the beginning, it's very challenging because we have to vote up or down and i know that department staff spends a lot of time putting these documents together and it goes through a lot of years of process and then it comes to us and we vote yes or no. and we can't make any amendment to it. and, so, i question that process. i understand, i imagine why it was implemented, but i don't like it very much at all. the vast majority -- i am a big fan of the vast majority of the rose. the overwhelming majority of the item in this document i think are relatively noncontroversial, are well thought out, are really excellent. i do have a very targeted concern about policy 4.2. i do think it is different than the 1986 version with the combination of the inventory

that apparently is everything in san francisco, at least until we've combined with the planning commission's power to place conditions on projects where something has been identified in an inventory. it's caused a lot of confusion and a lot of anxiety in the community. and, so, i will not be supporting the rose tonight. my concern is very focused on section 4.2, policy 4.2. i don't think that -- i'm not sure what's going to happen tonight if this goes back. i'm not sure the entire rose has to be reopened, every aspect of it, the vast majority of the rose in my view is perfectly okay just as it is. i do want to thank and appreciate staff. i know -- i have great respect for the planning department and for rec and park and i've voted with the department, both departments on many hard issues over the years. i think they're terrific departments, they do a terrific

job, but on this one particular issue for a very narrow focused reason i won't be able to vote with the department this time around. thank you. >> supervisor campos. >> i just want to note i appreciate supervisor wiener's comments. and i know that it is challenging when you have to vote a yes or no, but i do think that when there are concerns, with you i think a number of my colleagues have that the only thing we can do is to send this back. i think that the reality is that there is a reason why the rules work the way they work. we're not in the business of micro managing departments. and if there is a policy concern, as i know there are with a number of items here, i think that you send it back and you let the department do it right this time. thank you. >> i want to say a couple questions to the planning director. could you give us a sense of what might happen if this were sent back, what that process would look like, how long it would take, and what you might be able to do that might be

different? >> [speaker not understood]. the board's vote today is either yes or no. there is no formally sending it back. you either vote yes on the language or no on the language. it would then -- if the planning commission chose to ask us to change the language, then we would go through a process of -- like we have for several years. we would have to have some community discussion about t. i don't know how long that would take. the challenge that that creates for us is that it's very, very challenging in these kind of documents to only focus on one or two sentences. when you're talking a document that in and of itself had this type of discussion, this type of controversy over many, many, many of the policy issues. my suspicion is that it would take, if we did that it would take several months of time. and i don't know if the planning commission will want to do that at this point. i honestly just don't know, but it's up to them to make that decision. the board's decision today, as you all pointed out, is either yes or no. there is no formally sending it

back saying, please do this when it comes to an element of the general plan. >> could you have give us a sense, this has been in the works for years, give us a sense of what has gone into the outreach that i think many of us have had questions around and -- >> sure. there has been 7 years of discussion on this. take out my list of public process which began in november of '07, there was a draft release in may of '09. the outreach there, if you recall, the mayor had an open space task force back then in 2007. there were 22 neighborhood-based community meetings. there were open houses, there were focus groups all over the city. we went to the recreation and park commission five times -- excuse me, four times -- five times. been to the preservation commission twice, planning commission five times. there were many, many, many community discussions, focus groups, individual meetings in neighborhood -- with neighborhood organizations about this that dates back to

mid 2007. >> thank you. colleagues, any further questions or discussion? okay. madam clerk, why don't you call the roll. >> on item 6, supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener no. supervisor yee? yee no. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos no. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. there are 8 ayes and three no's. >> the ordinance is passed on the first reading. [gavel] >> and with that, madam clerk, could you read the in memoriamses? >> today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individuals. on behalf of supervisor cohen for the late ms. omega harden. on behalf of supervisor farrell, president chiu, and supervisor wiener for the late

reverend anthony turney. on behalf of supervisor wiener for the late young ayal [speaker not understood], frank el, [speaker not understood] mohammed [speaker not understood] and on behalf of supervisor yee for the late dr. james wilson, ms. layton dong. and on behalf of supervisor avalos for the late ms. edna eileen flores lagunte. >> take a meetv to thank sfgov-tv's crew tonight hal kremenak and jim smith. and with that, madam clerk do we have any more business in froth of the board? >> that concludes our business for today, mr. president. >> ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned. [gavel]

>> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, let me please call this meeting of the san francisco public utilities commission to order at 1:39 p.m. madam secretary, would you please call the roll? >> president courtney? >> here. >> commissioner moran. >> here. >> commissioner torres. >> here. >> commissioners vietor and caen are excused today. >> next is approval of the minutes of june 24th, 2014. >> move approval. >> it has been moved. >> second. >> and it has been seconded. >> any further discussion, seeing none, i will call for public comment, is there any public comment on item three, approval of the meeting minutes

of june, 24, 2014. seeing none, public comment is closed all of those in favor, aye. >> and the motion carries, next item please? >> four, general public comment, anybody who is interested in in addition to the cards that i have before me from ann clark if you could step forward, anyone who is interesting in speaking under public comment, fill out a comment card. >> and good afternoon good to see you again. >> i am ann clark from san francisco, and i want to let you know that it is hot up at maser and it was getting close to 100 degrees and i think that i am going to stay in san francisco. also, don't forget it is 5,000 feet up there and so it gets hotter i think sometimes as you go higher, rather than cooler. mostly i wanted to share with you that we have published a book for one of our very favorite people who has written it, niel who has been going to the camp for a long, long time. and so i have extra copies in case you have not gotten yours yet and i will give them to

harlin so you will be able to take a look at his wonderful life and his life experiences and as always, i look forward to seeing you at the camp thank you. >> thank you very much for being here, i appreciate that. >> are there any other public comments to be had on this line item, item number four, seeing none, public comment is now closed, madam secretary, next item? >> item five, communications. >> commissioners? >> seeing no comments, from my colleagues, is there any public comment on item 5, communications? seeing none, public comment is closed on that item. next item, secretary? >> item 6, other commission business? >> commissioner moran and torres? >> there is an item that i would like to discuss briefly not long ago, several months ago i raised an issue related to opportunities in the south east sector related to intratoe

hortoculture and maintenance and construction-type of jobs, opportunities. and specifically mcclarin park and other areas located near that and i think that it is appropriate for us to have that dialogue and i requested it under other commission business, several months ago. given the relationship that this very cozy relationship, and cozy in a good way that this commission has with the recreation and parts commission, certainly the announcement recently from the professional golf the pga in addition to an article in the newspaper today, dealing specifically with the golf course located in the south east sector, the problems that it has with respect to ongoing maintenance, and capitol improvements and water and i would like to begin to have thoughtful deliberative conversations about how we can best work together, with the recreation and parks department, dealing specifically with those areas, we do a pretty good job and we

did open, and reopen the boat house today. that is the land of the puc, being over seen by the recreation and parks department and management and staff and which in the interest of full disclosure we represent at local, 261, we see a lot in the gun club that is in the news, and the park is in the news, but i think that we really have to be careful about not losing sight of the fact that some of these resources in the south east, often times kind of get overlooked and iment to make sure that on our watch, that does not continue to happen and so that is it for that and i would like to see agenda item coming up from the staff if there is no objection. >> commissioners? >> seeing none, madam secretary, next item? >> please, report of the general manager. >> update on our water supply

and have steve richie come up. >> if i could have the slides, please, again, this is the meeting update on the water supply as we are in the continuing drought here. and first off, again, the water storage is starting to drop a little bit now as we get into the dry part of the year we don't anticipate much precipitation, but again we have 487,000 acre feet of drinking water in storage and so again, the water bed is working and we need to achieve a reduction to avoid going to 20 percent next year and the response is good for the last six weeks. and our storage levels, again, hetch hetch y is at 97 percent and the water bank is down at 34 and a half percent and again

the systems need to be continued to be managed. precipitation, i have to say that i was there last week and there is a little bump in the water line and we got two tenth of an inch while i was up there and made the ground wet and puddled a little bill and no run off from it and there was anticipation from the additional precipitation this week and still, back, again and gone is the drop these five presentations because, they are not going to change very much. and this is a slightly modified version of a slide that i showed the last meeting about what the water bank is at 200,000 acre feet which is comparable to the levels in the last drought 87 to 92 and so we are in a dry period, this is the driest three year period that we have seen in our history. the reservoir is close to full and we are starting up to

storage level of 150,000 acre feet of january first. and the delivery slide, again, shows that the deliveries have it has flat lined for the last six weeks and hopefully we can continue those efforts of working closely with the wholesale customers to be sure that everybody is working hard, and we are seeing that turn off in terms of water use reduction and here is our, fill in a lot of savings and hopefully we see the glass come up quite a bit by the other day. and so, the items and i want to get into a little bit this time and a little bit more detail and we have the request for the ten percent reduction and you really have a major out reach campaign as we discussed last meeting and we have two drought reductions under way and i will talk about those in more dethail than we have so far, that is the aquiduct project

and the small treatment plant and emergency improvements. first, this is a map of the country system with the three reservoirs and the cherry, and the take the water from the resources, and the lower aqua duct is from cherry creek below and brings it to the intake, where it can be put into the drinking water system, and it is actually down in the 87 to 82 drought. so our project is an effort that costs $18 million combined and phase one will be to repair the deversion plate, and clean out the tunnels and sometimes, starting this fall. phase two is to make repairs

and replace the old lines, and we have much, on the quality of the water that will be coming through there. and that will be planned to begin some construction next spring, and be ready to go in july of next year. you can see the rock debris and over for the last 25 years. and so, they will be cleaning those out, and again, it is more debris in the open channel section there. and again, this open channel section, where there is corrugated metal that has fallen in and you can just clean those out and that is

what we will be doing as far as the first project that we have under way. on the coast range, emergency drought and improvements and we are working at tesla and thomas shaft, and one of the tunnel and the pump station and the single treatment plant. and for these, are redundancy up grades to the pumps and the controls and the electric power service and at the treatment plant, chemical feedback replacement and the process up grades, and the up grades between the different facilities and these are all part of the cap and improvement and we are already bringing the problems sooner to be done that we can widely filter the water if we need to and in the shaft, it is a simple project that is a really important one and we are replacing the sample pump and out the methane gas and we have to have the special protection in place to make

sure that we don't have sparks that could fill off an explosion there. and on the regulatory front, they this issued notices to the certain water rights holders and they were going to look at emergency regulations and did adopt the emergency regulations on the second. and those started out as a real threat. i think that we ended up in good shape in all of that process. and then, on june 27th, the state water board, had a workshop on urban water usage and they will be released the draft regulations probably tomorrow, regarding urban water use conservation in particular, and there is a conference call and the water board staff to talk about those and we will be

expected to be similar to the april 26th recommendations made by the governor and proclamation to return the water and when the vehicle is washing and the outdoor water, and this is apparently, would be the residential california and it is not clear if it is limited just to residential or extend to parks and recreation departments and schools and we are trying to get clarity on that so that we know what that is actually being proposed. and so in summary, we are still in a drought and going with ten percent voluntary conservation through the end of the calendar year and if we don't do that, we will be in worse shape because we are on track with the efforts and the lower channels. and i am happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, commissioners?

>> i would like to acknowledge the passing of iron ruskin, after a long bought of cancer, he served as a first lofca chair. and he represents 1.7 million of our customers and regional system. and we will be forever, grateful for his role to make the necessary repairs on our hetch hetchy to secure a reliable water source and i just wanted to just maybe, bosco would like to get up and say a few words. >> nicole? >> good afternoon. and yes, we are sadden by the passing of ruscin our first

board chair and also at that time he was mayor of the city. and also representing the city and area and he was instrumental in securing the support of local legislative and elected officials in your wholesale service area to really focus on the reliability and system in that, in doing so, from a human catastrophe perspective and that was really his true gift for the service area and so he did struggle with an illness for a long time and we are sorry about his passing and i appreciate the comments of general manager kelley. >> commissioner torres? >> i had a very close personal relationship with him over the years. and i admired his integrity and in the legislative process. and but also, his battle against cancer and he hurt and he managed to maintain his

statue and his character and his being and his up lifting,self and even through the very, very difficult times and california will miss this type of legislator, and we will miss his input into the process of making california. >> thank you, nicole. >> thank you. >> that concludes my report. >> okay, thank you, general manager kelley, are there any comments on the general manager's report? i don't have any speaker cards,? once, twice, three times, closed madam secretary, next item please? >> consent candor, and items 8 athrough 8 e, constitute a candor considered to be retained by the san francisco pub utilities commission and will be acted upon by a single vote of the commission and there will be no separate discussion of these items unless the member of the commission or the public so

requests in which the matter will be removed from the calendar and considered a separate item. >> are there any requests to remove an item? seeing none, commissioners what is your pleasure? >> i will move it. >> so moved. >> second. >> is there any public comment on any of these items, item, 8, a, b, c, de, i will close to a roll call, all of those in favor, signify by saying aye, the aye have it and the motion carries. next item? >> 9, approve the terms and conditions and authority leases agreement between the san francisco puc communications and control incorporated and tristar investors for services in alameda and contra costa. andstanislaus counties, for terms not to exceed 25 years each, and for a total annual rent of $78,500; >> commissioners? >> good afternoon, and at its june tenth hearing, this

commission, awarded db 124 for the valley, communication system upgrade project. and the goal of that project was to upgrade, sfpuc communication facilities in order to improve, safety, and security, and also, to provide remote access, remote control, i am sorry of the pipeline. and on the action before you was the approval of three communication agreements, for the sfpuc use of three sites not owned by the city. and these sites include alameda and river more hills and contracosta and the other county and this is part of a communication network that stretches from the substation to the mark peak and the puc has communications facilities at the allison and liver more hills, and replaces the existing control and the hills agreement is actually an

amendment to an existing sublease between the communication and control in the puc. and finally the third agreement for the modesto site where they don't have a facility is a new license between the tri star investors and the puc and all three agreements are for five years, with four, five year renewal options for a total term of 25 years, and the rent increases at 3 percent per year. >> thank you. >> any questions? >> commissioners? >> so motioned. >> moved it. >> and second. >> any public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed all of those in favor, signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> motion carries, next item?

>> ten,adopt a finding declaring that the sfpuc's francisco reservoir property, located at bay street between larkin and hyde streets in san francisco (francisco reservoir tract) in its current condition, is surplus to the needs of any sfpuc utility; authorize the general manager to execute an mou between the sfpuc and sfrpd for a jurisdictional transfer of the francisco reservoir tract at fair market value of $9.9 million to sfrpd; authorize a request to the board of supervisors and mayor to approve a conditional jurisdictional transfer of the francisco reservoir tract at the fair market value of $9.9 million, subject to the terms of the mou and applicable law. >> >> move it. >> it has been moved. >> second. >> and it has been seconded. >> mr. clerk? >> that is fine, it will be glad to answer any questions, i think that the title explains the action that we are today. >> we will ask you, is there any public comment on this item? item ten? any public comment? >> oh, yes. >> president, could i have two minutes? >> please. >> public comment will be two minutes, i have a number of speaker cards in front of me, i would like to call frank dawkin and next will be mat ogrady and

jan bloom. >> good afternoon, thanks for being here. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is frank from vernal heights and i just want to show my support for the park because of the reason that we need more resources more green space for the children and families and not just for that particular area but the city of san francisco, i feel that, more green space would help the city. more trees, and i feel that it is a need for the city not only for the residents, but as for the folks who are visiting san francisco, and so, i fully support it and i hope that there is a positive vote. >> thank you, i appreciate you can here, thanks again. >> next speaker.

matt. >> commissioners, i am the ceo of the san francisco parks alliance and i am delighted to speak before you this afternoon in favor of the transfer, for the san francisco reservoir to the recreation and parks department there is a many reason why this is a good move for the city and i am going to focus on three of them, the first is consistency with the general plan and the second as if this willful fill a need in a park neighborhood and finally this will not have a significant negative impact on the city's ability to acquire other parcels for the other neighborhoods that exist elsewhere in san francisco. i will address each of these one at a time. >> first as you know, the site for the san francisco reservoir, is already, designated as an open space, in the city's general plan. and the decision before you, would simply be consistent with that decision, making that is already in place. second, this is a park neighborhood as defined by the

recreation and parks department and they have put a very clear set of criteria into place, in the open space acquisition fund, that guided in selecting sites for acquisitions one of those is to fill the gaps in the park system in san francisco, where we don't have necessary open space, this is one of those sites, according to those criteria, and finally, one of the concerns that we have is having adequate funding for additional acquisitions in the neighborhood, particularly in the d6 with the most park efficient neighborhood in san francisco. and the 17 years remaining in the open space acquisition fund, funding stream will provide an additional 38 million dollars, above and beyond all of the expenditures for all three of the acquisitions pursued by the recreation and parks department, there is ample funding available for the acquisitions in the other neighborhoods if it is a matter of finding the right sites to purchase. >> and so in sum, there are three key reasons, and the general plan and it is a park

deficient neighborhood and there is mrept of funding available for additional acquisitions. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> hi, jen. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is jan bloom and i am here to support the san francisco transfer. because the area east of sven ace avenue is very dense and heavily built up there is a scarcity of the green space for not only the birds and the threatened wild life but the people and humans as well. and a public park of acres will provide us an opportunity to not only plant abundant trees and plants and shrubs that are native to san francisco but the habitat for the birds on the pacific fly well as well as local wild life, including song birds and bees and butterflies and we have hopes that we can plant a pollenator garden in