General manager for water gave a presentation of the bay area think tank. The title of the presentation was bay delta and the future of Regional Water supplies, a copy of the powerpoint has been presented or submitted to the commission. On the overhead is the slide of that presentation. The presentation began with the statement that the Regional Water issues are not a supply issue but a, quote, unquote, plumbing issue. And the plumbing issue could be resolved through a number of agreements between Regional Water districts and with infrastructure projects. On the overhead is a summary of the Capital Projects which would revolve the plumbing issue. However, it was stated the sfpuc, 20 percent of these projects came to fruition would be fortunate. It was stated the projects that came to fruition will take ten to 30 years to complete. The first the overhead, the first seven projects listed would cost 2 billion. So it seems to be a very different narrative between a supply and a plumbing approach. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Im the director of Environmental Justice advocacy. But i also attend most of the meetings, the San Francisco public utilityies commission and my main interest is the rivers that feed into this reservoir to the river. And i always ask a question to the San FranciscoPublic Utilities commission that who will speak on behalf of the salmon. Now, most people who are spiritually bankrupt im not here to judge they have no include about the salmon and how revered the salmon are to the indigenous people. Now, the experts here, theyll give you whatever type of presentation they want. But common sense. I want to speak to common sense. First of all, i want to say that the river needs more water. And we need to figure it out, we in San Francisco and you commissioners and the San FranciscoPublic Utilities commission that was established in 1996 and the entire prize department. We have to support the indigenous people. And if we support the indigenous people, we will be blessed. And if we do not support the indigenous people, then well figure that out. Now, on building buildings, none of you commissioners ask a very important question. Why is it that in 2019, we flush our toilets with clean Drinking Water . And what type of solution do you have for that . So you bring the water all the way from hetch and talk about the reservoirs, talk about this or talk about that, and you flush the toilets with clean Drinking Water. You figure that out. Because you are smart enough. We are 1,100 miles of clean Drinking Water that are 90 years old. Dont require a Rocket Scientist to tell you that old pipes leak. We need an Empirical Data in realtime how much water leeches into the ground, clean Drinking Water, not only from these pipes but bigger pipes. So as i said, we go before i go before the San FranciscoPublic Utilities commission to represent the people and the native americans. And from time to time ive come here to give my little presentation. Thank you. You may have given me about twentyseconds. Thank you for the twentyseconds. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. Tim on my own behalf. Years ago i had the good fortune to be involved with the Lake Merced Task force, and a lot of the issues you saw in your presentation were taken on by a large group of community organizations. And i first want to express deep admiration for the job steve richie does for the city and facing this important challenge. But there was something that came up the gentleman from the river trust brought up that has been nagging at me over the years, and thats the fact that the sfpuc is behind almost all other water agencies in producing recycled water. Daly city has been producing secondary water for a decade. We can use it to irrigate golf courses instead of flushing it out to the sea. And in San Francisco we have put in purple pipe zones, and developers have been doing that for years with the idea that eventually, instead of using hetch water to flush toilets, we would have a supply to go to this new plumbing system we required in certain zones of the city for many years but with no supply. I guess the frustration i feel a little bit is i would love to see more advocacy from the fromy in conjunction, this commission and the sfpuc to start accelerating production of treated water, of recycled water. Its being done in communities across california. And theres no reason we shouldnt have it here. But otherwise i think this is a wonderful presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Okay. Public comment is closed. Okay. Commissioner moore. I want to express my concern over the statements made by President Trump a few days ago regarding directing the face of any Water Conversation and particularly the measures we are trying to uphold in california. Commissioner fung. Question for staff. Do these projections include areas under discussion such as the hub . We just dont increase density substantially . Yes, Planning Department, the demand projections used for the urban Water Management plan include all developments in the pipeline and all planned development. So the simple answer to your question is yes. Perhaps this question is more for mr. Richard, but do we have any idea what capacity whether its a measure to capacity or usage, but gray water or black water in the city . Chief of San Francisco puc. Actually, contrary to some of the comments, we are in the middle of construction on the west side to deliver recycled water to golden gate park, the golf course and parts of the presidio. That is the largest area of nonpotable water usage that exists. San francisco, again, we showed the low per capita usage, thats because theres very little areas to irrigate, which is what lots of other communities have developed recycled water for. So the amount of water that can be recycled in San Francisco is quite limited. Weve studied that many times. The one avenue for which we could maximize recycled water is one of those projects that we looked at there, which is using purified water in San Francisco, in effect delivering it directly for Drinking Water purposes, something that is not currently allowed under state regulations, but we are going to be looking at that as potentially part of our future. I think all of california is going to be looking at as part of our potential future. We are often chastised for not recycling water like the Orange County water district, which sits over a vast groundwater basin, so they can percolate their treated water into that. We have in effect what i call a boutique groundwater basin on the west side of San Francisco. You cant under regulations percolate recycled water into abasen and have it reside there long enough to have it extracted under current regulations. I could get you the total numbers weve developed but for nonpotable uses, its quite limited. The most thats going to happen now is whats required under the nonpotable ordinance, requiring new developments under 250,000 square feet to recycle water for their nonpotable uses on their site. So thats covering a lot of the purple pipe area that was referenced by tim colin. So perhaps further expansion of my question is the west side facility represents public infrastructure, private infrastructure, any idea of how many whatever metric you want to use for that as an example, Sales Force Tower has black water. Correct. How much cumulatively, those type of facilities have been developed in San Francisco . I dont have the number off the top of my head. I can get that number to you and communicate it to the Planning Commission. Again, the number, the total number that can go into those kinds of developments for nonpotable uses is actually fairly limited in terms of millions the billions per day is probably close to five million the billions per day off total demand of 60 million the billions per day by San Francisco currently. Thank you commissioner diamond. I have a question for staff. In the ceqa analysis that you are doing, what are you assuming about the use of recycled water . So in our ceqa analysis, again, at least for the larger projects, we rely on the water supply assessments that sfpuc conducts for the projects. Those assessments do divide out by potable and nonpotable demand as well as the onsite nonpotable supply for projects, all those larger projects are subject to the citys nonpotable ordinance. So we do account for nonpotable use in that analysis. Thats consistent with the amount of supply projected by the puc . It is. So the supply numbers that we are looking at in urban Water Management plan are focused on the potable supply. And so we net out the potable versus nonpotable in comparing them with the projected demand. Okay. So forgive me, i have many questions. So first let me start off by saying mr. Richie, i am a big, big fan of the puc. And you in particular. Thank you so much for everything that you do for our city. And you do it very well. So thank you. From the getgo. So, you know, my first set of questions is about our Business Plan for the puc and how the selling of twothirds of our water to municipalities around us, you know, is linked to our rates. And you know, so i am wondering specifically as a Planning Commission and now being part of regional efforts around tying development to transportation, it had never occurred to me about tying development to water. But in fact, we do supply their water. Im wondering, you know, how much of that sale affects our rates or if it doesnt. And also whether our contract obligations to supply them water also come with obligations on their part to conserve water or to enact any of those measures and also their development. Okay. First, relative to rates, the wholesale customers actually pay for they buy about twothirds of the water, and they pay about twothirds of the cost of the water supply facilities that bring that water into and through the bay area. San francisco customers pay about a third of that cost. Then San Francisco customers pay for their own plumbing in the city, in effect. They pay their own way, essentially. Yeah. And then as far as the contractually obligation, it outlives the contract that was the result of a Settlement Agreement between San Francisco and the wholesale customers through litigation that had been brought back in the 70s and thats 184 milliongallon per day assurance. There is no contract yule obligation that no contract t obligation they use in terms of efficiency. But they are doing quite a good job in terms of water use efficiency. I would say during the last drought if you look at the demand patterns, it was very clear that the decrease in demand during that last drought period was through the elimination of outdoor irrigation substantially in our wholesale customer area. If you check the graph you can see a flatline during the summer months. That has started to bounce back. We just saw data from our wholesale customers that in the last ten years, their per capita water usage has gone from about the mid80gallon per day per person down to the mid60gallon per day per person. Theyre still not as efficient as San Francisco, because there is still more outdoor use. But they have really stepped up as far as efficiency is concerned. So they regulate themselves yes. Because of cost, or because they are environmentally conscious, not necessarily because we have any power to set how they regulate . Correct. Each one is their own entity. They have their own Planning Commission, development policies. So they have their own authorities. Thats one of our agreements is we dont dictate what they can do. They dont dictate what we can do. Okay. So as to the issue of junior water rights, to i think it was mr. Drekm eier who talked about being subordinate to modesto. Those are the modesto irrigation district. So they are primarily providing agricultural water. So even though we invested so heavily in san pedro, that doesnt give us any right towards requesting conservation measures for those counties either, right . Because they are junior, right . Thats correct. Its only the state that can do that . Thats correct. The next question is for our staff, for planning staff, just so i understand what you are saying, this issue has come up in relation to a couple projects that we had approved in the central soma plan. So as i understood what you said in terms of our ceqa analysis, i didnt quite understand i understood what you said about housing units. I didnt understand understand how it relates to office space. So the demand projections account for both if she for all proposed plan for both for all proposed plan uses, its a much less important factor. So in the projections i was showing we are focusing primarily on growth in population in housing, because theres a much larger impact on water demand. How do we know that . We know that based on sfpuc data. As you can imagine, a Typical Office worker isnt doing their laundry or washing their dishes when they are at work. But the actual numbers that we have from sfpucs data show that office use is substantially lower than residential use for San Francisco. So we take it into account . Yes, all the land uses proposed are accounted for in the assessments. In retail too . Yes, in retail uses as well. Restaurants and hotels . Correct. Okay. Thank you. We can move onto item 13 for 148 geary street. This is a conditional use authorization. Please note on december 5, after hearing and closing Public Comment, you continued this matter to todays date by a vote of 50. Commissioner johnson, you were absent so you need to acknowledge you have reviewedded the previous hearing and materials. I have. Thank you. Good afternoon, president melgar and commissioners. Planning department staff. The item before you is a conditional use authorization for 148 geary street. The item was continued from the december 5 hearing after supervisors request. It proposed a change in use of retail to office on the third and fourth floors comprising 5500 square feet. Proposed to remain is 5500 square feet of retail on the first and second floors as well as basement level storage. The project includes interior improvements, door front changes and street access to third and Fourth Floor Office use. The Department Recommends approval with conditions for the following reasons. The project proposes converting less than 50 percent gross square feet of building to office use, does not displace any existing tenant and rehabilitative buildings. The remaining retail use will maintain an active storefront presence that is visible along geary street that will support active pedestrianoriented commercial uses in a commercial neighborhood. The project is consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan, the Department Also finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. This concludes my presentation. Im available for questions. Thank you. Project sponsor . Thank you. Representing the project sponsor. I want to start by emphasizing something that ive said and felt all along, which is that approximately one year ago when the Office Legislation proposed by supervisor peskin was pending, many of us worked closely with him and his office and genuinely appreciated all the work he did to enact the new controls. Many Property Owners felt similarly good about the outcome, which resulted in revised controls that allow flexibility of the third floor subject to your evaluation of five different factors or criteria. Now that we have the legislation, all collective tasks is to evaluate ecu against the factors per the legislation. There is no other policy that we are aware of that should apply, given that we have legislation that is less than a year old. I think the three most important factors for the legislation on the uses are as whether it would propose permanent physical changes that would preclude future conversion back to retail, we are not asked to predict the likelihood of future likelihood but to confirm we are not physically precluding it. And second, what are the proposed office would support or compliment lower level retail uses and third, whether theres something physical about the building that makes retail uses unfeasible. So let me start with some of the physical constraints. We are requesting conversion of third and fourth floors, each floor plays 2700 in size. The building has a narrow, approximately 23foot frontage on geary and a secondary facade. In reality, its difficult to find a retailer who is interested in taking three or four floors together. The other option is to lease the third floor to stand alone retail but to make that a reality you need excellent access and visibility for the third floor uses. In this case, no changes are proposed to the geary facade. We want to keep that as 100 percent retail, and we need all 23 feet of frontage for the first and second floor uses. If you show on the on overhead, i can quickly show th