>> commission meeting to order. roll call, please. >> president paulson, here. vice president rivera, here. commissioner ajami, here. commissioner stacy, here. you have a quorum. >> thank you. so, i would like to announce the san francisco public utilities commission acknowledges it owns and stewards of the land of the oholone tribe and other family familiar descendants of the mission san jose verona band of alameda county. also recognize every citizen in the greater bay area has and continues to benefit from the use and occupation of the oholone tribes aboriginal

lands, since before and after the san francisco public utilities commission founding in 1932. it is vitally important that we not only recognize thery history of the tribal lands and acknowledge and honor the fact the people established a working partnership with the sfpuc and productive flourishing members the san francisco bay area communities today. let's call the first item, please. >> item 3, approval of the minutes of may 14, 2024. >> the request is pull the item and have it heard at july 11 first at the july 11 commission meeting. >> june. >> or june 11 commission meeting. dmigzers, commissioners any questions? okay. then we will read that minutes because posting june 11.

okay. item 4, can you read item 4, please? >> item 4, general public comment. >> can you please call that? >> members of the public may kraestz address the commission within the jurisdiction and not on today's agenda. remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment. do we have any members present who wish to provide general public comment? >> please go to the microphone. >> [microphone not on. unable to hear speaker]

is that, we cannot allow our children, we cannot allow our women, we cannot allow those who are in dire straights not to get help, which is incorporated in the first community benefits and now you change the name to, whatever, sip, social impact program. let me bring it to your attention-hf >> thank you. anymore speakers to come to the microphone? >> commissioners, my name is joyce, from the bayview, and same thing in the bayview.

a lot of the single mothers, women, children are very much suffering now. they have no idea what is going on with our sewage, there is no real advocacy, no-anybody getting out there to let our community know, especially in the 94124, so i'm here today to make it aware for the commissioners and letting you guys know, we real a do need the help in the bayview, especially in that area, and also, you guys--we have a contracting center that is not utilized so i'm part of the community who invites some of our community members who you know, are under served and don't know what is going on and doing our own research and letting them be informed, so i just wanted to make sure you guys are aware we are really under served in our area.

thank you. >> thank you. anybody here for public comment? please come to the microphone. seeing no more, please can we go to remote callers? >> moderator, do we have any members of the public who wish to provide general public comment remotely? >> commission secretary, there is one caller who wishes recognized. >> okay. >> caller, your line is unmuted. you have minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon. this is peter dreckmy r, policy direct for tuolumne river trust. i wanted to point out a couple things. first of all, so far this year, [indiscernible] 481 thousand acre feet. [indiscernible] for the past 9 years.

200mgd is 225 thousand acre feet, so we have already been entitled to enough water to last more then two years and it is still accumulating and in a average year the sfpuc is entitled to enough water to last more then three years, incredible entitlement. looking at the storage, reservoir storage, there is enough water in storage to last more then 60 years, so keep that in mind. average year, enough water to last three years, full storage, enough water to last more then 6 years. we should take this into consideration when thinking investing in alternative water supply. i appreciate commissioner stacy at the last meeting requesting june 11 there is discussion about the water supply plan. that was in the work about 3 years and there is absolutely no discussion of it.

it is really important to have that conversation and i hope we can get to a point where we all agree that the sfpuc has incredible water entitlements and water right jz that we are in good shape to contribute more water to the tuolumne river. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you caller. your time expired. commission secretary, there are no more callers who wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> that would be the end of general comment. item 5 is report of the general manager. >> thank you mr. president. item 5a is quarterly audit and performance review report and [indiscernible] will be presenting. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is mrs. blackwood the audit director. thank you for having me today.

i present the audit bureau quarterly audit performance review report in the third quater. 20 audits or 59 percent thof plan portfolio is completed. additional 25 percent in progress end of third quater and remaining 6 are commenced in the current quarter or later this fiscal year. of the audits completed as of close of third quarter, 14 were financial audits, 6 performance audit and 1 from revenue bond oversight committee. at this time, there are 10 additional financial audits in progress or schedule to commence along with 5 additional perform nsh audit and 1 [indiscernible] focused on revenue lease. this table here shows

detailoffs the 5 audits completed third quarter. in january, the sfpuc completed the financial report and the popular annual financial report. in february, the western electricity coordinating council completed the critical infrastructure protection for hetch hetchy water and power. the controller's office released single audit report for the fiscal year 2022-2023 in february as well as their public integrity assessment of the procurement in march. i wanted to spotlight the audit bureau's independent work. we conducted internal assessment of inventory management practice in the first quarter. this project included site visits, interviews with staff and

management at facilities. review the policy and procedure documentation and analysis of the current and historical inventory audit count. our review confirmed overall our inventory policies and procedures comply with best practice and inventory guidelines established by san francisco controller's office section 6, inventory accounting policies. as we examine items recorded physically present inventory item over 4 years we determined that the overall dollar value accuracy was 98.2 percent. [indiscernible] more in depth assessment in the future of fuel trackingm cited as issue across enterprises and are account for 40 percent of inventory inaccuracy identified. as you all know, the audit bureau actively monitors open audit

recommendations throughout the agency to insure they are addressed and implemented according to respected deadlines. 8 from revenue lease audit of crystal springs golf partners and from the released procurement public integrity assessment at the controller office. 15 recommendations have been closed. moving forward, we anticipate the official completion of total of 4 audit frz the 4th quarter. that include the chapter 6 delegated authority audit, the budget i labor analysis conflict of interest audit, the audit bureau inventory performance assessment, which we brief lee mentioned, and the california area payment program by the clean power alliance for the 4th quarter.

we anticipate the kick off of additional two audits this quarter. the revenue lease audit of mission valley rock and fiscal year 23-24 annual physical inventory count. thank you for your time. >> thank you mrs. blackwell and this is quarterly, right? a quarterly report, so you are here every four months with a ton of audits and all kinds of reports and i thank you for that because it is so important. i don't have specific questions, accept just i like to-everybody is on top of things according to what i see. commissioner ajami. >> thank you for this report. couple items. one, on the inventory audit that you did, was this only related to like, big items or talking about also

data, maps, all that as well? >> the focus is physical inventory items. all different sizes and different amounts, but the focus on physical inventory. >> okay. do we also have as part of this virtual inventory or data inventory or--i guess also the maps and other items we have, which are physical, but different sites. >> we have a myriad of it audits going on and you know, our it director is talk to about how we manage some of the it data bases and those type of things, but or scope is to focus on physical inventory items that we use to keep our systems afloat and making sure that all the investment we make in those items are being well tracked and well managed and so, we are like i said we are happy to see of these things are very well kept at the puc as of right now.

>> you had recommendations. there wasn't a document attached to the presentation, right? >> we have the full inventory report. i just have one copy, but i can make sure you all get a copy of it and you guys can see the report. it is about 23 pages and so i'm happy to answer any further questions when you guys get a chance to fully see it. like i said, it is officially supposed to be released the 40 4th quater and we wanted to spotlight it. >> are there any recommendations -best practice. i ask you every presentation you give. best practice out there that we can actually use to further improve inventory management? >> yes, i appreciate you asking us that. we did take that into consideration. we reached out to several different

entities about inventory reports because they are not publicly available just like ours are not publicly available like our annual financial report is. what we found is puc is leading in a lot of inventory practice when we looked at some of the other public utilities. the accuracy counts are not as high as the puc and we have a very complex system that not everybody can easily map to, but we did follow up with maybe 4 or 5 entities over the last few months and again, we found our numbers are better then theirs so we didn't have specific recommendations we can take from them. i believe the staff is doing a very good job leading in a lot of inventory practices. >> good to know. and then, moving on to the open adits that you have, there was a comment the second item on revenue lease

audits and the fact that we finally got our payment from 2019-2021 from the crystal spring golf partners and i was surprised it has gone that long to get the money and just wondering--i know you are looking into this, but what are the--you said there are 8 open recommendation s and wonder if you can elaborate? >> yes, we work with specific steak holdsers to get more details what is going on with the recommendations and for this particular situation, there was a hiring delay of a person who was put in place to manage these open payments and quite honesty, it was during covid where a lot of recommendations came up and there were checks coming to offices and no staff present, but since then, i believe they have good systems in place to

identify those checks and make sure we get the payments in a prompt manner and so, with the new staff member, i believe that things are really going to close out for these recommendations and you won't see them in the future too much longer. >> does this mean we already have received payments from 2021 till now and this was sort of a gap in the middle? >> yeah, this was a gap like i said, due to the pandemic and not having the staff in the right places with the right payment procedures, but now they are looking at electric payment jz we don't have this problem right now. >> okay, good. thank you so much. >> thank you. i remember the commission discusing the inventory performance audit, maybe about a year ago and i was pleased to see the thoroughness of your assessment that you seem to go at it from all angles, both hands on, staff

interviews, site visits. i think that is is a really great way of finding out what's going on and how we improve. sometimes we got great procedures that don't beat the road in implementation, so i was glad to see you had been so thorough and to hear puc is ahead of most other inventory audits. i had a question--you answered it, the same question about crystal spring golf partner and why the delay in paying rent, but i also wondered, the quarter 4--the bla conflict of interest audit, can you just tell me briefly what that cover said? >> yes. >> is it a staff-- >> it is city wide audit so we are one of many departments looked at by the budget legislative analyst and we are meeting with them on a regular basis and updateing inturj stakeholders at the puc about the bla is saying

about their estimation to complete it. it is a city wide audit, not just puc. >> thank you. >> i had one question, not to go into history of the audits and what initiated them, but remind, what initiates a new audit, other then this entire web of different agencies and different things you are auditing? what would trigger an audit? >> thank you commissioner,b that is very good question. internally, the audit bureau is working with different stakeholders involved in understanding what are their risks and based on understanding their risks we might develop a audit. we work with csa to maybe identify some projects to work on and they tell us yes or no based on their availability for staff or based on our finances. the budget legislative analyst

group, you know, it is very political, right? so, they have different triggers for what triggers a audit for them and then we have various regulators that are always doing different audits of us, so we are subject to their filing timelines, whether annual, semi-annual, quarterly, et cetera. >> thank you. commissioners, any other questions? thank you very much for your report. look forward seeing you in three months. okay. let's go to item 6-wait, public comment. >> public comment. >> remote callerss, please raise your hand if you wish to provide any comment on item 5a. do we have members of the public present who wish to provide comments on this item? seeing none, moderator, do we have any callers with hands raised? >> commission secretary, there

are no callers who wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> thank you. public comment is close d. item 6. >> 5b. >> 5b. sorry. >> very quickly commissioners, i want to update last wednesday we had our second board hearing about budget appropriation committee on the operating budget approved out of committee and proceed to full board of supervisors for consideration. we agreed around $6 million in each year of oprating budget cuts that were recommended by the board budget legislative analyst and don't expect more questions before adopted later in the summer and we'll provide details of the changes since you approved the budget once it is fully adopted. the total appropriation is $2 billion of annual operating and $1.6 billion in

annual capital budget totaling over $7 billion for two year period. it was very thorough and i thought very smooth review by the board committee and we worked very closely with the board's budget legislative analyst to come to agreement. >> great. thank you for that. we spent a lot of time on that needless to say last january. thank you. let us open commissioners-- >> it will be great to sometimes-maybe you did and i missed it, but letting us know when these hearings are happening, just because for the sake of curiosity, i would have been interested to know the questions people ask or what discussion happened and i think it is upon us to kind of try to at least have some presence in these meetings, so i know this was one of many that happens, but i appreciate if you can let

us know sometimes when there are items that are related to us. >> sure. >> thank you. >> questions of the general manager? let us open item 5b to public comment. >> remote callers, raise your hand if you wish to provide public comment on item 5b. do we have members of the public present to provide comment? >> watched this hearing, and i feel that we have to get the community involved. like one of the commissioners said. we are not just going to take things for granted. even in the previous audit i don't want to say too much--we have people who have been indicted. we have millions of dollars of

material not accounted for in the past. like maybe 2 or 3 years ago. we just cannot by-pass these things. so, real outreach has to be done. when we had karen cubic, we had those meetings. now we don't have the meetings. nobody wants to come to san francisco and attend a committee meeting, budget meetings when they are working. some people are working, two, three jobs, so we need to do some outreach so that we know really what's happening, rather then reports being given in a very general manner. i think the general manager was not in that meeting, but the deputy was and

somebody else was, and there are many things we want to ask, you know? you know? this is enterprise department and an enterprise department generates their own money, and if somebody doesn't know that, they are missing a lot, so we have been blessed in the past by jen rating a lot of money, but we need accountability and transparency and i thank the commissioner for voicing her opinion. thank you very much. >> just so we are clear, i was at the last-i want to be clear, i was at the last meeting. >> i'm sure you were. >> that was a inaccurate statement. >> i'm sure you were. thank you. anymore-we are still in public comment. any speakers in the building? if not let's go to remote

callers. >> moderator are there hands raised? >> there are no callers who wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> thank you. public comment is now closed. thank you for your report. >> that concludes my report mr. president. >> thank you. read item 6, please. >> item 6, bay area water supply and conservation agency update. >> good afternoon commissioner paulson, members of the commission. earlier this month, at your last meeting may 14, this body adopted your wholesale water rates with 8.8 percent increase starting july 1. at that time, and i continue to voice support for commission adoption of recommended rate increase. that adopted rate increase is the result of necessary investments by the puc and operating and maintaining the existing san francisco regional hetch hetchy water system as well as

investments in capital frublt as identified in the 10 year cip and long-term water supply planning presented in the water supply plan. together these investments are necessary to insure the system can continue to provide a reliable supply of high quality water at a fair price for all customers that rely on the system. this includes 1.8 million residents, 40 thousand businesses and communities in three counties served by bosca member agencies and represented under state law. bosca support for the commission action to raise rates is not guaranteed but result of ongoing work between puc and baus cu. through state legislation and water supply agreement between san francisco and wholesale customers a role is insure the puc meets the contractual and legal obligations to wholesale customers. to that end, meets with the puc to review and provide input onm

activities, capital improvalment and long-term water supply planning. moving forward, engagement with the puc will become increasingly important to insure the right maintenance activities are performed. that the appropriate capital investments are being implemented to address important issues and the planning and implementation of efforts for future new water supply are done appropriately to meet the water supply needs of san francisco and wholesale customers. as the cost of water continues to increase, engagement with the puc in the future will become more important i believe. a reliable high quality water supply is critical to insure a thriving community and meet puplic health and safety needs and right level of investment is necessary to insure water supply is provided as a fair price. that concludes my planned remarks, but i'm free to answer questions you might have. >> thank you. i might say that, your montra of supporting investment and

infrastructure for all the reasons necessary is something that is music to many of our ears and you and your agency saying that every time is important and it is not always easy, because investing takes a lot of work and lot of money, but i think we are proud of this agency for making sure we have maintained all our systems, not just water, so thank you for always reminding us that. thank you. commissioners, any other questions? seeing none, again, thank you for your report. see you soon. >> thank you very much. >> okay. can we open up item 6 to public comment, please? >> remote callers, raise your hand if you wish to comment on item 6. do we have members of the public present who wish to provide public comment on item 6? seeing none, moderator, do we have

callers can hands raised? >> commission secretary, there is one caller with their hand raised. >> thank you. >> caller, your line is unmuted. you have two minutes. >> thank you. peter dreckmyer, [indiscernible] we were looking at 18 percent increase over the next two years. the mayor's budget shows a 20 percent increase, which suggests to me that the budget has increased, and before you might remember dave warner did a lot of work to show that there was very little wiggle room to say under the affordability target. it look ed to me there were not numbers in the mayor's budget, but it looked to me those figures will be exceeded in the next 20 years.

now, the budget, the 10 year budget includes about 1 percent of the total cost of alternative water supply in the water supply plan. the debt you will have around 2045 will exceed what the budget was last year, just the debt, so there is really no additional capital money for alternative water supplies, and yet, staff is saying that you will need 92 to 122 million gallons per day, which is really crazy. it is a crazy plan. i don't know how else to describe it. so, again, asking questions, is there funding available for alternative water

supply? staff put a lot of creativity into the budget, but there is absolutely no creativity in the alternative water supply plan. thank you. >> thank you. anymore public comment? >> thank you caller. commission secretary, there are no more callers who wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> thank you. so, that concludes item 6. thank you. item 7 is the consent calendar, and i might note there are a lot of contracts on the consent calendar and not only that, there are contracts up and i think if i can pontificate, it reiterates the commitment san francisco has maintaining and improving and building our infrastructure and so, item 7 is the consent calendar. there are 7 items on there. commissioners, is there any questions on any of those items or any

items you like to pull? commissioner stacy. >> thank you. i had a comment on 7a, lake merced remediation project and a question on 7d. on 7a, the lake merced remediation project, this project has been a long time coming. long time ago, it started. feels like ancient history now. it is nice to see it evolving into a recreational amenity. i also went and looked at the eir and mitigation monitoring and reporting program. i didn't actually--i couldn't find the mitigation monitoring reporting program on the puc share file but it is easily available on the planning department website and looks like there are a lot of shared responsibilities between rec park and the puc for mitigation

measures and i know the puc has set up a really good tracking system for those mitigation measures, but i think it is a good idea to mike sure mitigation monitoring and reporting program is also available on the puc's website. and then on 7d, the contract for the folsom area storm water improvements, it mention said one of the reasons for the amendment is a conflicting third party facility that was larger then expected. i couldn't figure out what that was. do you mind-explaining that a little bit? thank you. >> good afternoon. derek adams, project manager.

the conflicting utility was a pg&e electrical transmission line, very large one, very deep. >> thanks. >> [indiscernible] >> just a comment on a and question on d, that's it. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner rivera. >> thank you president paulson. i also had a question on 7d, if you don't mind mr. adams since you are already standing up. i just wanted to get more detail of what's happening with that project. i know there was a lot of community out-cry over a lot of what has been transpiring every time we get heavy rains and i'm a old resident of the mission so remember the flooding for years and years so think it is great for everyone and the public to hear what's going on and potential remediation. >> yeah. absolutely. so, yeah, this contract is

first of four. the other three are all detailed design. the two main contracts are [indiscernible] and box contract and start construction next year and there will be a couple years dur ation each so rolling out improvements between now and 2027 and start seeing some improvements to the flooding in the neighborhood as each projaect is built out. >> thank you. >> thank you for that quick summary. any other items with questions commissioners? okay. seeing none, let's open the consent calendar to public comment, please. >> remote callers, raise your hand if you wish to comment on item 7, consent calendar. any members present who wish to provide comment on this item? seeing none, moderator, do we

have any callers with hands raised? >> commission secretary, there are no callers who wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> thank you. public comment for consent calendar item 7 is closed. can i get a motion and second to approve the consent calendar, please? >> motion to approve. >> second. >> motion and second. can we have roll call, please? >> paulson, aye. rivera, aye. ajami, aye. stacy, aye. you have four ayes. >> okay. consent calendar passes. thank you. can you read item number 8 please? >> item 8. award contract no. cs-1411, collection agreement to the united states

department of agriculture, forest service pacific southwest research station, to provide technical support for watershed management for the alameda creek, san mateo creek, and pilarcitos creek watersheds in an amount not-to-exceed $2,000,000, and with a duration of five years. >> mr. ritchie, please. >> good afternoon commissioners. steve ritchie assistant general manager for water. this is a contract-the 4est service likes to call a collection agreement, but is is just a correct so nothing special about the item. we have been work wg the southwest research station for many many years now on [indiscernible] in the watershed, so this is just the latest in series of contracts we have done with them. it is a very productive partnership helping us with things such as sudden oak death and the plant pathogen problems we experienced during the program. so, we recommend approval, and staff is here to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. any questions on this contract?

commissioners? seeing none, thank you. open item 8 to public comment please. >> remote callers, raise your hand if you wish to comment on item 8. any members of the public present who wish to comment on this item? >> please come to the microphone. seeing none, let's go to public comment. remote comment. >> moderator, do we have callers with their hands raised? >> commission secretary, there are no callers who wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> public comment is closed. can i get a motion and second to approve item 8? >> motion to approve. >> second. >> motion and second to approve item 8. roll call, please. >> paulson, aye. rivera, aye. commissioner ajami, aye. stacy, aye. you have four ayes. >> thank you. item 9, can you read item 9, please? >> agenda item 9, award

contract no. pw-011, bay corridor transmission and distribution phase 4 and water improvements, to the responsible bidder that submitted the lowest responsive bid, mitchell engineering, in the amount of $15,471,259, and with a duration of 610 consecutive calendar days (approximately one year and eight months) to extend the electrical distribution system, replace low pressure water mains, and extend and modernize the emergency firefighting water system in san francisco's bayview neighborhood. this action constitutes the approval action for the project for the purposes of the california environmental quality act (ceqa), pursuant to san francisco administrative code section 31.04(h). the planning department has determined that the project is exempt from the ceqa. the commission will rely on that determination to make its decision on this action. >> okay. >> good afternoon commissioners. project manager with sfpuc. thank you for having me here today to present you the contract. the bay quarter transmission distribution phase 4 and water improvement project. as mentioned, the objective of the project is to extend the bctd

duct bank and serve the future 2,000 marine-also joined by the water local program to upgrading pipe along evans, cesar chavez and marine and emergency firefighter water extension along marine and upgrading street valve at evans and napoleon. we are here to ask approval to award the low bidder. they met all the specific technical requirements and they are the low bidder and responsive so let me know if you have further questions i can answer. >> are there any questions about this contract? commissioner ajami. >> i'll just note, i appreciate your presentation. this goes back to my continuous comments about [indiscernible] if there

is delay [indiscernible] and i am really really for making sure that there is a more considerable risk associated not delivering on time and on price. hopefully, especially now we are back in a normal time and hopefully we'll stay in that a long time. i know this contract is already in front of us and will go and hopefully get approved, but i would like for us to more seriously think about that line item [indiscernible] what does it really mean. i'm not sure $500 if i read this correctly is a great amount to encourage everybody--it isn't the assumption they are not going to deliver, we need to reduce our risk and have to keep people accountable. thank you.

>> any other comments on item 9, commissioners? open up to general comment. thank you for your brief report. >> thank you. >> remote callers, raise your hand if you wish to comment on item 9. any members of the public present who wish to comment on this item? seeing none, moderator, do we have any callers with hands raised? >> commission secretary, there are no callers who wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> public comment on item 9 is over. can i get a motion and second to approve item 9? >> move to approve. >> i'll second. >> moved and second to approve item 9. roll call, please. >> paulson, aye. rivera, aye. ajami, aye. stacy, aye. you have four ayes. >> item 9 passes.

can you read item 10, please? >> agenda item 10, award contract no. ww-753, hayes valley sewer improvements, to the responsible bidder that submitted the lowest responsive bid, precision engineering, inc., in the amount $10,842,325 and with a duration of 420 consecutive calendar days (approximately one year and two months), to rehabilitate and replace large diameter sewers and laterals on specified streets within the city and county of san francisco. this action constitutes the approval action for the project for the purposes of the california environmental quality act (ceqa), pursuant to san francisco administrative code section 31.04(h). the planning department has determined that the project is exempt from the ceqa. the commission will rely on that determination to make its decision on this action. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is ming yee, the project manager under wastewater collection system for this project. i am seeking approval to award contract number ww-753 hayes valley sewer improvements to rehabilitate the 5100 feet of sewers in hayes valley neighborhood. we received four bids and

lowest responsible bid amount from precision engineer is 10 million, 842 thousand dollars and 325 dollars, which is below the engineer estimate of $11.6 million. happy to answer any questions. >> okay, thank you. again, this is important ongoing work. commissioners, any questions? let's open item number 10 to general public. >> remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to comment on item 10. any members of the public present who wish to provide comment on this item? seeing none, moderator, do we have callers with hands raised? >> commission secretary, there are no callers who wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> okay. public comment is closed. right around the time traffic will get a little bit more challenging for this

trader joe's residents who are probably walking there. anyway. so, that being said, can we get a motion and second to approve item 10? >> move to approve. >> second. >> can we have roll call, please? motion and second. >> paulson, aye. rivera, aye. ajami, aye. stacy, aye. you have four ayes. >> 10 passes. can you read item 11, please? >> agenda item 11, authorize the general manager to consent, on behalf of the san francisco public utilities commission, to the development agreement between the city and county of san francisco and stonestown nw parcel llc, a delaware limited liability company, stonestown shopping center, l.p., a delaware limited partnership, and stonestown anchor acquisition, l.p., a delaware limited partnership, as it relates to matters under the jurisdiction of the san francisco public utilities commission; and adopt findings pursuant to the california environmental quality act, including a statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation and

monitoring and reporting program. >> good afternoon commissioners. molly peatric here to present the consent gement agreement. the stone town development praujsect is mixed use multiphase master plan development on the west side of san francisco. the project will built in 6 phase over 25 to 35 years. the 45 acre site is comprised of 11 acre shopping center, the stonestown [indiscernible] majority of the gal reea remain and [indiscernible] with up to 35 housing units including 20 percent affordability requirement. 6 acres of parks, retail and office space and on-site child care and senior center. the project also proposes to make improvement to the street network, circulation and utilities. the project is developed through development agreement with the city. the development agreement creates a legally binding framework for cooperation between the developer and various city departments effected by the project, including the puc. under the terms of the #2que789

agreement the dwemer provide horizontal infrastructure to support the project and include the design and construction of potable and non potable water distribution, combined [indiscernible] all these elements are outlined in the project infrastructure plan which is exhibit to the development agreement and staff worked very closely with the developer and other city departments on the development of this plan. that pu crurks consent is required for utility related components of it the development agreement. all city departments consented the da will go to board for final approval. happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. this is a exciting project. thank you for the presentation. commissioner ajami, questions? comments? >> it is interesting because a few weeks ago i received this write

up from someone talking about another city taking their malls and revitalizing them and creating these green corridors with housing and all that and i was thinking about stonestown. i was like wow, this is really cool. the idea was kind of create neighborhoods people can walk to work and have a shopping center and everything. so, this is really interesting and obviously i'm glad to see there is hope to revitalize that area. the only question i have is, obviously assuming when this goes forward you will see a water plan, because i think all these project need a water plan or is that already developed and submitted? >> the water [indiscernible] has been approved already. >> this is the one? >> yep. >> one thing i would say is, we do need to focus on these new development and i saw this potable water and very

specific discussion around water in the document that you provided. wy dont necessarily have a lot of net zero water concepts, sort of enforced as much, but i think it would be cool to kind of use these opportunities as a way of making sure the water footprint is basically minimal to none if they can do as much as they can. this development process. so, it is just you know, it is coming to us. there was a reason we have a chance to see it and i think that's why. i would like for us to have a better strategy around how the developments being considered can be sort of subject to some new strategies and rules or policies we can put in place. thank you. >> commissioner stacy.

>> i have a comment similar to commissioner ajami's. it is exciting to see all of this sort of parking lot space out there being revitalized and all most 3500 units of housing would be wonderful in that neighborhood and for the city and so, i look forward to seeing this project develop. i also agree with commissioner ajami and i should have looked at the old water supply assessment, but i assume because this is a new project and it exceeds the sort of thresholds that there will be water reuse and water recycling on the site, is that--am i remembering that correctly? >> they are subject to non potable ordinance. i dont think-we haven't gotten to the point of them having that plan nailed down yet, but they have-- >> okay.

thank you. looks like a great reuse of a under utilized space. >> i wasn't imagining, that plan in detail has not been figured out yet? >> no, the plan outlines a couple different ways they can potentially comply and as we get further into design nail it down and go through review and approval. >> maybe we still will have a chance it to push further on their water footprint as the design moves forward hopefully? i'm sure the water resources team will be on top that. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner rivera. >> thank you president paulson. so, i had a small area of concern just reading over this document. it looks like there is not going to be a requirement for the efws system by this developer and i'm just

wondering if that is a prudent decision? moreover, pretty sure it is required by the fire code for large developments to have efws at these new developments, and there is like over 3,000 units here, so just wondering if you can talk more about it and maybe if there is a potential for still adding that in the future. >> sure. that was negotiated between oewd and the fire department directly since that was a fire purview. so, that's--i dont know what else to say about that. >> the fire department is the one who makes the determination in the first instance of the water need and so the fire department made that determination. oewd then met with the fire department and developer and came to us with what the procedures are. we make the determination of

what water is needed to meet the amount of firefighter that the fire department makes decides it needs, but the fire department is the one who determines what water and what resources it will need for a new area, so that is in their subject matter expert and ours is how we get it, so that decision is not one that we are going to be redoing. that is a fire department decision to do. >> thank you very much for that clarification. i think though that, we are partners with fire department and that it is kind of within our due diligence to insure the safety of the residents. furthermore, every last major fire i could think of in the last 15 years was put out by the efws system, not the regular city distribution potable system so it just concerns me that this precedent is being made and i'm

just also worried about future developers could maybe point back at this development and say well, they were not required to install this and maybe we shouldn't have to. it just like i said, it just really concerns me of this change i never really been exposed to. i worked in a lot of large developments, chase center and pier 70 and every developer says the same thing, we don't have money and can't do it but we figure a way. i was also thinking that the pefws, which will be i believe on placed on sloat, maybe we can figure a way to branch over one more block to ocean and eucalyptus or near that area and then we would be able to set up at least one or maybe two hydrants on the

corner that development, because that's an ongoing project and maybe we need staff members to connect and figure that out, because i would be really you know, i would really love to look at hydraulic modeling if we had a major incident how we would use a low pressure hydrant system to put it out. >> we will certainly look at our internal alignment of the system on sloat. >> i appreciate that very much. >> question was defws? >> right. >> what is it? >> that is a kind of hybrid system utilization of low pressure and high pressure a extension from lake merced and will have supply from lake merced and the sunset reservoir. as that work moves forward, i

think there may be potential for using or adding a branch line to this new development just in terms of public safety. >> got it. i understand. thank you. commissioner ajami, you had a question? no. okay. commissioner rivera. commissioner stacy. >> i just wanted to follow-up on commissioner rivera's concern. it looks as though the developer will pay for the in lu fee rather then installing it themselves. they pay a fee for that emergency water system. i assume that as the fire department and maybe the puc figures out what is the cost that, that the developer wont install it, the developer will

pay for the cost that. >> i think they are paying a fee to the fire department to purchase a potable hose system that is on some sort of wheel that can move around and they are hoping to use that with our new system and i do like that-maybe we can talk about moving the hydrant closer so doesn't need as long hose, but that is intent, they have a system that hooks up to the low pressure before the high pressure system is inserted because it isn't clear when our system will be done. we can do the hydraulic modeling on low pressure and can also use it for other places on the west side. >> some of the questions are asked. commissioner rivera. >> i wanted to make clarification, that is correct, there is a fee paid by the developer to purchase a specialized apparatus able to move large

quantities of water. the problem in my view is, the apparatus is great, but it needs the high pressure system to work, so you are still going to have the same situation where you post up on i believe ocean and eucalyptus and you need the staffing to drag hoses across major mta street car tracks, et cetera, 19th avenue. i'm just saying that--i think that is great that the developer is doing that, but i think it's still missing the mark. >> got it. thank you. >> okay. commissioners, any other questions? let us--thank you. looks like we have an issue, but let us open up to the general public. >> remote callers, raise your hand if you wish to comment on item 11.

do we have any members of the public present who wish to comment on this item? >> please step to the microphone. item 11, please. >> first and foremost, i think the state of california has certain recommendations cause of climate change and everything about water. secondly, this is like over 3 thousand units. safety comes first and we know in san francisco this happened before, because there is no sufficient pressure, the whole block has been burned. we don't need that to happen. we are very fortunate on this commission we have a person

who worked for the fire department who can really speak technically about these matters. so, what i'm saying is, we have many developers trying to come in and build, but we also have to have a check list and safety comes first. you have seen what happened in hawaii. we saw just like two days ago happened in oakland. we don't need a fiasco to happen without taking precaution. i think so, the planning department has to work very closely with sfpuc. i dont see sfpuc representation at the planning department with these matters of water. peter dreckmyer, he always

gives us suggestions. we don't seem to listen to him. you got to listen to people. people dont like to come here for public comment. i come because i know why. i can go back to the community and say do this, do this. >> good afternoon president paulson, commissioners. i'm organize for nor california carpenter union i represent approximately 37 thousand members across the state. in particular, the 4 thousand here in san francisco county. i'm here today with my brother to voice strong support for this project.

committed to collaborated with nor cal carpenter union for build out of the proposed development. this project directly benefit carpenters with employment and training opportunities. this is a significant vote commissioners. this development will create upwards of 800 jobs a year in construction industry directory benefiting our members. these opportunities are not just limited to the actual building phase, but can also extend to the maintenance and renovation work. this development will help develop and sustain the construction workforce for apprenticeship and employment training. there will be a consistent employment department for several years to come. the complex needs of such a large scale project insures seasoned carpenters, newcomers to the trade gain a richer variety of experience. this project enhance the community with amenities and infrastructure improvements, but those improvements will benefit local businesses and

stimulate the economy. i urge you to vote yes on the stonestown development which is incredsable opportunity to create a long lasting economic impact that benefits everyone. thank you for your time and service. >> thank you mr. chavez. next speaker. i will take the privilege of introducing. my colleague, rudey gonzalez is now the secretary treasurer of the san francisco building construction trades council representing many of the construction unions in town. we used to be the executive director of the san francisco labor council, all 150 unions which he succeeded me on so pleasure seeing you address us today and showing up so welcome. >> thank you president paulson and honorable members of the commission. good to see you. as i told general manager herrera it is rare appearance before there body. usually we are urging the planning

commission to entertain responsible development proposals. but i rise before you today representing 27 construction and related unions to voice our strong support. this is somewhat procedural motion before you to authorize your distinguished general manager to merely consent, but there are very important negotiations happening. i don't think you started my time. to start negotiation or continue development negotiations soethere is a lot of different city partners involved oewd. we are thrilled the 27 unions are excited to be on the future project and part of historic undertaking. as a kid in the sunset and attended local schools i can't tell you how much time maybe too much time spent at the mall, but to think about adaptive reuse in this context on that sidef the city is a incredible feat and we'll

be proud to say we had a role delivering the project. the infrastructure the developer is committing to is important. i remember in twrent 2021 there was a fire study to update us on what our capacity would be for population growth by 20 5 oand 2022 the capital planning committee did look at this and studied it and said what #wd it take to get in the 75 th percentile on the ewfs for the entire city because heavily dominated on the east side. i need to update where we landed post the last bond but think it is a lot of good work and increased capacity. we can't have enough firefighters to get the job done. we are excited about the

housing. i think it is test ament brookefield bringing to the table. they are not looking just to develop something, they own the core and own the existing facility and we are talking building everything around it. they are invested in the neighborhood and local workforce and they haven't just said that, they put it in legally binding indictment. >> thank you. anymore speakers in the room? let's go to public-remote comment, please. >> moderator, do we have callers with hands raised for comments on this item? >> commission secretary, there are two callers with hands raised. >> thank you. >> caller, your line is unmuted. you have two minutes. >> good afternoon commissioners. this is jake price, on behalf of housing action coalition

calling in to urge your support for the item before you. our project review committee reviewed and endorsed the stonestown mall development project at the end of 2022 and since then in constant communication with the project team and the community. we are really excited about adding 3500 new homes thoothe west side of san francisco with brookefield committing going above and beyond below market rate housing requirements, including housing for seniors and veterans. the improvements to the public realm and pedestrian safety improvements are amazing as are the senior center and child care facilities on site and overall we are just really impressed with the project land use, density and host of community benefits and input. we ask for your support today and thank you very much.

>> thank you. >> thank you caller. caller, your line is unmuted. you have two minutes. >> my name is [indiscernible] thank you for your time today. i'm calling to support this project. i'm a neighbor and live near stonestown and visit the mall often with my family. we walk there, we drive there, we visit the shops. is key [indiscernible] also a neighborhood resource. that said, when i drive i park in the back and [indiscernible] every time i visit i see surrounded by empty parking lots and it just an amazing amount of unused space, especially [indiscernible] transforming all these parking lots to parks and walkways and housing is a great idea and project design is terrific. it creates a safe pedestrian frndly environment. beautiful open space and exseated excited to bring my family.

i also say, i talk to a lot of people in the area and often housing developments are controversial issue, but this one stands out and the neighbors are supportive. i have never seen so much local support for a housing project. with all that and [indiscernible] severe housing shortage, i think this is a good place to build. i just urge the puc to support the stonestown project and do all to move it forward. thank you for your time. >> thank you caller. commission secretary, there are no callers with their hand raised. >> thank you. >> thank you. public comment is now closed. commissioners, commissioner ajami. >> just wanted to ask mr. herrera and maybe the team to keep us abreast about this project and how the planning process is going. you can't hear me? i was trying to see if you can

keep us informed about this project and how the negotiations are going. i think the safety issue is certainly a very important one. i think the water issue is going to be important one. it will be good for us to have a seat at the table and influence in the process in any of the area s we have. we will be impacted, so-i also power i guess. they sort of will be our customer end to end. >> did you want to comment on that? >> did you have a question? >> no, just asking--it is great if you can keep us informed on this project and how the planning and design is going and are we achieving--i think i also gave you guys a opportunity--i like to give our team a opportunity to sit back and think how they can actually make sure that this project is up to quality when you think about

water, power, sewer, everything. obviously fire. that was my comment. >> thank you commissioner. i have a comment also. i do take it seriously the comments from fellow commissioner when he talks about the different emergency issues that we have right now and i guess i just have one question, since nothing is absolutely totally finished up yet, you keep us informed about that emergency issue in particular as the final pieces are put together, so that particular-we as commissioners can make sure we have the emergency stuff that we are used to now. i'm sure there has been good negotiations and don't suspect--contractors always like to get the best deal they can, but i don't think we will find ourselves in dire straights because of something that didn't quite happen, but i'm very concerned about my colleague

commissioner rivera and who knows these systems and history in what he brought up. we are public utility commission, not the planning commission, not park and rec, so we want to make sure we stay focused on that. hopefully we can get a update on those issues commissioner rivera brought up. >> of course. >> commissioners, any other comments? then can we get a motion and second to authorize the general manager on behalf of the public utilities to move forward with this? motion and second, please? >> move to authorize the general manager-- >> yes. move item 11, motion is there a second? can the chair second? >> second. >> the motion and second. roll call recollect please.

>> paulson, aye. - [roll call] >> 11 is approved. go ahead mr. rivera. thank you. can we read item 12, please? >> item 12, authorize the general manager to approve the renewable power purchase agreement for clean powersf with ipesely llc in the amount not to exceed $75 million for a duration of 10 years and authorize the general manager to seek approval from the board of supervisors to execute the power purchase igrument, under charter section 9.118. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is [indiscernible] director of origination and power supply. will be presenting on a new clean powersf renewable energy contract and we are bringing for your approval.

today we are requesting to award year power agreement in the amount not to exceed $75 million and authorize the general manager to seek the board of supervisors approval to execute the power purchase agreement. on september 21, 2022, the puc issued request for offer seeking bids for renewable energy from new or existing eligible renewable energy resources located in or could directly deliver energy into the california independent operating balance authority. the rfo indicated the san francisco puc preferred resources in the 9 san francisco bay area counties and additional points were awarded to projects located within the bay

area counties. the rfo also provided points to projects eligible to be counted under the california puc midterm reliability procurement order which issued in 2021. we request offering for renewable energy delivery to begin as early as january 23 and as late as december 2028 for contract terms up to 25 years. the rfo evaluated bids received on the following criteria:qualifications and experience of the proposers including the firm, and the senior staff experiences developing renewable energy projeths and the proposer financial strengths, evidence by the previous two financial statements, the project viability and likelihood it meets the commercial operation date in site control, interconnection status, permits, financing and labor

agreements. the bid value andpert folio fit which considers a bid contribution to long-term pricing staiblt and competitiveness, the value of the energy and non energy at tributes. a project contribution to portfolio diversity technology field type location of the resource and midterm reliability to compliance position all considered. also awarded to project located within the 9 bay area county for submission of firm diversity equity inclusion plan and social impact partnership proposals. based on the bid evaluation criteria, we are bring ging easely solar contract. the project is developed by intersect power in riverside county and 5

trade project labor agreements in place. the contract would be a 50 megawatt slice which is expected to come in line with the fall of 2026 for 10 year term for the contract. staff determined the easely project demonstrated high feasibility. interconnect to the california transmission grid via infrastructure under intersect power control which help limit delays. easely was one of the first project that received the governor certification for judicial streamlines as a environmental leadership development project. intersect has entered into a 5 project labor agreement for construction of the project and they are using us made components for the solar panels.

the proposed contract with easely will contribute renewable solar energy to the clean powersf portfolio. the green product was 97 percent renewable with generation coming from solar, geothermal, wind and hydro electric project. hundred percent renewable project standard port folio super green product supplied by wind and solar that have come online since clean powersf launched in 2016. thank you and happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. so, do we have questions on this power purchase agreement? commissioners? any questions? seeing none. >> i have a question. >> commissioner ajami. >> i have--i wonder on your

last slide, clean powersf portfolio, on the super green verses green products, obviously it just depends on availability and the time and all that, right? so it is kind of been--do we provide to the customers like what do they end up getting? >> yes- >> [indiscernible] okay. so we do tell people? >> they elect which they prefer to be in whether green or super green and at the end of year we do supply a power source disclosure so they know what they received. >> okay. if i go to my account i can see like within a year what percentage was super green, what percentage was green? >> you mean-- >> the power over the year has come from super green sources and how do you sort of--all these electrons are in the grid and they come obviously. i assume based on what we pay

we know how many of those electrons are super green or--is that how you-- >> yes. so the independent system operator is who we schedule into. if we schedule solar that is is what we are credit for. that is what is providing san franciscans clean powersf. it is the same when we schedule in for hetchy. that's a hetchy prubt product from the hetchy generation source so they track that. we receive statements every year and so that whey you know where you are going to receive. back to whether you are green customer or super green customer is your choice with clean powersf. you get to choose that whichever you prefer to be and at the end of year we let you know if we met the hundred percent rpf for super green and staying 97, 9al 98 percent green for

the products. >> i will ask one more question. i have done a lot of this grid management and stuff, so wondering, when electrons end up in my house and i have signed up for super green and you tell me like, 80 percent of power over the year has come from super green. what you know is, we have requested for example for this specific project let's say, we have power purchase agreement, we have paid for this much power, that electron ended up in the system. which ended up in our house is another question, right? just wondering like, obviously this is not one to one. this is just a estimate and sort of speculation of how we can provide those electrons to people, right? >> what you are getting to is time coincidence. >> right. >> a megawatt generated the

straight path and yes it crosses a few different places to get there, but when we look at that we are around 92 percent time coincidence, so you are very close to getting what we paid for. >> okay. okay. thanks. thank you. >> sure thing. absolutely. >> thank you. >> other questions? okay. liz, open up item 12 to the general public comment, please. >> remote callers, raise your hand if you wish to comment on item 12. any members of the general public present who wish to comment on this item? seeing none, moderator, any callers with their hand raised? >> there are no calls in the queue. >> thank you. >> public comment is closed. any other comments from the commissioners? if not, i take a motion and second please. >> i have my hand raised.

>> commissioner ajami. >> i have one more question for you. the power purchase agreement that we are signing, how many other customers or how many other groups are signing up for the power purchase agreement from this specific project? they are not solely providing power? >> no we are 50 mega awatt slice and i don't know who their other customers are, until it is made public negotiation is usually a very privy. >> is that 50 like, are we doing a-not sure the right word. we are going to buy 50 mega watts every year no matter what? >> that's right. the next 10 years. >> when they provide us the portfolio of customers, then do we have a

sense of--can we see the line up to make sure the 50 megawatt is always secured? they are not over-selling? >> we have curtailment procedures in the contract. yes, we keep our contract very secure and there is liquidated damages if you do not provide what is mandated with the contract. >> okay. and if we purchase 50 and are don't need 50 today or tomorrow or this year or next year, how do they--i remember we sign up for a storage project if not mistaken, is that our sort of strategy we purchase and then store and then deliver? what's going to happen with a extracapacity? >> absolutely. it is great you talk about batteries, because that is something we are adding to our portfolio to help with the curve in the middle of the day so we do have batteries that we are managing

today so the idea of is for us to be able to store the batteries during the lowest price of the day and then take it out in the evening when we go home and turn the lights on and start home life. we have done a great job managing that and continue to add more batteries to our portfolio and make sure we have a diverse portfolio. a portfolio of not just solar but wind and batteries and geothermal so we can have more diversity in managing our generation profile as well as load profile, because it is very seasonal, generation in the state of california, but our low profile doesn't always fit with the generation profile so why we like a lot of diversity and we use the batteries to help us during the time of day with a lot of negative pricing. >> we do have enough capacity on the batteries or projects for storage in case we don't need [indiscernible] we can use them?

>> we are continuing to work forward to procure more. >> thank you. i repeat, is there a motion and second to approve item 12? >> move to approve. >> second. >> motion and second to approve item 12. roll call, please. >> paulson, aye. rivera, aye. ajami, aye. stacy, aye. you have four ayes. >> thank you. motion passes. can you read item 13, please? >> item 13, approve amendment no. 6 to contract no. cs-1408, multi-party cost share agreement for los vaqueros reservoir expansion

project planning, with alameda county flood control and water conservation district zone 7, alameda county water district, contra costa water district, east bay municipal utility district, grassland water district, san luis & deltamendota water authority, santa clara valley water district, and the los vaqueros reservoir joint powers authority, to extend the agreement duration by 12 months, resulting in a new total agreement duration of six years and four months, with no change to the agreement's not-toexceed amount, due to additional delays in the negotiation and execution of project-related contracts with the california department of water resources and the california department of fish and wildlife, and permits with the u.s. bureau of reclamation, as well as other institutional challenges. >> good afternoon commission. steve ritchie, assistant general manager for water. this is is a fairly simple item that you are approving today, but it is attached to a very lanchlg complex project so i want to take the time because we are coming towards a decision point to provide more detail on the project. the reservoir expansion project. this is site map showing where los -adjacent to the delta. sacramento san joaquin delta which is a big hub of water in california. strategically in a good location and served for years and connect in part to our system. the project includes expansion

of the existing reservoir by 115 thousand acre feet. the reservoir is governed by joint power authority, one is us. [indiscernible] the dashed line from the reservoir to south bay aqueduct is what would bring water potentially to us and other part ners thin project that is a very key component of it. for us to take advantage we need to rehabilitate a existing condition from the south bay aqueduct to san antonia reservoir and our system. the partners are listed here. you can see that they are basically a who who of the center line of the bay and water agencies in the bay area, plus san louis delta water authority and [indiscernible] there is a wide arare of partners here and if

you followed the alternative water supply analysis of this, we often talk about complexity of projects, institutionally. this one is off the charts institutionally complex and we are working hard at this to try to see if we can make something work out of it. the advantage for us are storage in wet years to increase dry year reliability. it is what we call south of the delta storage, so often times there is a lot of water in the sacramento river but hard to get across the delta. if you have a storage point that is a big advantage. use of the delta structures that ccwd has, they are better positioned then the general state and federal water project conversion points, so they can be much more readily used throughout different times of the year.

the accomplishments to date, there is very study projects. a big push is get state and federal funding and the projethis very successful about closing in on state and federal funding for the project. some of the hard work is what we are doing now and this is subject to the planning agreement that is before you here is, all the intricate contractual arrangements we have to do with the regulatory agencies and actually among ourselves. the big questions of, where is the water coming from? access to get to the reservoir? once you get it in the reservoir will you get it out and the place you need to use it? those sound like simple questions, but they are very very challenging to get through. we are talking about the proposed amendment now given that the first agreement was back in 2019 and now we are here for the 6th amendment.

it is just for time, not for funding. that was one of the decisions paid by the partners. we don't need to put more money, we need the time to get the agreements in place. the current challenges there, securing water supply for con tracosta customer s no cost during the dam reconstruction. the dam exists there has to be taken out to build the new dam and so that puts contra casta at risk. sharing the risk during construction. there could be cost increases we find in our projects. how do we share the risk? the state and federal partners are [indiscernible] is contra costa sharing the risk. we are not getting much out, we are using your stuff.

insuring facilities. water in and out in a timely fashion. is there a big log jam people trying to get water at once and water cant be delivered. securing the federal and state fundjug get all the project benefits given different environmental conditions we have meet. a big one is transfer of the pipeline has to cross where there are a lot of consurivation easements in place. conversation ease mentds are meant to be in perpetuity so people dont want to give up assurance there for accounting for this project. some challenges, can we get water for lve? there are challenges. competition is there and hot particularly during dry years and you won't get transfer all the time and have to have willing partners, so what we are trying to do is work with others to make sure we get partners

lined up. one thing we will have to do is become much more nimble at taking advantage of it, because this project can serve the state contractors and federal contractors in a pretty large way, but for somebody who is not one of those, we are the outlier in this thing, so what we need to do is cultivate i call interstitial water. water available that neither projects with pick up but we are able to pick up because we dont actually have the constraints they have as well. we will have to be nimble if we make this work able to acquire water and move it in and i can say we had productive conversations with three different agencies that look very promising for that. and can we receive supplies in dry years? do we have a good connection for the south bay aqueduct which is a

pipeline, holds water, we should be able to get water. it is owned by department of water resources and serves zone 7 water agency, alameda county water district and santa clara valley water so they get first call on the capacity and the department of water resource controls how it is operated, so we are working now to try to get agreements with them to make sure that we are assured capacity when we need it because if we can't get assurance, then we got a problem here. also, ccwd conveyance facility transfer of bethany pipeline. those are important things to happen. we want to make sure we get the turn out to san antonio refurbished and think about how we invest in storage. one thing that started become obvious to us is that the connection through the new pipelines really worked pretty well if you got water available.

the storage isn't as important, but the same time, we relize that it is important to have some, because there are times when you will get water and you won't necessarily have a way to move it. times you have a way to move it but cants get the water but you have in storage you can use. our assumptions is we looked at this is we would take deliveries in critical dry years and storage and conveyance are subject to loss. one thing we learned in the process is water evaporates a lot so you have to think of the water you need. the ratio of water purchase is considered return on investment and we think purchasing between 10 and 20s thousand acre feet of storage is a good sweet spot for us. we had been talking as much as 40 and 50 thousand acre feet but we couldn't use it as effectively as a

smaller quantity of storage. in looking at that, our average annual cost is just these are rough numbers here for 20 thousand acre feet average cost of 13 million $13 million per year and 10 thousand acre feet, 9 and $9 and a half million per year. this isn't a huge amount of water, but it is water that could be very valuable to us. for my own purposes, i have been thinking about this a long time. getting new storage that we could actually make use of even if you haven't got all the water pinned down and lined up to go into it, it is probably a good investment because these opportunities are very hard to come by. the key thing i think for the commission going forward is, the next 6 to 12 months we'll bring this back for decision by the commission where we have to decide is it worth

investment of money to get into this project and be a partner and i think everybody is asking themselves that question right now. we will be coming to the commission probably in the next several months. a lot of details about what it takes, so again, we are talking about extending the planning agreement now, but considering all the agreements that need to go into place for the project will be before the commission in a while. one last thing i wanted to mention is that , we had staff dedicated to this fl a while. [indiscernible] has been working on it. [indiscernible] and she is leaving us in the next month or so, so i want to give her thanks for all the effort she put into this project and it has been not very easy, because it is very complicated and a lot of meetings and we might get there. i'm hopeful we'll get there,

but we'll find out. happy to answer any questions. >> thank you mr. ritchie and fascinating to me. and thank you before you leave. i dont know who took all the papers and put it into a power pont, but it was making it-- >> it was a team effort. >> here is what we are doing and didn't show all the cross out jz who you hated today and who you like the next day but very informative to see that. very exciting. i like the piece where you said, i don't remember how you said it but opened the bank account before you have the hundred bucks to put into your savings account to get the storage. fas naeting fascinating. i have no questions. just appreciate seeing this work. commissioner ajami. >> excited to see this. couple basic questions. i didn't realize they have to bring the

entire down. didn't wie just expand that dam like a decade ago? are we bringing the entire thing down and building it up again? >> yeah. that's one issue with dams, they have to work as a unit. the original dam was actually when constructed they were thinking this far out that we get to a third size of it, but 10 years ago it was expanded. contracosta tried to get people interested and nobody interested so paid for it themselves, but to get to the size needed for the largest version they need to get in the core so it makes--people keep talking about a expansion, it isn't expansion. >> it isn't expansion. >> it is basically replacement and what has contrau costa their board nervous you are 5 years without the dam you rely on so they want a good

back-stop there. >> i heard about the project decade now, but didn't realize they have to bring it down and redo it. that is interesting. everybody talks about expansion. i was surprised our assumption was 3 out of every 10 years. i know that is conventional with the drought years and supply, which is kind of have gone out the door in the past kind of few droughts we experienced. i was wondering, what the strategy is there because we are not seeing-the drought patterns changed significantly, so the 3 out of 10 years isn't necessarily working as much as it used to, so is the strategy there if the first two years of drought we take as much as we can out, and then people would ask for water later? are we going to have order of

who asks for what when? what happens if we have like 6 years of drought? >> well, each project we are working on will function in a different way, and we've played with different planning scenarios like maybe it is going to happen 10 out of 20 years or something like that. realistically, no project will deliver water all the time for everybodyism . we look as a project that basically be for a few years. it wouldn't last through our design drought in case like that, so we have to think about this in combination with other things that are more steady supply throughout the entire life. this is kind of a peaking factor as you well on our water supply. >> okay.

and then, the piece that needs to go from to the san antonio reservoir, who buildss that? >> it is probably the department of water resources. the two most interesting partners is department of water resources and bureau reclamation. the department of water resources is very protective of all state water project assets. protective to the extent they don't even pay attention sometimes to what their contractors think. it is ours and so, that turnout there we are actually just in the midst of trying to get agreement with them to plan and study it. it may be a asset they own and manage and maybe--dwr likes to own and operate everything.

>> and then, so, would that part also be part of the cost of the project? >> yes. for us it is part of the cost of the project. it is an asset-- [multiple speakers] we are the only ones who use it. literally, this is a very short connection to san antonio. it already existed and used in the drought in the late 80's. it has just fallen in disarray and needs to be replaced pretty much. >> we are not paying for [indiscernible] we are paying for reconstruction? >> that is just for this short segment. the cost we might incur relate to the south bay aqueduct. >> what makes dwr to give--you brought this up but i want to make sure i understand. what makes dwr want to give us the water versus their on

contractors that are actually part of this project? it would make them look better? >> that is why they own it, so they want to control it. they have contractors they have a contract with. they have different delivery schedules they like and so, but they dont use all that capacity all the time and see what we would be doing is, taking advantage when there is capacity available that they are happy to help pay for that capacity at times we use it, so it is really a matter of being able to take advantage that. we have done enough modeling work that we see those opportunities exist frequently enough that we think we can actually get water supply out of it. >> okay. i assume this has been done, but just

asking. has anybody looked at the past 20 years and how would such storage helped us or provide us reassurance in any way or means like considering all the different droughts we have gone through and severity of the droughts? has anybody looked at that? >> we have not looked exactly it would have done in the last 20 years. we are looking at multiple scenarios in the future and how it works for us in the fuch ture. we could do that and might be part of the analysis. if we had this starting in 2013, how would it have worked for us. we can probably put that togethers. >> i love to see it. it can be one scenario and worse then that or better then that. >> it is one scenario because they all sl the same-when you use historical record it is the same story goes with

it. we are not seeing that again. might see something like it and might see something worse or something better. >> right. in those scenarios analysis, i wonder if assuming this has been done, but it would be good to have a scenarios on the personalities and institutional conflect that can happen. i know there are experts out there. we can kind of do that. it would be good to in addition to scientifically run this to understand how the institutional process can fall apart, change, this happened and that happen to have a sense of anticipation, what we need to do and what should be put in place if this goes wrong or that goes wrong? >> one good example that now is there is to be a contract for public benefit which is basically environmental benefit for grass land water district is environment habitat is what

the dwr is pay ing for with their money. wanted to get the contract in place and everybody thought, a schedule, we can negotiate that and department of fish and wildlife or state said, we are not signing off until we have contract with bureau of reclamation. they didn't say we don't trust bureau of reclamation, nobody says that but nobody trusts them. >> nobody trusts anybody i guess-- >> they are the single most difficult in this because they always find a way to say, oh, we forgot to tell you about this rule where you can't do that at this point in time, sorry. these are the things we want to cover our bases and everybody wants to cover their bases. this is the hard part. getting the money is the easy parts. it is getting it pinned down so

you believe you will get the benefits you are paying for. >> right. one other thing i would say, the whole water in the river and what extra water to bring to the storage and all the other conditions we are experiencing with the ecosystem, this is huge question and assume somebody is looking at this, if you lose ecosystem, [indiscernible] the sites reservoir everybody is having sop able to see all the different challenges that a project like this can play. i do understand the value of storage, but storage is as good as you can open a bank account, but if you don't have money to put in there, a -- >> that is benefit of the contra costa array of intakes. they are strategically located so they are much more environmentally

friendlythone the state water project and central valley water diversion because of where they are located and they have three opposed to just one. it sometimes one might work better then the others so they actually have been very thoughtful how they establish their intake array, so a good party to be a part of. >> okay. one last comment. it would be great to be able to see on the slide 11 the amortized numbers. these are one whole number. it would be-have a sense of what does this mean over time? >> that was a very simplified chart just to get it there, but we need to dig deeper into that. >> also, $13 million is a lot of money, but compared to potential benefit might not be that much, but i'm also wondering like, how does

that money--what's the whole project cost and where does this fit within the whole project cost and then r sort of be able to have a upper bound, lower bound of this is as high and low as it can go, because this is replacement, it is totally different ball game, versus just expansion. those are my commentss and questions. thank you. >> uh-huh. >> thank you. i had a question about one of your slides and something you said today. it is the slide-i don't have the slide numbers. the advantages of lbe for sfpuc, storage in the bay area south of the delta. slide 5. >> bring up the slides. there we go. >> that bullet sounds to me as

though you are looking maybe a little beyond the lbe project. it may be another source of water for san francisco, am i-- >> the lbe project is just a reservoir and the transbay pipeline and water to move in and out of the reservoir. the water has to come from someplace else. our preferred source of water is if we find a way to have access to more on the tuolumne and there are issues we are talking with there. but, for this situation, the sacramento river and folks along the sacramento river, that's where there is a lot of water and could potentially be available, has been available to various parties for purchase, and there are willing sellers there. i don't want to name the names of the people we are talking to, but that's where you can bey water more

readily on the sacramento river system and it is getting across the delta, part of the challenge. that is where they intakes come in and then you get it down south of the delta. if you can get it at a good time to move south of the delta. that gives you the ability to move to partners like us and basically everybody on that list are all people who divert water from souths of the delta pretty much, so that where storage south of the delta is highly valued by all parties. it is to get water from north of the delta. it isn't to get contra costa water necessarily. >> but, i guess right now you are looking at using the contra costa water intake, but in the fuper there may be other ways. >> the intakes are in the delta and you can take water you purchase from somebody north of the delta and

get through intakes and move it there. >> thank you. and then, i was comparing this report to the alternative water supply report that you provided in february and i was looking at some of the sort of-sometimes subtle differences between the two. in the alternative water supply report, there were a couple conveyance opportunities that we identified in that report and now it looks as though at least in this report on lve, you moved a little more towards thinking the bethany pipeline is the way to go with the connection through the south bay aqueduct to san antonio reservoir, is that a correct read? >> that is a correct read that.

there are always other possibilities. one other possibility that has been on the table is--we have intertie with east bay mud through city hayward. that is only for operational purposes right now, so we have to chaichck change the purpose and the water has to go through east bay mud system to us and our system there. a lot more challenges going through that route then the south bay aqueduct route. >> okay. using-there were a number of supply options that were in the alternative water supply report, and it looks as though at least in the short-term, you are thinking that the contra costa water district delta intake may be a viable option short-term and that is

surface water option because there were a number of different categories in alternative water supply. >> there are a variety of ways to get water. there is extracting brackish ground water in the vicinity and maybe desalting that and bring it through. there is exchange that would volve recycled water that is a possibility. the transfers we looked at and people we have been talking to have a demonstrated track record of able to transfer water, so they look quite promising as the best partners we could find. all those will still be part of the future. as i said, we could end up with the investment in amount of storage and amount of conveyance and not have any water pinned down and 10 years from now developed one of those supplies to take full advantage of it. that may be the way this plays

out. >> i see. and then the final question really is about the amount of water that we may be entitled to and commissioner ajami looked at some of those issues with you just now as well. in the alternative water supply report, you acknowledge that we may end up with less then 40 thousand acre feet of storage? >> we already told them we do not want 40 thousand acre feet of storage. >> you also acknowledge deliveries are maybe less then or equal to 20 thousand acre feet and in the alternative water supply report and in your report here it looks like you are also now looking at the difference between 10 thousand acre feet and 20thousand acre feet of supply that we would actually-- >> of storage volume, so the amount of supply we move through it

depends on how fast we move it through there. that amount of storage is what would make optimal use of the facilities we think. >> i see. there is-you set aside 40 thousand acre feet of storage and now just looking at 20- >> we looked at it from 0 to 50 or 60 thousand acre feet. we were the first of all the partners to say, the initial number we gave you, we don't want that much, because it was actually over subscribed. >> lucky for them. >> yeah, lucky for them. >> too many users. the money the puc paid to date in the planning process is is a sunk cost as we- >> that is sunk cost. >> okay. >> i will be very clear on this, we may come to the recommendation point and

say, it isn't worth it, we should doont it and the sunk cost are what they were. a few million dollars, but in the scheme of things it is worthwhile investment to find out what we can make work and push the envelope on that. >> i think that was it. thanks. >> mr. ritchie, i can't wait till we get rid of the highlighters and get in a few months show us the sharpies. >> very sharp sharpies. >> commissioner ajami, more? >> yes. always more. so, i have another question for you. on the--got distracted. now i can't remember what i wanted to ask you. now i have to reach out. the only thing i would say is, i think it is a smart to make those investments to make sure we don't make your

investments that then regret. i don't actually see as sunk cost. i think it is smart investment to make sure we do the right studies and have the right information in front of us when we make decisions, so i appreciate that. this is what i wanted to ask you. maybe this is goes back to the comments that commissioner stacy was making. i think what you see in this project and correct if i'm wrong, in a way connects us to the state's plumbing system so gives access to lot more then just this water. that is-we are not--the investment is basically that rather then the actual expansion or any other thing, is that good summary? >> going down the road this puts us in a position as being part that plumbing that then also puts us in a

position if the markets open up in a particular way we can buy into part that. i don't see us becoming a state water contractor per se, but like i said in the 80's we purchased water that we got through the south bay aqueduct, because it is delta water it isn't as good as quality as what we have so people are not anxious do that, but no stone unturned. >> absolutely. i think seniority in the process very much matters so depending on who has the seniority in water and the water available will matters. >> the rights of people who would be selling the water and how the water can move through the system and not picked up by reclamation or department water resourceicize part of the package.

>> thank you. >> okay. so, commissioners--so, now we open up- >> it is a action item. >> is action item that has to go to the public so can we open up to public comment? thank you for the history lessen and we will be voting whether we put more butcher paper up on the wall. >> please raise your hand if you wish to comment on item 13? any members who wish to comment? >> good afternoon commission, nicole. i am pleased to see this item before you today. i wish we were farther long and it was able to move farther in the project but this is a very very institutionally challenging project, so i am pleased to support the action. and appreciate all your staff

effort to get this far. thanks. >> anymore commenters in the house? >> seeing none, moderator, any callers with hands raised? >> there is one caller with their hand raised. >> thank you. >> caller, your line is unmuted. you have 2 minutes. >> thank you. peter dreckmiler. commissioner ajami asks a good question, what would have been the outcome had the puc invested in this 20 years ago? it would have been for 20 thousand acre feet it would have been $13 million of cost every year, so $260 million more then a quarter billion over 20 years. water that wasn't needed. the low point of storage over the last 20 years was 2015. that was the high point of the

driest 4 year stretch on record and the sfpuc has 3 and a half years worth of water in storage. this is not necessary. the design drought forces you to make really bad decisions. the design drought came after the 87-92 six year drought of record and the puc managed it, people got nervous [indiscernible] design drought. go nog ing into the drought demand was 293 million gallons per day. [indiscernible] and what this would do is it would increase rates, which people respond to by using less water. rates have to increase more. the sfpuc is already in a economic death spiral. i think the puc will crash and burn. i dont know if is 5 years, 10

years, 20 years, but everyone will look back on these decisions and just think they are crazy. so, please consider removing a year from the design drought. that would save you 25 thousand acre feet per year of perceived needs that doesn't exist. much more then this, and it is free. so, thank you. >> thank you caller. commission secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> public comment is closed on item 13. motion and second to approve item 13, please? >> before we move, i just want to acknowledge all your work. thank you so much. we'll miss you. hopefully it is hard shoe to fill, so sure steve is on it. [laughter] thank you. thank you.

>> is there a motion and second to approve item 13? >> move to approve the amendment. >> second. >> motion and second. can we have roll call, please? >> paulson, aye. rivera, aye. ajami, aye. stacy, aye. you have four ayes. >> thank you. can you read item 14, please? >> item 14, approve modification to on' site water reuse grant program. >> hello. i'm water resource program manager with water resources division here to present on proposed modifications to onsite water reuse grant program. a little background, established in 2012 and for the purpose of incent vising building to collect use alternate water sources source as rain water, storm water [indiscernible] for non potable applications within

buildings. to date we awarded 6 grants under this program. the proposed modification, the first one and most substantial modification is to lower the potable water threshold that dictate eligible for grant funding. what is listed on the slide is projeths that replace at laest 3 million 600 thousand gallons eligible for up to $200 thousand. projects that replace aket million gallons owalter over the 10 year grant term are eligible for up to 500 thousand and project that replace 24 million of water over the grant term are eligible for up to million dollars. this proposed modification is linked to proposal in shortening the construction schedule that are required to construct these projects from 2 to 4 years. sorry, 4 to 2 years.

the rational for these proposed modifications is really to reflect that projects may not have completed construction and ready to achieve the potable water savings until 2 years after the grant agraument. the grant agreement is 10 years. if they have 2 years to construct the system and achieve water savings that realistically leaves 8 years for projeths to achieve the savings required by the grant agreement, so the proposal is scale done the potable offsets reflect the 8 year timeline and keep the grant funding levels the same, because project costs remain the same. additional modifications, clarifying the process. when ceqa documentation is required to be submitted. clarnying a few things related to insurance, prevailing wage and lbe requirements or example, clarifying multifamily residential projetss are

exempt from prevailing wage. requiring the grantee to be the property owner so the grantee is the same entity as the permitee of the onsite water treatment system as well as aligning with compliance with the chapter 12 sole source requirements. as well as making non substantive corrections to the grant program rules. that is my quick and brief summary. happy to take questions if there are any. >> i have one question. i think it is slide previous to the last one where you said, clarification that multifamily units are exempt from prevailing wages. clarification, was there some type of a misunderstanding or mistakes made because people didn't understand that prevailing wages didn't occur in terms of granting? >> previously the understanding was it was only exempt for single

family. that was the previous understanding, but we had conversations with city attorney's office and office of labor standard and enforcement that clarified that multifamily residential projets are also exempt from prevailing wage. >> it wasn't a changing of the rules? >> no. >> thank you. commissioner ajami. >> thank you for this. obviously you all know this is one of my favorite topics in the sfpuc and want to acknowledge [indiscernible] and paula. just recently planned and facilitated very interesting discussion in dc around onsite reuse, which was highly attendeded and a lot of great discussions happened there so lots of leadership promoting this idea and pushing forward, so i want to acknowledge this. this is absolutely great. thank you so much for all this

clarification. i think it can be very important as we are moving forward. especially the one that requires guaranteeing the property owner to be the grantee. i think that is super important and i always assume that is the case, but i didn't realize it is not, so this is great. thank you so much and excited to see this. >> commissioner stacy. >> thank you. i also think this is a really important and interesting program and i appreciated that the onsite water reuse program update was included in our packet. it gave me sp perspective for this. as i understand the changes, you want--the thresholds are slightly lowered in order to make it more available to more property owners, is

that part of the reason for changing this threshold? >> yeah. as well as aligning with what we found with construction schedules and when projects-the timing when projects sign the grant agraument to when they construct the building, construct the onsite reuse system and able to turn them on to save potable water. we learned the average time that takes is 1 to 2 years, not 4 years like previously required in the grant rules so that timeline changed and reflecting the fact that it can take up to two years to build the system, meanwhile the grant term is 10 years so that leaves 8 years for a project to start saving water. it was not-our previous

thresholds were not realistic given the timeline of 2 years to get the system on line and operational and saving water. >> if i read the numbers right, and you extended out to a 10 year period instead of 1 year measurement we did in the past, right? >> 10 year overall grant term so the day we sign the grant term there is 10 years for the project to get constructed, operate the system and save the amount of water that they are required to based on whatever threshold they apply for the grant. >> okay. maybe i read this wrong, i thought threshold itself was changing. in 2020 we had a 4.5, 10 year--if i did the math and extend 10 years. >> correct. >> now it is $3.6 million. >> correct so scaled down to 8 years. >> i see. and does the longer reporting

period also help-you mentioned the two year construction period. i would guess there is also a ramp-up time to be able to reuse the water that you may start at a lower amount and work your way up. >> that's correct and the way it works is accum yulative offset over the 10 years. it reflects time projects may need to ramp up. >> that makes sense, just want to make sure i understand the pieces all correctly. thanks. >> uh-huh. >> commissioners, or questions? thank you for that update. let's open item 14 to public comment, please. >> remote callers, raise your hand if you wish to comment on item 14. do we have members present who wish to comment on this item? >> good afternoon again commissioners. pleased to see this item before

you. the puc has been a leading agency in development of potable reuse projths including the grant program and i think in your role and because you have length of time where you had projeths in development stage and implementation stage, documenting today what are the challenges of those projects. basically trying to take the next step forward in leadership to say, what can the next utilities take from your lessens learned and figure how to do it better and address the issues, right? you are special, you are a city, a county, you do it all. that is one big difference not everybody has the ability to take advantsage of but commissioner ajami has been quite hard and pushing my agency but a part is also able to have lessens learned from other public agencies that do it, and not just how to get it off the ground, not just how to get them built but what is happening 10 years later

because these are significant investments, significant for you and certainly significant for agencies who budgets are no where near the budgets you have. thank you very much. >> anymore speakers? let's go to remote comment, please. >> moderator, any callers with hands raised? >> commissioner secretary, there are no callers with hands raised. >> thank you. >> public comment is closed. can we get a motion and second to approve item 14? >> i'll move. >> second. >> motion and second. roll call, please. >> paulson, aye. rivera, aye. ajami, aye. stacy, aye. you have four ayes. >> thank you. item 15 is communications. just for people aware. can we read item 16, please? sorry. >> i just had a question on one

of the contracts that was advertised in 15c. it is the clean powersf, city solar program. it talks about first phase assistance with renewable energy projects. sounds like a great program. is the first phase is that sort of a technicality and feasibility study? >> somebody for information only on that question, comment? >> i wondered what phase 1 was and how far along we may be already. >> barbara hale, this will be the first effort we do under this model, so we have done solar on reservoirs before. notably the 5 megawatt system on sunset reservoir. so, we are hoping to do

multiple more and university mount and college hill are teed up. we'll see which ends up going first. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> great. any other information only comments? communications. thank you. let's go to-read item 16, please? >> item 16, items initiated by commissioners. >> commissioners, any new items you want to put on the agenda? seeing none, that being said, there is nothing else on the agenda, we are now adjourned. thank you very much. [meeting adjourned]

>> (music). >> (multiple voices.) >> landing at leidesdorff is as the new public school in downtown san francisco for people to come together for 0 lunch and weekends a new place to enjoy the architect and our

culture. >> landing at leidesdorff one of several initiatives to the road map for the initiatives all about using your public space and network for now environments to 0 invite people adopted not just to the office but any time of the day. >> it shows there is excitement and energy and people wore looking forward to enjoying the space that people may want to end up in downtown. >> we've been operating in the financial district since 2016 with the treasury and coming up we had a small surge in business in the leidesdorff and in about the financial district and a good time to grow here. >> as a small business the leidesdorff is making us being part of it as being part of in

project. for me makes we want to be part of san francisco. >> so landing at leidesdorff for me represents hope for san francisco and the sense that this is become such a safe welcoming area. >> we local artists coming in and exercise boxes and live music but the hub of culture. >> the downtown partnerships has a studio in san francisco. they identified 6 locations throughout the downtown area we come together with new activity and spaces. >> is between us a place to tell our own story and history. >> it was named after a captain one the black leaders of san francisco before that was called san francisco he was the first treasurer of the city and commercial street a cross street

the hifblg original shoreline of san francisco was just a few feet behind where we're 12357b8z around opportunity to bring people to locations we have an opportunity to tell stories and for local businesses. >> [music] hi. i'm san francisco mayor london breed i want to congratulate sfgovtv on 30 years of dedicated service as a broadcast channel for our vibrant city. you played a critical role during the pan dem and i can worked keep residents informed. adapted to changing situations that allowed our residents to engage and participate in

government. thank you for 3 decades of informing and inspiring and connect the people of san francisco as the voice that

shop and dine on the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do shopping and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within neighborhood. we help san francisco remain unique, successful and vibrant. where will you shop and dine in the 49? san francisco owes the charm to the unique character of the neighborhood comer hall district. each corridor has its own personality. our neighborhoods are the engine of the city. >> you are putting money and support back to the community you live in and you are helping small businesses grow. >> it is more environmentally friendly. >> shopping local is very important. i have had relationships with my

local growers for 30 years. by shopping here and supporting us locally, you are also supporting the growers of the flowers, they are fresh and they have a price point that is not imported. it is really good for everybody. >> shopping locally is crucial. without that support, small business can't survive, and if we lose small business, that diversity goes away, and, you know, it would be a shame to see that become a thing of the past. >> it is important to dine and shop locally. it allows us to maintain traditions. it makes the neighborhood. >> i think san francisco should

shop local as much as they can. the retail marketplace is changes. we are trying to have people on the floor who can talk to you and help you with products you are interested in buying, and help you with exploration to try things you have never had before. >> the fish business, you think it is a piece of fish and fisherman. there are a lot of people working in the fish business, between wholesalers and fishermen and bait and tackle. at the retail end, we about a lot of people and it is good for everybody. >> shopping and dining locally is so important to the community because it brings a tighter fabric to the community and allows the business owners to thrive in the community. we see more small businesses

going away. we need to shop locally to keep the small business alive in san francisco. >> shop and dine in the 49 is a cool initiative. you can see the banners in the streets around town. it is great. anything that can showcase and legitimize small businesses is a wonderful thing. pen. rful thing. >> well to edge own little square we are a new culture "accelerating sf government performance - taking accountability and transparency to the next level." the artist and culture of chinatown. as an immigrant giveaway we tell the stories of chinatown the people that are here and the culture and history our presence and future through arts and culture. it is a 35 community. there is

so many to see come come in and buy certify increases and ongoing exhibitions here t t t t >> good to see everybody this morning. the sun kale came out. we will get started here. my name is megan mitchell. thank you. [laughter] and i joined the san francisco bicycle coalition board of directors because i believed in the organization's mission to advocate for transforming the city streets, neighborhoods into safe livable spaces by promoting bicycles for every day transportation. [applaus