if it is not theirs, they transfer it to puc. we then know it was puc-owned. that has been very helpful. supervisor wiener: is there anything that would improve the process in terms of getting these lights -- >> for us, it is more on the gis side. especially where there are both puc and pg&e areas. that would make it easier for us to identify. there might be some delay time if we do send it out and appropriately. there might be some days gained by routing it to the appropriate agency to begin with. i know pg&e has said if we could get a them beingpole #-- if we could get them the pole number, that would be helpful to them. supervisor wiener: thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? thank you very much. i also want to talk about planning and the better streets plan. >> good morning, supervisors. i am from the planning department, project manager for the city's better street plant, which would apply the efforts of the planning department, the puc, and others and create a comprehensive guide for how we can design for our pedestrian environment. this plan w

whether it is a puc-owned light. and mention the california public utilities commission controls the rates. these rates are low -- allow pg&e to recover their maintenance expenses and their costs for capital investment. so, we pay them over the life of the asset for the operational maintenance fees. that includes enough for them to set aside to perform the improvements we talked about earlier on their series of loops. -- series loops. and that comes to about -- for the distribution of the power we provide for those lights -- i mentioned that it is our power, but pg&e is delivering it to the lights. we pay pg&e in distribution charges to use their power distribution system. here's a quick snapshot then of the annual payments pg&e, where we have the maintenance fees, the distribution fees, totaling almost $1 million a year. and then, finally, i just want to talk a little bit about where we see improvement recommendations here. we have been asked over the years whether it makes sense for us to become owners of pg&e so w

once puc has completed the work, the puc staff go in and modify the 311 database. supervisor chu: ok. just because we have seen situations before where 311 calls the agency. >> thank you. looking at some of the challenges -- san francisco street safe -- which you can see here, have a broad variety of lighting. we maintain through the puc at least 75 discrete lighting systems. there are 12 different styles. none of the parts are interchangeable on the systems. in addition to what you see here, there are 60 streetlight variations. many of the pictures are no longer fabricated, and therefore maintaining these lighting systems is very challenging. some of these fixtures are historic fixtures. they are unique to their location. this is for example on market street where we have of those lights. these are streetlight design variations that personalize san francisco within our historic district. so, puc funds means for all street lights in san francisco, regardless of who owns them. the we have a wide variety of ownership, but between pg&e, other entities, the puc is resp

i wanted the puc to go through that. perhaps, we can go to the budget analyst to talk through the budget as a whole and that we will talk to those items. primarily because i want to understand the relationship between the preparation and the sale. i want to understand the potential impact on these items and what the plans are for spending. there's not a lot of detail in the report about it. supervisor cohen, did you have a question? supervisor cohen: i just want to publicly go on record to acknowledge the right -- the importance of the project to the south eastern neighborhoods. i have spent a large part of last year, as well as this year, getting better educated on the technologies available when it comes to waste water treatment plant and the management of plants of that nature, and what san francisco is in store for. it is very exciting. i also know you will be spending some time going to your commission and beginning to create a pathway for this project to move forward. i just want to encourage you to do this quickly

we're both getting out of date information from the puc. -- vague information from the puc. i would ask that these two components be delayed until someone can come up with a clear program that is understandable. and then it is reasonable to seek enforcement and implementation. thank you. >> the matter before you today is limited to 13-seat of the building code. -- 13-c of the building code. the primary source of regulation of gray water and is the building department interpretation of the green building -- i am willing not here to be a technical -- i am not here to be a technical comment on that. when the gentleman was referring to the water retention, it was a reference to storm water management. this code does have some storm water management requirements that a reference the ratings systems and the state code. the implementation model is consistently referred to the storm water design guidelines. the most -- most products would need to comply with the storm water design guidelines based on the size of the project. it is largely a separate matter and mostly what remains ab

i would encourage you to encourage puc to do a test on that. it could do a lot to decrease our water use. >> thank you. >> i want to speak with respect to the puc presentation earlier. to find funding to restore the cuts to the goal solar sf program. some comments have been made before. what i really want to say is that we are working with the general manager to find some solutions. the program has created similar opportunities for 500 homeowners. businesses, low-income families. that number dropped to 250 and the funds ran out about eight months into the year. i do not mean to paint the overly daughter nature to you to say that it is not impossible -- dire nature to you to say that it is not impossible. we are working with the general manager, and he spoke about how the local hire numbers are phenomenal on the project. you did not hear it from the general manager, but we know what happened. even though our new headquarters is not covered by the new local hire policy, i want you to treated as such. he give local hire policy a great trial run to

>> we have a work order with the puc. they fund quite a bit of our client -- quite a bit of our climate work. those are some examples. supervisor kim: 8 green school program you work order to the puc? >> they spent quite a bit of time doing work in the public schools. of the two other sources of funding, recurring grants -- we have for recurring grants to the transportation authority. we have received grant funding annually for the past 12 years and we received annual grants from a state agency from cal recycle for the past 15 years to go toward our waste work. it supports

harrington stated on the puc on the specific line items in the budget.if you look on page 10 of our report where we stated that we are recommending reductions, and these are shown on the pages 13-17 of our report, a total of $2 million. we have revised that down to $two million two ordered $23,017. -- where we have previously recommended 2 million to a moderate $48,000, we are revising that down. -- $2,248,000, we are revising that down. on page 14, and the middle of the page, we are adding to that in government and public affairs manager. instead of that ad-john, we would recommend a manager -- add-on, we would recommend a manager to that. it would now become 20 four thousand dollars. and for 2013-14, where it says 28,000 two hundred $95, it would be $25,206. that is the first change. on page 16, toward the middle to the bottom of the page, on maintenance, services, buildings and structures, where we had been recommending a reduction of $220,000, our recommendation now is $100,000 for both fiscal years. the number in the second column will become $30439

what i would hate to see is having the puc acknowledge we should move in that direction and do it can to get there in the long run and then have pg&e keep doing the mistake of the past i think it's really important that the goal of pedestrian great lighting be embraced in san francisco. i could understand if we were a tiny town -- you can't have every single town, but we're one of the largest cities in the san francisco. -- one of the markets with the largest lighting needs. i think it's important to embrace that. >> we are striving to meet the city's goals. i should clarify that all cities are required to be treated equal as part of the code. to the extent we are offering a customized service, we would have to offer it to another city. our goal is to identify alighting styles and changes we can make to meet the better streets plan, but i'm not sure a formal approach would come immediately. is something we can work on. >> -- supervisor wiener: are you saying the code would prohibit pg&e from having infrastructure that fits san francisco's needs and it has to be one size fits all for t

puc is really embracing technology. we wanted to make sure we really had a system that would elevate all issues so we could address them in a timely manner. as you know, time is money. we have a construction management information system. it is a great tool to help us address construction and make it successful, as it is today. cmis is one of the first major tools we put in place. the next one is the san francisco online invoicing, where we are now working with the contractor and consultant to have them submit their invoices online. we are also working on electronic bidding systems. another way we can reduce the paperwork and all the other issues tied with the procurements. i live in san francisco. i am a rate-payer. i really care about the way we spend our money. systems like this that will allow transparency, clarity, accountability, and efficiency -- i think systems like this need to be applied to all parts of the city. we really strive to lead and embraced technology so we can be ahead of the game. [applause] >> we

about the puc. for 30 years, we have worked to protect the river from our headquarters in san francisco am. are bay area program director cannot be here today. i am standing in to express concerns we have about the proposed 2 million gallon water per day water transfer. the river trust has submitted a letter to the puc that addresses our concerns. i have given you copies of the letter. the puc is negotiating an agreement to purchase 2 million gallons of water per day at a cost of $1.5 million per year. a second contract would be negotiated transferring an additional 22 million gallons of water to the bay area. we believe this water is no longer needed and would be a waste of money. in 2008, when the transfer was studied, san francisco was collectively using about 250 million gallons of water per day. however, our water use has declined dramatically. last year, it dropped to about 205 million gallons of water per day. the contract would be -- customers would be obligated to pay for the water every ye

that is great because the puc exists because of ratepayers.nt to see the smartest technology. gerd they want to see a building that not only houses 900,000 employees but also those that are smart handling a strong interest in making sure we continue maintaining a water system. not only is it a great building. this is for you. this is a building that educates you and your families for generations to come. how we take care of our water system and how we maintain the system not just for san francisco insert but for the people who depend upon a national water system and maintain it and spent a lot of money making sure it is earthquake safe. this building is also going to be the safest building to be in in case there ever is an earthquake event, and we are doing that with our libraries, our civic buildings, and we will build new buildings, and we want to make sure it will withstand. if you are in buildings, it is going to rock a little bit, but it will be saved. i was here over a year-and-a- half ago, and we were across the street and putting on th

we have a representative from the puc you can speak specifically to the project., i will be happy to answer them. chairperson chu: thank you. >> good morning. the assistant general manager and cfo of the san francisco public utilities commission. i have a brief presentation and update to give you on our seismic upgrades as well as disaster preparedness as well as the of the three water supply system. on the city fraud, we have been making good progress with the comprehensive -- city front, we have been making good progress with the comprehensive review for the required repairs to the existing in the structure. we have been coordinating and working with our fellow city departments over the last several months. chief white, our general manager, and their representative from the water department and mr. ritchie from dpw are all working to make sure that we deploy these assets as best as possible for the city. the auxiliary water bond authorization has been covered. we are back for our second series of what voters have approved some time ago now. we are making good pr

i am sure our friends from bawsca are eager to applaud and things like this, so i want to thank the puc for playing this leadership role. i think this is an example of how we can do a lot more to conserve and reuse water. i think it is fantastic we are looking at projected demand decrease by 2035 to 71 mgd in san francisco. it gives me hope that we can stay within our water budget. again, real-life concerns about the proposed water transfer -- i think this is an example of how we can avoid that. i do have concerns that when we're talking about the transfer of the last meeting, it sounded like ideas such as conservation and things like the non-portable project -- non-potable project were going to be out of reach of the puc in august, which is great, but it means the decision could take place in july before we have discussed alternatives. somebody was telling me in the last report was that the true cost was almost $2,500 an acre foot, whereas conservation was about $1,100 an acre foot. i think that there will be a lot of projects that come in under the 2500 that have not been explored yet

ron has been not with the agencies since muni was part of the puc. i had the opportunity to speak briefly with him yesterday, and learned that he has really had his hand in much of what we see in our rail network today, particularly in the downtown and embarcadero area, in getting the f line up and running, starting back in the 1980's, the extension of muni metro to caltrans. he played a major role as part of the waterfront project team, which was part of its own office that developed plans initially to snake around the supports for the embarcadero freeway, and was able to reformat those plans and go right down the center of the embarcadero. it is hard to imagine what the embarcadero used to be like, compared to what it is now. he was involved with many different rail replacement projects, such as the church in dubose, and getting historic street cars back into service. doing all that, he had to work with a lot of different parts of the agency and the rest of the city government -- the business community, the residential community, the tourism indust

presdienident chiu: the puc's actual was higher than was budgeted and i wanted to get a sense of whether that is the case for other departments. >> it is very likely, the puc and most of the enterprise departments, they do budget in one year even though it might take two or three years to spend the money. it would not necessarily be uncommon for those not to match perfectly but we can provide the information on an actual basis. president chiu: we all agree with the goal of centralizing our technology we can but it does seem as if the department of technology's budget, we have been forcing them to engage in cost-cutting but the i.t. budget still remain very substantial. that is something i think all of you know i've been focused on. i have a number of other questions but our colleagues have been here for a long time. i will ask them in private. thank you for being here. >> thank you. supervisor chu: i appreciate the presentation and i am glad we're moving forward with the [unintelligible] this is something i asked about last year as well. converting to a look from lotus which is something

for quite some time on the state of the street lights and the challenges that we have and what the puc, pg&e, are doing to resolve the situation. none of us anticipated that we would have hundreds of folks come out for the first item, so i cannot ask everyone to wait. i would request that the item be continued to monday, june 4th, at 10:00 a.m. and request that it be placed first on the agenda. >> that would be a special meeting but we will do that. that is the motion. before we take a vote, i would like to open it up to public comment on the item. just this item, not the street lights. >> supervisors, street lighting affects everyone including the seniors. since the seniors are here, maybe they should hear a little bit about street lighting. really, we do not know who maintains the polls. we do know in a general way, but we do not know in a precise way. the hearing will be continued i would suggest that the board of supervisors to some focus outreach and do some outreach to the seniors off so that they know more about these lights, what will be done about these lights, how the puc and