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 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 constrains the ability to get a permit for the vista grande project. putting the vista grande water back in the lake constitutes a new discharge under the clean water act and you cannot permit a new discharge while a body of water is impaired and we have to come up with a solution of the impairment of lake merced. we're looking at lake mixing and potential runoff controls as potential ways to do that. this will be a responsibility that san francisco has as part of the lake, we own the lake. the problem is ours. so we'll be bringing a project forward

to deal with the water quality issue in lake merced. the question that came up, particularly at the hearing out in lake merced was impacts from the pacific rod and gun club and lead and in the water column we have not detected any lead. lead itself is not taken up through the other mechanisms that you see, mercury, big fish eating little fish over time and in the case of lead, the effects where it's actually ingested directly. so we have no evidence that fish are accumulating lead. but as part of the clean-up action out there, we're going to be performing an ecological risk assessment of any effects that lead in the lake might have to make sure that we're all quite confident that either it is or it isn't causing a problem. and if it's causing a problem, we have to do something about it. at least our evidence so far it's not causing a problem. so

in conclusion, lake merced is central to three key water supply projects west side recycled water project, local groundwater and the groundwater storage and the vista grande will help improve the system and moderate the effects of the project and again, all of these things tie together and hang together or sink together. >> any other questions? >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. ritchie. mr. decosta, you wanted to comment on item 7? >> commissioners, i wanted to comment on item 7 on the digester timeline, as well as what was spoken about lake merced. because of the time

constraints, i am just going to be talking about the digester timeline. so on this website, where all the timelines will be posted we would like to know the benefits to the community when the oakdale was built and all the certifications that were available? like being a registered nurse, being a certified chef, and so on and so forth? if these were available at one time, what happened over the years? and what plans are sought by sfpuc to have some certified programs in the future? no. 2, a lot has been spoken in a very superficial manner, we would like to know really state of the affairs of the outfalls,

the old ones and the new ones. we have an outfall that goes stark center of pier 1, where the watershed is. the guy doesn't know, but the force main is under his building and we want to know the state of that force main. some years ago, some stupid people dug threw conduits under that main and comprised it and we want to know what type of mitigation and evaluations have been done over the years, so we can find out the real state of that that takes over 300 million gallons of what we call secondary affluents to the pipes. and find out what are the states of the wheels? and how are they impacting the bay? how are they impacting the air?

we also would like to know all the necessary factors over all the years, where gas was spewed into the air, linked to the digesters? one time methane gas was 2 tons of carbon dioxide and who was affected and we want to know finally about a precautionary principle. i have stated this before and you should read about the precautionary principle and how do you all attempt to use the precautionary principle? especially your assistant general for external affairs? thank you very much. >> commissioner courtney. >> thank you, president. >> francisco, could you come

up again? i want to hear again, because no. 1 i know you were trying to get an exhaustive list in there during the allotted time. can you restate no. 1 for me again? >> no. 1 is as part of the mitigation, we built the 1800 oakdale facility. and at that time, when we built it, we had certified courses. you could be a registered nurse. you could be a master chef. you could be a master tailor and so on an so forth. that is part of the history that your staff should give to you. right now, we have very little of that, because everything is mickey mouse. very few of the courses that you take there can give you a career. so that is no. 1. and included in that, a lot of the people that went to those

courses joined the unions and a lot of our strong union membership came because of the 1800 oakdale facility, something that is lost, because history has not been very kind to those years. but we are very lucky, like your chair and some others -- mr. anson moran and others know a lot about the community. and so indirectly and directly, they can connect the dots. so we have lost a lot of really savvy people, who benefited a lot from that institution; that today does not produce the caliber of once that institution was very proud to produce. i am off to the port authority. thank you. >> you are off to where? >> port authority. >> where are you going? >> the ferry building. you are just going to leave us

like that? [ laughter ] >> thank you, mr. decosta. i believe mr. allen wanted to comment on the lake merced report by mr. ritchie? >> thank you, commissioners, dick allen, lake merced and first i'm sorry that my colleagues couldn't be here today, because this is a great day. i mean lake merced is getting the recognition that it deserves. it is obviously central to key 3 water supply projects, just to quickly summarize, which we have all been working on together and i want to thank mr. ritchie for this presentation. thank you. but this does raise some questions that we can think about in future, because now that lake merced has come to central court, so to speak, we would like to know what is the storage capacity of the west side basin aquifer?

as you know we're now referrings to the west side basin aquifer as north and south, north of lake merced and south of lake merced. so we don't know what the capacity of this aquifer is and it's been studied over and over and over again. you have spent millions of dollars studying this aquifer. what is the current water content of the west side basin aquifer, both north and south? is it 50%? 75%? 90%? we don't know. it's not on your website. the big question is at what percentage level would pumping be suspended? and what would be the protocol? who is going to have that switch that goes "stop?" we need to know that. i mean the community needs to know that, because lake merced now is a really an expanded community water resource. how many wells can presently

pump water from west side aquifer? are these wells metereds? how much do they pump monthly and annually? and how do we know that the west side basin aquifer can support the 16 additional wells? as was stated in the slide, the vista grande project depends on solving water quality problems in lake merced and how are we going to do that? we are really interested in that. and on page 10 in the report, it talks about lake merced is identified as "impaired." and this we're all aware of and this is significant because it con strains the ability to obtain permits for the vista

grande project? does this compromise the project, because we're not sure how constrained fits into the process. my colleague dick morton has two pages of questions here, and he is sending them to you. unfortunately i have run out of time, but thank you for your patience, commissioners >> sure. commissioner vietor. >> yes, thank you so much for staying on us with the lake merced issues and i would encourage anybody through the eir process, that is really an opportunity to continue to watch and submit comments, and to help develop alternative scenarios. all of that, that is what the eir process is designed for and i would really encourage you, if you have an interest in lake merced to participate and continue your submitting comments in that way. thank you. >> any other comments? all right. any other comments from the general manager?

>> that concludes my report. >> thank you very much, mr. manager. consent calendar, does anyone want to remove anything from the consent calendar? you want to read it. >> thank you donna. >> item 18 a consent calendar, items 8a through i constitute the consent calendar are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission and will be acted upon by a single vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of commission or the public so requests in which event the matter will be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate item. >> all right. i see no removal requests. any public comments? there is one. yes, please come forward. i think you wanted to talk on the garden? mr. blair randal with the garden for the environment. >> my name is blair randal,

the executive director of garden for the environment and speaking in support of the 8a, this license replicates the -- replaces the revocable permit we currently operate under, approved by the commission in may of 2008 >> our organization has switched from its previousy fiscal sponsor to a new fiscal sponsor, the san francisco park as license, necessitating the reissue of this license. since 1990, the garden for the environment has taught the community gardening skills in which they can reduce water use at the parcel project at 7th and lawton street. for the last 230 -- 23 years we have taught these skills to more than 2,000 individuals

each year. our organizations offered workshops to adults and fieldtrips to 1100 san francisco schoolchildren. we have partner with the sfpuc for this work since fiscal year 07-0 and each year we meet with water and wastewater enterprise staff to draft the work. it complis with the national pollution prevention discharge elimination system permits. we are extremely excited continue our extraordinary collaboration under this new five-year revokal vockable permit. thank you, commissioners. >> thank you for your work. >> so moved. >> second. >> all those in favor, signify by saying aye? >> aye. >> opposed?

consent calendar is approved. comment comments on those issues we relegated to closed session? >> mr. president, item 9. >> i'm sorry, item 9. i'm ahead of myself. >> item 9 authorize the general manager to executive agreements with applicants for grant assistance for floodwater management. >> mr. president, members of the commission, emilo cruz, i have a very short slideshow for you. if we could have the visuals on the teleprompter, please.

it will assist property owners that might be subject to flooding during large storms during the winter years. our opening picture is to show that we're better off than we used to be, giving the flooding that exist in the city. the flooding that does happen in san francisco is contributed by three things in particular, by the natural topography of the city, with natural high points and low points and the size of the contributing drainage or watershed area that we're looking at and the downstream box and tide levels and to the extent that the water starts in the high points and comes down through the valley and has no place to go, it starts to create localized flooding problems. this particular map shows one of the area where we have repeated flooding at 17th and folsom tv street. as part of the sipp 20-year program we'll be putting in

gray and green infrastructure in order to abate the program. one of the projects at folsom is to put in a basin underneath a park being bottle built by rec and park to minimize the flooding that exists, but in the interim, we're proposing that grant program allowing homeowners to protect their homes during a storm. the backflow preventer would prevent backup and add to doors to prevent water from flowing in at low points in the property. we request your permission to move forward with the program, administer and again, it's available to all city rate-payers, who have experienced flooding as a result of a backup in our own sewer systems. >> what is the remedy that we're offering to homeowners? >> again, we're looking at

midterm -- we're looking at immediate, this is this program that the homeowner would implement. we would reimburse 100% of the cost, which would prevent the flooding into the build during the storm. >> what is the usual average cost for such a procedure? >> i don't have that number immediately available, but it's a relatively small amount. the flood barriers we're looking at about $6,000 per doorway for large commercial and garage doors and $2500 for doorway for pedestrian doorways. the backflow preventer is a $2500 unit. installation costs on both of these combined would probably be in the neighborhood of $2,000 to $3,000, so in general, each property has a different number of doors, different sized doors, but probably in the neighborhood of $10,000 per household. again, we would evaluate each grant and look at historically whether or not these properties

have shown flooding under previous storms and work with the property owners and dbi in the actual implementation, so we're sure that they are putting their systems in and preventing that flooding. in the midterm, we're looking at short-term capture, as i said at 17th and folsom, one of our largest areas. we're working with rec and park to build an 800,000 storage tank under the new park at 17th and folsom, so as the sewer system backs up, before it starts to move onto the streets and private property, we would be able to capture it into the 800,000-gallon tank and after the storm passes, deal with it post-storm after we have the capacity at southeast. of course, we're look at long-term and looking at green infrastructure projects. as an example, valencia and mission is a project that we hope to be able to remove millions of gallons of stormwater per year, which prevents it from ever getting t