the first component would be construction jobs through the buildup of the development program over 20 years, and that is anticipated to be 2000 annual jobs in construction trades, various trades, starting first with infrastructure, and in typical trades we would think of as building trades, we would think of as it relates to building development. i do not have specific answers on the full-time jobs or the permanent jobs, but they would be comprised of maintenance jobs for the parks and open space. they would be common area maintenance jobs for the hoa. retail component, the hotel jobs, that sort of job sector. we have also cleared up to 100,000 square feet of commercial office. that is not currently a component of the program, but we have given ourselves the flexibility to attract a tenant that would find the site suitable. it is generally in the retail and service industries. commissioner moran: if you had

to assign a number, the value of the project, a ball park. >> in terms of the total number of jobs created? i will say 40,000 to 45,000 jobs. construction, and the need permanent jobs at around 2000 or 3000. we can get your specific numbers as part of the fiscal analysis that was done. commissioner vietor: are there questions or comments? >> commissioners, we are still working with various folks. we have been working with a lot of people with the mayor's office over the last several years. mike martin was the lead for it. he is now working on the america's cup. we have staff still discussing things as esoteric to most of us

as the death of the pipe, compared to the waste water levels. so we can bring that back to you and ask if this is an appropriate briefing here cost, and appropriate cost for the connection fees and capacity charges and for the developers, so you get a sense of what that might be. >> do you have any further comments? >> this is going to seem very complex, but your comments and questions were very good, so we think we can distill it down, so when we do our presentation to you, hopefully we can answer some of your questions. as the general manager stated, a lot of it comes down to what side of the legislature the costs actually come down on. that is the big decision you will need to make in two weeks. we will have that information for you in advance.

>> is it too early to put together the dry utilities as well? i do not know what that means. i think it means the energy service, right? what it might mean for the puc to take on. >> we can actually run some quick and dirty analysis. we had so many customers, we charge them at an equivalent to a pg&e kind of rate. what it would take us to recover. whatever infrastructure we are putting in. we actually have some costs associated with all three of our enterprises, that you have in your existing budget that we have been incurring, which may be reimbursed and may not, and we need to sort that out over the next couple of weeks for you as well. commissioner torres mentioned the east bay under the bay bridge, and we have three conner was because we were

anticipating the new east ban, and there is a cost associated with that, and if we want to slip a pipe into that conflict, that and people, who pays for that? >> you mean for power? >> for recycled water and wastewater right now. for power, we paid for a new submarine cable to treasure island. we are paying caltrans as part of that. again, when they moved the east end, it was in line with where the other cable was. we have a new cable. there are costs associated with the project that we have been incurring for years, and now, we have to decide as an entity how we go forward and recover those costs. use our rate payers, or to the developer. them that if we wanted to push the envelope and a distributed project on treasure island, that would provide power for all of treasure island, so when you have been tapping into is, we

would manage it. >> right here and as far as when you ask a question for feasibility study, what it would take, there is a dedicated 46 acres that the puc would own, or in a long-term lease with haida -- with tida. we could use that if it were not on the actual building. so there are options that we have there. >> thank you. than anything else? then adjust the oversight. >> great. thank you very much. >> i have a question. homeless or disadvantaged persons fell 25% -- fell 25% of all jobs.

>> back into the additional slides in there. >> do you happen to have a slide number? >> sustainability assets, right? >> down and in the left-hand corner. >> right, so one of the other documents that would be attached to the development agreement is a job and equal opportunity program. as part of that, 25% of all jobs would be set aside for formerly homeless individuals. we have a separate agreement between tida and the treasure island homeless development initiative. a primary component of that plan is a housing component, but it also has a job training component and economic

opportunities, so that is a policy goal that we would fill 25% of all jobs through our partnership with them, but we would also work with the office of work force development arm to bring folks -- formerly homeless folks to the job portion. and and maybe i'm not hearing clearly, but you are saying 25% of all the jobs? >> right. then let it just seems like pie in the sky. dam it to expect that work force is available and trained and ready to be accessed. but that is the goal. >> ok. commissioner courtney. commissioner courtney: i agree. perhaps we should try to develop on what disadvantaged --

>> we can provide some specifics and bring this information back to you to lay out a little bit more broadly what the components of the job program are, just so you have a fuller understanding. i personally have not worked on that plan. there are others in our office that have, and we can bring them to the presentation and provide information to you in advance. >> it may be safe to assume just for today's meeting that when we have had these discussions before, we had used a map of the city and county, and in particular areas within particular zip codes. these folks qualify based on their income. maybe we are kind of lumping in the homeless and disadvantaged together. it is still pretty ambitious, but i would like to see more information on that as well. >> we can provide definition on that.

delaware the cost to have the problem of labor training program? >> there is about 400, depending on the ethnic flows, but about 400 or 500 students, and they will remain. >> so there is no proposed remodel or infrastructure development for that center? >> that is correct. >> it is a wholly federally operated center? >> correct. >> any other comments? thank you very much. next item please. are there any public comments on this item? >> we have no speaker cards. >> good afternoon. we would like to really discuss this proposal, but i wanted to

make sure you all know that many of us are concerned about the obligations that the puc is taking on. as i personally listen to this discussion, i would encourage you to look carefully at this jobs and equal opportunity agreement. it could be that the puc is getting into something -- it could be that this thing is not financially sustainable with provisions that are in excess. i do not know if that is where you need to look, but i am concerned about the level of affordability in all of these programs, which i know san francisco loves dearly, but in a situation like this with our extensive and long-term obligations that you are assuming, you want to make sure that there is going to be a viable plan here, and i do not see it. housing, as a development plan -- it does not seem like the

best opportunity here, but i know we are too late for that discussion. my advice would be to look carefully at the other agreements that the city is making. because it is going to obligate the puc if they cannot recoup their money. good luck. >> thank you. we always appreciate the input from our citizens advisory committee, so any more detail or concern that you have, we would love to hear that as you proceed. thank you. any other public comment? next item please. >> item 11, discussion and possible action to improve and other less the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the department of the environment and municipal transportation agency to install 27 electrical vehicle charging stations in 13 city-owned rogers for public use -- garages for public use.

>> thank you. manager of administration and budget power. the mou before you formalizes the roles and responsibilities among the sfpuc, department of environment, an invisible transportation agency. these charging stations will be publicly acceptable throughout 13 city own garages. the charges are provided to the city free of charge through 2013. the facilities are customers of the power enterprise, and they pay the enterprise rate. approximately a range of facilities between 12 cents and 18 cents per kilowatt hour. during the term of the program,

the power provided to the public for the charging sessions will be free, but the power enterprise will recover that cost through the facilities themselves. mta for example. beginning mid-year, the host agencies, including sfpuc, department of the environment, and municipal transportation, including others will be working together to develop more clarified rules about responsibility of ownership of the facility for the chargers, maintenance costs for future, to 2013, and we will -- we at the agency will collect the data from those chargers -- public chargers. we will be collecting the usage. we will be collecting the profile, when they use it, time

of use. the emission savings. the fuel savings. and mainly the performance of the chargers. looking forward to future technologies with charging stations. with that, and happy to answer any questions. >> i just want to be clear -- the puc would pay for the installation of the charging station, and we provide the staffing and maintenance, and we provide the power? but the power gets recouped because the facilities would be paying the puc basically market rate. 15 cents approximately. even if it is a general fund facility? >> the first question, the charging stations themselves, and that is coming from a grant. >> that is correct. charging stations are being given to the city through a

grant. >> so our portion is to pay for the installation by having our staff to the work. >> right. >> and the only stations you are coming up with now our enterprise funds. >> correct. garages are all enterprise customers today. >> that makes it easy. than any other questions or comments on this item? is there a motion to adopt? >> so move. >> second. >> public comment? >> we have no speaker cards. >> hearing none, the motion carries. thank you very much. >> the next item is closed session. are there any public comments, or shall we call for any public comments on any item in the closed session? >> any public comment on a closed session? hearing none, please continue. >> we can entertain a motion to discuss the matter is listed

within the conference of legal counsel. >> is there a motion? all those in favor? opposed? >> if you would give me one moment to read the two items. sorry. threat to public services or facilities, consultation with chief of security, conference of legal counsel pursuant to litigation, tadhge conway v. city and county of san francisco. we will now go into closed session.

>> we are back now held a closed session. item 14, there was no action. item 15 was settled. >> would you like a motion to disclose or not disclose? commissioner vietor: yes, is there a motion to not disclose? >> so world.

>> second. commissioner vietor: all those in favor? motion carries. next item. >> [inaudible] commissioner vietor: no, no new business. hearing none, the meeting is adjourned. thank you.

[older man speaking foreign language] richie! richie!

[speaking foreign language] yo, tye! what-up? richie! what-up, player? how ya doing, son? all right, man. i'm chillin', of course. you gonna be there, right? click freedomcenter.org to find yours.

>> i have 2 job titles. i'm manager of the tour program as well as i am the historyian of city hall. this building is multifaceted to say the very least it's a municipal building that operates

the city and county of san francisco. this building was a dream that became a reality of a man by the name of james junior elected mayor of san francisco in 1912. he didn't have a city hall because it was destroyed in the earth wake of 1906. construction began in april of 1913. in december 1915, the building was complete. it opened it's doors in january 1916. >> it's a wonderful experience to come to a building built like this. the building is built as a palace. not for a king or queen. it's built for all people. this building is beautiful art.

those are architecture at the time when city hall was built, san francisco had an enormous french population. therefore building a palace in the art tradition is not unusual. >> jimmie was an incredible individual he knew that san francisco had to regain it's place in the world. he decided to have the tallest dome built in the united states. it's now stands 307 feet 6 inches from the ground 40 feet taller than the united states capital. >> you could spend days going around the building and finding something new.