cost benefit of the renovations an determined due to critical issues in the building's mechanical system and the way it was laid out we didn't have confidence renovations would hit the mark in what we were trying to achieve. at that same time and in parallel, the agency just acquired the property at 1550 evans with the initial intention to house all the wastewater operation folks together but recognizing the unique opportunity we had, we decided to embark on a nine-month, multi-pronged stakeholder process to ask their preference to continue on oakdale or embark on building a new center at 1550 evans. the results were clear but i'd lake to take a moment to recap for you all what we did in the

engagement process. again, it was nine months. we had four key strategies where we focussed on grassroots outreach knocking on over 2500 doors. we partnered with over 1600 community organizations to get a diversity of input. we cultivated a lot of followers and people chimed in to tell us their opinion of how we're doing and lastly cultivating a group of community leaders who followed us during the nine months deeply. the there was the southeast commission and committees an community leaders. and the next slide is a quick snapshot of the community partners i spoke of but the results speak for themselves. the main finding as you win

overwhelming majority, 71% of the community said build new at 15150 -- 1550 input and we tracked the input to make sure our engagement was equitable and representative of our diverse communities two of three respondents not only lived in the community but the 92414 zip code referenced in the mitigation and we had 45% participation from african americans and in the face of gentrification and change in the community, more than a quarter of the folks that participated have lived in the community as long as 1800 oakdale has existed as a community center. breadth and depth to the outreach. to further memorialize the mandate to build new at 1550 evans, the southeast community commission and our advisory commit provided an update to the

commission in 2016 after passing resolutions and on november 2016 this commission affirmed the results of the outreach process and authorizing staff to move forward with planning and design for the new community center at 1550 evans. since that time, staff has continued our engagement with the community and stakeholder bodies like yours and i want to give a snapshot what that's looked like. we've had 67 touch points with this commission with the week in review and three direct presentations and had over 16 different presentations to the public at large. another key way we continue the engagement with the community is through our art enrichment doll as.

i'd like to summarize some of that and we created an art master plan for our sewer system up improvement program. all the projects are under the art ordinance we've been working on this art master plan with which he community and to date we have 330 local artists in the registry being utilized not by just the p.u.c. but other agencies are utilizing it to make sure the enrichment dollars are supporting local art. we have local artive -- artists that will hang art in the new center and we'll provide a detailed update on the artists but the first is an artist from

bayview-hunters point and has proposed photo collage mural commemorating the big fix. it looks like a fresher more technologically advanced mural than oakdale so enthusiasm about carrying that legacy forward and the second is proposing a cool process as part of our artwork where she's going to do interviews with long-term residents of bayview-hunters points and give their memorabilia from photos and use that in her art and it will hang on the wall in the large community room.

lastly, the work has been recognized and it's way to educate and continue to engage the community and a very powerful tool we're proud to be utilizing. lastly, we wanted to talk about the key component of this mitigation as it relates to our plans at 1550. that's to say the obligation we're under to provide opportunities for community members and skill building. currently at oakdale we have three tenant the head start for our youngest learners, a charter school which is primarily high school and city college of san francisco. so i mentioned in 2011 we did the initial assessment that set us down this road. at the same time we started dialoguing with city college to asked how to improve at oak dale

and have the offers aligned with the job opportunities in the community and we wanted to partner with city college but in the seven years city college has gone through their own change and turmoil and four different chancellors so we're continuing the education and also doing more work internally to assess our own retirement planning and you heard about the work with bay work and what we're doing now is starting to merge those so we can assess as we're preparing our own workforce and trying to get better about the pathways in the p.u.c. for the utility careers how to bring them together and we've launched an internal working group across enterprises an bureaus and we'll reporting back to the executive team in february and will continue to work with city college to see what we can pilot at 1800 oak dale in alignment

with the job opportunities that hopefully will build a strong foundation as we move into 1550 once that's complete. i know i'm out of time. lastly, on the workforce and skill building side we have the ssip internship program that's been successful and applications are open and we encourage everyone to apply and secured three valuable scholarships for residents of the community the mason awards. they're renewable scholarships so if anyone's gotten a scholarship they know what that mens for support and one is based on stem and one is on the life and legacy of he is -- espola jackson and one is for a bay view resident of latino dissent. >> commissioner: thank you. exciting to see it coming together. i'd like a sense of the time line and especially as it relate

to partner. and when you assess interest and when the partnerships can be identified because i like how you're putting it together around the workforce and the broader goals of the p.u.c. i don't have to hear about it now but i'd love to see the time line from groundbreaking to what could be achieved if the right constellation of partner can move into that space. >> i'd be happy come back with more detail and in trying to move fast i skipped over one bullet point relevant to your comment. last year we didn't issue a full r.f.p. but contacted our partner and says what are you doing, what are your best ideas and how

do we make it work. we received a lot of interests tr from various workforce development and various institutions. unfortunately, we only received one response to the r.f.i. in partnership with ssusd and two years of high school application and two years degree and transfer to a four-year degree. the uncertainty within their own academic institution was a road block for moving forward concretely and did see fund agencies the limitation for partners to come to table so we started the internal working group to focus on our needs as well as the community's because we believe when we put them together we'll have a strong project so that's a little bit of an answer to your question and we'll come back with more details as we move forward.

>> i just want to point out the picture of the community center you have and we had one that was in college and our plan is we're building about the same square footage but it would just be the community center and then we're planning for an educational building where community college and maybe san francisco state and unified will build a building or will assist in building an educational building. you'll hear more about this building which is not the educational component. this is more of the community center that we met with the community and we talked about things that will be in that

building. so it's a different building. >> thank you. >> so city college -- what makes this whole thing work is that when we talked about renovating 1800, there was a fear we'd move city college out and they'd never come back and the community was very concerned about it. that's why they wanted us to renovate while city college was there and that's where it became problematic to do any construction while you operate. we try not to do that. if we can close the sewer plant and redo the sewer plant, it will be cheaper but we can't do that, right. so what we talked about is that this is the best scenario because city college can stay there until the educational building

is built and at that time you pick up your pencils an paper and go to another facility. it's not like you're moving them and you have to stop a year while renovating. they'll transfer over. i think that is why the community chose this as the best option. >> for the community center, this building's going to be built first and then the educational center and then 1800 will get torn down? >> the plan with 1800 is to move staff in there and we're still talking about allowing the alex picture room to be there for the community. what we found out in talking to the community is that although they will have a new mitigation which would be this campus building, there was a lot of strong attachments for 1800 because they recognized that was a symbol of their fight and so

they really didn't want us to ca tear it down. >> commissioner: mr. kelly, i have a related question. quite time ago there was a city college campus blocks away. what's the status of that? >> it's more of a vocational school and we're talking about more classroom. in the beginning they used to have more nursing classes and it was very successful. then those class moved to other campuses and then enrollment started dropping. we want to ensure the community center say success and that's why we're looking at what type of training our staff would need

for continuing education to get promotions and and we're talking about what we want to offer and this is close to c.d. distribution and next to the plant. there's a large population of our staff work in those areas. >> commissioner: so they'll coexist? >> yes. >> commissioner: may i call for public comment? seeing none, thank you for the presentation. i like the way you entered the history. it's always nice to track that back. >> all right, the next item is the clean power update. >> i'm barbara hail the

assistant general manager for power. i have upon enrollment and service, rates and the announcement by pg&e and it plans to file for bankruptcy and what that means nor -- for the program. we're continuing to serve customers effectively. in january we added approximately 2,000 accounts. these customers were either signed up for clean power sf the preceding quarter or the solar energy customers and clean power sf is actively serving 1100 accounts with an opt-out percentage of 3.2% since the program began. our super green program continues to be 3.8% of our

active customers. we noy now have just under 4,200 business and residents in san francisco that elected to receive 100% renewable energy from clean power sf. staff is busy preparing for our next autoenrollment of approximately 280,000 accounts. we're more than doubling our program. that will be mostly residential accounts occurring in april of this year. at our last session on december 11, you adopted new clean power sf rates. those rates reduced our green product generation rates by the amount of pg & e's rates and the credit covers the increases in pg&e's exit fees.

it was designed to make sure they can offer an affordable service to both existing and future customers so it's an important step for us as we prepare to enroll that 280,000 customer accounts. given some uncertainty around when pg&e's rates would be finalized the resolution grants the general the authority to decide the rates once it meets the covenants. the board of supervisors exercised their authority under the city chart tore call a hearing to discuss the clean power sf rate's action and that was held last tuesday the 15th and we presented information to the board about the clean power sf program and our plans to complete city wide enrollment this year. the rate actions we were

expecting from pg&e and the operate row proposal to make sure we continue to provide affordable service to customers. the members of the board expressed their support and conclude the meeting without action and we now move to implementation of the rates. we were anticipating when we last met the california p.u.c. would be approving pg&e generation rates but they held the decision and it's now scheduled for a vote january 31. our customers continue to pay the rates they paid before. no rate change yet. we expect the california p.u.c. will vote that decision out and that pg&e after it take 30 days to file the new rates, we'll see new pg&e rates by march 1.

and so we're anticipating to follow their pace for when rates would change. we're not expecting anything to change from the proposal we provided just the lay and implementation. so at this point customers are continuing to pay our current rates and they represent a 2% savings against pg&e's cost after the exit fee. we'll keep updating you as we watch the activities with pg&e rates and our implementation will follow theirs and it brings me to their announcement of bankruptcy. it's been covered in the press this week. we've clear pg&e's planning to

file for bankruptcy by january 29 due to their impending liabilities they face from the state wildfires in 2017 and 2018. they filed january 13 a form 8k at the u.s. securities and exchange commission that described the problem they're facing and why they're intended to file for bankruptcy on or about january 29 and on january 14 as required by state law, pg&e notified employees of it's intent to file for bankruptcy within 15 days. they provide service and outage response, metering, billing and collection service. we do not expect any interruption in service to our clean power sf customers. it is possible however, to the

bankruptcy could interrupt the remittance of clean power sf payments to the city. remember in order to pay us, you pay pg&e who then remits payment to us. while we expect full remittance ultimately we may experience a delay and that they are may present a cash flow challenge for our program. we've been analyzing the potential financial consequences due to the bankruptcy and are work the controller's office on potential mitigations. through attorneys we've received assurances pg&e will timely remitt the revenue received during this time period before bankruptcy. they've indicated that they intend to filed a motion or

motion on or about the first day of their chapter 11 case that would seek the bankruptcy court's thorg to continue the remittance activities describing them as ongoing routine business for them. they state they'd intend to do the metering and billing and collection service to clean water sf and others in their territory. pg&e are optimistic the motions will be approved by the bankruptcy court. of course, the bankruptcy court is who will ultimately decide we expect the bankruptcy to occur january 29 and remittances as

thai come in and the first week after bankruptcy filing we'll learn whether the funds will continue to flow. and with that i'm happy take any questions you may have. thank you. >> commissioner: that's a lot, barbara. commissioners? any public comment on the presentation? seeing none. >> well, that condition includes my report. >> commissioner: all right. next item, please. >> clerk: item 9 is update on the state water board adoption of amendment to the bay delta plan.

>> may i have the slides, please. the assistant general manager for water. today i'll provide an update on the december 12, 2018 adoption of the bay delta plan. in vim -- summary there's affects for the water supply and we stated we think the benefits could be achieved using smart functional flows combined with science-based measures other than flow and we continue to believe voluntary agreements can produce a better overall result. with those thoughts in mind i'll talk about the state water board action december 12.

they did adopt a water quality plan update with the 40% in impaired flow requirement february through june but with important amendments. at the same december 12 meeting the department of fish and wildlife presented updated information on voluntary agreements for the river as well as six other tributaries and included an overall framework agreement. the figure shows the rivers that were involved in that ed -- in that were agreements as a report and highlighted in red is the tuolumne river. i'll focus on that river because

that's the greatest interest to us here. first, the proposal includes the functional flows as we talked about. the flows start from the base of what is in the amended final application. the flows pending before ferc and the relicensing of don pedro is the flow schedule modified november 14 consistent with fish and wildlife services providing additional flow and then as a result of the discussion with the state modified to include increased summer outflows in critical and dry water years and flood plain pulse flows added in all year types plus dry and critical year off-ramps in quence -- sequence with dry year and back off as the water supply

got tighter and tighter. and there's the habitat in proich plan for improvements and it's spilling water more than intended and you heard when we had 3 million acre feet available to the city. almost all of that was quote, spill water. what was called for as part of the fish and wildlife discussion was developing a spill management plan aimed at spilling in a timely fashion that provides for chin hook salmon and there's measures with gravel augmentation and predation management and estimated at a cost of $38 million and the establishment of the improvement program for implementing non-flow measure

resource projects that enhance habitat for the native species. that also quence -- coincidentally improves as part of the amended license application in the ferc proceedings and that part of the package going forward as a voluntary agreement. it also calls nor establishment of the advisory committee which would be the district, san francisco, the fish and wildlife service and fish and wildlife would be part of this and the continues for the ferc and focuses on fish and wildlife as the main entity here. it translates to while the districts are the operators of don pedro, this would invite in

the resource agencies to be part of a management committee provide advice on how to manage the spill and the best way for the environment. that's a big step forward. and developing initial feasibility studies within two years to develop additional supplies for river flows. that could also mean additional supply for the districts in san francisco but the primary focus is on environmental flows. the implementation subject to mutual agreement of the parties but the key things are this would include project are basically under the control of the irrigation districts and they have over the years not been willing to really explore those things. they want people out of their business and now they've put on the table that we could look at

ground water banking there in wet years you could percolate excess water to the ground water basin and utilize that in dry years and provide the water to the tuolumne and you could provide the ability to better manager spill. lastly, inter-basin collaborations on the merced river. for that, i'd like to show the slide that shows basically the geography of the rivers and irrigation districts. the river is in the middle of the slide with new don pedro z reservoir in the middle and sule see them on both sides of the river and there's the oak dale and south is the sean joaquin irrigation district and they both take water off the

stanislaus river and the modesto systems butt up to potentially manager water between the two districts in a way that allows to you effectively manager the stanislaus and tuolumne rivers. m modesto in the past has not wanted to discuss it but they've allowed it to come on the table. that's a big step forward. it's not different from the regional reliability work we're working on with other districts but ties to allow us to better manage resources. then to the south is the merced irrigation district that would be the potential for additional flows from the merced river at certain times that would would help benefit the overall system. the irrigation districts could end up working together and this

could be a big step forward in terms of managing our water and i'm pleased about that. i know people have questions about the amount of flow and what we're concerned about in the framework is if there's going to be money to pay farmers for water, how that would be structured and funded. that would be a water purchase fund. science program. what would be the structure and funding for that including adaptive management details. there's been presentations. that's going to be a place where a lot of action will take place to are non-flow measures being successful and if not, why not, and what can we do to improve the situation potentially through additional flow or modification of the non-flow measures. overall governance and

consequences. that cuts both ways. if we get into a voluntary package there has to be assistance in the permits so delayed implementation isn't the fault of the parties, we need to have relief on that. equally, i think the state is very interested in a regulatory backstop. exactly what that might be is a big question. they're all important questions that need to be resolved fairly rapidly. particularly because the state in their action adopted some important amendments to the plan. one was they were directing their staff to work with the resources agency and completing the delta wathershed wide agreement including agreements for the tuolumne river by march 1 so we have a fairly short time

line. for anybody counting it amounts to 37 days. so we have not got a lot of time and the intent is to look at the set of alternatives as a package for future bay delta plan update for consideration as early as possible certainly by december 1. it's an aggressive time line. the state board action did not have a consequence for missing the march 1 deadline so i'm not sure what that means but it is something we're looking at if there are still things to be resolved we have time to resolve them beyond that. then the other thing we talked about is regardless of how fast or slow the state moves on things, we need to be developing alternative water supplies soon and that we need those for a variety of reasons. partly the in-stream obligations, our existing

shortfall and meeting our customer demand increases. we're trying to accelerate the work and a set of projects an activities to move forward. in a single slide i tried to capture that. on the left side is a set of projects we have been working on and rates of speed and this shows the time line by which they may be developed over time. they're mostly recycled water and transfer and storage options including the calaveres expansion. we think it will take 10 to 20-plus years to implement but we'll bring forward and you'll see the february 12 commission meeting when you look at the c.i.p. adoption going forward that we have in that in the

slide the projects and the packages regardless of where the state ends up on it. moving forward to preserve the options to complete negotiation on the voluntary agreement, we joined the lawsuit with others of the san joaquin tributary process challenging the plan. if the state were not to accept the voluntary agreement what they adopted was the plan we had concerns about all along. nothing changed so this is a protective measure to make sure if that turns out that we preserved our rights and interests and can deal with the situation then but we're very

much hopeful voluntary agreements will work and move forward. we met with folks from the newsom administration and expect to be scheduling a meeting with our bay area people to propose the voluntary agreement and due to the march 1 deadline to submit material to the water board we'll bring information to you at one or both of the meetings and things may happen fairly rapidly as discussions move forward including for a policy level commit action involving the efforts. and as a reminder, the policy considerations we've been using as our guide looks at the water supply level of service and water demand of 265mgd as the contractual obligation and no

more ration than 20% system wide and diversifying our water supply and working with others and for the environment and we're work hard as stewards of the resources we're responsible for. we see two things we need to accomplish and that's what we're committed to. i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> commissioner: yes. >> if you could go back to the slides that begin with the map. one thing i had a hard time following was what elements of this are already in place or required and what are new -- what constitutes new contact in

the voluntary settlement agreement. >> start the functional flows element there even going back further we had the san francisco alternative which was a set of non-flow actions and functional flow measures. that is what we had been working on and had collaboration with the districts on that in the ferc process several years ago and that was march of 2017. >> commissioner: those were proposals for the ferc relicensing proceedings which has not reached conclusion. it does not obligate us. >> that's correct.

>> commissioner: there's the original condition and one amendment to that? >> that's correct. that's the true baseline now. >> commissioner: that's the true baseline and determines our operations at the moment and water in the river when and where it's the old agreements -- >> with the 1995 agreement the latest update to that. >> commissioner: within the ferc negotiation there's some things we proposed and my assumption is whatever was ordered would not be less than that. they're things to consider. >> we were expecting some papers to come out before 2018. the most recent word we heard

second-hand with the district is they were going to release it but with the shutdown they're not releasing it until it's over whenever that is. we don't know what's in that package. the amended final license agreement was amended once there was the interaction with fish and wildlife. they had an amendment to that in november and ferc may have added things based on other people comments. we don't know what's in that yet. there may be additional requirements. this is the district's preferred project in the finalized

amendment. >> commissioner: how far down the page does it continue? >> the functional flow page and the flow schedule included summer outflows and critical and dry years came out of the state discussion and the flood pain pulse flow came out of the discussions with the state as well. they're the additions on top of what's on top of the mended final license application. >> commissioner: and those are both additional flows in the river with wet water. in the face of the increased summer outflows in critical and dry years there was a balancing of sorts. there was a reduction in the minimum outflow in wet and above normal years which in most normal years there's far more water in the river than the minimum required but it did add

the equal amount in the dry years when the water is critical. >> commissioner: okay. was that a balance? >> it probably didn't mean much on the wet side and means a lot of on the dry side. >> commissioner: and the additional management is that water that will spill anyway? >> it's water that would spill anyway but spilled in a fashion cognizant of how to obtain flood plain benefits with that. >> commissioner: is there risk ed with that we might release water where we wish we hadn't? >> there might be but i think collectively in the world we're getting better when's going to be dry and wet you think the risk we have to worry about

there is making sure we're maintaining flood protection for managing the releases and holding off on those releases and adversely affecting flood protection. >> commissioner: when you talk several slides later about developing additional water, help me understand. that's a program, as i understand, you're presenting as a combination of water that was being made available to the fishery and water that would meet other needs the system has? >> i think we would clearly have to make water available in the fishery.

there there's the potential for other projects that could come to san francisco and/or the districts. >> commissioner: so i will put not words in my mouth but out of my mouth, right now there's a real tension and conflict between providing water for the fishery and meeting needs that we and our customers have. is this trying to resolve that conflict? >> it's trying to resolve that conflict, yes. i think we could have a bias towards let's make sure the majority of that water is developed for the environment and i think that's where we would want to see it go. the agreement so far just talked about environmental water. it's not specific beyond that but i think that's why the phrase implementation is subject to mutual agreement of the parties is code words for details to be worked out exactly

so folks are comfortable with it from both sides. >> commissioner: and in the conversation amongst ourselves about what we do in the face of either if the negotiations don't proceed quickly enough or fail or if we're tied up in litigation for a while, what do we do in the meantime? when we talk about meeting our obligation there's consideration of how do we do the right thing for the fishery in spite of the regulators and regulations not being embolden quickly and going far enough, fast enough for us. you don't directly address that in here. >> it's not directly addressed in here. certainly i know the feeling among us and i believe as well with the districts is everybody's interested in early implementation as a sign of good

faith. we're committed to this stuff and as the processes play out, if they're going to take time, we would like to move forward. moving forward always involves design and environmental review and the projects are basically in the tuolumne river and modesto would be responsible but in terms of funding the projects and allowing them forward, i think all three agencies are very interested in doing that and only a current disruption the regulatory projects would cause us to change our minds on that. >> commissioner: one last question. we are focussed on the tuolumne and because of the state action we've been focussed on the lower san joaquin and three tribes. the proposal that came to the

state board was basically a northern california plan. how independent are we and our actions of that larger plan? >> that's an excellent question. >> commissioner: thank you. do you have an excellent answer? >> it was written as a delta watershed moment and the merced river did not reach an agreement with the state so it was not included. there was some uncertainty at the end if the tuolumne river would be included as part of the package and how it would. it was listed there. a version of the draft agreement was included in the package that was put together. i think those discussions as they go forward, we have not

looked at anybody else's and we're starting to now. they were all covered by non- s non-disclosure agreements and there were no details available on the framework so we're just starting to get to that point to look at it together and see if we go some place. certainly, it is an odd position because by adopting the plan for the three tribs as they did, the entities on those three tributaries solve the regulatory crunch which is why the san joaquin authority sued turlock, oak dale and san francisco and m modesto and merced filed on their own. i believe the san joaquin filed on their own. we're a unique set in that we're

all the ones that have the actual risk of potentially adverse regulatory action at this time. so there's a lot of work still to be done among all the parties to get somewhere on this. >> thank you. >> i have a couple questions. thank you, for your presentation. i appreciate it. so i had some similar questions around the strategy and plan and time line for early implementation because i feel quite strongly these conversations and though there are short time lines in here could potentially drag on and meanwhile the fish are in trouble. so i would like to hear the next meeting more specifics on what that process would look like if indeed it's an e.i.s. that needs to be released, how that could

happen. how quickly can we begin early implementation and what would that look like? >> we can present at the next meeting. >> commissioner: thank you. i know we'll be talking at the next meeting about the remarks i brought up in december i guess it was. one of those that's been lingering and continues to haunt me is the question of peer review. i don't know if and when it's appropriate for that to happen for us to really understand. it seems it should be part and parcel of the early implementation strategy to get a better understanding what the chances are for early implementation to succeed. and it feels like the best way to understand that is through some kind of appear-review process we've been talking about for some time and would have hoped would have been done by now and i don't know what the plan is for that and who will be doing that piece of the work.

>> we have been talking with the irrigation districts. as we discussed, they're the ones who develop the model of the direction of ferc. let's be clear, that's just the model. a model is just a model. one of my favorite sayings is all models are wrong and some are useful because they really give an indication of what you should do than the one and only answer. i put that big caveat on opposed to a peer review of the entire package of things. it's about the model. that's the technical question. and so on that, i have an answer by the next meeting as well as to where we're going to go on that because that would be a nice thing to be able to say here's some clarity on that. >> and there's relevant pieces

or what that's going to look like and by when would be helpful as well. i had a question on one of these slides. you say the agreement of the interested parties, what is it, implementation is subject to mutual agreement of the parties. who are those parties? that's the slide relative to the -- slide eight. >> the parties at that point the department of fish and wildlife and department of resources an turlock and modesto irrigation services in san francisco. >> and i know there's been this constant question about stakeholder engagement or n.c.l. participation. i think you put in the next two weeks the conversations will take place as well. will there be an opportunity for

and i'd imagine it'd be limited but if there's some significant issue identified or flagged by somebody from the n.g.o. community or another stakeholder within the next couple weeks. >> i'll give you my interpretation of what the state board order means they'd like final agreements by march 1. march 1 is really soon. will that be the final word on this? there's analysis, there's process. the analysis of the agreement may come back and may show that yeah, there are particular things that ned to be done differently. there may be some weaknesses shown there we all have to confront and deal with. i think until the state board adopts something, it's all open

to some kind of discussion. i would say i think the advantage of the time lines is that makes people get serious as we found that it took even now with participation and it took three weeks to where they got to before december 12. march 1 is a good deadline to have to make sure people are serious about talking about this and coming to some kind of at least resolution that looks promising that would be analyzed and hopefully there's the scrutiny but if not we have to deal with that. >> and i don't know the role this commission will play. i know a lot of these proceedings have taken place behind doors for confidentiality reasons and we even as a commission are a little bit late

in coming up to speed as are other stakeholders and n.g.o. community and the deadline and i appreciate it pushes everybody to engage and learn what they need to learn. i don't know if this commission is going to need to take a position at some point on the v.s.a. approving or weighing in in some way. i would hope we get as much as information as possible if we're to weigh in and if not we can at least express our views and opinions on the v.s.a. as a final document. then i have one last question. it's partly because i don't understand to commissioner moran's point, i'm not quite following and sure now's the time because i'm taking it offline or hearing bit at the next meeting. what is currently mandated

either by the feds or state or by some of our current programs that we have already authorized or regulations we authorized both from the water perspective and from the habitat restoration perspective. it seems some projects in the v.s.a. are ones we either already approved or are in the middle of being constructed. i don't know if it's designed to bring those to light and make sure they're part of an agreement. are they being counted as possible mitigation measures. >> the measures proposed there and again these are the habitat projects for non-flow measures and talk about the $38 million for certain specified measures. those are ones proposed.

they have not been authorized or implements yet and that's in the irrigation district final application and a separate $38 million pot of money to be managed for other projects. basically in their final license application and aquatic weed control and one other i can bring to mind those aren't been approved by anybody yet or designed or implemented and one question that's not yet been answered which we'll have to answer at some point which i