>> it probably didn't mean much on the wet side and means a lot of on the dry side. >> commissioner: and the additional management is that water that will spill anyway? >> it's water that would spill anyway but spilled in a fashion cognizant of how to obtain flood plain benefits with that. >> commissioner: is there risk ed with that we might release water where we wish we hadn't? >> there might be but i think collectively in the world we're getting better when's going to be dry and wet you think the risk we have to worry about there is making sure we're maintaining flood protection for managing the releases and holding off on those releases and adversely affecting flood

protection. >> commissioner: when you talk several slides later about developing additional water, help me understand. that's a program, as i understand, you're presenting as a combination of water that was being made available to the fishery and water that would meet other needs the system has? >> i think we would clearly have to make water available in the fishery. there there's the potential for other projects that could come to san francisco and/or the districts. >> commissioner: so i will put not words in my mouth but out of my mouth, right now there's a

real tension and conflict between providing water for the fishery and meeting needs that we and our customers have. is this trying to resolve that conflict? >> it's trying to resolve that conflict, yes. i think we could have a bias towards let's make sure the majority of that water is developed for the environment and i think that's where we would want to see it go. the agreement so far just talked about environmental water. it's not specific beyond that but i think that's why the phrase implementation is subject to mutual agreement of the parties is code words for details to be worked out exactly so folks are comfortable with it from both sides. >> commissioner: and in the conversation amongst ourselves about what we do in the face of

either if the negotiations don't proceed quickly enough or fail or if we're tied up in litigation for a while, what do we do in the meantime? when we talk about meeting our obligation there's consideration of how do we do the right thing for the fishery in spite of the regulators and regulations not being embolden quickly and going far enough, fast enough for us. you don't directly address that in here. >> it's not directly addressed in here. certainly i know the feeling among us and i believe as well with the districts is everybody's interested in early implementation as a sign of good faith. we're committed to this stuff and as the processes play out, if they're going to take time, we would like to move forward. moving forward always involves design and environmental review

and the projects are basically in the tuolumne river and modesto would be responsible but in terms of funding the projects and allowing them forward, i think all three agencies are very interested in doing that and only a current disruption the regulatory projects would cause us to change our minds on that. >> commissioner: one last question. we are focussed on the tuolumne and because of the state action we've been focussed on the lower san joaquin and three tribes. the proposal that came to the state board was basically a northern california plan. how independent are we and our actions of that larger plan?

>> that's an excellent question. >> commissioner: thank you. do you have an excellent answer? >> it was written as a delta watershed moment and the merced river did not reach an agreement with the state so it was not included. there was some uncertainty at the end if the tuolumne river would be included as part of the package and how it would. it was listed there. a version of the draft agreement was included in the package that was put together. i think those discussions as they go forward, we have not looked at anybody else's and we're starting to now. they were all covered by non- s non-disclosure agreements and there were no details available on the framework so we're just

starting to get to that point to look at it together and see if we go some place. certainly, it is an odd position because by adopting the plan for the three tribs as they did, the entities on those three tributaries solve the regulatory crunch which is why the san joaquin authority sued turlock, oak dale and san francisco and m modesto and merced filed on their own. i believe the san joaquin filed on their own. we're a unique set in that we're all the ones that have the actual risk of potentially adverse regulatory action at this time. so there's a lot of work still to be done among all the parties

to get somewhere on this. >> thank you. >> i have a couple questions. thank you, for your presentation. i appreciate it. so i had some similar questions around the strategy and plan and time line for early implementation because i feel quite strongly these conversations and though there are short time lines in here could potentially drag on and meanwhile the fish are in trouble. so i would like to hear the next meeting more specifics on what that process would look like if indeed it's an e.i.s. that needs to be released, how that could happen. how quickly can we begin early implementation and what would that look like? >> we can present at the next meeting. >> commissioner: thank you. i know we'll be talking at the next meeting about the remarks i

brought up in december i guess it was. one of those that's been lingering and continues to haunt me is the question of peer review. i don't know if and when it's appropriate for that to happen for us to really understand. it seems it should be part and parcel of the early implementation strategy to get a better understanding what the chances are for early implementation to succeed. and it feels like the best way to understand that is through some kind of appear-review process we've been talking about for some time and would have hoped would have been done by now and i don't know what the plan is for that and who will be doing that piece of the work. >> we have been talking with the irrigation districts. as we discussed, they're the ones who develop the model of the direction of ferc.

let's be clear, that's just the model. a model is just a model. one of my favorite sayings is all models are wrong and some are useful because they really give an indication of what you should do than the one and only answer. i put that big caveat on opposed to a peer review of the entire package of things. it's about the model. that's the technical question. and so on that, i have an answer by the next meeting as well as to where we're going to go on that because that would be a nice thing to be able to say here's some clarity on that. >> and there's relevant pieces or what that's going to look like and by when would be helpful as well. i had a question on one of these slides. you say the agreement of the

interested parties, what is it, implementation is subject to mutual agreement of the parties. who are those parties? that's the slide relative to the -- slide eight. >> the parties at that point the department of fish and wildlife and department of resources an turlock and modesto irrigation services in san francisco. >> and i know there's been this constant question about stakeholder engagement or n.c.l. participation. i think you put in the next two weeks the conversations will take place as well. will there be an opportunity for and i'd imagine it'd be limited but if there's some significant issue identified or flagged by somebody from the n.g.o.

community or another stakeholder within the next couple weeks. >> i'll give you my interpretation of what the state board order means they'd like final agreements by march 1. march 1 is really soon. will that be the final word on this? there's analysis, there's process. the analysis of the agreement may come back and may show that yeah, there are particular things that ned to be done differently. there may be some weaknesses shown there we all have to confront and deal with. i think until the state board adopts something, it's all open to some kind of discussion. i would say i think the advantage of the time lines is that makes people get serious as

we found that it took even now with participation and it took three weeks to where they got to before december 12. march 1 is a good deadline to have to make sure people are serious about talking about this and coming to some kind of at least resolution that looks promising that would be analyzed and hopefully there's the scrutiny but if not we have to deal with that. >> and i don't know the role this commission will play. i know a lot of these proceedings have taken place behind doors for confidentiality reasons and we even as a commission are a little bit late in coming up to speed as are other stakeholders and n.g.o. community and the deadline and i appreciate it pushes everybody to engage and learn what they need to learn.

i don't know if this commission is going to need to take a position at some point on the v.s.a. approving or weighing in in some way. i would hope we get as much as information as possible if we're to weigh in and if not we can at least express our views and opinions on the v.s.a. as a final document. then i have one last question. it's partly because i don't understand to commissioner moran's point, i'm not quite following and sure now's the time because i'm taking it offline or hearing bit at the next meeting. what is currently mandated either by the feds or state or by some of our current programs that we have already authorized or regulations we authorized both from the water perspective

and from the habitat restoration perspective. it seems some projects in the v.s.a. are ones we either already approved or are in the middle of being constructed. i don't know if it's designed to bring those to light and make sure they're part of an agreement. are they being counted as possible mitigation measures. >> the measures proposed there and again these are the habitat projects for non-flow measures and talk about the $38 million for certain specified measures. those are ones proposed. they have not been authorized or implements yet and that's in the irrigation district final application and a separate $38

million pot of money to be managed for other projects. basically in their final license application and aquatic weed control and one other i can bring to mind those aren't been approved by anybody yet or designed or implemented and one question that's not yet been answered which we'll have to answer at some point which is how much is san francisco's share of the funds with the district because we're in a partnership on this. >> what about with the flow

measures? >> we'll provide that at the next meeting. it is a series of proposed flow measures with different purposes. one of our challenges is trying to take large complex stuff and boil it down to a relatively understandable way. the flow measures tend to be large, complex tables. we're going to do our best to make that intelligible for everybody to understand and i'm confident we can. it will take some work. >> commissioner: that would great. i think it's not net gain question commissioner moran was trying to act partly. >> commissioner: also as we hear comments being made about the v.s.a., it's hard sometimes to separate what is the generic concern about the v.s.a. is it a

wathershed and how much is the tuolumne river and those are quite different. i think there has been concern the baseline may not be adequately or correctly described within the v.s.a. it sounds like the baseline on the tuolumne is being correctly described. so there may be one comment doesn't apply to all watersheds. >> i think that's definitely a true statement. >> commissioner: great, we know you have your work cut out so in advance thank you. we appreciate your efforts here. >> thank you. >> commissioner: thank you ritchie. i have four speaker cards here for public comment. you'll have three minutes for your comment. i'd like you to state your name and the community in which you live.

so first speaker henrich alberts. >> interview: hi, i'm henrich albert speaking for the sierra club for the san francisco bay chapter of the sierra club. i'd like to speak about the volunta voluntary settlement agreement we've been talk about. and thank you very much. the commissioners raised good questions about that. i was in the water board's meeting on december 12th when the voluntary agreement was announced publicly. we event -- haven't seen details before and we weren't categorically opposed to

voluntary settlement agreement, if there's a good one, we're for it. i was encouraged to see there was something concrete. as i say, we hadn't really seen anything. now that we've had a chance to analyze this, i'm disappointed to say this is basically a sham. i have here an analysis that possibly some of you folks have already seen. this was done by barry nelson on behalf of the golden gate salmon association. i have copies for all of you folks here. i'd like to go over it just briefly. the whole analysis is brief. but basically it points out four key defects. the first is science. this agreement really is note based on any science and i think that's been generally true that

while you folks and some of the irrigation districts have talked about specific analysis of what these to be done to save these river environments and the wildlife that depends on them, they haven't been peer reviewed and are in conflict with the specific analysis that's been done by the state water board researchers, the consultants they hired and independent scientists. since you folks have an interest in this, your science is suspect. another thing is -- >> commissioner: have you 30 seconds. >> we think there's funny numbers on both the additional water to be provided and on the habitat restoration. i think the point was raised there may be some new habitat

restoration here but there's a lot of stuff being counted that is already committed. the last thing is that we and the other n.g.o.s have been excluded from this -- [comments off-mic] [chime] >> commissioner: mr. albert, in what community do you live? >> i live in alameda. >> commissioner: thank you for your comments. the next speaker is dave warner. >> interview: >> i'm dave warner i live in palo alto. and in the december 11th meeting

with the proal proposal you gave cause for optimism. and i understand at your next meeting there are plans to turn the proposed resolution into a written form that incorporates commissioner moran's comments which i think they already do such that the commission can vote to approve it and thank you for taking steps that reflect the comments from the [laughter] meeting. consider taking progress by making it a regular agenda item. [stand by]

. >> we are really disappointed in you as a commission right now. you're throwing a wrench in the years-long careful process in coming to a compromise on managing this vital resource that we call water. it's vital to all life, not just people. you have heard in no uncertain terms that the bay ecosystem is

dieing because we people have continued to overdraft the tuolomne river in this case, but all the rivers in general. and you know this. you've heard this many times. so clearly, this looks like a very short-sighted and political stand that you have taken, and so i have to say shame on you. your constituents deserve a real explanation by you going against what the majority supports, saving this irplaceable bay ecosystem and are under your jurisdiction. so the hard fought amendment as now written and backed by the state water board, it reaches this fair compromise, at least within reason. so i urge you now to drop out of this lawsuit, give the citizens the opportunity to

continue conservation efforts in combination with this water plan going forward. this just isn't time left to recover from mistakes like this one that you're making, so don't set yourself up for a certain future of regret. thank you for listening to me. >> thank you. the last speaker's nicole sendula. >> i did want to speak today, and pleased to receive the report from mr. ritchie. bosca continued to support the work. we are looking forward to the march 1 date in the hope that we'll have all the details that are needed, but at the same time, i appreciate the next

steps that everybody has to take to protect the interests of the water customer. that's certainly an expectation. we did get a presentation from mr. ritchie to the board -- my board, and they asked similar questions to yourself, commissioner viator, what is the analysis behind it, the benefits from it, the impacts of it? the costs associated with it, wanting to know more about it, and i'm sure we'll have that by our next meeting in march and i'm looking if ard to giving that to them because they want to have a thorough discussion with this and understand it and know whether they stand behind it or not. the other thing is i support and appreciate the conversations that you're having about what if, what kind of road are we headed on?

i appreciate the time and energy that you're going to put into it. we're committed to it, because we see that's going to be necessary in some form or fashion. thank you very much. >> thank you. are there any other comments from the public? seeing none, what is the next item, please. >> clerk: item ten is the bay area water conservation plan update. >> like i just mentioned, the bosca board did meet last week,

and there was a couple of developments. this will do -- prepare new demand projections for the entire service area. each of the individual areas, and the region combined using the methodology that actually was first developed in conjunction with you on the water system improvement, peir, and both san francisco and our agencies have continued to use since then. very data intensive, technical but documented and well supported demand projection process, so we're excited to do that. it is a two-year study, and the goal is to have the work done and completed by may 2020, that report, so the agencies have that report for their urban water management plans. one of the new things that we have in the work this time is the specific outreach to

stakeholder task. so this is not something that we' we've engaged in before, this model. this time, we're going to engage a full stakeholder group for this area, get reports on the measures that we're analyzing, the recommended results, and what are the conservation measures. we think this is going to be successful in making this a more robust process and making this as inclusive as possible. in the end, this is going to support all the things that we've been talking about, but more importantly, really, in my mind, are bawsca's water supply. the questions of how are you going to meet your obligations in the future. one of the first things is what is the demand and are we

comfortable with that? have we taken into account how the service area responded to the last draught? abag, planned area, the new developments, all that thing. so this information will be available for that purpose, and i'm very excited with that. next, the bawsca board also authorized bawsca's porpgs in the next-level studies -- participation in the next-level studies. los vaqueros is an existing reservoir in contra costa. the current m.o.u. has expired for the work, and that work was to secure the bond moneys, and so this is the next m.o.u. for

basically the final piece of the planning work to be able to make a decision by the winter of 2019 about whether we're going to form a j.p.a. and be a participant in this process. this is another significant development that feeds into the question of where are we going to get our next supply of long-term water supply projects. this is november 2013 to november 2018, and our use, while still lower, november 2013, that delta is smaller than it's been. so it's 8% less. i don't have a great answer for you why yet. it's something we're continuing to look at, but again, it's -- as we continue to track and watch these things, these are the important questions we're

asking and try to figure out in our demand study to figure out what is going on in the future and what we think is really happening. and lastly, it's hard for me to believe, bawsca just completed its 15th year, and we're pretty proud of that. so we did just a short video about the agency. if you can imagine, 1.8 million, 286 wholesale customers. we think it's important to get the message out. it's 11 minutes. it's available on our website, bawsca.org. i do want to thank general manager kelly and members of your staff who got us access to the watershed and also for pictures and other things to kind of add the flavor and specialty of the regional water system. so if you get a chance, take a look at it.

we're pretty excited with it. that concludes my comments. >> well, happy anniversary. >> thank you very much. >> and congratulations on the continued conservation. >> it is very exciting. thank you. >> are there any public comments? seeing none, what is the next item, please. >> clerk: item 11 is the consent calendar. all matters under this calendar are considered routine by the san francisco public utilities commission. they will be voted on by a single vote. >> are you reading the -- >> i read the summary. >> okay. are there any items you'd like removed from calendar? the public, any items you would like removed from the calendar?

may i have a motion? >> i'll move approval. >> second. >> all those in favor? [voting] >> opposed? the motion carries. next item, please. >> clerk: item 12, retroactively approve and ratify original amount not to exceed contract of 3,342,840 in agreement number cs-318, retroactively approve and ratify amendment number one, and eating 578,582 for a total not to exceed contract amount of 3,921,422, and extending the term of the contract by two years. >> i'd like to move the item. >> i'll second. >> any public comment on this item? i'll call for the motion. all those in favor? [voting] >> opposed? the motion carries. next item, please.

>> clerk: item 13, approve amendment number three to cs 991, authorize the manager to extend this agreement by five months and retroactively approve and ratify the actual contract duration of three years, seven months. >> i'll move the item. >> second. >> any public comment on this item? all those in favor? [voting] >> opposed? motion carries. next item. >> clerk: item 14, approve plans and specifications and award contract number wawd 4402 to the lowest qualified responsible and responsive bidder, anvil builders. >> i'll move the item. >> second. >> any public comment on this item? all those in favor? [voting] >> opposed? the motion carries. next item, please.

>> clerk: item 15, approve the plans and specifications and award credits number wawd 2829 r in the amount of 38,272,200, to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder and arrange for pipelines. >> move for approval. >> second. >> any public comment on this item? all those in favor? [voting] >> opposed? the motion carries. [agenda item read] >> and this was the item we were promised additional information on this project, is that right? >> that's correct. >> and i would like to hear the

presentation. >> all right. >> 71 million. that's a lot of money. >> good afternoon. i'm shelby campbell, the project manager for 1550 evans. you've heard a great deal about the engagement process for the community center at 1550 evans. now let me tell you what we've accomplished to ready the project for construction. here's a timeline for what we've accomplished over the last two years, and what's next. i'll go through this in greater detail during the presentation, but to summarize, in 2017, we began the planning process, and

by year end, we had the building program, site plans and floor plans completed and approved. we celebrated with the unvailing of the site plan at the sccs's annual holiday event. in 2018, we proceeded with design of the building architecture and site landscaping. we completed civic design review phase one and two, and zoning for the site to allow for the project's proposed uses of the site, and we issued an rfqp for a cmgc in august.

we worked with the community and secf staff throughout the planning process. the priorities established for the new community center included to create a place of destination, job training, and career development, affordable space for community-based organizations, green open spaces for events, a hub to connect and network, a child care center and playground, and a building of high air quality and energy efficiency. from there, we established the programatic components of the project, including providing space for future education component at the site. the community center is designed to have a public realm on the ground fair, community

space and classrooms on the second floor, and affordable cooffice space for our workforce development partners on the third floor. the public realm includes a child care center for over 70 children, a public cafe, and the alex pitcher pavilion. the multipurpose space on the second level is available for workforce training, community meetings, and affordable event space. activated open space was also a very high priority for the community in a neighborhood where there's disproportionately less green space than other areas of the city. the desired open place included play areas, garden space, picnic gardens, and demonstration wetlands. with the key components of the project determined, studies were completed to evaluate the best layout for the site. with this layout, the campus

floor cart garden will be a destination on third street, with open space for special evented and weekend picnicking. the layout provides street-lined views for high visibility of all components of the project. the placement of the buildings frame the open space and separate activities from the parking in the rear of the site. several architectural concept studies were evaluated with sccf committee and civic design commission. key components of the project included carports and entry canopy which span the buildings and will portray a sense of welcome to the community and provide a place of respite from the sun while providing a place to gather outdoors. other key concepts included a cafe in the lobby with outdoor seating and a central plaza on

coron -- anchored by public art. a this slide illustrates how the features of pattern, views, and sun shieds were incorporated into the -- shades were incorporated into the architecture. the facade of the lead design shade the southwest facing glass while maintaining views to the surrounding open space and campus. the use of natural warm tones and durable exterior materials complements the green surroundings and further reinforces this is a place for community. the tall, trans -- two-story transparent entry lobby linked by the protective canopy expresses a grand entry, and

the use of masonry creates a base to another transparent facade. each of the daycare classrooms are expressed with a punch room opening and canopy. the back facade continues the use of warm stone and wood veneer materials and will have views looking towards downtown. key features for the activated open space include open cafe seating, an am if i theater adjacent to the alex pitcher paflian, a family plaza, natural play areas for children, a play area for the child care center, and gardens with you can with aing paths. the project includes 150 new trees for the site, for a net of 70 trees that currently

exist. here are additional renderings of some of the landscaping features that show the character of the space. the first view is image of the wood, showing meandering paths, and natural gistic planting. this image is of the embarkment slide, using the topography to create a natural play area. the final area is a boulder hill, using boulders for exploration and play. here is a picture of the corner of third and evans. we're a ready for a big year. we'll complete design and start construction this summer. we hope to award the cmgc contract today and hope to have them on board for

preconstruction by march. we will also advertise for construction management services by the end of this month. we received three proposals in response to the cmcgrfqp. all three are significant general contractors in san francisco, and as a result, the final scores were very close. we request your approval to award the contract value to pankow for a contract not to exceed 72 million, of which approximately 600,000 is for preconstruction services. the contract work requires a strategy to maximize local workforce and participation. pankow is partnering with l.p.c. and j.b.r. to partner on the local hiring requirements. now i'd like to share with you just a real brief video that gives you more of a 3-d

perspective of the building? >> you know, i think if it's similar to what the presentation you just gave us, i think we should move on. whi we have a very big agenda today. i think we want to talk about -- well, one thing i want to ask about, is why did it have to be readvertised? >> the cmgc -- >> mm-hmm. >> rfqp? the reason it had to be readvertised is all three responders were not able to respond to the local participation patient requirements, and we realized we had to readvertise to meet all requirements. >> what's really unique about this is we're using cmgc, construction management general contracting in a way that the

contractor is responsible for identifying businesses in the community and getting them ready to actually work in the building and plugging them in and deciding how break packages up so they can give opportunities to them. so as a part of this whole solicitation is what -- we wanted to know what is their plan to actually accomplish this versus us identifying folks and trying to force them to hire. they need to identify people in the community, see what the capacity is, where -- you know, what type of trades they're in, and then break up the work to try to bring them on board. so that was something we wanted to make sure was clear, what our expectations was. >> i have a question, yeah. thank you so much. it looks like a beautiful building, so i really

appreciate the work that's going into it, but i would also be remiss if i didn't dig a little deeper, no pun intended, on some of the sustainability questions. i saw that you lifted up the solar piece, some of the energy efficient sun shieding. i would hope like 525, like our headquarters, that this would also be a model that people will really go to and look to as a model for sustainability, especially around water energy and wastewater, since we're the p.u.c. but also around materials and toxicity and keeping down chemical content and all that. i know that lead gold is pretty good, but it's not lead platinum. so i don't know if you've gotten that far, but i would urge and encourage you to make sure that you're tracking that, and that those components and elements can get integrated now before the building is built. >> yeah. we're very close to platinum.

we're pushing it, but we're not there yet. >> yeah. just to give you a tidbit of stuff that shelby's bringing to my attention. she's saying, you know the building has a kitchen. and you know you like gas ranges. if you do induction, then, you get more points. i'm like induction? every time you see top she hch it's, like, gas. i'm, like, what is induction? so she convinced me we're going platinum to the highest level that we can achieve. >> you know, especially if there issy a component around water-wastewater, i think if we can do something else with the community center, that's fantastic. if harlan tries to give you a

hard time about it, i've got your back. >> yeah. we're -- the rain water from the roof visibly draining to the wetlands, so we'll have a run off from the roof. >> any black water? >> the building doesn't support it. i mean, it's not a large enough building for that. >> mm-hmm. >> great. well, i'd like to move the item. >> i'll second. >> any public comment? all those in favor? [voting] >> opposed? motion carries. it does sound very exciting. next item. krerk clerk item 17, approve the terms and conditions of and authorize the general manager to seek approval by the board of supervisors and mayor to execute a termination of lease between the city and county of san francisco and orchard supply company at a ground rental rate of approximately 1,304,915 per year over the

remaining five-year term of the lease. >> i'll move the item. >> second. >> any public comment? all those in favor? [voting] >> opposed? motion carries. i have a little side story on this. i heard it the other day on the radio. there's a very famous sign that the orchard supply company, and so it was going to go where all famous signs go. there must be some graveyard for famous signs, and it was going to be displayed, it was going to be very wonderful. and then, the sign was stolen, so they had to go out and find the sign, which they did, and it turned out somebody stole it because they wanted to preserve it. so they stole it and put it in their garage, so that's the story of the sign. >> so where is the sign going to end up? >> well, we don't know.

>> but not in this garage. >> that's right. okay. next item. >> clerk: item 17, approve the san francisco public utilities commission wildfire mitigation plan dated december 2018. >> i'll move the item. >> i think that's 18. >> clerk: oh. >> item 18. >> clerk: we just did 17, which was the orchard supply. >> we just -- so this is 18. >> clerk: 18. sorry. >> i'd like to move item 18. >> i'll second. i do have a comment. it looks very thorough and that there's a process in place to take care of the business. i just want to make sure staff knows there is a sense of

urgency, the flash over of the sites, and i'd like to make sure the -- we move aggressively on those. and the other is that in the litigation with pg&e -- or i guess it's probation compliance issues on -- on the criminal trial, the judge seems to be making up new obligations and new procedures for them to follow, like inspecting lines and -- for all of them as they stack up against wind risks and that kind of thing. i just want to make sure that this does seem to be a very fast moving area in terms of law and regulation, and we are having to face a degree of environmental threat that we're not used to. and i want to make sure that we listen not only to the regul

regulator, but a sense of where that is going, and the judge will give us views as far as what's best practice, in that we have a sense of urgency and listening to that and responding ahead of regulation where that's appropriate. >> yeah. steve ritchie, assistant general manage he of water. >> we are very cognizant of the issues here, and it has been very fast moving. this is one area where we're not letting grass grow under our feet with our staff and frankly, the attorneys, as well, looking

public utilities commission and the aquatics science center in an amount not to exceed 1,184,389. >> i'll move it. >> second. >> i have a question.

does this involve any open trails? >> first on the follow up on the wildfire mitigation. the question again? i'm sorry. >> the first question, number 20, does that involve any public open trails? >> well, the bay area ridge trail is one of the trails we have there, so it would not add any trails. this is just technical support for us on management interpretation of what's out there, so these are really a

group that provides understanding of the watershed lands and how they're managed so that we can help create better interpretive facilities among other things, but there are no additional trails anticipated by this. >> nothing it being opened up. >> no. >> thank you. any other public comment? all those in favor? [voting] >> opposed? the motion carries. next item, please. [agenda item read] >> i'll move it. >> second. >> i do have a speaker card on this. susan ryan. wou would you like to come forward? [inaudible] >> thank you, commissioners.

i'm susan ryan, the principal of john rope aye an school. i'm pleased to be able to speak on this proposal. we have at our school a partnership with the public utilities commission that's been in progress for 2.5 years, and we have students from 9 through 12 grade that are working with p.u.c. experts and teachers that are going out for sternships at the p.u.c. to build curriculum that has the academic skills but also the career readiness to be able to enter into skilled trades pathways that were preefg mentioned by kathleen curtis. so the p.u.c. and wastewater, we have 55 families that resides in the bayview. really excited to hear about the community center and how there'll be this aalignment between sfusd and the public utilities commission and city college. and that is what we've been doing at