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. I came to the San FranciscoPublic Utilities commission as a San Francisco fellow. As a sf fellow i was in Financial Planning where i had the joy of working for a me. Part of the Financial Planning that sets rates. Amy is just incredibly kind. One of the most generous and goodhearted people i have ever met. Having her assume pe as as supes very helpful. This was my first job out of college. Amy supported me every step of the way. I felt like i can do this. I have a staff i manage. We have a complement that joins us once a year to help us. They give them the chance to learn financial matters. Amy would it is for an hour or hour and a half going through these complicated financial things with you, patient. I find my strength in sitting down and walking through the project, how can i help you . They appreciate that. It means that you are giving time to them. I hope or interns will be the new leaders. Amy made should be we were well trained. She gave me mangoes. I went home and ate them. The next day i said i like these. Two days later there was a crate, 3 36 manning 36 mangoes. She embodies Public Service in everything she does and the way she does her work. It was great having her as a supervisor. She is not in it forehead lines or awards. That is making me glad she is getting an award. The huge ilty, dedication and integrity and wisdom she brought, that is Public Service. My name is amy. I retired earlier this year. Before that i was the rates administrator. Good morning. Welcome to Life Learning Academy. My name is craig miller. I am a founder and the chief operating officer at the school. We are so thrilled to have everybody here today to celebrate this milestone event for the school, to provide a home for the kids who need us the most. Terry and i and the entire Life Learning Community could not be more grateful to all of you for everything youve done. Id like to thank the sponsors for todays event. Bear with me, it is a very healthy list. The Northern California carpenters regional council, ey, lows, jamel and tom perkins, linkedin, Russell Reynolds first bank, Community Vision and capital consulting, rubicon, kayhill construction, and oliver and company. I also want to recognize a few donors who have made the dorm possible. Tipping point. Valerie powder, the zeler box foundation, the louis r. Laura foundation and linkedin. This group, along with the city, and sfusd exemplify a Publicprivate Partnership model that has come together to meet the needs of young people in San Francisco. We are honored to have mayor breed with us here today and to have mayor Willie Browns daughter, susan brown, here with us as well. Without question, it is because of the support of mayor breed and mayor brown that we are standing here today about to open this beautiful dormitory for kids. [ applause ]. Its pretty cool. I would like to begin our program by introducing susan brown, who is going to comment on her fathers longterm commitment to Life Learning Academy. Susan. [ applause ]. Thank you very much, craig, for that very warm introduction. Im susan brown and my father is willie brown, former mayor of San Francisco. He was unhappy because he could not be here today, but he asked me to see what i could possibly say. So im here to give you a few words. So our family is extremely proud and extremely happy and extremely excited for these dormitories. In 1998 when my father was mayor, he formed a partnership. And because of that partnership, Life Learning Academy exists. What began with that partnership would culminate into what you see here today Life Learning Academy, an organization which not only provides excellent Educational Excellence and experience for students but has acted as a catalyst for change for so many people who have walked through the doors. Hundreds of lives have been positively impacted by through their programs over the years. And the dormitories today is a goal that they set, which is basically their Mission Statement at Life Learning Academy. So it is my great honor to introduce to you today the principal of Life Learning Academy dr. Terry delane. [ applause ]. Okay. Some people out there who really know me know that i dont need a microphone, but im going to do what im told to do today. Number two, i left my notes at home. So what im going to have to do is just go from what i know. I have been here from day one fo