court -- pilot project. also, mostly related to the real-estate questions in leases, i do feel about having some comments from the members of the public that it might behoove us to continue the item for any kind of decision until the next meeting. so that we can give opportunity for additional public comments. this is an area of interest for a lot of community members. i would like to go to the citizens advisory committee for their thoughts and input as well. especially as we go back to reading through that committee. it would be great for the land use policy to make a stop there and get some review or additional thoughts. i would like to, if possible, mr. president, to hear what people are thinking. i do appreciate this coming

forward, because i would like to keep it moving forward in a timely manner. there is a lot in here as it relates to the real-estate questions, specifically. >> just for clarification, you are suggesting that item number 10 is not ready for action yet and we should do that. you mentioned some other items. is that also a lebron? >> i think that a lebron, i am interested in the questions around real-estate from commissioner cane. 11, i do not know that we are ready to entertain a motion, but there is a lot in that real- estate question. i would for sure proposed continuance on 10, possibly bringing 11 to action if the members of the public are comfortable with that.

i know that there has been comment and concern that we might want to integrate additional thoughts and reviews, since this is really the first time we have seen this body of work. >> let me also suggest that we call item no. 11, and we can discuss it at the same time as item number 10. >> certainly. discussion and possible action to approve real-estate service guidelines including delegation to the san francisco public utilities commission general manager or his designee where specified therein to take action to lease, permit, or license certain uses of real property under the commission's jurisdiction. >> i would like to know how you would like to proceed.

>> i take it that you have a brief presentation? >> i do. i would like to say that my piece is a small subset of this real-estate commission. i do not think that it should wait for the framework. has to do with the nuts and bolts of administering over 400 permits. i would like to be heard, rather than be subsumed into item #10. >> hold that thought. commissioners, how would you like to proceed? >> you have some particular issues, ron? >> i do about 11. specifically where it goes on to say that the new guidelines would supersede and replaced the production numbers. where are they?

where is the old? where is the new? >> may i address that? in your packet, you have a red line version of the old 1999 manual. it shows that we took out sections 1310, because they were outdated due to the changes in the law, puc policy, and police administration practice. >> it is quite a ways to go, as it is behind the new policy, commissioner. >> it to short circuit in the bed, we left with the existing policies and finance more of the procedures, including delegation of the authority to the general manager, consistent with delegations to have done in the past, taking out a lot of the

other extraneous information that is no longer applicable to how we run our real-estate division at this point in time. it does have an update an overview of the attorneys process, going through the letters in leases that we do right. it takes out the policy information behind, which is part of #10. item number 11 does have an update to the delegated authorities of the general manager and staff. i could not tell from this who have approval authority over subsequent changes. >> subsequent changes to the guidelines? >> yes, to the guidelines. >> to the guidelines portion?

>> i will let you. we would come back to the commission for any changes to the delegation to the general manager, or four changes in fees, because i do not feel it is within my authority, as real- estate director, to make that determination. >> i just want to ask, just to see, can you describe nuts and bolts? >> yes. we developed these real-estate guidelines to replace and out of date many will that my staff tells me was based upon a caltrans manual. there are changes in policy, changes in modern practice. we developed the realistic guidelines to respond to the

four audits in the department that had current impacts and are still not finished. we took the 1999 manual, extracted policy, and left out the operations. my staff and i are now drafting an operations manual that is not finished, because i wanted to have disapproved before we finish the operations manual. these guidelines will give the general manager limited authority to sign permits for five years or less. this is consistent with the general managers existing authority to sign leases for a term of five years or less, or sign contracts. anything that is below market value goes to a public agency or nonprofit commission approval requirement. guidelines change a few of the

fees, as i have found since we have been here that there is increasing pressure along the right-of-way for developers to use on land. the leases and permits that we issue required an increase in compensation for that. we left alone, in the 1999 manual, the encroachment policy that was amended in 2007. that is it in a nutshell. >> is it safe for me to say, to assume that these nuts and bolts changes are purely procedural? and that in substance, things would be left for the commission to work on? >> the commission will vote on all of our acquisitions below fair market rent leases.

we do not want to -- we want to avoid a possible gift to the public funds issue. we need your direction and approval for those items. >> short answer is, yes. >> sorry, i am a lawyer and cannot help but. >> can you briefly address the interface? >> certainly. the framework is a higher level document. when we go through and look at these secondary uses for a public agency, we want to use the right of way. is that aa ++fits into the land?

let's say that someone wants to farm. the primary uses for utility purpose, it is farming out loud? we would talk to the enterprising and see if that is compatible. we would look at it from the point of view of being a public agency. does it feature community benefit policies? does it meet the environmental goes -- environmental goals? doing it in a responsible way? from an economic standpoint, we would bring it to you because they would charge less than market value rent. finding that this was compatible and that we were willing to take this less than market value rent to meet the other criteria. guidelines are the operational part of it. the framework -- >> the framework says that the staff should be instructed as to how to do it. the one that is more reflective of our desire and intent would be the framework. >> correct. >> framework is more of the policy discussion, correct? >> correct.

if that is the case, could we indeed -- could be separate them? does it make more sense to address them both together? there might be policy to perform in both procedures. >> if you look at the guidelines, they are pretty much -- taken a and break it. it is a very operational sort of thing. the reason we are coming to you for your blessings is because it involves charging fees and delegations to the general manager and delegate. again, real-estate services cannot make these decisions. we need your authority. >> i view it as the framework sitting with the commission, that being the document that guides staff. the realistic guidelines, coming

%ei not going to change that much based on framework, unless you do something dramatic with it. it is a high-level document. we will always see how the two played together over time. >> you know the commissioners well. and if there is anything in either of these documents that you think either of us might get to? >> [laughter] >> not to be put on the spot, or anything. >> first off, i would agree that the framework document needs a bit more of a road show, feeling comfortable with it. making sure that they understand how the commission might think of looking at different pieces of property. it is what has everyone worried

out there in the public sector. i tend to agree. the second thing and the guidelines document -- is there a showstopper there? if you do not go comfortable linking them together at the same time, that is fine. we can continue on with our business for the next month or so. i do not see that there is a showstopper, from my perspective. >> that, to understand a bit better, let's say that we determined through the framework with options that there is secondary use like urban agriculture. we wanted to try to offer some land for sub-market rates, or something. with the guidelines have approved those first? it is then delegating an authorized staff or general manager to determine those prices. >> the basement fair market

value guidelines cover that, if it is two public use -- let's say it was a church group, we would rent it to them for $1 per year. that is stated in the guidelines. if someone is renting it like a nonprofit or for-profit agency, but they are paying someone else for the use of adjacent property, they might say that they want to get half of the market value for that piece of property. that is what it has been. we have not changed that. that is what we are continuing to do, and work on. they would all have to come to you, whether it is $1.50 of market value, it would have to be approved. >> in point, the nonprofit policy comes from to 1999 -- two 1999 commission policies.

it has that changed. they are stated in these guidelines. >> if the commission changes or adopts new policy, there is provision in the guidelines for update? >> yes. >> that update would be done by staff? >> by the commission. we actually come back to you. >> ok. one answer is, if something comes out of a framework discussion that requires a change, that would be a follow- up action? >> that is my point. if we look at the framework and determined that -- determine that there is something in the guidelines, it would make sense to take them together. it might not happen, but. >> which is fine. i am perfectly fine with holding them over for another month in bringing them back to you.

having a bit more of a public discussion. once we completed that, bringing it back for adoption. >> ok. commissioners? that is the recommendation. to continue both items, i guess, for two meetings. any dissent to that motion? >> does that mean that we will not bring up the other real estate issues? >> we do have just an update on urban agriculture, another item that we could put off for another month. the other one was just on security deposits. it is your pleasure, of what you want to do. >> i am not concerned about that. i am looking at the parcels that

we might sell or do something with. >> i would come back in two meetings with that discussion. thank you for bringing that up. that would be good. ok. without objection, that is the order, to continue items 10 and 11 for two meetings. in the spirit of getting additional public input or comment on those items, recognize that they will come back. ms. jackson? >> i was not going to talk on this, i did not know it was on the agenda, but i would like for the young lady who is the head of your department, if there

had of that community college, when it was built, if the discussion during that time was january of 1976, then i hear about you doing something in 1999? i do not know if it is the framework or the policy for the southeast community college. i would like to say that i would like this young lady -- where are you at, honey? come here, baby. [laughter] because, you know, this is very important. when i learned in when i was checking on puc being over -- you know, the community college? i would check in on my own to see who that land was under. guess who it was? it is not under the water

department. the reason it was done that way , i am what they said was supposed to pay no taxes. the real-estate, whoever we pay it to, property tax and everything, they told me i am not paying property tax on it and they do not keep records there, but the city department has all the records that i was involved in at the time. [laughter] i would like to have information on how this transfer is supposed to take place. i know that we will be meeting and there will be discussions. i had never spoken to this one lady, but now we may be having contact, sweetheart. [laughter] meeting over what is and what is

not, in how we can stay together as a community in a city agency -- and how we can stay together as a community in a city agency. those of you that know me, you know what you see. but if i cannot understand it, you can never understand it. >> mrs. jackson, i have nothing to say at this time, but am happy to work with you in the future. >> thank you. any other comment on items 10 or 11, which will come back before us? >> i look forward to reviewing item number 10, if not 11, as part of the cac.

i did look at item number 11 in the binder. i look forward to seeing that to compare the changes. >> ok. >> back to item number 10, although this talks about both a policy in a framework, i am confused if the framework is actually the policy. what we talked about before, maybe we just change the terms. i think it is good, but it needs to get better. that is what we're talking about happening. we're talking about the secondary uses. then disposing in acquiring. i guess i would think of it more in terms of using for

utility purposes a section that is not here at all? i think that the use of property for utility purposes, the good neighbor things that we do and how we operate, it is a half page snapshot with a triple bottom line analysis that puts more it was referenced at the beginning. the other thing in the environmental discussion is the promotion of the environmental benefits, such as urban agriculture, or other uses consistent with good environmental stewardship of the land, whether it is by the puc

cuor others, that perhaps in the future we would not want someone to take a piece of property and develop a new golf course, understanding that existing ones do not turn them over to an existing state. i would think that we would, going forward, create a new golf course on existing puc property. to the extent that there are environmental management practices needed, they would be the responsibility of the secondary user. that is somewhat in here, but it can be more clearly stated. let me leave it on item number 10. we will have more of an opportunity to work on this in the next month. i think that this is very important stuff for the present and future of what the

commission has planned. >> let me ask a clarifying question. you are saying that this primary and separate -- secondary should be 90-20 moves? >> i did not see language in here about utility uses of properties. all of the watersheds, we do things on that property in with those properties for utility services. we can explain that, i think, use in thetbn tbl approach as well, putting into better context of what else we do for properties not under utility purposes. >> thank you for clarifying. >> any additional public comment on items 10 or 11? seeing none, those will be continued to the first meeting in march. mr. chairman, items 12 and 13.

>> pardon me. item 13. pardon me, item 12. >> 13. >> 13. discussion and possible action to authorize the san francisco public utilities commission general manager, or his designee, to waive security deposit increases for certain existing loop -- for certain existing leases and permits with annual grants of $5,000 or less and amend those leases and permits. >> commissioner, this is a pretty straightforward item. is this right for action today? of >> i would introduce a motion. >> and a second. >> any discussion? >> any public comment? seeing no one, miss jackson?

>> would this include -- is the separate from the southeast facilities coming into town? >> and none of the security deposits referencing these motions belong to the southeast. >> i am just going to restate that my understanding, as i am meeting pretty consistently with staff, ms. lewis, getting a pretty clear understanding of the southeast facility. as long as there is nothing related to that, i am perfectly ready to move forward. i have kind of taken it on myself to move forward with a goodç relationship with staff n

this. ç>> your answer to ms. jackso's question was that there was nothing in here that affected the a semblance? >> correct. this motion has to do with some low rent security leases and permits, where we collect very miniscule increases every year in security deposits. in response to audits that it suggested that we obtain a resolution. we do not have to collect them anymore. it would release ease the administrative burden not to have to collect that increase every year. let's ok. we have a motion in a second and have received public comment. all of those in favor of the motion?

>> aye. >> can those amounts of money be collected every five years? >> the commissioner would still require authorization from the commission, as well as an amendment to each lease with a blanket resolution. we do like to collect them annually, so that we get income annually from the puc. >> was that an aye? >> yes. >> the motion carries. thank you. item 12, i would like to continue to a future meeting. if that is susceptible? >> second. >> i was just going to suggest, since it is just a presentation and there are speakers here on that, we might want to hear a presentation. i do not think that there was

action on that and i do not think that it precludes further discussion. >> just a matter of time, if we're going to put the items over. but that is correct. >> we're just trying to manage time to get to the budget items today. >> let me see the hands of people were here to talk about item 12. >> if we could just take those comments white -- while you are here. recognizing that we will come back with a full presentation. if you have something you would like to deliver to us now, this would be the time. thank you. >> commissioners, speaking in the absence of the presentation, we had a meeting with staff yesterday