is a genius at getting interesting retail mixes into the area. one of their requirements are that they have to be local. that's an idea, isn't it? so you might think about that and find out who the genius is out there has been successful in attracting all of those wonderful shops and restaurants. lastly, in the thinking that people are stunned at the number of children there are living in mission bay and the parks are admittedly lovely, but up facilities for children are very poor to say the least. other kinds of facilities -- when you are planning your activities, if you could think about finding ways to meet the requirements for installing

child care or small schools for the people in the neighborhood because right now, that does not exist. we have seen this plan and in general, i think i can say it is well liked. >> thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? >> one thing i failed to mention -- we have a standing weekly meeting with ports staff and we are actively working together on this. we have had a report on some of the variants of the design we're working on and we will continue to do that throughout the summer and invite any of the commissioners as well. we would be happy to meet with

you about the progress of the project. with respect to retail, one of the things we think is missing in mission bay and one of the designs we have created is we have a more pedestrian-oriented experience and i think that's important for the viability of the retail. we have thought about that and what has worked and what hasn't. we want to do something different in that regard, as a thank you for that comment. >> thank you. any questions or comments? [laughter] i think it is very exciting and i am looking forward to being briefed on it as it moves forward. in keeping was some of the comments regarding children and giving -- given the proximity to

the ballpark, one thing that has been lacking is planning in advance for event spaces or entertainment. i'm hoping that might be incorporated at the front and and that leads as often to the debates, but it seems like a perfect opportunity to include some more entertainment-oriented venues or music facilities while it is being constructed so that soundproofing can be set up. i would be remiss if i did not put in a bid for a dog park of some sort. >> i want to commend you on this plan. always, i want to hint upon what i believe is a true belief that we can get an arena. i know it is a bit self- serving, however i know you have

to pay for it in some way, shape or form and hope is incorporated. i hope you guys are looking at it. thank you. >> i was curious. you wanted to see -- are there additional resources you are bringing in that to help move the project along? >> both companies are spending it and we anticipate spending more than a million dollars to try to complete the task we have at hand. more money will be spent as we move forward pass a term sheet and the endorsed design throughout the entitlement process. the giants as financial partners, the chief consultant to us -- that will be part of

the project as well in a more limited financial role. >> i guess what i was driving at is do you plan to hire additional people who can take on parts of this because it is a monumental undertaking. >> we have a team of consultants from various disciplines. we will probably hire some additional sources to make sure we can get all of these tasks done. we have met with a project team and look at the schedule of all the things we need to do to meet our deadlines. they are all in the process of being under way and being worked on. there will be a flurry of activity and a large team of people working on this to bring this to you in september. >> if i'm not mistaken, you submitted another design in

march. do you have a sense of where that is going to stand or shift dramatically? clearly at some point you have to come up with the final design. >> what we did is we took 18 different site plans. we turned things around and thought of different levels of office and different types of office and different levels of residential and so forth. we played around with the site plan to keep the values intact that were well endorsed by the public. but what different configurations could we make if we moved from a million square feet to 1.5 million square feet? what would it look like if we had one office campus? what would it look like if we had three? we invited the port staff to

look at the different iterations and began to whittle down some of the ones that were not favor them look at the different aspects of the ones that had promised. what we intend to do this summer is produce a site plan that is the best of all of them, but also indicate that there will be variants in that and we will have to make certain assumptions and have a flexible entitlement situation where we might study more than one vision or a greater envelope than one vision. those divisions are based in certain assumptions that might change because of the market conditions. we have an entity interested in 500,000 square feet of office, we would work with them to incorporate their vision, so it is an ongoing process.

in september, we anticipate a vision on paper that everyone can understand and the assumptions we can understand with the caveat that things may change relative to more office, less residential or vice versa. but the value and retail thinking will be maintained in the project. >> we are trying to be responsible about how we're going forward with that look at different types of iterations based on a different -- based on different market forces. >> once a project is entitled, do you get with ballroom within those entitlements? >> it depends on how we approach the rezoning. it is currently zoned open space

from an earlier version of the plan. we envision a comprehensive rezoning effort. we have not fully determined which path we are going to follow. there are various zoning methodologies we could approach that could form based zoning that are flexible. the point is well taken that what ever resoundingly pursue on that site will have to be flexible because it's such a large site that the concept of master plan issues worried have flexibility to adjust. >> just all little addition to respond to your question -- you say you are holding to the streets and we want to have a certain amount of open space that can be shared by all. but then we get someone who wants a small grouping of office buildings. there is a way within the plan

they could get their own private spaces as well as the shared spaces and different sizes of the configurations and if we had three quarters of this street that are absolutely said that another quarter might have flexibility, that's the kind of thing we need. in terms of program, a model might be treasure island. we have a program for that area and there has been flexibility as to how you can build some of less behalf flexibility but you know what the total volume this. there are a number of models in the city used to allow for justice long term development potential. >> i had to other questions. the 2600 parking spaces, how

many are currently considered? >> we have about 3500 parking spaces for the ballpark. we opened with about 5500 parking spaces. the total of 2650 was based on having 2000 available for all park patrons because there and other users on the site, residents that have parking and people who want to use retail. there'll be more parking available than just the 2000 dedicated for all park users. we anticipate the garage will be used for office users and visitors during the night and it will be more economically effective. we will have less parking in the south than we do now and we are convinced this is an amount of parking that is enough that we

can continue to attract fans to the ball games from santa cruz, sacramento, santa rosa and all the different places people come from that don't necessarily have the sea access by public transportation. we have 15 to 20 minute walk zones so people have other opportunities. we are keeping our eye on it and we lot parking resources to be used multiple times by office users and a ball park patron at night so that we could have the council responsible. it is based on a balanced approach where we encourage the use of public transportation resources but provide enough parking that people need to drive, that is the pattern they choose. we do not have a huge negative impact on people's accessibility to the ballpark. it is a balanced, responsible approach that we have and we

think we can essentially shrink the footprint of the parking to the size of the parking structure and enable us to build on most of the site and generate financial return and do it in a strategic way so that you can realize economic benefit because people are walking through and enjoying the experience is on their way to the ballpark, much as they do today. with all the other businesses and restaurants. >> it goes without saying there will be an eye toward following the state of the art green building practices, energy efficiency, water reclamation? >> yes. we know that we need to meet the studies expectations with respect to sustainable development and that will be part of what we are about in this project.

>> any other questions or comments? >> thank you for the update. i'm looking forward to the new concept. >> thank you. >> item number 10, new business. any public comment on new business? >> item 11, public comment? any public comment on public comment request or can i have a motion to adjourn? meeting adjourned at 4:26.

it begins innocently enough-- you don't return a phone call; you break a date at the last minute-- but, in fact, it's the beginning of a pattern, and soon, your friend with mental illness realizes you're avoiding them, but what if you knew that your friendship was the key to their recovery? would you still lock them out of your life? [doorknob rattles]

so are you going out tonight? i can't. my parents say i have to be home right after work. ugh. that's so gay. totally gay. ugh. that is so emma and julia. why are you saying, "that's so emma and julia"?

well, you know, when something is dumb or stupid, you say, "that's so emma and julia." who says that? everyone. announcer: imagine if who you are were used as an insult. supervisor chu: hello. welcome to the regular meeting -- actually, a special meeting of the budget and finance committee.

mr. young, do we have any announcements? then i guess. please turn off all cell phones. if you wish to speak during public comment, please fill out a speaker card and turn them in to myself. if you submit documents to the city, please provide copies to the clerk for inclusion in the file. items discussed today will appear on the board of supervisors agenda on june 2, 2011, unless otherwise stated. supervisor chu: thank you. we had a number of items that are not part of the budget process budgetper se, -- part of the budget process, per se, but we would like to dispense with those first. >> item 1, resolution approving the issuance of water revenue bonds and water revenue refunding bonds to be issued by the public utilities commission of the city and county of san

francisco, affirming covenants contained in the indenture pursuant to which the water revenue bonds are issued, authorizing the taking of appropriate action in connection therewith and related matters. >item two, ordinance approving the issuance and sale of water revenue bonds by the san francisco public utilities commission, not to exceed $49,100,000 to finance improvements to the cuw260 water main, the commission's hetch hetchy water and power system, and the treasure island project pursuant to amend its to the charter of the city and county of san francisco. >> good morning. general manager of the sfpuc. if you would like, we can call one through four and discuss the budget because the idea of how we pay off the bonds is part of the budget discussion, and that might make for a complete discussion if that is easier. supervisor chu: if we could, i'd

like to keep the budget is separate and apart from the issuance of bonds. we can call item three. >> item 3, ordinance amended the san francisco administrative code to create the public utilities water enterprise environmental enhancement surcharge fund. >> i would be happy to give you a brief overview. on the water revenue bonds, it is an additional $700 million for the bonds. we have been issuing these bonds for several years now. the water system improvement program is a $4.5 billion program, mostly done by issuing debt, and we retain that over 30 years or so. when there are regional projects involved, 2/3 of the retain and is from wholesale customers. for in-city projects, it is mostly in-city rate payers that pay for that. this is one of a number of charges of bonds we have issued over the past few years. it follows the normal pattern we

have given to you before in prior years. approval of -- mr. rose is recommending approval, i believe. item two is for $49 million of non-wsip projects. the big ones are a realigning of a tunnel in the mountains and work on the san joaquin pipeline. there is also a project for treasure island for backed up water and water supplies on treasure island. again, that follows the same pattern we have had on all of the issues we have done. the third, the environmental enhancement surcharge -- as part of our negotiations with wholesale customers, we limited the amount of water we promised to take off the ptolemy river through the year 2018 -- the tuo9lome -- tuolome river through the year 2018. we had to have encouragement to not take additional water.

it is not something where you can simply turn the tap off and not take the water, so we created environmental enhancement surcharge that said that if we collectively use more than 265 million gallons of water per day, we will then start charging a surcharge over the regular cost of water that would encourage people not to take that water off the ruolumne -- the tuolumne. the surcharge is high enough that it would encourage people to do other things instead of taking water of the rivers. water usage has gone down so much over the past three years that none of our projections show this kicking in. we do not believe the surcharge will ever be charged, and we do not believe anybody will ever be in this fund. we're doing it to be in compliance with the contract, but again, and less water usage changes dramatically from what it has been the last four years, there's no reason to ever believe it will be above 255

million gallons a day. supervisor chu: thank you. with regards to the treasure island project, i wonder if you could expand further on what the project is. >> there are several things we have to do for treasure island, whether there is a new development or not. water for treasure island comes across the bay bridge from san francisco's side, but should that be disrupted that you need a secondary source of water, there's two ways to do that. one, there are some tanks on the island, on yerba buena island in particular, that are cracking and in need of repair. there is also a pump station on the eastern side under the current bay bridge. when demolished, that station will also be demolished, and that is the back of source for getting water on to treasure island. -- that is the backup source. we have several options for taking care of that, but what is currently in our budget is over the next two years, to put

enough money aside to rebuild the pump station. the new bridge has pipes. one of the pipes is for us to provide back up water to the residents of treasure island -- backed up -- backup water to the residents of treasure island. supervisor chu: thank you. mr. rose, i believe part of your report covers this. >> yes. on page 6 of our report, regarding item 1, and i have some revised numbers on the bottom of page 6 in terms of how these revenue bonds would impact the average single-family residence. the correct numbers are the water bill would be impacted 23 cents per month in 2011-2012. 35 cents per month -- and this is for the average single-family residence, i should say -- 35 cents a month in 2012-2013.

63 cents a month in 2013-2014. and $1.73 per month in fiscal year 2014-2015. we do recommend approval. regarding item two, currently, the puc is permitted to issue commercial paper for the water system improvement project uses. this file would clarify that the puc has the authority to issue commercial paper to provide financing for non-water system improvement project uses. because of that clarification, since that might be considered an expansion of the puc's debt issuance authority, we consider the file to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors. finally, regarding the new environmental enhancement surcharge fund -- that is item

3, file 110579 -- we have a table in our report on page 7, which does indicate based on past water usage that there would not be a surcharge fee imposed. however, since this is a creation of a new surcharge fund with a potential fee, we consider this ordinance to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors. supervisor chu: thank you very much. just a clarification -- the numbers that you represented, that is inclusive of both items one as well as item two? >> that just pertains to item -- excuse me. that is just item one, filed

110555 -- file 110555. supervisor chu: do you have similar information for 110554? >> which is item two? no, on item two, as i understand it, what the department is requesting -- the board of supervisors previously authorized the puc to issue commercial paper for water system improvement projects. as i understand this legislation, it would give them additional authority on an as- needed basis to issue, additional commercial paper -- to issue additional commercial paper for non-water system improvement projects, but this would not directly impact the rates. this is, as i understand it,

considered temporary or bridge financing. ultimately, is the bonds -- it is the bonds in item one that would have the impact on the water rates of both commercial and residential users. supervisor chu: if i could ask the puc to clarify. >> certainly. the larger projects we are talking about, the wsip project, we said the rates would go up dramatically to have a reliable water system. we suggested rates would go from about $40 a month for the regular water bill to about $41 for the wsip program -- from about $14 a month. that is that part of it. $49 million is somewhat in addition to that with the commercial paper. the commercial paper is really just a financing tool.

we can borrow money at 1.25%. if we are borrowing for long- term debt, it is 5%. we issue commercial paper while the budget is happening and then we will look into the long-term debt after we stabilize the project, and we hope to get a better market for the bond rates. it is not a separate discussion. it will roll out ultimately into the regular bond issuance. it is a bridging tool to make sure you get the best rate when you do not need to go out and borrow the money long term. supervisor chu: to be clear, the issuance or item one, the dollar amount that would be raised per month is included as part of the wsip already approved rates that have been communicated? that's absolutely. supervisor chu: in terms of item two, that will be in addition, but because it is currently commercial paper without a bond that is necessarily financing it, you do not have the impact it, you do not have the impact yet?