waste stream and what people seem to think it's valuable, you will have the same situation and then you get cross-contamination in your bins. i think we also have to have some leeway for that as well. sometimes we just don't control what happens between the time we put the garbage out on the time it gets collected. >> right. just some backdrop to why this is written as someone who is full-time, this ordinance is revisiting the initial 2009 ordinance. folks have already had ten years to be in compliance and sorts there are different ways to stream. it is not that it is out of the blue or that it is landing on people process lapse. i want to make it clear. this is just amending an existing ordinance that was drafted in 2,009 that said you have to make sure that you are diverging your waste stream. and back then it was what we called the green janitors.

the supervisor revisited this legislation. he was part of the 2009 conversations where this was created and we are now revisiting here. the reason we are revisiting is there are some folks in the project. jeff mentioned, these businesses are -- they are writing off the fees. it is being sorted as a cost of business. i do want to get off into the component of flexibility. once we hope this passes the board of supervisors, they can reach out to the department of environment, and they have between now and july 1st of next year to start educating themselves and make sure that things are being streamlined. whatever way as possible. i want to give credit to the department of environment for making themselves available. once july 1st kicks in, even then this universe of 500 and some change, it will be a full on three year cycle before they are all audited.

folks will still have time to make sure that their ducks are in a row, for lack of a better phrase. it is not that it will be right out of the gate, they have time between now until july 1st and even in july 1st, this universe of entities or buildings will be audited in cycles. the reason why we do not codify the guidelines, which was an ongoing conversation that was very intentional and that we did not want to be overly prescriptive. that is where, again, even if you fail the audit, you can work with the department of environment, in good faith and try to get your ducks in a row. the need to be good faith from a willing party. >> i think something that is actually missing from this presentation and something that would be to the benefit of the supervisor his' case, to my

question, what percentage of the problem is this? i don't see an assessment of where the problem is. i would ask that of recology. it is not clear to me that it is the l.r.g. restaurants have pretty pure waste streams. what are the waste streams? is that the collection of not to the top ten% but the other 90% that is the problem? are we pounding on the right to nail here? i am not convinced that we are. i think that your presentation would be enhanced by the ability to tell us, here is where the dirty waste comes from. all you have said is let's take the top ten% of the biggest waste generators. it is quite possible the biggest waste generators are the best at sorting their garbage. or bad actors and that they are big enough to play -- pay the fines. those are two entirely different problems in two entirely different nails. if you have a bad actor who continually is willing to pay a

fine then that fine should escalate. you pay it once, at one level and then the next time you pay it at ten times that level in the next time you paid at 100 times that level and then it goes up until the trestle gets high enough for you say look, if i will say $100 million a year i will start sorting my garbage. i think that this presentation does not inform me as someone who is an engineer where the real problem is. i think that really is the root of making this effective, not only as a proposal but as legislation. and that that needs to be worked into the legislation. i can't support the legislation as it currently exists because i am not convinced we are actually going at the problem in the right way. you can convince me otherwise but not with the information i have seen today. >> i will send it over to jack. something i did forget to

mention is the reason this was also -- you can either hire a new staffer to be deemed a waste facilitator or you can re designate an existing staffer so long as they are doing that full-time. you also don't need to hire someone else. that was there to give some flexibility to businesses that are trying to be good actors and really try to address the issue if they are found to be out of compliance after they are audited. >> taking someone off a job that is presently being done because it is necessary and putting them on a job that you did not currently have the science, just means it is a different meant walkable. we have to hire someone to back single the person that we just reallocated. >> point taken. >> i will pass it over to jack macy. thank you. >> i think i could say a little bit more about your questions.

i said the problem is across all sectors, but from my experience, a lot of these large entities, most of them are multitenant and many of them are multitenant. particularly those. but a lot of these large entities have higher levels of contamination. because the size of these, we are losing, you know, on the order of ten or more times the amount of material and dealing with that much more contamination than your average generator which was a lot smaller. it does make sense to go after -- our instructor julie -- our strategy cap next historically, has been going after the larger generators because they have -- that is more of an impact. a 30-yard generator will have ten times the impact than a 3- yard generator. and a lot of these have very serious contaminations. we have a lot of large generators that end up getting

into this noncompliance and paying these charges. that is why we have seen the 85 buildings that have zero waste facilitator is, our oral -- all large. and it is driving. they have some economic driver there. we have helped create this industry. but the idea that some places are paying these charges. >> i agree. basic question is, what% of the overall waste generated by the city of san francisco was generated by l.r.g.? >> i would say significant amount. >> but that is anecdotal. what percentage of total waste generated is generated by the top ten% that you defined? i think that that is stated that is somewhere. recology should know. >> i'm not sure if that data exists. it would take quite a while to go through. >> recology would know the total tonnage of waste that they have to process every year and they would know, based on what they

are billing, their customers, the top ten is generating what percentage of the waste? that is a pretty basic and legitimate question, i think. then i would no, visit 90%? in which case we are pounding on the right to nail. if it is not, if it is the old 80-20 rule, where 20% are not generating 80% of the waste but it is reversed, all the little guys, when you take all that into account -- that makes enforcement really tough. is like a bunch of little problems. we know the world -- global warming is a world of lots of little cars generating a lot of co2. we need to know, where do we go after the problem? i am not saying -- i'm not saying i don't believe the presentation, i believe there are no numbers to back up the anecdotal assertion that this ten% is the right place to start

they are just big. great. but they may be big and really good sorters. i don't know that. that is not data we have here today. >> we are actually working with all generators in the city. both in terms of outreach and monitoring and compliance. recology is stepping up the ability of their tagging efforts and letter sending and cameras on the truck. we are going and looking at everybody. this is an opportunity to get a tool that only makes sense for the large generation. >> we have a recology representative that comes every one of our dogpatch merchants association meetings. every month. i totally agree. they are doing a great job in outreach. a guy drives up to my building every once in a while and wants to look at my garbage. i am not questioning their outreach at all. i think they've done a great job of informing everybody with flyers right up until residential and commercial.

what they have are expecting from us. i am just asking a question of where is the waste coming from? so we can quarantine the program -- the problem? i am not clear, based on what i have heard that we know exactly where the problem is coming from >> what i am saying is we are working with all sectors and working with doing outreach and our compliance efforts with recology throughout the spectrum of small and large, with this proposed ordinance. it gives us a tool that only makes sense for the large in terms of hiring. we know we have these mechanisms and we know we have compliance efforts going for everybody but this is a tool to help hitch the ones that have particularly large impacts. it would not be appropriate to have this to use this tool for much larger range.

>> thank you. it just sounds like you indicated that the hiring of the zero waste facilitator is a tool by the way the legislation reads is that large refuse generators who fails an audit must, within 60 days of receipt from the director's notice, for the duration of 24 months, designate a staff or otherwise engage a person who is exclusive -- whose exclusive function is to serve as a facilitator. so it does sound like that option of designating or hiring a zero waste facilitator is not an option. it is an automatic requirement. upon receiving the audits. if the supervisor reconsiders that. >> i was just saying he doesn't have to be an outside third-party. it can be someone internally

from within the existing entity that is already a stopper that can be redesignated. >> their sole function would be that. >> part of that, again, let me just touch about this a little bit. in 2009, when this was first enacted. it was made optional. and part of the concern is that if you don't make the requirement, and this is what the supervisor has said at various meetings with stakeholders, i will relay the message. what he saw in his experience in working with the janitor's union is that there was an issue there were because it was because mandatory and it was though she did not have to be someone who is exclusively designated to the function, you have someone then who has piled on a whole lot of work there really should have required legally that a completely different person be hired to do something full-time. that is genuinely the concern on the reasoning behind this. the concern is that this will

give -- got piled up and added onto someone else who already has a full plate to be required to do this. which is supervisor and i agree, it is completely unfair. >> the person who does all the crap gets all the garbage. [laughter] >> to touch on the point, i completely understand regarding the metrics. i am with you there. part of the reason why we don't have that data is for privacy concerns. we can't go to recology and go inside and pulled their data and asked them to give us third-party private accounts for us to shovel through. so there is a concern. i want to know that that is part of the reason why we are not as clear-cut as we would like to be with the data. that leaves us where we are. some of it is anecdotal, but it is anecdotal from the folks who are in the trenches. in the day today and doing the work.

that is why, it is a very valid point. that is part of this frustration we want to be respectful and mindful of third parties' privacy. i know is not the answer. it is where we are. that is why there is that data. >> you can get data without violating third-party practices. >> yes. i have a similar question. here it says you have to appoint someone who was the exclusive function and service of zero waste facilitator. can we set up a standard and do the audit when they fail the audit -- do the audit? when they fail the audit, let the business come up with their own solutions. can you come back for the re audit. if they meet the standard, that is fine. whatever method they use. if they don't, then you come up with consequences. may be a fine so they can come up with a solution to solve the

problem rather than dictating what they have to do to solve the problem. >> point taken. again, for us, it is getting back to the noticing and flexibility and lending businesses handle it internally. we know that 60% of the waste stream is not being diverted. mayor breed also announced, not too long ago that she is pushing our goals 22030. the goal is now that by 2030, we hope to cut 50% of what we send to the landfill. meaning that it will require an aggressive and robust engagement from all stakeholders. this is one where as jack mentioned, we saw a large refuse generators generator based on anecdotal data. from the folks who are doing the data at work, they are in the treatment -- in the trenches as it relates to this particular area. i will definitely relay the message of what you mentioned. we are considering putting in

more flexibility regarding the redesignation or hiring of a zero waste facilitator. >> every business is different. whatever they can do to solve the problem is up to them. >> commissioner ortiz? >> thank you for the presentation. i totally get the spirit of the legislation, trust me. my concern is our purview is small business. they deal with a lot of small business restaurants. my mom had a restaurant. it is a thankless job. small margins. may be even coming up with an exclusion, may be some kind of parameters to exclude small businesses or to be more lenient , i know the measure is not to be punitive, to be educational. but if you are running a restaurant, trust me. throwing out the garbage is not your top priority. there are people calling out sick and making payroll and making sure you have enough to serve that night. take that consideration. that is our purview.

i love the intent and the spirit of the legislation. there are big buildings that may be can hire but that is not our purview. i do want a clean s.f. but i don't want to put anybody out of business to do so. >> that is not our intent either point taken. >> do we want to take an action on this. >> thank you. we don't have to take action on it. >> you don't have to take action or you could provide -- i can condense some of the feedback that is provided or you can list whether the priorities -- whether the priority is for me to work with the supervisors on making amendments or you can take an action to say -- you don't necessarily have to take an action to approve or not approved but taken action on what she would like to see. >> at least some point i would like to see. as a citizen of earth, i am with the spirit of the legislation. i am onboard with all of that.

just as a next to small businesses. it seems like restaurants, in particular. you may be work a little bit more and get more time to develop something. something to ensure that small businesses are not caught up in the net. >> and may i make a recommendation to the president his that not just residents, restaurants and food related businesses. we have heard from neighborhood grocery stores around their attempts and challenges and that it's in there -- their challenges are even meeting the audits. does not do any good to create a standard that cannot be met to. if these people are being thwarted in their good efforts,

they could add to ten compliance officers and it will not fix the problem. they have a different problem. i think there should be a very concerted effort to understand, what are the problems that would cause someone who otherwise has good intentions and is acting in the way that would produce those results, that are somehow being thwarted between their actions and the actual outcome character and whether it is someone getting into the garbage or it is something that is fundamentally wrong with the process. i just think a lot more thought has to go into addressing the groups and their specific needs and as i say, a presentation of where, and an assessment of where the problem really lies. i don't feel informed enough to make any kind of recommendation other than to say that the story

needs to be fleshed out. we have to hear -- we have to know more about what is going on here. what is preventing the best of the best from being the best, and where is the problem? away are the problem actors and how do we really put the ratchet on them? i don't think that this is the way to do it. i think that finding a heavily, people who think they can pay their way out, it is the same problem we have in the city with parking violations. a lot of delivery services say, a well. cost of delivery includes the cost of getting fined for double parking. that is not good enough. we have to figure out a way to have commercial loading zones that can be in rotation that they don't feel compelled. that it is not financially feasible for them. so i think that a combination of fines and accommodation of figure out how to help people get into compliance so that they are inclined to do so we are

serving our city by setting up here. any time we see legislation coming, we are honor bound to say it may not affect small business but it affects our city and we are representatives in the city. i think that for the big businesses, it will be affected by this. you owe it to them to do and present this information. otherwise they don't know why they are being singled out. just because they are big, doesn't seem to me to make it right. i don't -- i don't see how we could take a position other than recommending what i just recommended. that is that we help those that are good to be good and figure out who is the real -- where the real problem lies.

>> i think, commissioners, you have stated enough that i can follow up on this. [please stand by]

>> good afternoon, i'll like to call this meeting to order. it's october, 23rd, 2018. madam secretary, roll call please. [roll call] we have a quorum. >> thank you. next item. >> clerk: approval of the minutes of october 9th, 2018. >> colleagues. >> approval. >> it's been moved. i'll second it. >> second is, is there any public comment? hearing none public comment is now closed. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> and opposed. the motion carries. madam secretary, next item. >> clerk: general public comment. members of the public may

address the commission. and are not on today's agenda. >> thank you. i have one speaker card. it is renata decosta. good afternoon. >> today i want to focus on water. i know that you have a long agenda and you are going to be speaking on various aspects of water. what i want to speak about is how many miles of sewer pipes we have. how many miles of clean drinking water we have. and if we can monitor to see how much of that water is leaking.

so, if in our slogans we say that water is precious and we care for our water, we have brought this to our attention before. in real terms, when we see what is happening with your infrastructure, nothing much is done. you are very fortunate to have on the commission a few people who have a good history about the water departments and the san francisco public utilities commission, which was formed in 1996. not long ago. having formed in 1996, only a few of the commissioners and only a few of our department heads can go to the times when

the water department was there to make a comparison when it comes to standards. what i'm seeing now, from my contacts at the various departments is that the institutional experience and memory of our workers who are retiring, they are leaving and the new people coming in really have no understanding of how things are working properly. if you look at our system, it's the sewer system and some other systems, especially our sewer system which is a duel system, we have real problems with that. so we cannot speak in terms of generallalities and create a rosie picture that everything is ok. we know.

i'm here for a reality check. i read your documents. i also analyze them with imperical data. thank you, very much. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? going once -- seeing none. public comment is now closed. madam secretary, next item. >> clerk: item 5, communications. >> colleagues. is there any comment on communication? seeing none. public comment is now closed. madam secretary, next item, please. >> clerk: item 6. other commission business. >> colleagues. is there any public comment on item number 6?

no. >> want this to be 6? >> do you want speak under communications or other business? item 5 or 6? >> other commission business? >> it doesn't discuss anything under item 6. there's no public comment. >> maybe under 4? >> street lights. >> that would be item number 5. >> that's good. i missed you guys outside. if there's no objection, we'll go back to item number 5. colleagues. that's the order. item number 5. larry godsburg. >> street lights? >> yes. >> oh, ok.

>> well, i have noticed that the interim lights have started to be put in place on hyde street. we're still waiting for the -- what are we calling them. the historic lights we were promised to be put on the street. i'm just wondering when that will happen? i notice there are historic lights being put up on poll polk street and post street but we still haven't had our lights put up on hyde street. >> if it's ok, we'll hear the rest of the public comment. the general manager will probably -- i had a conversation with someone but i think the general manager will be able to summarize it. let's do it at the end of public comment on this item. is that appropriate? >> we'll ask for the general manager to comment when we've heard all the public comments on this item. >> ok. >> thank you, very much for being here.

i have simon bertrand. thank you, simon. >> good afternoon. my name is simon on the executive director of the tenderloin community benefit district. for property assessment direct representing 30 blocks in the tenderloin. including the area that the tenderloin lighting project is underway. i just wanted to show up here today to let you know that we are very excited about that project because of the quality and scale of pedestrian lighting that's been brought to the neighborhood. however, we're very disappointed it has taken so many years. we still do not have that pedestrian lighting. so the point i would like to make is that, for the businesses that need the additional lighting to remain open at night and for patrons to vis et them , and especially for pedestrians making their way around the streets, in term of safety. the tenderloin of full of

high-injury corridors where most of our cities incidents between vehicles and pedestrians are concentrated. for the people who live in the tenderloin and want to just make their way safely during the nighttime, during the evening hours, we really need those lights. so what i was going to ask the commission is could, while we're waiting for the historic fixtures, which there have been repeated delays to the ability to deliver those, could we get the lights up? is there a way we can immediately install some kind of lighting so that we can have the benefit of the lighting during this darker season while we wait for whatever the construction issues are with the historic polls themselves. it's important to the neighborhood we get lighting sooner rather than later. it's been several years of delay. the sooner we can get it the better. >> i'll move with the next public comment on the lighting. i have bryant davincia.

>> thank you. good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to speak here. my name is bryant. we organize the residents in the tenderloin to fight for improved inhabit ability. as a background, we recognize the need for improved safety in our neighborhoods. our residents organized and negotiated a community benefit agreement with cpmc to fund 100 lights in our neighborhood. that was approved in 2012. the original was to start in 2016. however, due to unsatisfactory bid process and a pg&e dispute with sfpuc regarding correction fees last year, the project was delayed start in 2018.

the first face of installation was completed in march. there was a report there was a problem with the manufacturer. first a supply problem with caps. next was the arms. and we were told that it will be done the end of august. there was another delay. after that it was delayed until october. when the supplies were delivered october 5th, it was reported to us that we'll have to wait eight weeks before installation can resume. in the meantime, while we wait for historic lights, we were promised there will be 54 to 56 temporary lights to be installed in the neighborhood. we waited for the past seven years and we are still waiting. this repeat inattention t will t be accepted in other neighborhoods.

we in the tenderloin are treated very differently and we condition accept that. we demand two things. first, is for all the 100 polls to be installed with corporate head lights while we wait for supplies and also, we need -- accountable for whoever is overseeing this project. thank you so much. >> thank you for being here, adam. i'm sorry, brian. next speaker, adam lessing. thank you, adam. >> my name is adam. i'm a resident of 315 hyde street for almost 15 years. i also started the lower hyde street association, which is the neighborhood association of merchants and residents near the 300 block of hyde. i'd like to reiterate what the previous speaker said and when projects like this drago drag on

the neighborhood, it makes us feel neglected. we already feel like we're marginalized and the tenderloin is containment zone. when projects like this drag on for years, it reinforces the impression that the city doesn't really care about us. so, i think when you are dealing with projects like this in areas such as ours, you really need to keep in mind that this is a marginalized area and we were trying to develop pride and moral. when you do project like this, it would help to keep in mind things would be perceived a certain way because it's the tenderloin. >> thank you for your comment. next speaker. >> hi, david elliott louis. i'm a tenant leader with the

central city collab are tive and i'm also a community organizers with the tenderloin people's congress. for the last 12 years i lived near the corner of farrell and lar kin. i've had to suffer the ill effects of insufficient lighting, insufficient' loom enation. all along larkin now, teasing us are half installed light polls from this project that started in 2012 and has been delayed through a number of screw ups from disagreements with pg&e and puc on connection fees and wrong parts ordered and having to be sent back. i don't know all the causes. it's horrendous. it's cost blood, sweat, tears and actually blood. in my building we've lost a tenant being hit by a truck that's backing up because it was too dark to see. there's been actually lives lost due to this darkness that is actually preventable.

for the exact parts to a arrive i agree with the prior comments. let's get some temporary lighting in. something. anything to brighten the neighborhood. these are dark streets. our police have captains and the tenderloin have stated there's a direction connection between lighting and public safety. the brighter streets are the safer they are. lives are saved. we have a lot of vulnerable people in the tenderloin, seniors, disabled. very poor people. people who are vulnerable due to these dark, dark streets. if you tour the tenderloin at night, you will see what we mean. you will see the darkness i'm talking about. it hurts commercial businesses as well. it hurts the commercial viability. we have a lot of vacant storefronts. this making part of the reason. there are other reasons. so you would be helping revitalize business. you would be helping improving safety. you would help to save lives. thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. >> thank you for being here.

>> public comment is from calista. >> hi. so, good afternoon, commissioners. i don't want to repeat what folks said. i work in program and the reason why we're here is two things. one is the delays that we have seen and delays in the last one year. we hope that this next delay that is eight weeks is what we were told, they would have the manufacture deliver them. we hope it's not another delay. we want to make sure that you guys are on top of it. second thing is p.u.c. we met with p.u.c. heads, folks here, not the general manager but barbra and other team

members of hers. they basically promised to deliver about 56 lights, that's what they said. it's been delayed again so we demand 100 lights. all the polls up there should have lights on it. temporarily. that's what we're asking and it should be done immediately rather than wait for another weeks. >> thank you for being here. francisco. >> commissioners, the tenderloin needs help. there's no doubt about it. other districts impact the tenderloin. that's why i'm coming here to speak on this topic. whoever is the project manager has to study the migration from other districts into district 6.

that adversely impacts the tenderloin. as one or two speakers have stated, in order to have quality of life issues, respect the seniors, lots of seniors it is very important to have light. we know this but we don't know this. whoever is a project manager. whoever is in charge of external affairs. all the fancy titled they have. they make a lot of money. they have to be held responsible. now if i stop, does this micky mouse happening between the sfpuc and pg&e. we have need to have outreach. we need to have mediators. if you do not have mediators, i can be a mediator because i know more people at pg&e then y'all think y'all know. we'll sit down and talk to the

people. the vice president them and asked them if their parents lived in the tenderloin would they have tolerate this nonsense? pg&e ask sfpuc have been feuding for a long time. in feuding for a long time, i know, personally, that y'all have lost millions of dollars. we need those millions of dollars to have th help the peon the tenderloin. these connecting foods and other hurdles, now, these all happened because of c whatever california pacific medical center. giving so many millions of dollars. ok. it did not happen because of sfpuc. but sfpuc chose to take the lead. in taking the lead they dropped the ball. so i know we have a good president now. i'm looking at you. you are supporters on the

commission. and we have a goal and timelines. i'll be following it. if not, i'll initiate what they call a freedom of information act. thank you, very much. >> thank you for your comments, francisco. thank you, everyone for being here. general manager, might you be able to comment on the topic. >> i can comment under report of the general manager. >> if there's no objection to that, we'll have a comment under the report of the general manager. that will be the order. please hold out for that. is there any other public comment on item number 5? hearing none, public comment is closed. next item, please. >> clerk: item 6. >> colleagues. >> is there any public comment. hearing none, public comment is

closed. >> clerk: item 7 is annual policy and government affair updates. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is emily lamb and i'm the director of policy and governor affairs for the sfpuc. i am pleased to provide you today with an update on our activities of the last year. so, first, i want to thank my boss for her support and my team meghan scott, john scarpula, chris whitmore, caro line bridgeford for their tireless work. i want to thank the enterprise liaison and our lobbyist for all their hard work as our suck is s is a collective effort. as you have our written memo, i'm just going to chose today to highlight a few things.

at the local level for 2017-18, sfpuc we handled 43 business items approved at the board and tracked 218 pieces of legislation that impacted the sfpuc. most notably, we successfully add va indicated for critical legislation that secured the kia approvals for ssip allowing our agency to begin construction on the bio solid and head works projects. staff also significant clean power legislation allow our for power and related products and services. this type of contract was the first of its kind and it was vital to allow buy power. finally pga received 209 requests from elected officials and working with the three enterprises all constituent requests in timely manner. at the state legislature, they marked the end of a second year of a two-year session.

it was a busy year with pga reviewing over 400 bills, tracking nearly 300 and actively engaging on 70. for the water enterprise we worked on several conservation bills including securing amendments to move a bill we and fellow water agencies across the state oppose to one we supported in the end. for water, we successfully sponsored sb966, which was carried by scott wiener. with risk base water quality standards for on site systems that align with the most advance and protective health nation wide. this is helping local communities establish consistent oversight and management programs for these on site water systems. this bill is a continuation of our leadership primarily of paul keyhoe and on site water reuse. first at local level mandating every project over 250,000 square feet on site. and now paving the way for other

local tees to do it with this bill across the state. finally, we engage on high-impact and complex bills for the power enterprise around regionalization, wildfires and direct access. much of our activity, however, lately, has been focused around the cpuc's reform of the power charge indifference adjustment or exit fee. on october 11th, however, the cpuc passed a exit fee modification harmful including clean power. pga working with a team of coalition of stakeholders helped organize a joint letter and three press statements from the mayors of san francisco, oakland and san jose calling for delay or no vote. we were able to secure signatures from mayor breed and all 11 supervisors opposing the modification to the exit fee. the team is working closely with enterprise with the power enterprise folks to determine next steps in appealing the

decision. on the federal level, the pga team helped finance achieve the largest loan in the country at almost $700 million and work closely with the leaders nation wide to get a pilot grant program to fund water workforce coalitions in the water bill which the president just signed today. and last but not least, we continue to engage our elected officials at the local state and federal level on the state water board's proposal. so we're working with enterprise staff to communicate the impact of this proposal and also securing support of elected officials for the negotiated settlement process and to mitigate the board of supervisors current revolution n on this issue. >> colleagues.

>> any questions? >> is there a report on what we just heard, item number 7? francisco. >> i have the real report. in san francisco we have tax paying constituents and i feel that it's important that we have a town hall meeting on this issue. it's about time. because, i was reading at the policies but i'm missing in the policies are how we subsidize large entities like cell force

and so on and so fourth. and i know y'all get some benefits from it. the citizens, the taxpayers want to know that if initiatives and incentives that are given to sales force and all, why can they adversely impact us in this totality. and they do. people don't know that. that's like y'all have the 525 self-contained mechanisms where y'all save on energy and sewer, et cetera, et cetera. sales force is depriving the city of thousands of dollars. which will lead to millions of dollars. and where we need to talk about that in a very general manner but also in a very definitive

manner. so i was looking at this document. it makes for interesting reading. i was trained in the military. if you want to the general with such a report, he would really make you rewrite it. i'll tell you why. we have standard operating procedures and we look at each of the paragraphs and we see, ok, you are talking the talk but are you walking the walk? and i like to walk the walk. so you know that sfu is an enterprise department. there are over 2,000 employees. a lot of your employees are retiring. i spoke a little bit about that. we want to know, in the short term and long-term how do these policies really have the community.

about 850 residents in san francisco. in general, one and a half million in the daytime and people come here to work. they still use our water and still use our sewer. that's what i want to know. thank you, very much. >> thank you, francisco. that's public comment under government affairs update. >> we have one more. >> is there any further public comment under item number 7? >> thank you, chair courtney. peter jackmire with the river trust. i want to thank you all for giving attention to the letter that the n.g.o. submitted on september 24th. discussing that at your meeting on the 25th. also, we appreciate an opportunity to speak with some of your staff about the three points we made. the third point, i think we were a little too subtle on that. that was related to communications with federal