set aside. so we'll tracking that and as well as the water conservation and looking forward to our schedule this is the contract with our wholesale customers march first, we'll wait to issue an estimate see what the storm wrinkles to us by april 15th we issue a fire permit and determine what water is available to our customers we may come to the commission and ask for a formal declaration but that's a step we don't want to propose yet. and that's where we currently are if you have any questions,

i'll be happy to answer them >> commissioners - mr. vice president. >> how does when the water comes down from cherry and has to be filtered does it come down in a separate way or conditional. >> water goes through cherry tunnel down to the powerhouse we generate with that the lower cherry aqueduct moves it down to the river my it is discharged into cherry creek and flows down pedro that feeds on don pedro but the water bank only does us good if we're down country so if we're not getting water down we

wouldn't get any water supply benefit. >> i believe part of it is weighed be mixing with our hetch hetchy project so it would have to be treated. >> yes. any of the cherry water has to be frirltd and we're working with hicht the cherry water is very, very good as good as hetch hetchy but it doesn't have all the watershed supplies so we may operate it in slope process just the hetch hetchy water and just the cherry water and have disfix in between. either way we'll extend the water so far as possible >> we'll have to filter it if we mix it.

>> yeah. right. >> thank you. thank you, mr. ricky >> mr. vice president that concludes my report. >> so i see mr. erick if there's no other any public comment? there are no speaker cards >> a very good afternoon i'm eric i'm representing the local. i'm also one of the members of the sierra club bay chapter committee and i want to take you back to our last meeting. and also a or some of you may have seen in the newspapers a report about deacceleration i want to make sure that that report took comments out of the context and made it a lot look

we were supportive of deacceleration we don't support of the bay area deacceleration project that's still the case. let me read from the sierra clubs guidelines deacceleration shouldn't be used for water supply needs that can be reached from other water efficient practices. so a project like the bay area deacceleration he promise is not necessary. xhifl we over estimate how much water we were going to need decades ago we thought we needed more. and so what that statement from the sierra club and all the groups that contacting you

deacceleration should be the absolutely last thing on the list in case of emergency on the water supply speaker san francisco and the san francisco bay area have not scratched the surface even though san francisco is good on skepticism we've not remotely scratched the surface. i'll remind i a couple of years ago tommy your wastewater director put out a great report on replacing the toilets in with urban composite toilets we could save lots of water. that strategy alone and then we haven't remotely scratched the surface of permeable pavement

and will wetlands restoration. i'm reminded our labor representative on the commission those are local jobs and their ongoing they're not a flash in the pan using a deacceleration plan that only hire people temporarily this will save the plan and not use too much emergency so knock them down to the list and don't compare them with the water shortages that's not acceptable >> thank you for being here and thank you for the union. >> mr. president, the sierra club is that about the technology or about water supply that's not based on conservation. >> it's based on the fact that

when we are talking about water supply and energy and deacceleration is related to both we need to be using strategies that are working with nature. and not using did 20th century approach manhattan to get an approach >> will that effect us generally. >> extension is a big part ever that currently, the technologies use a lot of energy and produce and regardless of the technology used or the type of water are filter you've got to have the water released into nature. the fact you're doing something on a bay it's essentially going to subcontractor. the point is when you have a

choice to conserve instead of manipulating nature that's the choice i need to make so the distinction the club is making and all the other organizations is not only extension but we need to approach in the 21st century the different mindset and baker. >> with nature in a cooperative way >> i get the points but there's two points many our comments before you develop additional water supply do you want to be looking softer approaches to have a sustainable supply and the second is around deacceleration technology vs. osmosis is the same and if it's unacceptable it's a water supply project is it equal and unacceptable for this.

>> the point is use aggressive technologies when their necessary for example, if you have a central valley community that you have automatically practices that's messed up the supply then, of course, we need to use something aggressive to reclean and restore the water to its former pristine state but this is really a different situation and sierra club as support and will support a deacceleration project when it's an emergency situation. what we've got is clearly not an emergency we can clearly save 7, 8, 9 million gasoline's a day if we much more aggressively

produce watersheds restoration and come posting toilets. you know, we haven't begun to do those things and for us to assume the big problem is not that we're loort deacceleration but that's not on equal but we need to look at this as a last resort >> the question is using the technology as opposed to to the technicalities. i don't think that this commission as considered deacceleration from other water supply. i think that's part of the triple bottom line my consideration you fly away those considerations >> if i can - can i respond for

a second. i would tend to agree with the commission but often they do and commissioner torres a couple of years ago or about a year and a half ago asked to have a really robust process around the deacceleration issue and today we've had only one presentation in san francisco and one in the east bay and not had a good strong process or communication with staff to see if the deacceleration make sense and we need more information >> thanks. >> is there any other any public comment on this item as i understand madam secretary and a item 8 is the update. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

thank you for having me here. can we put on the overhead projector please. technology is avoiding me today. just a few things i want to talk about in particular the mountain tunnel and the drought response. but you've had a lot of chances to talk about the water tunnel and i've been reporting on that to both my leadership and my board chair and the board and our policy committee. pleased to be able to let them

know i got the response from mr. richie we'll get a positive affirm active answers if question one from a public policy prospective this is the one that's has the most immediate need from my board members is the question of the emergency plan and what that entails how do we insure our community is prepared. i've am waiting that answer and will see what the answer is but from any prospective it contains two things what do you do to prepare in advance in the upstream to prepare in the event of a failure and your

alternative of the water supplies and plans in place locally. none of those are things that have to be done in places but because the unique and different and new nature i think it's important to ask this question specifically. their earring anticipating the answer on that. we had a good presentation from steve about the drought situation. the agencies and boss supports the call for 10 percent reduction by the puc we're seeing actions that happened immediately a couple of things we're not quite intuitive the

last drought predated some of the current regulations for the water sites and they're thinking about how to deal with with what you do with your process if we go into a mandatory drought situation and all those things like that are important as well as preparing the community for the reductions if they have to do that taking those drought managed plans and dusting them off so they've taken all the actions as well as increasing the message to the community about reducing the water use. and to do that it's been actually, the response is almost immediate in my office. shortly after the announcement from the puc we got several

calls from local schools or a water agencies to increase the messages out to community fire department's that level of activity has increased and we're anticipating to see that in all the activities around the region. we've been having discussions with our public information office so the regional campaign for drought messaging and taking the managed fund and the grants we've received to take advantage of that and the water statement was certainly a success loose time that was our recent experience. so we're looking to do & that and putting forth everything to watch things carefully and make sure we can act and encourage

customers to do what they can to save in the future so. just one thing i continue to talk to any agencies and told memo committee last week the situation is continuing to change you heard steve talk about it. it will change in april their prepared and we've been talking about that and want to let you know their anticipating it and hoping it's not necessary. that's actually all i have to say today. thank you >> thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment? on item seeing none, public comment is closed. madam secretary >> item 9 is the consent

calendar and we only have one item improve modification and increasing the contract by 2 million plus with thirty consequence calendar days and it's been moved and seconded any any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> all in favor, say i. opposed? the motion carries. madam secretary >> for the contract cost for dw 2666. commissioners >> i have a question. >> commissioner moran. >> it struck me as iconic we'll have to be drilling wells to water vegetation that i assumed would be native to california and part of that native to

california is we have drought. i'm hoping just because we need for them to take root but the type of mrnz in the years to come they'll be able to withstand those drought >> yes. those are narrative plants and it's just for to get them started everything suffers in the drought but they should be able to come back from the drought that's the expectation. we'll see about the climate involved >> thank you for that. >> commissioners any other questions or comments. >> i'd like to make a motion. >> okay been moved forward. >> >> any public comment on this

item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i'll californl for a vote madam secretary >> item 11 any public comment? for closed session >> any public comment on closed session. seeing none, public comment is closed >> item 12 we need a motion. >> i'll move. >> it's been moved. you threw me and seconded any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i'll call for 0 vote all in favor, say i. we will now into go into closed session >> item 13 for the existing claim and 14 claim for others. item 15 is the existing code for the city of san francisco and item 16 the property vs. city

and county of san francisco and do so one through one hundred and the city and county of san francisco litigation vs. pacific gas and electric company and item 19 existing litigation for the gas company vs. city and county of san francisco and the agency chief of security >> good afternoon counselor. >> good afternoon. >> no, no, no. >> maybe not sogood. >> thank you very much we've returned from our closed session and i'm happy to report that the commission has adapted recommendations on item 13, 14

and 15 and 16 as long as that's sufficient we can poach to the mexico - next item. >> to disclose the items. >> i'll call for a vote not to disclose the i's have it madam other items. >> new business item 23. >> know there have been discussions about the joint agency that came along after the department of the environment i know we're working on the scheduling of that i asked for information back on items that we're going to discuss in in addition to that i asked for a

report related to some projects out in the southeast sector and i'm eager to hear back on any outstanding items commissioners. hearing none - i'll go ahead and call for any public comment? >> you're having any public comment on item 23. >> yeah. other commission business. i'm sure you may have committed before i came into the room ems on monday there's a joint puc hearing about clean power sfusd and i'll encourage you to attend and i'll be supportive. i know this commission and mr. particular some of the commissioners have received some

hash comments from advocates but i know that really we all want the same goal to get a large escape of new energy be it further resolved built rapidly in san francisco. and even though the san francisco public utilities commission staff are working telephone number on this we released on rfp last friday to punish finish the planning for the local installation work for clean pour u s f even though your staff is not working on this i'm sure mell come will finish the getting paid and it

will be helpful to come to the joint meeting on monday and you can help us geoget to the goal we need to be able to have this program by dedicating our staff on the local planning plan outbuilding >> i'll be out of town. the critics will be happy to hear that >> i know that supervisor avalos has been doing good work they were applying some pressure to get it down so with respect to monday, i know we have 3 commissioners that were agriculture to attend in the morning and 3 in the afternoon i'm not one of the expirations that can attend so you you're getting the 3 that are available i think this was appropriate to

say. >> the advocates were completely surprised by this as well and hopefully, they'll be another joint meeting but consider the issue of putting staff on that. >> any other items commissioners. the meeting is now adjourned

>> >> >> february 6, 2014, >> >> >> good afternoon, welcome to our rules committees meeting for thursday february 6,

2014. i'm supervisor yee and i will be chairing this meeting. to my left is supervisor campos and katie tang who will join us. lisa miller is our clerk. and we would like to acknowledge the staff of sfgtv, jessie larson and joshua alexander and record eefrp of our meetings and make the transcripts available online. are there any announcements? >> yes. please turn off electronic devices. if you wish to speak, please fill out a card. >> >>supervisor norman