what you call them? they had issues with the street being blocked. >> there are some issues that have been raised for our public safety vehicle. so we have been talking to both the san francisco police department and the fire department to make sure there are no overriding safety concerns. the fire department says they do not even have a on the map. another thing to note is that this is a nonconforming city street. about 24 feet, 9 inches in width. a conforming city street is about 40 feet in width, so it is a little bit narrower, and emergency vehicles when likely not use this narrow street,

because if there was another large vehicle coming in the opposite direction, you would not be able to get past one another. that is part of the conversation we will have with the community. president vietor: ok, great, so that will help to inform the situation going forward. if that happens, that will be great. any other questions or comments? thank you. yes, please. et can you come up? -- can you come up? yes, there was a letter that was a public record letter that was submitted from one of the neighbors, saying that they do not want it closed. it feels like a part of the neighborhood, so, hence, the community meeting to get more input from some of the leaders. >> next up, lake merced, and we

went to report the status on that. as you know, we wanted to have an mou, and it is on the agenda today, and there is a report. >> the general manager for water. we have been working with rec and park for some time. we produced a draft to that and put it out and had a public meeting last tuesday evening at the clubhouse. 43 people attended, and we had a lively discussion. we heard comments that focused, having me pu -- the puc take complete control. people have been disappointed in the management of lake merced. there is a desire for an additional boat house. a lot of people fishing,

boating, different kinds. again, we heard a lot of commons. we have been summarizing those. we are aiming to bring it back to the commission for consideration in september. president vietor: and the issues primarily at the community are what? they would like the puc to maintain control is possible, rather than the split control? >> yes, you raise that it is a range now -- the way that it is arranged now is general resource management, they are managers, some people have been disappointed and have an interest in the pc taking more responsibility, so this is what

we need to find. >> and it comes down to the fact that a number of neighbors know that we have money and that they do not, and as long as they are responsible for doing things without much money to do it, they will not have as much. whether they can fix the war for fishing or other things like that. and we have said that recreation and parks is in control of that, not the puc. president vietor: saving money? >> it is an issue. there are a lot of parts in need of assistance, and we would have to do some increases to take care of that. >> obviously, the difference is

this is an asset of ours that we irresponsibly -- responsibility for to a certain degree. how much of management or natural resources can we attribute the money to? that is the challenge. president vietor: is there some way to contract with rec and park? >> we actually do for some basic maintenance and upkeep of the area right now. president vietor: what about some recreation services? >> that is what we do. president vietor: yes. commissioner: i think that is part of the purview, not we decided we give money to another agency. if the agency is lacking money, then they should go to the board for more money, a park bond, etc., or if they want to have an

opportunity or democracy. >> while i would like to be clear, using the new four of the recreation. commissioner: and let the ratepayers' decide, not a small group of people. >> there are a number recommendations about what should be done with the future

of lake merced. there are boaters. there is the pacific rod and gun club represented there as well. the audubon society and the coalition, a number of different folks. things that folks feel pretty strongly about lake merced. everybody's interests are a little bit different. >> are the conversations surrounding this? >> a lot of the focus of this discussion is on agreement, but there are some overarching issues.

i think we're making good progress. the amount of fishing that takes place. how it should be pushed in a certain direction. these have all been on the table. we will work to use that document for guidance, for staff bring this back in the future. it lays out a menu of possibilities, but just understanding the envelope. commissioner: thank you. president vietor: i think this is a bigger question on puc land

policy stuff. we have these various parcels that we own, and this question of recreation has come up. the liberal on the parcel -- laguna honda parcel. they are habitat corridor related, whatever, and i do not think there is a way to encapsulate his policies so as we move forward, we can say about the terms of the relationship with other city departments or community groups because this really is our mission and our charge, in this is what we should be doing, but it is complicated. particularly in a situation. i do think it is part of the conversation around p.c.s. sets and how we either contract with other agencies or with stakeholder groups -- it is part

of the conversation around puc assets. >> clearly, as we work with the trailheads, there is an organizational aspect but also a safety aspect, but inside the city, the charter gives the recreation and parks department authority, so if you really are talking about boating on the lake and fishing on the lake, where does that fit into their charge versus our charge? we will take a look at that. president vietor: particular one is land that we know, as opposed to other rec and park parcels. we look forward to hearing about that. good luck with that discussion. any question on the general managers' report? maybe we can take this one item,

because we now have commissioner caen, and we know that you're interested in 525 golden gate, so we decided to put that aside to see if you have any questions on that item. commissioner caen: i would like the discussion. >> the item is the first item under 5c, and it was about 525 golden gate. the first pages basically say we are on schedule and on budget. when you get to what would have been page 5 had it been numbered, there is an update of the project, and we added more information because the commission is requesting that. there are pieces related to the building. above-ground construction.

putting 2% aside for art, and we are working on rearranging what that means and who is in charge of it. about $2.40 million was generated from that art, and the art commission, under the older way of doing business, they commissioned two major. the first would be in the lobby and another area, and it will have water cascading down, a plastic glass looking thing on both sides that would be a water feature for the building, and that has been commissioned. the other major piece is what they call the firefly wall.

you have seen it before on the front of the building. it is a wall that will shimmer in the wind. it will be a cover for the wind turbines. so the front of the building is scooped sideways and up and down, and that is to add to the winter by which will be in front of that, and it will have an leed wall -- an led wall. we did use up the funds for the building, and those decisions were made by the art commission several years ago. be a family of other facilities, where it really is in the middle of nowhere. where people can see it.

so we are suggesting a third item, which is the last page of the report, and it would be a media wall in the lobby that will allow us to do educational and artistic kind of expressions and you can see the entire system, and as someone walked up the handicap ramp, as they got closer to certain icons, it would get larger. there'd be a weather pattern, the entire system showing up on time. it would be artistic expression, too. it also allows thousands and thousands to take photographs and have those running across the panels, and as you stood in front of one, this would open up and tell you something about the system, and it would show you a larger view of it. the third piece they're looking at is statistics about the

building for the entire system that you can bring up on the wall about what is happening at the hetch-hetchy or the water system or someplace else. as a media wall, it would be an artistic expression that would actually be an educational experience, so those are the three things we're looking at doing in that building the art commission is typically not allowed to be spent in private areas of the building. it is typically only allow for the lobby or the outside. president vietor: sounds good. i know a little bit about these digital art walls. it is a way that people are going to get a lot of information, so that is cutting edge in the area of being able to share information. >> at protero hill, -- no one

has commissioned to do anything in san francisco, so it is a fun project. this is one that we're taking the lead on. the art commission. president vietor: trying to make sure that it is all accurate and -- >> right. president vietor: great. any questions or comments on 525 golden gate? we have a stamp of approval. the general manager report is finished. next item, please. secretary housh: the next item would be item number eight, the bay area water supply and conservation agency general managers' report. mr. jensen. >> we were pleased to attend a

ceremony at the opening debate of the tunnel, and it was throwing -- to a sheltermoran was there -- commissioner moran was there. people doing hard work on that, it is very impressive. i encourage you. president vietor: great. thank you. i was sorry to miss the event. glad you could attend. next item, please. secretary housh: the next item with the consent calendar. all matters listed under the consent calendar are considered to be routine by the san francisco but utilities commission and will be acted upon by a single vote of the commission. there are energy efficiency services for a, b is contract lighting efficiency and upgraded services for the bay area's, $2

million to the third lowest bidder, torres construction corporation to perform lighting efficiency and lighting retrofit work in the city. item c, approving plans and specifications for the water enterprise system for a still pump station. ntk construction to demolish the existing. d, approved the plans and specifications and award wastewater and apprise the renewal and replacement program for various locations sioux were replacements for replacing existing stores -- location se wer replacement for replacing

existing sewers, bidder j. flores. e, approve the plans and specifications, contract -- contract ww-433, buchanan/ pierce/filbert/sacramento street and marina boulevard sewer replacement. any items to be removed from the consent calendar? >> -- president vietor: hearing none, is there a motion to adopt the consent calendar? second. all of those in favor? aye? opposed? thank you. the consent item passes.

next item, please. secretary housh: the next item is -- [audience member] president vietor: we called for public comment. did you of a public comment on one of those items? -- did you have a public comment? is there one in particular that you would like to hear an update on? [audience member] >> it is actually a one-page, a two-sided report. you have heard so much about that in the last several meetings, and we thought we would do a high-level update, letting you know that we have moved along the contract for the board of supervisors and some other small items, but it is not major. president vietor: and these written reports are available to

the public, correct? " >> yes, and they are on the website. president vietor: they are on the website. [audience member] president vietor: are there copies here? >> they are always in the public folder. there are extra copies on the web. president vietor: i am not sure a truck load, but maybe a couple of copies would begin to puff. -- would be good to have. next item. secretary housh: item number 10, a public hearing and possible action to amend the nomination and election of officers. the first day of october each year. notice of this change was posted according to the requirements on july 8. commissioners, the main purpose of the change in the rules is to

recognize that the city charter has a provision which allows commissioners to hold over appointments for a period of 60 days after their term in office expires. as you well know, proposition h changed all of the terms from january to august 1. this would take cognizance of the fact that they could have holdover commissioners at election time. and this would mean that the commissioners would be in office, hopefully, that were going to be in office for the next series of terms, so this is just to allow an adjustment so the commissioners do not hold an election with people whose term is possibly winding down and allow an additional 60 days for additional people to be appointed so the commission and the charter are all in sync.

president vietor: so is there a motion to adopt this? commissioner: this does not prolong our term, does it? [laugh] secretary housh: no, all commissioners in the charter have a 60-day holdover period where the mayor can consider -- commissioner: for the state, it is one year. secretary housh: all this does is take into consideration. commissioner: thank you, thank you, thank you. president vietor: any other comments or questions? public comment? in favor? thank you. mr. housh? secretary housh: next item, to continue working on a community aggregation program and to

negotiate contract with the parameters set forth in the term sheet parameters for contract negotiations, the documents included with the item. the attached resolution authorizes the general manager to continue negotiations for the power supply with terms and described in the attached, and submit the attached term sheet to the board of supervisors for their consideration. general manager harrington: good afternoon, commissioners. ed harrington. since we are towards this, we thought we should come back so that we would not be bringing a contract to you. what we wanted to do for your sake but also for the public to

have not had a chance to look at this is to do a brief recap of how we got here, and then we would have mike campbell do a discussion about where we are with these negotiations, what the goals are, where we now are, and then have another come and talk about the parts of it. the first part is, again, what we want to do is review the history. we want to talk about the program goals and put that up on the screen, as that would be great, and then the outstanding issues, and then the next step, the timeline to launch this, and in the financial overview. briefly, cta allows the services. they do not take over the p.g. in the delivery of the energy, metering, and billing. -- do not take over the pg&e delivery. it provides a different

electricity source. they still do the distribution. you would still call them if you need service, and all of those things continue, and state law provides that customers will be given an opportunity to opt out. it is a system that your enrolled and unless you opt out. it provides for two opt out options before we cut over, and two after at no cost, obviously. it provides the customers the ability to choose the supplier for their energy, and they have a choice based on the environmental impact and their own personal views on what they would like to have. this started back in 2002, when state law allowed for them to take effect. in may 2004, the board of supervisors established our first cca program.

in 2005, the mayor declared the official part of the program so that we could work with pg&e, and then the budget was changed to put $5 million into the budget " to have seed money for the community abrogation discussion, and i realize that was possibly the last large discussion. four of you were not on the commission that then. in 2007, the board approved a plan for the program rules, and i should tell you, but in those days, the normal thing that occurred is that lafco, et -- lafco would work with it. the program would be discussed. the puc staff to begin up and say, "that is not possible to do." they got up and did a report at

the time saying it was not possible, so you had the puc staff and the city comptroller's office singing you cannot buy more expensive power and deliver it cheaper. they would say, "yes, you can." so every month, there was this, which did not make much sense to me, so the market would prove which way it would go, so in 2009, we petitioned a supplier, and we did go to the market and said we wanted to meet the goals that have been established. we did select a provider. they were not able to meet those goals even though they said they could when they responded, so those negotiations were ultimately unsuccessful. we went back to the board with the revised plan in march 2010. that changed those goals to talk about the rates, and green power

and things that were important to us in that program, and then the puc issued an additional rfp last year, and no better actually met the reduced qualifications. we still have a program that the market wanted to be involved in, so we came back to the commission in february, and you authorized us to negotiate with a creditworthy partner, which was show energy, which was the most successful even though it did not meet some of the specifications. we had $1 million, knowing that should this program be successful, there would be money for an educational campaign and marketing and that, so there was another million dollars, so there was now $6 million. there -- reports we have done over the years. in may of this year, we had a joint meeting with lafco, and at that meeting, we talkeda