in your packet, you had received the presentation that i and my colleagues at the puc had given at the san francisco public utilities commission meeting on tuesday. i am going to provide a high level overview, and i'm happy to take questions throughout the presentation as you see fit. one thing to start out, just to highlight is, we have been working together very collaborative lee -- very collaboratively. the chair of my commissioned it highlights how she would like to have feedback from this body. where we are -- i can just sort of go through a bit. first, as you know, the program, given the market research we have done in terms of where we think our likely participation would be and the ease of marketing 100% clean program, and that costs for the 100 percent premium will not be a driver of additional opt outs. we are looking at 100% renewable product. we are having the program be set so that our rate format is similar to pg&e's that will be going into effect in july 2012. that is a flat generation rate where rates do not increase with usage. pg&e will be rolling out a similar type o

my hope and expectation would be that the puc would indeed have a special meeting in august so there is a full vetting of the term sheet, so we understand what the concerns are and what we're going to do about those concerns, but i think it is important from my perspective to get a commitment on the part of the san francisco public utilities commission by having an actual vote to this program. i think that that would be my hope and expectation, and i would ask that -- i mean, i agree with ms. miller that it makes sense for us to continue any approval of a term sheet because that may change, but i would also ask that we direct the executive officer to send a letter to the puc requesting a prompt resolution of this issues and prompt action on this program -- from resolution of those issues. those are just sort of my thoughts on that. what would happen is if there is approval by the puc, the item would then come to the lafco, and at some point after, we would proceed to introduce something and forward it to the entire board of supervisors for their consideration. with respect, the final

i want to thank the commissions of the puc and recreation and park. honor to introduce this. thank you. chairperson mar: thank you. >> now i get to do the fun part. i am going to give a quick presentation on the 17th and folsom project. i am here from the recreation and parks department, planning division. one of the things we are excited about is the idea of a new neighborhood park for the mission. i want to give you a quick overview of the really great funding story on this project. we have funding for all the different life expectancy of this park. i want to talk about that, about the community outreach, and an overview of going forward on this project. before the acquisition of the project, the total cost is $6.27 million. the rec and park portion is going to be coming from eastern neighborhood impact fees. the rest of it is from the mayor's office of house and budget. the buildup of the park is being funded by state grant money. we have already received that grant. it is very exciting. it was a competitive grant process, and we were able to receiv

many people believe the puc is the watchdog that forgot to watch.sat down with the puc's executive director. ♪ >> in many ways it's a matter of time and distance. time is significant. took this tragedy more than 50 years manifest. >> the analogy is we've had people out writing speeding tickets on the highways, but not noticing that the bridges were crumbling. and there's -- that's a problem throughout our infrastructure including in gas. >> distance is also revealing. just 12 miles from the site of the explosion is the headquarters of the california puc, and in this case, distance isn't just measured in mileage but rather the growing gap between the puc and pg&e. >> a litany of failures that began 50 years ago plus, and every week there are more revelations about failures by pg&e. some public and some that come up in our own investigation that will ultimately be public. it's very disappointing. >> it's an interesting reversal. for decades the puc and pg&e got along famously. in fact, critics contend they were too close for comfort, something that st

this does not change any terms at all, all it does it specify that the puc staff is planning for this contract to do under the current contract. this is just a description of the work tasks. maybe there are some things with the legal thing, if that is a problem, we would just call this a set of tasks words. at any rate, to get to the substance of what was brought up in the previous item, so what this two page is from advocates asking you to attach that scope of work to your resolution, not as an amendment but just as indicating the expected work that local power will do under its current contract and we have advocates. the stuff of talking about, we have come up over many months, worked diligently with the staff to come up with all of these work tasks. we have gone to a bit of an impasse in that we want them in the scope of work that you have all seen. the puc said they would prefer a different approach and not only between ourselves as the groups that showed up today but in consultation with a lot of stakeholders, environmental justice groups, labor groups, community justice, jobs ju

the puc staff to begin up and say, "that is not possible to do." they got up and did a report at the time saying it was not possible, so you had the puc staff and the city comptroller's office singing you cannot buy more expensive power and deliver it cheaper. they would say, "yes, you can." so every month, there was this, which did not make much sense to me, so the market would prove which way it would go, so in 2009, we petitioned a supplier, and we did go to the market and said we wanted to meet the goals that have been established. we did select a provider. they were not able to meet those goals even though they said they could when they responded, so those negotiations were ultimately unsuccessful. we went back to the board with the revised plan in march 2010. that changed those goals to talk about the rates, and green power and things that were important to us in that program, and then the puc issued an additional rfp last year, and no better actually met the reduced qualifications. we still have a program that the market wanted to be involved

this amendment to the agreement with the puc covers the puc's procurement and installation of the valves. this is the scope of the agreement, and that number to a wheel. happy to answer any questions. >> i just have one question on this. when we see on the agenda that the "not to exceed" price goes up when there is added scope, does that mean that the prior "not to exceed" for each of the two or three parts, each of the three things -- that those can utilits commission no overrun on one and make it up and under run on another? >> in a sense, and the initial agreement and second amendment should be approved. once it gets approved, we issued a task order or a series of task orders to the puc for specific items. the puc then is obligated to provide those services within the task order budget amount. in effect, -- >> so those subcaps still hold. >> yes, but we do that here strictly to the budget. >> any questions? motion for approval? second. >> no members of the public wanted to address you on item. >> no objections. approved unanimously. >> item 10 is approved. Ï»¿item 11. appointing sara

the puc believes that due to the highly specialized nature of the work, it would be more costly for the to conduct another competitive process that have those responsibilities added to the ae com agreement. our recommendation is to approve the four resolutions. and for the reasons stated, we consider the last resolution, 11.0875 to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors. supervisor chu: thank you. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on items 5 through 11, and keep in mind that we intend to continue item 11. >> ♪ it is also vides candy the water taste stays in my mind that in finance you leave me thirsty for some fresh water fine i have got a bad for your water and i am glad you found a cure and i hope your program it does endure i'm hooked on the water feeling and i am high on believing that you're going to work out good and i will drink to chris daly i will drink to that

again, approved by the puc commission. we do have a general plan conformity letter on this as well. ymitem 11 is the same project. the city of tracy, san joaquin county. across the street from the golf course. this involves the acquisition from the dole family of eroded easement and a temporary construction even that lies along the road of 1.39 acres. this is also a settlement slightly above appraised values, below the requested amount. really, reflective of the temporary construction easement time line. so it is not above the appraised value. simply a technical issue on the settlement. $10,000 to acquire those two rights. again, approved by the puc commission through the same resolution as the prior item. general plan conformity as well. those are the three items before you now. supervisor chu: thank you for the presentation. from my understanding, and these items do not have a general fund impact. they would be paid for through the public utilities program. is that accurate? colleagues, why don't we open up these items fo

we heard comments that focused, having me pu -- the puc take complete control. people have been disappointed in the management of lake merced. there is a desire for an additional boat house. a lot of people fishing, boating, different kinds. again, we heard a lot of commons. we have been summarizing those. we are aiming to bring it back to the commission for consideration in september. president vietor: and the issues primarily at the community are what? they would like the puc to maintain control is possible, rather than the split control? >> yes, you raise that it is a range now -- the way that it is arranged now is general resource management, they are managers, some people have been disappointed and have an interest in the pc taking more responsibility, so this is what we need to find. >> and it comes down to the fact that a number of neighbors know that we have money and that they do not, and as long as they are responsible for doing things without much money to do it, they will not have as much. whether they can fix the war for fishing or other things like

again, thank you to all of the members of the city staff, whether it is puc, the arts commission, the environment, all of you for making that happen, and i look forward to the future. thank you. [applause] >> and the arts commission has some new ideas about what we can do. thanking the puc staff and the art commission staff, they are the ones who run it, the department of environment people, our in trunk cards -- in trump arts -- thank you. if you have time for a quick tour, we can go around and see the things in the building. thank you very much for coming today. [applause] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--

there's also an element of frustration with the puc because this discussion of what the work should be has been ongoing for quite some time. it has been weeks of discussion. we still have not finalized that scope. i think it is important for lafco to strike the right balance in san will only pay what is needed. at the same time, we need to make sure we take actions to move the process forward. this action does not guarantee the $100,000 will be spent. is simply authorizes the executive officer to finalize and enter into a contract that specifically provides for work that needs to be done for the bill out. that is all it does. it went beyond that, i would not be comfortable with it. that is why i am comfortable with that. commissioner pimental. commissioner pimental: is local power interested in a negotiation on their proposal? is it an all or nothing proposal? commissioner miller: i have heard both depending on the level of frustration. sometimes people say things that they then retract. i also do not know the total answer to that question. i have received in writing and have heard fro

again, thank you to all of the members of the city staff, whether it is puc, the arts commission, the environment, all of you for making that happen, and i look forward to the future. thank you. [applause] >> and the arts commission has some new ideas about what we can do. thanking the puc staff and the art commission staff, they are the ones who run it, the department of environment people, our in trunk cards -- in trump arts -- thank you. if you have time for a quick tour, we can go around and see the things in the building. thank you very much for coming today. [applause] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> hello. 9 judge terri l. jackson. the court is now recruiting prospective civil grand jurors. our goal is to develop a pool of candidates that is inclusive of all segments of our city's population. >> the jury conducts investigations and publishes findings and recommendations. these reports them become a key part of the civic dialog on how we can make san francisco a better place to live and work. >> i want to encourage anyone that is on the fence

the puc has expressly extended the contract to do this buildout because one of the things that hasn't been stated that we've had seven meetings that resulted in near armageddon with the puc and community advocates about the fact that the program was you moving forward without a plan without a local buildout. without local buildout, the program does not work. i say that because we've gone out over the past few months to test that proposition and we find it to be true. so i don't know -- i don't even know what the tasks are other than if the tassbs are no move the conversation and move the plan to do a local build wouth this program then that's what we need to do. 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

the increase to pg&e, if the california puc hasd estimated -- if they estimate incorrectly, the world would be responsible for making up the difference. >> i am not comfortable relying on the puc to take care of my ratepayers. i just do not. >> but ioff [unintelligible] that is the process we have. >> than you would have a class action. why should we have to pay? >> i am not an attorney soil will not speak to class action. >> we have an attorney here. >> the payers could a class action. i could check and get back to on that. >> one of the difficulties here is we do not know how much this is. it is hard to make decisions on a program when you have something that is undetermined. if that is under litigation, the methodology that cpuc is under litigation. are we involved in that litigation? >> yes. >> are we making the case that they pg&e should be obligated to assume whatever energy contracts are freed up by virtue of our default? >> that is one of the points we made. >> one of the points you made or one of the points that was negotiated? >> one of the points we made in litigation that

>> that is on hand out the puc has. in of the plumbing code which works hand in hand. looking at the code will be more from the plumbing standpoint from inspectors and then you have the handout that will be able to give them the basic information of what they need to do and where they need to go and what type of situation you have. >> so both in combination is able to provide the current guidelines for both conditions of sight and code? >> yes. >> terrific. >> the department has a standard set of plans or specs? does the department have handouts as far as plans for specs for a system? >> know, we do not design a system -- no, we do not design a system. every system is different as far as the gallon that what they put in their backyards and the location. we do not have a guideline as to how would is supposed to look. their own design is their own design. >> does the department had a list of people? >> not as far as i know. there are some different groups out there that do designs for these systems that do installations and to -- and do the design for the systems. your h

in the fourth whereas, it talks about the puc interest in exporting gallons per day, it's a truck after the word needs, i would recommend putting in the phrase -- of its retail and wholesale customers. this is not just for the city itself. to get that on the record i think is a good idea. vice president moran: that is an amendment. do i have a motion for the amendment? and a second? discussion on the amendment? on the amendment, all those in favor? opposed? thank you. on the motion as amended? all those in favor? ok. call the roll. vice president moran: aye. commissioner caen: aye. commissioner torres: no. commissioner courtney: aye. >> the motion passes 3-1. vice president moran: next item, please. >> the next item will be hour closed session. i will invite any public comment on closed session items, if there is any. vice president moran: do we have public comment on closed session items? there are none. >> could you entertain a motion to deal with the items listed below? threat to public services or facilities, consultation with agency chief of security, and conference with legal coun

i want to look knowledge the mta, the puc, the office of work force development. thank you for the work you're doing in our neighborhoods. the partnership of the police department, making sure we are all safe. and finally, again, supervisor cohen and mayor lee. thank you.

the puc says it is permitted work. but pg&e said the permit starts tomorrow and the street had not been marked indicating where gas lines are located under the street. pg&e also says the gas line in this location is not 24 inches deep. it's more shallow because of what's underground. >> the gas line was buried at 15 inches. the reason it wasn't down to 24 inches was it was protected with a steel plate. it had to go up and over a city facility in this case. and it was protected with a steel plate. furthermore, the contractor was only supposed to cut down through the concrete. the blade was too long, too big. it cut through the concrete and the steel blade. >> you can see crews are working right now to repair the pipe. mason street between superintendenter and geary is closed. crews are expected to be here several hours. and they're work to go restore gas service to people who were affected by this interruption. while that work continues, the investigation by pg&e and the san francisco puc is also getting started. >> okay

i want to look knowledge the mta, the puc, the office of work force development. thank you for the work you're doing in our neighborhoods. the partnership of the police department, making sure we are all safe. and finally, again, supervisor cohen and mayor lee. thank you. ♪ >> hello, and welcome to the department of elections right choice voting instructional video. it is part of the department of elections right choice voting outreach campaign and is designed to educate san francisco rig franciscoht choice voting. today we will learn what it is and who is elected using this voting method. we will also talk about with the ranked joyce l. looks like and how to market correctly. finally, we will see how the ranked joyce voting process works and to you an example of an election using ranked choice of voting. so, what is ranked joyce voting? in march 2002 san francisco voters adopted a charter to implement ranked choice of voting, also known as instant runoff voting. san francisco voters will use it to elect most local officials by selecting a first choice candidate i

i want to look knowledge the mta, the puc, the office of work force development. thank you for the work you're doing in our neighborhoods. the partnership of the police department, making sure we are all safe. and finally, again, supervisor cohen and mayor lee. thank you. there are so many ways that the internet provides real access to real people and resources and that's what we're try to go accomplish. >> i was interested in technology like video production. it's interesting, you get to create your own work and it reflects what you feel about saying things so it gives perspective on issues. >> we work really hard to develop very in depth content, but if they don't have a venue, they do not have a way to show us, then this work is only staying here inside and nobody knows the brilliance and the amazing work that the students are doing. >> the term has changed over time from a very basic who has a computer and who doesn't have a computer to now who has access to the internet, especially high speed internet, as well as the skills and the knowledge to use those tool