p.u.c. staff and s.f. p.u.c. commissioners about the specific concerns. and i think that we've reached a point in that process where since the term sheet is just sitting at the s.f. p.u.c., it's become an insillar process and it's gone forward about as well as it can go. so i would agree that it's time now that ab-117 makes the board of supervisors the implementing body for this policy. it's time now for the term sheet to move from the s.f. p.u.c. and get to the board of supervisors, where we as advocates feel like we can in a new forum that's working actually to make this policy happen immediately, where we can work with the board of supervisors on the concerns that we have and actually flushing out this term sheet so it actually makes sense for everybody. especially to the extent as we said before, we think a lot of the concerns raised by s.f. p.u.c. commissioners and that are raised by us will be addressed by moving forward the scope of work that's in your next item, expeditiously so we can develop a very solid and big body of work for the potential or

much better level of fluidity going on several months ago that we gave license to both lafco staff and p.u.c. commission staff to work this stuff out. i have to tell you that i expected a little more productivity and unity on this question. i don't see that now. >> well, we did try to have a joint meeting in the month of july, but that was not able to be calendared. so our backup position was what just occurred, a meeting on tuesday with the idea of being us hearing the term sheet on this friday. as you will recall, we forced the issue also of the term sheet to make sure that we could have something to introduce to the board of supervisors by next tuesday. so, yeah, no question it's a disappointment and it is -- i'm not here to lay blame. i'm just saying that the problem was with the meeting on tuesday was there were a number of questions asked related to risk and some other issues that the commission wasn't prepared to move, and so they continued it. i think if you listen to that tape, i think it was definitely a unanimous decision and it wasn't one that was -- that there was a lot of discu

we're not exactly sure what the p.u.c. and it sounds like perhaps the p.u.c. is not exactly sure of all of the things it needs at the moment. and if we're actually going to consider this, i would have a lot of other things to say but it seems premature given we don't have a term sheet and perhaps we can wait until we actually know what the terms are before we hire additional consultants to -- to work towards things that would be -- to further the ends of the program. >> just in response to that, this is not necessarily reliant upon having a term sheet done. they started talking about these projects back in february. so i don't even think it was the s.f. p.u.c.'s intent that they have the term sheet actually finished, so as long as we have the parameters and we have buy-in from the consultant on those parameters which i do have. i know there are some issues out there about the program which i think speakers have already addressed. but the idea of this particular piece of it is to develop the r.f.p. in conjunction with the development of the term sheet. commissio

and the p.u.c. to try and make -- find funding to -- add as many improvements as we can to the first portion of the project. the p.u.c. may be very interested in funding some of the daylighting of the creek and the ball field renovation, guess there's an opportunity to provide water storage for further irrigation, store water to irrigate the ball fields. that's something they are interested in partnering with us on. the m.t.a. would like to partner with us for some of the improvements. thank you. commissioner buell: thank you. commissioner harrison? commissioner harrison: just a question. i noticed that there's some concern about tree removal. >> he yes. commissioner harrison: how have you addressed that? >> great. i have a couple of slides. this is an image of existing tennis court and some of the undermining of the adjacent structural walls around the tennis courts. more close up image of the park. here's the current entrance to the park. let me see if i can get to one of the ones. so the relocatio

and the p.u.c. chairman likes going. he's done this trip many times since he was appointed to the commission. and this interview we're about to hear was done 11 months before the explosion in san bruno. p.u.c. chairman mike peavy told me the trips he's taken are important. >> climate change is a world. it's not just a california problem. you're going do your best if you learn the best practices. >> peavy has taken 16 trips, and total costs? over $160,000. >> i cam back here and was enthusiastic about things we saw there. i couldn't do that by looking at video autos the former commissioner says the trips, particularly this sweden trip is a boondoggel. >> i think in that trip we spent a couple hours and an awful a lot of hours drinking and eating. >> brown told me it didn't pass the smell test it was lop sided in favor of personnel for utilities and not really necessary for my education as a commissioner. >> jeff brown warned him to stay away from the trip. >> i said don't go on this particular trip. you don't need to go on

p.u.c. one of the parts of the presentation i skipped over was about the numerous presentations made in public about lafco and s.f. p.u.c. so there have not been many votes the current commissioners have taken on this matter. there have been public presentations. there also have been some private briefing that's i know of. but perhaps if this is a broader issue, it should be taken up at the giant p.u.c. lafco meeting. >> when is the joint meeting, sfleeze >> we don't have a date. it is something we started talking with mike about today. but i am serious about going to meet on our own -- hopefully with mike, with each commissioner, to talk about what their concerns are. as to the joint meeting, i did have a conversation with the -- with ed harrington about trying to set up their special meeting in august, which is something the commission did direct them to do. and i do think we also ought to set up a joint meeting. i mean, so that if action isn't taken in august, we can be prepared to do so in september when we have the joint meeting. >> i think you're being potentially naive about the fact that coming into a

p.u.c. one of the parts of the presentation i skipped over was about the numerous presentations made in public about lafco and s.f. p.u.c. so there have not been many votes the current commissioners have taken on this matter. there have been public presentations. there also have been some private briefing that's i know of. but perhaps if this is a broader issue, it should be taken up at the giant p.u.c. lafco meeting. >> when i

and the p.u.c. is considering an opt out program. customers turn off transmitter and possibly pay extra for a meter reader. and there is complaints the kbleerts caused bills to skyrocket. >> if there is a change in water bill, it will relate to amount of water being counted through your meter. so... a knew nu meeter -- new meter may be more accurate. >> the water department is still billing customers based on manual readings of all meters until wireless transmission is tested. new york city is currently installing this same water kbleert system and in east bay municipal district is considering a pilot program of its own f you have a concern let me know bit. go to abc 7 news.com and click under 7 on your side. >> interesting. thank you. >> sure. >> speaking of smart meters... in santa cruz, opponents of the new smart meters want to run the local sheriff out of town for not enforcing the law. and says he failed to enforce a county ordinance. and it is seen as largely symbolic since california public utilities commission regulates utilit

the city of san bruno and the pg&e -- or rather p.u.c. blamed pg&e for poor recordkeeping and safety practices. >>> tomorrow state lawmakers will be talking trash specificly your trash and who gets a say in where it gets dumped. it is a debate partly fueled by more than $100,000 of industry money. and as linda yee shows us one bay area county may find their vote can't keep a lid on this garbage. >> reporter: when you throw something away chances are it ends up some place like this. the land fill, a facility which everyone agrees is first class when it comes to garbage. but back in 1984, solono county residents took a vote and decided on a limit for imported trash. >> we don't want you to be bringing in more than 95,000 tons of garbage from outside annually. >> reporter: almost 30 years later that vote is causing some problems. >> each city and county passes an ordinance that said we are not going to take waste from survive. you can tell it would be a very big problem for us. >> reporter: to avoid that problem, san francisco assembly woman

the national transportation safety board completed its investigation and blasted pg&e and state regulators at the p.u.c. they blame pg&e for putting a faulty pipe. kron4's dan kerman breaks down the flaws detailed in the report. [ sirens ] >> flawed pipe, flawed operation, and flawed over sight. it was not a question of if this pipe would burst. it was a question of when. >> reporter: the national transportation safety board has put the blame squarely on pacific gas and electric company for last september's gas pipeline explosion in san bruno which destroyed 38 homes. >> the pipe installation, the quality of the welds were inadequate. >> reporter: not only did they find pg&e installed a substandard and poorly welded pipe but said the company's inadequate pipeline inadequate program was to blame for not finding the problem. >> that could have been detected if they had properly inspected and if they had done inspections. there were a lot of opportunities missed here by pg&e. >> reporter: this is what the san bruno neighborhood looked like after the explosion. and the ntsb is also putting blame on the cal

and with the understanding that it's been agreed that the p.u.c. will do this work. i would ask for a motion to accept staff's recommendation to aprove, give the executive officer approval or authority to enter into a contract up to an amount of 100,000 but that's not necessarily the amount that will be spent. so is there a motion? motion by commissioner avalos. is there a second. >> second by commissioner mikarimi. [voting] >> mr. chair, we have three ayes and one no. >> the motion passes. madam clerk can you call item number five? >> item number five, executive officer's report. >> ms. miller? >> i have no report, thank you. >> but, i'm sorry, i do want to introduce -- i'm going to have jason interview our new intern. i just wanted to get the opportunity to introduce our intern for the summer. last summer, she had different tasks to do. she is currently going to u.c. davis and is looking to do green type work in her future. i just wanted to welcome her do our internship program. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> colleagues, any questions? is there any public co