[ applause ] >> thank you, jonathan, and i think we're ready to do the signing. >> okay. there you go. [ applause ] >> thank you.

>> thank you. >> thank you. - working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city that's on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation. after all, we're at the meeting of land and sea. - our city is famous for its iconic scenery, historic designs, and world-class style. it's the birthplace of blue jeans, and where "the rock" holds court over the largest natural harbor on the west coast. - our 28,000 city and county employees

play an important role in making san francisco what it is today. - we provide residents and visitors with a wide array of services, such as improving city streets and parks, keeping communities safe, and driving buses and cable cars. - our employees enjoy competitive salaries, as well as generous benefits programs. but most importantly, working for the city and county of san francisco gives employees an opportunity to contribute their ideas, energy, and commitment to shape the city's future. - thank you for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco.

was asked to do is water system improvement program and one thing i looked at is about the 4.8 billion dollars wurthd of work and a lot of the work was regional. we looked at how can we make sure that we provide opportunities for san franciscan's and people in the region and so we looked at ways we can expand our local san francisco lb program. so, we thought about it and worked with general manager at the time to form an advizry committee to talk about how to include local businesses in the region. >> i was on the first committee back about 10 years ago and the job changed over time. in the beginning, we just wanted people to know about it. we

wanted to attract contractors to come into the system which is a bidding system and bid on some of these projects. our second job was to help the sfpuc to try to make themselves more user frndly. >> i like that they go out of their way, have contractors trying to teach and outreach to small businesses and lots of creative ways. help the community as well. there is so much infrastructure going on and repair, new construction that i think is helping to get construction back on its feet. >> my faiv rlt part of the committee has been that we have played a opportunity for many small businesses. [inaudible] women owned business to come in and [inaudible] sfpuc. it is a

great opportunity because some are so small they have been able to grow their companies and move up and bid other projects with the sfpuc. >> everyone i was talking about with any contractor [inaudible] and super markets and things like that and i realize the transition was on the sfpuc. he got that first job and knows about the paperwork qu schedule and still works on this type of job, but he works with general contractors that also did other things. pretty soon it is like he did that one and that one. it completely changed his business. >> my name is nancy [inaudible] the office manager and bid

coordinator for [inaudible] construction. worked on 10 plus puc, lbe contracts. today we are doing site maintenance on the [inaudible] chr site and currently the gentlemen behind me are working on every moving and basic specs of plants. in order to be success you need to work hard, bid low and keep a look at the sfpuc website for future bidding opportunity. >> this is a successful program because it provides opportunities to regional communities that might not have opportunities to work for large scale projects. the sfpuc is a fortunate agency we have a lot of capital program that span over 7 counties who also to see how some businesses like [inaudible] and bio mass

started as small micro businesses grow and expand and stay in the program and work on several projects before they graduate from the program. that is what warms my heart. >> my name is college willkerson, the principle for bio mass. bio mass has been in business since 2006. 3 partners. small businesses fill a niche but apply and being a part of the program helped us be more visible and show the city and county of san francisco we can also perform services. >> this program had tremendous impact to the region. in fact, the time we rolled the program out was during the recession. this has h a major positive

impact and certified over 150 firms in the rejen and collectively awarded $50 million in contracts, and because of the lbe certification it open many opportunities to work with sfpuc. and, i significantly helped the business. it is one of the major contributors to our success.

>> good afternoon, everyone. madame secretary, will you take the roll? [roll call] and we have a quorum. >> we'll not have closed session today as an announcement and we'll review or approve the minutes of october 24. commissioners do i have a motion? >> so move. >> second. >> there any public comment unrelated to the agenda today? >> mr. president, can we call for public comment on the minutes? >> yes, i'm sorry. public comment on the minutes. forgive me. ok. all in favor -- >> aye. >> opposed? >> ok. passes. ok. public comment unrelated to the agenda.

welcome. >> my name is steve yetzer and i wanted to speak. i'm a resident and native of san francisco on the issue of privatization of public spaces. i believe that the people of san francisco have had enough of privatization of public resources. the drive in san francisco to build more million dollar condominiums has to end. we have to stop it. working-class people are being driven out of san francisco. they can't afford to live here. their children can't grow up here and public spaces should be for the public. so we believe that we have to stop the transfer of all public resources to private entity, private developers wherever they are and also we have to build working class housing for working people. and the city should do that. we've had enough evictions, we've had enough workers being told they have to drive two or three hours to get to work. that is destroying san francisco. and the people of san francisco are fed up with it and angry. we have gridlock in the city.

all these uber cabs, people come in from hundreds of miles into san francisco. it's like blockaded and this is a social crisis. it is a political crisis. and the boards that represent the city of san francisco, the public boards have to take a stand that the interests of san francisco working people are first before the developers, the billionaires and speculators who want to turn every location into a condo. they would like to close the streets and build condos. that is where they're and we have to put a stop to that to protect the working people of san francisco, the future of san francisco. right now working people, there is signs up for working people to come. they can't even come to san francisco and work here because of the cost of commuting. it is time we take a strong stand and say enough is enough. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. any other general public comment unrelated to the agenda? ok. next item. >> wireless communications.

>> ok. we'll go through the advanced calendar. >> no, it's the commission has any comments and we do have a comment for a public comment. ok. all right. any public comment related to communications? ok. with that, next item. >> i believe you have a card. >> video actually here. this is for item number five. and it is mr. mike ferreira. are you here? welcome. >> thank you, commissioners. i'm the conservation chair for the loma chapter of the sierra club. and we, in unison with the san francisco bay chapter have been

following this ridge trail program for a few years now. and i do want to start by saying that all of us, sierra club, audobon society, native plant society, committee for green foothills, they're involved in unison on this. have a great appreciation for the transparency that we've been getting from your staff. it is exemplary. i did want to say that. we're also pleased with the level of personnel that we're assigned to do the e.i.r. for this. ok? we feel like san francisco has put forward some of its very best minds for that. >> $50. [phone ringing] >> oh, ok. there have been several outreach meetings about this. and as you are aware, there is

the existing road north of highway 92 and a proposed new trail south of highway 92. and the e.i.r. that is in process now is trying to deal with that. we are quite concerned that it's -- that there isn't a discussion about how you get across highway 92. it would seem that to have the two trails, without answering that, is equivalent to an atractive nuisance. i commuted can on highway 92 for 25 years. i'm a former member of the planning commission and council, etc.,etc. that road can't be a surface crossing from one trail to another. there has to be some better solution, go under it, go over it, whatever. and that really should be

understood before we create this new trail to the south. i can understand some resistance to want to do that because that is a big problem with big dollars associated with it. i would pass the information to you that about 14 years ago, the county took a look and cal trans at an overpass at the intersection of 35 and highway 92. i don't think it encompass -- or it thought of bicycles or pedestrian, but going back to whatever that is, and modifying it might solve that problem. it would also direct the trail to highway 35, which is yet another consideration -- i'm running out of time, sorry -- but we also support the idea that the study should look as much as possible at an alignment closer to highway 35. thank you. >> all right. thank you.

any other public comment related to this item? >> i'm curious about -- is that alternate being analyzed and where are we with that? thank you. or i guess steve. or steve. [laughter] sorry. hi, steve. >> thank you. natural resources and lands management. the short version is we agreed that that highway crossing is particularly troublesome. it has been a big problem for cal trans for a number of years and there's been confusion about our proposed project and how it relates to the current situation. we're not proposing to solve that problem or to build anything to cross the highway. but we are planning to have enough of a staging area on the south side so people can use the trail we're planning to build and not have to worry about trying to get across the highway. that will be clear, i think, in the document when it comes out. all the work that is being done now still needs to support the

potential for risk that would be created by having more people going up to our new trail and using the highways and that is what's made it a little more complicated and taken more time. >> great. thank you. i appreciate that. >> any other public comment related to this item? moving on. other commission business. any other public comment -- yes, sir. >> thank you, commissioner. i just wanted to make a comment about the number or the amount of paper that we just received that we try to get, you know, electronic versions of the agenda out on thursday before the meeting so we have a chance to look at it. >> i think it would be much more respectful to our time if staff can make a point of getting the final version of the materials to the commission secretary on time for her to distribute it

with a regular package on thursdays. thank you. >> any other commission business? ok. next item. >> item seven's report of the general manager. >> good afternoon. i definitely agree with you on making sure that we get that package together so i'll work with donna to make sure that that happens. the first item is clean power s.f.f.. >> thank you. barbara hill, assistant general manager for power. it is our usual time for an update on where things are for clean power s.f. we're continuing to serve 80,000 customers. i'm happy to say that our opt out rate remains a low 3.2%. we have 3.9% of our active, enrolled customers signed up for super grain. that is all great news.

we're cutting another set of customers over to our service in january so we wiped the waiting list clean a few weeks bag and we already have a waiting list of 62 in that short amount of time. later on the agenda, we'll be talking about our growth plan and it would be useful to take a moment to talk about what else is going on in the c.c.a. space in california just to give you some context. you know, we're not alone out there with the program that is trying to expand and we are all in the same market so i thought it would be helpful to take a look at some slides if folks could put the slides up. we have california -- if i could get the slides, please. there we go. oh. well. imagine the shape of california. [laughter] what you see here is the state. there are a number of colored

portions and there are some that show gray. hopefully they show appropriately gray on the screens that you have on your desks, commissioners or in the paper handouts. there is paper handouts on the table for the folks in the room. i'm sorry that the visual doesn't come out as intended. but the main point here is san francisco is a little spot near the bay there. and all that other color are communities, counties, collections of communities who are actively pursuing community choice agregation. the communities that are actually serving customers are noted one through nine on the right-hand side there. and if we just go from the top of the state down, you see humboldt county and served by the redwood coast energy authority. you see mendocino and sonoma

counties served by sonoma clean power. you see napa and marin and parts of solano served by m.c.e. you see san francisco. clean power s.f. then you see san mateo county -- no, san mateo county is the next big color there. showing in yellow and that is by beautiful clean energy. santa clara county is being served by silicon valley clean energy with the exception of the city of san jose. who is exploring community choice. they have an implementation plan. certification is under review with the california p.c. and they have designate add new director, a former member of our staff.

and then we have the -- go a little inland to lancaster, the city of lancaster, serving customers through lancaster choice energy and the cities of apple valley and pico rivera served by apple valley choice energy and prime pico rivera innovative municipal energy. those are the communities actively serving customers through a community choice agregation business structure. unfortunately what you can't see because of the presentment on this slide screen are counties that are gray, which are a number of inland coins where they are activically exploring and exploring the feasibility study and pursuing the idea pretty aggressively. the other colored counties in areas that i didn't specifically call out, like st. louis obispo, they are actively

pursuing it at a higher level. so, maybe they have their implementation plan, like east bay community energy. serving alameda county. they have their implementation plan certified they just haven't started serving customers yet. but they are out in the market, making the arrangements they need to make to be providing service to customers as early as next spring. so we'll be expanting our program at the same time and that means we're in the market at the same time. that means it is challenging but also means there's all those communities with their voice in front of the california public utilities commission, in front of the legislature. side by side with us with like interests, like perspectives and that is the upside of that. to put our program in a little bit of context, the next slide gives you the information about where we are today relative to the bigger operating c.c.a.s. as i reported, 80,000 accounts, 65 megawatts average demand,

our annual revenue is about 38 million and our supply costs about $25 million. and then you see the m.c.e., sonoma peninsula and silicon valley figures. as we grow, that 80,000 accounts becomes 360,000. and that average demand goes from 65 to 420. that puts us on par with these other larger operating programs. so that is the -- that is the growth that we are talking about. that is the item later on in the agenda. where you'll get a little bit more of a chance to talk about the supply issues. but this puts it in some context for you. with that, i'm happy to take any questions you may have. >> to the chair. >> this is great. thank you. very exciting. i would love in one of our future updates, and maybe you have this, but to understand in

total in california, how many customers are being served currently. and maybe what the gray area of what is projected to be online. along the line of what you just did, which is great. it would also be great to have some jobs data in here and i don't know how you want to break it down, maybe in the same way you've done it by county or by state. it would be interesting as far as jobs that are serving just the c.c.a. as well as the local build out projects that are either coming online or online. >> i would be happy to provide that information, commissioner. i know that not all the c.c.a.s collect the job data. because we have gone through this exercise before of trying to put this information together. i'm not sure all of them collect the jobs data for indirect jobs. they do for their own employees. >> even that would be helpful. thank you. >> you're welcome.

>> commissioner? >> thank you, mr. chairman. it would also be interesting to know, or just to see the numbers on -- when this is done, what the breakdown is between c.c.a.s, municipal owned utilities and investor-owned utilities. because we don't list on there the major municipals or t.i.d. it looks as though the investor-owned share is decreasing significantly. >> yes, it is. i can definitely put together a slide. i'm guessing you are looking for total customers being served, number of megawatts. when you say breakdown -- >> yeah. >> ok. great. >> basically a market share. >> got it. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> commissions, any other comments? >> thanks much. >> thank you. >> open for public comment on this item for clean power s.f.

anyone here for public comment? >> thank you. president kwon and congratulations. and thank you, commissioners. so lt hosman, representing 350 bay area. just wanted to make a few comments. first of all, really appreciate this data from staff. i think, as you can see, this was originally a bay area thing and is now spreading south and in the next phase spreading a inland. as c.c.a.s spread south, that is going to increase the political power behind community choice as a model, in terms of statewide regulatory proceedings where there is a lot of back and forth, i would say, between c.c.a. and the monopoly investor and utilities for regulatory power, i guess,

who has primacy as the california rate payer. as this spreads south, given the makeup of our state, this will increase the political power of c.c.a. and the normalcy of c.c. a. as it spreads inland, that will go to the next level. so as your staff sometimes makes you aware, there are repeated efforts yearly for the last fours years running in both the legislature and cpuc to either hamstring or kill the opportunity of these communities to actually affect this. so, really hope that you continue to support the city's strong position against any and all efforts that will continue to come up. to the costs and revenues, i just wanted to point out that when you look at clean power s. fully operating city-wide, you can see that as far as costs, revenues and the amount of energy that we're talking about it is right in line with our

neighbors and it is not just san jose or, you know, oakland that isn't even here yet or operating yet. big cities that we consider to be our peers but even just the peninsula is already operating at basically the level that we need to get to. so just to drive the point that this is not a radical thing, this is not a crazy program that is massively out sized, this is totally in line with everything that everyone has been doing around us at a much faster pace and we really need to get city-wide without worrying about it. lastly, the thing that came up, i think it would be great if the p.u.c. or cal c.c.a. could make the collection of such jobs data, indirect jobs, construction jobs for a new project just a policy so going forward we can use this as a metric and currency for success. thanks. >> thank you. any other public comment on

clean power s.f.? i tip my hat to barbara hale for their great work on this. madame secretary, next item, please. >> my next item is an update on mountain tunnel, dan way. >> mr. wade, how are you today? >> doing well, thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon, commissioners. dan wade. i'm pleased to be here today to give an update on mountain tunnel. by now, everybody knows that the mountain tunnel is located between kirkwood terrace and the priest reservoir.

about 19 miles long. in this location, in our system. and the tunnel was constructed 1917 to 1925 and has been in service since that time. it conveys water about 19 miles from early intake right at the end of the kirkwood winstock powerhouse [inaudible] to the priest reservoir, which is the forebay for markets and pen stocks and includes both lined and unlined sections and deterioration has been noted in past inspections in the portion of the lining section of the tunnel. in this slide, the blue portion downstream of addit 56 is the line section. the purple shown in the slide is the unlined predominantly unlined section of the tunnel. and so as you know in january of this year, we completed the

major shutdown to do an inspection and interim repairs of the tunnel. it was completed at the end of january and the good news is the tunnel is in very good condition overall. and it validated the feasibility of going forward with the rehabilitation al terntive for the tunnel. we took all of that data and evaluated in full the these major alternatives that have been considered and dotted is and crossed our ts to look at the rehabilitation alternative t reline alternative and the alternative that we have been carrying in the previous 10-year c.i.p., which is the bypass alternative. and in july and august, just this last summer, we met with our management oversight committee, the m.o.c. and technical advisory pan, and they concurred with the

recommendation from the team to go about with the alternative. and so that alternative meets the 95% of the water capacity standard that was established by the management oversight committee. it meets all the other performance criteria. the recommendation for downstream control is due to erosion in the tunnel and uld two include one 60-day outage and one 400-day outages to complete the in-tunnel repairs as well as the downstream control. i'll talk about downstream control in just a moment. this al term tiff is fridayer from 550 to $3 million less expensive than the bypass alternatives with downstream controls so it is very attractive from that standpoint. this table shows the costs and i don't expect you to read

everything on the slide, other to show you that when you look at the rehabilitate alternative, we've considered three different options within that alternative. on the left hand side of the slide, we have the rehabilitate alternative without downstream control, can we called the base project. that comes in, including construction and soft costs with delivery costs at $147 million. the rehabilitate alternative with downstream control is $227 million. that is the recommended alternative. the rehabilitation alternative with downstream control and invert smoothing, which would be essentially smoothing by lining the invert of the tun fell or the bottom of the tunnel all the way from 56 up to kirkwood would come in at $292 million. that is not recommended. and so the key elements of the

rehabilitate alternative include repairing the defects within the lining system, doing contact grouting which is essentially filling the space between the existing liner with grout to form an integral structural lining system to perform 4,000 feet of in birch smoothing and the existing line portion of the tunnel to improve access for operations and maintenance. to do road improvements at various locations, to perform the south bypass and for the downstream control it would require a shaft at the priest reservoir location to install isolation valves and steel lining in low-covered areas. if you look at what we plan to do for the paving and the

unlined portion of the tunnel from adit 5/6, we line the bottom of the tunnel to improve access. some of the holes when you walk through the tunnel are very deep. you can easily break an ankle or trip while accessing this portion of the tunnel. then at both the kirkwood bypass and at the south forks siphon, we would remove debris, existing debris that has been trapped in the tunnel and we would also extend the south fork siphon to eliminate the inflow of seepage causing water quality issues in the existing tunnel. so, we would extend the siphon upstream as shown in this slide and develop a new shafts for access and convert the existing tun fell and widen it for improved access to the tunnel at that location.

so what is downstream control? downstream control is essentially installing new volume vs at the downstream end of the tunnel, such that we can control the flow of water out of the tunnel from the downstream end as opposed to the upstream end where the control is currently provided. downstream control works as long as your outflow at the downstream of the tunnel is less or equal to the inflow at the upstream end of the tunnel. now in order to do this, it's a little bit difficult to see on the screen there, but you would essentially construct new -- a new portal at priest reservoir using tunneling methods and a new access shaft into the portal to install two new flow control valves as well as four isolation valves that would allow you to have that flow control at the downstream end of the tunnel.

now what that would mean is that your tunnel would be pressurized on a regular basis as opposed to just that certain times of the operational cycle. and so, therefore, we would want to install some steel lining at critical locations at addits as well as low cover areas where we have low cover of rock or soil above the tunnel in order to prevent seepage out of the tunnel as a result of this work. so the hydraulic and operational characteristics for downstream control mean that erosion would be reduced because when the tow is maintained full, you are able to reduce turbulence, minimize flow velocities, your cyclic running and draining of the tunnel is eliminated, your service fluctuations are minimized, and ground water intrusion is minimized because you have a pressurized tunnel all the time. from an operational standpoint, it would also allow changes of