capital need, and it was one that was in the public interest, one that could not be met through existing revenue sources. what is before you today is the board met at a place that measure on the ballot. it proposes to report it million dollars in general-obligation bonds that would do a number of things, but predominantly, the lion's share of funding, $148 million, would go to paving our streets. that level of funding would allow for 1400 blocks to be paid in our city. the proposed bond also has $50 million in it for pedestrian and bicycle safety and other improvements to our public spaces. these are improvements were there are few other funding sources for, so this amount of funds would allow us to implement many of the things that were discussed in recent public pedestrian safety hearings, and allow us to further implement the bike plan,

further streetscape improvements. the bond also has $22 million to support continued implementation of the ada transition plan. that would allow us to do 1900 curb ramps,. $20 million of the bond would go to traffic signal improvements, which is the top on funded party of the transit effectiveness program. about $7 million for seismic and other repairs, and other safety repairs, to city structures such as tunnels, bridges, overpasses, and stairways. what this bond will also do is create jobs, or than 1000 san and siskins -- more than 1007 second1000 san franciscans woule

put to work. because of the local fire ordinance, this would be a significant job generator. what this bond will not do, because it came as a recommendation from the 10-year capital plan, is that it will not result in a property tax rate increase. the capital planning committee has established in the plan policy of issuing new debt only as old debt retired so that we have as a baseline of 2006 property-tax rates. this bond and all others recommended by the capital plan are sized as such they will incur new debt for the city only as old debt is retired. there will be no increase in property tax rates. this is before you today or recommendation to the full board to go on the ballot this november. i would be happy to answer any questions.

supervisor chu: thank you. mr. rose, any comments to add to the presentation? >> madam chair, members of the committee, as you stated, the numbers are the same, the debt service is the same. we concur by the statement by mr. riskin to say that there will be no pay increases in property taxes offset by the existing debt going down. we recommend approval of this based on the prior policy decisions of the board. supervisor chu: thank you. colleagues, if we do not have any further questions, why don't we open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, if there are no questions or comments, can we make a motion to send this item forward with recommendation? ok, we have a motion to send

this item forward with recommendation. without objection. colleagues, bear with me for a second to rescind a few votes so that our colleagues who joined us later could participate. if we could rescind items 1 through 5 and item 7. okay, without objection. that will be the case. on items 1 through 3, item 5, 7, a motion to move forward with recommendations. without objection. in addition, item 4. this is an item that we made an amended to with regards to the theater agreement. i think the consensus was that we were reluctantly agreeing to or renew the retroactive contract, but wanted to urge the

mta to come forward with a new methodology about the new theater program, bringing forward the fastpass program at the same time. can we send that out with recommendations? without objection, thank you. do we have any other items before us? supervisor wiener: i just wanted wiener colonthe chair. i was at a meeting with the metropolitan committee. supervisor chiu: this regularly scheduled meeting was also changed to 10:00, so we have to double our schedules. supervisor chu: thank you. given that there are no other items before us, we are adjourned.

>> we are now lives. >> good afternoon. i would like to call this meeting to order. first item, please. >> [roll call]

>> thank you very much. next item, please. >> approval of the minutes of the special meeting of june 28. if any commissioner has any changes, additions, or corrections? >> what item? >> item #3. >> is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> so move. >> second. >> comments? public comments? changes? hearing no one, the motion carries. >> the next item is general public comment. members may address the commission on matters that are now addressable by the commission but are not on the

agenda. we have one speaker card from [unintelligible] >> please. >> [inaudible] i would like mention the name of more olaura [unintelligible] who i have known for a long time. she is a very astute secretary. not to say that mike is not good. i have known him for a long time. having said that, commissioners, we did have a meeting in the community. many things were discussed. i think that from time to time we must revisit such meetings with a few focused agenda items,

which we can do, taking an entire series with too many things on the agenda, you do not do justice to the meeting. that is my subjective opinion. in future we can take one or two items. maybe one of the items could be held that facility that was caused mitigation. how can that best serve the community? not the other entities where the community finds it difficult to receive the benefits. but it was nice to see you listening to the variety of comments, commissioners. hopefully we were not too rude. and if we were, i apologize. what happens is, normally, we do

not visit the community regularly. people have a lot to say. in frustration you want to say something, but then you say another thing. that night the commissioners filter the best that was offered and went to a better place. that is how i feel about it. of course, this is a very narrow window of opportunity for the bayview hunters point periods viper so, we need opportunities. the opportunities that i see four people are careers and jobs. not these so-called short term trainings where the people, in and bailout. commissioners, once again, thank you for coming to the facility

and i am off to the board of supervisors. >> thank you for your comments. >> there are no other speaker cards. >> are there any other public comments? hearing no one, next item, please. >> commissioners have in there on the low at this time complete sets of all communications. as i was on jury duty, i could not -- >> you are discharged. >> so, i put it in at this time to be absolutely certain that everything that was supposed to go to you got to you. >> questions or comments >> at the last meeting one of the things i pointed out was that the list was getting pretty long and i say that with consideration we have solved

that problem by removing it. it was a solution but not the one that i had in mind. i think that it is useful to attract those. i went back and look at it. all of the commissioners had titles on that list. before >> hopefully it will show up with answers that the next meeting. >> great, thank you. other questions or comments? >> yes. i wanted to provide the annual report from our stem cell agency. a state agency that operates and usually with a 6% operating cap on costs and 94% of the money goes directly to research. we are now in the process of human trials and are looking for

some incredible developments to occur. i wanted to let you know what else i do during the day. please feel free to visit briefings down the road. we are more than happy to provide that. thank you. >> to follow up, you mentioned that this is reflective, making it a public document. [unintelligible] >> thank you for the service on the board as well. and the other commission business? next item, please. >> the adoption of the resolution in support of the nomination of anthony boran,

california water agencies. region 5. >> for the offer to take the nominee we would ask that they use their form and asked to adopt the resolution of supporting the commissioner, basically just saying that you support the commissioner being the bleach and five board member. -- being the region five board member. >> are you sure? >> yes, i am. [laughter] >> so moved. >> enthusiastically seconded. any public, and? all of those in favor? aye. opposed? good luck. i hope that works for you. next item, please. >> the next item is the report of the general manager.

>> i have no items to report. in the interest of time i was trying to keep my part short, but if you have any questions. >> 25 golden gate headquarters? >> you must have an earlier version of the agenda. that written report was given to you on july 26. >> questions for the general manager? next item. >> consent calendar. all of the matters are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission. does any commissioner of wish to remove consent calendar items? >> hearing no one, please proceed. >> item agency until further notice? >> please read the remaining items. >> fair services for the capital

funded improvement agreement for engineering services water and power, authorizing the general manager of the commission to negotiate and execute public service agreements not to exceed $6 million in duration for five years. approving the selection of power, capital improvement, public funding agreements 141. authorizing the general manager to negotiate professional who management agreements not to exceed five years. approving the terms and conditions and authorizing the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute a revocable permit to the alameda county resource conservative district for construction and

post construction monitoring of stream bank stabilization and restoration demonstration project. >> so moved. >> second. >> questions or comments on that calendar? all of those in favor? >> aye. >> the item carries and we will go on to item 8c. >> approving amendment no. 1 to power enterprise, community choice aggregation projects funded agreement on behalf of the san francisco public utilities commission in connection with the utility's program to authorize the general manager to execute these two amendments for a total agreement

duration of four years. >> commissioner? o>> i will continue to the call of the chair. >> 8c? >> yes. >> we will continue this item. >> the next item is the beginning of regular business. perhaps in the interest of having commissioner kane joined us, we can move to item 17 and 18. >> if there is no objection? we will take item 17 and 18, then moved to the regular agenda. >> item 17. discussant and possible action to authorize the general manager of san francisco public utilities commission to execute

a first amendment to the memorandum of understanding by and between the san francisco public utilities commission and alameda county resource conservation district to continue the planning, design, and authorization under the california environmental quality act, extending the completion date by nine years to december 31, 2020, pursuant to the charter 9.118. >> thank you. if you have any questions that you might have? it is otherwise useless in terms of the ongoing work with private landowners. as a consequence moving forward, we would like to continue that

partnership. we thought we needed to have it implemented for a longer duration. so, that is the very short version and i would be very happy to answer questions. >> questions? comments? motions? any from the public on item number 17? those in favor? opposed? thank you. fifth -- 18, please. >> discussion and possible action to authorize the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute on behalf of the city and county of san francisco on memorandum of understanding to form her when the upper alameda creek watershed partnership with the alameda county resource conservation district, california range land trust, nature conservancy and usda

natural resources conservation service to coordinate watershed protection projects in the mount hamilton reign of the diablo range. it seems to me that it could be expanded to others in the watershed. namely the dirt -- namely that it was important to formalize the partnership, normalizing fronts -- responsibilities for the landowners along with collective efforts to work together and not confuse individuals about what we were doing ho, moving forward with al of the work that we were doing. it has taken some time to get to where we are, but each

individual project, if you will, that involved puc will come back to the commission for approval. we just completed literally the first acquisition in the watershed for conservation purposes. there is more coming, we hope. this is all in the efforts to project -- protect the watershed above the reservoirs for the long term. we are happy to say that we are under way with at that project. close them literally last month for the duration. >> how much was that land acquisition? >> it does not go into dollar amounts. you cannot u.s. that question. doing the math tests, in this

case it was a joy into a boat and other things we have already maintained. in many ways this helped us to resolve issues with private landowners. each one is a bit different. in one case where there is a watershed, likely the proposal will be for these partners to play the lead role. the goal is not to own the watershed, it is to protected in the long term. this allows us to do that different ways and in different players. >> no one opposed. congratulations.

when -- we will return to 1912 >> -- would turn to item number aggravation program. >> barbara l.. do you view that they said should be heavy with mine let me fill you in on where we are at and where i think you are added

but i will consume the tears as a program offering to san francisco. the emphasis was on having local control with a 51% renewable resource portfolio. drawing from renewable energy resources, combined heat and power with and fees of -- feasible goals where we are in the new machine.

and achieving renewable energy efficiency. there is the business model we have developed. the outstanding issues that we have to overcome in our negotiations and within the marketplace. starting first with schedule issues. we have to bring to you the contracts for approval. we expect to bring to you after next commission meeting the business terms, when the of which i am going to describe

scsi have and that would not be ready fellow we need to make sure when the then we went forward with the in which and they are willing to be having appropriationsthere will likelye appropriations necessary. those will be approved. we will have final confirmation of pricing and renewals detailed. that will be set, and the contract then would be signed by the general manager, subsequently. we will have to demonstrate that we have the start up funds in an operating account available for

the program in advance of launching the program. we will have to demonstrate that we have the data exchange facility tested and finalized with pg any. we will need to go -- with pg&e. we will need to go through the notification process. then we will begin to have our enrollment open and have our first opt outs began with a target of june 2012. that is the broad brush schedule issues that we will need to accomplish. i am talking about opening enrollment in june of 2012, and i will like to talk a little bit about who those customers are that we're talking about in rowling. there are approximately -- that we are in rowling. there are approximately 34,000 -- 340,000 residential accounts in san francisco. all san franciscans will be

invited to participate in clean power sf from the date of the program. >> how many commercial ones? >> i do not have that of the top of my head. i can come back to you with that, commissioner. all san franciscans will be eligible to participate in the clean power program sf . we will initiate the opt out process, providing approximately 230,000 account holders to say no thank you to assign the process. that is about 70% of the residential accounts in san francisco. we are anticipating the 230,000 accounts to be dispersed throughout the city in specified geographic areas. we have not determined what the specific geographic areas will be, but we expect it to be a patchwork across the city. from our survey information, the survey that we went ov