level, water quality, and the maintenance of the water shed and also have a particular interest which i think it was a liability interest, but, if it were the case, that rec and park at some point failed to the facilities and allowed it to exist that were dangers that the puc because we own the land and that is having a physical problem and a risk problem or a liability problem, and the financial problem because we are the deep pockets and we have a political problem and so i think that we have an interest in avoiding that kind of circumstance, i think that the amendments that have been proposed today try to traes that and say that your planning process needs to be public and enlightened and involved in that

and annual report. and they will give us a very specific information and so that i think it gets us, very where we need to go and i don't expect, some of the boat house folks will be happy, with our saying that rec and park is responsible for recreation. but where we are going to disagree and i think that is an appropriate out come. and we have distributed with the package and we had the mlu and a resolution to put that in force. we have introduced some changes to the language of the mlu. and sitting next to our counsel, i have been handed an

amendment to the resolution. which will make the rest of it happen if i get this right. and that is >> your amendment is not in the resolution. >> it is not. >> but you are incorporating it if >> yeah. >> all right. >> so we are incorporating mr. ritchi's amendment and vice president courtney's amendments? >> yes. and the, just a minute... the word is... >> right here. okay. so, first of all, if i could move the item so that then i could move the amendment to it. >> do you want to add another amendment. >> i second the motion. >> right. >> but what i would like to do is move the basic on the ago agenda so that i could move the amendment which will make all of the other changes. >> we will have to make two

amendments. >> we can make one that will incorporate all of that. >> that is how you want to proceed? >> right. >> that is basically i will advice the counsel the way to make it happen. >> we will get the public comment once we get the item. >> second, the two motions on the table. >> the motion on the table. >> and i would like to move an amendment >> all right. >> to the resolve clause. >> all right. >> so that it all of it reads the same, that this commission her by authorizes them to execute a memo of understanding between the sfpdc and the san francisco rec and parks commission regarding management of the merced track with amendments to band e approved by the commission at the july 23, 2013 meet that is the

addition. >> and the series of amendments. >> that is the motion. >> and comment. >> and that is it. >> second it. >> okay. >> eric brooks, san francisco green party and local grassroots association. first i want to tell commissioner courtney that we need to provide the pathways for this and to support that and we want to concur with commissioner caen that we need to have an amendment for the lake and unfortunately i am just going to have to reiterate what i said the last few times that i got up and spoke on this you and that is that, it is a purpose to that, i would have to say, that the issue is not just communication, the issue is that the gear should not have fallen in the first place because it should have been done properly so that no one would have been hurt in first place and that is a microkas um

for the real thing. in a rational word it is to think that rec and park should handle recreation because it is one of its names but in the real world we have situations where for example, a sharp park, rec and park, has much more respect for recreation than it has in being an endangered species. and as in the shot over the endangered species is the golf. and that is just an example. there are many other cases where rec and park has not held on the law and environmental community and a lot of other folks in the community, we are up and regularly up in arms about it. and etc.. >> and concentrating more on privatizing and making money than protecting habitat. >> with this lake it is a water shed habitat and the sftuc is

an entity that handles the water shed habitats all of the time and pretty excellent of working them out. and during the water system improvement program it is doing a good job as working out what to do with salmon and other species that need protection and what to do about how to protect the water sheds. and this lake should be seen as a habitat primarily. and yes, like i said in the rational world, we would expect that rec and park could have the recreation and that would be done in harmony. that is not what we see in the park and other instances and so. i would concur, with your local community folks that live around that lake, that even though it can get unusual, it is really the sfpuc who has the expertise and showing the kind of commitment on the lands like this to actually manage them properly and so would i urge you to do everything and regardless of what you pass and

i would urge you to do everything that he can to retain as much control over this situation as the sfpuc can get and that you put in rigid auditing power so that if smaoeg goes wrong you catch it fast and correct it fast and if necessary, pull back the responsibility of the commission of seeing this park to yourselves instead of rec and park that does not have a good record. >> i need five minutes to review the resolution. so we could break for about five minutes.

>> we can conclude that we have a quorum without calling the roll. we are on the resolution, amended by commissioner moran which i reviewed as well and we had a first and a second and we have any more public comment on this he resolution. >> really mr. allen not a word. >> more comments on this, all right, there being none, okay. thank you. >> and a lot in abdomening men toe and we got in a lot of trouble. >> call the roll e. >> president torres? >> aye. >> courtney.

>> aye. >> caen. >> aye. >> vietor. >> aye. >> moran. >> aye. >> item 14. >> thank you, commissioners who worked on this resolution. >>authorize the general manager to implement changes to gosolarsf, the city's solar incentive program. the gosolarsf program adjustments are prompted by changes in the solar market and the need for the solar incentive rate structure to be more effective and reach more customers. >> manager for power and i am here seeking changes to the practice and in quick summary, the changes are to reduce all of the (inaudible) levels so that the they do not exceed the average cost to provide the incentives that are paid by the system size range to encourage them based on the consumption. and to require a minimum design of 68 percent to proside them

for the projects that are installed to maximize the energy generation and this will avoid providing insensitives to customers with roof tops that are ill suited for solar. we have a lengthy presentation that you have in the packets and the copies of which have been on the table since 1:30. and the proposed changes were presented and discussed with the community at stake holders advisory committee and i can stop there and take questions and comments, or i can go to a full presentation at the pleasure of the president. >> or the members? >> any questions from the members? >> the amendment to the item, i don't need the presentation. >> i

one thing that i have talked to the staff that as we amend the solar program, perhaps it is an opportunity to start a discussion that moves us toward having the solar oriented or work towards the customers of the puc. and to do that, they is suggested two, and when i have the amendment and it would add a whereas and a resolved. and the whereas would be, whereas, the solar sf program currently accepts application from all private electric customers in san francisco, and just a statement of the fact and then the resolve that this commission directs the general manager and the further improvements to the program and for implementation for the fiscal year, 2014, through a process ininclusive of all stake holders and the results

in a robust program focused on our customers. >> that is to start a process of discussing the potential changes that would focus the benefits of the go solar program on the people who have elected to be customers of san francisco. >> are you okay with that in >> yes, thank you, working with commissioner moran and the general. >> how do you sperp the amendment? >> i think that it is clear on its face, but further improvements should be worked on over the course of this year. and together, with the stake holders in that as we have been. working with the stake holders community to improve the program and have a more robust and focused program on our customers. >> all right.

>> so, our customers who are our customers the municipal customers? >> or potential customer? s >> yes. >> both of those. and if there is a power assessment program, yes, and that is already envisioned in the enabling statute that this program would need to be integrated with the clean puf program and we have customers at hunter's point in the new community that is being developed there with lamar. and we have the prospect of additional customers at treasure island and it is rationalizing who we provide this benefit to and making sure that we are not just addressing private customer needs but also the customers that are our customer and that are governing agencies as well as private customers. and so just, it would be to make sure that that is cleaner

maybe in in way, clearer. and our customers, because it is just as you are saying to open up the conversation. >> i think that it is as clear as it can be. at the moment. >> and it is focused on the customers as the exact phrase that it uses and i think that is pretty clear. but it is not clear and needs to be unclear at this point is the discussions between ourselves and the various interest groups as to exactly what we end up meaning by that. >> we don't have a (inaudible) program yet and it might look different if we do than if we don't, and so it can't be clear with respect to that. what we are really saying is that our objective is if we are spending money that benefits electric customers, they should be our customers. and i think that is pretty clear. and how that actually works itself out, and within the context of the solar program

and that is something that the general manage and her staff needs to discuss with the various interest groups. >> yes. and just a couple of questions to clarify. in my own mind, were the conversations or can we require that the conversations include discussions surrounding the cca goal? solar and the non-cca goal of solar? right because we are moving forward with go solar but we have yet to move the cca. >> right? >> and so we will be able to have that conversation with that right? >> yes. >> and then with respect to the status of go solar, my understanding is that the status of it is that it is a pilot program. will we begin to analyze that and then no longer make those references and just call it a program and a budget item of the puc? >> well, it does not address that specifically, and my hope is that as we move towards a

customer, you know, a san francisco customer, based program, that, that that will have the effect of terminating it. and i don't know if we ever need to make a formal declaration i think that if we are starting with our own customer its changes character and i think that the decision to go there says that we have already conclude and there is a benefit of it. >> and at that point,. and if i could clarify, just, to make sure that we have the common understanding of the facts. that the go solar program is a program statute did include a section that is a pilot program. that pilot program was for the first year. so that portion of the program that was characterized under the statute as pilot concluded. i think that we have come into

the habit coming into it because the legislation was for ten years. so i think that perhaps, folks are thinking of ten years and that is the pilot aspect of it. and the aspect of the program has concluded that the program and the funding our capitol plan for ten years total. >> i think that you would come up. >> and that is a concern of mine is and so now, i clearly understand it and i appreciate that and i only have one last clarification. and once we start to rule out whatever we are going to rule out from this point forward, there is going to be conversation and there is going to be labor components and we did get it back on how we will let that out and that will also be ape subject of these discussions and am i right? >> that is correct. the whole idea behind this is

to bring our stake holders in the room and come up where they process where we can do solar on our own customers. and in a way that is ininclusive of all of the stake holder in all of the advocates and so we need to sit down and have that conversation. >> prior to engaging in any of the other agencies, and the pec conversation and it is not a conversation and we are not going to reach out to any other agency to get their take on it or opinions, and it will start here and here, and we may. >> right? >> and so, you know, we are working with the department of environment and we are working with the solar, industry, we are working with the unions and we are just talking about how we can put a program together that will meet the needs of all of the stake holders to see what the stake holder looks like. >> any further comments? >> please come forward.

>> good afternoon, commissioners and eddie and the (inaudible) project and we would like to thank the staff for working with the advocates to insure that the funding can be restored to go solar sf and there has been progress in this regard giving that originally, it has set to be phased out and now that we have reidentifiesed that with the leadership from the mayor, as well as the general manager himself talking about how we can get to four million at least of the 5 million of the original funding and it will continue to advocate to make sure that that five million is restored and to also insure that clear effective and administration of this program is happening i would like to address three specific points. my point is to make sure that you include them in the comments and we were all very supportive of this program as well. >> absolutely.gog to be

>> yeah, right. my third last point. >> you must be a lawyer. >> and first, lee lay in funding has been disruptive to the solar industry itself and we have heard from the solar installation community that the ups and downs have had a negative effect since the announcement of doubling the funding to making sure that the actual funding will be distributed in october we will have the funding available in the short term and that will be the one of the interests that we would is ask them to look at to be sure that it is available as soon as possible. and second with all due respect to commission moran we do not accept what is offered today. we had a point as to why the customers were not (inaudible) and to given the day of a flux of solar programs we would be happy to be part of the discussions in the future as to what this amendment means. and third and finally, a request for the commission in the broad and full support for sfpuc throughout the last year is to look at the workforce

development portion which is a specific portion of go solar sf and how to improve that aspect by potentially piloting a new approach which is state certified apprenticship, and in suring that we can have a community workforce in solar which is part of the greens job division at the end of the day. >> thank you for your time and patience. >> commissioners, my name is (inaudible) and i am ceo of power tree services inc and i am involved with a solar installation company here. and between the two companies we have installed over 207 projects, in conjunction with the solar san francisco since the inception and totaling just about a mega wat of the over

all size of this project was focusing exclusively on the multiunit buildings, and we are currently installing three megawatts of the battery and two megawatts of the electric vehicle charges and another 200 kilo watts of solar under construction and i want to say that the go solar program has been key, to enabling these kinds of projects and i encourage that you will continue the program and find the ways to do with as much funding as possible. in light of that, i would support commissioner moran amendment i think that it is reasonable and will encourage more solar installations if you consider it in conjunction with the feeding terrace and i would propose that you suggest that the percentage of the funding provided by the go solar program relative to the cost of

the project be, allocated back to the energy fee to continue to fun the program. the number one issue in regards to costs of solar, is number one the panels it is the labor, the overhead and the finance time. and the idea of the funding coming back as a rebate, from the commission, by being in a customer of the commission would actually help to reduce the cost because that can be taken in a better financial structure. because right now, and any of the go solar funding is actually taxable income and by shifting it into a rebate process it is no longer taxible to the customer and that is a no-cost method of further reducing the cost and a great way of bringing further funds into the program by actually having the energy produced be charged for by being a cca customer and i do encourage that kind of thinking. and i encourage that you continue the program. in light of that also, i

encourage you to really work on some of the workforce development costs, and the rules so that we have consistent project and delivery capability and as the previous commenter, yeah, with the hardest part about solar is that it is peak and valleys, you ramp up and you have to drop off and we need consistency, and we need continuous availability of funds and very predictable availability of funds for this project to be done. thank you very much. >> john, (inaudible) with the sierra club. we support the proposed changes to the allocations, and it makes sense that the cost of solar has come down and we think that the money could be as the rest of the staff could

be split in better and more solar installation and more mega watts for the same amount of money. and so that is a good thing. and what, we are concerned about is, what the delay in releasing firms, i believe that it is not proposed that the funds are being released in october. and and you know, it has been, you know, the mayor made his statement of support in march. and october, is not a great time to start getting out letters, you run into the christmas season and then the rains start, so, we would urge that the funds be released sooner than that. and the sf program is a major part of the city's effort to meet its greenhouse gas goals. so, we want this program to be

successful and i could keep working and to keep working regularly and smoothly rather than having it stop and start, and so, sooner rather than later, would be much better, thank you. >> >> could i ask a quick... >> it you for being here and thank you for your support. and mr. id from the line defense project presented an idea related to modern unit organizizing and we discussed this and there is a jobs component that is important and it is important to the labor organization but it is even more important to the committee of workforce that all of these organizations represent. and do you feel comfortable with the idea presented by him today? >> well, you know, we have to take it >> the modern using organizing. >> and it is the workforce come

ponent. >> yeah, i guess that i will have to take it back to the group. we do strongly support that component of the program and that is one of the rens that we are concerned about the gaps in the program because it does not allow, people to have continuous jobs, and they, they get off and we just do support, and the preapprenticeship program and that would be a great program for this program. >> and that is exactly right. >> just to bring the san franciscans up to reinforce that part of the program thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, president torres, and public utilities commisony name is doam the pres

and ceo of red diper, we are a solar installer here in the city. we install pv as well as large residential and commercial and also multifamily projects i am here in support of the go solar program and to ask the commission to pass with no delay the amended go solar program and we have done several trainings in our communities and the program will allow some of the installers to hire folks from these installation programs that we offer to provide sustain able jobs that gives young adults some constructive things to do and i ask that you move forward with this and just to delay it if it is denied and call for the freedom writers,

and that you will move it as quickly as possible. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. and general managers. and thank you, very much for that, and one of my colleagues (inaudible) is a sf certified employees with the child care and was not able to be here but she asked me to tell you thank you. and she came to us as a neighborhood design three years ago. and has really grown, it has been a career pathway off of general assistance, and it would be possible by your program. and we with the san francisco based installer and we e

only woman-own installer in san francisco in the bay area. we have been a certified workforce development employer through the solar sf since october of 2008, when the program was first launched. we were the first san francisco installation company to get the application in and 20 percent of our workforce of the full time workforce, all of the workforce has been with with the certified employees in the lowest point in terms of the hiring, and the workforce development program of this program is critical and it is important. the fact that it is a full time employment is really important. but, as stated for the companies need to staff up. and when we staffed up, outside of san francisco, we have been able to use a state certified apprentices but we can't do that