extension if necessary. what else? >> there might be an issue that it will have to go back to the sfpc on the matter. i can't speak for them, but they might have to go back to do that. i am assuming the two weeks to do a count that time frame, too. supervisor mirkarimi: any other incentives like a gift basket? >> giants tickets. supervisor mirkarimi: nothing else? anything further on this subject? the only other question i have, we were looking to have a joint meeting in november, and i think this conversation is predicated on a need for that particular

meeting. what is our projection of still wanted to have that meeting? >> it will be on a later agenda item. we were planning on having its november 12 because it would be immediately following the issuance of the final scoring interview to have a discussion about what we do next, moving forward the negotiations. i would recommend that we leave november open for a joint meeting, but not settle on a date until we are meeting at a point that is actually relevant to the process, and not just meeting because it was the first day. >> will we have to the to beat about? >> if we are ready to go in the bidding, they have been finalized, it would be a good time to sit down and look at who we are negotiating with. that would be a good time to

beat. >supervisor mirkarimi: if we can shoot for a joint committee meeting by the nineteenth of november, after that, we are at the holidays and a lot of other things are going to be happening. if before 2011, that will be the time to do it. >> there is a potential meeting date in december. with the holidays, it is a very limited window. supervisor mirkarimi: there could be revolution by that point. why don't we open this up to public comment? >> caroline had a discussion about prop. 23. >> at the last meeting,

commissioner schmeltzer asked that we look into prop. 23 on the upcoming ballot. i am just going to give a brief overview of what the proposition is. basically, it would suspend the global warming act of 2006 until california's unemployment rate drops below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters. it requires that the greenhouse gas levels get reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. this new proposition would basically suspend that for an amount of time. it is unknown how long it would be suspended for. it was put on the ballot by two texas oil cmopanies.

-- compaines. -- companies. they say it hurts business on the brink of recovery while opponents argue that it is just an effort on larger oil companies to roll back environmental regulation. pg&e has come out against the proposition, and a little bit of information about the current unemployment rate, we're at 12.4%. according to the employment development department, there have only been three periods when unemployment was below 5.5% for 4 quarters. each of these have only lasted

about two years. some of the implications, if this proposition should pass, it might reduce investment in renewable energy within the state, lead energy technologies which might affect our ability to secure innovative and competitive priced renewable energy services and resources. we think it is also a step back in the state's goals in terms of greenhouse gas reductions. before we have a resolution, the board of supervisors passed in early may, it is just for you to discuss if you like to consider passing a similar resolution. are there any questions?

>> any questions for our trusty staffer? the question before us, should they sign on to this resolution? we might want to take lessons from the board of supervisors who already has demonstrated that this is a worthy resolution would you like to make the motion? commissioner avalos: im otion that - i motion that lafco signs on against prop 23. commissioner schmeltzer: second. supervisor mirkarimi: any discussion? any public comment? >> a good afternoon, commissioners. from the san francisco green party and representing the coalition on community choice.

as far as proposition 23 goes, that is a no-brainer. specifically to what staff raised in the amendments, these are brand new. please e-mail me and other advocates right away so that we can look over the amendments and make sure that the environmental community and the advocate community is comfortable with them. to the specifics, there is a little rest their, the rating issue. let's just make sure that if we're going to make that change, that we have a point system within the new structure that strongly favors somebody that has the strongest financial status so that we have this project backed up and we don't read the same problem that we ran into before.

dividing at customer service, do we need to do, but that raises concerns for me personally. as director campbell said, when you have two different firms handling to different parts of a project, there is a tendency for them to point fingers at each other. i would agree that we have to be careful about where we go with dividing things out, if the contractor that wins this bid goes on to win the next thing that we are envisioning, which is one comprehensive rfl, it will be more important for the contractor to handle customer service as well because it will be so much more involved of the project. we at least want to make sure that in the second stage, it is reopened and we try to join them together.

what staff as wanting to do, favoring having one central contractor do everything together is probably the best course. i think you should look at the 2007 ordinance, because a think it might have something that was not covered by the last amendment. as far as the next steps, a couple of years ago, we indicated that studies need to be done to identify the locations and the potential assets of the city for a bill out phase. that needs to be done now. we are going to run a the same problem we ran into a couple of months ago and not be able to do this as a comprehensive project. [bell] we are going to be behind the ball again, and that is not good. supervisor mirkarimi: any other

public comment? public comment is closed. without objection, can we take that resolution and informal suggestions? seeing no objection, those items events. next item. >> report on the solar program. supervisor mirkarimi: ok. >> hi, again. commissioner schmeltzer also request lafco staff to research on the solar program that we got wind of. it is a program being conducted by the largest publicly owned utility in the state called public service electric and gas company. they are installing 200,000 solar units that consist of a

solar panel and a communications system on utility poles and street lights throughout the state of new jersey. this program is expected to produce 40 megawatts of energy when it is completed in 2012. and something in florida is looking at a similar program, testing the similar solis system produced by a company in new jersey, and it just got with the that there are representatives here that might be able that answer some of your questions if you have a. a little bit of background about these units. do we have the image up? that is what it looks like. pretty self-explanatory. from my research, i found that the cost is about $6.44 for each

what produced -- watt produced. in terms of financing, they plan on adding 10 cents to each customer's bill that will maybe go up to 35 cents by 2013. also, the program is financed by bonds and equities by companies selling energy in the wholesale market. some of the benefits that we might actually take for clean power staff obviously the simplicity in speed of it. it doesn't require acquiring land or dealing with regulations of putting the solar on people's roofs. it doesn't require power lines or infrastructure.

as we are putting these things up on the polls, but could be recuperating cost. in the local job factor, i think they estimate they can create about 100 jobs with each contract they have. and lastly, positive visibility it will create. some of the questions that we might want to talk about today or just something for us to think about in the future includes how many of these we can put this on if you think about doing this. the city doesn't own transmission lines, but we do have streetlights. that could be a possibility. the city owns some of the lines that go a little out of the city, i believe. that could be another

opportunity. also, jason of lafco staff told us to look into a standalone solar program that would be a system connected into the grid. that would be something that would influence this program, because we would have to decide where to put the street lights and where they would go into the grid. lastly, i wanted to mention that do jersey is using a smart red technology for the program, which is something that we might or might not want to use. it's just a question of how we would monitor the system if we were going to use that technology. just to clarify, these type of the installations feed directly into the grid.

there needs to be no new transmission lines per anything like that. any questions? the next step, we just want to hear your thoughts about this. we were just asked to put some brief information together. we also haven't talked to the sfpc about the viability. we just want to hear if we should look into this? >> first, i want to thank you for unearthing this information. knowing what i know of it, a think it is very worthwhile to pursue to see how this might factor in to the larger design and strategy of implementing a clean energy program. especially the way it is

exhibited here, how fast as the new jersey program? >> i know that pfe & g is the largest utility in the state, they have something like 200,000 utility poles. i read somewhere that it is the largest pulled out solar program in the world. supervisor mirkarimi: do you have an idea of commercial verses' residential benefits from this? a percentage of where the energy is being channeled? >> i think it is like pg&e. anybody using their power would benefit from this technology. >> but no idea of percentages?

>> no. commissioner schmeltzer: i want to supplement what commissioner mirkarimi just said. i did a very little bit of looking into it when i was in new jersey this summer and saudis about it. it was noticeable, which is what triggered by interest. it was announced at the beginning of 2009, and by june, all you had to do was be a new jersey for a few minutes and you saw these solar panels everywhere on utility poles. they seem to have moved pretty quickly. i don't know how many of the 200,000 were up or if it was just installed in one corner of

new jersey where i happened to be, but it seemed like it was a fairly fast moving program and they already owned the site. it didn't have to spend a lot of time getting access or transmission agreements finished. i think it would be terrific to talk more about either finding out from pfe & g which is the equivalent of a statewide pg&e, for the whole state. but whether san francisco puc or part of a different program would be able or interested in doing something like this, whether there is that kind of capacity or willingness. while it is great to have a big solar installation, pursuing

projects like that, we'd all the different pieces and all the different tools available to us to beat a renewable energy challenge. commissioner avalos: thank you for going into jersey. i support -- [unintelligible] antennas have been going up to the city, we don't have much

undergrounding in my district. you see some of the new antennas, and often they will be able to get out into the sidewalks. there are facilities that stickout, the poles themselves will have wires crisscrossing back-and-forth across the street, and it is really dense. his supervisors and residents of the city as well [unintelligible] i guess, in this case, solar infrastructure as well. it gets to be a lot of blocking out of the sky at some point,

certainly, i think it is felt in some districts as well as others. supervisor mirkarimi: commissioner dufty has history with the underground staff -- taskforce. commissioner dufty: there is a disparity about how the underground is distributed in the city. the variants is tremendous, but think colleagues recall that i sought to have some funding dedicated to focus on these inequities and try to restart the program because we have expended all of the credits, i believe through 2019.

there were increased costs that were accumulated in the program that was begun with the settlement of a lawsuit, in the city attorney. we have come to the end of that. we have done some very limited additional underground work, like light rail, for example. right now, we're really looking at how to restart the program, and i do share commissioner avalos's concerns about seeing apparatuses that are being dropped on polls without input. we want more readable and applications. i want a somewhat concerned that could exacerbate that problem.

supervisor mirkarimi: is a complete removal, or do the polls remain? commissioner dufty the poles are removed. in that case, the objective is to eliminate the wires underground that have a number of benefits to it. and they apply a utility user's tax dedicated to undergrounding, but given the climate and the attitude towards revenue measures, hopefully it is something we can get a dedicated source of funding and we can work towards that as members of the task force tried to think of ways to get the program going.

the west side of town, the southeast portions of town, supervisor mar's portion of town has almost no undergrounding. commissioner schmeltzer: thank you, it occurs to me that there must be issues of undergrounding in new jersey as well, and maybe they have thought about what their plan is to make sure they don't lose their investment as different neighborhoods or community's move to or from undergrounding. perhaps there has already been some thought that has got into this. we do have other things that are disconnected, or easily connected such as street lights or other things that are connected through electricity. the underground wires, of course, are still right there.

there may be other ways to achieve the same idea just using different types of polls -- supervisor mirkarimi: or other poles. commissioner campos: we need to eliminate the city in the nighttime. i am working on legislation, electrical poles that we try to be consistent on, something we are to pursue that is really in the spirits of grow work. supervisor mirkarimi: i think you have some decent feedback that explains our interest in hearing more about the prospects of this program, but with

certain guidelines and other issues that are city-wide it because there has been an outstanding frustration with trying to implement the undergrounding of the utility poles which has been slow. knowing that, it would be worthwhile to continue to get more data and see how this might really benefit san francisco. >> we will have more discussions to see if this is even a viable program. >> i think it is important that this continue to be a joint investigation. it would be nice to see some financial particulars on this as

well. no further comments, colleagues? public comment? come on up. >> my name is chris chapel, i can answer virtually all of your questions. we are located in new jersey and we are deploying 200,000 solar units with smart grid capability. in california, we're working with san diego gas and electric, where alert -- we're working with los angeles, too. as opposed to putting an led light on the pole, putting up a solar panel with a battery is dangerous. we have the bureau take the daytime generation through the solar panel, so it back during

peak hours, and by the power back at the lower rate at night. in essence what they're doing, they're almost getting a credit back. we can work right with street lights, metal, aluminum, fiberglass. the grid is everywhere. it is here in this building, at every street light, every poll, every utility box. on the report, there were some questions about utilizing wireless carriers or working with verizon or at&t. the technology is open, integration is very simple. currently, the city of los

angeles is installing 50,000 lives that will generate power. there is no permit or these upfront design and engineering costs. i spent 15 years with pg&e doing projects, and tatarstan the whole game. for you guys, we would install the manufacturing facility here in the san francisco area. we would generate -- we're working with pg&e on this as well, about 400 permanent jobs. in addition to putting green out there for the public, we're creating jobs at the same time. you have to manufacture in your backyard and buy locally. i think those were in it. i tried to grab all the quon