100 million gallons per day. in the negotiated water supply agreement, that everyone here has signed, we will take a look and see whether they can be permanent or what might happen. so folks that are saying san jose and santa clara should have known individual in terms of allocation, that is not in compliance with the contract. that is not one of the choices. the choice is either that you give them the entire 4.5 that is

the traditional amount of water that has been used. or you reduce them by the average of everybody else and has a reduction of an isg, and that is what we have done in number five, so that seems to be a fair allocation. hayward has the right to have any amount of water that they want. they have a pre-existing contract with san francisco, and so, they do not have an individual supply guaranteed to respect or to add to or anything. i do understand we can make a calculation, but they do not have one, so those are the three kind of outliers, and then you have people that have supply guarantees. some estimated they will be using more than their guarantee. some would be using at their individual supply guarantee, and

some would be using less than that, so it is really how you deal with those people. we have done a variety of ways to do that. there was the idea of giving everybody what they said they would use, and there were a number of objections to that. they were projections that were used in a different context that we said, gee, since we have

them, maybe we can use them. there is some belief that some agencies will look at this differently if they thought they were going to be a basis for this allocation. this is the one number that these there was agreement within and among the agencies. it does have a standing as a guarantee, and so, we have always tried to figure out how to improve that. if you look at the wholesale supply, agreement, it talks about having a transfer process. if there is not enough to go around with in those guarantees during this interim period,

there could be transfers among agencies. i think we were trying to assert ourselves in some way in option four and other options to try to make it easier to be more flexible in how the allocation might happen, should we need to make it happen, but the contract does of the process, application process. it is the transfer process, and it is in the contract. option five premeds as to use what is in the contracts. i am not sure if that helps or not. >> why would east palo alto have that? commissioner: they needed

development to survive economically, and that development would require water. >> and they're looking at going very significantly into development. you need to fix the among yourselves. >> there does not seem to be anything inappropriate. >> i do not think it is inappropriate. i think from their point of view, they would prefer that we fix it for them. it is several areas. those are the four, with their projections for use would have

exceeded their individual supply guarantee. >> the high number for hayward is mainly a pre-existing contract. >> right, they get what they need. i think the distinction is if there is a transfer market, and those that have higher guarantees would possibly sell some of their extra that they may not want to hav that city, because of the way we treated them, would not have the option of selling it, because they already have whatever they need. they do not have something in addition to that as an allocation. commissioner: while i do not want to suggest what the position of our wholesale customers might be, what i would like to suggest is that what the people with isg's would love -- they have a very preferred

position but that others would envy. -- position that others would envy. >> when was that signed? >> 1962. president vietor: commissioner moran? commissioner moran: i have read them and keep reading them as they come in. thank you for doing that. over the course of time, i think that has served to put on the table all of the issues and arguments that take place, and i do not think there is an and presented argument that we need for our consideration. it has been an interesting and productive effort would staff to get us where we are. anybody who has been listening

to my comments knows that i started up by saying that if i got free rein, what i would do is with the isg's, make that equal supply insurance, so why was my preference, i cannot do that. i would prefer to do that, frankly, because it keeps our long-term objectives consistent with our short term objectives. things would be solved within the isa's, if you could do it that way. i presented it as a dilemma. it created a situation where somebody could use more than their supply guarantee.

more than the interim supply assurance. it is a surplus back to the people who have that.

this is a for every issue. -- a forever issue. if eat palo alto -- east palo alto was successful, i think we would be very sympathetic to that. and part of what option 5 does is it keeps in place the incentive to do that. this would basically say that if there are adjustments, is that

those changes would be affected on the supply. the allocation, as well. bulls customers are approaching their water supply situation very serious. they are approaching conversation -- conservation measures aggressively. the targets they have to be are tougher than the targets we have to meet.

they are already doing that. there are a couple of amendments of would propose to make, to effectuate that. i will hold those. president vietor: thank you. i, for one, appreciate your comments, particularly in regards to east palo alto. if we do proceed with option 5

and with the market transfer arrangement. i just from my environmental conservation seat, i also hope that there was a change in the guarantees as a result of the market transfer arrangement or option five. there would be a high value placed on water conservation and per-capita use, because i think it is something that east palo alto has been doing and should be awarded for. this is in regards to the recognition we want to give east palo alto. i also want to a knowledge everyone for their conservation efforts, and what they have been doing, because it looks like we might be in pretty good shape as far as 2018 goes. the real issue is going to be 2018 on, and started to think about that and looking at what that is going to be for all of

us, but i just want to acknowledge the good work that has been done and staff, as well, in presenting the options. i think it really has been quite remarkable, and a lot of that has been because of the input of the customers and the back and forth and the dialogue, and it is really great to be able to have that input into the government process and the decision making body like this, so i just want to recognize that, because it has worked well in the situation to really try and see all of the ways this very complicated pi could be carved up. -- pie could be carved up. if there are no other comments, perhaps we can entertain a motion that commissioner moran had? commissioner: there is one that is not a component.

>> city attorney's office. i think you should do this. commissioner: then i will do that. it would be resolved with an individual supply guarantee. this is also pursuant to a certain section of the code.

president vietor: so is there a motion to adopt? thank you. any further public comment on this item? hearing none, all of those in favor? commissioner: i would like to have the motion restated and an explanation. president vietor: maybe the commission secretary can do that, unless, mr. moran, you are comfortable? commissioner moran: what was distributed to the calendar, amended in three respects, one dealing with option 5, the second to delete a final resolved clause, and then there's the isg transfer. commissioner: that would help

east palo alto? commissioner moran: it does not help them today, but, frankly, that problem is been there for decades. president vietor: but i think in that light, the record should state the conversation we have had in regards to east palo alto and the acknowledgement that there may be other equity issues involved. so i will call the vote. all of those in favor? opposed? the motion carried. thank you, commissioners, and think you all for coming to speak. we appreciate it. mr. secretary, next item, please. secretary housh: madam president, item number 11, a discussion and possible action to authorized. approve the amendments dealing with irrigation, clarifying

definitions and terms of compliance. ritchie will present. >> it went to the board of supervisors. the board approved the ordinance. there was a discussion with stakeholders to try to clarify matters, tried to reflect this with the rules and regulations. rules and regulations are yours to amend. they do not need to go to the board, so maybe we would just clarify a few things and make it simpler to implement. president vietor: questions? comments? the motion? all of those in favor? thank you, mr. ritchie. secretary housh: we have no

speaker cards on this. president vietor: 12 and 13 together? secretary housh: a discussion of possible action to authorize the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute on behalf of the city and county of san francisco by in between the san francisco public utilities commission and other members of the alameda creek fisheries restoration work a group to continue phase two and a further authorize the general manager to allocate funding for beat pitt -- for the sfpuc portion of the flow studies. item number 13, a discussion and possible action to authorize the general manager of the san francisco the dita von teese commission to negotiate and execute a memorandum of understanding, for operations at half moon bay gauging station, and the administration of b.p.--

of the pilarcitos creek integrated watershed management plan. there was a different amount that was in some of the posted versions of the agenda, but the item itself was always posted as correct at the other amount. president vietor: thank you. are there any comments or questions from mr. ritchie? i will entertain a motion. all of those in favor? opposed? think you, mr. ritchie. the motion carried. next item, mr. secretary. secretary housh: the next item is item number 14, a discussion and possible action do authorize the general manager of the city

is the scope of the utilities commission to execute on behalf of the city and town of san francisco with the cell -- with the county of san mateo for trailer improvements on the crystal springs regional trail. this is on the peninsula watershed. president vietor: questions or comments on this item for mr. ritchie? all of those in favor? opposed? the motion carried. thank you, mr. ritchie. next item. secretary housh: item number 15, a discussion and possible action to approve the plans and specifications and a warm water enterprise water system improvement program funded the san joaquin pipeline system, to the lowest qualified responsible and responsive bidder, mountain cascades, to construct

approximately 10.3 miles of new pipeline. >> i and general manager of new infrastructure for a recent project. we have a 11 bidders. we are exceeding our goals. questions or comments? -- president vietor: questions or comments? all of those in favor? opposed? great. thank you. the motion carries. next item, please. secretary housh: items 16, a discussion possible action to approve my vacation number one to water and a price of the contract number wd-2639, for new circuit breakers, longer reaches of plumbing/avandia, additional restroom carpentry, and

additional rowling of condit to read data panel -- rallying of -- routing of conduit to a data panel. president vietor: any comment? all in favor? opposed? fat thank you. the motion carries. next item. secretary housh: item number 17, a discussion possible action to approve the plans and specifications and a warm water and apprises water system and provide program program funded to a group, in the amount of $17,360,400. >> they exceeded the goals by 12%.

this is another good news. president vietor: great. is there a motion to adopt item 17? commissioner: where is this? this should help the area there, $17 million? $70 million should help the area there? >> yes. -- $17 million? >> yes. president vietor: is there a motion? any public comment? all of those in favor? opposed? ok, the motion carried. next item, 18. secretary housh: cuw37302,

rehabilitation of existing san joaquin pipeline projects, authorizing the general manager to implement the project in compliance with the charter and applicable law and said to the board of supervisors approval where required. >> this is a simple one, which is outlined in the proposal. president vietor: there are no questions or comments? all of those in favor? opposed? thank you, mr. kelly. next item. secretary housh: item 19, a discussion possible action to approve the terms and conditions and authorize the general manager of this in the cisco public utilities commission for

agricultural land identified as assessor's parcel 096-0420-005 intercounty of alameda -- in the county of alameda, located southeast of the san antonio reservoir between calaveras road and vallecitos road in sunol. president vietor: all of those in favor? opposed? congratulations, mr. ramirez. >> i just wanted to say that you buzzed off eight or nine

items related to the water, and whenever it adds up to, we do whatever it adds up to, again, a tremendous effort in times of -- terms of getting this done. president vietor: thank you. we appreciate it. we appreciate all of your good work, too. secretary housh: madam president, we're getting ready to move to close session. a motion to invoke the attorney- client privilege. president vietor: all of those in favor? opposed? the motion carried. secretary housh: give me a moment to read them, and then we will move into closed session. item 22, item 23, and we will

now moved into closed session -- moving to closed session. disclose. >> second. all in favor. opposed. thank you. commission secretary, next item. >> next item is 26, authorize the utilities commission to negotiate and execute a seventh amendment to an opposite

agreement pertained to the sale of s.n.p. property located between weisman road and terrell avenue in mountain view, with k.n.g. extending the term and the extension fee from december 30th, 2010 to june 30th2011 and authorize the general manager to negotiate can k.n.j.l.l.c. and amendment to the option agreement to reduce the purchase price from 1.2 million to no less than 3.6 million, subject to the p.u.c. receiving 150,000 per unit for any entitlement authorizing more than 30 units and grant the ability to purchase six month extensions for 75,000 each and authorize the general manager to execute an amendment to the option agreement, if approved by the san francisco board of supervisors and mayor. >> commissioners, thank you, gary dod, real t