other consent. >> they motion was improving -- approving the items. >> hello. >> hello. i am the state director with the p.u.c. i'm sorry. i'm not as tall as everyone. i thought i was. so the hm ten o. is to approve the terms and conditions and authorize a general manager to execute a five-year no fee revocable license to friends of the urban forest for use of approximately 2500 square feet of the sewer parcel. basically to serve as a storage area for tree is used by friends of the urban forest and the various programs throughout the city. this use is consistent with the sidewalk garden project. we recommend no chart for the license because the license --dash the licensees is a nonprofitable organization. and it benefits the p.u.c. and a

number of ways. it reduces the maintenance burden on the p.u.c., it benefits the front yard ambassador program and sidewalk garden project by reducing stormwater flows, and just the general public benefit supports the agreements. we are -- we want to make it a more habitable san francisco. >> we table the item until the next meeting. you tut it does you said it yourself you benefits the p.u.c. by reducing the maintenance. we have staff in various classifications that have wages that are connected to state prevailing wages, published at the state of california, and so it may be a benefit that we have an outside entity performing those functions. at a significantly reduced right of pay for folks. i will be hypersensitive, especially this year, to

subsidizing these organizations, because we had this conversation , and commissioner quan did great work with supervisor tang and the p.u.c., but this was the result of the nose in the tent. we need a subsidy. i will tell you, land in this county is no joke. to say we will provide free land so you can store your stuff and basically it is not this do-gooder nonprofit, they are an enterprise. they have a lot of employees. what i asked for, and donna, i will give you the tape. i asked for a list with respect to these kinds of dealings because this is connected to the land deal that we did out there at crocker. so i want to know, and i think a lot of people want to know, not just me, how many employees do they have? what classifications are those employees in? what are the wage rates? what are the health care arrangements?

where is the entity located, are there any complaints that have been filed against the entity, and so on and so forth. it is not much unlike the garden project. what we cannot do is we cannot undercut our own staff and have no strings attached. strings being opportunities for the community work forced to move in, get them on the job training, and move up to some other classification. it is totally disconnected. it is really out of convenience for us, and there's a lot of opportunity that we are really missing. i would like to give that information. i requested it before a year ago i will make sure that you get a list. we cannot keep making the same mistakes over and over again. quite frankly i was surprised to see this on the agenda. not for the first time, not having heard about anything how the city has nothing to do with you, but if there is no objection, that will be the order that we will carry over to the next meeting. colleagues, hearing on -- >> can i make one comment?

we did provide answers to some of the questions you just posed to me just now. is it fair to say you found this to be insufficient? >> yes. >> okay. is it city trees? >> it is trees that the friends of the urban forest use throughout the city as part of the street planning program. >> it's part of our city government. >> in a way. >> these are friends of that. >> it is really d.p.w. >> that i can't say for certain. >> i think they deal with -- >> they are a city partner. >> but we are members, just so you know. we contribute. my organization contributes, but at the same time, the crux of the issue is full disclosure. at the end of the day, if we are going to make a decision under

the offices of community benefit , it has to benefit the community. if the community folks come in here, not operators of nonprofits, of community folks come in here and say look, under my name, these wages, and this labour standard, and every classification, still benefits the community because x. that conversation is an important conversation and it is happening more now than ever before. it is something we missed with the garden project. it is something that i tend not to miss moving forward, but it is just about transparency and disclosure, and i think 1212 weeks is i just want to make sure that -- that means we have to do it for everything. we can't just do it as an agency we would have to ask whoever used our land, whether that wage -- know, know. >> because the string attached is the benefits because the benefit is it relieves us of the

burden of maintaining something. so there is a connection. >> that is one of the benefits. the other benefits i described were the two initiatives. one was front yard ambassadors program where the idea is green greener streets lead to less runoff into our sewer system. >> but they are not really connected. we did that. it may have been contemplated at the time, but it certainly wasn't disclosed. now they do the ambassador's product -- project and they are asking for a subsidy. they are asking to be subsidized i remember this conversation when we went through that. anticipated this piece, but they're asking for freelance. we could do that for contractors who pay prevailing wage rates to the workers. but if we don't know what the wage rates are for the workers, we know we are delegating our responsibility to maintain

certain things to a nonprofit. we can assume that we are saving money on wages, hours, benefits. we can make that assumption pretty safely. that is what i'm getting at. if you want to go ahead with a subsidy anyway, we don't want to give it to many contractors. it has to be transparent. it has to be disclosed. >> my understanding of the model , and may be we need to better understand the model, is that these tree plantings occur in certain neighbourhoods by volunteers, that friends of the urban forest organizes, and then the city, and this was a result of the bond measure that passed whenever it was last year, takes property and takes over the maintenance once the trees are planted. so there is a benefits, aside from the maintenance question, that you did not name, which has to do with civic participation,

civic engagement, where if i want my street to look nicer, and i don't want excess water flowing into my yard, i might then be encouraged to go out there and plant a tree. correct? is that the model? >> i believe so. >> it is a little bit different than a contractor going out there and paying somebody to have a team of workers to come and take jobs away from the city erica to get seems to me. >> i don't want -- to your point , yes. here is the issue. we are going to have a workforce development plan at this agency. we are going to talk about triple bottom line his. we will about strings attached. we will talk about the community workforce and we will talk about minimum labour standards. whatever they are. i will not dictate with the standard is for 50 we know what they are for friends of the urban forest? it is not a hundred% volunteer organization.

they have employees who do this work. >> may i make a suggestion? why not put it off for two weeks >> we have a lot of things that are really important to do. and to discuss this is superficial because there are so many important things on the agenda. i'm totally with you. >> understood, commissioner. the department of the urban forest under d.p.w. it is just part of us. >> i was just trying to understand exactly so that we can be responsive in two weeks. i can go off-line and make sure that everything that the commissioner needs where we have to ask the urban forestry for all their rates and stuff that is requested. >> we will move it to the next meeting. we will not belabour the point. here is what i can assure you. there are people who work for this agency who are part of this

agency that find this to be of critical importance. whether we do or not is not material, there are people that we are supposed to be considering who find this to be of critical importance. i can assure you that. >> if i might, just to your point, one is that there are a lot of issues embedded in this discussion. one of them is the real estate policies that we have, which basically say that, if i get this wrong, i will be corrected, buffer nonprofits, for other governmental agency his, that we make our land available for use at no fee if it is compatible with the utilities. that applies to churches, that applies to profits, neighbourhood organizations, all kinds of people. we give use of our land. you raise a bunch of important issues as to how career pathways

fit into that picture. that we have people who are on our land. what are the opportunities that we have to make sure that people have good jobs and they can transition into city jobs, or for profit jobs? i do want to make one point. it is clear we do not provide plans to contractors free of charge. we cannot do that. that would probably be contrary to the city law and contrary to our policies. we want to deal with the policies. plus the issues you are raising with how to create meaningful opportunities and get paid. >> i will leave it at this. if we ask for these strings, these opportunities for the workers, they will say yes. but we just don't ask. we did not ask for the garden project, and we won't ask these guys if i don't raise it, and the community comes every so often and they say, what are you guys doing? so that is what we will figure

out. we will have full exposure and we will know how many people and what the rates are and we know will what we will pay our people to do the same work and then we will know what we are really saving in terms of the cost of maintenance. i understand that the land use. at the end of the day, there is a critical workforce component and that is what we are doing. we are lining up the dominoes. have a really thoughtful and deliberate, impactful workforce development policy in the summer when we plan to finish. >> may i make one more comment regarding workforce? they indicated that their crews are hired from the city first program where the hospital wraparound program. the green team program hires from a pool of applicants provided to them including hunter's family point, huckleberry youth, and jv asked. >> exactly what i suspected. that is probably about half the rate of pay. as long as a community folks

know that we compensate people at a prevailing wage rate to perform those functions and the community comes in and say we want to 15 bucks an hour, i will make the motion. but they should know that. >> and a interstate -- i understand. >> thank you very much. >> can we have a motion. >> i move -- i don't think we need a motion but i will move it to continue its. i think the chair can go ahead. >> we need a motion. >> i will move to continue it. >> second, is there a second? >> what is the motion? >> to continue it to the january meeting which is more than two weeks away. >> so moved and seconded. is there any public comment on the item? hearing none, a public comment is all closed. the motion carries. thank you. thank you for that.

next item, please. >> item 11 -- >> should i call public comment again? >> item 11 is approved minute numbers and authorize the general manager to negotiate and execute an amendment number 3 to expand the scope of right away services with no change to the agreement amount. >> colleagues? it has been moved. >> seconded. his or any public comment on the item? public comment is closed. public comment is now closed. next item, please. >> item 12 is approve the plan and specifications and contract number hh 995 in the amount of 1,877,735 for the duration of 394 consecutive calendar days for the sierra mountain construction. >> colleagues? >> it has been moved. >> i will second. >> seconded. his or any public comment on this item? public comment is now closed. all those in favour?

the motion carries. >> item 13 is approved the modification number 2 up for contract w. 628 with joint venture in the amount of 36 million dollars, approve and an increase to the existing contract contingency in the amount of $80 million and increased to the existing contract duration contingency in the amount of 75 consecutive calendar days not to improve any contributions to the contract amount of $335,000,000.267000 and the contract duration of up to a total of 2,936 consecutive calendar days. >> i have a question on the item is there a training facility connected somehow to this as far as we know?

>> is there a training facility, is there a workforce component or piece to this? is there a training facility contemplated with the headworks facility project? the project is being rebuilt in the existing footprint and it is fairly congested. >> so it is part of the project labour agreement. so it is all tied with them working with the unions. they would be the best person to talk about what strategies they have as it relates to the whole headworks and the digester program. >> m.u.n. -- none of this is set in stone. >> know , it is just part of the coordination of --

>> my colleagues don't have the appetite for the conversation, but want to hear first i just think it is not the labour standard that we acknowledge chair in the public sector. it just isn't. if it is not set in stone, you have answered my question. but it is a conversation we have to have. colleagues? >> moved for approval. >> it has been moved. >> i have a question. >> vice president cain? >> okay. under your budget and cost -- we have the original award amount, proposed on patient two, and then the contract, and then we go into the contingency so we have the original ten% contingency, what my question is , is when you have additional contract contingency request,

the way i look at it is it would be 10% of $40 million. and you have this 18 million and so on and so forth. and i have tried to work the figure around and i can't. i can't come up with -- i thought perhaps there was left over contingency from the original and that could be the case. how do you come up with the $18,000,630? >> as i understand your question , your 18.6 million roughly is the contingency being requested currently. the current contingency at hand is around 24.4. collectively, we are looking at around $43 million of contingency. >> okay but the contingency -- in other words, if that's the

case, i think he has left out a line. because the contingency that you are requesting would be the addition of the 11.6 and 36 plus plus, which comes to $40 million >> the 11-point is actually a modification under line one. it is for a construction contract. the contingency below the line is not actual approvals. there are contingencies to be approved under the general manager. the $24 million of contingency reflects the total project scope for construction under the original contract, and to the 18 that we are asking for is additional contingency for likely anticipated -- >> know , know , i know what it is, but i am saying, how did you come up with 18?

i come up with 4 million. i come up with 10% of 47,000,617 >> you are basing your number on a percentage of construction cost. >> she is trying to restore the construction at 10%. so the 18 is different because it is based on anticipated work that you foresee. >> we are exceeding beyond the original 10% and asking for the 18 to cover anticipated additional spirit. >> i thought that the contingency was a percentage of the requested funds. >> originally it is. >> typically when you go into construction, you have money for

contingency for unforeseen things. so what we have started to do, is as we start identifying those things, we look at the risk in the coming assessment, and then we started asking to replenish the 10% as we identified items that eat into the contingency because one of the challenges is that we can't, you know, exceed the 10% unless we go to the commission. that is why we want to make sure that we get the commission to agree on other commission so we can restore the 10%, so if something were to happen, we would have to wait until the next commission meeting to approve something while the contractor is waiting. that is one of the things. so what i believe is happening is we are recognizing that the 10% will be back here soon if we were to go 10%, because there are certain projects that we feel we need to do, and the cost that we anticipate comes to the

additional $18 million. is that correct? >> correct. the modification to the additional contingency and the construction contract cost are in alignment with the approved budget by the commission on the lining. we are matching the approvals. this puts us -- it will bring us back into alignment with the baseline numbers. >> okay. i guess someone can explain it later. originally, the original award we did 10% of 244. >> that is correct. >> but we don't do that anyway -- that way anymore? >> when we came to the ten year capital plan, that is when we realized that the number for the contingency and the scope would be higher. so we rebaselined, we put the number in there and then now we are trying to actualize that

number into the contracts to allow us to have money available for stuff that we anticipated when we did the ten year capital plan. what we can do is write it up and make sure that it is explained with numbers, and we can probably give you the projects that we anticipate and the cost of each one of the scopes. >> yes. >> okay. that would be good. thank you. >> it has been moved. is there a second? >> seconds. >> is there any public comment on the item? colleagues? all those in favour? the motion carries. next item, please. a. >> item 14 is public hearing discussion and possible action to approve a schedule of rates and charges for the p.u.c. power enterprise s.f. program service in san francisco to take effect on or after five your first 2019

>> good afternoon, commissioners i am the director of clean power s.f. for the power enterprise. the deputy c.f.o. and i are here before you today with a rate action for clean power s.f. the comprehensive presentation we included in the staff report for this action item includes detailed background information in the interest of time, we have pare down our presentation to focus on key points. i hope sufficiently. the action item before you now would approve a new schedule of rates and charges to take effect on february 1st, 2019. the action would also authorize

a general manager to adjust the rates once the 2019 rates are published, as long as program costs are recovered, and financial covenants are projected to be met. this rate action is intended to ensure that the cost of san francisco customers are taking generation supply service from clean power s.f. will be competitive with service after accounting for pg and e. fees like the power charge and difference adjustment or pci a. if approved, this action would be final and staff will return early next year to report on final rates and updated financial projections. consistent with the commission charge a adopted goal of completing citywide enrolment by july 2019, we continue to push forward with citywide enrolment and clean power s.f. we have been preparing to complete citywide enrolment with the last major phase to occur in april of next year. this phase will include the rest of the residential accounts, bringing our total account serve

to about 365,000, and our total program demand to approximately 350 megawatts. when clean power s.f. launched, the commission adopted a phasing policy for the program with specific rates related provisions. the phasing policy requires that prior to commencing a new auto enrolment phase b. determines that program rates are sufficient to recover program costs, and rates for the next phase are projected to be at or below pg anti- rates. you will recall this year when we enrolled commercial accounts where we were able to deliver a 2% savings on enrolled customers ' generation accounts. clean power s.f. rates are set consistent with the charter, and with other s.f. p.u.c. ratesetting policies, including the right insurance policy. consistent with those policies, they presented this right proposal to the fairness board last friday.

the board voted unanimously to recommend proposal be adopted. so we have brought this right -- rate action to you today because the exit fee that is charged by customers is projected to increase for many of our customers in calendar year 2019. in addition, pg anti- generation rates are forecasted to decrease for all customers. unless action is taken on rates, our customers will be paying more on their electricity bills than if they were to take generation supply from pg anti-. the next two slides illustrate the expected change in rates in 2019. the slide shows the expected change in pci a rates in 2019 for various customer classes. the light blue bar represents the current levels, in the dark blue bar represents the

forecasted 2019 pci a rates. you can see the residential class classes expected to decrease slightly, while commercial rates are expected to increase by 33-50 2%. excuse me. in a similar format, the slide shows the forecasted pg anti- generation rate changing 2019. you can see we are expecting generation rates to decrease across the board from 6-9% depending on customer class. the combined effect of both of these changes on the average monthly generation cost for an average residential customer in san francisco can be seen on this slide. the first bar on the left represents the average monthly cost. the second bar represents the average monthly generation supply cost the customer would pay under clean power s.f. service.

without any s.f. p.u.c. rate action, the average residential customer will pay about four% or a dollar 20 more per month on their generation costs with clean power s.f. than if they took service from pg anti- >> and i ask a quick question on that? can you put the slide back up? >> thank you. >> oh,. if we can have the slides, thank you. >> if i'm understanding this correctly, without an adjustment of our rates, basically it is an additional $9.24 that is going to be introduced at the start of the year. >> it is not an additional $9.24 >> it is a portion of that. >> it is a portion. and for residential, the p. c.i.a. is going down.

the next slide for commercial -- >> sorry, on the generation, it is going up. >> yes. their generation costs are going down. so the bar on the left is going down relative to the share. really what it is is their generation rates are going down and that is more the issue for residential. >> is that because they are changing their mix? >> it is a variety of things that are affecting that. the increase is one element. they are recovering more revenue another element has to do with the fact with a rates that are in effect may have been artificially high because they put them in place late in the year. they were recovering the same amount of revenue over a fewer number of months. that is another element. there are other factors as well. >> thanks. >> that is residential. this is small commercial. you can see it is more dramatic

for small commercial. it is 14% more on generation supply costs for small commercial. i do want to comment. we are showing the portion of the service that clean power s.f. competes under. this would be about seven% of the total bill. and large commercial looks similar. to present our rate proposal, i will turn the presentation over to the deputy c.f.o. >> hello. in terms of the rate action before you today, as mike mentioned, we are bringing this forward if humans -- a few months earlier than when we usually talk to you about clean power rates because we want to make sure that the rate changes are in place.

we want to make sure that we are enrolling customers on parity, on financial parity as compared to their current service. that is why we are here in front of you today. in order to address the anticipated changes that mike described, here are the proposed clean power rate changes which would become effective on february 1st 2019. first, we are proposing to reduce clean power's green it rate by the changes that we expect to occur in the generation rate. as well as any changes in the franchise surcharge. based on our current projections , we expect this to be about a 6-9% reduction for the clean power rates and that will depend on which customer class that we are talking about. we will give you that% reduction the second thing we are proposing is that we are proposing to create a new bill

credit that will offset the anticipated increase in the p. c.i.a. fee change. the volumetric bill credit will be equal to the 2019 increase in the p. c.i.a. from the current year levels. this would be a new element on the bill. it would be a separate line and it would show a credit or a minus sign. so you might be asking yourself, why are we proposing a separate credit, or proposing a credit at all? we think it is important to have a separate line on the bill so that the changes are not netted in with the other program costs. this credit will be a way to separate the issue from the underlying clean power s.f. rates and charges. and it will show current -- programs, rates and charges are comparable to pg and eat which is important as we continue to enrol new customers, especially for this large enrolment coming

up in the spring. we are also requesting an authorization for the general manager to finalize these rates once the rates are published and we expect that in january. understanding that the rates that ultimately are set must recover our operating cost, satisfy financial covenants, and fund our program reserves. as a reminder, we did something similar to this back in 2015 at the program launch. one additional point i would like to meet -- make is the rate proposal sets rates to meet pg anti- rates, and the current 2% discount for clean power customers, as compared to pg anti- will be eliminated or discontinued when these rates go into effect on february 1st. finally, there are no proposed changes to the clean power super green premiums with this rate shouldn't -- rate action before you today. they will vary between the half cent to one half cent against

spending spending on the customer class. as mike mentioned, this proposal was presented to the board last friday, and they voted to support this proposal that is before you. the charts that mike shared with you earlier, i will now show how those changed with the rates inc. and the rate changes incorporated into them. not so much of a change for the residential customers, this is the residential comparison and the generation rate reduction, and a very little to no p. c.i.a. increase will result in a slight decrease in the bill. it will be slightly going down in the new year. for commercial, you will see here that the bar that mike had shown you that was a little bit larger, the credit that i described now will make the two bars equal in terms of what the

customer cost are what the customer bill will be. again, generation on the right side. the generation costs will be going down. for the generation rate reduction, the p. c.i.a. will be going up, and the credit will offset that change to the two bars are equal. that is the whole point here. >> can i ask a question? >> sure. >> i understand you are thinking around your reasoning and i think it is good to have p. c.i.a. as a separate line item for future programming and what not. but will they know the small commercial customers if they are not looking that closely at their bill about any of this? i mean the bill is basically the same. >> rights. there will be an outreach effort to help explain to customers about the changes that are coming up. we have several months to work on this. we will work on messaging back we will work on noticing on the

bills in terms of these changes. we will look at current and putting articles out to the customer so they will get a sense of what these changes are. >> my point is that this is so complicated, the staff. and it is hard to make it simple it is communicated in some ways. but if the end outcome is basically the same, i think that that should be the lead message. it will be the same. you will not be paying anymore, and then we are committed to serving you the greenest and most affordable product and starting with that, so it does not get people all alarmed and opting out because they feel like there is something changed in the program. >> that makes sense. >> thank you. >> and then the last comparison is the large commercial. the credit showing that once these rate changes are put in

place, the customer will be held equal to equivalent pg and e-services. in terms of financial impact for this rate action, we expect there to be an estimated seven and a half% reduction to program revenues that equals about 12 and half million dollars this fiscal year through june. clean power s.f. will still recover as operating cost, and contribute to financial reserve. i want to make that point clear. the revenue reduction means that the program will have lower contribution to reserves each year than planned. for the program's bank credit agreement, the funding may require preparation of a reserve target plan, and we will evaluate the need to do this once the rates are finalized. finally, slow reserve funding may impact the program to develop a capital plan and build out, however, job creation will continue in the near term as its own program ramps up.

as well as jobs that will be created from the renewable energy project contracting that will occur. >> i would love to get a better understanding at our next meeting on the numbers and make it high level of what that actually means. how much longer will it take for us to accumulate enough money and do a significant increase at the job? it has always been one of the big promises. job creation and project development to own and operate. so what are the implications of this from a financial and a timeline perspective on some of our bigger objectives. >> that sounds good. i think will be able to provide a much clearer answer once the rates are finalized in january we might thank you. >> in terms of the financial production in the current year,

i cannot leave you without a table. here is a financial projection for fiscal 19. the top row shows if we made no changes to rates, we are forecasting higher total revenue than budget. about an and hundred $60,000. the bottom row reflects the proposed rate changes that would show year-end program revenues at $154.4 million. as i mentioned earlier, the rates proposal lowers revenues and reduces reserve contributions by about 12 and a half million dollars, which results in reserve funding as noted with about 10.4 million and 23 million of balance year-round. we are still funding reserves but at a slower pace. with that, i will pass the microphone back to mike for risk management. >> i will make a quick announcement for everyone's information. this room is booked at 5:15 pm.

>> it is booked at 6:00 pm. i need room for me to turn it over. >> i just want to disclose that. thank you. >> thank you. i have three more slides for you we are wrapping this up. as you will recall when we launched, the sfusd conducted program risk assessment and earlier this year in support of the growth plan, they have been completing a comprehensive review and an update of the clean power s.f. program risk and misconduct risk mitigation spirit we have been deploying these risk mitigations and identified through the process and we have also continue to update the risk assessment as we have built an operating history. we have highlighted here a few risks that are of particular interest in the context of the rate action in the upcoming april enrolment. the enterprise risk management process has identified mitigations for each of these risks. here are a select few.

hi opt out was a major concern when we launched clean power s.f. the program has performed better than we initially anticipated peer given this as a choice program, it must be concerned especially if factors like the p. c.i.a. put our business in an uncompetitive position. with the completion of citywide enrolment expected in 2019, and rolling additional customers will no longer be a strong mitigation of hi opt out. instead we are focusing on other measures, especially portfolio management to mitigate the potential for hi opt out. portfolio management means we consistently monitor our supply and commitments against the customer demand and that we structure the portfolio in a way that helps us manage the risk of opt out and lower than planned power sales. an example of this, which is included in the staff report is portfolio laddering.

and other relevant risk is unfavourable regulatory decisions with respect to the p. c.i.a., but also with respect to pg and a rates. we have been actively pursuing regulatory advocacy. we have been lowering rates and charges, and we continue to evaluate changing our green product mix. for example, reducing the renewable energy content of the project. however, there are limits to these approaches. as we found in the regulatory arena, really does regulatory capture can eliminate our effectiveness at the p.u.c. we cannot lower rates or reduce costs. we also cannot reduce the green product renewable content so much that we run the risk of generating more opt outs and undermining the environmental objectives of the program. what i'm saying is there are limits to this mitigation. i thank you all probably recognize that. i do want to highlight the poor for leo management becomes a really critical ongoing

mitigation for ensuring that our costs are not active sync with the market and we are doing that now. we will be maintaining a very active and strong presence and we are working on measures to address critical issues next year. in short, we continue to actively monitor and are regularly working to mitigate program risks. lastly, here is a high-level schedule of our key actions for the april 2019 enrolment. today the commission has before the right dressed rate action to enable clean power s.f. to offer competitively priced product to customers enrolled and being enrolled next year. this is the final action the commission will take on this but staff will report back on the results of the action in january after the action today, they will prepare and submit it to the clerk of the board for the 30 day holding period and in

february, we will commence the noticing -- noticing process for customers being enrolled in april and then finally, all residential customers will be enrolled in the program during the month of april. that concludes our presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> commissioners class. >> i would like to repeat that i think the communication strategy is critical as we lead up to this next enrolment phase, and that we need to be transparent to, but we also need to reassure that we are observing these costs because we believe so strongly in this program and in the environments that we want to do whatever it takes to see success here. whatever form that takes, i would encourage that we are really leading with a difference in the rate and it will still agree with the project. >> we have articulated how we

will articulate this. and how we will communicate as we do enrolments. >> okay. >> move for approval. >> is there any public comment on the item? public comment is now closed. and he opposed caught the motion carries. next item, please. >> item 15 is approved two renewable energy contracts for clean power s.f. >> colleagues cost. >> approval. and seconded. any public comment? public comment is now closed. the motion carries. next item, please. >> item 16 is authorized to general manager to seek approval and execute a master license agreement for the san francisco unified school district. >> commissioners? >> move the item. >> is there any public comment on 16? public comment is now closed. and he opposed? >> the motion carries. >> i would like to make one comment. >> yes or.

>> the amendment solves some real problems that are outstanding. there has been -- that has not always been the case. i think there's been a very productive and cooperative enterprise that has -- i'm very glad we are able to have something we can improve like that and glad to be part of it. that said, it is somewhat frustrating that we have yet to be able to deal with the temporary and interruptible customers. what i hope that what i hope is with these issues put to the side, will be making some meaningful progress in the next few months. >> i would like to move the item >> we are moving into item 17 now. >> yes. >> we voted on 16. >> can i read the item?

>> item 17. >> author is a general manager to execute amendments to 2009 water supply agreement. >> my comments, we are on the right site does wrong item. >> that is why i wanted to move the item. >> i would like to move item 17. >> item 17 has been moved. >> i will second that. >> and seconded. is any public comment? >> good evening. >> hello. my comments address section 3.11 of the water sales agreement pertaining to the systemwide shortages in the s.f. p.u.c. response to regional emergencies i noticed note that this section remains intact with requirement

that san francisco will distribute water on an equitable basis throughout the regional water system service area, following an interruption in service from an earthquake or regional emergency. this contractual agreement does reflect the mandate to share water as stated in the california water code, section 73503. now i want to call to the commission's attention, three conflicts of interest conflicts of interest for the use of water in the sunset reservoir, which is one of the terminal reservoir is jointly owned with the peninsula customers who have rights to this customer. conflicts one, the statutory and contract right requirement to share possible water. two, a capital project to replace a water main from the north basin of the reservoir with seismically strengthened pipelines promised to the fire

department so they could use this water to fight fires after an earthquake. and three, a commitment to supply drinking water to the public after an earthquake from the south basin at sunset. even though the basin has not been seismically reinforced, and its contents could spill out over the sunset sunset district after violent shaking. there is an inundation flood map from this was a var on file at the department of emergency management. recognizing that these three competing uses from our locally stored sunset water post- earthquake, do exist. who is going to be shortchanged? will the city his give up their water rates? while the department to be content to accessing only a portion of the limited north basin water when they have multiple consultations to fight? or will the residents of the west side be denied drinking water? and any weight you figure, the use of water from the reservoir, someone uses -- loses big time.

there is no backup plan b. for resolving any of the conflicts i have mentioned. i ask you to pleas put an agenda item on your next agenda to discuss this very real problem of who will get the sunset water after the big one hits? thank you very much. i will leave you with a copy of the california water code because i am not convinced that anybody in this room has actually taken it to heart. >> thank you for being here. thank you for that. next comment. nicole. >> good afternoon. >> i am here today to ask you respectfully for favourable action on the site him we have been negotiating these with your staff. they provide greater water protection for my 1.8 million residents of a 40,000 business -- of the 40,000 businesses in the areas.

we rely on your system. these amendments are the result of 14 negotiation meetings and dozens of subgroups negotiating meetings between my staff and the staff and general manager. the staff had negotiated expertly and cooperatively these agreements before you. i really appreciate their efforts. this has been a significant effort on behalf of everybody. if you act favourably today, i will immediately notify the board of your action and ask the bodies of each of the 26 agencies to approve adoption of the amendments promptly. i believe these amendments will measurably improve the delivery bleat of our high quality water from the system where it is needed by member agencies. thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any public comment on the item? the agent has been moved and

seconded. i will call for a vote. the motion carries. next item, please. >> i will read item 18 and 19 together. >> thank you. it is a discussion of possible action to approve the 2018 proposed baseline budget for the enterprise capital improvement program and item 19 is possible action to improve the 2018 proposed baseline scope budget for the improvement program. >> colleagues? >> move to approval. >> did recall them jointly? >> yes. >> eighteen and 19. >> it has been moved and seconded. we will call for public comment. >> i am back again. i request that you do not approve the water enterprise

capital improvement program 2018 proposed baseline for individual projects over $5 million. and include project 10033816, westside portable exhilarating water supply system. this project is to replace an outdated domestic main with a new seismically upgraded pipeline so the p.u.c. can't access the general obligation bonds intended to be used for firefighting. this project has no funding underlies voters to pass a geo- bond in 2020. the staff report does not tell you this but i have proof. the project is wrong on three counts. first uses our drinking water for firefighting post earthquakes when we need to conserve this valuable water for human uses after an earthquake. just in case the water fails to reach as after crossing four at fault lines. mandated by law to share this water with our joint owners down the peninsula. second, we need unlimited

amounts of water to put out fires after an earthquake, and the volume at sunset reservoir will not be nearly enough to fight all of the predicted simultaneous broken gas line ignited fires pick we need a pump station at the ocean to feed water into our exhilarating water system so we never run out during the critical first hours of the quake. third, i object to using general fund money to pay for capital projects like replacing old pipelines the p.u.c. should pay. our city bonds should be used to finance the building the ocean water pump station and expanding the auxiliary water system to protect the western and southern parts of the city. for these reasons, i urge the commission not to adopt the resolution for the 2018 baseline as proposed, and to delete the westside pipeline project from the local water system plaid.

this is the only time i can make this request to you. the public comment to be made on the specific projects. please do not approve this project and please record my strong objection to the precedent of misusing geo- bond money for your pipeline replacement responsibilities. i want to leave you also with my proof so you understand these are geo- bonds that are supposed to be paying for the sunset pipeline. this is wrong to use this money for your projects. we should be buying ocean water. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> i am here on my own behalf. for the record, i agree and concur with the previous speaker i am opposed to the pipeline project. i attend the capital planning

meetings. and a number of these meetings i have strongly opposed the westside sunset pipeline project i have spoken in opposition both in general public comment and in public comment for specific generalized items. at these meetings, the s.f. p.u.c. assistant general manager for infrastructure was present. it could be seen as a lack of full disclosure that these facts are not included in the presentation or in the pocket. i am also opposed to the provision of this resolution that allows the general manager to unilaterally proceed with projects and not included in this resolution without coming back to the commission for approval. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i am a retired assistant at the san francisco fire department. a total of 39 years of service to the city. as a career firefighter, i'm in

complete agreement with remarks made to that the water enterprise capital improvement program should not be approved unless the westside water system is deleted from its. the p.u.c. is engineering post- earthquake fires and has predicted between 70 and 120 simultaneous fire citywide following the magnitude 7.9 earthquake. the model line which it is predicated. it is also predicted between 20 and 30 post- earthquake fires. the sunset reservoir would have a discharge capacity of 14,000 gallons per minute to cover the entire out to richmond and sunset. given that each hydrant has a capacity of 4500 gallons per minute to, the p.u.c. staff is therefore proposing a plan that could supply only three hydrants and full capacity for these two

neighbour his diverse neighbourhoods. is expected to fight 20-30 simultaneous fires with only three hydrants. will be mathematically and physically impossible. it is a simple but inconvenient fact for even common sense to interfere. this display of civic folly would all be quite amusing, except for the inevitable loss of life, property and the tax base that it will cause following a bay area earthquake. in my opinion, to pretend that a system will be adequate for firefighting is disingenuous, unethical and unconscionable. it is time to put a stop to this joke. it is time to end the premise that the plan is anything other than an attempt to redirect general obligation earthquake bonds money to fund the construction of replacement water means by this enterprise department and it is time to recognize that it has no rational application in fighting post- earthquake fires.

the p.u.c. fails to extend the actual auxiliary water supply system to all city neighbourhoods using the inexhaustible amount of seawater that exists on three sides of the city. firestorms will destroy the entire residential neighbourhoods in the west seven parts of the city. thousands of residents trapped in partially collapsed buildings will burn to death before they can be rescued. no amount will change this. is a firefighter, i urge you to not approve the westside one. you will not provide sufficient water. thousands if not tens of thousands of lives will be saved or lost depending on your decision on this matter. considered this as the survival of our city depended on it because i assure you it will.