-- every time they have this kind of where you have a permit, you can increase the price. i don't think it's proper to be a government policy that you get a permit, sell the property and increase the price. right now i'm kind of hoping that there is a with a that the city attorney can work with the board of supervisors -- i think when you sell a property, it should be the default that it no longer has all of these other agreements on the lien of the property. in this particular case, i would be hoping that the recreation and park department in light of this going on can we -- yes, sir -- can we as

a body of people here in san francisco county, citizenry, can we try to eminent domain of this particular piece of property? do we have a strong enough supervisor as we had formally at northeast -- in chinatown, can we get that kind of leg work going? i hope so, because this kind of timeline that they are trying to run over and over, i'm not too much in favor of. thank you, mark. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else who would like to make public comment on this item? being none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner low. >> we have shared the same goal with the developer is to build open space and provide new open space opportunities for what is the border of chinatown and the financial district, which is the densest area in the united states. so

we do have the same goal. we just have to get to that finish line. i understand there is a 2001 planning motion, which exists. and which certain conditions should have been satisfied prior to issuance of the site permit. not pointing fingers of blame or who was right and who was wrong and who delayed? who is not being responsive? but i would like to see the conditions satisfied prior to our next capital committee meeting. those conditions are finish off the property transfer agreement, which i haven't heard there is an issue. finish the cc & rs which sounds like they are only two issues outstanding. park hours and maintenance. get that resolved. finish the design. i have been copied on an email from mr. fraten that sounds

like we're pretty close on design with some minor modifications. open escrow, submit your escrow instructions and post the completion bond for the park improvements. someone back in 2001 put a lot of thought into these conditions, let's follow it. let's get that done before the capital committee. at the next capital committee meeting i would like that put on the calendar for a check-in, just to make sure everybody has got their deal done. >> thank you. commissioner harrison. >> yes. i would like to speak to the maintenance end of it. as you can probably guess, i am in favor of using our staff to do that maintenance. but i also would like to ask if you could ask those individuals from the other side of this about using some of our pre-apprentice program, which

we just sort of instituted. it would be a good social involvement from their part if they could do that. >> and that should be -- >> sorry. >> go ahead. >> that should especially be done in recognition this is a park, part of the recreation system and part of the recreation and park department and respect should be given to how the park is run and should by open to the public and with respect to our park programs such as the apprenticeship program. all of that being said, i don't want to tilt any favor of the negotiations. we just want to say -- i want to see this deal done finally after 15 years that. >> mr. ginsburg. >> commissioners i was wondering if our city attorney could come up and talk about the process from here on out. i understand that the way this agreement was originally

framed, there are still some approvals and some process with relation to the transfer of the park. >> deputy city attorney marlina byrne. yes, i think dawn did a great job, but for 350 bush the tall building that will be shadowing st. mary's square and 500 pine with the new st. mary's expansion on top of it. both of those contained conditions of approval that are sort of separate in addition to under the planning commission's authority, separate from the rec and park's authority under this program. and that was because the open space on the roof of st. mary's of the 500 pine building which will be the now st. mary's square expansion meets not only

-- is not only going to be a new part of st. mary's square to address the shadow concerns, but is also designed to meet the planning code requirements for open space under planning code section 138. so i wouldn't go through all the details of those entitlements, but relevant ones for this discussion are that as commissioner low noted, there were a number of milestones that were supposed to have been met before site permit was issued for 350 bush. some of those have not been met yet and that is what we're working to complete right now, which is the finalization of the property transfer agreement, putting that and other supporting documents, including the cc & rs into escrow and getting the completion bond online. as we discussed theses are all appear to be close to getting resolved. but some of the other milestones that are relevant to this commission are that the planning commission conditioned the approval of 350 bush's

final addendum to the permit that the planning department sees on planning department's approval of the st. mary's expansion including materials and plantings and planning will be look at that as well to approve the addendum for the 350 bush project. and before the certificate of occupancy can be issued for the 350 bush project, we have to have ownership and have received the st. mary's square expansion property. these are the triggers and requirements in place under the planning commission's approval to guarantee this will happen in the way we want and in the timeline we need it to happen. >> commissioner low. >> i don't think there is a disagreement with the developer on what needs to occur; right? and the site permit has been

issued. those guys already started construction. so however we got to this place, we're at that place. the only path that i want to see is let's fix it. let's follow that first part of the conditions of approval that should have been satisfied. get the property transfer agreement down, get the cc & rs satisfied and post the bond, resolve the design issues, the maintenance questions, let's get it all done and bring it back before the capital committee on april 1st -- >> maybe we should have picked a different date. it sounds like everybody is in close agreement to geting this done. >> that is my understanding. >> let's get it done and come back april 1st and make another presentation to the capital committee, capital committee will make a recommendation to the full commission. and perhaps to the planning

commission and hopefully that recommendation is it's done. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> other comments? >> no other comments. >> we are on item 9 greater and greener 2015 innovative parks, vibrant cities. >> commissioners i will introduce this and rebecca one of our interns will do the presentation, but i will tee it up, as it were. as i think you all know by now, on april 11th, april 11-14th we will be welcoming urban park representatives, advocates, agency representatives, professionals from the landscape and planning world to san francisco for greater and greener. this is a major urban parks conference, international urban parks conference that is hosted

by the city parks alliance. the city parks alliance is a national urban parks alliance, not to be confused with the san francisco urban parks alliance. they are headquartered in washington, d.c. and advocate on urban park issues. advocate and educates. they do this every four years and it was last in new york city and we did host to get this conference -- -- our host committee and rebecca, [speaker not understood] the san francisco park s alliance et cetera. we have all combined to submit a bid that was selected and we had about two years' of planning and the conference is

right on the horizon. so we wanted to not just mention this in the gm report, but have rebecca do a deeper dive with you to tell you about the conference for our world, this is as exciting as it gets. with that i will turn it over to rebecca. thank you very much, phil and good morning president buell and the rest of the commission. >> good morning. >> thank you for taking the opportunity to learn more about this conference. i do have a powerpoint for a visual aid. to start off going with the local host committee. it is as phil mentioned a whole list of san francisco bay area public, private and non-profit organizations that are collaborating to ensure that the local story is woven into the overall program offered in the conference. as the lead host committee rpd has been responsible for

developing weekend tours and mobile workshops, suggesting and providing local speakers and leaders, bringing in volunteers, organize a volunteer service day, as well as recommend and secure venues for special events. we are anticipating 600 attendees from around the world, as well as our domestic friends from states such as texas, ohio, new york and washington, just to name a few. vips for this conference include well-known leaders such as john jarvis director of the national park service and the founder and chair of the 8-80 cities. a special luncheon mayor forum will bring together mayor betsy price from the city of for the worth and mayor murray from the city of seattle for the support of urban parks. in addition to the dozens of panels and presentations, special events such as the opening ceremony at the palace

of fine arts are sure to show attendees and guests just how special san francisco is. other events include a reception at the academy of sciences, as well as collective effort to remain mountain lake park before the conference begins. the conference provides four tracks shone here to help attendees focus on the topics that interest them move. advancing technology explores how park leaders are using management and tech opportunities to strengthen civic engagement.living and learning from the new urban habitat tells how park leaders are engaging new audiences and becoming more relevant through collaborations and innovation in thes youth development and

green jobs training and lastly, city parks 101 and beyond shares a central topics around sustainable parks around private-public partnerships and earned income strategies and culture. as you will see from the next three slides san francisco is representing a significant portion of the overall content at 65% compared to the 20% that new york provided in the 2012 conference the following are color-coded -- our breakout sessions which highlight a majority of our executive staff members are smaller conversations that cover topicks from technology in our parks to connecting familis to parks using new approaches and programming and outreach. the mobile workshops are hands-on breakout panel sessions that take attendees into the field to experience the programing that we provide everyday. from urban agriculture,

showcasing our community gardens and youth steward program to highlighting our mobile rec program. lastly, our weekend tours setup organized exploration of san francisco for our early conference with attendees, providing for a tour with our enthusiastic tour leaders. thank you so much for taking the time to listen. >> just a quick addendum to rebecca presentation, mayor lee will open the conference sunday night. the keynote speaker on monday and our own chair mark buell is moderating the panel of mayors and parks that will also include mayor lee. >> i just want to say that was an excellent presentation by a college intern. >> i couldn't agree more.

>> thank you very much. [ applause ] >> is there any public comment on this item? being none, public comment is closed. we are now on general public comment, this is continued from item 4. if you spoke on item 4, you cannot speak on item 10, but if not, and you would like to make general public comment, please come on up. >> good morning again, richard fong. i attended the betty ann ong center and having a technical issue -- i think it's more mr. ginsburg, i had spoken about they are trying to form a partnership with the rotary club and betty ann ong organization and they had in

mind simply using the facility at mason street. so when they use the facility they have to pay the required permit issues and guarantee that the floor is okay and everything else. it's a partnership aspect that i wanted to look at closer. the foundation has an additional rotary club. i think the rotary club before they donate to civic recreation places, rpd, if we have that type of relationship it's good, because they can go to all 1, 2, 3, 4, districts of rpd. in doing so, i wanted to try to get more of that funding going back to a start-up fund but they don't have any money going back to the recreation facility. they have a partnership. if you use the facility like

coming up on may 2nd, they get one-third or something like that. i think there should be a fee structure included where the fee or whatever it is gives back to the start-up funds to pay for -- like a ping pong racquet. so this kind of money, i think they should have to pay back into whether it's through contribution or through donation, how much they deal with that money. so that is where i would see a three-way, one way is -- one of the three-way is rotary club foundation and recreational center, that they have to be assured they have to pay back the amount of fundings. that is all i really wanted to try to get across. okay? >> thank you.

>> is there anyone else who would like to make general public comment? being none, this item is closed. item 11 commissioners' matters. >> if i could request in the context of the zoo report, that we ask for inclusion of -- i'm not sure what to call it there are appropriate, because i know there are lines here, but the general category is the labor relations. just as an ongoing update, that would be very helpful. >> we'll find a way to make that happen. >> is there any public comment on this item? being none, public comment is closed. item 12, new business agenda-setting. commissioners? >> commissioner harrison? >> yes. i think it was at the last meeting that commissioner bonilla brought forward the

idea of some of items on the new agenda-set having languished there for quite some time. and the two that i placed on there, the apprenticeship program and maintenance and replacement of costs and authentic turf i would like to see brought forward. they have been languishing there for over a year, i believe. >> so noted. >> any public comment on this? being none, public comment is closed. we're on item 13 communications. commissioners? is there any public comment on 13? being none, public comment is closed. and 14 is adjournment. >> entertain a motion. >> so moved. second. >> moved and seconded. so moved [ gavel ]3 4 f1

. >> i had a xhepbtd on the waste water management report. does one of the points the goals for 2015, was to reduce the tonage going into landfill by 20 percent? is that because if it stays in -- i can't remember the name of it -- for too long we can't put it in -- it has to go into landfill, we can't use it? is that the reasoning behind that? >> good afternoon,

commissioners, marla trose, waste water enterprise. could you repeat your question, please. >> on the second page. report it talks about goals for 2015. item 3 is reduced tonage going to landfill by 10 percent. i'm assuming that it can't be used for the purpose it's supposed to be used. >> i don't have that answer but i can get you that answer from bonnie jones. i didn't have enough time to get up to speed on the items on here but i can definitely get that answer for you. >> thank you. >> but just the whole concept is to reduce the amount of tonnage going to landfill by reusing the by products of the bio solids. the other use would be to reduce by 10

percent. >> yeah the land application case of it is for reuse. >> thank you. >> okay. >> yes, commissioner. >> ian, maybe in addition to the response to that, i mean especially since we have a new commissioner it might be nice to have a really high level refresher on what percentage goes to landfill, what percentage do we bio digest and turn into power, what percentage is land application, just super high level just to give us, since we're moving into ssip pretty aggressively and maybe as part of the answer to that question we could get a little mini refresher. >> i'm sure we could do that. >> thank you. >> good idea. >> any other comments?

during the pipeline configuration allowing a little bit of water from san antonio to blend with our treated water from hetch hetchy. staff quickly shut the valve off to isolate the system and we worked with our regional customers to shut off their valves so that water could pass their areas. the untreated water was eventually discharged in

crystal springs reservoir where it will be treated as part of the normal operation of crystal springs through harry tracy water treatment plant. i wanted to thank a lot of staff who worked around the clock to track the blended water and monitor our water quality. i think moving forward we will continue to work with the state water resource control board and our other wholesale customers if any public notification is required. grace with come up and answer any questions that you have on the event and what we're doing about it. >> good afternoon, dave grace with the water enterprise. a nice synopsis from the general manager. i can go into more detail if there's questions. i did want to make a point of saying it was not a public health emergency, as serious as the water quality that was last

week, if it was a public health emergency we would of course have notified you and the public and all the stake holders immediately. that was not the case. the water, as was described, the raw water introduced into the system traveled from east to west across alameda county, santa clara county and was discharged into crystal springs. great collaboration with customers who literally were turning off their connection with us, letting the water go safely by them and it greatly reduced the scope of the problem. we have another meeting with the state in about an hour to work through this event. at this point the affected communities are limited to the city of san carlos, city of men low park and ames research center in moffat field as opposed to the greater parts of our service

center which were involved as the water traveled from east to west. correcting the event, making sure it never happens again, getting the word out, that will probably happen next week through direct mailer and probably some type of newspaper ad is the way this type of notification works according to our permit. if there's any questions i'll be happy to answer them. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and then the next and last item is a drought update, ben levine >> good afternoon,

commissioners, ellen levine, steve richie is traveling for business so i will be giving the drought update today. the first slide you are looking at is the top 14 lowest per capita consumers in the bay area. you will note that of the 14, 12 of them are within our service area with very low per capitas for the month of january. this is starting out with some very good news. next you will look at our reservoir storage levels. i think interesting to note here, this time last year hetch hetchy was at about 59 percent of maximum storage capacity. i think what is even more interesting to note is the total system storage without water bank so that's the usable amount of water was at 61.9 percent this time last year and we're at 66.4, so we have more available water to deliver to