i think they would have to, sfpuc would have to issue an rfp. supervisor campos: commissioner schmeltzer. commissioner schmeltzer: if this contract does not go forward and if local power is not engaged to do this work, how does that affect your program? that is assuming we get a term sheet and place in the program is meeting the other time scheduled goals. >> mike campbell with the sfpuc. thank you for that question. in our discussions with the advocate and local power, we have been reviewing the work skill. one of the issues is that there is a difference of opinion in terms of what is necessary. my professional opinion is that a lot of the scope in there is not necessary for moving our program forward and would import -- divert important dollars away from what we need to get launched. we have proposed several works groups involved in helping write rfp's. those have been rejected. commissioner schmeltzer: i am talking about staff's proposed scope. >> the scope of work we have generally plant that is not written down? commissioner schmeltzer: i a

all that has been talked about by the sfpuc is the market procurements peiece. the local bill that is the only reason for having the program in the first place. they would be fine to divert the $390,000 left in the budget towards the marketing plan being proposed in the term sheet. that is not what the communities idea of clean power is about. the scope of work we have got to develop is about being able to get a plan foer cleanpowersf that will have those benefits. that takes money and work to do it. there is no shortcut. [tone!] that is why we have been so behind on the work for some time. the representations made about our relationship to local power or the making of work that is not needed and all that stuff, it just shows a strongly uninformed understanding of the realities of the situation. i am sorry that is the case. [tone!] supervisor campos: next speaker. >> i am with global exchange. we are in member of the local clean energy alliance. we very much did support this item moving forward. we appreciate lafco moving this process forward. this item is a por

the sfpuc was the first time that all five of those commissioners had been briefed in total. there were a lot of questions from the commission, particularly around program designed -- design, how rates are designed and such, and who would be the likely customers. what would be the total appropriation necessary, and what might be coming down the pike from the puc. based upon those items, the puc did not vote on the resolution before them and wanted to hear the -- some more information before approving the term sheet. the chair and others at the commission on tuesday expressed an interest in having a special meeting in august, so i think there'll be some work in trying to pull that together. on a parallel path, and i know this body is looking at the term sheet. quickly, in 2012, just going forward for launch, after getting a contract approved and have the terms taken care of, we would be finalizing rates for shell, executing a contract in the first quarter of 2012. we would be going through a public process around the same time, establishing the rates, and getting geared up for

just to put it in context the first part that june referred to that we need the sfpuc is largely a task of gathering information, voluminous information about pg & e and sfpuc and its rate pairs, etc., so that it's a huge amount of information that has to be crunched and then more work needs to be done to scope out the entire -- they were talking about scoping out the entire city for a full buildout of renewable and hundreds of efficiencies in hundreds of mega watts. in sonoma county, just that beginning part of getting rate pair information and analyzing that data that component all in itself cost $300,000. and sonoma has a similar size rate base as san francisco does. so i know you got sticker shock on this but the reality is this is what it takes to have a plan on a buildout an entire city. it's vital that you move forward this today so we can send the message to the is sfpuc so they can do their bigger part and get this done. and i've got be clear, advocates are not going to support a c.c.a. program that does not fully flush out the buildout like this. it will not be viable economic

it's vital that you move forward this today so we can send the message to the is sfpuc so they can do their bigger part and get this done. and i've got be clear, advocates are not going to support a c.c.a. program that does not fully flush out the buildout like this. it will not be viable economically. it will have problems and it will not give us the green jobs and the ability to have a strong impact on the climate crisis that we must have. we absolutely must have a big program moving forward na's actually building and installing renewable efficiency to the tune of hundreds of mega watts or this is not worth the paper that it's written on. so commissioners need to understand that it's vital that we get this work done and that amount of money is what it costs. as council miller said to you, actually from the meetings we've had local power said, well, it would actually cost more but since there is 398 left, that's what we have to go with and that's the only reason that's the number. as to any relationships that might exist -- >> thank you. >> between activists an others i would like to

the sfpuc is used to doing things. we build and maintain dams, treatment plants, transmission lines, water and sewer mains. at the same time, our staff has always been in rented headquarters. we thought it was time to own that, too. this is the time and place, 525 golden gate. this is a milestone in the project for building. in about 30 years, we will have paid off the building, and then it will be free to our ratepayers. it makes sense for them and also makes sense for green purposes. this will be one of the most sustainable buildings anywhere around. it is going to generate power and also used 55% less power than and regular building. ed will send off more non- potable water for more uses in the area. it will be a wonderful thing to live around and be involved in. we are celebrating this topping off. we have done some research. topping off ceremonies started back in roman times. people would have a ceremony when they finished building the roof of a house. as they finished, it was traditional to put an evergreen tree

the scope that nancy mentioned, you know, we've had seven meetings with the contracter, the sfpuc staff maybe 14 hours of dialogue that led to the scope that's before you. yes, the p.u.c. did put out its own scope believed what it is the local buildout. but when we tested it, it was a failure. it went nowhere. and so the scope that's been developed now and i suppose there could be more conversation in the next couple of weeks is calculated to work. when we took that as a community group and said this is the plan to build if your neighborhood to deliver tangible results after we begin with this kind of first flavor of this program, that gets people excited. so if you don't have this buildout, if you don't have the plan if you don't start doing the work and don't get it done, the plan is not calculated to succeed because if you don't have a local buildout there's no plan. this is what we're most excited about and we've been here on these two parallel tracks. we want to do this type of work, to have the local 3wil8dout. i'm sure you'll have these conversations with your local vendor. other

practices and to establish a unified process for community greening of public parcels, and, two, when sfpuc efforts toward watershed-based planning include recommendations for green infrastructure improvements, all land-owning city agencies should collaborate on implementation of their findings and grants distributed by city department of the environment should include requirements that the grantee spend granted money locally whenever possible. so we really look forward to the continued work with the city as we move together into a new era of integrated and eek logically-based urban and climate planning. so thank you. the greater green advisory panel includes myself and anna alvarez, the chair of the san francisco department of recreation and parks, karen kidwell at the san francisco parks, casey allen at s.f. landscapes. victoria bell, the neighborhood parks council, john bella at rebar, that's a big committee, the unified school district's schoolyard alliance, jeffrey boettcher at gardens initiative, peter at nature in the city and dan flanagan at doug wildman at friends of the urban fore

there are people we have available at the sfpuc internally and through finance that might be able to do some of that work. i am here before you to ask for $100,000 to start the rfp process to leasfor what we needt couple of years to clear in city renewables. supervisor mirkarimi: i am definitely open to the $100,000 portion of it. i would never agree to the $390,000. absolutely not. it looks like it is trying to manufacture work in search of trying to deplete the remaining amount of the funds that exist. i am sorry. that is just wrong. i oversaw a number of those reports in the past. sometimes i was pretty underwhelmed by the analysis provided at a high cost with regard to the fact there was not the level of depth that i was looking for. i want to make sure this is teased in such a way that we're not going to repeat that same situation. i kept asking for more work. with that came the price tag of more money being requested. i do not want to see that happen. i do not want there to be this blind faith of giving x amount of dollars for a report that we are unsatisfied with. that would t

there are people we have available at the sfpuc internally and through finance that might be able to do some of that work. i am here before you to ask for $100,000 to start the rfp process to leas

the sfpuc says it would consider running the pipe underneath the tree if the neighborhood takes on maintenance, liability insurance and allows public access. >> there are people who are trying to get something done. and it's funny that people go through all this trouble for a tree, but it's a really cool tree. >> reporter: homeowner dan griffin contacted a prominent environmental group. today actara agreed to get involved. >> what actara is looking to do is write a letter of support to say that we could be interested in working with the county, working with the community to help create a wildlife area. >> reporter: at this point it's too early to tell what would happen next since the other agencies involved are still waiting to see what actara will consult. some neighbors we talked to were not optimistic or supportive. >> i am open to it. i have a little cynical view that i think that the utilities are just going to cut it down. >> i think the tree should go. because if the roots die and the tree falls then there goes somebody's house. >> reporter: other homeowners say they plan to build a sma

the sfpuc says it would consider running the pipe underneath the tree if the neighborhood takes on maintenanceability insurance and allows public access. >> there are people who are trying to get something done. and it's funny that people go through all this trouble for a tree, but it's a really cool tree. >> reporter: homeowner dan griffin contacted a prominent environmental group. today actara agreed to get involved. >> what actara is looking to do is write a letter of support to say that we could be interested in working with the county, working with the community to help create a wildlife area. >> reporter: at this point it's too early to tell what would happen next since the other agencies involved are still waiting to see what actara will consult. some neighbors we talked to were not optimistic or supportive. >> i am open to it. i have a little cynical view that i think that the utilities are just going to cut it down. >> i think the tree should go. because if the roots die and the tree falls then there goes somebody's house. >> reporter: other homeowners say they plan to build a small p