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 of san francisco issued a general order, which has them take action consistent with the goal francisco. it required all of the departments, including the puc, to conduct an audit of our land that would be suitable for food producing land, and in april of this year, the san francisco board of supervisors passed the agricultural ordinance, which amended the zoning code to allow small-scale farming in areas previously deemed residential. since january of this year, we have been working closely with different partners and with commissioner vietor, the

agricultural alliance, to work with us to tell us how the puc can better align itself with the city ordinance, and we did a quick assessment looking in city properties and at issues such as location, flexibility, lot size, compatibility with other lands sizes and he uses, and impact, as we tried to figure out if there are some examples that we could move forward for this pilot demonstration around urban agriculture, and so through that process, we identify did college hill and the treatment plant, and the next step that we're proposing for you today is for you to give the general manager permission for the feasibility study of these two sites, that would look at things like limited liability, with secondary use, the benefits around that, looking at being

able to easily disposed of the secondary use it to me before primary years, and then the hope would be that we would be able to come back to you all within six months after that feasibility study is done for more direction on how to move forward, but, again, the puc has a history of doing small projects with growing food. we have not responded in detail to the city mandate around urban agriculture opportunities, and we are excited about this opportunity for property that we both need for use, but they are not being used at this and these potentially good opportunities for us to move forward on which to these projects. commissioner vietor:

commissionercaen? commissioner caen: i am in support of this, but have we decided it? my point is that we should also look at what other use these properties might hold for us, our approach to our last discussion, our, what did we call it, workshop, because i think that is important. i do not think we should specify certain land that we have without investigating all different sources of use of that land. but i am very much in favor of the concept of a pilot program. >> ok. president vietor: yes, i am very

excited about this program, because we got the ok from the mayor, and we completed the audit, and there have been a lot of important steps. there is a lot of interest in urban agriculture and all we can do and all the value that provide the round of job creation and life skills training and trinity benefit, and self-reliance and all of the issues that we have talked about in conjunction with an urban agriculture pilot program. you know, six months sounds like an awfully long time for me to do a feasibility study. >> we agree. and the general manager also agrees. commissioner: i would like to make a friendly amendment to shorten the time without burdening the staff, so i guess i would like to hear whether

three months or 60 days would be overly burdensome, because i think there is a lot of good work going on out there where once this was done, important groups would come together to help move along, so that would be one friendly amendment that i want to do it. and then i would also like to see if this could include not just food growing but other urban agricultural activities. i do know that some are here recently launched a food policy group. i know that one of the things that they are grappling with is the definition of what urban agriculture is and whether that would include things like bee keeping and some of the of the things already going on on puc lands, so whether it would be expanded to include other urban

agricultural activities, to be defined, in the resolution, as part of the feasibility study. >> commissioner, the resolution does not specify a time. but in the item itself, getting how fast it would get done, that is of the spring 2011 got in there. we can do it as fast as we can possibly do it. >> probably 90 days. president vietor: snow in the for the result, to determine whether this is a compatible use and to return within 90 days? so that would be my friendly amendment, and if there are other comments on that -- other

comments on this item, and then we can open it up. commissioner moran: i support that. there is also the discount lease rates. there is a question of what you hope that over time these enterprises will be able to not only provide food but also be economically sustainable, and that puts them into the realm of commercial enterprises at some point. we will need to wrestle with even though these people -- what is our attitude toward that? >> maybe that can also be included in the feasibility? president vietor5: -- vietor:

what comes to mind is all of the marijuana growing. >> we represent the gardners. >> maybe we can take this amendment and have some public comment? is there a second? so, public comment, please. >> good afternoon. i am -- the tender line -- tenderloin garden. president vietor: i am really impressed, thinking. >> my heart is really jumping with joy. you know, this plan will be

turned into agriculture, like community garden. to tell you honestly, every day in my life, every day i am in the garden, people really admire the garden, and when i started working there, i am already 60 plus, i am a senior, i do my two hours working every day in the garden. my heart is really getting bigger every day, because people every day, they really love the garden, and they say "we wish we could have more gardens in san francisco, to speak so maybe this is the right time, and my heart is really jumping with joy when i learned from lorenzo, my supervisor. he said, "this is your opportunity to say what you want," because i am always

shouting, especially with the citizens advisory council, and that there should be more gardens to be opened in the heart of the city. since i acquired a job last year, we have already produced like 2,000 pounds of vegetables, and this went to the people, owners in the tenderloin. even the federal government people. so this is the right time maybe, and i appreciate the puc. the public lands,