land. it takes a supermajority note -- vote? we could adopt something that says that. just as we have something for analysis. there could be another one. where does this violate policy? and what policies speak to this? so there are a variety of things that we could do with it, but it is tempting to throw up your hands and do it on a case by case basis. but it also puts it in a

horrible position, where every time something comes in, you just do not know which way it is going to go. if we can come up with some broad principles, i think that would be useful, and if we of the process for what it means -- when i say violent, that sounds negative. there are some times where you want to have a policy, and you should be able to deal with that in some way without just saying about the policy. commissioner: any others? one thing that came up was this triple bottom line. there might be a way to look at this, the three e', looking at

the economic peace and at some others. there are the three goals and objectives. and if that is even possible. >> that may be possible. i think there are two things that we need to consider. this is kind of a policy for going forward. we do have a lot of leases that may not be compatible with the policy. we are really trying to go forward and deal with on a case- by-case basis. that is one of the things that we are struggling with. a lot of these are coming up for renewal. how do we go forward? also, there are the categories of different types of leases that we have.

we talk about community gardens. we have golf courses that are lucrative. and there are people approaching us for the parking lots for the egress and exit from their lands across the right of way, and there is a lot of talk with communities for linear parks. how do you approach all of those, and what do you want to do when people approach us, of which kind of takes priority? what are you willing to consider as far as leasing the property for what period of time for what costs, and so on. all of those things come into play. president vietor: commissioner courtney?

commissioner courtney: at the risk of painting myself into a corner, we talk about public- private partnerships. what is the most we can do and kind of work your way down. we kind of look at a green building, and i think work force housing and revenues, and i look at a parcel. we want to look at the condition and staff to consider public- private partnerships and revenue generating opportunities in light of some of the new standards that we have for green construction.

>> having mutual benefit, i think we would entertain that proposal. >> another land comes to mind. we may not be the best developers in the world. public agencies do not really do this work all that well, so we have had these. when you really think you can get rid of the land, you give it to somebody else to develop, and you are in the money that you can earn, and then you take your hands off. there is no policy to do it, but in the past, it has been very difficult for the public agency to be a real developer.

president vietor: what about some sort of rubric that would maybe score some of these kinds of priorities that it seems we are trying to get at here, and it has community benefits, or it has the equity component or the green component or the work force development piece, and there is some system if you use a rating system, and you could drill it down to more of a case by case basis if you needed to, having your overarching principles, and then maybe things are even included like a city ordinance, a building, so if it adds up for development, rating system more executive orders. that gets extra points because there is a food growing peace that might help, and i do not know if that would come up to

the commission level. this one out of 100 got 90, so we decided this was the most inappropriate for growing food or selling off the parcel. >> i think we can do that in a passive way. the other is do we want to make active, to go out and make all of the facilities available for dog walking, for growing food, so part of it, we have tended to be a passive organization, where we wait and see what comes to us, but we can also change that policy if we think there is an active thing that we want to do or whatever it might be, and i am not trying to push one thing in particular. this is really to get your thoughts. president vietor: i think you have hit on a very good part. it just sits there, and that is

foolish. there should not be anything that is idle. we should be utilizing everything for whatever reason, and i think that is the main thing, as opposed to say the overall policy is x, y, and z. i think we just have to take it, side by side, and decide what to do with it, as opposed to letting it sit there. president vietor: there is not an unlimited universe of uses, right? things that we may not be actively doing, community gardens which we are doing in some places, but maybe food growing is on a more pro-active list. this is maybe a way we can do

this side by side. commissioner: have we looked at this? >> no, we have not. someone with real estate, waste water, barbara hale. we are trying to work to the properties and see what would be compatible secondary purpose given the to the purpose, whether it is water, sewer, power. there is one that took more than one decade to clean up the side.

all along that river -- >> along that river, there were areas that many were trying to develop. there was one that created a 25-mile monorail at the port of long beach. it passed the legislature unanimously, and one donor, wilson, had him veto it, so the proposal never got off of the crown.

and this would in some cases minimize gang activity. >> for recreational purposes along the watershed, it may be something along those lines. we do have some property, as commissioner caen has pointed out, and we are creating a list for you. this is a great suggestion, and we will look into it. president vietor: commissioner moran? commissioner --

commissioner moran? commissioner moran: the triple bottom line, you can see whether or not that feels right. this seems like a pretty simple question. should we seek to maintain ownership of land that does not have the utility purpose?

let's somehow get rid of it. this creates some other problems. then you have to turn over for this position. this depends on what happens on the land.

so a simple policy question -- commissioner: did we not get the money? commissioner moran: yes. commissioner: so it is not in the charter, and it goes to the general fund. >> it stopped the transfer of funds to the general fund. this went straight to the pc.

we get the revenue for it. -- it went straight to the puc. >> is your microphone on? >> the city attorney's office. when the charter amendment in proposition e, it was changed so that the commission not only determines the surplus of the water department, but it also has to be determined to be surplus for the power enterprise and the waste water enterprise, and one of the things i know we need to work on is creating an appropriate process for making that about erasion -- for making

about that. >> there was something on a portion of that parcel, so we cut that out, and now that is a waste water assets, and the remainder of the property was sold to the recreation and park department and the mayor's office on housing. commissioner moran: it does strike me as the easiest to use. how do you go outside of policy and be true to the policy itself? >> i think that is right. i think we could come up with at least as strong man of some general principles and some values related to that, which might include something like public benefit, so that this really stays a surplus question.

this is integrated into the property. this is a core value that we hold. there are city ordinances that we need to comply with. the reason we have gone into this space is that there was an executive order. there was a mayor's directive. there are other pieces. cca, i do not know where that will go. but as part of the build up, it may be important to look as part of energy generation. maybe there is a sidebar to our principles and values that say that these values also need to come into play, short of doing

too much of the rubric of methodology, but it is something that we are keeping track of, and i would like this to be a framework overall it will not be horribly difficult, but it is true. >> you have given us a lot of information. we can give you some thoughts and bring it back to you. commissioner: when?

because i know this has taken some time and has been a big project. >> maybe we need to have another discussion because we hit a roadblock. commissioner moran: i was looking through some of my old stuff, and there was something involving be keeping -- bee- keeping, and that asked about another agenda item. that is one of the longer emails i have seen recently.

how can we keep this cogent enough and meaningful enough and then put it up on the web or something so somebody who has some design on our land cannot please look up and say. president vietor: commissioner collurtney -- courtney? commissioner courtney: i do not look at this in the same way as commissioner caen. looking at how we can articulate

that, that would help me along, with all due respect. i look at the reservoir, and first tennessee buildings, but then i see solar panels, which is not that bad, and on the of shaughnessy, -- i can also see buildings. >> some things just cannot happen at those sites. >> i know we have a couple of other items that are coming up that are action items that are related somewhat to this land use discussion, and i know that there are some members of the public that want to probably say a word or two, either now or on those items, so i think, and if

you can keep your comments to three minutes with the spirit of this being a workshop, if anyone would like to come forward with the issues we are sort of grappling with, we would love to hear your comments and input, as well. please come forward. quikscat afternoon. again, david. let me speak to the general issues and hold my comments on the urban thesis of the next two items. this was a good discussion and maybe needs to be a longer discussion. a couple of things that come to mind on the charter provisions, the puc is somewhat unique in having not just jurisdiction over property and operations but exclusive jurisdiction, and there was a city attorney memo some years ago on what exclusions jurisdiction means -- on what exclusive jurisdiction

means, and other city and it is, so they cannot say, "oh, you will do so and so with your property." you really have a lot of control over the property and this land use policy framework is very important. there may be liability issues, and if we cannot build a trail which has ada access, then what are we getting into, so maybe we do not want new parks? but we do want them, so how do you balance that? they have looked at the

criteria. another thing that occurs to me is that the puc, both wastewater enterprise and water enterprise has a lot of property -- it is bifurcated, and there are issues with dpw. dpw also has their corporation yard, not far away, but these are sort of does contiguous properties. -- discontiguous properties. to cluster. as we are looking at rebuilding southeast, i will dig up some

correspondence from a few years ago, whether it is merced manner or the various reservoir s at permittees sidewalks can be used more for passive recreation. we can be a better neighbor. this is a good initial discussion. president vietor: thank you. any comments? any comments on this item?

>> thank you for your comments. just real quickly because i do not want to overdo it on this item, but we said something about public works. we do not have a relationship with public works. the office building idea, do you have any other information, or have you been looking at it closely, or did you just throw that out? >> i have looked at that over the years. it occurs to me that there is a lot of spread out things south of chaves, some of which are coordinated, some not. we have got our sewer operations folks south of the yard and all of that, and there are good reasons to cluster and coordinate some of that. a lot of these are low-level, spread out, one-story things.

you could surplus some of the property and actually do something more meaningful with it. we have got trucks all over the place. it is that sort of thinking, and i am not saying that staff has done this. but we have, because it is cross agency, not coordinated as well as we could. >> thanks. president vietor: yes, i think this is a big issue and a big conversation, and we have just hit the tip of the iceberg. i hope we have the time to tease out some of the issues that have been brought up, and i think we will have something more fleshed out to comment on and look at. anything else on this item? next item, please. secretary housh: a pilot program on lands and conduct a

feasibility study about the pilot's side. -- the pilot site. >> assistant general manager for external affairs, and commissioner courtney, you said you can imagine buildings. i would like to close your eyes and imagine food. hi, to you in a couple of months, we may have a triple bottom line further developed. in the absence of that, we had wanted because we had been working on this item for quite awhile with regards to moving forward an approach on property that the puc owned, there is a secondary use opportunity and ways that can be consistent with other efforts that are underway by the larger city family with

city property and food growing that we wanted to come today with this item. so, we're asking you to take action to direct the general manager to conduct a feasibility assessment for food growing on two sides that are owned by the puc. college hill reservoir, which is a what the deputy city manager showed on his presentation, and the southeast treatment plant, which is another side that he shared, and the goal is to have an agriculture program on these two sides. at the workshop earlier demonstrated, cpuc owns a range of property. the commission is responsible for managing these properties for the benefit of the rate payers. they all come back for approval by the commission. the proposed pilot program to advance the city goals with sustainable food production. in july of 2009, the mayor o