one minute to bring up the microphones and the audio/visual technology. thank you. the meeting has been called to order. item two, please. >> [roll call] commissioner courtney is excuse this afternoon. item three, approval of minutes of the may 10 and may 24 regular meetings. commissioner vietor: commissioners, any changes, additions? is there a motion to adopt the minutes from may 10 and may 24? commissioner moran: so move. commissioner vietor: any public comment? next item please. >> the next item is general

public comment. i have no speaker cards, but anyone who wishes to speak on an item within the commission's jurisdiction but not on the agenda, now is the time. commissioner vietor: comments from the public on items not on the agenda? >> yes, if i may. one issue we have been determining over the last year with the california stem cell agency is to give a report to the taxpayers as to how many jobs are created, what kind of infrastructures have been directed -- erected with the use of their money. i was wondering -- do we do that here with the puc where we provide the ratepayers with an expenditure of jobs that have been created? because that is taxes coming back into the city, back into the state that we ought to at least at some point delineate to the ratepayers and let them know where and how their moneys are being used effectively to create these employment opportunities, these construction

opportunities, and just the contributions that the puc -- i have been here just a short time -- are approving. i think it would be good if we had -- and you may be doing this already. it just brought to mind to me recently working in my office is what we had been doing in terms of an economic impact report of this agency, on federal government, state government, and on local governments. we just built an incredible facility at ucsf. \ mission bay has been the recipient of many of the projects there. we wanted a document so the taxpayers knew exactly where their money was being spent and how well it was being spent. >> assistant general manager for business services. that is a very helpful suggestion. last year, we produced for the first time a popular report, which was 16 pages that summarized the high level accomplishments and how we were

investing ratepayer dollars efficiently. we have taken your suggestions over the last six months for additional illustrations of average bills for construction progress and milestones and accomplishments. we will be working on an updated draft of that based on our fiscal year that ends june 30 of this month. we would be happy to share draft of that with you to make sure it communicates those points that are most helpful -- commissioner torres: i think it would be helpful. many times, as you would have, perhaps, a military base, there are a lot of ancillary services provided to military men and women that are not necessarily part of the military, whether it be cleaners or grocery stores or whatever. those are the types of issues we try to document. i think that would be helpful to people to get not only a better idea of what this agency does but a tremendous benefit that i know it provides, but i'm not sure that everyone else does. >> thank you. commissioner vietor: that is

next on suggestions, so i anticipate at the next meeting or so, we might see a draft of the -- of that. >> i would like to add that currently, we do keep track of construction. a contractor has to put their certify payroll in, so we actually keep track of disadvantaged workers, local workers, non-local workers, out of state workers -- we keep track of all of that. we can give that to all of you for all construction. that is required for all construction projects, so we can tie that in, and also, we can tie in a more permanent jobs that the puc had hired through the civil service process. we can put that together in a report for you. commissioner torres: not only jobs, but what those jobs are producing in terms of revenue to the city, the county, the state, the federal government.

those numbers are important, too, because it is not just projects that we are approving and implementing. it is all the ancillary actions that take place that create revenue for the city and for the state. >> we will talk with the controller's office. they have an office that keeps track of that for the city and county of san francisco. you talked about the ripple effect. if we can produce something by next meeting, that would be great. if not -- commissioner torres: i know you can. >> it takes a while. we will put it on the ongoing calendar. >> i will try to give you a sense of how we came up with these numbers. we need to respond to the ratepayers, but they need to know all the other benefits that are accruing within their own communities that they may not know of.

>> we will put it on the ongoing calendar. commissioner vietor: excellent. thank you for the suggestion. any other public comment? >> on the last item, the commons, i think that is an excellent idea in terms of the jobs created by the construction work -- on the last item, the comments. construction projects, unlike the stem cell research laboratory, are fun at the time. -- are funded at the time. they will end and those jobs will disappear, whereas a stem cell lab will continue on. one of the major parts of doing this work, which we have talked about doing before, is the fact that it protects the system against seismic and other kinds of disasters. one of the other things you are doing is protecting all of the jobs of the people that work here today. they will be able to continue to work. within 24 hours after a major earthquake, you will have demands going to all the businesses and communities, and

that is one of the reasons we were so inspired to help this committee get under way, so those jobs and businesses would not be lost. i hope that can somehow make it into your description to the customers as to why their money is being put to good use. commissioner vietor: thank you very much. other comments? seeing none, next item. >> that would be a natural segue into the next item, which is communications, including the letter summary, the advance calendar, and staff reports. the commission also has a revised version of the letter summary to include communications on two items that were on a calendar today that arrived at the end of yesterday or this morning. >> i have a question on some of these letters we receive because it is so difficult for us to get these the day of a meeting or the day before a meeting. i know with my work schedule, it is hard for me to get them, and it is a question for the general manager, if there is some way

that we get these at least 48 hours in advance, it would be such a big help. i do not have time to review these in such short order. >> we will try to work on something. as we receive them, we get them out to you at the same time. >> i would also like to encourage the public that as soon as an agenda item comes out, if you could respond as quickly as possible, that would be a big help. >> four of these things, and particularly responded to the people when they send them to me, calling attention to them. two are arrive after 5:00 last night, and two i did not see until someone this morning, so that makes it extremely difficult. even if i could have turned it around immediately, you would not have had a great opportunity to have looked at them because we literally physically did not have them in position to give them to you. >> i know we have talked about the issue before about trying to

get even a whole binder materials earlier, and even if the materials are not ready, if the binder is not complete, at least to get some of the items on the web so people can respond, so they can know it is coming up -- some sort of system would be helpful. >> [inaudible] we are not quite there yet, but we are trying to push it so we published earlier and published electronically earlier to you so you do not have to wait for the binder. you will have it in your in box. >> in your computer, as opposed to killing all these trees? commissioner vietor: any other commission, is on the letter summary, the events calendar, or any of the staff reports? -- any other commission comments? >> a couple of comments on a couple of the staff reports. first, on the quarterly update for the interim wastewater capital improvement program, i was glad to see that the

formats and reporting process that we developed under wsip are being replicated for the source system improvement program as well. i think they have put a lot of investment into that. they have formats that are very informative. they do highlight issues as well as successes, which is, i think, part of what we need to do to inform the commission. i wanted to give kudos to the staff for extending that model to the wastewater side as well. secondly, on the memo about major development projects in the area, it basically says that each of our wholesale agencies are going to be doing and urban water management plan. we will be reviewing those, and i guess staff expects to get back to us with that sometime in the fall. one thing i would encourage as staff does that review, is to make sure that where we know about major projects, that we understand how those are being

treated within the individual urban water management plan. because there is -- it is not uncommon that somebody is tying their water plant to general plans, that the timing can get out of sync -- if somebody is tying their water plant -- plan to general plans. we should know about it and at least highlight that while it is not considered in the plan, it is a known issue. i think that is it. >> i was also quite struck by all the legislative activity that is going on, and i do not know when we have calendared a more in-depth legislative

briefing, but if we could make sure that is calendared at some point so we can hear some of these issues in a bit more detail. >> we will do that. commissioner vietor: that would be great, before too much more legislation gets on the books. and then i have one other question on the led program. is there were also being done to capture greenhouse gas emissions reductions that will be realized by the led conversion? and how that would maybe even tie in with our local climate action plan? >> you answered your own question. it will be reported as part of our overall municipal load reduction and our climate action plan. we produce annually a climate action plan that calculates what our greenhouse gas footprint is as a department. commissioner vietor: is that to be presented before us once

those numbers are collected? >> yes, we bring it to you usually in january. commissioner vietor: thank you. any other comments or questions on item 5, communications? next item, please. >> the next item is other commission business, and one particular item is the happy occasion of recognizing a long and distinguished career in public service by an honored employee of the public utilities commission. >> it is my honor to sort of celebrate patrick lo's retirement. he has been working with the city since 1977. first in the water pollution control laboratory. he has progressed significantly over his career as a chemist, as a senior water chemist working in our senior water lab, to a supervising chemist in our water

laboratories, back into our waste water treatment laboratories -- wastewater treatment laboratories. patrick has dedicated a lot of time and effort to our ability to report out on things that we measure in our laboratories. he has been with it -- really well respected among his colleagues. patrick, if you could stand up, and we can honor you today as you retire. [applause] commissioner vietor: please, come up. join us.

[applause] >> also, if any commissioner has any new business items, this would be the time to present them. commissioner vietor: hearing none, next item please. >> sure, public comment, i guess. >> i wonder if i could make a public comment on item five. sorry to be so abrupt. i m policy analyst for clean water action, and i would like to make a comment on your legislative calendar. i am excited by all the legislation you are pursuing,

but i would like to ask you to take a position on a very important issue that is a big concern to the puc. you are one of the few agencies that has adopted an environmental justice policy. one of the sets of bills that has come up this session is the human rights to water. your staff has been extremely helpful in giving expert advice, and i would really like this body to consider endorsing those bills, particularly since they are being opposed by some of the larger water agencies. just a question. maybe you could bring it up at the meeting. commissioner vietor: thank you, and i am familiar with the human rights water bill, and i think it is quite a piece of legislation. if you could work with our

external affairs and possibly come back with a recommendation on how we might support those efforts. thank you. any other public comment? next item please. >> next item would be 7, report of the general manager. >> the general manager is on vacation. i am filling in. thank you very much. commissioner vietor: nothing to report from the deputy general manager? [laughter] next item please. >> the next item with the consent calendar. all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission and will be acted upon by a single vote of the commission. a) ratify the declaration of emergency made by the general manager, dated april 27, approved by the president of the commission, for immediate replacement of existing store on

post street due to missing bricks, sagging, building walls, missing grout through loud and a damaged invert along the length of the entire sewer. b) authorize the general manager of the public utilities commission to apply the waters mark grant program for funding for $231,591 for the project assessing potential effects of climate change on the san francisco public utilities commission's water supply, to be matched by the puc and scripps institution of oceanography in- kind contributions. c) approve amendment no. 1 to water enterprise revenue-funded agreement in vinyl and alice services for the new diversion dam road upgrade project in a watershed with jones and stokes and extend the agreement duration. the modification is required to complete the environmental

analysis for the proposed replacement of the existing bridge after the work was placed in abeyance while the puc completed conceptual design of the project. d) modification 12 water price water system improvement program-funded contract for power station of grades with trinet construction, increasing the contract time by 133 consecutive calendar days to negotiate and fully execute license agreements between the puc and adjacent property owners for construction access and construction shoring and underpinning. e) accept work performed by ntk construction for water system improvement program funded contract for lawrence livermore and phase ii, shaft improvement project to address unanticipated conditions encountered during facility testing and start up, increasing the contract, and extend it by 162 calendar days,

for total contract duration of 563 days and authorize final payment. f) approve the terms and conditions and authorize the general manager of the public utilities commission to execute a permit for a pedestrian and bicycle trail crossing the lower guadalupe river near parcel 127. g) approve the terms and conditions and authorize the general manager of the public utilities commission to execute a permit with the city of fremont for a pedestrian and bicycle trail crossing at saber cat creek -- sabercat creek. commissioner vietor: would any commissioners or members of the public like to remove any of these items from the consent calendar? hearing none, motion to adopt? public comment on any of these items? hearing none, all those in favor? opposed? consent calendar passes. thank you. next item please. >> the next item is

presentation, discussion, and possible action for adoption of the 2010 urban water management plan for the city and county of san francisco. commissioner vietor: if you could please read items 9 and 10 together. >> certainly. discussion of possible action for a resolution affirming the 2010 of urban water management plan for the city and county of san francisco covers projected growth in the city and county through the year 2035 and thereby satisfies the water supply and demand assessment requirements for the developments of a specific size pursuant to the california environmental quality act and the california water code. >> assistant general manager for water. i have a few slides to present on these items. again, this is the urban water management plan update that is required every five years. this plan addresses the urban water management plan act requirements and presents the supply and demand projections through 2035 and includes both

retail and wholesale customers projections in it and incorporates elements required by the water conservation act of 2009, and if we do not actually prepare, adopt, and submit the plan to the state, that we are ineligible to receive funding for drought assistance from the state, which is the whole reason for doing an urban water management planning. basically, in summary, our level of service goal is that no greater than 20% systemwide reduction in any one year. what we have found is that supply is positioned to meet retail customer demand under all conditions. the wholesale customer demand exceeds supply in future dry years if we continue on with the limitation of the 265 billion gallons a day after 2018. that is one of the things that has been a bit of a challenge in this document, talking about the fact that we have an interim supply limitation in effect

until 2018 with no policy decision on what we will do after that. so we carry it through for the analysis. what happens if we hold that in place? but it does identify that there are demands from the wholesale side that are in excess of that that need to be dealt with. lastly, the retail per capita water use is in compliance with the water conservation act of 2009. that is what is commonly referred to as the 20% reduction by 2020 for urban water suppliers throughout the state. our per-capita demand in san francisco has been so low for the last five years, we do not actually have to do anything additionally on the conservation side to comply with that mandate. of course, we are continuing on with the conservation activities for lots of different reasons, but as far as that law is concerned, the city of san francisco complies with that right now. just to review, may 24, the draft presented to the commission and the public hearing was held. we have made what i would consider minor revisions to the

draft plan based on the public comments we received in writing as well, and in your packet, there's a table summarizing the comments we received and indicating the responses. the proposed final plan is being considered today. i did hand out one page for the commissioners, and there are copies on the table for an additional change that we are proposing in response to a comment we received yesterday that talks about supply plan activities into the future, and identifies activities going on that are very important to note in our plan that there is not a vacuum out there between now and 2018 on the future water supply for those demands. we think that is a good change to make to the plan to have a more complete record. just to note those demands, for

the wholesale customers, again, we have the interim allocation of giving 184 gallons per day to wholesale customers. as you can see from the chart, somewhere between 2020 and 2025, wholesale customers exceed projections up to 198 million gallons per day in 2035, so there is no net demand out there that needs to be addressed regionally. i want to shift now to the point of item 10, which if you read item 10, it seems a little odd that you do not just roll it into the urban water management plan, but there are specific requirements in ceqa and the water code requiring suppliers to prepare assessments for certain projects that are subject to review under ceqa. we brought some of those to the commission for treasure island and parkmerced. i believe there is one other projects -- hunters point.

that was the other one. those were done as individual water supply assessments because they were not in the last urban modern management plan. we tried to work through your where we have accommodated all of the projections for san francisco that we have now in this urban water management plan. so we have done that by working with the planning department on projections into the future and the city planning staff have agreed -- projections have taken into account all known and projected development for the city into this time, said the action and the second item, item 10, a test that yes, this item can be used for water supply assessment in the future as well. we have the air and water management plan adoption and the certification that the urban water management plan serves as water supply assessments for ceqa purposes. >> i have a question on that -- the resolution of item 11 seems to address retail demand, so the

legal imports of this plan is most focus on retail. is there any legal import on the wholesale portion? >> certainly for the water supply assessment portion of this, there is none. that is strictly done for ceqa purposes by the retail provider. in terms of the descriptions for the wholesale supply, we have indicated where we are with policy, and the potential difference in projections in the future. i do not know the legal ramifications of that one way or the other. maybe bawsca could speak to that or counsel. >> [inaudible] it would almost require complete

description of how people relied on urban water management plans going forward, but it is critical that you adopt your urban water management plan because you are the wholesale supplier. other jurisdictions are adopting their plan are pointing to your conclusions as the basis for their conclusions. as they go forward to approve projects, there would be legal implications after 2018 if those water supply demands were not met. not sure if there is -- commissioner moran: i guess that is a different answer, and gives me some concern. what i thought was the case is each water supplier has to come up with their own urban water management plan, that that is what would be cited in ceqa