david pillpel again. 3 items on 7d. i don't know why the franchise compliant report dated august 26 about 6 weeks ago only appear today under communications. in the fuch rf i think it would be great to provide all communications at the next available commission meeting so this could have been the first meeting in september and instead delayed like a month. on item 7e, i appreciate the clean powersf quarterly update. good comprehensive report. thank you to staff on that, and on item 7f, i believe a principle at one of the listed contractors is a member of the san francisco community college district board of trustees. city college. i don't know how that effects any votes here or at the city college board or that individual's form 700, but i think it is interesting to note that kind of relationship between an elected member of that board and this agency. i'll leave it at that. thanks for listening. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, you have two minutes. >> hello. >> hello caller. go ahead. >> hello. >> go ahead

david pillpel and this is public comment on both items 5 and 6, correct? >> yes. >> great. on item 5, the mou with the puc, i would-i don't have a specific thought right this moment on the amount of money or the time, but i do as to scope. i think having greater power planning to not just reference things like the irp , but also consider planning for supply and demand for hetchy power would be excellent, and including within that the issue of connection from new york to san francisco. if we don't discuss publicly whether to have a connection from newark to the city, newark is the end of the hetchy power line, if we don't have a discussion on whether to do that, how to do that and how to pay for it, then it will never happen and we will continue to be subject to pg&e in terms of transmitting power from newark to the city with all that that requires. i just think that there is a greater power planning idea that can include lafco and maybe the scope of this next mou is the way to address it. and then finally on item 6 on the executive officer report. the agenda promises that t

1 again david bill pillpel i take a different view of this. item i'm opposed thisseen with the parameters and rules. i think all aspects of this program are ripe for the kind of of abuse that lead to the -- fbi. investigating -- suspects of city gentleman and people [inaudible] and what not. i think that this program is in the needed. i think there are other ways to achieve the same or better commune and public benefits from contractors. i would just include that work in the project scope. i think that this is some kind of an organized -- i don't want to characterize it i will use the wrong word and i don't want top do that. i don't like the way that this is structured. i think we should evaluate bids based on the -- cost and performance value that -- the public and rate payer get from the bids and to bid anything this is necessary on get the w done including w force training or anything else should be included in the project scope. so i'm opposed the social impact partnership program, period. thank you. thank you. there are no more caller in

. >> it is david pillpel on this item several thoughts i believe this is the first contract to come before the commission. and i think this is a good effort but i think we are not quite there. on in particular my concern relito ceqa under chapter 31 of the administrative code. i don't believe all of the requirements have been conployed with. although they [inaudible] stage 4 of the agenda, this item does in the say this is approval action under chapter 31. on item 6a, which is required and consistent with other boards and commissions. in particular sections 31.08. specific >> reporter:s. the staff report is thin the be property agsz was comprehensive butt one page staff report with details without verbiage is not as complete as it could be. it does not complain which intersections and locations is signals which are upgrades and beacons and different work. all of that. the math is helpful but stories with the staff report limp is a reference to the environmental determination but only on page 2 and the summary. staff reportful it is not referenced in the resolution that where as clause that