started. i can tell you right now, if the contractor missed something or there were some wrong assumptions made, we see that low of a bid on another small project before. it was an issue in the case. it will be monitored very closely. this is an unusual contract. it is not hard core construction. this involves providing security equipment. it is fairly unusual. it is not as easy to cost out. it is active right now. >> i would guess there might be some oversight there. >> our job would be to hold the contractor responsible to deliver whenever they said they went on the contract. our next two slides track our

performance. key milestones that are for the program. if the focus on what is in blue, that is this quarter. we were able to achieve two of the three milestones. this is a categorical exemption for the reservoir of rehab project. there were some delays in receiving the division of safety approval for the abatement stability assessment. now that we have that, we should be able to move forward with our temperamental documents. i hope that we will be able to reach that milestone this upcoming quarter. on the regional side, we actually had a large number of milestones. we actually have 13. we achieved 12 of them. actually, 11. we missed the lauren livermore

milestone. the delay was due to the fact that the -- was issued late but more importantly, the wet weather conditions we encountered prevented us to move as quickly as we would have liked to. we are dealing with a key different headings to. tunneling operation started in late april.

this was very exciting. this was taken yesterday. we will do all the work under the bay for 5 miles. this will be followed by a year -- a gear which will spend about 600 feet. on march 30th, we had an event to commemorate the start of construction on four different projects on the upper peninsula. we were pleased to have some of

our regional partners as well as elected officials. this shows the university reservoir, one of the largest in the city. the construction there is just done. we are waiting to refill the reservoir after it has been empty. before we do that, we wanted to invite you to a ribbon-cutting ceremony. it will be a great opportunity to view the site and look at the reservoir. you will receive an invitation for that. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you. >> i like the good news. >> public comment.

>> i would like to make some comments. >> this is the first quarter that we have protected schedule extending beyond 2015. >> that is correct. >> you are not asking that for approval but you are taking a first of to say that that is the best knowledge that we have an part of what we are obliged to do is to consult with interested people before we come back to the commission with a formal action.

veeco like to make a couple of observations, and this put into law an expectation that we all signed on to and that we all embraced. that is something that we incorporated as a fundamental task. we have known for some time that they have some challenges. we are reluctant to put a number because we don't know how many reviews it would take.

it would be very be it -- it would be very very hard to put a number on paper. our obligations to ourselves and to our constituents and to our wholesale customers as well as under the law is to pursue these projects aggressively and i think we have done that. our obligation is also to manage risk as best we can and one of the key elements is scheduled risk. there is a history going back trying to address the risk factors. we also have an obligation to be transparent. i think the reporting systems we have put in place have allowed various interested parties to say we are worried that you are in the schedule leading up to

potential deadline problems. we have shared those concerns and that transparency process is working. beyond that, it is our obligation to tell the truth and do what we need to do to get the job done. i think it is more important that we use it as an opportunity to make sure 3 the will and that all of our obligations and that we are addressing it in a realistic pattern. whereas physically humanly possible we will get that job done.

i wanted to make those comments and offer that. thank you very much for the presentation and making that information available to us. are there any other comments? moving on to the next item. >> this would be the report of the bay area water supply agency and general manager. >> thank you. i wanted to devote most of my time to the -- at last week's board meeting, we showed video that we have all seen and they were most impressed and it was my second or third viewing but this is very gratifying having spent years to see all of this work being done and to see the focus effort.

an interesting series of events that as to where we are today. without those, you would not see this much intense work and a complete reconfiguration of the way you do business. 35% of the curve, we want to get back to your comment. we are aware of the realignment. we are studying this report carefully. we will probably make comments and we will probably have recommendations for you. it the legislation was enacted,

the process had not yet been adopted. since thousands -- since 2002, it went under serious realignment and the scope was refined. one of the comments that we made was that we thought the schedule was too aggressive. but our concern was that we thought it should be realistic. you wanted a realistic schedule. this does have a good schedule.

the state has some obligations to say what that means. that is the extent of their role. this is part of the process that we helped to put in the legislation but gave you the flexibility to revise the schedules. there are still some people who think that we put a deadline for projects in state law and that was not the case. nonetheless, it is import for us to see the hard work that is being done. that is all to our benefits. i don't know when the earthquake will occur. everyone has an interest in getting it done.

no one knows when the economy will turn. we will continue to watch this with ernest. we don't have any concerns to express about what we have learned about the schedule. when it went through the legislature, someone put it in a sunset date and it was a horrible sunset date at the beginning and it was changed. since then, we have had to go back and extend it to 2015. we will go back and extend it again. the last time we did that come by your staff supported the legislation to extend the deadline.

any questions? >> we have no speaker cards. >> any speakers without cars? >> the next item would be the consent calendar. the agenda at item 9 e has been taken off of the calendars. these are continue to to be retained bear for the san francisco commission. first, approve the selection and a word infrastructure operating budget as needed to engineering designer to kennedy jenks consultant water resources.

approve the amendment number one to our enterprise funded agreement, streetlight asset services services, with ags services.

c, except for performed by shaw pipline, d, accept work performed our ranger pipeline for water enterprises, water system improvement funded contract number, w d-2561. e, except were performed by ntk construction for water enterprise, water system improvement, lawrence livermore, phase two, shaft improvement project. f, approved a plan to

specification and award wastewater enterprise capital improvement funded, se plant north side facility. g, approved the plans and specifications and award water in a press capital investment program, channel playstation odor control and facility. if any commissioner would like to remove. public hearing, staff presentation and discussion of the draft 2010 urban water

management plan of the city and county san francisco. the commission will consider approval at the june 14th meeting. >> i'm here to talk about the 2010 plan. this is the 2010 plan even though we are in 2011. these are adopted on five-year cycles. this was delayed because the state took a long time giving out guidance. that is why the anomaly is up there. the urban water management plan is intended to accomplish a few purposes. it gives the supply and demand projections through 2635. it includes customer projections

under various conditions. it addresses the urban water management requirements which are set in state law as to how all of our urban agencies, how they will meet their demands in the future to show them everyone is taking seriously the responsibilities. lastly, to incorporate elements from the water conservation act of 2009. this plan is available for public review and comment through may 27th and we expect to present it for your approval on june 14th. some of the changes between the last urban one schmidt plan than in 2005 and this one was the adoption of the -- program so we have incorporated this into the plan a various water supply

assumption. also it includes updated wholesale and retail demands. it does speak to the water conservation bill of 2009. this is an overall reduction in water use in urban entities by 2020 and how we comply with that i was be to in the slides. first, with the various supply elements, this was the decision by the commission. this is a hundred 84 gallons on the wholesale side and maybe one on the retail side. this plan was crafted with that

constraint built into it. it does provide information to other demands that might be out there. also the level of service goal is no greater than 20%. it also identifies that there will be a re-evaluation of the demands, purchase request, and supply options. the commission has set a deadline at the end of 2018 to revisit that limitation off of the watersheds. there is no other policy decision out there, we extended that supply limitation to 2035. that is 184 allocated to the wholesale customers collectively.

this includes the demand of san jose and santa clara. this assumes that they would stay at a temporary and intractable basis. this allocates $81 million per day to the retail system. what this shows are the unrestricted purchase restrictions. if we did not impose the supply limitations and what you see here is the demand is down currently so the customers to not exceed 184 based on their projections until sometime after 2020, somewhere between 2020 and 2025.

this does increase the demand projections to 198 million gallons per day. this gives us an indication of about $14 million -- for 2 million gallons per day. that will help to form the basis for the decision in the future. it shows a fairly flat picture for san francisco. there has been many employment projections. conservation was the last commission meeting, at least as an informational item. we went through and analyze many new conservation measures and identified which are cost effective for san francisco. this has a total that is --

these happen as a matter of course through the plumbing code and a change in appliances and things of that nature. they are having more conservation overall. you can see them ranging from 77 up to about 80. this is a fairly narrow band due to aggressive conservation. the next slide shows how we fit into the water conservation bill of 2009. there is the dark line which is a change in gross per-capita use overtime in san francisco. this is literally all of the water that crosses the county line in san francisco. current water use is at 85.6

gallons per day. everyone would have to take a share of that. that is below 100 gallons per capita per day. the last average is at 92.2 per day. this is under the way you calculate compliance with the water conservation act. that does not mean we will not do additional conservation but san francisco is really out there in terms of party complying with low water use. 85.6 gallons, sometimes you hear other numbers turn around like 51 gallons per capita which is residential water use in the san francisco. the gross number is calculating all of the water used in san

franciscoslashthe number of residents. you will hear the key numbers. -- dues to san francisco -- used in san francisco divided by the number of residents. first, we are in the process of working to secure additional supplies to meet the shortfall due to the flow requirements that are required for the calaveras dam project. we were reporting progress on this back in march and this is where we are losing about 7.4 million per day. the second project is santa clara and san jose. they don't have to have a supply guarantee.

that is something that they are very anxious to achieve. we need to have water that can make that guarantee. resolving the additional needs beyond 2018 which i talked about previously. there is a policy decision that is coming and this will be coming towards us and 2018, deciding will san francisco provide more water to the customers. we need to incorporate the results of sb375 and demand projections. this looks at concentrating housing in and around transportation hubs. look for substantial increases in san francisco and other areas as opposed to suburban sprawl out in the central

valley. if those actually came to be a reality, that could really change the picture of water demand in the san francisco bay area. resolving the potential shortfalls with the state and regulatory actions. we are participating on real licensing. there is a process under way for establishing new standards for the san joaquin river. there are other activities that offset having this regulatory action. all of these provide great uncertainty and also great potential risk for san francisco that we will need to address in the future. based on current demands, we are

looking at no greater than 20% systemwide reduction. that changes once you get past that time when customer demand will exceed 184 mgd. this is in compliance with the water conservation act of 2009. officthe legal requirement are t we have it submitted after july 1st to the state of california. i am happy to answer any questions. >> this is a public hearing as required by the law and i suggest that we go to public testimony at this time. do we have