Mountain, i mean it seems theres 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 doesnt 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 shouldnt 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. Thats 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 theres additional steps to be able to respond to this question of people who for decades have been accessing these trails and theyve been doing it because there hasnt been a sign telling them not to, whether its our fault or not. You want to say a few words . Manager of the bureau of environmental management. Id 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. Its not covered. If you look and read which im sure you have the mitigated negative declaration, there is no mention of closing a gate. So its 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 im 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 didnt 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 thats 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, its 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 cant happen, then that cant 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 theyve traditionally had to get up there without dealing with the environment. I dont know if thats legally possible or if thats a movement because im 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 dont know, i dont 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 wouldnt if it wouldnt go forward, we still would block access because of what we found. So i think thats 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 youre also saying even if we didnt approve the radar project, access would still be blocked. Exactly. So they are two separate issues. When you said decouple the issues, im used to meetings where we have to make notice for any actions we take here. Im 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, im 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 theyre assets and theyre valuable and their input is valuable. Im glad that they came so they can help with their expertise and the years theyve 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 dont think we need to talk about that yet. I think its 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 cant 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. Ill second. A motion to approve with that condition of a staff report no. Okay. Thats 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 dont know if its external affairs thats going to take on looking at all the maps that are pointing people up there, if theres going to be a fence. I think its 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. Theyve been asking about the project as well because of things theyve been seeing. And were 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. Thats good. So theres a motion and a second just for this specific project to approve the radar installation project, whatever its called. Is there any Public Comment on the motion . Weve already taken any other final commissioner comments . Hearing none, all in favour . Aye. Opposed. Motion carried. Ill 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 thats included the same as the others. The explanation of the recommendation, thats 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. Well 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 its 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 theres 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. Im sure they will happen. Any other new business . Hearing none, meeting is adjourned. This facility is the largest project in our sewer system improvement program. It has a price tag of 1. 3 borghese. It is rebuilding one 1. 3 billion. The policy and Government Affairs team helps the finance team talk to legislative officials and policymakers creating financial programs for us to get low interest loans. Getting the funding for the project was important to save money for the ratepayers of San Francisco and enable us to build the project on budget. We were able to secure for the sf p. U. C. The loans from the epa and state mostly for the facilities project. We are providing low cost funding for projects that really provide tremendous social and environmental impact. For example the 699 million loan is going to pay for half of the biosolid project. What is challenging of the new sources of financing. They require the group to look at creative option ways to take the funds and build them to the existing process. The southeast plant is in hunters bay. It is across the street from residential homes. One of the objectives was to make it an asset. It will be at another plant further away from houses. It is going to help in terms of odor, air emissions, noise. This project that receives the federal loan funding is going to create 3,000 jobs in the community. In addition the streetscape improvements and architecture there is a lot of thought so that it is an asset to the community. It feels great to win the financial assisting ability award. I believe the group works hard to an chief Financial Stability in everything they do. We are getting world wide recognition for the work we are doing because of the green infracture projects in the communities with a lot of social impact. To me i am very proud of that effort to be a part of that. I nominated the team for the financial sustain ability award. They got some of the largest state and federal loans in the country. It saved the agency 10s of millions of dollars. I am proud of Temperature Team for put proud of the team for putting this together. We got the largest in 201,755. 7 million passengers traveled through San Francisco international airport. We have on average 150,000 people traveling through the airport every day. Flying can be stressful so we have introduced therapy dogs to make flying more enjoyable. The wag brigade is a partnership between the airport and the San Francisco therapy Animal Assistant Program to bring therapy animals into the airport, into the terminals to make passenger travel more enjoyable. I amgen fer casarian and i work here at San Francisco international airport. The idea for therapy dogs got started the day after 9 11. An employee brought his therapy dog to work after 9 11 and he was able to see how his dog was able to relieve passengers jitter. When we first launched the program back in 2013, our main goal was to destress our passengers however what we quickly found is that our animals were helping us find a way to connect with our pang. Passengers. We find there are a lot of people traveling through the airport who are missing their pets and who are on their road a lot and cant have pets and we have come in contact with a lot of people recently who have lost pet. I love the wag brigade. One of my favorite parts is walking into the terminals and seeing everybody look up from their device, today everybody is interacting on their cell phone or laptop and we can walk into the terminal with a dog or a pig and people start to interact with each other again and its on a different level. More of an emotional level. I just got off an 11. 5 hour flight and nice to have this distraction in the middle of it. We look for wag brigade handlers who are comfortable in stressful situations. I like coming to airport its a lot of fun and the people you talk to are generally people who are missing their dogs. They are required to compete a certification process. And they are also required to complete a k9 good citizen test and we look for animals who have experienced working with other orgorganizations such as hospits and pediatric units and we want to be sure that the animals we are bringing into the airport are good with children and also good with some of our senior travelers. I think toby really likes meeting kids. That is his favorite thing. He likes to have them pet him and come up to him and he really loves the kids. Our wag brigade animals can be spotted wearing custom vets and they have custom patches. There is never a day that repeats itself and there is never and encounter that repeats itself. We get to do maximum good in a small stretch of time and i have met amazing people who have been thrilled to have the interaction. The dogs are here seven days a week, we have 20 dogs and they each come for a two hour shift. There is a lot of stress when people have traveling so to from these animals around to ease the stress and help people relax a little bit. I think its great. One of our dogs has special need and that is tristine. He wears a wheel around. He has special shoes and a harness and we get it together in the parking lot and then we get on the air train. He loves it. Little kids love him because he is a lit