>> so the time extension is to get us to where we are today. we do anticipate having the project totally complete and closed out in september. so this is in anticipation of being able to pay all of the contractor contractors what we deem to be appropriate change orders and to close out the contract time. >> okay. so i'm okay with it if there's a motion to approve item 8(d). >> i'll move it. >> is there a second? any public comment on 8(d)? all those in favor? opposed? 8(d) passes. next item. >> clerk: item 9. adopt 9. adopt the final mitigated

negative declaration (fmnd), the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (mmrp), and the findings as required by the california environmental quality act (ceqa) for the montara mountain rainfall prediction and radio replacement project; approve montara mountain rainfall prediction and radio replacement project to install a weather radar and communications tower on montara mountain; adopt the required ceqa findings, fmnd and mmrp; and authorize the general manager to implement the project. this >> this is a sequa action that you're taking today to adopt the final mitigated declaration and mitigation monitoring program as required under ceqa for the montara mountain rainfall prediction and radio replacement project. the real key of this project is the installation of radar facility. a new high-tech facility radar facility on top of montara mountain which is a regional effort we're taking part in with other water and flood-control agencies in the bay area called the advanced quantitative precipitative information system, aqpi is the acronym for

short. but the whole concept is to establish a radar network that can provide much better accuracy in terms of predictions of prescription in various parts of the bay area. what we've seen historically and recently is more extreme evens s and those are going to be significant for us to deal with as well as other agencies. we've got a co-operative effort being largely funded from a grant to acquire radar facilities and then operate them in cooperation with national oceananic and atmospheric administration and folks from colorado state university. there are various agencies involved in the east bay for radar facility there. so these are being located at

strategic points around the bay area. this is the strategic point in our system is on top of montara mountain. so we expect to be able to make use of this. hopefully this will turn into a real long-term viable project. the initial funding coming from the state is really to get us to the installations and starting to make the system work. we have great confidence it's going to produce really important results for us in terms of operation of our reservoirs and we also think there will be benefit for the wastewater system in terms of being able to predict high-intensity rainfall patterns that may show up at any given time. that's the overall program and all you're doing is approving the ceqa document. the radar equipment has already been paid for. so the installation that will take place on montara mountain will be by our staff. there won't be a contractor hired to do that. i want to take up one particular

set of issues. >> this is not part of the wisup it's in-house? >> no, this is a different project. >> no, this is not a wisup project. >> this is in-house? >> yes, this will be performed in-house, yes. so the slide here shows the upper left-hand corner the aqpi and radio installation where that will be located on montara mountain. we had to deal with some issues here, and i wanted to make sure the commission was aware of those issues. in doing the biological surveys for the project we found near montara mountain a habitat for particular endangered butterflies. so one of the things that we have done as part of our normal watershed management activities something that had fallen into disarray there was the security fence on the left-hand border there, that black line with the

hashing mark on it, that is the watershed boundary. the other side is ggnra land. so that has fallen into disarray and, in fact, no trespassing signs have been removed from it which had already been there. we wanted to make sure we controlled access into the area because it is restricted area up there in terms of all of our watershed. we only have certain trails that are open. so this shows we will be constructing a new road to get up to the site and eliminating the old road there where that yellow box is in the corner talks about ripping the ground and allowing it to revegetate there. so the access will only be on a lower road and the access to the site on that pink road there. that gray area and building is a communications installation that is on our property as well.

one of the things that folks have expressed concern about being cut off from access to the watershed there, well they were already cut off from access to the watershed. they had been illegally entering our property at that point. so one of the things we wanted to do was make sure that we made it very clear that that access was not allowable there. going to the next slide, this gives a bit of where we are on public access. this is actually a slide that we produced several years ago when we talked about public access on our property in the watershed back in 2001. the commission put in tremendous effort over a couple of years to develop a watershed management plan. in that, the commission committed to a certain amount of public access in the watershed which had already been closed completely prior to that. so what we have in there are the black dashed lines which are existing trails there. there is one, the crystal

springs regional trail which is on the eastern shore of crystal springs reservoir. then there is the five-hill cahill ridge trail. that ends about halfway down the watershed. the red line there shows the extension of that trail that we are working on right now. we are working on the environmental document. hope to have it out next year so we can construct that segment of trail. those are the trails that were committed to in the watershed management plan. there's also way up in the top there a little san andreas connection trail. those were in the watershed management plan that were not trails in the watershed management plan. on the left, the red lotted line, that is the trail that would come to this area that was proposed by the golden gate national recreational association a couple of years ago. we have talked to them and are

looking with interest about establishing a connector there, but that would be a new action by the commission that is not currently anticipated. so we would have to do environmental review of that along with any other proposals to change access. this is a fish and game refuge that we manage there and there are a lot of important considerations that we have to deal with in terms of protection of our watershed and protection of the native species there. i would be happy to answer any questions about the project. >> i'm sorry, just to clarify. so that proposed connector is not part of the action? >> that is not part of the action, no. that is something -- i'm trying to remember when exactly we presented this slide to the commission. it was several years ago when we started work on that trail extension in the middle of the watershed. that's where we've been focusing our attention because that was the original commission. that trail showed up as a suggestion that we should

consider. we think it's a worthy suggestion, but we want to deal with it in the proper manner in due course. >> so that's -- because i did hear that there were some -- i do have some speaker cards so we will be hearing, but i do hear that there were some members of the public that had some questions or concerned about this project. so is that proposed connector one way that might appeal to some of the members of the public, at the idea? >> yes, that connector, if we do that connector, would establish for the first time what really shouldn't have been used as a trail by the public. that's one of the things we're dealing with here, is that the trail had been -- the gates had been ignored basically. that was something we felt we needed to protect once we found particularly the endangered species habitat there. >> okay. so maybe we'll hear from some members of the public.

thank you for the presentation and then we can hear from commissioners after that. i have a card here for lee watts. >> good afternoon, commissioners. what i'm talking about is the sudden closure of the north peak of montara mountain to hikers. this is something i've been hiking for 15 or 20 years. hundreds of people have been hiking there based on what i've seen over the years. we're not crossing any gates that i've been aware of or not going on any land that we're not supposed to. i wanted to point out this is a prominent destination for hikers. these books i pulled off my shelf at home. these are 101 hikes in northern california. this is one of the destinations in this book. peninsula trails, again, it's one of the destinations.

i have california hiking and it has two different routes to get up to the top of the north peak of montara mountain. from scenic value he rates one of them as a 9 and one as a 10, two different routes. you go to the website. i worked with the r.i.a. trail project, to the top of the north peak of montara mountain is rated as a 5. that's the highest we give. all of the websites that list trails in this area are going to list the hike to the top of montara mountain. i guess what happens is you have to understand this is a really difficult hike. i mean, it's a very steep climb. so you're hiking for an hour and a half, two hours until you get to the north peak. and if you meet a gate you can't

actually get to the top. you have the watershed fence that blocks off all assets that way. you have no view towards the bay. you have this sudden blockage. you can't make it to the top or make it to the other side, it really spoils the hike of -- so i hope -- i mean, if they absolutely have to build whatever you're building on the very top of this mountain, it seems like there ought to be some way you can walk around what you build to get a viewpoint so they feel like they've climbed to the top of the mountain as we've been doing for the last decades. for decades people have been climbing this mountain. there ought to be some way you can allow us to get to the top of the mountain and see off to the other side. >> thank you. next i have a card for shaun

handel. >> can i use the overhead, please? i've got this set of documents that i'd like to show. so first i've been a long-time resident of heparin bay and montara. like the previous gentleman, i don't think the current situation around recreational use has been represented well in the document that was submitted to you. i would respectfully ask you to reconsider before you approve this project and absolutely do an analysis of recreational use that's been long standing. i have some pictures to show. first in the document itself it says the project site is on sfpuc watershed land is not open to the public. it has been open to the public for 20-plus years since i've lived there. there's never been a sign prohibiting access. i'm up there two to three times a week running, hiking, biking, never seen a sign. number two, golden gate national

rec center has signs pointing to north peak as a destination. there are signs at the peak and at the bottom. county of san mateo lists this. same thing with this north peak. sf chronicle date book from june of this year, just a couple of weeks ago, montara mountain north peak. i as a member of this community did not know about this project until a couple of weeks ago as i was running up on my tuesday night run with some buddies and encountered the gate. there is a new fence put up in front of the peak with barbed wire at the top and nothing explaining the project. there's been no community input. we need to do that before

proceeding. there's some pictures. weekly running club every tuesday night we run to the peak. been doing this for a long time. my kids, first mountain they peaked, there's my son. hands up in the air. they loved it. we cannot take this away. from the document analyzing the open butterfly, it specifically mentions public construction and improvement projects probably represent the greatest threat to this butterfly habitat. it's not hikers. it's putting a concrete pad at the top of the mountain and fencing it off. as a result, san bruno butterfly and their associated habitats have been surveyed from 2001 to 2007. so the question is if you had this information for this project since then, how come we

just put up a fence last week? it's a little suspicious. >> let him go. >> if you have a question, you can ask a question. >> we have to then allow for the rest of the public to have full amount of time. >> well, let me ask what he has in mind. >> i would like -- >> do you have a question? >> can you display that slide again? i have two things in mind. one is: respect the open space. mount tam is open to the public, mount diablo open to the public. we're talking about closing montara mountain. that's going backwards. what i ask is that we respect

montara mountain for what it is. consider putting up the signs, warning people to stay off the sensitive habitat. people have coexisted for years. remove the chain-link fence and restore public access. if possible, find a different location for this project. there have to be other locations suitable for this. thank you and i respect your work on this. >> thank you very much. matthew blane. >> i'm not sure if i'll use it or not. >> i'm a resident here in san francisco and a member of various hiking and biking advocacy groups. when i first learned about this project a couple of weeks ago, i wasn't sure. it sounds like a reasonable and important project. we need the radar facility. it's extremely strong in scope, things like that. i went up there this weekend to just look at it and decided i should come here and speak up to many of the concerns the

previous speakers have said. i met a runner-up there. this runner has been running and lost weight and this is something he accomplished. the butterfly habitat has been there for decades. it's mentioned in surveys. if you look at the report that has just been mentioned. hilltops are also important for certain other species. the map which was just shown of the road is interesting because a new road is shown here but the old one is there. the reason i'm showing this particular map is you can see these lines here. there was an intentional line placed. this is the access you take to go to the top. this is not a surprise to the watershed management because that black fence has been there for many years allowing you to get to the peak but not to the

rest of the interior watershed roads, such as the perimeter road. i'm going to ask that you reject this simply because of this lack of access to recreation, but with the understanding that the project is super important. perhaps it could be located slightly further east or taller. perhaps it needs to be on the peak for radar, but limiting access wouldn't allow for an important recreational resource. thank you. >> thank you. i have another card here for mr. ron little. >> hi, thank you. so i lived in montara for 20 years and i'm in the coast side running club and on the board of directors for that running club. so we have about 150 members. our president paulaluisy drafted the letter and we concurred.

dear commission members. we represent a group of runners on the coast side who have enjoyed summiting montara mountain's north peak weekly, oftentimes more than once in a week. so when we first saw the locked fence you placed to block the access to the peak it was both surprising and upsetting. the peak means a lot to our club and i'm sure residents who have hiked and ran to this summit, we cannot say enough in this letter about the emotional connection we all have to montara and the summit. many of us have stories and memories of training runs, group gatherings, and personal triumphs that they've had on this mountain. it's not just about a running club. there are residents who have emotional connection to the mountain for different reasons, loved ones lost and family members moved away and are often the reason for the hike to the top of montara mountain. closing it off with no feedback or announcement to the public feels wrong. while the weather station, the weather radar, and the

communications tower and the butterfly habitat are important, some of the claims including hikers and injuring the habitat make no sense to us at all. there's never been reports of people trampling on the grounds the butterflies need likely because everyone sticks to the trail that leads to the summit and it's hard-packed dirt and you can just walk there. so the purpose of this letter is to remind you the impact this enclosure will have on the community and the people who have enjoyed that summit for so long. we're hoping you reconsider the proposal to block it off and perhaps find a way for visitors to continue to enjoy the summit without interfering with the habitat or the weather station. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other additional public comments at this time? commissioners, any thoughts or comments on this?

commissioner maxwell. >> i'd like to hear from steve. you've heard the comments. so i'm sure then with all of this you must have -- we must have not heard everything from you that we need to hear to say that this should be closed permanently. i need to hear some other things. >> sure. i'd like to introduce deb craven green from our infrastructure staff. she worked with the fish and wildlife services and others on the permitting of the project. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm debbie craven green and work with the bureau of environmental management and permitting manager. i'm happy to provide some additional information for you

as part of the project to install the radar conducted coordination with the u.s. fish and wildlife service and conducted informal consultation where we identified for them that as part of installing the infrastructure we would be fully avoiding the habitat associated with butterflies found in the area, which would be the host plants as well as nectar plants in the area. there was the informal consultation was issued i think it was 2018 and then there was a slight modification to the project where we were adding the radio tower as well. so i had a phone conversation with the u.s. fish and wildlife staff to explain that. they conveyed that basically with the avoidance and minimization measures that we would be implementing that they were fine with the project proceeding.

we would be implementing -- if work was proceeding during the flight season of butterflies, we would have a bioologist on site to make sure they are monitored. we would avoid impact to the host and nectar plants as well. >> do you have further questions? >> yeah, it seemed to me -- and i don't know who this question is for -- that the concerns -- it doesn't seem like the issue of the butterflies has been one up until now, when now there's a proposed construction project that could impact the butterflies is what i've heard so far. >> that's not -- yeah, the construction project could, but we have taken great steps to avoid the impacts. that's what deb was emphasizes. that's what fish and wildlife service was doing, to avoid

impacts. the impacts that we saw at the habitat were in the biological aways in the area trying to assess it in advance. that's when we found that there had been damage to vegetation from hikers. i hike a lot. i go with my dog a lot of places. they're all beautiful and you just have to be really careful. that's why we have a closed watershed is because we do have impacts. so the installation of the gate and the fence is totally independent from the project. that was done because that was -- we saw that the -- there were endangered species impacts and we felt we needed to control the watershed there. i think we're quite happy to meet with groups to talk about is there an alternative approach, and particularly to talk about a process to get to that complete connecting trail that i showed on the map. that would be i think a good

goal to work towards. we can spend time doing that. but i think we really do have to maintain our watershed. i'm frankly disappointed in the water department for not doing a better job of maintaining the watershed which they should have done for years and years and years. hearing people say i've been doing this for 20 years -- i don't believe they're just going to the top of the peak. these people might be. if the watershed is open, the watershed is open. we have wildlife cameras where we see two-legged animals out there far more frequently than i would like to admit. >> so if i can just ask you a question. i didn't hear a lot about butterflies even though i heard about butterflies and i heard about the new infrastructure that is being proposed to put in there. what i heard from the four public comments is we want access to the top of that mountain just like we have for a long time. how do you address that question to people? i heard you say -- let us

continue to see if we can work on that, but that's what i mean. that's what i heard from the folks. >> what i heard if those want to get to the absolute top of the mountain, but i think what we can provide with that dotted line i showed on the map would be access at the top of the ridge. and then access down that trail into the watershed. we have to work out the program whereby we would allow that access, but doing it on a trail that the commission has actually approved the construction and use of i think is what we need to do. >> so what specifically has to be protected in your view as this moves forward? you know, you talked about butterflies, you talked about environment, you talked about maybe people having access to the infrastructure that they shouldn't have for vandalism or whatever. what do you have to protect in

order to move with this proposal? >> well, the things you just mentioned, the butterfly habitat. and we would have a separate smaller fence for the radar installation itself at the top of the peak. >> so i just want to maybe try to summarize it that as part of the project we did an assessment out there of the condition and working with the resource agencies. we've identified that the habitat has been impacted. so that's something that we felt we slipped on and we shouldn't have provided access. but hearing from the folks that they've become accustomed to having access and now since we're working with the agencies, we say okay we have to control the environment. so i guess we just fenced it off without any dialog, which that's

something that i would take responsibility for. but -- so the project is one thing and i think when we identified what we wanted to know in the project, we're talking about how we can minimize the impact to the butterflies and their habitat, but the bigger issue is that when we did the assessment we noticed with the agencies that the habitat has been impacted because of the trails and stuff like that. so the question we would ask is: how can we minimize that and gain access? so that's something that steve is saying we're will to go sit down and talk to them about. but i think was on notice that we are impacting -- the current situation is impacting the habitat of the butterflies. >> if i can just ask the question. everybody is saying with happy faces that they like to get to the top, it has had an impact on

the [ indiscernible ] -- correct? >> as i understand it from our monitors, yes. i don't know if it's the people going to the top or people going around the top and going different things there. >> so there is a stewardship that we're responsible for -- >> that's correct. >> thank you. >> what i don't like about this is this process, and i think you both admitted it, is not the kind of process that we should really be conducting when we are looking at a project like this. there has got to be much more robust community engagement before a fence goes up to be able to say community members, hikers, runners, we have discovered and we have some documentation and data here that shows there has been an adverse impact on our watershed and we are proposing to do an infrastructure project, a radar project, we would love to get your input and understand what

we can do to still provide access while we're moving forward with this project. what i seem to be hearing both from the public and our general managers is that that process didn't happen. to hear that it's in the hiking books and on the websites and there are signs pointing up the mountain, i mean it seems there's been some number of years where there has not been inadequate signage and quite the contrary. people have been given permission to go. to put up a fence doesn't feel good. >> given permission by outside parties who have indicated this is a fun trail to go use. as soon as i heard this i directed my staff, find any place that there is access going on that shouldn't be in our watershed. i want to hear about it right now because we are stewards of that watershed. if we can find them, we will engage in a process.

i think coming from the point of view that our job is to protect the watershed and provide reasonable access and i think we can do that. that's why i brought up that connector trail that is probably the best solution in this case on a larger scale. >> and is there a sign on the gate that says that there will be a meeting to discuss the connector trail and receive input? >> not yet. >> well, it seems like that should happen right away. that seems like the minimum amount of effort that we can put in and i think there's additional steps to be able to respond to this question of people who for decades have been accessing these trails and they've been doing it because there hasn't been a sign telling them not to, whether it's our fault or not. >> you want to say a few words? >> manager of the bureau of environmental management. i'd like to clarify something.

i think there are two ideas here and two thoughts that we have to consider. one is this project which is very important to the whole water enterprise as well as the wastewater enterprise. the mitigated negative declaration examined all of the potential impacts that this project could have and the impacts are in the declaration. we have the environmental review officer signed off on it. the mitigation measures are there for the butterflies and for all other possible -- you know, the wood rat and i forget what another one is but deb can provide it. everything is covered in the mitigated negative declaration. closing of the gate is a wider

watershed matter. it is not part of this project. yes, we need to protect the watershed. yes, we provide access to the watershed. but all of that is a watershed matter that should be discussed within watershed planning, watershed management, and so on and so forth, but not within this important project. this had nothing to do with it. it's not covered. if you look and read -- which i'm sure you have -- the mitigated negative declaration, there is no mention of closing a gate. so it's not part of this decision that is in front of you. i would just urge you, because of the importance of the project, to adopt the mitigation, the declaration and to also -- i'm getting very emotional because i feel very

strongly about it -- >> irina, the issue -- i think we understand or at least we convey that the project initiated the assessment of the habitat. >> correct. >> and we didn't realize that the habitat had been impacted. so watershed management made a decision to cut off access because it was having an impact. that is what the understanding is. so separate from the project. did the project identify what the mitigations would be if the project moved forward, not how to manage the watershed. >> commissioner moran. >> commissioner moran: i take your point and that's helpful. if the gate closure and that trail issue is, in fact, separate from the project, if

those steps are not part of mitigation impacts, first of all, it's appropriate and i would feel very comfortable proceeding with the project and taking our actions to do that. for the second issue, it is -- i think clearly the way we went about doing this was unfortunate. i am sympathetic to protecting the watershed. there are an awful lot of impacts that come with human contact. that said, i would hate for this to get tied up in a large and complicated project. i would think that the connector has a bunch of different issues like increased access through access through the cahill ridge trail. it goes along the ridge. that has some sensitivity to it. this would seem to be amenable

to a more limited resolution, and i would just encourage, first of all, for staff to talk to the folks who have appeared here today and others and to be open to a solution that deals with really the completion of existing trails that already go up almost to the top of montara mountain. those trails exist and the impacts have existed for a long time. and to be open to a fairly limited solution that gives access to higher ground and looking to the other side of the mountain. if that can't happen, then that can't happen. i think we should be open to that and not just say that this will have to be resolved as part of a much larger and more complicated project. >> i have a question for either the chair or general counsel. so if we took action on the neg

dec and moved that forward, which sounds like it makes sense in general just to protect the watershed and to move the project forward, do we need like a secondary motion that just says that there will be work done to make sure that the public has a process to get access to what they've traditionally had to get up there without dealing with the environment. i don't know if that's legally possible or if that's a movement because i'm with commissioner moran in that this is something that i think we as puc people are -- as stewards are -- should be moving on despite some of the impacts to the local residents. >> i too would like to decouple these issues, if possible, and really -- i don't know, i don't think we can take action on the second one because this action

is specific to the radar installation infrastructure project and the watershed access piece seems like a separate issue that has then ended up because they are connected but separate issues. >> so i would say that if this project wouldn't -- if it wouldn't go forward, we still would block access because of what we found. so i think that's why we should sit down with the folks and talk about a solution. but again the project when they assess the situation and identify the impact to the habitat, the mitigation identified how you mitigate that project. so the project -- they identify how to do that, but the access to the trail is something that we need to work with separately.

>> so you're also saying even if we didn't approve the radar project, access would still be blocked. >> exactly. >> so they are two separate issues. >> when you said decouple the issues, i'm used to meetings where we have to make notice for any actions we take here. i'm getting used to that. >> i agree, these are separate. however, i also think that the folks who are on the trail and using the trail are assets. once we communicate to them and they understand, i'm sure they want to protect the watershed just as much as we do. they can come up and help us understanding this is what we have to do. we also want to do this. so we work together coming up with something, but they're assets and they're valuable and their input is valuable. i'm glad that they came so they

can help with their expertise and the years they've done -- they may have other ideas about how to get to places. i think that could be very useful and helpful to us. >> so what i would do is i would direct steve to meet with the folks forthwith and report at the next meeting on what position solutions that we can make happen and some preliminary timelines of that. but again we talked to research agencies lg and identified the impact. >> i don't think we need to talk about that yet. i think it's important for them to know what our bottom line is and how we can reach their bottom line and come up with something together because we have a responsibility and we

can't at this point do much about that, but we can work other things out. there are more eyes on the trail to work things out. i think that could be important. >> if i might, with that understanding and commitment from staff, i would move the it item. >> i'll second. >> a motion to approve with that condition of a staff report -- >> no. >> okay. >> that's direction to staff as we would normally do. this is just approve the project has been presented to us. >> through the chair if we could put something like that in the minutes that you are suggesting is possible, i would not be opposed to that. >> i think we would like to as a commission direct steve ritchie

through the general manager to engage with the community that use this space and clearly have a deep connection to the montara mountain to figure out and understand what the access issues are and to try and really respond to what their concerns are as much as possible. i think we should do a lot more putting a sign up there as soon as possible saying these conversations are underway. i don't know if it's external affairs that's going to take on looking at all the maps that are pointing people up there, if there's going to be a fence. i think it's incumbent on us as an agency to be good stewards and say we are stewarding our watershed and we want to engage you in that process, while understanding that you would like access and have those conversations. if you can bring a summary of that back and begin those conversations in the next month

and reach out to the community, i think this commission would really appreciate understanding that. >> i would put one qualifier on that. we have a broader community. so one of our big stakeholders is the california native plant society. they've been asking about the project as well because of things they've been seeing. and we're all seeing more and more on social media. social media has taken a large role in this. we will meet with these groups, but it will be a broader conversation. >> that will be great. >> that's good. >> so there's a motion and a second just for this specific project to approve the radar installation project, whatever it's called. is there any public comment on the motion? we've already taken -- any other final commissioner comments? hearing none, all in favour? aye. opposed. motion carried. >> i'll report at the next

commission meeting about the meeting. >> okay. great. thank you. next item. >> clerk: item 10 approve the revised water supply assessment for the proposed potrero power station project. >> revised water supply assessment. is there a motion? would you like to hear an update on this? >> yeah, i do. >> you want to hear an update, okay. >> again, steve ritchie assistant general manager for water. this is a water supply assessment for a proposed project similar to the other water supply assessments. the commission has recently approved. this one actually was part of the first bunch that we had talked about in the meeting and at the following meetings. for reasons this project had been reworked so the project had

some modifications that needed to be built in. so this is simply another water supply assessment that is virtually the same as the last ten water supply assessments the commission saw in the last two or three meetings. >> so the analysis that's included -- >> the same as the others. >> the explanation of the recommendation, that's all the same? >> yes. >> as we had agreed to before? >> yes. >> okay. >> president caen: comments? any public comment on this item? is there a motion to approve? moved. second? all in favour? aye. opposed? motion carries. thank you very much. we'll now move into closed session and donna will read the closed session items prior to any public comment before we go into closed session.

>> clerk: item 13. existing litigation abuon mayen versus city and county of san francisco, et al. item 14, existing litted gas station, federal insurance co cct enterprise versus city and county of san francisco, unlitigated claim, the mint collection hoa versus city county of san francisco. 17 the roman catholic archbishop of san francisco et al. versus city of county of san francisco. 18 is pacific gas & electric orthopedic surgeoning. item 19 is city and county of frisk versus pacific gas & electric company. no. 20 is the city and county of

san francisco versus pacific >> okay. we are now back in open session. item items 13 through 17 were settled and -- there was recommendations to settle those and move those forward to the board. is there a motion on whether to disclose the discussions that we had during closed session. >> move not to disclose. >> second. >> all in favour? opposed? any other new business, commissioners? >> i would like to have a discussion of policy on how we go forth with talking to the public about issues that we do. i mean, if it's consistent with our community benefits package

or whatever, but we need to have a policy on how we go forward with the public, especially in lieu of what happened today. if there's not a policy, then we need to go through one. >> could we on our september agenda have a -- what our current policies are, what we do. all of us were taken aback with what happened with the mount mountain. just to make sure we can avoid these situations in the future. >> i'm sure they will happen. >> any other new business? hearing none, meeting is adjourned.

>> 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. [♪] >> i just wanted to say a few words. one is to the parents and to all of the kids. thank you for supporting this program and for trusting us to create a soccer program in the bayview. >> soccer is the world's game, and everybody plays, but in the united states, this is a sport that struggles with access for certain communities. >> i coached basketball in a coached football for years, it is the same thing. it is about motivating kids and

keeping them together, and giving them new opportunities. >> when the kids came out, they had no idea really what the game was. only one or two of them had played soccer before. we gave the kids very simple lessons every day and made sure that they had fun while they were doing it, and you really could see them evolve into a team over the course of the season. >> i think this is a great opportunity to be part of the community and be part of programs like this. >> i get to run around with my other teammates and pass the ball. >> this is new to me. i've always played basketball or football. i am adjusting to be a soccer mom. >> the bayview is like my favorite team. even though we lose it is still fine. >> right on. >> i have lots of favorite memories, but i think one of them is just watching the kids enjoy themselves. >> my favorite memory was just having fun and playing. >> bayview united will be in soccer camp all summer long. they are going to be at civic

centre for two different weeklong sessions with america scores, then they will will have their own soccer camp later in the summer right here, and then they will be back on the pitch next fall. >> now we know a little bit more about soccer, we are learning more, and the kids are really enjoying the program. >> we want to be united in the bayview. that is why this was appropriate >> this guy is the limit. the kids are already athletic, you know, they just need to learn the game. we have some potential college-bound kids, definitely. >> today was the last practice of the season, and the sweetest moment was coming out here while , you know, we were setting up the barbecue and folding their uniforms, and looking out onto the field, and seven or eight of the kids were playing. >> this year we have first and second grade. we are going to expand to third, forth, and fifth grade next year bring them out and if you have middle school kids, we are starting a team for middle school. >> you know why?

>> why? because we are? >> bayview united. >> that's right. all right. on 2, 1 you innovation on or was on over 200 years they went through extensive innovations to the existing green new metal gates were installed our the perimeter 9 project is funded inform there are no 9 community opportunity and our capital improvement plan to the 2008 clean and safe neighborhood it allows the residents and park advocates like san franciscans to make the matching of the few minutes

through the philanthropic dungeons and finished and finally able to pull on play on the number one green a celebration on october 7, 1901, a skoovlt for the st. anthony's formed a club and john then the superintendent the golden gate park laid out the bowling green are here sharing meditates a permanent green now and then was opened in 1902 during the course the 1906 san francisco earthquake that citywide much the city the greens were left that with an ellen surface and not readers necessarily 1911 it had the blowing e bowling that was formed in 1912 the parks commission paid laying down down

green number 2 the san francisco lawn club was the first opened in the united states and the oldest on the west their registered as san francisco lark one 101 and ti it is not all fierce competition food and good ole friend of mine drive it members les lecturely challenge the stories some may be true some not memories of past winners is reversed presbyterian on the wall of champions. >> make sure you see the one in to the corner that's me and. >> no? not bingo or scrabble but the pare of today's competition two doreen and christen and beginninger against robert and

others easing our opponents for the stair down is a pregame strategy even in lawn bowling. >> play ball. >> yes. >> almost. >> (clapping). >> the size of tennis ball the object of the game our control to so when the players on both sides are bold at any rate the complete ends you do do scoring it is you'll get within point lead for this bonus first of all, a jack can be moved and a

or picked up to some other point or move the jack with i have a goal behind the just a second a lot of elements to the game. >> we're about a yard long. >> aim a were not player i'll play any weighed see on the inside in the goal is a minimum the latter side will make that arc in i'm right-hand side i play my for hand and to my left if i wanted to acre my respect i extend so it is arced to the right have to be able to pray both hands. >> (clapping.) who one. >> nice try and hi, i'm been play lawn bowling affair 10 years after he retired i needed something to do so i picked up

this paper and in this paper i see in there play lawn bowling in san francisco golden gate park ever since then i've been trying to bowl i enjoy bowling a very good support and good experience most of you have of of all love the people's and have a lot of have a lot of few minutes in mr. mayor the san francisco play lawn bowling is in golden gate park we're sharing meadow for more information about the club including free lessons log