state-wide c.c.a. association, calling for the sfpuc to, among other things, to align the timing for the end of the disconnection moratorium with the status of the state's economic reopening, and to allow customers a transition period to regain economic stability. to fund the additional debt relief through the public purpose program charge, collected from all ratepayers for public programs. and to utilize area median income as an eligibility threshold instead of the federal poverty level to allow for increased participation and to expand the payment plans and prioritize the flexibility in payment plans.

the board resolution with debt was well timed because the governor just announced his california comeback plan, an initiative to utilize the budget surplus for those with debt relief for those impacted by covid-19. the plan proposes to provide, among other forms of relief, $1 billion for electric and gas utility arrears. as the specific details of the plan are worked out, the sfpuc will advocate that clean power s.f. and other c.c.a. ratepayers receive a fair portion of the funds. okay, i'm going to transition now to clean power s.f. rates, as we have indicated to the lafco that we are working on a rate proposal to address the recent increases in pg&e power charge or power adjustment or pcia, that's the surcharge that

the utility is allowed to collect from customers of community choice energy programs like clean power s.f. it's intended to recover the unavoidable above-market costs of power resources that pg&e committed to on behalf of the clean power s.f. customers before the city transitioned them to the new program. this slide shows you the current electric bill cost comparison between pg&e and clean power s.f. green product service, for the average residential customer in san francisco. the lefthand bar on this chart represents the average bill for what we are would call pg&e bundle service which includes bundle supply. and the right-hand bar for the customers with generation service from clean power s.f. the bottom portion of both bars shows the portion of the bill

represented by pg&e's electric delivery charges. so that's about $47 per month. you can see pg&e generation supplies on the top left are almost $32 per month. and clean power s.f. generation charges in the right bar are represented by the green portion at about $19 per month. as igist mentioned clean power s.f. customers also pay pg&e the pcia charges which are currently about $13 per month for the average residential customer. given recent increases in the pcia, clean power s.f. green service is currently about 70 cents per month more costly for the typical residential customer. in order to support clean power s.f.'s need to provide a competitively priced service and to operate at a commercial pace

in a competitive environment, the sfpuc commission adopted an automatic rate adjustment formula in resolution 2048. that was early last year. under the formula, clean power s.f. rates adjust if the pg and even rate changes result in the service being higher than or more than 2% discounted from the equivalent pg&e rates. under the rate resolution automatic rate adjustments occur as long as customer costs will be within plus, minus 1% of pg pg&eservice and other conditione met. there's been two rate changes under this resolution, both which have been rate decreases. as you can see from the table on the slide, since the authority was put in place, pg&e's power charge and adjustment rates have

increased significantly, whereas clean power s.f. generation rates have decreased. and most recently by 16% in january. on this slide you can see the trend in clean power s.f. rates since the sfpuc launched the program in 2016. clean power s.f. rates are the green portion of the bar and pg&e pcia rates are the blue portions. so this is the cost of the generation service. due to the rise since program launch, which you can see here over time, clean power s.f. generation rates have now decreased by a cumulative 12%. next tuesday, the sfpuc commission will be hearing our staff proposal for modification to the current clean power s.f.

rate adjustment framework. in developing our rate proposal we've had to balance competing goals. covering clean power s.f. program costs is required by the san francisco charter, remaining competitive, and providing value to our customers. >> your 10 minutes is expired. >> okay, sorry, clerk, i wasn't aware that i was on a 10-minute time on that. >> clerk: yeah. yes, we stated in the beginning that we limit all to 10 minutes because we're going to lose quorum at 12:30. but, please, go ahead and finish up your presentation, but if it's possible if we could keep it maybe within the next five minutes and to wrap up. >> sure, yeah, happy to do that

okay. so the staff proposal balancing these goals is to modify the existing automatic rate formula to be the lesser of either 5% above comparable pg and even rates after accounting for the pcia, or the cost of service. so the lesser of either of those two. and this chart is a snapshot similar to the one that you saw before that shows our projected generation cost comparison. you can see that we're projecting in july a difference of about $1.58 per month for the average residential customers. to put that in context, on the full bill that's about a 2% difference. and i wanted to comment too since the pcia is a driver of what's going on here that we are expecting to see the pcia rate levels about where they are for another year or so and then we

are anticipating that the rate is going to start declining at some of pg&e resources, and the diablo canyon nuclear plant is decommissioned and removed from the revenue that pg&e can recover through the pcia. transitioning here quickly to the time of use transition, clean power s.f. is participating in an upcoming time of use rate transition that is happening in july. at that time, most clean power s.f. and pg&e customers will move to a time of use rate plan this was required of the investor in utilities like pg&e by the california p.u.c., it was optional for c.c.a.s, in late 2019, the sfpuc commission endorsed our proposal to join

this state-wide initiative to transition our customers. you can see the information here. what is the time-of-use rate plan? a time-of-use rate plan means when a customer usings electricity, it's just as important as how much the customer uses. and you can see here that the etouc rate, which is what the residential customers rate is higher between 4:00 to 9:00 p.m. every day and lower cost electricity for all other hours of the day. shifting to the hours outside of 4:00 to 9:00 p.m., means not only lower costs for consumers, but it also reduces the carbon emissions, by reducing electricity demand when fossil fuels are utilized to generate power on the grid. under the time-of-use transition, customers will have

choices. they can return, for example, to their flat rate, and to continue with the transition, no action is required of the customers. and as i mentioned, or noted in this slide before, clean power s.f. customers can try this risk free, while most residential clean power s.f. customers are projected to save money on time-of-use rates, all customers automatically transitioned to this new rate will receive a full year of bill protection. that is detailed on this slide and i'm happy to take questions later if you have any. and wrapping this up, these are my last two slides. i wanted to share a quick update on senate bill 612. this is important. c.c.a. legislation is working its way through the state legislature.

this is sponsored by cal c.c.a. and by senator portanpino and it provides -- well, it addresses current inequities in pcia policy by ensuring that all customers have access to the benefits of the resources they're paying for, and that those costs are minimized for all ratepayers. it would provide c.c.a. ratepayers equal access for the resources they pay for through the pcia. and require them to recognize the value of all product attributes in assigning cost responsibility and determining the pcia rate. and, finally, it would require the investor and utilities to offer any remaining excess resources, not utilized by the investor and utilities and c.c.a.s or the direct access customers to the wholesale market through regular

solicitations to maximize their value and reduce residual costs that are collected via the pcia and as to the status of the bill, on april 26th it passed on an 11-1 vote before the senate, energy utilities committee. and we're now expecting a floor vote to happen in the first week of june before it moves to the house. and that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> chair chan: thank you. director heinz, i really appreciate, and some of the items and updates, but i particularly want to say that i appreciate how seeing the recommendation, and that sfpuc

is making to see how we can address for the 80% of the area median income instead of these federal standards, i really appreciate that effort. i want to make sure that i don't -- i want to give my colleagues a chance to ask any questions that they may have. >> clerk: commissioner mar is on the roster. >> chair chan: commissioner mar >> supervisor mar: thank you, chair chan. and i have a question about bill 612, if that's the right number i mean, it's good that there's some state legislation trying to address pcia. which has been such a frustrating issue for us, you know, including as you highlighted in your presentation that the escalating charges that we have been subject to here in

san francisco. how -- would this kind of bill address -- sorry, what would be the impact, that's my question on pcia charges from pg&e here in san francisco? >> yeah, the benefit of this bill is sort of twofold. on the one hand it sets very clear direction to the california p.u.c. that the resources that ratepayers, including san franciscans, are paying for through the pcia charge, to be available for their benefit. and/or that those benefits be shared equitably with them since they're continuing to pay. and that has not been the case to date. pg&e has been able to continue

to utilizing those resources for the benefit of its service to its remaining customers. which has, quite frankly, the impact of greening pg&e's portfolio without it doing anything, right, because it's creating excess resources. quite frankly, that's unfair to other competitors in the market it also conveys benefits to pg&e from our customers which are paying for the resources. so that's a really important first step. the second thing is that by recognizing the value of all attributes, some of which the california p.u.c. has not recognized, that should decrease the pcia rate because the pcia rate is -- is the result of the valuation that the california p.u.c. goes through of those resources.

so it concludes that the value is higher than the pcia should decrease. i can't quantify it right now for you at this moment, but that's the general direction that i would anticipate that the passage of this bill as written and implementation by the california p.u.c. would improve circumstances for san franciscans and other c.c.a. customers. >> supervisor mar: got it. thank you for that explanation. thanks, chair chan. >> chair chan: thank you, commissioner mar. shall we move to commissioner singh, please. >> supervisor singh: sorry, i had to unmute myself. commissioner mar asked my question so i'll briefly say thank you again to mr. heinz.

i think that my colleagues share my frustration and i share their frustration at, you know, the escalating issue with the pcia, which, i mean, has been a problem, and it seems to get higher and higher. i'll straight-up say that this is pure monopolistic behavior and it's not okay, and we have to do something about it. so, you know, i appreciate the work that you're doing to balance all of these competing needs and our need to be obviously fiscally sustainable per the charter while we're dealing with all of this. the other thing that i just wanted to comment on, you know, having -- i have some experience in some of the budgetary work outside of this commission, but the budgetary work that is being done by the utility organizations and i'm feeling confident that there will be an extension of -- hopefully rent

too, but utility shutoff moratoriums beyond june 30th. i'm glad that we're leading on this issue because we need to provide a lot of pressure to make sure that is included in the budget ask, and the budget process, while that's unfolding right now with the governor's revision, it's incredibly, incredibly opaque so i don't want to say that it's over until every t has been crossed and every i dotted. but it seems that there's positive signs that utility debts are going to be -- that there might even be additional funding alongside, i think that there's a $2 billion budget ask from utility justice advocacy lines. so that's it.

>> chair chan: thank you, commissioner singh. i too have an issue with my mute button for some reason. i can't quite unmute myself. thank you, director heinz, and seeing no other comments from my colleagues, madam clerk, shall we go to public comment on this item. >> clerk: yes, madam chair. checking to see if there's callers in the queue. if you could let us know if there's callers ready. if you have not done so, press star, 3, to be added to the queue. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been un-muted. mr. smith? >> we have four callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. first caller, please. >> caller: hello, commissioners, this is joanie eison, from descrik 10, the climate emergency coalition and the

citizens' climate lobby chapter in strong support of lafco helping the board of supervisors to draft and to pass this year the legislation to create and fund a plan for a local clean electricity buildout, good jobs, climate justice, and resilience san francisco can be the climate leader that it always claims to be by creating such a plan for a local clean electricity buildout, prioritizing the local union jobs and helping frontline communities. once san francisco leads the way, a renewable energy network for the bay area can be developed because, of course, we ultimately do need a coordinated region-centered policy. what we don't need is reliance on long-range power transmission lines which are outdated, wildfire causing and hugely profitable for pg&e. they're expensive to build and they lose between 5% and 15% of the electricity they carry. paying workers from economically and environmentally at-risk neighborhoods to produce clean electricity in their own communities means future money

saved when we won't need to build and maintain anymore long-range profit lines to increase pg&e profits which you have been talking about. and relying on clean energy will result in a reduction in pollution, cleaner air for everyone, and, a corresponding reduction in health care costs. so please consider making this plan happen. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: good morning, chair chan and commissioners. my name is bruce woke. i am on the board of directors of the haydash neighborhood council and representing them here today. and we are also a member of cal's energy choice and san francisco clean energy advocates. a question that i think that you should ask of the cpuc is from the presentation is how many

clean power s.f. customers were ordered back to pg&e? and will they return back to clean power s.f.? and, also, for sb-612, since the state budget is mostly generated from taxpayer dollars, the legislature should approve the pay off or the majority of the pcia to reduce rates to ratepayers. this should be the will of the people and the state of california and not just the industry focus or support. our board of supervisors here, some of you who are on this body today, should demand -- should demand this as an amendment on behalf of the people of the city and county of san francisco. i would also like to add that projections prepared for lafco show that even a modest city-wide local clean energy buildout program could create 10,000 local jobs. with the current virus and the

economic crises devastating local businesses and employment and much of the local business and jobs lost as being permanent, the crucial that thousands of unionized -- local clean energy and efficient jobs to be brought online as soon as possible, so the san francisco workforce and the economy crushing from long-term unemployment. these jobs must be prioritized to ensure that marginalized communities and populations in san francisco are the first in line for employment. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, mr. wolf. may we have the next caller, please. >> caller: thank you chair chan and commissioners. i will just mention that we are also members of the calians for energy choice and the clean energy advocates and we have about 10,000 members in the city

and county of san francisco. i could not agree more strongly about the comments about the many, many benefits and moving forward with our own local buildout plan both energetically and economically. i want to focus on the presentation and i want to thank for the data and especially the chart showing how things have changed and how the rate changes have been driven over time. as, you know, from 2013-2016 as we pushed for the program to be launched, a big concern was that clean power s.f. would ever be more expensive than pg&e service. in the early days of p.c.a. that was considered a debt boil. if you are more expensive than pg&e, everyone would flee your service and the program would crater and die. so keeping our costs below pg&e was kind of the main priority. leading up to the program

launch. in fact, we sacrificed some of our advocacy on local build-out to focus on keeping the prices below pg&e. i know this is not clean power s.f.'s fault at all and this is pg&e, and as the commissioner rightly noted. but i would say that this new reality means that we, meaning clean power s.f., needs to market the benefits of the program much more aggressively to customers. there is the neutral mailer that goes out from clean power s.f. and pg&e every year that show the prices compared to each and other we'll be more expensive. so we don't expect the customers, you know, who are having economic problems from the last year and a half to flee en masse and to kind of crater our program forever, and then we need to really get on the soap box and to start marketing really aggressively what the benefits of the program are, what we're offering to pg&e and

why people should stick with us this is a company that has recently killed northern california residents, not once but multiple times. and coming out of bankruptcy required certain things of them but pg and even lets them out even on a score of zero on wildfire safety after all of that. so i encourage the city and the county to frame pg&e as a rogue actor that kills our neighbors and steals millions and millions of dollars from the coffer of san francisco residents, including low-income residents who choose to be pg&e customers they tout low-income customers as you're hurting the low-income customers because you're joining a c.c.a. and we have people that are hurt by pg&e and we need to -- we need to make their stories public. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. may we have the next caller,

please. >> caller: good morning again, commissioner, eric brooks for californians with energy choice and the grassroots choice, our city, san francisco. so i wanted to call attention publicly to the letter that 15 environmental and social justice organizations has sent to you that i re-sent to you this morning, calling for a local clean energy buildout, jobs, climate justice and resiliency plan to be developed by this year by the city and the county of san francisco. it's crucial, you know, that this program was originally back in 2004, the sfpuc was directed to -- to create this program. it took, you know, 12 years after that just to get it off the ground in 2016. we had been asking for local

buildout plans since 2004 when we started this. and then now five years later after the launch with all customers included in the program, we still don't have a local buildout plan and we have been asking for that. when i spoke with the executive officer about this, he indicated that it would be good to show the community desire for this, and that's the reason for the letter that you have received. so i just want to make sure that is called to your attention and that what we need you to do next, because this is not something that can just be done by the sfpuc, it needs to be done by the board of supervisors, is to call on the board of supervisors just as it did in 2005 to get the program launched to create funding for the lafco to do a local buildout plan, hire a contractor to do a local buildout plan, so that we can get this moving. it's been 17 years.

we've got to get a local buildout plan this year and we can't wait to delay it any longer. that plan needs to be centered on local jobs and climate justice and environmental and social justice and economic justice. the communities that are being hit hardest by the climate crisis are the ones that need to benefit from the local buildout first. and then the last thing is that once the plan is put together, it must be based on revenue bond financing -- bond financing is really cheap right now and we need to take advantage of that immediately. we can't possibly to do a multibillion dollar local buildout plan just from program revenues from clean power s.f. it has to be done with revenue bonds. so, please, do read the full letter if you haven't yet, and, please, get on the job at your next meeting passing an item to

get the board of supervisors to give you the funding for creating this plan. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. i believe that we have one person left in the queue. mr. smith, you can put them forward. >> caller: hi, commissioners, my name is melissa yu and i live in district 3. i would like first -- first to thank the staff for continuing to identify ways to help us with utility debt as the moratorium is coming to an end and i am also here today to join our community partner organizations to ask for a draft plan to build out 100% local clean energy. we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and transition to clean energy as we're electrifying our transportation and our building stock. we need to make sure that these are going to be powered by clean, local renewable power, and it's going to be really be

important to understand as we are making this transition how we can prepare for job changes, and we need to know what jobs will be lost and what jobs will be gained, and also figure out ways that we can aid our workforce to adequately to make the transition. and how san francisco's most vulnerable communities will not be further burdened by disproportionally more air pollution, especially as we're having warmer and warmer summer months and most likely another wildfire season on the way. continuing to fuel our homes and offices with fossil fuels exacerbates our risk of earthquakes -- or the risk during earthquakes, because of san francisco's close proximity to the earthquake fault. it's putting our communities with an increased risk of explosions and fires during

these earthquakes due to the potential by these pipeline gas leakages. so we need to definitely get our reliance off of fossil fuels and we need a plan to figure out how to make that transition. and we think that it is essential to create a plan no later than the summer of 2021, and thank you for the opportunity to comment. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. mr. smith, do we have any other callers left? >> we have no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: great, thank you. madam chair. >> chair chan: thank you, madam clerk. seeing public comment -- no more public comment, public comment is closed. colleagues, i think that given the feedback from the public comment, i am kind of eager to see and would love to have sfpuc perhaps director heinz's team to come back in either july or august to provide some update,

and a presentation to walk us through the san francisco sfpuc integrated resource plan. i think that the integrated resource plan and hopefully that we can see the highlight, you know, the element of the local build-out and perhaps to help us to really understand, one, where we're at the this moment. and, then also, b, to understand where sfpuc is heading, both as, you know, heading to the past 100% renewable energy, but also on the topic of local build-out so with that, madam clerk, please call item number 4. the next item. >> clerk: that was item number 4. item number 5? >> chair chan: please, thank you. >> clerk: just for the record there was no action taken on item number 4. item number 5 is a proposed

budget and work plan for fiscal year 2021-2022. for the members of the public to provide public comment on this item call 1-(415)-655-0001. meeting i.d. 187 097 3853. and then pound and then pound again. if you have not already done so, please dial star, 3, to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. madam chair. >> chair chan: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, today we're doing the initial proposed budget and work plan for this fiscal year. we know that we need the final approval of this before the deadline of june 15th. therefore, we will have our special meeting schedule tentatively scheduled for june 4th to allow us to meet the deadline to approve the upcoming fiscal year budget. it is also my intent that we

will be working towards syncing our budget with the board of supervisors since our budget really is tied to the board of supervisors' budget cycle, and their budget proposal. so i think that it is best that we sync that budget cycle. i also wanted to clarify that with this budget proposal at this moment that i think that some of our public comment has also, you know, indicated that we are seeing a transition, a phased transition in the coming months with the executive officer goebel transitioning out of his role. we're looking to see a hiring of a permanent position for -- a temporary permanent position for an executive officer that would lead us into the new fiscal year. therefore, i think that it is critical for us to leave some

flexibility in our budget proposal that allow us to really draw down the specifics in december of this year, because that is when -- how we're going to sync our budget cycle with the board of supervisors. today i have both executive officer bryan goebel and june latsmina, and i may have butchered your last name -- here from the board of supervisors, the clerk of the board, to come and to present this budget together, because, you know, to help us to really have some continuity in december with this conversation around budget. so i'd like to call on our executive officer goebel and -- to start off with this. i think that if we have any questions i think that june from the clerk's office is also here

to help to support that. but however way we want to present this budget. >> thank you, madam chair. and yes, she's here to assist with any questions and i thank her for her collaboration on this. and to the commission for all of your feedback. i'm here to present the lafco proposed budget and work plan for fiscal 2021-2022. and, again, given the transition to a new executive officer, the plan i'm presenting today would be for june through december which cover my period to the end of december and have overlap with the new executive officer who would then continue the work for the rest of the year. these are the general objectives based on your feedback and direction. >> president maxwell:ly madam c?

or madam clerk, can you see my screen? >> clerk: yes, yes, we can see the screen. >> thank you. so these are the three general objectives based on your feed back and direction. we, of course, continue our main role as an advisory body to clean power s.f. and take on a new role, providing oversight of the san francisco reinvestment working group which has a goal of creating a business plan for a public bank or a municipal finance corporation. and our third objective would be a new survey of that base of workers in san francisco, for which lafco would be a partner but maintain a very limited role. the work plan prioritizes clean power s.f. oversight and the local buildout and it leaves open the option of developing a scope of work for a solar plus storage demonstration project at a vulnerable community site, and a role for lafco on utility debt relief and ratepayer equity. this work actually has already

made so much progress up to now, thanks to the leadership of chair chan, which i'll talk about in a moment. so first step is oversight, of course. this includes monitoring all aspects of clean power s.f.'s development and management. though historically, we have billed for this work to the m.o.u. fund and we have bundled this in with the executive officer's duties with the general fund money in order to conserve those c.c.a. funds. so the deliverable for this is ongoing updates and reports to the commission. the next priority, of course, is the local buildout which has been talked about today. this is something that the commission has been talking about for a very long time. the idea here, although many of the details still need to be worked out, is that if lafco would develop a scope of work as the next step for renewable energy projects, and, again, a lot of the details still need to be worked out, chair chan mentioned flexibility and the

funding would come from the general fund and the m.o.u. fund with the sfpuc for the next steps of work, the deliverable would be a report to the commission, and the sfpuc. the timing to be determined. the next item that we've talked about is a potential solar plus storage project at a community and/or affordable housing site as a demonstration project. this is something that the commission has been on the fence about, but i have left it in for your consideration, the idea is that i continue to do research on this in my remaining months, working with the sfpuc to determine the feasibility of moving a project like this forward. the other item is continuing to monitor the utility debt crisis this is a little dated. i intended on presenting this at the last meeting because the budget and work plan was continued, but chair chan, as you know, introduced a resolution urging action on

addressing utility debt that was passed unanimously by the board of supervisors with five co-sponsors. and the good news is that the governor decided to provide some debt relief, so thank you, chair chan, for your leadership on this issue. it will be an ongoing issue and what i propose here is that i continue to monitor it. i have been checking my email throughout the course of this meeting because we are expecting a proposed decision from the cpuc today, so i'm sure that we'll all be anxious to hear that news and provide an update at the next lafco meeting, hopefully. so our next objective is, of course, public bank. there are four categories under this objective. oversight, administrative and clerical support, the requests for proposals for a consultant, and, of course, the business and governance plan report. the ordinance establishing the san francisco reinvestment working group would assign

lafco oversight over the development of a business and governance plan for a non-depository municipal finance corporation. a policy analyst position would be created primarily to provide oversight of the working group, along with other duties. the first task, of course, would be monitoring the working group and providing updates to the commission and the board of supervisors. this policy analyst position would primarily be responsible for this oversight and that would be provided with support from the clerk of the board's office. and there's also the administrative and the clerical support, i think that the details of this are still being worked out. it would provide that, it would be the policy analysts or the clerk of the board officers or would it be the consultant? i think that this is something that is still being hammered out. and the other is a request for proposals for the consultant. that would involve developing, finalizing and posting an r.f.p., everything that goes

with that process, and the questions, the panel solicitation and planning, evaluations and interviews and, of course, finally the selection which ultimately would be up to the board of supervisors. so, again, this would be given to the policy analysts. the other, of course, is just the overall oversight of the business and governance plan report which is the ultimate deliverable from the working group. so that is a summary of the public work that lafco would undertake. the third objective is the gig research, quote/unquote. i say gig, because it's not a gig for most people, but this basically would involve a new survey of at-based delivery workers in san francisco and lafco would have a limited role and the executive officer would serve as project liaison, providing occasional feedback and support to the survey team. this, again, is a partnership between santa cruz and the jobs for justice san francisco and

the cooperative, a little update on this, the fundraising is ongoing. and that is being done by the partners here. not lafco. i have no news to report on that yet, but the fundraising is ongoing. so now your proposed lafco fiscal 2021-2022 budget. before i get to the total i wanted to show you this slide which is our general fund balance over the years. you can see the history. the very -- the row at the very bottom includes the amount that will be requesting from the general fund. the gnaw statutory amount of $341,240, are forecast spending as of pay 12th. and what we expect will be -- if we keep on track with the current spending -- the year end balance. the next slide shows our work

order balance with the san francisco public utilities commission. we spent about $-- almost $70,000 that had work doing all of great work they did, and the balance in the fund is just over $129,000. all right, so the total amount for the budget and all of the line items have been provided in your packet. the total amount from the general fund request would be $341,240, that's the new statutory amount and the carry forward would be about -- over $86,000. and the total budget amount would be $427,685. so the recommendation is to adopt the proposed work plan and general fund budget in the amount of $427,685. and requesting the full statutory amount of $341,240, from the general fund from the city and county of san

francisco. and that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions at this point. madam chair, back over to you. >> chair chan: thank you, executive officer goebel. it's amazing and i just cannot thank you you enough. we're going to miss you because this budget is just -- it just shows how well you have been managing your work -- our work together at lafco. and i want to make sure that i give the floor to my colleagues for any questions, concerns or just, you know, about the work plan and the budget. but i know that, you know, executive officer goebel worked closely with the clerk, with junco as well as my staff. i really appreciate kelly grove, who has been working closely as a team to really make sure that we present this budget in a way

that provides some flexibility, but also making sure that we're accountable for what's to come and what has already been done. i see two hands raised. madam clerk, do we have commissioner mar and commissioner singh in the roster. i'm not seeing that in the chat >> clerk: commissioner singh has her hand up and so does commissioner mar. >> chair chan: i'm going to go with commissioner singh, i cannot see the order of which -- the request was received. so i'll go with commissioner singh first and then commissioner mar. commissioner singh? >> supervisor singh: yeah, i just wanted, obviously, echoing thanks to the executive officer goebel, who will be sorely missed. you know, i feel supportive of -- unsurprisingly, i'm supportive any budget increase

to this body, particularly because, i mean, i think that the number -- the issues that we're dealing with in our portfolio, particularly, you know, between clean power s.f. and public banking which is a whole new frontier, not just in san francisco but for america, and, you know, and also all of the issues that we're dealing with with a gig economy. we have a justification for a pretty large clean budget. i want to also flag, you know, one thing that i'll be keeping an eye out for and one thing they do want all of the people to be cognizant of is just keeping an eye on how much we'll need and we rely on the services of counsel and the legal advice as we proceed, particularly with public banking. i can even see that playing a role as we potentially maybe get further into what is actionable on the labor side as well.

but, you know, in the immediate term, like, as much as we can, you know, to keep track of how much we're spending on council and understand that that is going to just be a necessary part of our work as we move forward with public bank and that, you know, good lawyers cost good money. you know, this is something that i want to make a note of, you know, for the record. so, otherwise, yeah, i'm extremely supportive of this budget and the scope of work and thank you. thank you, officer goebel. >> chair chan: thank you, commissioner singh. commissioner mar. >> supervisor mar: thanks, chair chan. and just to echo the words of appreciation to the executive officer goebel for all of his great work and developing this proposed work plan and the budget. and i appreciate that the good discussion that we've had here at the board over the past several months about the work plan and the budget. and, yeah, this looks great to

me and i'm supportive of it. i just had some questions about the staffing in the budget. so for the -- there's a policy analyst for the public bank, and this is a new position and i wanted to understand it better, just as the budget aspect of it i definitely see the need to add that capacity to lafco but it looks like it's the cost is not the full cost of what the analyst would be. could you explain that. >> i'm happy to step in and to sort of explain a bit. and the clerk as the board of supervisors and the supervisor dean preston himself, who is soon to be your alternate

commissioner mar, as our commission or this body. the policy analyst is actually going to helping to clerking and working with -- the public bank working group that supervisor dean preston has legislated going through the board process it looks like with that though that the staff will also support a variety of issues, you know, on lafco, but, mainly it's going to be coming actually from the clerk -- from the board of supervisors' budget, that is the majority of the salary, where essentially borrowing that decision, and we're bridging using lafco budget to bridge the budget gap to convert that staff for one year into a lafco staff to speak -- so to

speak. but, junco, would you like to elaborate and explain, probably better than i do in terms of the process? >> chair chan, the clerk's office. so that is correct, the clerk's office has one vacant legislated clerk position. and we had a discussion potentially to lend our position for one year for lafco's public bank working group work. but that position will be upgraded to higher position so we're asking lafco to cover the decision between the higher position and the existing clerk's position with about $25,000. >> supervisor mar: got it, yeah, that's helpful and it sounds like a good deal for lafco, so thank you for working that out. yeah. and then i also just had a question about the line -- or

the consultant -- or consulting services with banner -- if i'm reading it right -- actually, is that in the budget? yeah. and then given, you know, the status of the -- you know, that banner is -- we're going to end that contract. i just wanted to get a little explanation of that. >> sure, thanks for the question, commissioner mar. bryan goebel, executive officer so the funding for vanner has come from our m.o.u. fund with the san francisco public utilities commission. the balance is currently just over $129,000. when we brought vanner on board after doing the r.f.q., to support oversight of clean power s.f., that was for service area

one. and there were also three other consultants who qualified in that service area, but there were also two other service areas, local buildout of renewable energy projects and service three for communities of concern. we could engage the consultants that have been prequalified. it's been almost a year since i have been in contact with them, but if the commission desires that we could go back and to see what consultants are still interested in the work, those that are prequalified, or we could issue a new r.f.q. or a new r.f.p. for a new consultant using the m.o.u. funds. but i would leave that up to the direction of the commission. >> supervisor mar: thank you. and i'm just looking at the draft work plan for local buildout and it shows staffing for the executive officer,

project management as well as a policy analyst and then consultant banner. is that the consultant services through vanner for local build-out -- not vanner, but i guess that it would be a different consultant likely. and then the policy analysis analyst, is that in the budget? >> i think that the -- thank you, commissioner mar. i think that the documents that we're looking at are dated. this just happened in the last few weeks that we found out that vanner wasn't going to extend its contract. so i think that in the beginning when we were in discussions about a policy analyst, that there was talk of perhaps, you know, the analyst doing some of the clean power s.f. work, but that has since changed. and chair chan, feel free to chime in if you have anything to add around that. >> chair chan: sure. i think that commissioner mar is bringing up a really good point with the focus on this specific,

you know, around local buildout i think that it is time and i look to my fellow commissioners to look for feedback as well, that, you know, that i think that it is something that perhaps we should look to in the -- in the coming months and in the next two meetings to really think about how do we approach sfpuc in terms of our ongoing partnership and for the m.o.u. obviously, the update of the m.o.u. will then have to be going through the board of supervisors, and try to figure this out as well. so i think that's the question, through this budget proposal, to really think about where we're heading with our budget. obviously, i think that the m.o.u. with sfpuc is dependent

on that conversation, but it is time for us to pick up where we left off and to perhaps is to update the m.o.u. between lafco and sfpuc. >> got it, thanks, i'm just looking at the document linked in the agenda, the budget document. i'm sorry, just trying to understand this. so in the budget proposal, the $427,685 budget proposal, there's not really any -- it doesn't include the -- for the local buildout work plan. it doesn't include the policy analyst or the consulting services through vanner, right? but that -- but it could be included in the p.u.c. work order budget? >> that's correct, commissioner

mar. that -- the m.o.u. funds -- the budget that's before you today is the general -- is the general fund budget. and the carryover from lafco. any spending of the m.o.u. fund is the at commission's discretion for clean power s.f. that is ongoing. so based on the amount that we have left in the c.c.a. fund just around $129,000, we could move forward with any work that the commission directs on clean power s.f. >> supervisor mar: got it, thank you. so, yeah, i'm supportive of the work plan and budget. thanks. >> chair chan: thank you so much, commissioner mar. seeing no more of my colleagues on the roster, madam clerk, could you please call public comment. >> clerk: yes, we are checking to see if there's callers in the queue. mr. smith, let us know if

there's any callers ready. if you have not done so, press star 3 to be added to the queue for those on hold wait until the system indicates that you have been un-muted. it looks like we currently have two callers in the queue. mr. smith, if you could put the first caller forward. >> caller: good morning again, commissioners, eric brooks, californians for energy choice and local grassroots group, our city san francisco. so, yeah, i'm glad that we're having this discussion and i want to thank the executive officer goebel for his long and tireless work and excellent work on all of this. the first thing they want to speak to is the public bank, that is absolutely crucial that this be done because all of those things that we're looking for, clean energy, housing justice, and gig worker justice and the other things in the past that the commissioners have worked on, all of them depend on

us getting a public bank off the ground. and making it much easier to do all of those things. for example, chair chan, you have done excellent work at the board of supervisors working to protect tenants from long wall street landowners that are our landlords in san francisco. and the public bank is going to enable us to free ourselves from those big wall street landlords by doing things like co-ops, a lot more co-op and land trusts for tenants and so it would help you do that work as well. i wanted to make sure clearly specify what we're asking you to do on local build-out with this sign on letter being put forward is that is above and beyond your current budget. to do a local build-out plan would cost as much as the budget in front of you and possibly twice as much to do it right, and that means that you need the lafco to ask the board of supervisors for sufficient funds

to do that, several hundred thousand, maybe a million or something like that. that would just mean that the board of supervisors taking a very tiny amount out of the money that it's going to get from the federal government for infrastructure and further funds that are going to come forward on covid relief. so we do need you to right away to make that request to the board. it could be done through an sfpuc m.o.u., but that process has been pretty clunky in the past, so it might make more sense to just have the board to directly -- direct the funding to lafco to do a build-out plan so that lafco could take the lead on that. sfpuc and its staff have done a good job of getting the program off the ground and keeping it alive, and that's what they need to stay focused on is this competition with pg&e and making sure that they're giving costs -- cost sensitive reliable service to customers. we need the board of supervisors

and lafco to direct the build-out process because that's a bigger picture thing that the whole city family needs to be part of, including agencies like the san francisco environment. so let's make sure and right away to get that bigger budget request from the board of supervisors, however you decide that you're going to do it, we need it to happen so that we can get this off the ground and get what the letter is asking for by this summer. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. may we have the next caller, please. >> caller: good morning again, this is bruce wolf, i'm representing here now public net san francisco coalition. and, again, the haydash neighborhood council. we appreciate executive director goebel's service and contributions, we wish you well on your next adventure. we can't talk about gig workers without mentioning the internet we strongly urge lafco to plan

for the return efforts to build the community broadband, a.k.a. city-wide fiber, that has been an ongoing desired service for our residents and businesses for nearly two decades. we have already spent nearly $2 million on studies by columbia technology company that has given almost duplicate reports, but for every time they provide the report it's just the cost of development that has gone up. while we're not an urban desert, we still have a severe digital decide or a deficit in digital inclusion for many marginalized groups in the city. also it would benefit clean power s.f. build-outs and public bank operations to manage and monitor that technology. we urge lafco to pick up where former supervisor mark ferrel who started an excellent ramping up of finally getting this off the ground with full community participation and support, to then suddenly drop the entire

constructive effort off the precipice. this effort was started by the former supervisor miano and carried by supervisor ross merkerney and supervisor david cams on here in lafco. the budget analyst office has done an extensive positive study on this effort. for all obvious reasons of san francisco's intersection with the tech industry and community, and touting to be so advanced, we cannot claim this anymore, not being able to serve everyone at reasonable rates. lafco is key once again in making this possible. all of the work that has been done it has been done for you already. we just need to drive it, and the department of technology is also on board from my most recent last conversation with the director there. public net san francisco is ready to work with you to finally help the city to bring this to fruition. please include it in your funding proposal to support this

project. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, mr. wolf. we have one caller left in the queue. mr. smith. >> caller: hi, folks, my name is jessica, and i'm calling in late but i don't know if you have already taken comment for number 4? but i am calling to encourage lafco to invest in actual local clean energy build-out, local solar, battery storage, wind. you know, the time is now really to transition into local clean energy in our communities because what we're really dealing with is transmission lines from these big utilities that are causing fires and killing folks. what we really need is to create those clean energy jobs and benefits that would come from building out local clean energy within the city of san francisco. if we can't buy the transmission

lines right now and create a municipal utility, then we need to invest everything that we can into building out supply and creating our own clean energy infrastructure at home. so i just want to encourage y'all to do that. thank you very much, clean power to the people. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. i believe that was the last caller. mr. smith, could you confirm? >> yes, that was our last caller. >> clerk: great, thank you. madam chair. >> chair chan: thank you, madam clerk. seeing that no more public comment, public comment is closed. i do want to, again, to reiterate about this proposed budget and work plan that we are leaving some flexibility with this proposal, meeting the deadline requirement of june 15 for the upcoming fiscal year approval. however, i do want to talk about the fact that we -- we really with the intent to sync our

budget cycle with the board of supervisors, to really allow a more in-depth conversation around, you know, the lafco budget. and really dive deeper and into greater details about the lafco work plan, be it about clean power s.f., m.o.u., sfpuc, and local buildout, public bank and gig worker, you know, issues. all of these -- i really do look forward in the coming months to have a deeper conversation, along with the transition with an executive officer, a new executive officer, coming on board. so i just wanted to, again, to -- the fact that today this budget proposal is not end all, be all, but i think that it's a good step to move things forward in the coming months. i think that i encourage everyone to continue to get involved and to be engaged about, you know, the future of

lafco and the things that we should focus on, and that we can work on. obviously, you know, lafco, unlike any other counties, we are very unique because of city and county of san francisco that we are limited without authority to municipal service review and, you know, special studies authority. with that though, that doesn't mean that there are things that we cannot do to influence, you know, our local city departments as well as our policymakers like the board of supervisors? and perhaps the mayor as well. the executive branch, to make some of the decisions about, you know, around clean power s.f. and public bank and some other issues, like gig worker and making sure that, you know, that the companies -- the tech companies in san francisco can be held accountable for fair wages and labor practice.

with that, i don't see any of my colleagues on the roster for this item number 5. and i -- is there a motion on the floor from any of my colleagues to initially to approve this proposed budget and work plan and so that we can move forward to the june meeting for a final approval? a motion on the floor? >> yeah, so moved. >> chair chan: a second. >> sorry, second. muted again. >> chair chan: thank you. i appreciate it. thank you so much for your motion and second, colleagues. madam clerk, could you call the roll on the motion. >> clerk: yes, madam chair, to clarify the motion, we're taking

the recommendation of the executive officer from the memorandum. >> chair chan: yes. >> clerk: okay, so just for the record the motion is to approve the proposed work fund and general plan budget in the amount of $427,685 and requesting the statutory amount of $341,240 from the city and county of san francisco general fund. on that motion [roll call] there are three ayes. >> chair chan: thank you, this item has been approved unanimously. and madam clerk, please call item number 6. >> clerk: item number 6 is general public comment, for members of the public to provide general public comment today call 1-(415)-655-0001.

meeting i.d. 187 097 3853. then pound, and then pound again. if you have not already done so, please dial star, 3, now to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates that you have been un-muted and then you may begin your comment mr. smith, do we have any callers on the line? >> we have one caller in the queue. >> clerk: all right, thank you. >> caller: good morning again. one last time commissioners, this is eric brooks with californians for energy choice. and our city san francisco. i'm also a co-founder with bruce wolf of public net san francisco. and i want to speak specifically to public broadband and its connection to the things that we've talked about in today's hearing. i first want to endorse everything that bruce said, we

need to do those things, and it's important to understand that as we get the board of supervisors to help to fund local buildout plan, even though the letter doesn't specifically mention it verbatim, a public broadband network city-wide and county-wide and even regionally is crucial to clean buildouts, because you need to have smart grids and you can't really do effective microgrids without having a good public broadband system that is based on fiber optic cable that is put in the ground. and so that will be an intrinsic part of any big regional-wide and city-wide clean energy build-out plan. so i just want to say, yes, let's get that on your radar and get that to be included in this process as we go forward. so that we're -- that just gives another angle to this picture of

not only environmental advancement and environmental justice, but also community justice and economic justice broadband is another piece of that. so let's make sure that is also included as we go forward and i wanted to second that. so thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. i believe that was the only caller in the queue, mr. smith, can you confirm? >> yes, that was our last caller. >> clerk: great, thank you. madam chair. >> chair chan: thank you. seeing that concludes item number 6. madam clerk, call item 7. >> clerk: item number 7, future agenda items. for members of the public to provide public comment on this item, call 1-(415)-655-0001. meeting i.d. 187 097 3853. and then pound and pound again. if you have not already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand.

wait until the system indicates that you have been un-muted and then you may begin your comment madam chair. >> chair chan: thank you, colleagues, i wanted to just ask if there's any future agenda items that you would like to proposal this time for discussion. we are scheduling for a june 4th meeting, specifically really focusing, again, really on the budget conversation and allow us to do the final approval. of course, you know, that also gives us the opportunity to go over in greater details with the existing proposed budget and work plan for us to come back for further discussion. i don't see anyone on my roster madam clerk, can you confirm that as well. >> clerk: yes, there are no -- there are no members on the roster. >> chair chan: great. seeing no one on the roster,

madam clerk, please call public comment. >> clerk: yes, checking to see if there's callers in the queue mr. smith, let us know if there are any callers who are ready. for anyone who not already done so, please press star, 3, to be added to the queue. for those already who are on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been un-muted. mr. smith, do we have any callers? >> we have no callers in the queue. >> clerk: great, thank you. madam chair. choirk. >> chair chan: thank you, seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. madam clerk, please call item number 8. >> clerk: item 8 is adjournment >> chair chan: great. thank you, colleagues and everyone. we'll see you on june 4th. the meeting is adjourned. (♪♪)

[♪♪♪] [siren] [indiscernible radio chatter]

>> hello. i'm dr. john brown, the medical director of the san francisco e.m.s. agency. this is national e.m.s. week. it's a time for us to take a moment and celebrate the e.m.s. providers throughout the country. i want to take this moment and this time to thank all of the e.m.s. providers in san francisco who have gone way beyond the level of care in this situation. as the covid-19 pandemic spread across the globe and we prepared to respond to this disaster, you stepped up to an integral part of that response. you wore cumbersome p.p.e. and

responded to rapidly changing protocols on a daily basis. your commitment to this e.m.s. system is truly extraordinary. additionally, you helped us push our care along even further, and about to start our lucas device program to improve the care for cardiac arrest patients. this is amazing to push e.m.s. care above and beyond where we are before during the midst of this pandemic. i thank you for that. i also wanted to shoutout and especially recognize all the folks that have helped us in the e.m.s. transportation hub, the 911 dispatcher, the paramedic supervisors, the patients transfer coordinators, the paratransit drivers, everyone coming together to spare the 911 resource and keep

us responding to disasters in an appropriate fashion. while we can't celebrate e.m.s. week together, i hope you know how much i appreciate all of your courage, professionalism, and dedication in this unprecedented time that we're living in. >> greetings, and happy emergency services week in san francisco. i am san francisco fire chief jeanine nicholson. i wish i could be there in person to express my gratitude to all of you. the call takers and dispatchers, the call taking personnel, and, of course, paramedics and e.m.t.s. i understand and appreciate what it is you do day in and day out. i sat where some of you now sit. i'm a firefighter, but i worked on both d.l.s. and a.l.s. ambulances in the san francisco fire department before some of you were born. i know what it is that you see and do while at work.

i know the impact it can have. i know you make sacrifices to do what you do, and i know many of your families do, as well. so continue to take care of yourselves and each other. go out and learn something new every day. keep up that positive energy and enthusiasm. thank you for your loyalty, not just to the job or to the fire department, but to the people here in the city and county of san francisco. there is no higher calling than one of service to others. you are appreciated. >> hi. i'm san francisco police chief william scott. on behalf of the officers and the personnel of the san francisco police department, i'd like to thank you and congratulate you on this, the 46 annual e.m.s. week. like our brothers and sisters in the fire and sheriff's department, we rely on all of

you in e.m.s. for emergency medical care. i have experienced nothing but the highest level of professionalism from our ambulance crews in the field and know that each of you go the extra mile, whether it's a broken finger or cardiac arrest. >> hi. i am mary ellen carroll, director of the department of emergency management in san francisco. we are the city's 911 center, and we answer every fire, police, and emergency medical service call. our dispatchers work hand in hand with field personnel to make sure that every call for medical care is handled not only efficiently but with compassion. you are the next link after we take the call. the care that you provide to these patients can truly be the difference between life and death. i want to thank all of you for your dedication, your service, and commitment. >> hi. i'm sheriff paul miyamoto, and

i'm proud to call out the professionalism of our e.m.t.s. we provide safety services for both zuckerberg and laguna honda hospitals, and we've come to know many of you. >> i'm grant colfax, director of public health for the city and county of san francisco. i just really wanted to say thank you to the e.m.s. team for your work. 2020s been a challenging and unprecedented year as we work together to address the covid-19 pandemic, and your work being on the frontline every day is saving so many

lives. these are unprecedented times, and we've had to come to new ways to thank people. so while i can't do it in person, i want to thank each and every one of you. e.m.s. has always been an incredibly strong and important partner for public health, with public health and our work, and it only continues to be more so during this pandemic. i want to thank you, but i also want to make sure, with those thanks, to express the clear ask of you to take care of yourselves and your families. we know that during these times, self-care and getting the help that you need is so important as you work on the frontlines saving lives every day. thank you so much for your help. >> hi. i'm mayor london breed. i want to thank every e.m.t., paramedic, firefighter, nurse, physician, and the support

personnel who are part of our e.m.s. system in san francisco. during e.m.s. week, and as we are fighting this global pandemic, i am especially grateful for the opportunity to celebrate the important work you do every single day. it's because of you that we feel safe knowing you are in that ambulance, in that fire engine, or in that hospital emergency department, really to provide assistance to anyone in need. most importantly, you carry out your duties with care and compassion. now more than ever, our city appreciates the extra effort and sacrifice you have made to keep us healthy and safe. tonight, we light up city hall, coit tower, and salesforce tower in e.m.s. blue and white to honor your service and sacrifice. [♪♪♪]

>> e.m.s. strong. thank you. >> e.m.s. strong. thank you. >> e.m.s. strong. thank you. >> e.m.s. strong. thank you. >> e.m.s. strong. thank you so much for what you do. >> e.m.s. strong. thank you. >> e.m.s. strong. thank you. >> e.m.s. strong. thank you. [♪♪♪]