The revised process will take 4560 days and reduces the process of referrals to other agencies. I will walk through in detail the current and proposed captured in our 25 amendments. This is the current wireless process. As i mentioned this process does take 90180 days. This slide is the proposed changes that will impact the process. Article 25 amendments to modify the existing permitting process only to include permit. They would similarly review authorizations for wireless abilities on the individual city poles. The permitting process would remain public works to ensure objective Design Standards and how standards are met. The amended process, the carriers would require clearance prior to their application before working with public works. Still refer the application for review. The amended process approved during the protest period. The appeal process would remain unchanged. It would ensure compliance with fcc order. This slide you can see the proposed process for puc. This process which was developed in coordination would comply with the new fcc order as well. [inaudible] a little bit of the objective design criteria. As i mentioned the proposed ordinance amendments are supported and are available for question. Thank you. Let me just say, for the record, that the industry owns the United States congress. Now that i have gotten that off of my chest. Are there any questions from Committee Members . I think you have done the best with what you have got. Thank you for your work, and thank you deputy City Attorney sanders for this and thank you for the briefing you gave me in my office area. I believe sanders had given you some proposed i was just going to speak to those right here. Clerical amendments on the following pages. Deputy City Attorney gartner they are on non substantial clerical amendments. He is nodding his head in the affirmative. We do not need to discuss section numbers 15, 22. I just did it. With that, are there members of the public who would like to testify on this item number 7 . That is mr. Wright. Unlike you, im not scared of going up against a multibilliondollar establishment. It was just a Radioactive Material that is being discharged by these towers that is built by schools. As a result, families, instructors, contract with the preschoolers located right by the tower, because of the radioactive generation that affects the kids, and no scientific studies being done. It is causing the schools to shut down. And thinking about shutting down. You have no test results to measure the amount of Radioactive Material that is coming from these towers. About you being affiliated with pg e, that is the worst he could do is be affiliated with them. The fires that they cause with several counties, caught on fire, about 1 Million Properties have been lost, and lives lost with defective equipment and it has just been determined that their equipment was notified, several years ago, that it was defective and it was just a matter of time before a fire would take place at a catastrophe level. They still didnt do anything about it. I further object to the governor providing 21 billion to pg e to help them how their lawsuit area that is a conflict of interest. Youre not supposed to be paying off pg es lawsuit. Just like me, pg e has several different types of insurance, they should not be paid off with taxpayers money from their friends and paid off by gavin newsom because he is friends with pg e. Until there is a Scientific Study done on the amount of radioactive waste that is coming from them towers, and correlating with the health of human beings, particularly kids. I do not want this to move until that is complete. Is that clear . Thank you, mr. Wright. I apologize for mispronouncing your name. You are hurting my feelings, because i unanimously passed i do want to say i have made a College Industry fighting against billiondollar companies. With that, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues . Can we take the amendments without objection . That will be the order and we will send the item regretfully, as amended, to the full board with recommendation without objection. We are adjourned. In this San Francisco office, there are about 1400 employees. And theyre working in roughly 400,000 square feet. We were especially pleased that cleanpowersf offers the super green 100 clean energy, not only for commercial entities like ours, but also for residents of the city of San Francisco. We were pleased with the package of services they offered and were now encouraging our employees who have residence in San Francisco to sign on as well. We didnt have any interruption of service or any problems with the switch over to cleanpowersf. This clean power opportunity reflects that. I would encourage any Large Business in San Francisco to seriously consider converting and upgrading to the cleanpowersf service. Its good for the environment, its good for business and its good for the community. Chairwoman the meeting will come to order. This is july 19, 2019, meeting. I am sandra lee fewer, and i am joined by commissioners jordan mar, matt haney. Today we have john carroll as the clerk. And i would like to think the staff at s. F. Gov tv for recording todays meetings. Please ensure you have silenced your cell phones and other electronic devices. And all documents should be submitted to the clerk. Chairwoman thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, can you please call item number two. Item 12 is approval of the lasco minutes from the may 22nd, 2019, rescheduled meeting. Chairwoman do any commissioners have any changes to the may 17th meeting . None. Chairman seeing none, do any members of the public have any comment on item number two . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Is there a motion to approve the minutes . So moved. Chairwoman motion by commissioner singh, and sected by commissioner mar. We can take these minutes without objection. Mr. Clerk, please call item number three. The communitys aggregate community report. Chairwoman we have susan mercelson with updates and state legislation. And mr. Hyam. Im sorry, mr. Global. We were hoping you could switch to number four. Agenda item number 4 is the city of San Franciscos tenure capital plan. Chairman them. Heather graham is here to make a presentation. Good morning, good afternoon, my name is heather green, and im the director of Capital Planning for the city of San Francisco, and our deputy resilience officers. I was asked to present here today to give a little bit of citywide context to the clean power work and the Capital Planning that will happen there. Im here to provide an overview of our citywide Capital Planning. I will try to be brief in my comments, but if you have anything you would like me to pause and talk about further, then im happy to do so. Our tenure capital plan is a constrained 10year plan. We are in year 13, and it captures 39billion of planned i investments. What is helpful here is to know how the capital plan helps us. It helps us to have conversations and to understand priorities as we are gathering input from stakeholders, because this is a plan that is to represent all of the stakeholders. The conversations we have with your offices helps us produce something that really reflects the will of the city. We do this every other year. We just approved the most recent one, as i said, and it is on departments to give us information about their buildings. Their infrastructure needs and so on. Were coordinating and collecting, and were a small office that tries to make sense of everything we receive. And we do some datagathering of our own on the facilities conditions, primarily. And we take all of the requests and organize and prioritize them into the plan, which you guys have all seen. And we make recommendations that Capital Planning committees, and the draft and proposed form goes to the mayor and board, ultimately, for approval. In the capital plan, we have some narrative contents and financial tables. We think about our resilience context, and we have longstanding funding principles that helps us make difficult decisions about what to do first. That is always hard to do. We present an overview of a Capital Outlook, kind of how are we doing against our deferred, aging infrastructure needs. And we have a few ongoing programs, and our two primary debt programs. And then the plan is broken into service area chapters to help it make it more digestable. How do we think about this . Our city has some known resilience challenges, and these are the kinds of things we think about when we think about what is most important. We have risks from earthquakes, from Sea Level Rise and climate change, and af enforcement araffordabilitythat we cant igd the aging infrastructure itself, of course. These are funding principles. The capital plan has tiered funding principles. So you can see most importantly we try to address any legal or regulatory mandate, protect life safety, enhance resilience, and ensure sustainability. These are things were straightup obligated to do as a city. And we want to promote economic development. And in this most recent capital plan, we had some language bowe about equity in the proceeding plan, and we ask departments to tell us how theyre doing that what we hear about their priorities. This is the Capital Outlook i was referring to. Sometimes people ask us, well, how do you know there is so much need in any given direction . And we often point to this backlog, which starts off in the capital plan, like on day one, at 800 million in our general fund department, and this is facilities and rightofway. We know we have a lot to do, and this helps us to make the case for our programs, continued increases over the years. We see the Capital Budget each year. If that meets the capital plan recommended funding level each year, we will just be able to address our annual need in fiscal 27. Were continuing to dig ourselves out, literally. It helps us make the case of dollars towards capital with onetime use, onetime need, and it can benefit us for years to come because as we take better care of ourselves, it becomes more affordable to do so. These are the types of policies we capture in the plan. We make recommendations about the pego program, and it helps us set a norm for funding levels. We have a performance target for our streets that is ambitious but achievable. We have a. D. A. Related policy to improve the infrastructure for those who have accessability challenges, and then we acknowledge, you know, that sometimes enhancements are really urgent, enhancements are those things that are building new or replacing the aging infrastructure. There are two major debt programs we track. They are backed by the city asset, and our g. O. Bonds, and you hear a lot about the latter especially. This gives us a sense of how the plan spending in the city is split. And our Enterprise Departments actually are the largest pot, being the airport port, the m. T. A. , and t. U. C. All of the clean power s. F. , and other spending is reflected in infrastructure and streets chapter, and you can see that 8 billion there, and that is the p. U. C. s 10year number. And infrastructure and street spending is also capture there. Thats the general fund number. Something that we strive to do is to capture all sources as best we can. This helps alleviate the pressure on anyone one source and also acknowledge all of the spending potential across programs, so you can see when we consider all departments, that other debt, that greenpeac greenpeac f the party is much, much bigger. So thats an important way that we look at things, like thinking about all of the different pieces we can bring to bear, so that we use the dollars where they are really needed. Because the color of money can be so important. Another thing that we do, especially for the general fund departments, is to kind of track what the recommended funding levels means for the ability to fund against what we are able to capture as a need. So, for example, we know that our public rightofway has tremendous means, and we are only able, even if we go at the capital plan recommended levels, were only able to fund a little more than half of that need. It is important for us to know what we are able to do and what we are not, so we can be transparent as a city, and deliver on what wecy say werwe say were goingd not others. And just to see how we lay them out, we work with our office of Public Finance in the Controllers Office to look ahead at the full 10 years of our plan and think about where the need is going to hit. So here you see our general fund debt program, the certificates of participation, and both the program and the bond program are constrained. That helps us make, you know, sometimes difficult decisions. The in the case of the c. O. P. Program, it is 3. 25 of annual Fund Discretionary revenue, is the cap on our overall debt. G. O. Bonds were all familiar with. We know that the Affordable Housing bond has gone up to 600 million, and we were able to capture that in the capital plan as well. Having those conversations ahead of time, making sure that theyre documented, making sure it is clear where we need to look, so we can remember we all agreed to Something Like that, has been very helpful, and may be helpful to clear power s. F. As well. And the bond is constrained against our property tax line thats the red line you see there. All of this planning, i like to remind everyone, is really helpful at the ballot box. In terms of continuing to build constituent trust and accountability, having a plan like this helps us to make the case. And what you see here is the light ble blue line is the publication of the First Capital plan, and all of the blue lines are what have passed since then. And as you can see, there is trust problems. On the infrastructure and streets part of the plans thats where clean power s. F. Is. It is a chapter really with just two departments reflected, public works, where we talk about all of the rightofway maintenance that they do, and the p. U. C. , the waste water and hedgy enterprises. We capture the p. U. C. And enterprises at a relatively high level in the capital plan. The p. U. C. Has its own capital team and project managers and so on. They do a lot of work that we benefit from and are able to capture but are not involved necessary day to day in the programming and prioritizing. But we do try to document the system at hand, what the power enterprise is comprised of. And then there are we do have a financial table, which ill show in a second. And the funds identified there, the 360 million for the power enterprise that is planned over the next 10years is spelled out for the following projects upgrading and installing new street lights, improving energyefficiency, providing utility operations to Treasure Island and other developments, and new transmission and distribution facilities. You can see that planned expenditures are broken by power and water, and then the revenues down below for power are called out. And this s, this i is the level documentation that we have. And we have longer descriptions of each of the project programs, which im happy to share with you, if you would rather not have me read out loud, and is available in the plan itself. Thats what we see of clean power s. F. , and we are very much aware that this is evolving and about to grow, and so just talking with the p. U. C. Team here, looking forward to working together and offering any benefits that we can from our years of producing a plan like this. Ill be happy to answer any questions that you have. Chairwoman thank you very much. Colleagues, any questions or comments . None . That was a very thorough presentation. This is opened up for Public Comment. Any members of the public like to speak on this item . Mr. Brooks, good to see you. Good to see you all, too. Eric brooks, San FranciscoClean Energy Advocates and californians for energy choice. So just to kind of reiterate where ive said before, if i were the head of the s. F. P. U. C. , and the power enterprise, that is the plan i would put together because the p. U. C. Is an Enterprise Department that is supposed to focus mainly on a conservative approach and protect ratepayers. So there is nothing wrong with what the s. F. P. U. C. Just showed to you. But it shows that. S. F. P. U. C. Is not the place where were going to get a city buildout that will reverse the climate crisis. Produced locally and regionly by 2030, which is what it is going to take to overcome the crisis. When ab117 was created, it put the elected body in charge of the program, and thats the clean s. F. Board of supervisors. Thats where we need a citywide buildout plan to come from. It is so important that you hire a contractor as soon as you can so we can get that plan planned out so that we dont have to try to put a square peg through a round hole and ask the s. F. P. U. C. To to somethindosomething theyre not designed to do. I know ive said that before, but it bears repeating. According to the puicc, weve only got 10 years left. So we need to do a massive build out of renewables, efficiency, and Battery Storage in this city. The way that is going to happen is through the board of supervisors. Thanks. Chairwoman thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Thank you, chair fewer and commissioners. Jed holton for the 350 bay area. And it is nice to be here and to see everyone. I look forward to diving more into this process and these numbers. Ive never really paid attention to our citys Capital Planning be