th that that i'll conclude my comments that i have and answer any questions you might have. >> first of all, excellent presentation and mostly because of the excellent work behind it and the thought process i very much appreciate that. what do you need from us? >> that's an interesting question i think a few things and it goes back to your commitment. our our expectation is that you are going to continue to meet your reliability goals that you have committed to under the level of service that means that obviously our demands are much lower than 265 right now as a region but as a region. . skwshgs. the question of

addressing the contractual side the fact that the projected purchases are less than 265 and less than 184 the 2018 question is much easier doesn't necessarily have to be addressed the same way however that's critically important and i'd encourage all of us to continue to talk about that even though it's not the hammer than it was in 2007 when we first started talking about it. but you are the single largest supplier to our agency so they need to make sure your supply is reliable and it's there and you protect it from outside threats. that's our expectation from you always and if we want more how do we go about investing and you have been very cooperate with us so

far. >> the 20 percent isn't one of those questions and as i hear your presentation, it sounds like your focus if we were negotiating that agreement today those questions might be different. >> yeah, those questions were really generated by your action and just codified if you will or reiterated as part of the contract none of them were questions that we wanted to have to deal with to be quite honest you made the limitation and said okay this is what we're going to do so it generates that question. from the very beginning the wholesale customers have asked for you to increase your reliability level we had asked long ago for only a 10 percent

systemwide short age and said we'd like to pay our share for you to invest to make that happen and this study is saying we can't wait any longer to make that happen but that doesn't mean if something were to show up we wouldn't be interested in having that conversation. >> so i think the shift is i think the major concern was before you did the study that in 2018 there may be an issue of us just meeting the needs and not the 10 percent in dry year or 20 percent in dry year and now since you are seeing that that may not be be the case your shift is how can we address this dry year issue?

and for me i think the size is different. right? >> the dry years are significant certainly. >> the amount or size. >> the amount of water needed is significant. >> which, you know, that's good to know and so i think, you know, that would definitely help the conversation. >> good. yeah, i mean it's an interesting -- i've never experienced such a complete change in the conditions in the course of the study. it always gets taylored and modified and you learn a little bit more but this is a a significant swing and it really does change the conversation of what's most important and how do we want to deal with that and i think this drought, if nothing else, has highlighted this issue that i've had for a long time about demand hardening we've got communities using 55 per day a lot of communities it's not

just you, that's significant. because if you were to say we had to go to mandatory rationing it's not clear how they would survive so that means my board has recognized it's on them as representatives for the region to look at it seriously and push that envelope very hard so certainly interested in that conversation with you. >> it has been easy to think about the wholesale retail split as you know san francisco is geographically contained not a whole lot of lawn and vegetation and our per capita use is pretty low and you go go into the wholesale area and there's a lot of lawns and landscaping and stuff so the 20 percent rational in part was i think based on that when you

look at it just from that binary fashion that there may be be more opportunity to adjust to a drought than san francisco would have but what your study makes clear and the numbers we had at our last meeting made clear some some of the people getting the lowest per capita use numbers are in your service area lower than san francisco's so it's a more complex picture and how you deal with that going forward i think just requires greater subtlety and sophistication and your demand numbers coming down one of the things i think that does is it makes your issues and our issues look very much the same that within the division of 265 that we both have some room to work with. it's not -- it used

to be we to be we had some room but now looks like we both have some room and our service areas close to the bone and other parts parts that aren't so i think if that is in fact the case, if our interests are more merged that may make some of some of the discussion easier as well but i think it's exciting in terms of discussions that make sense today that were very hard to come by a year or so or more ago. >> absolutely and i appreciate your interest in it because i think what we know, this is a very tough conversation to have it's significant long-term and if there was an easy answer i'd come up with one but none of these solutions are a very easy answer at all they are going to take a lot of effort and support to implement and anything you might do similar so what do we know is it takes

the leadership to make it happen and i think the recognition that, you know, the conditions have changed. we have a service area that uses some of the lowest per capita water use throughout the state. that's a serious question when you start to say how does that impact our planning assumptions and what do we want to do differently as opposed to where we were 10 years ago. >> very good. that's the kind of things studies are supposed to do they are supposed to make us think and this one certainly does. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. are there any public comments? >> next item, please. >> item 9 is a consent calendar calendar on matters considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission and acted upon by a single vote of the commission.

a award agreement number cs cs 298 and cs 299 for an amount not to exceed seventy $70,000 per agreement award agreement cs cs 388 and authorize professional services agreement for an amount not to exceed one million and 500 $500,000 million and $500,000. accept contract number ww 565 for a total contract amount and authorize final payment to the contractor. >> okay i understand that staff would like item 9 a to be

removed and to be placed on the february 10th agenda. any other items to be removed? >> general public, any items to be removed? may have a motion? >> i'll move what is it? b through d? >> correct. >> second. >> further discussion? >> all those in favor. >> aye. >> opposed? and carries. >> next item, please. >> item 10 authorize a new 10-year water service contract for continued water service to lawrence livermore national laboratory. >> mr. ritchie, i'm happy to answer any questions. >> any only comment --

>> is it different? >> it's not much different than the prior contract we have to do a contract with the federal government because of the nature of the beast. the contract really is about you know, how we would potentially you know, cut off service if a problem occurs and how they would get water alternatively those are the primary issues but basically provides that they get water service they pay in effect the same rates city customers pay and subject to the reductions that we apply to our customers here. >> is the zone 7 part of it new? >> it's not part of the agreement but they do have the ability to provide water service to portions of lawrence livermore so we've worked at at times to get them to provide -- >> and there's some language for us looking for opportunities i don't know whether we would prebank water

in zone 7 or -- >> that's something that we actually considered this year that there's a possibility that that we'd be in a position to get water to zone 7 in some way so that they could deliver water to lawrence livermore in case of a disruption in service. >> any other questions? >> i'll move the item. >> second. >> all those in favor. >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries . . >> didn't ask for public comment. seeing none, okay. madam secretary will you please read the items for closed session? >> yes. item 13 mountain cascade incorporated and related actions and cross actions. >> items 14, 15 15 and 16 and

17 will not be heard today. >> is there any public comment of the items to be heard in closed session? >> seeing none none may i have on whether to assert? >> i'd like to make a motion to assert the attorney client privilege. >> >> we have reconvened from closed session the announcement in closed session is the following item 13 no action and item 14, 15, 16 and 17 were not heard i have a motion whether or not to disclose. >> motion two to three not to

disclose. >> any other new business this meeting is adjourned at ♪ ♪ ♪ >> this is smack in the middle of the tenderloin neighborhood where there are 50000 people within walking distance. you see the kids that are using what's provided, but there is so much opportunity for this to be a stronger, more welcoming, healthier cleaner safer place

for the people of this community to play. there are going to be new green areas, a full-size basketball court, outdoor fitness equipment, community garden, a brand-new clubhouse. it's going to be a much more welcoming spot for a neighborhood that really needs it. ♪ ♪