do with the insurance of lateral support of his property is handled in a way that is protected and to that end we have requested from the project sponsor that temporary shoring plans that happened last friday over the we said our structural engineer ben had an opportunity to review them and we've been working intellectual to reach an argument on 3r50er789s including peer review and a section scare the twap typical types items and the she or he excavation. we provided the project sponsor with a definite on tuesday they provided us with comments on tuesday our strong preference is reach 9 resolution and evade the intervention we can do that within the next couple of weeks

we've reached an agreement on the four main points earlier. naturally there needs to be more back and forth but to recessing resolve this privately >> okay. can i ask the project sponsor to respond to whether or not you seek a continuance today? >> john duffey project architect for 151 liberty. the project sponsor would like the project to continue we're not interested in a continuance we want the planning commission to review the mroj and approve f it in awe litigant so we're not interested in a continuance today >> okay. thank you. commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i would like to hear

it today their 5 issues that were brought up not to get into the case but two issues particularly the shoring and excavation issues are generally answered in the purview of dbi that isn't before use it will have to be worked out if there's a private agreement but in conformity with their standards and one is the tenant displacement not our purview we can discuss the massing and the lights and privacy and the roof-deck which are the 3 items that we can do this today as well as in the future. >> so seeing there's no motion for a continuance why not go ahead and with the item. >> good afternoon,

commissioners rick department staff the item is a request for a discretionary review the proposed project will include one dwelling unit to 20 units and a construction of a new garage and stairwell and a new vertical and horizontal edition that will increase the square footage from 26 hundred to 55 hundred square feet. today, the department has received one phone call from an adjacent neighbor who's expressed opposition and also excavation and tenant relocation and privacy and a roof-deck. since the subject property is located within the 4rish9 hill labored district that will have to have an approval by that

commission. on december 12th they granted a motion since the proposal includes the removal of rear yard garden shed the perimeter variance is no longer applicable and further review is not required it meets the liberty hill landmark good morning, supervisors. it appears to be no exceptional circumstances we're recommending the commission not take discretionary review and approval that that concludes my presentation. thank you. thank you >> thank you dr requester our team has 5 minutes. >> good afternoon on behalf of

the dr requester this is in the land hill district our client resides next door in a historically registered victorian home there it is be excavation to the boundary line up to 18 to 21 feet. to make short work of this frjz hearing we wanted to streamline the objections of the dr down to two from what was previously identified. the first is that a 1988 planning recorded against the project property a notice of special restrictions. that notice was recorded in connection with a permit for the construction ever a shed but the notice was not linked in anyway way to the shed it specifically

states that in the effective the envelope of the building is tanned there's needs to be a public hearing. again, no linkage in the notice to the shed even though it was recorded concurrently with the application for the sheriff's deputy there's not been an variance e.r. an application or a public hearing so that's the first ground the second ground i'm going to turn it over to frank who will speak about the sequa issues that pertain to the project. >> hi. so as i was saying earlier your clients primary concern really is the concern for impacts of the excavation for the supplement. and that raises two issues one under sequa and two sort of the

expectation and enjoyed circumstances on the sequa front the project was cleared through a exemption in particular and the certificate of demonstration talked about the she or he of the inpining foundation and there is no unusual circumstances for the environmental impacts. as we've indicated there's been no agreement between the neighbors on the underpinning and she or he or that joj signage would not result as my colleague indicated our clients home is a i think over one hundred years old and listed on the california register and the excavation is significant between 14 and 20 feet the

numbers have shifted in terms of what the project sponsor has represented it's one thousand soil linkages and our position is that we believe that given the scope of excavation the absent between the neighborhood there's indeed a fair argument it could have environmental impacts. as i previously mentioned we're provided with she or he permits on friday has part of the process our engineer ben concluded that there were certain xhifbts and the engineer had recommended and other adequacy i's in terms of she or he themselves we related those xhments comments to the project

sponsor they agreed there are certain things to be incorporated and as i mentioned our really erratically preference so to achieve resolution but if a continuance is not viable we request that the commissioner consider imposing things the provision for the conditions for example, in preparation of a management plan that could include details about she or he and underpinning if necessary and those plans will be set for approval to be attended by goib i we understand that commissioner antonini point earlier if they handle it at the dbi stage but since the planning commission is the ash for of the

building permit we found - >> thank you project sponsor you have 5 minutes. i'm sorry is there any public comment? in supportive of dr. seeing none, minutes and john duffey i want to clarify a few items rich mentioned the square footage the actual square footage is 59 square foot it's not inhabitableable so moving into the dr comments the removal of the shed was okay'd with the zoning administrator it's an old woolen sheriff's deputy regarding sequa we've gone through everything with an

environmental evaluation there was no underpinning the she or he is on our property line it's primarily but defied and purview was provided and the comments were incorporated into the design per the she or he didn't pan out it's two onerous for the project sponsor so to talk about the project in general. we've been working on it for two years and had an approval from the h pc from the project has it's currently designed. it w it was unanimous. in terms of mitigation and outreach we've attended the community boards meeting and the changes were so significant it

entailed redesigning the whole project so subsequentially well, we've been working intellectual with mr. that nelson and the she or he design that's been provided the peer view we've been allowed and incorporated comments, however, the she or he agreement is not at this time at not worked out. so essentially we've come employed with all mr. nelson's requests. moving forward we ask the continuance request be denied we've been at this for 18 months and also available for mr. nelson. we ask that the commission approve the project that's currently approved and that that

concludes my presentation. >> thank you. any public comment on that item? in support of project sponsor seeing none, public comment is closed. dr requester you have a 2 minute rebuttal >> going back to the principle issue for consideration which deals with the lack of a variance i didn't hear a response from the project sponsor to that point in particular that was a glancing response that dealt with the shed but not indirectly to pinpoint the issue the special notice was recorded against the property and/or the time a shed was added but it added to the property a special restriction that required meantime there was

an expansion of the envelope to have a public hearing. aside from the sequa issues we believe that can be dealt with an informal agreement the commission should consider whether or not a variance is indeed required as in the original document >> thank you project sponsor you have a two minute rebuttal. >> as i said we've been on the project for two years gone through all the planning hurdles, if you will, including the environmental. historic review and the co a what direction issued. i i know that rich has presented this material regarding for instance, the sheriff's deputy

for the zoning administrator and gotten feedback so and with regard to sequa the environmental evaluation has been done so as far as the project sponsor we've gone through the hoops and are convinced that the planning department has done their homework on the issue. as far as we're concerned we're in compliance thank you, thank you >> closed the public hearing. >> director ram. >> first of all, it's up to the zoning administrator i want some clarification about what the c a said. >> correct i did review the proposal with the zoning mist and since the variance is tied with the existing shed and their removing the shed no further

review is required. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. i was going to ask that same question but in terms of the decision can it be appealed to the board of appeals. >> presumably. it did not require a variance i'll ask the city attorney this but it's a non-decision so is that appealable. that's a variance issue the decision not to require a variance is appealable >> just some background there's currently a variance from the recorder this was associated with a rear yard shed that the current proposal is proposing to

remove so he determines the variance is not requiring additional review because their removing the purchase of the original variance. >> commissioners kate from the city attorney's office if there's a written statement if there's not and no variance the decision here there's nothing that's appealable to the board of appeals. >> i had another question not a question just a comment or observation perhaps excavation work was to egregious that sequa would have to go beyond a negative declaration that, too is not within the pressure view

of the commission and would, sir if she wanted to challenge the deck they're a procedure separate. >> correct. they were a class 32 exemption on the property it will follow the normal process for at can do x >> and i and lastly another comment with respect to the commission being the last words on building permits that's not correct it's the board of appeals that takes the appeals for applications and appeals on those applications so - >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> so if there's a notice of special restriction that deals

with, you know, there has to be a public hearing to have a variance granted to for remove of the sheriff's deputy i'm interpreting what i've heard f - we're having a public hearing not before the zoning administrator but having a public hearing in regards to this issue. >> there's no longer a need for the original variance the shed is not there. >> it's removed. >> yes. there's no need for a code. >> the removal of the shed is not part of the project they've removed it as part of the project. >> that's right and so therefore the notice of special restriction did not apply. >> questions. commissioner moore >> i think looking at the

project i don't see anything exceptional or exiled since the requesters house we're looking at the second unit and does it in a code compliment it has the attention of the preservation and the approval of the historic preservation that leaves us if we haven't seen something i move to approve. >> and not take the dr. >> commissioners there's a motion to take this. commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to

zero. for the benefit of the public item 16 duncan street continued to july 14th. commissioners general public comment >> seeing none, public comment is closed. general public comment is closed. meeting

>> 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