money i'm wondering if it end up cost the puc more if it's not front. >> the answer a yes. pg&e easterners a return on the ones they own and we're funding the return. so, yes. yes >> seem like we should be looking for a way to uniform the street light under the puc. >> and then in terms of improvements recommendation an improvements we're looking at you know, i mentioned the fact we have all of our street maps in all our street lights are electronically vanilla to us and we have an assessment management tool around the street lights. we think that's important and helpful to have the same for pummeling system. and that help us answer the question of who owns the lights. today what happens is we look to see if we own them and if we don't we assume pg&e owns them. we know what we own and have a very good record on our ownership of the street light assets. we also recommend that there be standards set for the levels of service regardless of the ownership. we've heard feedback from the businesses and small business owners it's frustrating to make a question

>> the street light are in the puc capital plan and in that way yes. >> okay. it seems like we as the city admiringly over the loose 6 years has become more methodical and organized around our capital needs. we've seen improvements around the parks and a whole variety of areas. it strikes three and 4 that street lights excuse me. are such a critical part of our cities daily life. >> uh-huh. >> and that it's and they need to be priority tied in a more significant way. and so i apologize for my allergies. i hope we can move in that direction. i'm not being critical of the puc in terms of the choices i know you have to deal with a lot of capital needs but we haven't priority tied lighting needs >> thank you very much. we'll now hear from pg&e from mark and another gentleman >> good afternoon. i'm terry with pg&e i'm joined by terry should has some information on our prevail data. i'll take boarder discussion. starting off in san francisco we recognize pg&e how important street lights are. we've made some real major changes since last year we show our commitment wit

lead and we've established what pg&e is going to do and share data and communicate with the city and the puc to make clear to resident who's responsible for what kind of work. most outages will be reward in thirty days pg&e is going to do the mapping by location so we can identify who owns what. that means the one day or two days of back and forth. the cause of the out age all those are things will be part of the data set we'll give the city to inform the city broadly and a hour we're responding. that gives u gives you more clarity in the operational news and bring the san francisco employees out to take the of our data we see the reliability in repairs are taking longer that's because pg&e trouble men are being sent to other areas to repair damage by floods and storms and finally, the last thing is to do frequent meetings with puc and puc staff to make sure we're aligned with major initiative. are there structural communication with either party making the repair of street light it difficult if the answer is yes we're going to get together to solve those. we weren't communicating very well

with that said we'll go to the presentation we'll hear from puc and pen pg&e and open this up for public comment. first, i want to invite barking from the public utilities commission >> welcome back. >> thank you barbara assistant general manager at the sf puc. i'm happy to present and go through a brief overview of street lights here in san francisco >> talk about our plans for street light improvements given our maintenance and capital funds. and if sfgovtv could help me i've got an overview. thank you. i'm to talk about those 3 things ownership are the goals important performance and our funding. but before we talk about that lets make sure we understand roles and responsibility. as supervisor weiner mentioned the ownership of street light the in san francisco is mixed. clearly a majority of the lights are owned by the city and the majority of those are owned by the divided puc. we own those assets and have them as part of our management program it's about 25 thousand lights we are responsible for and own >> if i'm not mistaken it's about 60 percent by the city and 40 percent by pg&e.

i want to thank the puc staff for taking the restoration of the puc water shed seriously. we got started on this in 2005 with $20 million from proposition a and $30 million over a 10-year period from the water enterprise budget. we spent $18 million so far and the projection by the end of the period it will leave $12 million. we would love to see that project. there is understanding that there is planning and permitting and takes time and the idea that a lot of projects would be back ended. but we think it's really important to continue this on. it's not a one 110-year period to protecting water shed that is really an on going commitment. we are hoping there will be continued funding of $2-3 million per year and not just rollover the extra funds and feel like we are still doing it. the funding is critical and we'll be working with you on that. and there is a plan to have the next 10 years and that's what we love. thank you for your good work and look forward to the projects ahead. >> thank you very much for being here. on communications, commissioners, i'm going to alert --

we talked to the puc to talk about strategies to get that agencies on converting our street light system. both agencies updated on their effort to improve their reliability of the system including pg&e talked about some of the improvements it maikd made in terms of the days it would take to respond to 3wr7b9d out lights. at the conclusion of that hearing both agency made some commitments about improvements they would implement in the coming months and so today wee i reknown this hearing to hear from both agencies to hear what has changed with respect to some if the discussion items. i'm particularly interested in the amount of time or the frequently the amount of time it takes on average to remainder those lights and the progress we've made towards transitioning our street light to a more friendly pedestrian. i'm looking forward to the discussion following the hearing it's my intent to craft whether a resolution or perhaps an ordinance to set 80 some clearer or consistent standards for our street light system in san francisco. i'll recognize supervisor jane kim >> thank you for calling t

so again, i want to thank both the puc and pg&e for the useful presentation and the public. i think we've seen improvement in terms of the average response time to repair 3wr7bd out lights that's been promising. you've seen comforted coordination among the knowing that and he pg&e and 311. there are some fundamental issues we need to those challenges are really a symptom they have old street light and significant capital needs for both systems. we have a continuing need to aggressively add important pedestrian grade lighting that's got to be a high priority as well as to complete the conversion to led lighting. we also need to a deal with the ownership issue the goal is to provide the most stuff service in san francisco and it didn't make sense to split the ownership of the lights. so as i mentioned we're going to be working on at a minimum resolution but legislation to set clear policies about what are the policies with respect to street lights relating to a number of different issues. the better street plan as noted focuses on commercial areas and commercial corridor. we n

the inclusion of the greenhouse and sf puc efforts to do this. it would be a unique model of agriculture that will be seen across the country. not o.j. -- only has it been in the past, but it will set a way for san francisco. the parcel to be activated to a dynamic model is particular in tandem about our water shed and matter management and strategies. the paving over of this site and city housing will be a great opportunity and as well as an an opportunity for san francisco. i know i speak as a farmer enthusiast. thank you. >> thank you. isabelle wade? good afternoon. >> commissioners and chair pleasure to see you, general manager. i'm here today as a president of urban resource systems wefrm a local non-profit organization since 1981 promoting green and parks and urban agriculture. i'm here to speak for the 770, site in the acquisition by the puc hopefully to save this amazing 2-acre space. it is actually zoned for agriculture still which is, you know a phenomenon in our city. it's in an area that is very breft of usual open space by neighbors.

. >> i think it's important because we have that in the puc about a grant. people know where to file their appeal or protest. that's not the case here. >> no, we certainly all of the plate -- applicants get a letter telling us when the plan is reviewing it and they could come. it's a learning experience. to my knowledge, the applicants know and it's in the application that it goes from there to committee and from committee to full commission. but, no, we do not specifically spell out what happens if they don't get it. >> i think you should. >> thank you. >> no. 2, i say that with all do respect. >> i appreciate it. >> getting back to the comments, is there is going to be a second round of $100,000 funding? >> yes. are all the applicants prohibited from applying? >> no. we have not set the criteria or guidelines. historically no, we do not exclude. >> so no applicant that was excluded would be excluded from applying again? >> correct. >> thank you. >> i have a couple quick questions, just to piggy back on commissioner torres comments. i appreciate that you are

if the puc owned that building and we could make that the icon i can sustainable building puc representsuldn't be a dramatic idea? >> so, one of the major decisions we made was we wanted to make a statement with this building. we wanted this building to be a lead platinum building which is very few buildings in san francisco that achieved this mark. >> leadership and energy environmental design, it takes a look at the way we think about the places where we live and work. i like to think of it as designed for human and environmental health. lead addresses five categories that enhances environment. indoor air quality, energy, water, materials and resources, and sustainable sites are the five categories for the lead. you can go for several gold or platinum certifications. >> the city wanted to be silver lead status. . maybe gold was a stretch. and people said, if we're going to be a sustainable organization that the pucs this has got to be the top of the line. it's got to be a lead platinum building. what does that mean to us? we run water, power, and sewer. so, those are some of the bigges

should the puc choose to approve the project. the staff remedies that the consent of the report a adequate and accurate and the procures for which the eir comply with the sequa and the sequa guidelines and chapter 31 of the administrator code. that concludes my presentation. unless we have questions >> thank you. we may have questions in a little while. no public comment. okay. then commissioners. commissioner antonini. >> i believe i brought this up i want to reiterate the fact my understanding is that the water would be drawn when available that if there's a situations where we have a year where we have not had enough rainfall and our lakes are in jeopardy like lake merced we would be drawing it when it's available. there's some years when the heavy radiance we have a surplus of water. i understand that's what we have in mind >> correct the mitigation measures that we have identified in the eir do alleyway allow the project to mitigate impacts could less than significant levels concluding impacts on lake merced. and this myths

most of our activities recently on the cca front for in puc proceedings where pg and e's green tariff option has continued to move forward. developing a green rate the statute requires a commission decision by july so we are expecting that the commission will need to issue at least a proposed decision in the april time frame in order to meet that statute requirement at this point we would expect pg and e's projected green tariff rate to be initially offered at 12.3 cents a kill owatt hour and that rate is forecast to increase to 9.4 cents a kilowatt hour in january so pg and e's basic service energy component of basic service rates is increasing come january to 9.4 cents and their current proposal before the cpuc under the green tariff option would be to offer the one hundred percent green power at 12.3 cents a kilowatt hour again that's just a proposal. we're expecting more activity probably around april. turn then to energy efficiency issues at the cpuc as it relates to -- >> can i ask a question? >> absolutely. >> so since pg and e is in control of the power throughout the city owe

it's the first time and sf puc the first one. lastly how does the scorecard impact the sf puc ratings. we also had internal stakeholder feedback and measurements to ensure that perhaps is it a measure of missions for service and it's considered measuring, sit breaking or not working and our ability to plan. another one is inclusive of sections to different views, one regulatory and one critical. our next step, i would like to welcome the feedback from the commission and incorporate any recommendation in such considerations would include are we looking at the right measures. are we properly weighting them against each other and time, is it better to have it around december or around the prebudget hearings. what you are seeing today is a live document. so it's definitely subject to change. our communications team would like to also lay over a puc graphics makeover once the score hard has been final and the controllers office would like to public this in the spring of next year for 2013. with that i would like to thank you and welco

what that is is that at the time we solicit from professional services contracts, how can you help the puc with a mission with no impact to our projects or to the cost of the services that you are providing. what can you actually give. a lot of times they will offer training. so what we are doing is we are leveraging all that training and provide it in a center to really help. the other thing that is really special about the center is that we now are working with a lot of businesses. so a lot of small businesses are really advocating for us to break contracts down. so now, you know, believe it or not we try to break the contracts down but now we can break them down and align them to businesses that has the capability and ability to receive them. so i'm really excited about this opportunity to work with the local businesses. we work with quite a few businesses out this that really shaped the organization and the model of the center. so, i would like to have this great honor to really introduce the mayor. now, the mayor, i'm telling you this mayor has experienced everything from hrc where he

so i'll be following up with the puc. we know that the majority of lights are owned by puc. thank you to the entities for presenting >> thank you. colleagues if there are no additional comments i'd like to entertain a information motion to continue item one to the call of the chair >> so moved and this continues to the call of the chair. madam clerk, please call items 5, 6, 7 together their brief items that president chewing has added and i and >> and this adds the name to the alley and item 6 to 346r7b9 street and item 7 a resolution adding limb alley to bar tell street. >> president chew you're the author. >> thank you for calling those items up i know we have members of the public and hoping we can through move through this. we have three names for china town it's 0 recognize the contributions of 3 outstanding individual leaders to the china community. a designation of those honoree wouldn't be time letter. anonymous for their live ability and cultural use ambassador for their told them. a nonprofit that serves young china families gets ready to celebrate it's one hundred

i've heard commissioners on the puc and commission on the environment and the mayor, while addressing the board of supervisors during question time refer to a half plan or half baked plan or not ready for prime time plan and i agree with commissioner breed the plans not being completed is the main point that everyone uses to say that the program is not ready to launch even for them to approve not to exceed rates so i think a solid comprehensive plan is absolutely necessary to show not only to remove the excuses for folks who are perhaps taking action for other political reasons, but also substantive -- we might have citizens who need to see the data and i think if we can show both citizens and policy makers the data, then this will be a knockout. thanks very much. >> thank you very much. is there any other member of the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. the one thing that i would add in terms of understanding why it is that things haven't been moved forward i think it's a lot more complicated than what some of the opponents have said and i think t