proposals for water system improvement from did -- improvement program funded agreements to under 25 and authorize the general manager of public utilities to read advertise the request -- re-advertise the request and return to the commission with a recommendation for award. >> does anyone have an item that they would like to sever from the consent calendar? seeing no one, is there a motion? >> second. >> any discussion or public comment? all of those in favor? >> aye. >> those opposed? the motion carries. >> regular business. item number nine, discussion and possible action authorizing the

commission president to execute an employment contract between the san francisco public utilities commission, acting on behalf of the city and county of sentences go, with ed harrington, as general manager, on terms consistent with the existing contract with extending the expiration date from march 16 of 2012 to august 31, 2012, with provisions for further extensions by mutual agreement to no later than december 31, 2012. >> the contract expires on march 16 in he is set to retire by the end of august. i have spoken to the mayor and he has wholeheartedly supported some of the work that he is involved in currently. it has been close to available for the records and 10 days.

i would entertain a motion at this time. >> second. >> are there any questions from the commission or public comment? >> david [unintelligible] i am sad to see him go, but we will get to that when we get to that later in the year. perhaps the longer that he stays, the better. one technical correction for your consideration. on the third line, i believe that that should be where they carry forward the 2010 agreement. thank you. >> thank you. mr. jackson? >> i want to thank you for the motion that you just passed.

i was sad to hear that he was going to leave. i am glad you're keeping him for an extended time. he has done in excellent job and i have been able to work well with him without having any problems at all. i will be seeing you all later on. thank you for keeping him. i need him. thank you. >> we will let him know. >> thank you so much for pointing out that incorrect date. i would like to introduce an amendment that corrects it on the record. september 28, 2010, exhibit a.

>> where i make that correction , yes. >> all of those in favor of democratsaye. -- all those in favor? >> aye. >> any update on the surge? >> an update in just a second. all of those in favor? those opposed? the motion carries. i have spoken to the mayor. he is providing recommendations consistent with the charter for replacements.

we will be engaging in an executive search firm to bring information and candidates up for consideration. giving the mayor of time to consider the recommendations that we need, adding candidates in june or july. we will select a firm to work with us as soon as we possibly can. thank you. mr. secretary? >> mr. president, item number

10. discussion and possible action to adopt a framework for land management in use relating to the asset puc lands not otherwise subject to specific policy guidance including -- pieces or permits for secondary uses -- disposition of owned lands -- and acquisition land. >> what we have today, the first is a policy is the hierarchy of a policy, with procedures below that. we would consider the framework that gives you a broad document that allows you to make decisions on your lands. this is what we heard at our last workshop with you. we already have numerous policies that affect the land in

place today. you have watershed management plans that have been approved and in place for over 10 years. we have vegetation management policies. and we also have environmental stewardship policies. as we started to write this framework, we started to think -- what are we talking about? we started to focus on the lands in three specific areas. first and foremost, most of our lands find it is for the operation of the water, power, in sewer systems. the piece of land that functions as a watershed, treatment plant, and an electric substations. that is the primary purpose of this organization that requires lands. but we do look at the lambs as well as their secondary uses. that is where the leases and

permits, where we do issued the leases and permits for people to use them for a secondary purpose, it might be a playing field or a trail. the second area is -- what is the disposition of the land? no longer needed for the primary or secondary purpose, do you still retain those lands? under what conditions do you do that? the third thing is, when do you recall -- acquire lands? there is a property that wasn't in fill in the alameda watershed. for what quality purposes and water supply purposes? you look for those opportunities to acquire those lands. the framework is not intended so as to perform -- proposed to amend or revise the existing policies, rather bringing in a surface decision framework. we tried to approach it in a way, as you address it, where we

look at the actual land use framework and it talks about the economic environment community issues in each of those areas where we talk about it being the disposition of land or acquisition of land. what we are trying to do is give a tool to the commission so that they can make those decisions. as staff, when we bring forward any of those people to you, we can have the findings within the framework. tying it together with existing policies in real-estate guidelines, give us an overview for a better tool across the three enterprises that you correct today. i turn it back over to you for discussion, those are just might opening remarks. >> well, i want to thank you and the staff for working on this land use issue. i know that it has been many

years in and policies that have been developed. i know that there has been an interest in getting the understanding for what those individual pieces are, as well as providing a general framework for land use policies going forward. draining it under primary use in secondary use based on what we need as useful and what could be potentially available to dispose of, and to what end. i feel like we have several related items before us. i know that commissioner cain is interested in the questions, and we can more specifically talk about your interests and the information items that are an update from where we are on the 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 deleging 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