there's a change on the second page. for clarification and consistency through the documents. with that, i'd be happy to answer any questions about the over all process and about what the analysis shows for us. >> ok, first of all, let's do the over all analysis. questions, comments? what approach do you think we should take? >> so, madam chair, since you already mentioned this is all going to be bundled because of the same metrics that we're asked for at the last meeting to be continued, maybe just for ex speeden see i would make a motion to move all of these, just to move it forward even though there's an indication that some people want to pull something. >> just to clarify, when you call items together, we still provide three minutes public comment for each of the five items. you just call it all each item

individually for public comment or you can do a lump sum public comment of up to 15 minutes per person since there were five items. >> i was trying to be expedient. >> don't you want to discuss the general concept of the three scenarios? >> certainly. if there are questions i would be happy to answer those about the whole process, which is a challenging process. >> so let's address that first. >> at the last meeting, i had raised two issues with the analysis. one was the difference between the wsa planning and the one we used for our system. it's been corrected in the revised document and the other was to make clear i what the

treatment was of these individual projects that we weren't coming up with a mechanism that was unique to these four or five projects that it was within a structure of class where they would be treated he cannily within their class. those changes have been made as well. >> that's correct. >> so, i'm satisfied that both of the issues that i was concerned about have been addressed and the revised draft. >> so, my question is do we answer it with scenario one and then note -- i mean right now scenario one is in effect? >> we answer it for all the scenarios. we provide that information that was the challenge that the last few months of how exactly we write that out and i think we

wanted to give the planning department the full range of possible outcomes so they can disclose that in the environmental document. >> this is what we will do? >> that's correct. >> so the reason that we chose to do it this way, is because any other way we would have to wait to see what the final outcome is. by doing it this way, we can say these are the likely outcomes and that is where we are at right now so we can give it back into planning and as they do the seceqa, they'll go through that process. so we give them all the information that we have at this point in time. >> so that's my question. one of my questions. so, will they be analyzed as part of the e.i.r. and or ceqa process? >> i'd like to -- >> i'm not sure if they will

analyze all three scenarios. >> i don't know what they will chose tchose to do. it's their choice of what they do with the information. >> i would say this information is public so if, as part of the ceqa, anyone who has some concerns they know that we've identified three scenarios to the public. >> as far as timing goes, i know that we're really hurrying as fast as we can for the fish and diversification to reach agreement with the state. because of this 40% mandate that is hanging out there. do you have a sense of timing on how quickly we can reach conclusion on that and how that might lineup with the seek request process. it would be great to have a sense of where that agreement is going to land. >> as far as where the land and the state produce was requesting

that the state board had something to consider. we have an effective progress port. we and all the other participants have a progress report due june 30th. when that is actually produced we might have more to say. i can just speak again as i mentioned before, mr. carland is not here today because he is in sacramento, as he is every tuesday and thursdays in discussions on these. there are lots of issues that need to be worked through and i would not hassard to guess. i will say personally that some days i'm feeling really positive and some days i'm feeling negative because of the ebb and flow. how it fits into someone's ceqa process. our processes take a long time. hopefully it would inform the ceqa process with the results. we do kno don't know that yet.

we can't just wait and wait and wait for the answer to come. we need to be prepared for all the answers. >> i understand. it seems like december 1st, is the deadline that you are working with at the state level and ceqa, for all intents and purposes, most likely will take longer than that. there is the opportunity once one of these scenarios is more clearly identified or defined to potentially say ok now we know it will be scenario two and do some of our planning internally from that as far as -- >> absolutely. when we know the answer that will give us a clearer path forward that we can focus our energy on instead of being prepared to go down these pathways. regardless, we're getting work now in the water supply projects. >> being none, can you give me

one of the main reasons why the water supply assessment changed? >> well, when you say changed -- >> it went -- it's why wore going through this situation. something is different than in the past. >> this was a major planning effort by the state water resources confirm board for improvement of the habitat and the san jaoquin river and including the tuolumne river. they have another plan for the sacramento riverside so they're looking at large scale the bay tell ddelta system the state bos been going through that planning pos for a while. we have commented on it. we made a proposal of an alternative arrangement we thought was providing better benefits for the aquatic environment and still still not

harm our water supply as much. they took an action last december and that action was to adopt the plan as they proposed which we thought possibly wouldn't prove the result with the water supply but they left the door open for voluntary agreements to be reached. that's where we're in some uncertainty where it might end up but we have an adopted path and it's set and we understand it. the sacramento riverside is involved in all the discussions but they don't have a plan adopted so it makes an odd conversation where wildfire a consequence and they don't have a consequence. it creates two possible futures for us. within where you our water supply is more secure than thane other. we need to be prepared for both alternatives because we don't know where these processes will

end. >> why would the state put us in an awkward position -- i mean, do they just do that and they say ok, you just make it work? is that how it goes? or do they do a lot of planning and did they do research and they really did a lot to come up with this and not take any -- and not back down at all? other than to say -- >> you will hear a lot of different perspectives on that. my perspective on is they put out a draft plan in october of 2016 and we and many others submitted major comments on that. time passed and in july of 2018 they put a revised plan with no revisions in it. it was unchanged so we decide the the path we will go down and you can make it work.

>> it's complicated. as you listen to the public speakers you will understand the difference. it's difficult to come in as a new commissioner and comprehend these things. right off the bat. i think you will learn more as we start to go to each individual item and have public comment starting with item 13 and i have a speaker card from peter. >> good afternoon. policy director for the tuolumne river trust. i would love to meet with you commissioner max well and explain our side of the story. i think you will find us very different than what you hear from staff.

so i appreciate the commission taking a little extra time to look at the water supply assessments. and also i think staff responded to concerns i had. there's only so much you can do at this stage and it's an honest assessment that will go to the planning department and planning commission that we don't know what is going to happen. i think what we're going to see is that there's going to be questioning how can we approve development projects. if there's a chance that we would have to face 50% rationing, the bay tell da water quality control plan, 40% instream flow was adopted in december and that's really what we need to base decisions on. so developers are going to start looking at, well what is this design drought that some people call the double drought or franken drought. they're going to learn that it's

really pretty random that sfpuc combine the two worse droughts from the latter half of the last century and it requires rationing holding up projects. we modeled what would happen if the bay delta plan 40% unimpaired flow went into effect. demand rebounded to where it was before the drought so about 12% higher than in the last year. and we experienced the six-year drought of record, 1987 to 1992 and we found we could manage that drought with 10% rationing. it's different than the 50% you just heard. the difference is how long you are planning for and what the demand is. if i could have the overhead projector, the drought is

killing the tuolumne river. 16, 8% so in the five years of the drought, only 12% of the unimpaired flow made it down the river. we had 2017, which was a big water year. we only needed -- we were one year shy of having full capacity. six years worth of water. and we had the right to 12 years worth of water. >> thank you. >> i would like at some point through the chair and general manager to actually have a

conversation about the design draft. we keep, you know, i really don't understand it all that well and it comes up and i think it's relevant to these conversations with the state. i don't know if i just need off line to be briefed or what but i know the other commissioners would probably be interested in understanding that as well. and i know it's been a policy on the books for a while. it would be great to get the data collected and to really have a more in-depth understanding. >> i'm going to mention what i said before. this is an assessment. we're not making a full judgment of where this goes through the planning process. i think that the department, even though i'm the new guy here also, feels that there's been a lot of good work that is done that is talking about what the metrics are and commissioner moran asked for some metrics to be presented at this particular meeting, which is why i did make the motion at the beginning to bundle these all up and welcomen

pull them. that's where i am at. i'm hoping we're learning as much as i can about this commission. and the assessment of all the utilities. >> i want to talk about the eight and a half drought. we explained to the commissioners that were here about the eight and a half year drought. it was part of ceqa. you actually, when we asked you you supported it because reducing from eight and a half to lower, you thought it wasn't a good thing to do. i don't understand -- >> i just want an update on where that's at. we've had a big rain year, right. get the current -- when was that that we had that conversation? it's been some years now, right? >> it was recently. my issue is that one rainy season or two back-to-back

doesn't neglect the fact that across the nation, the country, they've been having droughts. severe droughts. and so i mean, that's where i'm just baffled. >> i'm not saying there's any reason to change at this point. i just want another conversation where we are. i know the state is going to five years. so i'm interested in that. i don't know where that came from and why that is happening. i appreciate that. i just wants to under better and it doesn't need to be in this public forum. i'm happy to get briefed by the staff but i would like to request an update on the design draft. >> i would like to say as president, we have to keep this an track. granted, if you want that and it's an issue we discussed manyy times. i have to stay on track and that

really has nothing to do with the five issues we have before us. if that is acceptable with you. >> yes. i disagree they don't have anything to do with the items but i'm happy to continue. >> it doesn't. clearly the planning commission has asked us about the water situation and we've given them an answer. it has nothing to do with your feeling about how we came about the eight and a half years. it has no baring, i'm sorry but it doesn't. we will discuss ta at a calender meeting. >> thank you. >> good. >> the point of order, the five items that are being called together, you were saying that we can either do three minutes per item or we can do 15 minutes for someone --

>> i'm calling for public comment now. >> i understand that. peter just ran out of time. >> that's correct. >> at the end of three minutes. if you were doing all of your comments for the five items at one time, it might make sense to give you the courtesy of lumping those five times together. >> perhaps you'd like to put in speaker card for the next item? >> i'm trying to do these in order. we're talking about item 13 and i'm calling for public comment. is there any other public comment? ok. let's move to item 14. any public comment on 14? you would like to speak? ok. stay up there. 14, 15, 16. >> ok. >> i appreciate that.

i appreciate you recognizing that. going back a little bit to your question, commissioner maxwell, in 2009, the state passed the reform act and that triggered an update to the bay delta water quality control program which hadn't really been chain since 1995. and the first was flow criteria study to look at how much water needs to flow down these rivers to sustain healthy fish and wildlife populations. for the san jaoquin river that the tuolumne feeds, the conclusion was 60%. that want wasn't a recommend addition. this is what fish and wildlife need. the currently only about 20% makes it down the river and what the state water board did l. it was intentional or not was split the difference and ask for 40%. the sfpuc as opposed that. we feel like the information

that went into that decision has been flawed. i disagree there's not a connection with the design drought because i think this is going to be a much more public issue and developers and the mayor and the bay area council will say why can't we just change the design drought. and it's all back on the state to protect us in the time of if we do have a worse drought than we had, to require irrigation districts to sell water to san francisco. the sfpuc can't really lobby for that because of the 1995 side agreement that basically says san francisco will follow the lead should have irrigation districton fish flows.there ared environmental groups. we can make sure there's a backstop there. to just to finish my comments on why the design drought is so bad is the sfpuc only releases the minimum flows, that's the way

things are right now. we're hoping some day there's unimpaired flows. only the minimum flows between 2012 and 2016, five years, the river saw only 12% on average. at the height of the drought in 2015, there was enough water and storage to last three years and in 2016, it was an average water year. we provided water to the whole service area and built up another two years worth of water. so going into 2017, we only needed one year's worth of water and 12 came down. the following year we had three years worth of water. this year it's probably going to be four years worth of water. the storage replenish quickly and if we work together, we can have a healthy river and a healthy economy. so we will continue working with the planning department and planning commission on this. thank you. >> good.

thank you. any other speakers for item 14? my name is adele and i'm on your list later. i didn't realize it was a batching situation. i did my research getting stuff off line on item 15. since they're batched, i wonder if you would answer a question. did i hear you say that of the five items batched that four of them were on your agenda before and the item 15 is the first time today? so it's not really an equitable situation, seems to me? and another is that are these projects, since i've never occurred to me to research them as well, are they equivalent size and is that important in

this process or is it just not? do you have water supplies going to two units versus 1500 units and that is batchable? >> the planning commission has requested from us our assessment of would there be enough water. we are answering them. simple as that. even if the projects are different in size? >> yes. >> yes. >> ok. >> i'll be back. >> there is a certain minimum size requirement for water supply assessment to be done. i don't recall it off the top of my head. these are not all alternative development units or two-unit buildings and things like that. these are substantial

developments state wide that requires a water supply assessment. >> thank you. >> any other public comment on item 14? before i move on, i would just like to say something. you know, we had water during those years because of one reason and that is because we have very good water management. we're a water agency. we know what we're doing. water management is very important. and mr. richy, because of his skills, his talents, that's why we had water. that's why we had water. that's my assessment. >> also, andy was there when he couldn't sleep at night with the drought. he firsthand understands about the drought scenario planning. >> i'll just say that the design

drought is a fundamental piece of how we think about water supply and it's important that while the commissioners fully understand it and are comfortable with it and whatever form it takes it's worth taking the time to do that. it does and has been characterized as being random. i would say it's informed by experience and that different and it came from very hard-earned experiences. take the time to be briefed. ask questions. if it's a public hearing, we can do that and if it is. >> i apologize. mr. moran was the general manager when i first came on this commission. i should know, right. thank you. ok. let's move ahead to item 15. i have two speaker cards.

madeline mueller. >> how do you do? many know me as a musician but my family are full of mechanic allen guinears and plumbers and it's a major topic around our table. i did the research. i thought i did the 41 pages about our project. and came up with some comment at the end of research which troubled me because i thought the process here was to agree that water supply in the lower balboa reservoir will meet the needs of the residents. at the end of the research, i will quote the report, this wsa

does not verify the adequacy of existing distribution system capacity to serve the proposed project and another quote, any information submitted to the sfpuc for preparation for this wsa does not fulfill the requirements for the non portable water ordinance which is something that i've also followed a lot because of the fire dangers of what we call pneumonia gulch, which is a lot of extremely powerful air that comes through that particular reservoir area and forms a major fire hazard. so it's beyond, as i understood this report, not just drinking water but safety water. i didn't see that in the report. so, it seems to me that given this is your first time looking at this particular area, there could be a postponement of this. i realize the postponement and i had the quote that a delay in approving this agenda item will

result in the inability of the sf planning department to complete the environmental review and for the proposed balboa reservoir project and i think the work inability is strong. it would delay it. given the complexities of the area and i've been there in that neighborhood for a long time, 50 plus years, it's very complex and as i said, it's possibly very dangerous to not have both portable and not portable supplies and i didn't have a comfort factor after reading the report of this and i'm hearing things today who i see why didn't have a factor but i don't think it's unappropriate. >> thank you. >> the next speaker --

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here to request a postponement of approval of the water supply assessment because it is premature to have a ceqa evaluation before we understand how much water all of the large building projects already in the pipeline will need. the water supply assessment that you have before you does not consider the aggregate impact in the needs of all of the already pending large housing developments that are already in the pipeline such as hunters point shipyard project, mission bay, mission rock, sunny dale hope sf, visitation valley, pier

70, executive port as well as others. furthermore, as you know, there are lawsuits pending all of which we do not have the outcome of. but which will effect the viability of water supply to this proposed 1,550 unit project. so, also, as you know, the state is requiring a major cuts in our water supply from the tuolumne and the san jaoquin river to preserve fish habitat. i know that the puc is trying to find a loose bu solution but yot have one yet. there could be a 20% cut or more in our water supply which is a serious issue. so until the solution is found, the puc should not approve water assessments for large projects because you are relying on that old data and you don't have the solution and not to mention i'd like to rewind you that you have not taking a consideration all the of the projects in the pipeline already and so we ask

you to postpone approval of this water supply assessment. thank you. >> please postpone it today. thank you. until these points were brought up by chairman mueller are resolved. thank you. >> mr. richy, can i ask you a question? so, when we passed these w.s.a.s and they go to the planning commission, and we keep doing them and we keep giving them the scenario -- [ please stand by ]

>> again, the new housing and job projections that, you know, the planning department has been working on, so we see that big picture again there. we are taking into account, on a regular basis, as well as planning has to take into account as part of their analysis under ceqa. both for water and for all city services and things like that. we do keep a careful account of these. i believe at our next commission meeting, there will be two more of these. i would say we average about one every couple of meetings. we have a bunch now because we have been trying to figure out, since december, exactly how to present this in a way that is meaningful to the planning department and for the public to see things. we have to keep track regularly.

we have enough options now that we think that we can still move forward, but as we get to a decision point, that will change will continue to pursue water supply to make sure we have that and one port relative to one of the comments that was provided, we may, in many cases, have to redistribute this station to allow water to flow there. that is a common practice in all of these. if and when the project is approved, at that point, we would get into the analysis of the distribution system that was talked about. that is not a bad thing about our distribution system, it was just not built to handle something that wasn't there.

when it was there, it will be done. >> those demello -- developments that were brought up, like hunter's shipyard, and all of those, where those part of the 2015 watershed? >> i believe almost all of those were, and they have been, as they started the development process, they have had their own assessment as well. >> thank you, that is helpful. so since our job at the p.u.c. is to supply water -- >> yes. >> would we ever say, no, we can't? or would we just do whatever we need to do to do it? is there some point we are thinking, wait a minute, we need to make a real reassessment on this. that is the genesis of the urban modern management plan. we had to do this back in the eighties. we are just saying, yes, i'm not knowing for sure.

this is a concerted effort by california to shift that's a people are really doing good planning for water. we do a good job there. would we say no, there is not enough if we foresee that we can't provide that water, that is most of the jobs that i have is to provide that water. that is now why we have a whole set of new capital of money to pursue a lot of different projects, which are listed out in the items here. that's one of our paths, is to develop different sources of water, different ways to recycle it, desalination, transfers with other agencies, we are pursuing all of those options to make sure we do have enough water, regardless of what the demand is >> so are we looking at per person, how many gallons each person uses? >> yes. >> so we say, right, if we add another, i am just saying, if we

add another 20,000 -- 300,000 people or so to san francisco, we would do that calculation and figure out -- >> they are all just numbers. you do the calculation, and then , you know, you get cracking >> but we have a contractual obligation for a certain amount. if we can't meet that, then for sure we would have to -- >> for wholesale customers, we have a contractual obligation to provide them 184 million gallons per day. we currently don't have that demand, but they are projected to reach that in the future. that is one of the things we have separate. >> thank you. we are still are working on speaker cards. frighten 15 -- for item 15,

harry bernstein. >> thank you, commissioners. i must say that i appreciate missioner maxwell's concern. when would -- i must say that i appreciate commissioner maxwell 's concern. the issues that will be on the november ballot will either increase the demand for funding for housing -- so when will this come to the limits? i realize that some of these stats, what they are trying to do is figure out what those limits are. i also agree that of the concept brought up, that understanding design drought, which is a new concept to me, is obviously critical for the understanding of the new commissioners, in particular.

it was not dismissed, i would say, but it was kind of like we have been there, done that, and new people just had to swim along. i think your concern is certainly appropriate that it be brought up whether in private -- i think the public would appreciate knowing more about that. the other ideas, the health of the rivers, i think it is not being fully considered. the state's water quality control plan asked for 40% unimpeded flow, and this is a compromise of an optimal of 60% flow. we have had recent flows as low as 12 to 20% that have heart occurred for many years -- that have occurred for many years. putting many fish and wildlife at risk. with that in mind, i would ask you to delay the approval of

this water plan for least four number 15. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other speakers for this item? moving now to item 16, are there any public speakers on item 16? and then item 17? all right. is there any further discussion, commissioners? >> i had requested that there was some a language that could be included and the staff was kind enough to draft an amendment to one of the whereas clauses for all of these w.s.a. items. through the chair, if i could reintroduce this amendment.

>> this is an amendment to the resolution, it is the whereas that starts, i think it is -- i can't really toggle here, it is on your resolution, and begins with, on march 26, 2019, i believe it is the third resolution from the bottom. can you help me? >> second from the bottom. >> second from the bottom.

>> i will read that amendment. it is not that different. on march 26th, 2019 by resolution 190057, which is the resolution be passed on that date, this commission endorse the continued participation in the voluntary agreement negotiation process and stated its intent that the terms of any final voluntary agreement would improve the health of the fisheries and maintain the reliability of its water supply including a maintenance of its level of service of no more than 20% systemwide rationing and. >> i have a question about that. >> it is pretty much consistent with the resolution that we referenced so we pulled out that

language out of the resolution that we referenced. >> i move that. >> thank you. >> i have a question. we are going to vote on this individual. so does that mean that we have to change this whereas in every -- yes, it does. >> and a question through the chair, is this a -- is this substantive or we can move everything today by just adding the fish? >> yeah. >> we have to add that to every. >> i think we can vote on the amendment. >> can we batch the amendment? i move that all five items, include that amendment to get things rolling.

>> the motion carries. >> now i make a motion. >> before you make a motion, may you go over one more time what we are doing? i mean, for the public, for me, i am new, and you have gone through it a million times i'm sure, and tim really has a good grasp on it, i'm sure the building trades have been talking -- talking to them.

>> perhaps mr. ritchie should make it. >> again, what the commission is considering is water supply assessment relative to development proposal for the planning commission for which they are about to begin the sequel process. they, under the water code, make a request of the p.u.c. for a statement relative to the availability of water supply to preserve these projects. this is for certain size project and we have to make a finding relative to the water supply availability relative to these particular projects. it has gotten more complicated at this point because of the nature of the nation -- of the action of the state water board, so we lay out multiple scenarios instead of just giving a single answer on it. so that is the action for you, it is to provide that

information so they can begin the process. you're action is not to approve the project in any way. >> i would say that's we are giving much the bracket of different scenarios best case of the water supply to the worst case. as they move forward with ceqa, that is out there. if anyone has issues, they can go to the planning and challenge , or whatever they want to do with the information provided. >> thank you. >> so, go ahead, did you want to say something? >> if we are getting to the point of doing the motion, can we actually do that all at once. >> i think not. is that correct? >> we will need a separate vote on each one to make a motion. >> i won't move the first. >> can i make one more comment before we go through them? i am hoping that the sequel process will show an opportunity

and that the timing will sink up and the stars will align so the state process and the sequel process dovetail together, and so they can review the realistic scenario of what the state determines, whatever the voluntary settlement agreement determines. i want to put that out there. i also want to express urgency with the vsa process to move it as quickly as possible, and keep us informed on how that goes, and if this commission can move -- can move that process forward , not only for help of the fish, but for all of our water supply and the work that we're doing we are doing today. thank you. >> okay. i have a motion for item 13. do i have a second? >> just to clarify? this includes both of the amendment to the warehouse clause which you all voted on, as well as taking the amendments that mr. ritchie has introduced,

right in front 13 is a revision in the w.s.a., and a revision to section 4.3? >> let's move the item and modified by staff and the motion as amended. >> right. >> now we have a motion, do we have a second? >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries. i have a motion for item 14. >> i will vote that as well. the report is revised and the motion as amended. >> the whereas clause? >> may i have a second?

>> i will second that. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? motion carries. may i have a motion for item 15? >> ditto 15. [laughter] >> i will move if the same way i did the others. >> i will second since we are all taking turns here. >> okay. all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries. motion for item 16? >> so moved. >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries. lastly, motion for item 17? >> so moved. >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries.

so -- oh, we don't really have time, do we for the workshop? i mean the event starts at 5:30 p.m. do we have time? >> yes. i thought it was earlier, too. >> 5:30 p.m. it starts. >> they say the program starts at 6:00 p.m. and you are saying that we need 30, 35 minutes for the workshop? your call. >> could we do it at the next meeting? i don't want to shortchange the workshop. >> all right.

it is your call. >> there is no one in the room tonight. there is what? >> we don't have another meeting after us tonight. there is no unscheduled nonscheduled after us. just the usual. >> our feeling is i think this workshop is very important. i would like to have time to discuss it after the presentation, and i just feel we are going to be shortchanged. >> i think there is one item, part of the presentation was going to cover it. it was -- what item was that? his sole-source. >> item 19. >> we can talk about it as part of item 19. >> carry item 19 over? >> no, no, we want to move item 19 so we may talk about, you know, item 19. >> continue it?

>> the motion to can you 18 and here item 19. >> yes, yes. thank you -- the motion to continue 18 and here item 19. >> yes, thank you. >> on continuing it to the june 11th, meeting? >> sure. >> i will second it. >> all those in favor? >> may i take public comment, please? >> public comment on item 18. >> continue it. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> the motion carries. item 19. >> okay. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is carolyn chu and i'm the project manager for the digester's facility project. i'm here before you today to request authority for the designation of the following process and the solar band

turbine at sole-source equipment under the projects, construction manager, general contractor, debbie w. 647 are. in addition to also requesting authority to enter into a full force of service agreements with them for operation of maintenance support services for the new equipment. based on extensive evaluation and due diligence by the businesses to facilities that operate the process and the solar turbine, these equipment grants are found to be the best treatment technology to meet the demands and levels of service for 100% beneficial use of our biosolids and biogas. because these equipment bands are necessary for the biosolids project and are only available for these specific vendors, i request that you approve this agenda item. with that, i would like to answer any questions that you may have. >> commissioners? any public comments?

>> i have a quick question. will this come back to us once you have done all these things that we are authorizing you to do? >> i think the request -- >> you're just gonna go forward. >> we went through the process to determine what process you go through and we actually built the whole plant around this technology, and so now it is time to actually start purchasing the equipment. since there is only one manufacturer that does this that we decided on a long time ago, it is a procedural, we just have to do the full source. >> very exciting. i would like to move it. >> i will second.

>> further discussion? all those in favor? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners. so, commissioners, is there any other new business? seeing none, meeting is adjourned at 4:53 p.m.

>> providing excellent customer service to each other so that we can succeed together. because we're a small division out here, and we're separated from the rest of the p.u.c., a lot of people wear a lot of different hats. everyone is really adept not just at their own job assigned to them, but really understanding how their job relates to the other functions, and then, how they can work together with other functions in the organization to solve those problems and meet our core mission. >> we procure, track, and store materials and supplies for the project here. our real goal is to provide the

best materials, services and supplies to the 250 people that work here at hetch hetchy, and turn, that supports everyone here in the city. i have a very small, but very efficient and effective team. we really focus hard on doing things right, and then focus on doing the right thing, that benefits everyone. >> the accounting team has several different functions. what happens is because we're so remote out here, we have small groups of people that have to do what the equivalent are of many people in the city. out here, our accounting team handles everything. they love it, they know it inside out, they cherish it, they do their best to make the system work at its most efficient. they work for ways to improve it all the time, and that's really an amazing thing. this is really unique because it's everybody across the board. they're invested it, and they do their best for it.

>> they're a pretty dynamic team, actually. the warehouse team guys, and the gals over in accounting work very well together. i'm typically in engineering, so i don't work with them all day on an every day basis. so when i do, they've included me in their team and treated me as part of the family. it's pretty amazing. >> this team really understanding the mission of the organization and our responsibilities to deliver water and power, and the team also understands that in order to do that, we have a commitment to each other, so we're all committed to the success of the organization, and that means providing excellent customer service to each other so that we can succeed as many of you know, supervisor ronen has stood side by side,

shoulder to shoulder -- [speaking spanish] -- all the way through many -- many times. and so at the many meetings, at the many hearings, it has just been such a breath of fresh air to have such a fighter in the public arena, as a public elected official be there with us. so it's my pleasure to introduce amy, senior legislative aide to supervisor ronen to offer remarks. >> i'll stay away from the jokes. [laughter] hi, my name is amy, i'm a legislative aide to supervisor ronen. it breaks her heart to not be here today, but i know she is sending her warmest wishes, her

fists in the air, go. it's so important. this is an amazing project. this is the fifth ground breaking in the mission in what we look at as a year, i guess. it's pretty amazing and every single one of these reflects an incredible amount of hard-fought struggle to make sure that what is happening in the mission is starting to repair the damage of the devastating amounts of eviction that have been occurring here. so thank you, meta, thank you, two of the best community based affordable housing developers. i would say the importance of community-based development and bringing that capacity like olga said, it's so critical that the skills and the capacity are developed within the community.