state of objections he had five points. it was unstable soil, which we just addressed. the property was part of an estate still being litigated, which he mentioned, the property should be preserved as a possible archeological site, the property is under developed, and should remain so and the property should be a public park. i believe we can all agree that most of those are pretty ludicrous claims with no basis in code requirements as a developer of a private property. the appellant are not applicable to the project and he has been provided evidence otherwise. finally addressing the long litigation with the estate. we understand that bringing this issue into the discussion is speculation on our part but the appeal ant's pattern of behavior is clear. we believe it's a motivation for his a people has filed lawsuits and appeals and court actions getagainst the estate and lost every time.

he requested this case be heard by the california supreme court which was denied. he appealed the sale of the land the he is indicate sold and we purchased and his appeal was denied and court approved. he has apparently, by court documents, spent $750,000 in legal fees. he contested the sale of the property as well as ever action the estate has attempted. he appears to be willing to anything to deny anyone associated with this project to undermine the estate. i'll try to be brief. two things that jumped out is the first page he claims to be the legal owner of the subject property and does not work to be permitted. as he suggested of th. he states has been informed and believes in the circumstances seeking a court injunction halting construction may not be in a remedy because he claims yet to be established retroactive in the subject property and he cannot show he has an establishment.

>> you have three more minutes in rebuttles. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez. i agree with the comments of the permit holder. the appeal ant has raised no valid planning issues that would call into question the proper issuesance of the permit. there have been site permits issued for construction of two separate buildings on the lot. that was appealed to this court and the appellant did not show up to that hearing. those permits are final. construction can again on those permits and even the permit before you as a revision to an already issued shoring permit. we don't see any grounds for granting the appeal in this case. thank you. >> thank you. mr. duffy. >> president fung: mr. duffy, i have a question. how come planning is answering for a shoring permit? >> because we do.

>> president fung: what does the department do to verify who is the owner on the permits? >> i believe we use the assessor records. >> president fung: assessor? is there a check on every permit? >> i believe so, yes. sometimes when a property is sold, there's sometimes a lapse between the owners and not those that they ask for documents. or if you are claim you are the owner, but it's not consistent with the assessor records you have to prove when you bought the property. basically we go off the assessor records. it's the property tax bill. that's my understanding. >> president fung: are those new requirements for zachary view in place already? >> i believe they haven't been officially but they can be using them -- i believe it's still going through but they're using

them anyway. if you know what i mean. there will be. yeah. >> president fung: thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? we'll move on to rebuttle. you have three minutes. >> thank you. i really don't have much to add. i would just like to reiterate that what i would like you to do is to maintain the status quo until the courts have finished doing their work. thank you. >> thank you. >> just to continue my final thought for my discussion, is that based on what he just said, he is asking you to rule on a matter that has been through the court system much higher level of judicial overview than an appeals board and he is asking you to rule in a what if?

what if a future court rules that he may be the legal owner? he is currently not the illegal owner. we have the right. i had the right to apply for the permits and the current owner has the right to build the project. please approve the permit. thank you. >> mr. sanchez, anything to add? mr. duffy? >> commissioners this matter is >> president fung: commissioners >> anybody need discussion? if not i'll make a motion. >> move to deny the appeal on the basis of the permit was properly issued. >> so we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal and pull the permit. president fung. >> aye. >> wilson. >> aye. >> swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries. the appeal is denied. we will now move on to item number 7. i don't see a representative from the department here.

let me just read for the record. this is appeal number 18-082 subject property 1650 to 1700 owen street mission bay commercial corporation versus san francisco public works bureau of urban force street. appealing on june 5th, 2018 public works order regarding an application in public works order number 187544 to remove 24th vote trees with replacement adjacent to the subject property. denial of the request to remove 14 of the trees with replacement. approval request to remove 10 additional street trees with replacement. it's order number 187811. and we will hear from the appellants. >> good evening, my name is pam louis and i'm the appellant for mission bay commercial corporation. i'd like to introduce sam from arbor well who has presented or given you a a arborous to rept

our case. >> i'm sam. i'm representing mission bay commercial corporation. the issue is there was a permit submitted for the 1650-1700 owen street property. the city staff originally counted four eucalyptus and approved 10, denying four. they cited that they used online images to determine that the health of the trees was good and that they were showing previous decline but they were producing new leaves and in good condition. that pruning would mitigate the

defects. when i went out for my inspection last month, i found there were 13 eucalyptus along the street frontage. nine trees were permitted with signage. if you look at the overhead, it would be tree one, four, seven, 12, 13, 15, 16, 21 and 22. trees six and 14 along the frontage, this is going from 16th street towards the new kaiser hospital. six and 14. six was likely permitted. it was the worst of the two. but there was no signage present on those two. 13 trees were denied.

when i do an assessment, i look at over all health and condition. the site foleyage, structural treatment. whether the tree is leaning. i give the tree a condition rating. i have found that the trees range from fair to poor. fair is a higher level or incidents of deficiencies noted in health and restructure including possible hazardous conditions, signed, symptoms observed with higher corrective measures in input required to improve the condition and where applicable mitigate the risk with the removal. poor is significant deficiencies in health and structure that may include hazardous require immediate action some individuals may require removal

as well. so from the table you see i found two were fair and -- two of the 13 and then there were 1. my math is off. there's 10 that are in poor condition. two with no markings but they both were assigned with a poor condition. the goal of this tree removal permit application was to mitigate hazardous ask declining trees while bringing the facade, anesthetic of the building to harmonic unity with the street. by approving only 10 of the trees, it will leave the property front age with a disorganized and chaotic look.

because i would never suggest to put eucalyptus back as street trees. this is not the goal of the property owner. the species of tree are not commonly planted anymore. especially along a roadway with high pedestrian and vehicular traffic. the property owner would like to mitigate these risks to busy city business center next to a major hospital with a lot of traffic and a lot of people walking by. and i recommend that the trees were removed and replaced with a more suitable tree for the urban

environment such as a tree that is more up right and it has more of a column presentation of its foal age and structure. i really respect the boroug burf urban forestry and the decisions they make. i just think they made their assessment based on google images and not being on site. it's pretty much all i have to say. >> are you folks finished? with your presentation? >> i think so. >> president fung: do you have a question? >> how old were these trees? >> they seemed to be fairly new. less than 10-years-old. >> the area is really less than 10-years-old and this redevelopment. i mean, i was on the redevelopment commission and that was warehouses and garbage

out there and i wasn't on it that long ago. it generally the -- >> president fung: who planted these trees? did mission bay plant these? >> come to the microphone, please. >> there were several master developers. the first one was katellas and mission bay development group. i don't really know who actually planted them but i'm sure it was one of the faster developers throughout the whole course of developing. >> president fung: who was to maintain these? >> mission day commercial maintenance corporation. >> president fung: was supposed to maintain them? >> yep. we were maintaining what we were given. >> were these trees planted before, given the turnover of

developers, were these trees planted before buildings were built or were they as kind of props of what could be or were they built after the buildings were designed and built? they planted after the buildings were designed and built? >> right. so the standard policy, if you will, was for the master developer to get the infrastructure in meaning, the sidewalks and the trees before buildings were installed. so i can only say what i've seen throughout community. >> that's what i recall is that there was a lot of street scape and a lot of streets and street scape and then the buildings were designed. these trees had no context for what was going to be built behind them. >> correct, yeah. >> can i add something? i just wanted to show a picture

on the overhead of a tree permitted for removal. it has a trunk and very poor structure. >> president fung: was his time up? >> he has one minute. >> the tree right next to it with the same structure this type of lean and the bode nature of the tiki and it's just going to compound. it gets worse and worse. i don't think browning will mitigate the defect associated with the poor nursery style. >> president fung: one further correction. are these trees are not on

private property anymore. they now are the responsibility of the city to maintain under the new legislation? who maintains them? who is responsible? who owns them? >> the city owns them but mission bay commercial maintainance is tasked to maintain them? >> even under the new legislation that was passed by the voters? >> that is my understanding. >> president fung: new legislation pending funding. there's no guarantee? >> right. >> i'll just add that mission bay commercial maintenance corporation is a large h.o.a. and we're tasks to maintain these trees. >> thank you. >> president fung: mr. sanchez you want -- public comment? >> is there any public comment on this matter?

being none, you are entitled to three minutes of a rebuttle. the department is not present. do you have anything further to add? >> not at all. >> president fung: thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> i was asking our city attorney, is the hearing valid without a departmental representative? i think so. >> i've had hearings and reached decisions without one party or the other being present. >> president fung: well usually that's an appellant that doesn't show up. >> i don't know about departmental. >> president fung: ok. >> i think you vote with your -- >> president fung: discussion? >> i prefer to make a motion.

>> i would -- >> president fung: i would move to grant the appeal and allow them to overturn the denial of the 12? >> overturn the public works order. >> president fung: and that the new species for all of the trees and size to be determined and approved by bureau of urban forestry. >> ok. >> well, yeah, the replacement is allowed as 10 already. and that condition would apply to that also. >> yeah. >> ok, so we have a motion from president fung to grant the appeal and overturn the public works order and direct the bureau of urban forestry to

issue the tree removal permit for the 14 trees and so a total replacement and removal of 24 trees with approval of the new species, size and specifications approved by the bureau of urban forestry. [ please stand by ]

>> president kwon: good afternoon. thanks for waiting, folks. welcome to the san francisco public utilities commission meeting. today is tuesday, july 24. before we take the roll, let me just say one thing. we have a number of speakers here today. we have a lot of speaker cards. to give everyone time, we're

going to hold strictly to the 3 minutes. when you hear the second chime, that's when your time is over to make time for the next person. so hold it to that time or you will force me to sing to you and that will get you off quickly. the roll, please? [roll call] >> clerk: we have a quorum. >> president kwon: i'm going to announce that closed session items 20-25 will not be heard today. and another note, too. august 14, the commission meeting will not occur. that meeting is not on the calendar. it's been canceled. so august 14 commission meeting does not exist on the calendar. item 3, approval of minutes from july 10, 2018. any discussion, commissioners? >> move approval. >> second. >> president kwon: any public comment on the minutes from the

last meeting? all in favor? opposed? okay. all right. item number 4 is general public comment. members of the public may address the commission on matters within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda. i have peter druckmire. >> good afternoon, chair kwon, and commissioners. i think you know we're a little disappointed that the bay delta plan didn't make it on to your agenda today. and your august 14 meeting is canceled. so that means your next meeting, august 28, is after the state water board hearing on august 21 and 22 and we've only had one public discussion of the bay delta plan, which was in january, 2017. so we really haven't had a chance to discuss it. we put together a slide show

that i'm going to show you today and i'm supposed to let the folks downstairs know that we're going to shift over to the computer here. there are three of us who are -- who put in speaker cards so, we're hoping to run through it, depending on how the chair would like to proceed, we can stop after each person's time and restart the video or run through. >> president kwon: let's just run through. >> okay. i will queue that up right now. do we have sound? >> yes. >> the san francisco bay delta is on the verge of total ecosystem collapse. the main cause of estuary decline is the last of sufficient freshwater in flow from california's central valley rivers.

>> we had a tech person in earlier and he was talking about the buffering on this. it looks like it's buffering again. so maybe we can go to speaker 4 and 5 and come back to this and it will be good to go. >> president kwon: sure. i will call them in the order i have them. if i can line up the next few folks. denise louis. >> denise and barry are part of mine. >> president kwon: okay. if they want to come forward and wait in queue. >> clerk: i believe bill martin is next. >> president kwon: all right.

>> thank you. my name is bill martin. i'm a san francisco resident and customer of sfpuc. i've participated in four meetings, beginning in march this year. president kwon was present at the first two, march and april. a major topic has been the socioeconomic effects of the bay water quality control plan update. dave warrant, who is also speaking today, and i attended two other meetings, one in may and another just yesterday. these meetings have been very informative and have helped us understand the assumptions and background information in the reports and the model used to generate the results. to prepare for these meetings, we read numerous documents, articles and reports. so please understand we have not arrived at our conclusions lightly. what do we learn? first, more transparency is better. even though these are complex topics, they can be communicated

clearly. when people feel like they're getting the real story, they will respond. we found at the assumptions were not clearly listed and explained. we feel that we now understand a lot of these assumptions, but they were not at all clear at the beginning. not enough reasonable outcomes are modeled. for example, in the most recent drought, the governor told the state to conserve. the bay area reduced water consumption by 23% with little or no effect. this was not even considered in model even though it really happened. a second example contracts allow the various water agencies to transfer water among themselves. they're allowed to do so. why not ask them how they would do it and put that in the model. the study did not include

probability analysis. in the most recent drought, the governor asked them to conserve. in planning for a future drought, you would assign a higher probability of the governor taking action. that would result in a different series of socioeconomic effects. greater transparency and openness and consideration of a much larger set of out comes and techniques would greatly enhance the validity of the report. thank you. >> president kwon: thank you, mr. martin. mr. warner? >> i'm dave warner. it's an honor to speak to you, guys. thank you for supporting our discussions regarding the socioeconomic studies.

we've learned a lot in the meetings and our concerns come down to transparency and probability. if the studies had been better understood, they would have been used in a useful manner. the reader is left to draw his own conclusions. if you are an environmentist, you con exclusived th-- you conclude that the economic harm will never happen. if you are a water manager, you assume that the harm will happen and start spreading the work. it's a mistake to leave this to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. the answer is in the middle, as demonstrated as follows. one of the discussions was around the lack of inclusion or discussion of mitigation items, such as investments in i.p.r. or desalination. mitigation actions can reduce the economic impact of the state water board's actions. the studies can be one-sided and

leave the leader to his or her own conjecture. apologize if i misrepresent comments. ms. levin's comments were along the lines of, extremely long lead times needed, measured in decades to implement things like i.p.r. and desalination and cited a project started in the '90s that is still not done. if a project started now, no way that it would be useful in eight years. and another comment, the return on i.p.r. and desalination are not as significant as imagined. both were thoughtful comments that i had not fully considered. if the probabilities have been incorporated, we would have had a belter understanding. if they're not include, no matter how difficult it is to come up with, it's up to the

reader to make his or her own guesses, which we don't want. i think back to the comments of 2017 regarding the studies. a number of us claimed that the studies were wrong and commissioner moran responded to us and concluded that you had to believe the studies. in retrospect, we were all wrong. the answer, while not precise, is in between. incorporating mitigating actions and their probabilities into the studies is just one example of many that would improve transparency and understanding. so there is only so much we can cover in 6 minutes and we would be pleased to discuss our findings further. we ask that you don't reference the studies until the multiple issues like the examples here are addressed. thank you for the excellent dialogue. >> president kwon: thank you. >> sorry about the technology glitch. i think we're ready to go. again, we're going to play a video. if we could have sound?

>> the san francisco bay delta is on the verge of total ecosystem collapse. the main cause of the estuary's decline is the lack of sufficient freshwater in-flow from california's central valley rivers. in a last-ditch attempt to revive the bay delta and tributaries, state water control board is updating the plan. the aim is to achieve theco-equal goals of restoring eco systems and ensuring a reliable water supply. phase one of the plan was initiated in 2009 to update in-stream flow objectives for the san joaquin river and for the delta. it will establish the flow objectives for rivers that flow into the san joaquin. in-flow would start at 40%

between february and june, which are critical months for juvenile salmon rearing and outmigration. the plan allows for adaptive management that in-stream flows may increase or decrease depending on biological or environmental flows are met. nonflow measures, gravel augmentation and habitats, could reduce flows. agriculture water districts have opposed the plan and the san francisco public utilities commission that manages the hetch hetchy has joined them. it provides water to several counties. one reason the sfpuc opposes the plan is because it has a contractual plan with modesto to follow their lead on in-stream flows.

sfpuc gave up its right to think and act in accordance with the values of constituents. a recent public opinion opinion found that 93% of san francisc n franciscans conserved water during a drought and 94% said they would conserve if it benefited the environment. 21% only if it enabled more development. three times as many people said they would be more likely to blend groundwater with drinking water if it benefited the environment versus enabling more development. 97% supported measures to protect san francisco bay and 92% restoration of the twalamy river. and 88% for affordable housing and 68% for market rate housing. support for more office space was low at 40%.

another reason the sfpuc opposes the bay delta plan is because it's planning for a massive amount of development. plan bay area prepared bye-bye area metro forecast 4.3 million new jobs and 2 million more people to the bay area between 2010 and 2040. when asked if they thought that plan bay area would improve our worsen their quality of life, 11% thought it would improve their lives. 65% felt it would maybe their lives worse. 85% believe that plan bay area would worsen their quality of life. to predict how the bay delta plan would impact the bay area, it's important to understand the sfpuc water rights, demand and storage. the sfpuc has junior walter rights to modesto and turlock. the first cubics belong to the irrigation districts, increasing to 4,000 cubic per second for

spring runoff. above that, it belongs to the sfpuc. in a normal water year, the sfpuc is entitled to three times the water that is used. at full storage, we have enough water to last six years. even at theight of the recent drought, sfpuc had enough water in storage to last three years. the sfpuc had enough water and storage to last 4 1/2 years. 2017 was the second wettest year on record and the sfpuc had the right to capture enough water to last 12 years. they didn't have the ability to store all of that water, so they had to dump it. the water we conserve during the

drought didn't benefit the environment was behind dams, only to be dumped in a single season. sfpuc staff have used scare tactics. they claim it could lead to the loss of up to 188,000 jobs and $49 billion. their projections are based on an extremely flawed socioeconomic study that has been debunked. water demand decreased by 30% between 2006 and 2016. had the sfpuc's projections been accurate, we should see the loss of 25,000 jobs. and $6.5 billion. in fact, 125,000 jobs were added in san francisco alone and the economy grew stronger than ever.

in san francisco and san matao counties, jobs increased by 27% and water use declined by 23%. the trust modeled what would happen if the drought repeated with the bay area plan. the sfpuc could average the drought with 10% rationing. sfpuc has not challenged our model, but asserts they will plan for a design drought, that combined the two worst droughts from the latter part of the last century. most water agencies plan for a three-year drought, but the sfpuc plans for an eight-year drought. if they did follow their rat n rationing scenario, the sfpuc

would have enough water for two years. all the economic impacts that they forecast would have been unnecessary. in a worst-case scenario, if we experienced a drought worse than we've ever seen, water could be purchased from an agricultural walter district at a reasonable price. thank you for taking the time to learn more about the bay area water delta plan. we can have a vibrant economy and healthier ecosystem. please share this video with others that you think might be interested. >> president kwon: thank you. so you arranged that speakers 1, 2, and 3 would be in this time frame. i will call on speaker 6. i will call you up three at a time, if you can queue up on this side. so i have speakers 6, 7, 8, mr. harry bernstein, ms. anne

clark, and ms. sonya deermaier. mr. bernstein, please come up. >> good afternoon, president kwon, and commissioners. my topic today has to do with the balboa reservoir near city college. as you know, the upper balboa reservoir site, east side, is owned by city college. the lower western site by the p.u.c. so i just have a few points to make. during -- so there's a major development being considered for that lower reservoir site. during previous moves to put housing in the reservoir, which is '80s to '90s, serious concerns were raised about the safety of the basin, especially

involving fire and drought. those are two different issues, of course, given the physical layout, a fire would pose a tremendous threat and get easily out of control into the neighborhoods. another part is in the case of drought, the city has been trying to husband its water resources, i know especially in the western side. there's been a number of engineering studies over the years, trying to discuss whether certain potential reservoirs should be used for storing water in the case of fire and other emergencies. and one, i guess, was done as recently as 2000/2002. and can i give you citations. and it was thought that it was a

good idea to retain one of the reservoirs and then parking could be put on top of the various plans. so i think that should be considered rather than just declaring the property surplus. second, the city college board of trustees and administration have now agreed, the board has voted to finish the performing arts education center, which began as a proposal, at least 10 years ago. it's imperative that no project goes forward in the lower reservoir until the completion of the pack in the upper reservoir, to allow proper staging for construction to occur in a timely manner. chancellor rocha has advocated for construction to be in as early as this year and estimates vary but it could last until

2002. the last thing is, the p.u.c. has said, when there's a north reservoir, that they with never develop that. they would change their mind. thank you. >> president kwon: thank you. next, ms. anne clark. how are you? >> good, thanks. i will talk very fast. i'm anne clark, a member of nrdc and san francisco resident. i'm speaking for myself. i want to thank the sfpuc staff for all their work. during meetings with them, they've provided short and long-studied data and projected about sfpuc water and power programs. i attended meetings when sfpuc were working on lines and water flows. i attended a meeting july 19 in

san matao and realized i looked some information. there are long-term and short-thermostatistics for customer and customer properties. i request that before closed session that the following information is provided to the public in an open session. public disclosure of short and long term statistics about development, employment, density, water use and conservation in the last year, five years, 10 years, 15 years, going back 20 years. we all know how important water and rivers are for california and worldwide. water is not a cap-filled use and flush commodity. it's a lifeline of our planet. commissioners have vital and critical decisions to make. water is not just for real estate density and development. water must be conserved for use

in cities, farms, orchards, vineyards and rivers. the public must be included in the decision making and not behind closed doors. thank you very much. >> president kwon: thank you, ms. clark. next, sonya deermair. is that right? >> yes. thank you. good afternoon. i'm sonya deermair, speaking for sierra club bay area and california. we find it appalling that san francisco is opposing the state water board's proposal to leave some water in the twalamy river. we are also appalled that the commission has not seen fit to make this an agenda item for public discussion. san francisco is allying itself with greedy agricultural interests and central valley republicans and the trump administration, which is staging

a full-scale attack on california's right to determine its water future. they are spewing extreme rhetoric, demanding the right to continue draining our rivers to the bottom, to the bed, and killing fish. the sfpuc is fueling the flames with misinformation campaigns. the palliative measures that you are suggesting instead of flows, are akin to the idea that you can have a swimming pool with a leak and the water level is dropping and you're talking about adding a diving board, some waterslides, maybe lifeguards, and then maybe people will come back to swim. it's absurd. water quality control plan is a watershed moment in our state's history. it's pretty simple. without water, a river isn't a river. without freshwater to balance

the incoming salt water, the delta is not an estuary. it's that simple. and san franciscans, i believe, would be outraged to know that you are siding with the interests that are about to drive smelt and salmon into extinction. thank you. >> president kwon: thank you. all right. next three speakers, michael adams, fred mohime, and mark gonzalez. so mr. adams, welcome. >> thank you very much. michael adams with the small grassroots group city college first coalition, one of several groups springing up to try to address the potential for transferring the balboa reservoir, which we call the

west parking lot, to private developers, at great consequences, negative consequences, to students and neighborhoods. during previous moves to put housing in that reservoir, serious concerns were raised about the safety of the basin, especially involving fire and drought situations. no one is addressing this as it's already a basin, which never had water in it, but the potential is there. all parties involved have publicly admitted that no research has been done current and future ridership needs of the 20,000 students a day that attend city college's main campus and need to get to their classes ontime, to say nothing about professors that have to move from site to site and need their cars. muni is great, but it's often late. they had voted to finish the world-class performing center.

it's imperative that no project goes forward in the lower reservoir until the completion, perhaps 2022 of the performing arts education center and upper reservoir that will displace some of the parking supply. p.u.c. would be wise before approving a surplus in density. we hope that's where we remain. areas described -- i'm a city planner by training and we describe transit-rich sometimes when we mean transit-gridlock. that's what we're facing in that area of the city. it's a nightmare at commute times. during the last few years, city college, as you know, was under what turned out to be an illegal attempt to terminate the college, which would have

released the public land even easier of the whole college site. not only did c.c.f. survive, thanks to the efforts of many, but it's thriving, thanks to the efforts of wise political folks who sponsored free city college which supervisor increasing the need for parking. just a thought, that that parcel is well suited for a solar panel-mixed use and parking underneath. it's not unusual for the city for that to happen. it happens on bart parking lots and the pg & e parking lot, where the trucks park under solar. thank you. >> president kwon: mr. fred moheim. >> good afternoon,

commissioners, and chairman kwon. 43-year resident of san francisco and life-long learner at city college. i am a proponent of optimiza thank you -- optimizing public land. the current plan limits parking for the college. in trying to optimize the use of the land, we end up diminishing the ability of the college to train the taxpayer work force that the city requires. and that's because we have many students and faculty members that can only access the college by vehicle and don't have access to public transit to get there.

maybe not all the parking need it, but it makes it difficult. and that reflects on the building of the performing arts education center, which will provide venues on the south side of town. many of those will be in the evening and they will also require parking availability for people that cannot get there on public transit. on other fronts, the land should not be sold to a private developer. any housing built should be 100% affordable. we need to be providing housing for the people that the city needs that work here, our teachers, firefighters, etc. i hope that the p.u.c. will not proceed with the sale of this

land at this time. thank you. >> president kwon: thank you. next speaker, last one for item 4 unless someone else comes up, mr. mark gonzalez. mr. gonzalez, welcome. >> hello. thank you for having me here. i was born in san francisco. my parents were born in san francisco. my european ancestors came to california in the 1700s. my indian ancestors came over thousands of years ago. when we think about the status of the rivers in california, we have to consider what we have done over the last 150 years. i know we're not going to restore it to that degree, but this is an opportunity as a population of caring people to take a step in restoring what has been taken. if you look at the populations from 50 years ago to today, what's the answer -- drastic

reduction. what has been done? there's been some mitigation. but the research shows that the necessary river flows keeps more fish in the river in a healthier state. so that's an important consideration when you make this consideration. and peter would like to thank you for the time. >> president kwon: thank you. any other general public comment? yes, sir. >> let me make a couple of comments, if i might. first of all, i think that this is not the end of a discussion. this is -- and i'm speaking about the bay delta plan. this issue will be with us for some time. and i do agree that a public hearing would be useful. one of the things that is frustrating from this side of the desk is because it's not a

calendared item, we don't really have an exchange. you present your points of view. it's not calendared. we can't really respond. and i will stretch that a little bit by responding. so i think that a hearing would be useful. i would like to make a couple of comments on my own behalf. one, i think there's been a lot of information that's been exchanged in the absence of a hearing. there's been a lot of information regarding the meetings that have taken place. there's been a lot of testimony in various forms. a lot of it has changed. and i think that also we've seen over time that that understanding has increased and positions have narrowed. the areas of disagreement are fewer today than they were a year ago.

>> commissioner moran: while we do have similar data, we're no longer arguing about the models being used. we don't endorse each other's models fully, but we don't argue about them. we have similar data. we do have different roles and come to some different conclusions. that's how it should be and probably will always be true to some degree. we have a responsibility to the fishery of the lower dams. we know that. we take that seriously. we also have an obligation to meet demands of the service area. we work to minimize those demands, we work on that. but our role is different here. we know more water will go to the river. the question is in what way?

we believe we put water in the river that's targeted to the specific needs of the fishery that will produce more fish with less water. so there's a difference of approach. we have science on our side. you have science on your side. but i think that's the discussion -- that's the the core of the discussion. the other thing that's at the core of the discussion is the planning that we use. i describe it as being prudent. it's been described as arbitrary. i would suggest that the design draft comes from droughts and was hard-earned. we have a standard in place that i believe is prudently protective of the water supply of the people that we serve. we can argue about the dollar

impact and shortage, but it's not still a problem. and we have a responsibility to deal with that as best we can. the other thing i should say, our design drought doesn't really take account of climate change. if it's prudent with what we know today, it will need to be adjusted over time to deal with greater varability and that will make it more conservative, not less. so those are the things i think that are out here. i didn't want this public comment to go unnoted from what the city's positions are and what we're trying to do. that's not to say this is a full discuss. i think we would benefit from having a fuller discussion about this. thank you, mr. chair. >> president kwon: thank you, commissioner. and i also, building on commissioner moran's comments

here, was able to watch the video that you sent me yesterday and i shared with one of our scientists. i want to echo your call for a forum to have an active discussion. one more point, on the balboa reservoir, has there been a traffic study done of that area? i've seen traffic studies from m.t.a. and so forth that talk about more of a future scenario and what they would like to see usage, but given that demand off ocean avenue, have they taken a look at with the building of the arts center, etc., how much and by what means people need to get there and ultimately park their car. the city is transit-first, but there are people that have no choice but to drive. >> to answer your question, i don't know. i can look into that, but i think it will be part of whatever environmental document

will be done, whether it's for the performing arts center or for the balboa residents site. and there will be a parking study done as well. >> president kwon: thank you. okay. so we're moving on to item 5. communications. any discussion, commissioners? >> commissioner moller caen: yes, i do have. for 5d, sewer inspection report, should i be happy with that? [laughter] >> the sewer inspection report, you are looking at total miles cleaned and miles replaced. mr. henderson can elaborate. >> brian henderson, acting

a.g.m. for wastewater the sewer inspection report, we did achieve if you have the report in front of you there. we have largely met our goals annex seeded our oaverages over the last several years. >> the total miles cleaned has decreased over time and while the miles of pipeline replaced is averaging 15 miles a year over the last four years, what it doesn't account for are miles tied up in contracts that haven't been completed. so they've been reported in the future outlook. but we are hitting our 150 miles inspected at this point. >> if you want to get into details, i can get some detailed questions answered that you may have.