the 2010 urban water management plan for the city and county of san francisco. commissioner vietor: if you could please read items 9 and 10 together. >> certainly. discussion of possible action for a resolution affirming the 2010 of urban water management plan for the city and county of san francisco covers projected growth in the city and county through the year 2035 and thereby satisfies the water supply and demand assessment requirements for the developments of a specific size pursuant to the california environmental quality act and the california water code. >> assistant general manager for water. i have a few slides to present on these items. again, this is the urban water management plan update that is required every five years. this plan addresses the urban water management plan act requirements and presents the supply and demand projections through 2035 and includes both retail and wholesale customers projections in it and incorporates elements required by the water conservation act of 2009, and if we do not actually prepare, adopt, and submit the plan t

not all of the urban water management plans will assume deliveries are related to 184. that is only built in 2 hours. my guess is some of the other wholesale areas may not assume. >> as with all other urban water management plans, regardless of whether it is in our service area, the urban water management plans are focused on the local entities and retail. what we provide is a given set of common assumptions to all of our wholesale customers that they can incorporate into their urban water management plan. what they do after that is completely their own business. >> i would just emphasize that. that they were provided with a set of information that they can use, and i will have to respond to that -- they have to respond to that and incorporate it into planning. whether they go beyond that, the challenge is to the agencies. that is why it is actually adding reference to the work that bawsca is doing. any other questions? commissioner vietor: any public comment on this item? >> we have one speaker card. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here representing san francisc

again, this is the urban water management plan update that is required every five years. this plan addresses the urban water management plan act requirements and presents the supply and demand projections through 2035 and includes both retail and wholesale customers projections in it and incorporates elements required by the water conservation act of 2009, and if we do not actually prepare, adopt, and submit the plan to the state, that we are ineligible to receive funding for drought assistance from the state, which is the whole reason for doing an urban water management planning. basically, in summary, our level of service goal is that no greater than 20% systemwide reduction in any one year. what we have found is that supply is positioned to meet retail customer demand under all conditions. the wholesale customer demand exceeds supply in future dry years if we continue on with the limitation of the 265 billion gallons a day after 2018. that is one of the things that has been a bit of a challenge in this document, talking about the fact that we have an interim supply lim

can we bring it green back to the urban jungle? the district that i represent in the northeast part of the city, we have very little green. one thing i had been wondering for years, why can't we use those little plots of land in the middle to growth in the. what is so exciting about today is that we are creating a new urban experience. the things that we can smell when we are out in the city of the food and the greenery that we can touch, they are of course the things that we can eat. the reason that this is so wonderful is that san francisco has always done the cutting edge of being on the forefront of what it means for the environment. what we are doing in san francisco hopefully will be on the cutting edge of the urban agriculture movement. and on the cutting edge of what it means to have some of the best food in the country. >> as you mentioned, he was the chairman of the land use committee. they see more legislation than any other on the board. thank you, everyone. >> i was watching, and if i could, i would be doing the same t

the urban water management plan is intended to accomplish a few purposes. it gives the supply and demand projections through 2635. it includes customer projections under various conditions. it addresses the urban water management requirements which are set in state law as to how all of our urban agencies, how they will meet their demands in the future to show them everyone is taking seriously the responsibilities. lastly, to incorporate elements from the water conservation act of 2009. this plan is available for public review and comment through may 27th and we expect to present it for your approval on june 14th. some of the changes between the last urban one schmidt plan than in 2005 and this one was the adoption of the -- program so we have incorporated this into the plan a various water supply assumption. also it includes updated wholesale and retail demands. it does speak to the water conservation bill of 2009. this is an overall reduction in water use in urban entities by 2020 and how we comply with that i was be to in the slides. first, with the vario

we are not proposing a radical shift for the urban forest. two-thirds of the street trees in san francisco today are the responsibility of private property owners. so in most cases, that is already where the responsibility lies. so we are now proposing a massive shift of responsibility. we are kind of enjoying more in a direction that we have already established -- supervisor avalos: i agree with that, but i do not think there is a real consciousness about property orders are informed about their responsibility, or when they do not have the ability to physically do the care, have ways to get it done and the city still able to step in when they cannot do it. an aide to be a system for that to work. it does not seem like we are quite there. i would like to see, before we go through any relinquishing, if that can be explored. i know this is something you are probably concerned about. i appreciate your dedication as a public servant. i understand dpw is stretched thin, but we would appreciate an conversation about how we might do that. >> we have

this does coincide with the $600,000 proposed reduction in our urban forestry unit. even if that reduction were not being proposed in the mayor's budget, we do not have nearly the amount of resources that we would need to be able to maintain the trees that we have. the level of funding would need to be $3 million or $4 million higher in order for us to just maintain that 1/3 of the urban forest that is our responsibility to maintain it properly. so that's has been the main other operating budget service reduction or service change that we are contemplating. i can move on quickly to the capital budget and wrap up, but i can cause if there are questions. supervisor wiener: i just want to really reiterated point that you just made. i know that i am -- i think there is good support for this, so i will be trying to add back that $600,000 because i think that we should not be neglecting our urban forest, but i think it is very important to emphasize for the public that this cut does not take us from doing a global job with our streets trees to nothing. it takes us from bei

. >> i am with friends of the urban forest. i have been with friends of the urban forest for 11 years now and i have never seen better staffing with the city and working toward our shared goals for the city. this is a move backwards. i will not repeat what others have said, but we will see a lot of the legal pruning practices. the larger more significant trees we are losing at a pretty good clip these days. also, the time it would take 42 -- dpw staff to transfer ownership back to the property owner, we believe that we could are better spend the money on education programs, simple, great management. there is a question that i have related to the concrete around existing trees that will be relinquished. if there is damage to that country in taking out the tree, is also related to the cost? that is something that i would like to ask dpw. i think we will hear a lot from other speakers. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> thank you for holding this hearing. from what i gather, it sounds like you and most of the people in the room

this violates the urban design element of the general plan. the appellant is contradicted by the planning commission's motion. the project reached the conclusion that it is on balance, including the urban design development. it's important to understand that consistency with the general plan requires an overview of the whole plan. the general plan provide a number of public policy goals and at any one time they maicon conflict with each other. decision makers should review all the pertinent policies and then decide whether the plan is on balance in whole consistent with the general plan. the planning commission also considered the transportation, the housing, and the community facilities element. it is important to explore the project in relation to immediate neighbors and in relation to urban design, but let's ensure we're using more than a myopic lens. let's review it relative to the larger community and other policy goals. i'd like to draw your attention to some of those neglected by the appellant. transportation objectsive two. the city sh

again, this is the urban water management plan update that is required every five years. this plan addresses the urban water management plan act requirements and presents the supply and demand projections through 2035 and includes both retail and wholesale customers projections in it and incorporates elements required

the urban markets would be jeopardized. we have a number of events from the channel 6 parking lot, and this could be jeopardized. we have some interesting issues related to the america's cup and we are not quite certain what the impact of this ballot measure would be on the ability that we have to join the city family in making certain that the amenities are available for the america's cup in 2012 and 2013. we have a five-year lease with them, but does this ballot measure prevent us from renew this without side planning? and by crystals. the pioneer log cabin which we have been thinking about, tennis lessons, at the amenities in the tennis complex. the palace of fine arts. as i understand this, the measure says that there should be no new leases and no new fees. the moratorium is leading the palace of fine arts in march of 2014. we would like for someone to follow them in that space and we are not certain of the implications of the ballot measure on the ability to get a new lease at the palace of fine arts. we are still cal

essentially would be urban design status. attempting to have most southern portions of the candlestick development commensurate with the approval for candlestick point, immediately to your east. i cannot say that it is precisely the same. there are slight nuances and differences. but that is what is approved. >> how tall are these towers? >> west to east, they are 170 feet to 100 feet, to 80 feet. >> they do not get taller? >> they go up and they come back down. >> 170 feet. and as a vision they had a tower that was not a part of this proposal, just to give you a sense of what was already approved, otherwise it would be at 160 feet. in terms of density -- >> in terms of density can you talk about a project in the shipyard area? >> it is commensurate what we have with candlestick. they have an office park. hunters point shipyard north is bound by the same scale as executive part. they have roughly two towers. by think that they were up to 200 feet, 250 feet. >> in terms of proposed height, where was the starting point for staf

>> as i said earlier, spikas a hearty urban tree. they have aggressive roots and sometimes they daniel the infrastructure, with the fica tree, we can repair the sidewalk around it, it doesn't mean we str to remove the tree. but sometimes if the roots are everywhere, the numb of roots to cut or shave, would render the tree unstable, in this case, we were able to keep the tree, a nice upright ficas tree. we expanded the base. and we keep the necessary path of travel for pedestrians but if we open this up so we don't cut a big root. we try to preserve as many roots as we can. >> the path of travel, the city has a minimum travel standard, i believe it is 48 inches. >> it is. >> we easily maintained thap about we see where trees encroach on that or are tripping hazards. >> we never want to go less than 48 inches in the path of travel, ideally, it is more than that, but if it is scrult of losing or keeping a tree we'll shrink down to whatever we need to. >> let's move around the corner, to this. see if we can get in the shade over here. he

the urban forestry ordinance -- that is a public works code 800-814. i would like to highlight a couple of responsibility for maintenance of these trees. section 8 05 in particular. it reads, "it shall be the duty of the owner of lots or portions of lots immediately of birding on or adjacent to any street to maintain such a street tree. the duties shall include both routine and major maintenance of the street trees. b reads "the department may determine to undertake the regular routine and/or major maintenance of certain street trees to promote consistency in the maintenance of trees." e read, "the director may determine to relinquish responsibility for seven trees or portrays prior to release pushing maintenance, responsibilities, the part michelle perform all necessary major tree maintenance as of the day designated by the director. all maintenance and tree- related maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owner." those are the three items in the public works co we would like to highlight today. supervisor avalos: do you know how many

we are trying to use existing urban infrastructure to reach these tests. this stohr record -- perfectly exemplifies this concept. approximately 135,000 square feet, this has most of the things that make this what is, but with the san francisco guests in mind. we will include the everyday items, and include the unique offerings for city dwellers. the busy suburbanite's working downtown will appreciate a clean and safe store that they trust to purchase diapers and purchase items for the meal on the way home from work. this target will include the expanded selection of fresh foods, including dairy products, and meat. the opening is still scheduled for october 2012, they are working hard to make certain that we meet the high expectations. this has large expenses of clear windows overlooking the park. this is with the redevelopment agency, and the south of market employment center, to prioritize hiring local team members. it ought we expect higher 200 team members and the hiring process will begin six to eight months before opening. we are committed to being a

be restricted to the top 10 urban areas by risk. you see, there are other metropolitan areas in this country that i believe are at similar or even higher risk of terrorist attack or damage through any other type of catastrophe. the metro detroit area is one of those. that area, the area i represent, has the busiest border crossing in all of north america. it has an international airport, it has a huge metropolitan population center, it has the rural headquarters of general motors. we're at high risk of an attack yet right now, according to homeland security risk matrix, we're not rated in the top 10. we should be eligible for this funding as well as other metropolitan areas. here's the point. even though bin laden is now gone, we are still at risk of a terrorist attack in this country. but it's more than likely that that terrorist will likely come from within the borders. so the first defense we have against terrorism or any other natural disaster is our first responders. we need more firefighters, more police officers, more emergen

i'm here for the san francisco urban forest coalition. i think what is missing from this discussion is a premise to this proposal, which is that if these trees are transferred back to the property owners, they will do a better job of maintaining and replacing them and dpw does. -- than dpw does. anyone who knows the history of street trees in this city knows that is not the case. as the person before me said, trees disappear all the time. i have personally reported 50 missing trees to dpw, and the holes are still there. so the enforcement issue is equivalent. i do think, though, that you need to think about this in a more global sense. in 1992, the trade advisory board wrote a report after studying the problem. i will read a few parts. in national standard for street planning recommends 200 street trees per street mile, or 170,000 street trees for san francisco, 850 square miles. to maintain this figure, we would need to plan 8500 trees annually, based on an average life span of 20 years for every street tree. they made a series of recomm