habitat, and satisfy the project requirements. this provides a consistent approach and complies with the requirements for the promotion. the simple restoration side can satisfy multiple agencies. for example, -- this demonstrates the power restoration sides to satisfy the needs of all agencies. these sites have different needs and species. goldfish pond which includes wetlands and species while the second column is about species

restoration and does not include the second row and the fourth row. the important thing is that we were able to combine this restoration for a synergistic environmental benefit. in alameda, we have nine sites including 1,500 acres of wetland improvements. in this location, this has restricted the use of the nearby bank and requires the pc to develop proposals to a significant level of detail before they will issue a permit we have explored voluntary sales in the region and have determined that this will

provide benefits to the habitat and species close to where the impact is occurring and develop a plan to a level of detail that the resources agencies will except and issue a permit and we need to have the defined areas within our own property. the bureau of management located opportunities within our watershed. the agency's use to those and found them suitable restoration projects. the nine locations support 6 progress including the damn replacement project. this illustrates how a site provides compensation for more than one project. goldfish pond provides

compensation for four projects. we will include fencing to exclude cattle from certain areas including this pond. we would remove non native vegetation and allow this to restore around the edge to benefit the frog and salamander. also here is a solar panel and a water trough which would provide watering to the cattle. this cold fish pond will be heading a share and it requires rebuilding the embankment. shawn your this is the eroding word that water disappears. also at this location we are

estimating up to 5 acres of seasonal wetlands and that is demonstrated by the dark green area in the graphic and tel. the habitat restoration team is working to identify other habitats. we are pursuing projects and identified by the fish and wildlife service another project will benefit the pressure of it which is in the lower right and we have participated in regional habitat plans in san joaquin county and have existing credits both in alameda as well as the central valley. collectively, the nine projects

highlighted in the lme region and in the peninsula a watershed along with the projects on this site will exceed 2,200 acres of habitat. i would like to describe how we deliver the restoration. this includes the standard project component and the permiting design and construction. this also includes the opposition of credits, property interests, regulatory requirements, property encumbrances, and monitoring. all of these things would be required for each individual if we did not use the consultative approach. this has potential benefits because we dedicate staff and

consultants that are aware of the attack on regulatory issues unique to habitat development. you are familiar with a lot of the standard project components and the limitation. i will focus on some of these that are unique to the habitat and restoration. the law requires the pc to have much during and maintenance for those sites. the staff has proposed after a memorandum of understanding that we find maintenance with appropriation as part of the ongoing operating budget and we will have a special account that will fund periodic replacement. this includes management plans.

this includes performance monitoring and professional maintenance. this demonstrates the competition performing as designed. we have made sure that this obligation is met at. the consolidation approach allows the pc to address financial assurances and long- term oppose construction obligations and a complex fashion. we have consolidated the mitigation requirements and the budget. the projected cost is $54

million. 26 million or half is for construction. the show's the upper left hand side, the $8 million for the specialized account. this is for land acquisition. this is what we have budgeted.

there are five-year and 10-year maturing requirements. we are preparing 11 contracts. this is because the different types of habitat, different timing and location and we will return for approval of two professional service contracts.

two contracts to collect fees and use local genetic materials suited for the watershed. others include construction contracts and one for real estate services. we are implementing 3 goat rock as one of the sites. we are asking for the commission approval on the next item to find the habitat at efficient wildlife refuge. we're hoping to seek approval including the open space in the bay and one in alameda county.

we proceeded with some habitat purchases assisted with the approval of the project. the special account which will be used to fund capital question was established by the commission during the supplemental appropriation process. we will return once we have negotiations. the water enterprise will include some of the monterey activities. finally, the conservation easements will require the board of supervisors and your permission. >> thank you. >> questions?

>> when we go through the approval, we see a lot of mitigation details. many of them are not focused on large scale regional impacts on but other conditions. it is useful to see this in aggregation. distillate does aggregate to a large program and out of that comes some pretty large opportunities. some of the sights toward dealing with provide an opportunity to manage it for several projects then to a large scale mitigation. >> thinking. -- thank-you.

>> public comment. >> we have one speaker card. >> it afternoon. i've spoken before you a number of times. i'd do speak on behalf of the watershed and encourage you to implement policies that are in support of this. we currently support the integrated approach. we do have some concerns and our major concern is whether it is per. to be mitigating for construction impacts on land that is already owned by the public utilities commission. some of these reserves are in the end that is already under ownership and is under no threat of development.

the question is if it is appropriate to use these as medication. the calaveras dam project will involve 3 million acres of the habitat. this will change management practices and we fully support this because we think this is worth pursuing. you also approved the watershed in criminal improvement project which has about $50 million in funding for just these kinds of projects over the three watershed. we suggested it is a more corporate to find private land

that is at risk of development where we will lose the habitat. this is rewarding either mismanagement of these lands or non management. we would like to see this done on public lands and we would like to see these projects go through but we think that there is some more things that can be done. i've come before you a in never times and i'm happy to say that the staff has worked very hard on reviving the flows for fish and the operation of the calaveras damn. it looks like we can have an approach that will be

beneficial for steel and trout and other aquatic wildlife. the two remaining issues are this very issue of mitigation. i'm hoping that we can resolve those and get that project moving forward. thank you. >> thank you. >> the program had money for this kind of thing. my impression is that this was to not fund mitigation efforts. i thought it was for everyone beyond >> this is existing public protected land. we're talking about enhancement or improving values.

this comes under the environmental enhancements that we envisioned. we don't see this as a mitigation for direct construction. the result will be in net loss of habitat. the private land is in risk of developing. this is habitat that would not go away otherwise. >> i swung to be clear that you pay to million dollars. >> this is approximately $50 million for the bond funding. if you remember, this acquisition is private land and it goes into conservatorship in the incremental benefit. that is the thing that we're looking at, not litigation.

this is required mitigation, this is a permanent requirement. it is a requirement for our project to go forward. where we cannot, we have to go out and acquire those new right of ways. this is the approach we have taken to mitigate for our construction project. i understand there is a lot that goes into this. each project has all of these little mitigation measures to. this is not just a collection of different improvements to it an ecological landscape approach to benefit the environment.

>> i cannot understand from that presentation apparently, a perpetual maturing will be terminated in the tenures of the other agency which will take over much during. did i and stand that? >> -- did i understand that? question happens -- >> what happens is that another part of the organization will have to the project. we are responsible for measuring the effectiveness but we are just measuring this from our infrastructure branch into our water enterprise and to the national resources division.

we will make sure that we have mitigated these. >> someone is watching. >> we have no other speakers. >> from b-1 to make sure that we don't mess up half the things and areas we continue to live in. i didn't want this to go by unnoticed. this is important not to minimize the effect to the environment and also those to the customers.

>> i have a question, it says that the restoration is that there are projects that may or may not include private land can tel. doesn't this address the land mitigation question to some extent? >> we have different strategies in different areas. this is the central valley. we're using mitigation banks and we will be using private property at this location as appropriate. at our watersheds, we are using the available land to satisfy the agency. >> whether this is inside of our

watershed or out? >> there are no mitigation banks in the peninsular region. we don't have an option to go to the mitigation bank and there are no voluntary sellers. there are some that have not been earmarked and targeted. the agencies directed us to have this project in the initial watershed. there are some frantic properties that we are exploring the timing of getting those in to control so that we can meet the requirements for permits was unpredictable and we worked with the agencies to identify projects that would allow us to make the schedules.

>> thank you. any other comments? next item? >> presentation and possible action to approve the selection of ducks unlimited, award water apprize, water system improvement program funded agreement, a group of hasidic and county of san francisco and ducks unlimited. >> if we could have the overhead. this indicates where we are talking about in the south bay. this is an item for $135,000.

near the bottom, there is a red circle which was the main terminal site that we just started work on the other day. there was an impact on the tidal marsh and as a result, the research agencies allowed the medication for that to be at the 600 acre parcel here which would have a levee and restore tidal action. this is an example where the impact was 15 acres and the restoration area is 1,600 acres. if you have a 600 acre, they would be restoring a small area.

this contract is with ducks unlimited who has done design work for the restoration at bear island. they have been identified as the contractors and improved as a full source contractor. are funds would result in the 600 acre restoration which is probably occur sometime early next year. >> questions? >> know. >> comments. >> we have no speaker cards. >> what is the likelihood of getting the remaining money? >> actually, i would like to

ask to representative from the national wildlife refuge to come up and address that. >> i am the manager for the national wildlife refuge. the question was about the additional funds. we have several sources in the state of california to the coastal conservancy and these are to the peninsula and the trust. what we're trying to do is balance those funds so we developed this can tell this combination of funds would suffice to provide the additional money, this is just about balancing out.

we like to come up with the full project price. >> what happens if the commission approves the balance and the rest of the money doesn't come through? >> the funds are there and they would be able to provide. we try to hold those funds back and tell if we get to use all of them, we will not get to use some of the other aspects which includes improvements. what we want to do is hold those funds back as much as possible to make it possible to do the whole project including restoration. >> thank you. >> any other questions? is to any public comment? is there a motion to approve item number 14? >> second.

>> thank you very much and good luck with your project. >> madame president, the next item is a closed session item. if we can entertain a motion and see if there is any public comment and tell you need to entertain a motion to invoke the attorney-client privilege. >> so moved. >> all those in favor. >> we have no public speaker cards. if you will hochtief meet a moment to read the various items. threat to public services or facilities, number 17. number 18, conference with legal counsel.

number 19, conference with legal counsel, pending litigation, jane martin first is the city and county of san francisco. item 20, a conference with the co-counsel, jane martin, versus a city in council -- county of san francisco. item 21, conference with the co- counsel, jane martin verses the city and county of san francisco. item 22, conference with the co- counsel, city and county of san francisco vs. lexington insurance company. item 23, office of legal counsel, but city and county of san francisco, city attorney's office, vs. alexander d