negotiate in public, i have done it before, but i will give you my views on the tier 1 split. as it currently stands and this is true of any agency, during a drought an agency's customers like your own, your retail customers may conserve significant amounts of water just because it's in the news. and they feel the public obligation to do so. and you end up with a greater allocation than you need. you already have a greater allocation than you need, if your customers conserve and i'm sure they would during a drought, you would even more water than you need. and that could be given to the wholesale customers. when i say "given" i don't mean given for free. the way the system currently works is everybody pays proportionate to how much they use. so if you deliver more water to the wholesale customers they pay for it and

they would, in fact, pay a greater portion, percentage of the annual costs of the system, which are largely fixed. so it would be to your advantage to sell to the wholesale customers, you would make more money than just leaving it sit in the reservoir. that sounds nice and simple. it's too simple. there are environmental benefits to consider. there are all kinds of things to consider. and one of which would be the political risk you might take by having your customers rationing or conserving by having, perhaps, penalties impose and at the same time, selling water to someone else above the allocation. i wouldn't explain that to your customer, but leave that to you. there are obstacles, but it would be the cheapest alternative for us in terms of

reliability. if we could achieve certainty with that, in other words, an agreement that that would happen, that would be a tremendous benefit to the region. when i say that, i think it's safe to say that it's not just the wholesale customers versus the retail customers. people in san francisco, who live in san francisco, and work in san francisco and visa versa, this is a regional issue that sometimes it's too easy to draw dividing lines and say it's us or them. we need to think about it together. >> it's one of these circumstances that i think there was is a useful parallel, that there are surpluses throughout the system in excess of our allocation in san francisco and also in some of the wholesale customers. so i think about what it would take

to say, well, we really don't need a portion of the supply we have spent good time and money generating. we think we should allocate it to the wholesale customers. that is a difficult decision for the san francisco board to make, no more difficult than for palo alto to say something similar about the surplus that they have. so this is a case where the issue is equally troubling for you and us. and i think it means that none of us are in a position we can take shots at the other. we can't look to your surpluses and you can't look to ours and there are issues to be thought of in a very deliberate and responsible way. >> well, if we do, we know where the club is. any other comments? questions? any public comments? thank you very much, art.

appreciate it very much. consent calendar, please. public comments? statement sorry i didn't have a listing for you. >> my apologies, i didn't turn in a card. i want to commend your staff, i think they have done a great job coming up with alternative sources, conservation, recycling and groundwater to a great degree. at the trust we have a concern with a couple of the projects, water transfers and the storage and recovery project which has a lot of merit to it, but our concern is that these projects would take more water off the middle tuolumne below o'shaughnessey dam. our concern is that in the

'80s, the puc wanted to add a turbine to the kirkwood powerhouse and the department of interior agreed to that, but required a biological study downstream between o'shaughnessey and early intake and there be an adaptive management plan. there was a draft study that fish and wildlife produced in '94 that recommended an increase in releases from o'shaughnessey about 35% on average. and that report was never finalized and that was a requirement of this agreement. and a few years ago we brought this to the attention of the puc and we reached an agreement there would be a study in adaptive management plan that is now called "the upper tuolumne ecosystem program or project." and the idea it would be completed by the end of 2009

and here we are in 2013, and we don't have that report and we don't have the adaptive management plan. so these projects are moving forward that would reduce water below o'shaughnessey, when we don't have adequate baseline data, because that study is not completed yet and it might be there is no change and just a shift of some water from summertime to the springtime. so i just wanted to make you aware of that. i will try to forward to you our comments on the regional groundwater storage project because it addresses that. secondly, mr. ritchie mentioned the use for this year is 224 mgd and wouldn't it be great if we could keep it at that level? but you are facing reality and it's a population growth. the bay area is required to create more jobs and more housing and just something to think about, the global

population, expected to reach 9 billion. >> we have until that year to leave the planet. >> increasing to 9 billion and so i would love to see some leadership talking about population and the demand side. >> we won't include the vatican in that discussion. [ laughter ] >> let me take it in a slightly different direction. and thank you for your comments; which makes we want to say that we think about san francisco's water demand as kind of capped over time. at least that is an allusion we have worked under and fact that infill is important and everything that we do in san

francisco for development is basically infill that generated additional water demand and we'll deal with some of that, i guess at our next meeting. so i don't think we have complacent on that front. i want to make a request of staff and that is that i think it is -- it's certainly uncomfortable for me, that even with an optimistic view, every plan that we have on the books saying that by the end of 201 8 we'll have to say no to all three questions included in the water supply agreement. that is troubling. i would saying that by the end of 201 8 like to request that staff return to this commission with a first draft talking strategy. so nothing that has all the i's dots and t's crossed, but a first talking draft of a strategy that would lead us to be able to say yes to those three questions. i'm going to ask that come back

in 60 days, which is awfully fast, but the fact is that we know a lot of stuff. in the course of getting to the set of projects in the wsip, there was a lot of work done on alternatives and we made some cuts as to what we can and cannot do. we know more today about the projects that we decided that we would do and i think we know what we need to know. there is no requirement that we hire consultants to enrich us in terms of the information that we have of what we need to do is focus on the issue and sit down and scratch our heads and say given the options that we know are available to us, how do we think we can get to "yes" on those three questions? that is my request of the general manager and staff. >> we can put that together and schedule it 60 days from now. >> thank you. >> well, it depends if we're going to have a meeting in august; right? have you done your poll? >> yes. >> and what did they come up

with? >> everyone is in favor of canceling the meeting. >> i am surprised. so it may be more than 60 days. all right. any other public comments on the two presentations? being none we'll move to the consent calendar to read. >> all right 9 of the consent calendar, items 9a and 9g are considered to be routine by the 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 board requests. >> any removal from any member of the commission? there being none, any removal from any member of the audience? there being none, motion to approve the consent calendar. >> so moved. >> seconded. >> all those in favor, signify by saying aye? >> aye. >> opposed? motion carries. >> mr. president, if i could just make two comments.

one is that one of the projects in there does provide some flooding relief in the sunnydale area in addition, to the milestones that miss labonte pointed out to us. and i wanted to make sure and the other is that one of the projects in there, through best available efforts doubled their minority participation and we often look at the best available efforts as a being weak sister to the program, but it works sometimes and that was a case where it does. >> any other comments? regular best of my business? >> item 10, recommend that it the board of supervisors approve the sale of an easement over an proximately [#23*-rbgs/] 185-square-foot portion of sfpuc real port in the crystal springs watershed in unincorporated san mateo county to pearing. >> this is a big-ticket item.

>> good afternoon, commissioner >> do we know who maintains the land right now? >> we maintain the land. we maintain the surface. it's watershed, so it's not like we have gardeners that go out. it's natural. >> it's a natural area? >> yes. >> is there is any successor relationship as it relates? so we're talking about jobs. we're talking about taking public land and we're talking about now having a private enterprise; right? be responsible for that land. there is a jobs component there; right? >> may i clarify. >> please do. >> sorry commission, i wanted to make sure that we answer your question. it's our watershed land and maintained by our staff and the staff that actually maintains it are classified as "laborers."

>> are you trying to conflict me out? [ laughter ] >> if i wanted to do that i would have said it differently. i just wanted to be clear. >> thank you, michael. >> so has pg&e explained to us how they plan on maintainnning

that land with their own workforce and if so, have they cactized the type of work accordingly, so we can articulate to the employees affected? >> one thing that i would just like to stress, pg&e already occupies our land pursuant to an existing easement. we're just expanding this easement to expand the valve lot. we have a pg&e representative here, may i invite him to the podium to answer your questions? >> please do. she is a former puc employee. >> okay. >> hi. can you repeat the question. >> so our concern is that we have public employees; right? that maintain these facilities and the land and whenever we do a land swap or agreement, one of the first questions asked by the staff, mostly men and women who live here classifications and they have particular packages, benefit packages and they have particular affiliations. when we do these sorts of things, whether it's a golf course or natural area it's

always going to come up. there is a jobs component and we wanto knw if pg&e is planning on having, say local residents maintain that land, if it already has been being maintained by local residents? or laborers maintain that land if it already has been maintained by or electricians? it's an important part of these transferencings and often times it seems not to be addressed. are you able at this time to address this concern? >> i believe as roseanna mentioned we have an existing easement in that area that encumbers a large amount of area, where we have our regular gas operations and maintenance crews relly maintaining that area. so it would be maintained in the same fashion that it is right now. >> so for example, a benefit of having the land maintained in a certain way in the city and county of san francisco, we have an ordinance that requires a certain amount of people to be local residents. in your opinion, does the private enterprise abide by an ordinance such as that? >> i am not sure that i can speak to that. mike, would you be able to?

>> mike rideron with pacific gas & electric. the property will continue to be maintained in the same way that the existing lot is being maintained. as far as local hiring ordinances apply in san mateo county? i am unaware. i know that our transmission and regulation team, which would be responsible for maintaining this public safety valve, are from the local office in san carlos. >> right. >> beyond that i don't know of any local ordinances applying. >> thank you, mike. my concern is not the specific purpose of the easement, but rather the easement and the land itself. because you are gaining a

greater right-of-way; right? so then the question becomes is there a maintenance component related to -- because you are either going to take over the space or simply travel over the space; right? if you are simply traveling over the space and you are not going to maintain the space at all, there is no jobs component? if you are going to take possession of the space, then there is a jobs component and i understand, and appreciate the differentiation between san mateo county and san francisco counties and what ordinances do and do not apply, but there are other labor issues such as training components, safety, that sort of thing. things that pg&e are father-in-law with; right? so

at this time, unless we can flush this out right here, right now, i wouldn't be ready to move forward. because i think it's an important enough topic for us to really flush out. ch commissioner courtney, this easement is vital to the pipeline replacement project. it is a key component of a series of projects to repair the pg&e gas line post san bruno explosion to the deliver gas to the city and county of san francisco. pg&e is already a mandate by the california public utilities commission. so while you bring very important concerns, i would ask that you not oppose this particularly, since the permit that led to this easement requires all of our licensees to conform with city practices. so including ordinances. they have to comply with law. it doesn't specify the particular local hiring ordinance that you mentioned, but there is a blanket compliance with law component that mandates pg&e as any of our other licensees. so in the interest of getting a pipeline safety project done as we would ask other entitis to respect

our own pipelines projects, i ask that we approve this because we're going -- this needs to go to the board of supervisors and we're facing the board of supervisors' august recess. thank you. >> can i also point out that i know that this is one of pg&e's high-priorities is this gas line and they have been in constant conversation with us at the puc and also in the mayor's office, because this is

a commitment that they wanted to make. so i would just stress that i know that this is important to them. but i understand your issue as well. >> how can we resolve both? today? >> i would request that this commission approve this >> how do we resolve? >> that we as staff address commissioner courtney's concerns in a briefing. >> can i ask a question? >> sure. >> so i will go ahead and comment. and i acknowledge the urgency of awarding this increased easement, but i think there are issues that warrant our attention. specifically the consumers and the people who are impacted by some of these disasters; right? should be entitled to know how the workforce is being trained? what kind of safety provisions are in place? there are a lot of things. if we're going to engage that way and i think it's appropriate. there are a lot of things that we do as a city and county, as a municipal utility district, that aren't being done in the private sector and when we start trading land i believe what should go and run with that land are those kinds of

responsible labor and training and safety components. i don't feel uncomfortable talking about it and i think we should all feel comfortable having that discussion, because it's relevant. >> michael carlan, if i could answer commissioner courtney's question, i would say this. i think you are raising some very g valid points and we don't have the answers for you today. but i would like to say that we can actually sit down with pg&e and we're in discussions with them at various levels, on numerous issues and can come back to you with reasonable answers at our next meeting. with that condition being made, you could move this forward, so that we could actually submit it to the board of supervisors and get it approve and if that doesn't happen, we would put it over to the next meeting and come back with the answers. that is really the question to put before the commission. >> that is an acceptable

contingency. >> okay. >> is there a motion? >> moved by commissioner courtney and seconded by commissioner caen. any public comments? all those in favor, signify by saying aye? >> aye. >> motion carries. public comment on matters to be discussed in closed session? public comments on closed session matters? all right, i need a motion not to disclose. >> okay. >> second. >> that will be the order. >> closed session item no. 13, existing litigation bank of america versus the city and county of san francisco. item 14, existing litigation, city and county of san francisco, versus pacific gas & electric. item 15, existing litigation, city and county of san francisco versus pacific gas & electric. item 16, existing litigation, pacific gas & electric versus city and county of san francisco. item 17, there is a really

change from the published agendament it should be anticipated litigation over acceptance of street lights. all right 18 anticipated litigation as plaintiff. and item 19 consultation with agency's chief of security concerning security of sfpuc water and power systems. >> all right. i have to leave and vice president courtney will >> thank you. we're back on the record now. and announcement following the closed session. we did recommend a settlement on item no. 13 and no other action was taken. is there a motion of whether or not to disclose? >> move not to disclose? >> it's been moved not to disclose. is there a second. >> sec, with no discussion,

that motion carries of the commissioners, is there any other new business? hearing none, this meeting is adjourned. [ gavel ]reality. >> i'm carl shannon i run a business here in san francisco. it's with huge pleasure that i get to welcome i here on this historic day on many fronts. hundreds of people who are not here have been involved in making this promise a reality and i'm grateful to all of.

you. i want to thank mayor lee and china founder and chairman and the projects architect of architect company. i'd like to (clapping) to say thank you to all of the supervisors and specifically to jane kim who is the district supervisor. we've had several changes of people who have been involved in the past and present. thank you to the planning commission and to those members of the commission including michael and a special thanks to john ram who's done a outstanding job and the d b i staff they're here today. we live in an circlely special

time and this neighborhood has exchanged dramatically in the passing last couple of years. it's really a pleasure to see the vision of creating the housing near housing and transit nearby downtown. i get a introduce the ceo to talk about our partnership >> thank you carl. first and for most i want to thank mayor lee for coming here on all days a day that will go down as a landmark event. we are proud to be doing business here for two decades. we feel very much at the home

we've been we would by the business community and we feel we're part of the fabric of this great city. today, we're celebrating two milestones the first is the largest promise for san francisco for residential. we will be conceding a project we build next door at the infinity at the finished a couple years ago. we're proudly proud to be adding another building. there's another mile stoop we're equally proud of that's the official beginning of our first partnership with wong cook. let me introduce wong cook to those of you who may not be familiar with him.

it's the largest real estate company in china and they're the largest residential real estate company in the world last year they sold 1 hundred and 40 units of housing. (clapping). our development represents wong first overseas investment in the university. he and we are exceptionally proud their choose us to be they're first trusted partner. i think that they're creating a partnership that could set a standard for u.s. and chinese companies kword across all

industries. it's now my player to introduce the founder and chairman of wong cook somebody i've gotten to know well, he's one of the most respected men in china and he's a good man. (clapping) thank you. >> thank you. thanks mayor lee.

cantonese and i want to talk freely in english but the limited in english so i - in english. since mayor lee it's a great to be here today to mark the beginning of our first promise in north america. we're excited to be working with this company. and proud to be part of a economic project san francisco and the bay area is perfect place because it's