comparable with p g and e social security's and i have not figured out how we can get there yet and that will be a key question how do we price the first phase of this the initial roll-out and what feature should we build into that and the second he set of questions is what do we do about the roll out and the board is interested in that and the commission is interested in that and compressed important questions about that as well and we had partnered with lp i and hoping to get a feasible program to do the build out and i don't think we have do that and so we need to figure out so what do we do and that is a feasible plan and whether that takes ideas from the lp i or whether there are some other approach that is we can take to it and building on the budget commitment that is we have already made and there is something that we clearly want

to do it and we understand that we want to do it and why we get it we just haven't figured out how we can do it. and we need to have need to work on it and the other part of that is, there has been the suggestion that you need to make the decision about the build-out in all of it's details and how you fund it and how big it is before you do the roll out if that is true, then we probably cannot roll out this proem on the schedule that we have committed to and so we need to figure out some way and that is a major breech of expectation if not trust so if that is in fact a requirement we have some soul searching to do and so we have questions about the initial roll out and then we need to come up with-feasible roll out and thank you for the opportunity those are my thoughts at this point we will

have something to act on, i'm sure later. >> any other comment mr. manager. i'll like to echo hoot commissioner just mentioned. i think the effort with lp i put forward was an idea that we can roll out a program parody w pg&e and it requires a lot of risk and so, i think that is what we presented. if we choose to scale it back as we have and is it scalable and they say no you have to implement the whole program to see it work and that is one of my concerns is you want to try something before you jump in in a billion dollar from a business perspective and now, i hear us saying well just throw it all out and i think staff was looking at the model of trying to get it parody and is it you know you know something worth

pursuing at this time and i think i'm debating a feeling that may be it's not pursuing this bringing it down to zero meaning parody with p g and e but we can look at components of the model to maximize the build out to further reduce the cost and i think we are committed in dog that and try to max out the build-out. so i think what we have to do is kind-of get back together and may be with the advocates and say okay, from our conversations what do we feel comfortable moving forward with the living that the puc are willing to take and may be trying to present something but meanwhile, i would suggest that we continue moving forward on the first place and that is our information gets better we can always reduce the price of you

know, the green you know the margin that we have on p g and e the premium. the time has arrived for mr. jensen to make his report. and we have been wait weight for that. >> okay it's very fascinating to listen to you deliberate about some very complicated matters. i'm glad that history show there are americans that pale in comparison that used to be quite dissectorring for and you have -- quieted the quarter waters and good luck on all the other issues. with respect to the report that i amed to messenger again about the bondishance and i'm going to milk this for everything that it's worth. tomorrow morning it's not over yet. tomorrow

morning, the next time i stand before you i'll say something else but we close tomorrow morning on the entire commission of bonds and we are giving it to you but you don't get to spend it all in one place, we are wiring two forty seven million dollars to smps in this building i guess and one $90 million goes into an escrow account and that is because today has to spend it in the right way and i'm pleased that we have gotten to this point and our folks are thrilled and the other thing that i want to mention is commissioner moran said can you get a joint presentation from us and your staff on why supply planning issues and i notice that it's in your dense calendar as to be determined and the fact that it would be convenient for us to do that in may or june but i'll ithought if there was a reason for the commissioners to have

that information sooner, we can report sooner it just wouldn't be as rich and we could discuss details later on but since there is a meeting since that is calendar issue there this would be a good time to think about it. >> i don't think there is any particular deadline that we are working on sooner is better than later but i like rich too so -- i have always wanted to be rich --. >> any public comment? none? consent calendar itemmen eight d was removed at commissioner request and all matters are as they appear. item nine is a consent calendar and item nine a through g is a consent calendar with considered to be routine by the san francisco pom uc and will be acted upon by at single vote and there will be no discussion unless a he member of the

commission or public shall request in which case it will be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate number and item 89 is removed. >> any comebts from the commission. i would like to movement calendar a move moved by commissioner cane and second by commissioner courtney. >> all those in favor signify by saying aye. the calendar is oopa moved and now, we move into our regular business. item two authorize the general manager to enter into a small generator connection agreement with the pacific gas and electric company to connect the hired electric project to the pg&e grid at a maximum grid of cost of 700,000 and subject to reyule every year they are asking. >> barbara hill assistant general manager for power this

is a routine item that allows us to connection our proposedded university mound to pg&e's grid and it's a requirement to have an interconnection agreement and because it's long-lived and it will neat need to go to the board of supervisors and we are asking four your consent to bring it there. >> any public comment? any comment from members of the commission?? mr. courtney. >> ms. hale would you mind coming backup to the front for a moment please i'm trying to scroll through and look at section 16 the sub contractor clause could you be kind-enough to develop on that and for the commission just in your own words exactly what that means

for us please you are on section i'm sorry you said 16. >> looking at the table of kents on page 16-12.11. yes. >> sub contractors. so the contract we are looking at here is a pacific gas and electric company standard contract that they are authorized to use for the interconnection of small generators. the sub contractor clause that the commission irpoints us too allows the parties to use any sub contractor they they deem appropriate to perform the work the work being the interconnection of the facility to pg&e's grid. the facility that is we are talk about here

would be installation of a revenue quality meter at the site cite that will allow p g and 'em have the -- control of the generation and to charge us for any services associated with that. we don't anticipate any need for upgrade of the traps mission and distribution infrastructure that serves the site at this time and so that would be the type of work. >> so, you know, i may be barking up the wrong tree do you interpret that the -- would eye my to the sub contractor arrangements. >> to the extent that puc would contract for this work, i think it would and to the extent that pg&e would sub contract for this workers, i would think not

but i would look to counsel to provide us with a legal obligations. >> that would be my preference would be so we are entering into this agreement, we would be hiring commanding folks to do the work under the subtracting clause, full because we would be bound by the order natis but on the same agreement, the company itself would not be required in any way to comply with the term of the local hired ordinance. >> yes to be later when we go to construct the facility the yen ration facility that is a separate contract that is not the contract before you here and the city for the public worked project like that would apply because we would be the contracting entity and we would be outlooking for the services and be the work performed by city staff or contract and this interconnection agreement before you today is a p g and e

commitment to provide our agreements as to who's responsible for what under interconnecting that facility and so the actual construction of the facility that will come to you in a separate form and it would be a public works project and a local hire rules would apply. >> thank you for that so even in cases where not a public works project but it's an agreement entered by the public utilities commission and some other entity. the commitment to employ a committee workforce is a negotiatable item if not a requirement under any particular ordinance because for one reason or another that ordinance doesn't apply the commitment to imloim a community workforce is a negotiatable item is that a correct statement. i think generally that is that's all be true and i think it's difficult in the specific circumstances like this where the contracts that we are being asked to sign by utility have

been preapproved by all of it's customers by it's regularror and so that give them less discretion to negotiate as you described other contracts, yes, there may be that opportunity. >> i appreciate that. okay thank you. >> any other questions? public comments on item ten?. motion is in order all those in favor, moved and seconded all those in favor signify by saying aye. approved. public matters public matter for matter to be discussed in closed session number. i'll entertain a motion,. >> so moved by mr. courtney seconded by commissioner moran. attorney client privilege and that was to assert sir. oh, would you read the item.

>> yes, item 13 litigation item 14 is existing litigation pacific gas and electric company >> instructor: hi we are back if open session plaid dam counsel. committee members for the tone's office, i wanted to say that we are prepare to remove these items from the calendar and not proceed to closed session at the direction of the manager. >> so, that leaves nothing but then, other new business. yes, other new business,. >> president torres thank you we did receive a letter from bright mind related to go solar s f i'm respect fully requesting that we place an item on the

agenda at the chafer's discretion however you want do it to discuss and potentiallily call for a response to that communication. and i think the communication is included in item five already. any objection to that. >> i just want to understand so, they are the community and bright line is advocating that we fully fund go solar and so, and, i think the mayor has been in conversations with me about seeing if we can fund go solar and so there is some challenges with that i mean, so, i'm trying to figure out what type of meeting or conversation you want to hold. we had this discussion, i

believe during the process but about the project and i think we decided and i can't remember all of the details about it but we decide that this would be the amount to which we would --. >> 3 million was decided at the time. i would like to add that what concerns me because i would defer to the general manager on this in terms of just figuring out the best way to push it. but what concerns me is that there is an medicine that there is a relationship that has been created that we are not aware of with pc svment a and go solar and we can resolve that rather than a genderrizing a specific conversation we can resolve that administratively then i would withdraw my request. >> so, why don't i try to put together some type of document

that explains the level in which the commission wanted to fund go solar and then talk about it's part in the c centimeters a there is a solar component as well funding for that and there is sort-of two separate pots of money and so, may be i can kind-of talk about the that whole those two different components. >> i think that would be more that satisfy tree okay? so the question is removed and we are onto any further new business before adjournment. hearing is adjourned.

. >> we are running a womens' volleyball program here at richmond rec center. it's progressing really nice. the ladies here really enjoy the exercise and the play and it's a lot of fun want this program is not for the faint at heart. it's really intense. the ladies come out. they are really going after it. they just love to play and compete. anyone can sign up. we're looking for more players. the women come from all over the city. we enjoy the program and we are getting people out to have fun in this beautiful city.

>> rec and parks womens' volleyball program is available at richmond rec center. please visit us onli >> the renovation of balboa park, the oldest in the city of

san francisco, and now it is the newest part in the city of san francisco. through our partnership, and because of public investment from the two thousand eight fund, we are celebrating a renewal and an awakening of this park. we have it safer, happier, more joyous. >> 3, 2, 1, [laughter] =--[applause] >> it is a great resource for families, to have fun in the city, recreation. >> this is an amazing park. we have not revitalized it without public and private investment.

the critical piece of the process of this renovation was that it was all about the community. we reached out to everyone in this community. we love this park dearly and they all had thoughts and ideas and they wanted to bring their own creativity and their personality to bear on the design. what you see is what the community wanted. these ideas all came from the residents of this community. as a result, there is a sense of ownership, pride and responsibility that goes along with what is going to be an exciting park.

>> okay, good afternoon and welcome to our first city and school district meeting for the year. i am jane kim and joined by supervisor mark farrell. and we will be shortly joined by supervisor avalos from the city end. and we have from the board of education, hydra mendoza and rachel norton and jill wynns. our clerk today is rana calonsag. and we would like to recognize sfgov and those taping today's session. madam clerk, any announcements?

seeing none. i would like to change order of the agenda and call up item 2 first, if that's okay with the committee? okay, so we will be calling item 2 first. madam clerk, can you please call item 2. >> thank you, file number 130159, the hearing on shared scho scho schoolyards project. by member farrell. >> thank