thank you. >> mr. president, may i just add that when you [gavel] down, the item is no longer before the board. >> so, again, under our rules, any supervisor may require that a resolution can go to committee. that is nondebatable. this will go to committee. so, with that, madam clerk, is there any more business in front of the board? >> yes, mr. president. today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following individuals on behalf of supervisor mar for the late sifu everett lee. and on behalf of supervisor cohen, supervisor kim, and supervisor breed for the late mr. david glover. >> all right. with that, ladies and gentlemen, i believe we are adjourned. [gavel] [adjourned]

[ gavel ] >> the meeting will come to order, call the roll, please. >> president torres? >> here. >> vice president courtney? >> here. >> commissioner moran? >> here. >> commissioners moller caen awn vietor will be arriving a little bit later. >> thank you a. proval of the minutes. can we read them, and are there any public comments before we move to a motion? there being none, is there a motion to approve the minutes. >> moved.

>> moved and seconded. all those in favor, signify by saying aye? >> aye. >> moved, motion carried. public comments? mr. decosta. >> commissioners, you all know this is your city and county of san francisco, and while we know, as the mayor says, that now over 35 cranes hovering over the city, there is a lot happening at the ground level. and one of the thing has there that i want to bring to the attention of the sfpuc, that all over the city, for example,

we have your department of external affairs, that supposedly deals with outreach and has to project and put a nice face to our city, a lot of work has to be done when it comes to the tearing up of our streets, linked with clean water pipes and the sewer pipes. i will give you an example: it's been two months now that the streets of san bruno avenue have been torn up, and people on both sides cannot use the space for parking. san bruno avenue has contributed millions of dollars to the city and while the merchants are quiet, unlike say, geary or the potrero drive

area, the city is taking advantage of it in many ways. our streets are not cleaned, potholes, millions of dollars are taken from our merchants and yet, how does

>> we were wondering with that might be calendared also? i have two more questions and maybe you are aware of this, but the $2 million rec and park department and puc boathouse partnership at lake merced is behind schedule and it's $400,000 overbudget now. area and we're just wondering who is going to be paying for this $400,000 overrun? and finally, under the public utilities commission real estate division and this report was dated february 8th, 2012 and was brought here before the commission several months ago. under section 20 you land use, this caught my attention. it says and this is quoted, "through its watershed

management plan the san francisco puc adopted specific land use policies for watershed lands. certain other lands, such as the lake merced tract, are the subject of specific land use polices." we're wondering what are these specific land use polices? or is till a work in progress? and will the public be involved in this process? thank you, commissioners. that is all i have. >> thank you, and you will be getting notice soon. >> thank you very much. >> all right, that concludes "public comments." any other public comments? >> mr. president, i just have a question for the general manager in response to the san bruno avenue question. >> okay. >> could we get some kind of written response as to how we

try to manage disruption in commercial areas like that and it's not uncommon to limit how many blocks you have open at the same time and what kind of consideration we're giving to that? >> yes. i will follow-up, but typically, there is a process that you go through, through the process where you coordinate with other utility companies. you also work with the merchants to minimize the impact. so i will follow-up and see exactly what has been going on. >> thank you. >> so mr. allen, i am thinking july. >> pardon me? >> i am thinking july for the issues that you raised. >> thank you very much. >> i'm sorry it's taken to long, but things require time. any other public comments? all right, we'll move to "communications." any public comments on "communications?" there being none we'll move on to "other commission business." is there none? we'll move on to the report of the general manager.

>> so first, i would like to mention to you that we have been working with the mayor's office, and the mayor has made a commitment to hire 6,000 youth this summer. so yesterday we had our opening ceremony for all of the youth that is coming on board to the puc. and we had about over 500 students that we are working with in various programs to come on board. so it was just a great event and i think commissioner vince courtney was there and also commissioner francesca vietor was there, along with supervisor john avalos and it was a great event. police chief was there. the sheriff was there, as well.

it was a great event. so that is something that we at the puc really plan to participate in a lot of youth activities this summer. the second item i would like to bring up is our sewer system improvement program. as you mentioned, that we were talking about the digesters and sort of what was the timeline of the digesters? so i wanted to bring up karen, do you want to do the intro? what is really great about this timeline is that we actually have documentation attached to each one of the events. the other thing that i want to point out, that this is a draft. we're going to work with the community, who may have some other history that we will do some research, but all the timelines we have actual hard documents with it.

and we plan to put it on our web as you guys requested, the commission requested. so with that lehman. >> president torres and members of the commissioner, good evening, my name is lehman abrams and i work in the area of communications. and per your request we have responded by providing a history of the sewer system improvement program, as well as timeline of the digesters, which is now available on our website. and the public can find it at the sipp -- history at the sipp and there is a ling that lings you to the timeline and if i can switch you to the computer, i can walk you

through it. the digestor facility timeline is available at the sfpuc website and we have identified major categories and key activities, which constitutes the major milestones since the plant first came on operation in 1952. i can highlight some of the activities that occurred during that time. for example, in 1996. the clean water enterprise was transfered to the sfpuc, in 1998, san francisco voters approved proposition h. and as a result, there whereas no increase in sewer charges for an eight-year period beginning in 1996 through 2003-2004. the wastewater k-12 improvement project was removed from the ballot measure and we undertook the sewer system master planning effort and i want to

add that the southeast digester task force and members of the public were extremely instrumental during this planning process from 2011-2012, the sipp program workshops were held with this commission, can led of course to the validation of the program and this commission directing staff to move forward with phase 1 of the program. of course the most recent commission meeting may 28th, the commission approved the selection of firms to provide design and engineering services for the biosolids digester project. the general manager and the staff want to acknowledge the history as a way to underscore the efforts of current general manager, past commissioners, current gm and staff, elected officials and the public who really merit a lot of acknowledgment and responsibility for getting us to the point that the project is today. and the history is important and the focus is obviously on the current, significant momentum that has been developed over the last several months and obviously, there is

clear momentum with this commission, and this sfpuc management to move the program forward expeditiously and just to conclude, this is available at our website as the general manager indicated, we will continually update this information. we see this as part of the oral history of the digester project and we'll use it as part of our efforts to provide outreach. so we think we can use it in providing education to students and the young people as parts of our traveling exhibits at public libraries and things of that nature. if you have any questions, i would be glad to answer them. thank you very much, commissioners. >> any questions? >> i would like to add this is a summary version. we have a more detailed-level of every activity that has happened. and so are we going to have that online as well? >> yes, sir. >> yes. so we have meetings and the dates of all the

meetings that we had, with the task force. and so we have a pretty extensive documentation. >> i think this timeline is really great. actually when i first saw it, i thought it would be great in the lobby of the puc building -- i don't know if that would work, but to be able do that at certain strategic times as we're rolling out the program, so people are really tracking this project is underway and the timeline -- i don't know how difficult that is? >> we can do it. >> thank you, commissioners >> thank you. >> an appropriate number of nods of the head. [ laughter ] >> okay. so the next item is steve ritchie, water supply projects related to lake merced.

>> i will give some comments on the digester and the timeline? >> of course, i was waiting for everything to be finished bit general manager's report and ask for public comment. >> two minutes for two major topics? >> i don't make the rules, mr. decosta. those are the ones we have to follow. >> steve ritchie, assistant general manager for water. if we could bring the slide show, please? regard ing mr. allen's questions, this is one of those items, commissioner vietor asked about the lake merced and the water project and the water quality and how they tie together? so what i will do today is talk about the local projects in the vicinity of lake merced have effects on lake merced and how it all ties together. first, about the water supply

projects. we committed back in 2008, in the adoption of the wsip to levels in surface that limited delivery to the watershed and commitment to diversity our current portfolio. in addition, we also had a systemwide shortage target of not more than 20%, our goal there. so we had to do things in times of drought as well to protect our service area. in looking at how things fit together at lake merced, there are a number of projects that actually affect the lake both its level and its water quality. there depicted in this very simple diagram, starting from the right to the left, there is the west side recycled water project, which doesn't affect the lake directly, but does affect your ability to do the san francisco groundwater project, the local groundwater project and the groundwater project has an effect on the level of lake merced.

the groundwater recovery project is the joint project with daly city, et cetera and it affects the left of the lake. the sewer system project will affect runoff into the lake, so the quality of lake will be affected by the system improvement program and finally, the vista grande project is a project that daly city is pursuing that i mentioned a couple of times to the commission that would provide more drainage into lake merced and we want to make sure that is of high-quality and there is a little i that i want to highlight for the commission that it's a problem that we have to solve. the interrelated projects are listed here. with the supply levels we expect from these in the case of regional groundwater storage and recovery project, that is

dry-year supply 7.2npg and it's focused on dry-year benefit for the system. also there is one typo here from the version you have. it's phase 2 completion of the san francisco groundwater project would be in 2018, not phase 1. let me talk about each these individually. first the west side recycled water project is proposing to irrigate golden gate park plus lincoln park and presido and environmental review begins later this year. the key thing there is that as by irrigating golden gate park, we'll be able to shift the groundwater that is pumped into golden gate park for irrigation purposes to potable supply for the city. that is why recycled water is a piece of this, to shift the grounds water and use recycled water of lesser quality for landscape irrigation. the san francisco groundwater

supply project proposed supplying 4mgd from the west base aquifer on the west side of the san francisco. it's a very productive aquifer there and blending that with regional supplies and that water will be distributed throughout san francisco. the blue area is the part that would actually receive that blend of water. most of san francisco will get a little bit of groundwater mixed in with their hetch hetchy supply and this is one of our key water local supply projects that services in normal years and dry years. the groundwater storage and recovery project -- let's me you back one second. i meant to make a project about the local project. we just closed the comment period on the environmental impact for that and that project is basically in the period of response to comments and we hope to wrap those up by the end of the year and be able to bring the project to you for consideration. for the groundwater storage and recovery project, this is a

conjunctive use project and the idea is that we would deliver more hetch hetchy delivery water and cal water represents southern in wet years not to pump the water in wet years and the table would rise over time and in dry years we would say we'll deliver less hetch hetchy to you and pump groundwater. we're moving storage from hetch hetchy and that will account for again about 7.2 million gallons per day during the 7.5-year dry cycle, which is really critical to us. and the last project here is the vista grande drainage basin improvement project that drains through lake merced through a canal and tunnel to the observe.

the canal and tunnel are undersize and there are improvements there. that will actually put water directly in, as i commented before. we're working with daily city on that and one of the things that we're doing as part of that project in their eir is analyzing potential target lake levels that we would operate the project to help achieve. and we'll be bringing that package forward when daly city completes its environmental impact report and we start to talk about how to participate in that project. this is the kind of the punch line rear view mirror to lake merced. each one of those projects by itself and i don't have the vista grande project up here, does have an effect on the lake level. the numbers in the red boxes are the typical water levels that would be achieved as a result of each these projects. in the case of doing none of

the projects typical level is 6.5 feet and just the storage recovery providing more recharge to the basin, you see the average level rise up, so the lake level will end up being higher because typically we would have more water in the ground withoutt water, which feeds the lake. doing just the san francisco groundwater project, you see the number goes down, because it relies on taking water off the top of the aquifer. each one of those two projects by itself, pushes the lake away from the current conditions that are working for us at the lake. lastly, when you put those two projects together with the vista grande project, typically you would end up at 6 feet or very close to where the lake is now. we can adjust these and operate them somewhat differently, but the basic message when you put the three of those together, it's basically they counteract each other and we have a net reasonable effect only the lake. if you do just one or the other

of two groundwater projects you push the lake the wrong way, one way the wrong way and one way the other way and the other thing to mention is the bars around the edge represents the range of conditions. one thing we do need to understand here, in times of drought, you know, the lake level would naturally drop and it will drop as well using the different projects. so that normally, the lake will be at a good level, but in time of drought when we are all suffering, the lake will suffer as well and we'll have to find ways to manage around that. >> go ahead. >> the chart is confusing to me. >> okay i had another one that is more confusing. >> so this sounds like the groundwater and the watershed, right? which is vista grande. >> yes. >> you don't want to activate them, if you will, at the same time, because they will counteract each other? >> in terms of the lake, the

projects, if you just did the ground water recovery and storage, the lake would be higher than it is now, pushing more into the basin, so the groundwater comes up. if you did just the san francisco groundwater project, you would lower the ground water level because you are pumping water out and that would lower the lake level. if you did it just by itself, that is what the effect is. i didn't put vista grande here by itself, but if you add the two projects together, their effect and build in a scenario for management of the vista grande, you end up at a reasonable level, as one of my staff likes to say, it's the three bearsment one is too much, one is too little and the third is just right. >> and you are goldilocks. [ laughter ]

>> i am. >> are we trying to get the lake higher. >> yes. that is the surface level of the lake. the numbers here, there are different datums that are used. this is what is called "city datum," a particular measure and standard. >> what is the elevation that we testified at our workshop of 25'? >> i think the term 27' was mentioned. >> right. >> that is a different datum and that is actually a bit higher than that. i think the point relative to the lake level -- >> i am confused as commissioner vietor is. i don't understand these numbers and how they are relevant to the 27'? >> it's a different dat up than the 27' this. is the one that we typically use and it actually reported on our website, we have -- >> i don't really care where it's located, it's confusing.

>> that is ndvda. >> the only scenic river in my district, the l.a. river. >> if you converted the 27-feet to city datum, what would it be? >> i think the conversion is about 12 or 13 feet, something like that. i don't recall exactly. >> so we're still behind then? >> again, as i sea said in the vista grande project we're working with daly city for approval levels. >> this is what our current proposals are, but when you have conversations with daly city, you might come back and say this 6 number should really be closer to 9 or 12 number?

>> yes, actually the people talked about a range from 5-7 and 7-9 and we're looking at the whole range of 5-9 city datum as the op operable range for the lake. we have actually been able to keep the lake for the last seven years, i think it is, between about 6 and 8'. so it's relatively stable right now and i think it's working well for us. again, we'll go through that analysis through the daly city eir for you to take as a responsible agency, this is what you think about it and grant a permit to daly city that will build facilitis to help manage the lake levels. >> if we're talking about 27' and that corresponds to 12' of city datum, is it true that we are not looking at that anymore? that it looks as though that is a standard that we set with one set of

knowledge and that today, we're thinking in different terms, is that right? >> yes. >> so if there continues to be an expectation that 27' is an achievable number over the long-term, that is something that we need to clarify? >> yes. >> and that the real number is something less than that? >> yes >> okay. >> just to finish that, so the way we're going to get up to that optimum number, in addition to cirr, wouldn't there be additional factors that would play into why the lake should be at a higher level? >> the eir will be basically analyze and the ceqa analysis

will be done through their document of the impact of keeping it 5', 6', 7', 8'. >> through the process we should get the optimum number of what the lake should be? >> yes and it should probably be a range we ended up. >> have you received an answer to your fish question? >> i have not yet, but it's probably coming. >> oh, okay. >> on water quality, there is a number of things to point out. we have been monitoring the lake regularly since 1997. lake merced is officially designated as "impaired" for dissolved oxygen and high ph and that is a listing pursuant to the section of the clean water act, and as "impaired," that carries particular consequences with it. and so it's significant because a, we need to solve the problem. but b, it