we see that the sf puc can do the purchasing instead of shell. all these issues were brought up by the commission, the sf puc and now they're resolved so we staff to work on the things in the background to clarify but we believe by the i understand of january the sf puc able to bring back kim malcolm and start working on developing a final plan to move this forward and with a lot of behind the meter assets -- >> thank you. any other speakers? >> good afternoon. bruce wolf, haight-ashbury neighborhood council and san francisco clean advocates. yeah, there will be jobs and time to move the program forward. let's not waste anymore time and if you encounter as you anticipate any obstacles or barriers about overcome them positively and rapidly. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello commissioners. jud holtman with 350 bay area, 350 san francisco. so i know we've all been working on this issue for at least a couple of years and we have heard a lot of questions over the last year with the program design with the issue of shell, the issue

>> barbara hale, assistant general manager at the sf puc. i used that as an example of the sort of thing i know already we're looking for better clarity on now that we received what is referred to as the final report. >> okay. is there a list of questions or a way to coordinate a meeting with you and enernex and mr. fried in order to address some of the issues in order to be all on the same page especially when we have our joint meeting about this particular report? >> yes, as i mentioned it's my intention to collaborate with mr. fried to go through the report and understand the various issues, have an opportunity to document -- write something up in a summary way. my commission asked for that prior to the joint meeting. we received this report on the afternoon of monday of this week. >> okay. >> okay. >> got it. >> prior to that we provided a multi-page comments on the prior version. i'm looking for a little time here to work with mr. fried to identify any outstanding issues that we may still have and to summarize that for my commission. >>

and the sf puc staff and are shthsd ousted language he said those agreements will be by mature consent so beyond the city bids out it's serviced why not allow pg&e and the puc to bid for the contract, if you will, to supply the power we don't understand why you feel it is necessary for the city to simply mandate you'll take power from the city if we find it to do so we have serious problems with it supervisor and we have problems with the fact if you're going to go into a building that is a one hundred square feet we we have a city tenant that's 10 thousand one square feet it allows the sfpuc to do a power spilling that to the building we that as mature consent and agreement we don't understand why the city feels it has to take over thirty this situation and mandate if you will, and mandate a private developer and private property owner must take hetch hetchy power we object. >> thank you, ms. workman. >> good afternoon dee dee workman from the chamber of commerce we appreciate the opportunity we were given to meet with the puc staff to discus

end by thanking the power in my office for his help and puc staff for working with us with that, supervisor kim if no noticeable questions or comments i'll invite barbara hail from the sf puc to come up and speak to us been on behalf of the agency. >> thank you, supervisors barbara hail assistant with the public utilities commission i'm going to e abolishment supervisor wiener the sf puc and the entrepreneurs is the provider of the electric services to the city and county of san francisco and their hunters point shipyard phase one and treasure island we're the little power provider we serve one hundred and 50 megawatts and outside of san francisco so inside of san francisco those customers are for example, our wastewater and city hall this building and ferry this and the police and fire the public utilities outside of san francisco we serve the facilities like much of our water facilities some in milling ray and the san francisco i want in san mateo county and alameda county and the towns in the surrounding area we provide the bundled service like pg&e and fund the efficiency like the improved lighting in the customer facilities and distribute enter projects like rooft

. >> item no. 18 is a resolution authorizing the general manager of the sf puc to execute a master license agreements for outdoor distributed and tennis system pole installation between the city systems and gte mobile nets of california 74 rise upb wireless each for a term of 12 years, each following board approval. >> thank you, we have barbara hale it from our puc to speak. >> barbara hale, general assistant for purchase at the san francisco public utilities commission. i am here today seek authorization for a master license agreement for outdoor distributed antenna systems mounted on our street light poles. those are assets that the city owns through the public utilities commission. first off what is a distributed antenna system? the systems are installations that consist of multiple power, low power antennas that are connected by fiber optic lines to the carrier hubs via fiber optic lines. the facilities include antennas, radio transmiters, fiber optic cables and associated electrical infrastructure. so that's what the physical assess is. what do these things do? they distribute wirele

to i think we started this process to answer some questions that had been raised when we went to the sf puc before for approval of the project so it's a really good thing to me that a lot of the answers that we provided are not being questioned, at least by staff, so we're just talking about providing more clarification in terms of tables so that's a good thing to me in terms of a joint meeting maybe we answered a lot of the larger questions that the commission had with respect to moving our program forward so i take this kind of -- these questions more of clarification and certainly it's important to know. multiplier effects on jobs are -- like you said they're very sensitive to whatever model you're using, economic model you're using, but indirect jobs are just as important as indirect jobs. they're all jobs so i think it's fine to provide a table with more data but still a job. >> that's great. and just for our purposes in the past the city has really tried to emphasize in any way by any means necessary the number of jobs created for a new project, new program, some initiative. it's the

the legislation and then for on future agenda items when you do have your next joint meeting with the sf puc this is just kind of a point of information -- especially i think the supervisors might be clued in on this but the public members i want to make sure you know about it. in the scott wiener london breed legislation that cleared authorizes the puc to sell express hetch hetchy power in the city to make money and bring clean energy to the city. >> >> originally when that legislation was drafted in july it did not include making cleanpowersf a priority customer of that power, and thankfully advocates approached supervisor wiener's aid and they graciously included an amendment that makes it clear that yes cleanpowersf is in the queue by that power and that is very important. even if cleanpowersf buys that power at full retail rate there are benefits from that because it helps -- we were discussing the wind power, solar power doesn't happen to be working and you have hydro power there as well in the mix and balances the resources out and help lower load curves on peak load and save money on

have to go with the shelf program we can see this program will create jobs and actually help the long term sf puc financially and we would a lot of loving to have the cac director kim come back and talk about the new rates and set them to go forward i want to give you a status report around the bay area napa has joint joined the clean energy and the city testify el cerrito and alameda county that as 1.5 million residents and the san mateo county of board of supervisors is voting to move forward into their community choice program and the city and county of santa clara r seriously looking at this san francisco was the first ever in california to have an ordinance 0 moving forward with community choice we'd like the city to be a leader in climate action and move forward before the rest of the bay area catches up with us and takes us over we want to w work with. >> he see kim come back in a year thank you. >> thank you, jason freed. >> hi jason freed executive officer for california last could i want to comment about the report one thing you'll find in the report we took all the comments especially

with macro sites on buildings we have more discretion and with our own assets, the poles sf puc owns, we have more discretion as a property owner to make sure aesthetics, noise, all those components, are more compatible. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> colleagues, any further questions? mr. rose, will you give us your report, please? >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, on the bottom of page 49 we note, as the department has already testified, estimated revenues range from 10.1 million for 200 light poles to 14.5 million for 300 light poles. that's based on an initial license fee of $4,000 per street light pole. on page 50 of our report, the licensees must also pay a one-time fee including application fees of $7500, administrative fees of 900 and service connection fee of 440, totaling $8,840 per applicant and that's noted in table 1 on page 46 of our report. we state towards the bottom of page 50 that because the board of supervisors does not have a policy on the use of city street light poles for private commercial uses we consider approval of the proposed resolution to be