prior letter in march and those are appreciated. he spent quite a bit of time with us including having a meeting with us with senior staff where we received information. that information has been helpful and it has been responsive to our request but it raised questions which i want to talk a little bit about because we believe this issue has continued important. as you know, we represent your wholesale customers, the 1.7 million people that they serve, 30,000 businesses and residents. they rely upon this system. that's the issue. that's why i wanted to focus my comments on this today. one of the answers in mr. ritchie march 10th letter discussed the local resources, the san francisco would rely upon if there was an interruption through the mountain tunnel following some catastrophic event. i applaud the santa

clara water district with east bay mud and haward. there's a question where the water supply may come in a long term disruption and one you would get in the failure of that tunnel. this is something that this commission should be concerned about. it's not an immediate answer, but when we talk about emergency preparedness, we want to know where that water is going to come from and what plans need to come into place. mr. ritchie's letter talks about in extreme measures, the puc will request emergency support from the arrogation district or the state wide project. i'm aware that any emergency agreements exist with these entities. i think that's a great idea. if san francisco is working on agreements, when will they be completed. these are not the

agreements you've been talking about to meet the service goal, or long term transfer, truly an emergency agreement in the event that you lose that tunnel. i would strongly encourage you to move forward with securing those a greems and direct your staff report back to you because it's apart of an emergency plan. mr. ritchie cites some immediate fixes to prepare for and then reduce the time necessary to restore the tunnel and the service should it collapse. a restoration plan up in the area of the tunnel, a tunnel monitoring program to monitor the pressure to kind of see what's going on and several key access -- this should be implemented. i'm not aware that this has been presented to you with a schedule and time, but i think that would be important for you to aware of. how is that work going to be

completed, what's the schedule for having it done. it is important going back to the emergency restoration services. during our meeting with the staff on april 1st, we were told that a project manager has been appointed for this work and that's a great sign. the subject of environmental approval was discussed. it had a large estimate, three to four years to approve the environmental improvement by a fix or whatever else is decided upon. it's important to start understanding has that been verified. do we have a schedule in place for what the fix might be. i haven't see that, but i think it has been nearly six months since this issue was raised at a very critical level to you. that started in january essentially. i think it's important for you to understand that and make

sure that's happening. mr. ritchie's letter stated that -- the tunnel is unlikely in the near term. i don't disagree with him, but it seems the estimated chances of failure is a simple guess. you can get one engineer to say one answer and get another engineer to say another one. for so many businesses and community agencies in our territory and the committee should be worked on the tunnel. i preer the efforts of the puc staff. this is a tough issue, certainly and it's not an easy answer, but our intent is to help in every way possible on this major project. that will conclude my commons and answer any questions you might have. >> for me, i think what really struck me was the reference that you made to the emergency

agreement, so i would hope unless there's objections from my colleagues, i would hope we would get a report back from staff on that particular item if not every item, but certainly that particular item since it was raised here. i'd like to know what those agreements look like, how many should be put up. thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> any public comments on item number 10? seeing none, public comment is closed. madam secretary, next item. city clerk: item 11 is a consent calendar and items 1-a through 11-e is a consent calendar and retained by the public utilities commission and will be asked upon by a vote of the commission. they'll be no discussions unless the members or the public request in which the matter will be removed and a

separate calendar. >> it has been moved and seconded. >> any comments on a, b, c, d, and e. all in favor, significant -- signify by saying aye. next item. city clerk: item 12 and possible action to authorize the general manager to concert on behalf of the -- the development agreement between the city and county of san francisco and visitation and adopt finding pursuant the california environmental quality act and litigation and monitoring report and reporting program. >> good afternoon. michael, deputy general manager. the item was continued from the last meeting and i'm going to turn it over to ken rich from the mayor's office of work force development to start the presentation and address the questions that were raised in

the last meeting. >> thank you, mike. >> good afternoon commissioners. i need to beg your indulgence for a second to get the power point on the screen. >> thank you. >> i apologize for that. what i'm going onto do is give you a brief overview of this project, turn it over to the mediation consultant it talk more in detail about some of the remediation issues and turn it over to the public health and about the relationship to this property. if i can have the

slide, as i'm waiting -- is this mic on. okay. i'm waiting for the slides to come up. this has been a project that's been about 15 years in the making. if i can have the slides, i've gone things for you to look at. >> can we have the computer please. >> okay. so this budget has been 15 years in the making. you have a timeline in the screen. there's been extensive planning on this project going back into the 90s as you see that was because of a redevelopment plan and a certification of an environmental report. it was resolved in california in 2011 and my office -- the

office of economic and the planning department took over and tried to make sure this project was able to happen when we negotiated the program based on redevelopment. so here you see an overview of the project. this is a 20 acre site, former industrial site, and the project involved mediation. it's brown field so it needs all new utilities on the streets and sidewalks. the project will be include 1609 housing units which will be for lower income families, so that's important for this project. up to 46,000 and 700 square feet of retail space including a grocery store and two parks and rehabilitation of the lock office building, including some community space, and impact fees paid to the city for a number

of different things. the developers obligation to deliver this project is moralizing a development agreement between the city and the developer. the city is allowing the project to move forward and giving it vesting. to the entitles are frozen by contract moving forward as long as the developer complies with the terms. i'm going to go into a little bit more detail on the aspect of the agreement which is the subject of this commission's hearing. i'm going to read detailed things here. the action before you includes authorizing the general manager to consent to the development agreement on behalf of the p urg c and the develop agreement has key positions which have been developed in close collaboration with the puc staff. number one, it requires

the developer built the horizontal -- including a waste water system and storm water improvements and ex i will rary. number two, the development agreement requires that the developer corporate with the puc assessment of the feasibility of proposing power to the site. number three, the development agreement includes as an exhibit, an infrastructure. because this plan is only at a conceptional level, the city will have many more opportunities to weigh in on the details of the plan as the project gets built out. the infrastructure plan states the following, before the developer may submit 60

percent drawings for review, the puc must approve the project, water master plan and release master plan, combine sewer master plan, and storm water master plan. in addition to the 60% drawings, the developer will submit 90% drawings. all elements of the project will be go through the permitting process. it does not require a plan as the city is analyzing which system configuration will be preferable. the ore nance before you says that the general manager and the fire department leadership will work together to reach a decision about the system. this ordinance also adopts the slade lock and the reporting program which was approved by the board of supervisors in

2009 as apart of the eri report. there's no mitigations required. i'm going to have nanny vice come over and give you a fiefsh minute review of the site followed by stephanie from the department of public health. >> good afternoon, my name is nancy vice and i'm with consultants. i'm a california certified engineer geologist and i've been doing environmental projects for 30 years and i've been working with puc on this project for six years and i'm going to give you history of the site a little on the

remediation status and our final steps for development. >> it operated for 100 years and 1/3 of the site is northern pacific rail road which operated for 50 years until 1960. these were old operating factories and old operating sites and there were residual materials left that needed to be cleaned up. and those clean ups are ongoing with the california department of toxic substance control which we call tsc and they're

the authority. they have the authority through the health and safety code of california to do those -- to oversee those clean ups. >> this figure shows you the two different portions of the site. the slage unit and that term that dpu uses to distinguish when we have a site that has two responsibility parties which was the case in of the past. we have the schiage to the north and west. and the sprr unit to the southeast. if we start with the schiage unit, the contaminants were used for

cleaning metals. there's a dtcs action plan for this site that plan is a clean water phase. it includes long term monitoring of the ground water to insure that that clean is ongoing over time and it includes land use control to protect workers in the field and it includes clean utility corridors to protect utility workers during and after the development. as far as where we are on the implementation of that, the active soil and ground water phase was completed in 2011 and the long term monitoring of that brown water project is under way. >> yes, the questions that were raised at the previous hearing were

related to whether children can safely grow vegetables, right? >> or dig in the soil. >> or dig in the soil which they intend to do. that was one of the questions you raised and what's the answer to that? >> the answer -- the site is made for children. there is a restriction on growing vegetables for this site, and that is because there's a potential for some plants, for their roots to go down into the water, so the soil is safe, in its current condition. there is a portion of the site that will be capped with clean soil, a minimum 3-foot cap and that is the area where there are still some metals in the ground, but there will be -- the children will be protected from that by a cap and the rest of the site is safe speaker: which vegetables are

being prohibited from being planted in the area? >> they're being very cautious and prohibiting all vegetables. they can be grown in a plant above the soil or something like that, but at this point, the land restrictions include not growing vegetables. >> unless they're raised beds. >> right. >> are we providing effort for that? >> as far as i know, that's not apart of the plan but i don't know the details of the plan. >> i think we need to think about that. i didn't realize you had to have grazed beds in order to grow vegetables. i was under the impression that the soil was safe to grow vegetables. >> we're negotiating -- the park commissioner has agreed in the future to acquire the open

space parks, so the recreation and parks commission will be responsible for what happens in that and they will engage in a 12 month process and what do we want to do in these spaces. the rec park department will go over that again and work with community and determine any sort of gardens will be something that the community wants or if it's recreation or passive, so the uses of those open spaces have not been determined. >> i understand that. but if the only way you can grow vegetables in that area is by having raised beds, i hope that's apart of the consideration. >> again, if we did grow vegetables we would have to do them in raised beds. there's no indication that vegetable growing would be an activity that occurs on this site, but based on the restrictions from the state, you're right. if that was something that happened, it would have to be in a raised bed. >> you have no prohibition against doing that.

>> there's a prohibition against growing vegetables speaker: that's not what i'm asking. there's no prohibition against the community? >> of course not. it's an open question that will happen during the discussions to come. >> thank you. >> and you do do the appropriate signage that says do not grow vegetables? how does that work just to follow on that -- make sure the people are protected? >> that could easily be apart of the development, yes. >> okay. >> the final steps that we need to go through for this [inaudible] which is farther along than the upcuo and the state has

approved the long term monitoring plan. the state has already approved the financial assurance aspect of the project, and -- >> when i say the state, is there a specific department you're referencing to. >> the department of substance control. they're overseeing this whole department. >> the department i created many years ago. i'm glad they're working. >> that's your problem. >> the final step is negotiating these land use controls we were just talking about and we're almost complete with the utility corridor clean up. a little bit more has to be done on that part, but other buys that -- but otherwise that part is almost done.

>> vice president caen. >> this goes back to your first slide. it slipped out of my memory. have you done a number of [inaudible]. i think that was an issue that was brought up at the last meeting about the proper borings that should be done on this type of property. has that been a case. can you report? >> there's been lots of borings on this property over many years, so it has been a very thorough investigation of this site. >> is there a written report on the borings. >> there are many written reports, and the final report which was just approved by the dtsb called the remedy report is a history of

everything that was done and like i said, i mean, there's probably 50 reports over the years that has been completed that summarize the report that has been done. >> is that available for the public to see? >> absolutely. they have a website called inviro store and you can go in and type in brizban and it will pop up and you can download the reports done over the years. if i move on to the upc operatable unit which is the former southern pacific rail yard, as i said, that site is subject to a separate clean up. it's a little bit mind the

sledge ou. the contaminants were metals and we also have chlorinated solvents that have migrated onto this site. we haven't approved remedial action plan and it includes capping of the soil and basically it's for these metals that's still present, the capping of those long term monitoring of those cap operation and maintenance of those caps. again, land use controls, and clean utility corridors. this site -- this work has not yet been completed and it will hopefully be done in october of this year. >> the final step for this site because it's not a -- there is

some more work to be done in this is the east corner. we still need the remedial design to be approved by dtsd and we're working on that. the remedy needs to be implemented and excavated and placed in areas where the cap will be placed. the dtsd will need to approve the remedy completion report and they'll need to approve the long term monitoring plan and the land use control and the clean corridor needs to be completed. my last slide is just a summary of these land use controls that will be in place, but as i said, those are not finalized so they're still being worked out. but for both sites, there will be no drilling for

water, oil, or gas without dtsd approval. they'll be no ex traction of ground water without dtst approval and a management plan will be required for any activity that goes below 5 feet where ground water might be encountered. until it's reached, that monitoring will go on. there's one land use control that would be specific to the vegetation area of the project. and that is because there could be intrusion of vapors into buildings that are constructed there because of this concentration that still remains in the ground water, so any

construction of any structure is going to need dtsd approval and that concludes my remarks. >> commissioner moran. >> we have someone from the city, public health department. >> is this mic on. before i have stephanie speak, one clarification, i realize that maybe i didn't make clear. in terms of the open space and the planting, the project won't have open space. these are podium apartment buildings so all the open spaces will be a public park so there's not a concern of what people do with their private yard because this is an

apartment structure. i want to introduce stephanie from the department of public health which is going to go over the ordinance which is a second set of protections on the environmental side that we have on the site. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm stephanie cushion and i'm with the department environmental branch. i oversee the site mitigation program, so at any time you move soil in the city of san francisco, before you can get a building permit, you have to come through the health department. and that is in certain areas of town including the slaj oversight. and i oversee the terms. the ordinance or

article 22-a of the san francisco health code as i said requires that if you're an in-- you've been industrially zoned, you are within 100 feet of a former or current underground storage tank or you're within 150 feet of a raised freeway, you are in -- you are under the requirement of article 22-a. for this particular project, it would require, although dpds has over seen the larger clean up of the site, every single development that occurs on the site will need to come to the health department. we'll ask for more specific site characterization for that particular project. we also

will oversee the perspectiveness and we ask for a site approval plant. we work with them so we're satisfied they're answering all of our questions. based on the results of the site characterization -- how will they handle anything that they bring to the service or bring to the cap that dtsd is requiring of them. they have to submit a third party certification that they have completed the work and it is the consultants belief and they put their license on the line