>> you are here -- >> yes, i was here september 25 th. >> can we make sure that she gets the documents that she is requested so long as they are in existence?

that she has them by close of business on friday, at the latest. this item is a recommendation to the full board of supervisors. >> right. >> it is not an action by us. go ahead. >> except that there may be issues that the commission needs to deal with like the quality of the ordinance being considered today. the need to, possibly if people haven't been aware before of their need to address questions and ask for site review since they found themselves on the map i just feel its a very important issue. over 2,000 people will be affected by this. some people might not be able to afford the insurance that's being required. >> yes. i would defer to council. if council thinks we are

positioned legislatively to hold this back, i'm not sure what necessarily it will change that. i will defer to council and my colleagues. it is a recommendation based on a staff recommendation. i'm prepared to move it forward to. i will pay very close attention to your particular case, but i will grant one more comment and then we will have to decide. >> individuals haven't seen this legislation. they don't have the ability to respond to it. there has not been mailed to notice about it. they haven't been able to review it. i think there has to be time for that to be done so it can be addressed by the commission rather than moving this forward. >> i will leave you with this, unless the commissioners have comments. >> my understanding is there is not required insurance. >> if you are in the flood zone map,. >> it is a disclosure based

ordinance, is my understanding. is there an insurance requirement as well? >> i want to clarify there is no requirement embedded in the ordinance to purchase insurance. and also, i want to clarify that we did send out the letters to all of the property owners before the map and will also send out, during the board of supervisors process, to hear the ordinance as well. that government process has its own public notice requirements. so i do want to clarify that by this body recommending the board to look into this ordinance, we then start into a whole other process where it will be heard at the board. there will be 30 days. there will be, and i completely respect that you need to, there will be that opportunity to provide feedback during the legislative process.

that opportunity will exist once this body recommends the ordinance. >> so that 2,000 people will receive additional notification of the ordinance if and when this body takes action. >> correct. >> and have an opportunity that they will be able to provide public comment on the ordinance through the board process. >> we can't e-mail a notice to folks saying there will be an ordinance until you all recommends that there be an ordinance. because then -- we need to be creat -- correct in stating that fact. that is why we sent the first letter. it was about the map itself. and then this process is about recommending the ordinance to the board of supervisors. the legislative process will include space for public comment and we will again have to reach out and describe what we are doing in that legislative process, which is different from the technical process that we underwent to create the map

itself. >> thank you. that's very helpful. >> i think so. i want to grant the citizen as much time as she feels she needs i am comfortable with the fact this is not a legislative body. i would move it to recommendation but i will call for a vote. i will give you another comment. >> i think that if people get mailed notice while it is still in commission there will be consideration of an ordinance, and i am sure that the body of the ordinance was in the packet. i wasn't able to review it. but then individuals if they were to have the opportunity to review the ordinance at this level and raise any questions, because then they received other implications for them as property owners. and then they could respond --

it might raise issues that they have that need to be responded here as well to sarah in terms of review. sarah's letter it was back in may. that is the last. >> forgive me. i want to give you as much time, especially for being here. they will have a bite of the apple when -- they will have another bite of the apple when they get to the legislative process and they will have the same notice requirements. i will have to call for a vote, unless you have something to add >> people might not know all of the issues. >> i'm concerned primarily with you because you do, i do want to make sure you get the options you ask for. i have asked for them to be provided to you by close of business. we will have to worry about that >> i know. i completely understand. we are guessing, they will have

a bite of the apple. >> is there any need to pass the ordinance today? not pass it, but forward it? do you have to do it today? >> we will vote. i will call for a vote. >> can we do for this action? >> one of my colleagues mentions that if we do that, it will be up to them. thank you for being here and thank you for your comments. okay. it has been moved and seconded. is there any further public comment? public comment is now closed. i will call for a vote. all those in favor? >> aye. >> and opposed? the motion carries. thank you for being here. make sure you get that from staff. please have a conversation with staff. with staff. they will be happy to talk to you. thank you. >> next item, please. >> item 12, adopt a resolution recommending the board of supervisors adopted an ordinance extending the sunset date of the

bond committee for an additional six years to january first, 2025 >> i would like to move the item >> it has been moved and seconded. his or any public comment? seeing non, public comment is close. all those in favor? aye. the motion carries. next item. >> item 13 is improved a aggravated service agreement with the electric company for continued service to the clean power s.f. program. >> commissioners? it has been moved. >> seconded. as any public comment on item number 13? seeing none, public comment is closed. i will call for a vote. all those in favor? >> aye. >> the motion carries. next item, please. >> item 14 is approve the integrated resource plan and a company filing and authorize a general manager to submit it to the california energy commission >> colleagues.

>> with the item. >> so moved. >> seconded. >> and seconded. >> i have one speaker card. >> you will recall that when this item was brought to you last spring, i had some comments at that time about concerns about the implications to your water system because you do operate this component is part of your joint system. so this report is something that i am asking you to consider some changes to in your action today. i would urge you to go forward and adopt a resolution as britain. but also as part of that too to direct staff to analyse and report back to you as part of future efforts that the potential impacts of those updates on the ability of the p.u.c. to satisfy the water supply readability --

reliability goals and impact to rate payers and also, independent of your action today , direct staff to report back to the commission about any impacts this irp has on budgets or planning that you are doing as a capital investments and ask that you report back in january when you go through your budget process. two changes. asked direct staff to come back as part of future i.r.p. to say what is the implications of this action on your water rate payers because they are part of this joint system. and then for the upcoming budget , which will be before your next i.r.p., over the implications of this plan of the recommended changes in your capital planning. thank you. >> i would like to move the amendment as stated, if possible >> can reprepare -- can we

prepare to move the amendment that was made following the comments? i'm not sure i understood the amendment. >> or it could be -- could it be taken as a directive instead of an amendment? it. >> sounds like what was being asked for was a direction to staff. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak. i just would like to point out that in the classes of the resolution, we do acknowledge, now i am looking at the fifth whereas a clause. that the i.r.p. noted that its scope did not fully address the impact of the scenarios on the p.u.c.'s water operation. so this is a planning tool. it is not intended to constrain or direct any particular budget

decision-making of the commission. it is really just to provide additional information for planning purposes, four power operations. we understand the system operates under water first and this is now, with the passage of sb 350, a requirement that we perform with integrated resource planning, at least every five years and produce a document like this that addresses the state's policy objective for power content efforts to achieve greenhouse gas free electric supply and 100% renewable electric supply that you saw through legislative directives. this is not intended to modify the commission with an approach

to standard budget considerations. >> what about -- i thought the request had to do with what the implications were on the water supply, primarily, financially. so i understand that this is a plan that's being submitted to the state, but where could we codify, maybe it is a directive to the general manager through the a.g.m., to make sure that we do understand that through the negotiation -- through the budget process or at some point that this particular plan as submitted, we want to understand what the implications are on our rate payers and water supply. >> certainly. i think the budget process that we go through and the planning efforts that we undertake as an agency both on the power side and power and consultation with water considers that in all of its business transactions. we take a look at the impacts on

our customers, our rates, our ability to maintain reliable service. i'm saying that not just as power enterprise a.g.m., by the agency does that. this tool isn't intended to change that at all. this is a planning tool with additional information that goes into that process. and in all those considerations. if the considerate -- if the commission wants to consider a different approach to trying to capture that decision-making, i suppose we could do that. this isn't intended to be that tool. >> i'm just getting a little confused. i believe the screen shows we are on item 13. correct me if i am wrong, we are on item 14. >> know you already voted it out and we moved on to item 14. >> we are on item number 14 k., thank you. >> i understand what you are

saying. and it is just a plan and not actually part of our budget or decision-making. i would just want to know if this plan, and you are saying it doesn't actually have any implications because it is just a plan on the water supply, but it is used as a planning tool. >> much like we have a financial plan of a capital plan, these are all efforts, different views into how we are conducting our business and how we should conduct our business. >> i think this discussion is probably evidence of why we need to report back from the task force. >> i would appreciate the opportunity to speak. i was not aware this request was going to be made to. having said that -- >> it has been moved and seconded. what is a supply strictly. >> in the last budget process,

the i.r.p. had been discussed but not adopted. by the commission did fully consider all the aspects of all its business. >> there was not a special line item and here is the implications to the i.r.p. or not before these decisions. for example, we made various power funding decisions that did not jive exactly with the i.r.p. but they made sense overall for the p.u.c. >> if the intent of the enterprise was to stop the power system and a way that compromise water supply, that is something we need to know about and may be something we would have to act on. we walk -- work under the water first assumption and that the power operations will be indifferent to that. >> on behalf of the general manager, that is very clear for the entire organization that we need to make sure that these

things are fully disclosed so these decisions by the commission are fully in consideration of all of these aspects. >> is there any further public comments on item 14? seeing non, public comment is closed. i will call for a vote. all those in favor? >> aye. >> and opposed? the motion carries. next item. >> item 15 is authorized the expansion of the commercial paper program from 19 million to not exceed 250 million and direct the general manager to request approval from the board of supervisors for expansion. >> colleagues? >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. i do not have a formal presentation. i instead wanted to provide you with a synopsis of what this item and action entails which is described in your staff report to. we are asking to consider

approval of the power enterprises commercial paper program. the program, which is currently authorized an amount of $99 back would be increased to $250 million. is part of this action and we are asking you to approve two bank credit agreements that would support the expanded program as follows. we are asking you to improve an amendment for the existing bank of america letter of credit agreement currently authorized at $90 million to the amount of $125 million for a term of three years. we are asking you to approve the credit agreement. you are also being asked to approve amendments to the existing commercial paper dealer agreements with the firms of barclays, r.b.c. and goldman sachs for a term of four years each. by approving this action you are directing the general manager to request the board of supervisors authorization of the program expansion. i wanted to point out there are a number of documents related to

this action including the approval of an updated offering memorandum which is the p.u.c. disclosure document required for selling the commercial paper. as i mentioned, this is more fully described in your report and i'm happy to take any questions. >> colleagues? >> i would like to move the item >> second. >> it has been seconded. his or any public comment on the sight simply public comment is now closed. all those in favor? >> aye. >> next item. >> item 16 is approve the grant public guidelines for the grant program for the general authority to negotiate award and execute plan agreements up to $2 million each and with a term of 20 years. >> okay. once again, i am the assistant general manager. what you have before you on this item is consideration of approving or calling the green infrastructure grant program

guidelines. for quick context, the green infrastructure element or the green infrastructure is a key element of this city process adoption of the urban watershed planning flick -- framework. it is a very important part of the sanitary system over the next decade. there are substantial resources included in the funding for green infrastructure. all the commissioners are aware we have finished or are near finishing the last early implementation projects to help us demonstrate the feasibility and cost effectiveness of the infrastructure projects. what this action does is it is intended to start laying the groundwork for the scaling of green infrastructure throughout the city by incentivizing parcel honours as they go through their natural building cycle and properties turned over need to be investment. they are bringing green infrastructure features to their properties to provide the related stormwater management benefits. those benefits include all of the following. we have reduction of combined overflow discharge volumes, we

have marginal improvement to flooding impact and we have reduced pollutant loading in our discharges through the system and we also have potential benefits and regards to groundwater recharge and the important parts of the city. those are the big picture benefits and i have sarah bloom from the wastewater enterprises to give you a brief presentation on this topic and we will answer any questions that you may have. thank you. >> hello. i work in the utility planning commission of the wastewater enterprise. today i'm excited to share with you the s.f. p.u.c. infrastructure grant program. i will be going over the golden drivers behind the program. the elements that influence a

program development and the components of the proposal itself. the program has three main drivers. the first is to manage stormwater using green infrastructure and the second was to respond to feedback from you to look at lower cost alternatives for delivering green infrastructure in the third is to address customers that may be impacted by the face two stormwater cost allocation. so the goals state for the program to manage stormwater cost effectively by funding green infrastructure projects that meet the minimum performance and co- benefit criteria. in the structure of this program , the maintenance responsibility will lie with the property owner and the inspection responsibility will live with the s.f. p.u.c. through the budget process, the commission approved $8 million in funding for the first two years of the program and to anticipate being able to award a 6.4 million dollars in funding

two grants to about 11 projects. the program has four elements that influence this development. the first were the golden drivers that i reviewed with you , but also lessons learned that we gathered from national green infrastructure grant programs and lessons learned we gathered from the local pilot project in san francisco. and feedback from the stakeholders. the pilot project was a joint project that was funded by the s.f. p.u.c. and delivered by the school district. this project was critical at setting up this grant program for success in demonstrating how we can effectively deliver these types of projects. we also conducted stakeholder outreach. we met with the internal departments at the p.u.c., and our city family they'll be interested in participating, a trust for public land and other organizations i'll be interested

in participating in the program. so as greg said, the program will be open to all parcels, public and private that can meet the five eligibility criteria. in order to qualify for grants, projects must be located on a parcel within an s.f. p.u.c. sewer system service area, combined or separate. projects also must be able to manage runoff from half an acre of service using green infrastructure and they have to design that green infrastructure to manage the 90th percentile storm for the first .75 inches of rain. teams will also have to demonstrate previous experience, with designing and building green infrastructure and demonstrate to have our priority co- benefits. and the list of priority co- benefits is designed to support existing s.f. p.u.c. goals and programs such as recharging groundwater, reusing stormwater

for nonpotable received just for use in providing job training opportunities. and the maximum grant amounts that will be available to projects is $765,000 per acre managed. that is the limit and up to $2 million in funding per project. eligible costs include planning and design of green infrastructure, direct construction cost, removal of impervious surface and educational signage for the project. and if awarded, grantees will be required to sign a 20 year stormwater management agreement documenting their maintenance requirement over 20 years. during that time, s.f. p.u.c. will reserve the right to reserve the project at any time. >> will be providing technical assistance to the program and conducting site visits and

scheduling preapplication meetings. today we are seeking your approval of the green infrastructure grant program guidelines. we are also seeking your delegation of authority to the general manager to negotiate award and execute agreements under the program and we are seeking your recommendation that the board of supervisors adopt an ordinance which delegates their authority to the general manager for people who are in excess of ten years. if we are successful we will move onto the board of supervisors an estimate launching the program in february of 2019. thank you. >> commissioners? >> can i ask a question about monitoring the projects creates 81 -- say the school wants to monitor -- they picked co- benefits of groundwater recharge and using stormwater. will the p.u.c. then be checking out and following up if they are

meeting those benchmarks and reporting back? >> we don't currently -- monitoring is not an eligible costs under the grant program and the inspections that we will be doing our visual. we won't have monitoring data. but we will be going out to inspect for performance. if grantees are interested in doing monitoring of their project, we would likely luck with -- work with them for external funding. there's a lot of grants that are available. we currently only half have the monitoring program for the eip. >> that will not be a way to study lessons learned to capture data as we go? >> we could definitely look into adding that into the budget. >> i think that would be important. if we will really do a citywide rollout, it feels like it would be important to aggregate, before the projects are picked to really see where we are going

and the jobs training component to understand that for future programming. >> absolutely. >> to assist conclude front yard investors? >> this program does not include that. that will continue as well. >> thank you. >> for ever and ever, a man. i have a question. along the same lines. i get nervous with not knowing who will have responsibility. that goes back to our earlier report with a garden project. i. i don't feel like its enough to say that the agency reserves the right to inspect. because this is all a lot of work. the worst thing that can happen is we reserve that right and never exercise that right and it blows up in our face. i would be much more comfortable with this and in granting the general manager ongoing authority if i knew that the agency -- our agency will inspect regularly.

because if you have a lot of different cooks in the kitchen, someone will burn something. and i would feel strongly that we need those strings attached. not the threat of us looking at it, bet them knowing that we will hold them accountable. my hope is, there is a slide. that said packet said basically we are probably not going to inspect and we have a right to. that is like if you walk into my apartment. can we do that? >> absolutely. i should have called -- clarified. we will be doing inspections. the agreement provides a right for us to enter the property. the grant agreement also provides monetary relief to projects if they are not performing. if we inspect a project in year five and it is not performing, we have the legal authority to recoup the money from the grant and get it back to the s.f. p.u.c. that amount of money is

dependent upon how long they maintain the projects for. if it is in year one, we can get the entirety of the grant money back. if it is in the years 19, may be we can only get a portion back but it is prorated based on the link. we will be inspecting the projects, we are anticipating leaping these grant projects into our stormwater management agreement projects which are in the process of developing an inspection program. they will go in and we will have our regular inspectors going out about every three years or when we hear of an issue. >> thank you. back to my original point, i would want, i would want us to say no matter what, we will be inspecting each and every location and not less than every six months and not less than once a year, whatever it is. these can be 20 years. i wouldn't -- again, i know how government works at that level. all too well.

i would not want something -- if we are going to do something and do it well, we need to do it all the way down to the ground and make sure we are actually on top of these sights. i do not see that here. is that here in your mind or could it be here? or will you make it here? >> it is absolutely here. we will be working with the grantees from the very beginning on developing a successful proposal and during inspection during construction and doing a final signoff to the grantee before releasing the final payment essay okay, the infrastructure has been constructed as designed and that will be required in order for the grantee to get the final payment of money. once that is done, we will be looping them into the inspection program. i'm happy to report back to you on what that proposal will look like. the most effective way to administer that would be to wrap into the stormwater management inspections which inspects every three years. but we can definitely look into doing it more frequently.

>> did remove the item? >> not yet. >> okay. i will call for a motion. >> so moved. >> it has been moved and seconded. any public comment on this item? >> if i might pitch in one point since i'm sitting here, if i feel obligated to point out that we will be doing that at a particular frequency. you will get some to take -- dangerous budget territory when you find out later -- i have no reason to doubt why we would but those are hard commitments that we need to be very sure of that we will keep on this. i totally support this and i think that the general manager supports us and we will be inspecting but if we get to a particular frequency, we need to be cautious of that. >> every other week. >> would it be possible to pass these guidelines and then ask for the staff to combat just come back with a proposed

inspection schedule and monitoring plan? >> if there is no objection, that will be the order. >> that should be part of the motion. >> i will move that. >> okay. it has been moved again. >> i will second. seconded again. >> are you okay with that, councillor. we are good. is there any further public comment? public comment is close. i. i will call for a vote. very good. thank you very much. next item. >> i will read the discussion items prior to your motion. or prior to calling public comment. item 19 is anticipating litigation of a plaintiff. item 21 is existing claims. the city and county of san

francisco. >> thank you. is there any public comment on those items? hearing on, public comment is close. i will entertain a motion on attorney-client privilege. >> i will move to assert. >> it has been moved and seconded. any comment on that? will have no comment. i will call for a vote. the motion carries.

>> i strive not to be a success but more of being a valued person to the community. the day and day operations here at treasure island truth in family is pretty hectic. the island is comprised of approximately 500 acres, approximately 40 miles of sanitary sewer, not including the collection system. also monitor the sanitary sewer and collection system for maintenance purposes, and also respond to a sanitary sewer overflows, as well as blockages, odor complaints. we work in an industry that the public looks at us, and they look at us hard in time. so we try to do our best, we try to cut down on incidents, the loss of power, cut down on the complaints, provide a vital service to the community, and we try to uphold that at all

times. >> going above and beyond is default mode. he knows his duties, and he doesn't need to be prompts. he fulfills them. he looks for what needs to be done and just does it. he wants this place to be a nice place to live and work. he's not just thinking customer service, this is from a place of empathy. he genuinely wants things to work for everyone and that kind of caring, i admire that. i want to emulate that myself. that, to me is a leader. >> i strive not to be a success but more of being a valued person to the community. the key is no man is an island. when anything actually happens, they don't look at one individual, they look at p.u.c. stepping in and getting the job done, and that's what we do.

my name is dalton johnson, i'm the acting supervisor here at treasure island treatment plant.

>> thank you. this is a meeting of the recreation and parks department. would the clerk please call the roll. [roll call] >>clerk: a >>clerk: so just a few quick reminders. today is the november 15, 2018 meeting of the rec and park commission. we do welcome everyone, but we request that you turnoff any sound producing devices that could go off in the meeting. if you want to speak today, we request but we do not require that you fill out a blue card, and unless otherwise requested, a person will have --