>> to approve the settlements. item 17, no action was taken. may i have a motion. >> moved not to disclose. >> second. >> madam secretary. could you call the roll for the vote. [roll call]. >> five ayes. the motion carries. this meeting is now adjourned at 4:48 p.m. thank you.

>> the regular meeting of the san francisco public utilities commission. today's date is tuesday, may 26, 2020. roll call, please. >> president caen? >> here. >> vice president vietor? >> present. >> commissioner moran? >> here. >> commissioner maxwell? >> here.

>> commissioner paulson? >> present. >> we have a quorum. we begin the meet, i'd like to make an announcement. due to the covid-19 health emergency and given the public health recommendations issued by the san francisco department of public health and that governor newsom and mayor brown have lifted restrictions via conference, it's being televised via sfgov tv. there is a brief time lag between the live meeting and what is being viewed on sfgov tv. on behalf of the commission i'd like to extend our thanks to sfgov tv staff. if you wish to make public comment on an item, dial 888-273-3658, access code 3107452 and pound, followed by

pound again. when public comment is called, dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the speaker line. you will be -- you will hear an automated voice that will tell you when it is your turn to speak and your two-minute speaking time will begin. i will alert you when your time has expired. these instructions will be repeat. if they haven't already done show, i'm going to ask the commission and staff to minimize microphones to minimize background noise. and i'd like to note that item number 9 has been removed from the agenda and will be rescheduled to a different meeting. madame president, your first order of business is item three, approval a of the minutes of. may 12, 2020. >> yes. commissioners, before you have the minutes of may 12, 2020, are there any additions or corrections? seeing none, madame secretary, could you please open this to

public comment? >> members of public who wish to make public comment on item 3, a approval of the minutes of may 12, 2020, dial 88-273-3658, access code 3107452 and pound followed by pound again. dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the speaker line. [dinging] mr. moderator, do we have any comments on minutes? >> operator: madame speaker, there are three callers in the queue. >> you have three questions remaining. >> callers, please note this is

for item number three, the minutes. first caller, go ahead. hello, caller. >> you have two questions remaining. >> hello, caller. this is public comment for item 3, minutes. go ahead. >> caller: i'm sorry. i messed up. i was wanting to be in the general public comment. i've never done this before. so, i messed up. >> ok. no worries. no worries. >> i'll hop off and do it again. >> ok. thank you. >> next caller? >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> hi, caller. this is public comment on item number 3, the minutes. >> caller: hi, there. i also misunderstood. i wanted to make a general comment and not on -- >> ok. thank you. we'll do that as the next item. >> caller: ok. thank you. madame president, we have no public comment.

>> commissioner, any further discussion on the minutes? seeing none, may i have a motion? >> president caen? oh, i'm sorry. >> i'll move -- >> move to approve. oh. second. >> madame secretary, please call the roll for the votes. [roll call] we have five ay irks. >> the motion caser. next item, please. >> item 4 is general public comment. members of public may address the commission on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda. by dialing 888-273-3658, access

code 3107452 and pound followed by pound again. dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the speaker line. and while we're waiting for callers, i did receive two e-mail correspondents to be entered into public comment that were forwarded to the commission and i'll take the two minutes and read each of these public comments. the first one is from maddelein mueller. please put this into document. it is not for an item that is on the agenda, but may be soon so it is sent now and will be referenced on 5-26 during public comment on items not on the agenda. it involves a complex issue and commission members will no doubt value to t time to read through the materials. a resolution to acquire the balboa reservoir property for city college of san francisco

presented by the defense city college alliance, dcca. preamble -- the overwhelming support for the recent prop-a, 845 million facilities bond for ccsf show san francisco's desire development and growth for city college. the balboa reservoir is a critical element for dccf use. the members of dcca, therefore, recommend the following resolution -- one, whereas proposition a and $845 million facilities bond measure for new and renovated buildings at city and college of san francisco also included the authority to acquire land. and whereas the voter elected trustees of city college of san francisco are responsible to the citizens of san francisco for the protection of the institution, its students and employees from the effects of

political inclusion, including any encroaching privatization of a public college. and whereas the voters of san francisco previously defeated two proposals for private housing development in balboa reservoir, proposition b in 1987 and l in 1988. whereas the san francisco public utilities commission signed an agreement in 1991 [inaudible] half of its reservoir property -- [bell ringing] and the timer is up on that item. again, this was forwarded to the commission so you have the full gist of the public comment. the second is from mr. dave warner. dear president caen and commissioner, it has been a great honor to communicate with you, not just for your present role at the sfpuc but for your experience, expertise and values you bring to the commission. i'm sorry to report troubling information. in resolution 19-0057 march 26,

2019, regarding the bay dock to ecosystem, there is a clear system that directs staff to include biological outcomes in the voluntary agreement. but when reading the portion of the agreement for the river that was recently published on one of irrigation district's websites, there is no specific biological outcome mentioned. it is troubling not just because it is the primary objective of environmentalists, discussions with the sfpuc or perhaps even more so because of the accountability governance concern. if the commission makes a specific resolution, it is expected that staff will follow that resolution or communicate back to the commission that staff is having difficulty implementing it. otherwise, the resolution becomes meaningless and the effectiveness of the commission's oversight is reduced. a biological outcome statement in resolution 19-0057 was key because it was solution to the conflict between the conflict of water agencies and environmentalists. the water agencies said that

salmon populations could recover with nonflow medical examinerer and less water than the state water resources can full board required while the environmentalists said that at a minimum the swrcb's full measures were intended -- i'm sorry, were needed in addition to nonflow measures. by studying biological outcomes in the voluntary agreement t flow conflict became moot as flow debate didn't matter as long as fish populations recover. perhaps staff has been intending to communicate to you at a future meeting of not being able to add biological objectives to the voluntary agreement. if so, the communication should have been done before the volunteer agreement became public -- [bell ringing] again, that correspondence was forwarded to the commission this morning. and mr. moderator, can you open the phone lines, please? >> yes, madame secretary. >> operator: you have five questions remaining.

>> hello, speaker. go ahead. >> yes. my name is thomas. i'm the former trekererer of the libertarian committee of san francisco. i'd like to call the attention to the east bay. it's a huge 55,000-acre parcel that travels four counties. it is slated for development and an inclusion into the state park system. however, governor newsom's budget cuts that line item and it is on the market for $65 million for the first time in 85 years. the agent is todd renfrew with which the p.u.c. has an existing relationship because it acquired the wool ranch property from him. and although the press [inaudible] doesn't have water, it's simply not true. this 55,000 parcel is adjacent to existing p.u.c. watershed property and could be developed for future water resources, set aside for future water resources or set aside for other resources such as the development of wind power. i urge the sfpuc to investigate

finance mechanisms that may not have been available. specifically the public banking mechanism under senate 3wi8 57, the use of time dops and the use of private loan contracting. the p.u.c. could acquire this property through an asset swap and if the p.u.c. involved nontax, nonfinancing mechanisms, i could add the property, which is a 55,000-acre, unbelievably beautiful open space, unencumbered by any conservation easements to its existing enterprise. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> operator: you have five questions remaining. >> hello, go ahead. >> caller: yes, thank you, president caen and commission. i'm the person who's going to make a comment related to the

resolution which you began the reading of. i'll say this this resolution to acquire the balboa reservoir property for city college of san francisco is posted and available at this website. it's www.publiclandsforpublicgood.org . the overwhelming support for the recent prop-a facilities bond for city college of san francisco voters desire for environment and growth of city college. the reservoir is a critical elements for city college use. the plan to privatize it in in other words to buy 1100 housing units, mostly at market rate, contradicts and undermines the public interest and members of the dcca therefore recommend the following resolution.

and they're all documented, you know, the source for the whereas in the document. just wanted to mention a few things. various entities have supported the transfer from the p.u.c. through the college in order to make the -- retain the public status and there is a possibility that both expanding the campus and having 100% affordable housing, the san francisco labor council, the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods and the college's participatory governance council. i'd like to mention clauses nine and 10s. nine says whereas city college lease the reservoir property continuously since 1946 as the only entity -- [bell ringing] >> thank you, speaker. >> operator: you have four questions remaining.

>> go ahead, speaker. >> caller: thank you. hi there, president caen and fellow commissioners. i want to thank you for us to cut in and make comments through this covid per. i hope you're all safe and well. i'm born and raised in the bay area and currently live in san francisco and i live in district 2. i'm calling about my support about restoring and protecting the river and the water and the bay delta system. the cold water that flows through the delta and s.f. bay are important and make a difference. every day, because i do this, you can walk down to the municipal pier at a quad park and you can see people fishing and crabbing, every day that i go sailing on the bay, without fail, you now see harbor por poises and when i was a kid, this was nots the case. and the salmon boats are out in the water again. so the river water flowing from the source all the way through the delta to the bay is very important. i'd like to encourage the sfpuc

to voluntary release the 40% of unimpaired flow and has been discussed many times. and if it is a dry year, they can always revert back to the previous ban. this is possible. because demand for water is low and san francisco and bay area residents have been very good at showing their willingness to conserve water, they're very environmentally-minded and i would like the sfpuc to keep that in mind when making flow decisions. if it hasn't been addressed yet, it would be great with the recommendations by president vietor be addressed. thank you for your time and please make decisions based on the environmental value for the bay area. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> operator: you have three questions remaining.

>> go ahead. >> caller: my name is michael frost. i live in san carlos. i have two young girls and we love fishing together. and my girls pay attention to what's in the news and what's going on and they ask me all the time -- dad, what is life going to be like for me environment tally? is the world going to burn down? will there be any fish left in the oceans? questions like this. what do we do? what are you going to do. what i'm doing, kids, is i'm going to put pressure on our existing leaders, our elected leaders and our appointed leaders to establish priorities for what matters. water is life. and fish are leading indicator of the health of a region. if the fish die, we die. i would like this board to assign priority to the flows of

fresh water into the bay belt ecosystem. because water is life and fish cannot survive on nonflow measures. my 6-year-old understands that. fish need water. the fish die, we die. and we have an insatiable market that we're all living up to and it is tough to catch up with it. but we need to understand hard truths. this is one of them. this is an important time in our society. people are looking more and more to the environment. today we're living one day at a time and i'm going to implore you as leaders to put priority on to the fresh water flows which is the life blood of this region. if the fish die, we die. we're at extinction levels in the bay delta right now. bottom line. and i don't want to have to explain extinction and the planet being burned down and a

repatience market to my kids anymore. [bell ringing] >> thank you. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> caller: my name is francis de la costa. and you are still work on the technical problems, but all the same s it doesn't matter. what's important is that we get an opportunity to voice our opinion. we have this pandemic and i should oefp our eyes. and one of the things that we have to reflect upon is resources and high-density living. all other days of high density living, the last time i was throng this meeting, one commissioner was trying to make a point that we shouldn't be wasting water or we shouldn't

be using too much water. and instead of listening to her, the general manager ganged up on her. i read his words. and the general manager should wisen up. the general manager of the sfpuc who makes $400,000 a year should wisen up and represent the people. if he cannot represent the people, then he should step down. now what's going on at city college, what's going all over san francisco, when i comes to the usage of our resources, we have to be very careful as the previous speaker said. water is life. that is a concept from the native americans. we failed to respect the native americans. this is their land. each and every square inch of this land was stolen from their native americans.

it is time to repent and this pandemic is a sign for y'all to learn something. thank you very much. >> madame secretary, i believe this is the last caller. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> caller: hi. thank you for your time. i appreciate it. my name is mary holser and i'm calling in support of the water quality control plan and i would really like the ask you, commissioners, please drop your lawsuit against the latest plan. the plan is designed to protect, preserve and repair the bay delta estuary and it is seeking to increase the amount of water to be released from the various dams. the amount of water that the current voluntary agreement

plans to release is not enough to flush and replenish the wet lands along the river. and it isn't enough to limit salt water intrusion, which is damaging the delta. in general, it is not enough to preserve the health of the delta and to safeguard a clean water supply, not just the water supply for single use. it's many people depend on the river. that includes safe drinking water and supporting various livelihoods such as salmon fishing industry, and industrial agriculture. you, as the commissioners, have a responsibility to the environment as a whole and you should encourage -- no, you should insist on reducing dependency in the river by ramping up water conservation methods and recycled water projects. the ecological crisis in the delta is not going to get any better until there is enough water released from the dam to

allow this delta itself to make itself healthy. it's important to put a strong bay delta water quality control in place to repair the damage and preserve a healthy delta environment for future general railsings. -- generations. i totally support the previous speakers in favor of this. thank you. >> thank you. do we have any additional callers? >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> ok. general public comment, item 4, is now closed. madame president, your next item is item 5, communications. >> any comments on communications, commissioners? seeing none, madame secretary, could you please open this up for public comment? >> members of public who wish to present comment on item 5

communications, dial 888-273-3658, access code 3107452 and pound followed by pound again. dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the speaker lineful mr. moderator, do we have any calls? >> madame secretary, there no call ores in the queue. >> i do have a comment. i was on mute. on 5e. i wanted to ask a question regarding 5e. >> certainly. >> i just want a little bit

more background about -- it says the bids are, you know, whatever it is, 5e, aye like a little more clarification on 5e. the status of the connect -- of the change orders. it just says 5e. it doesn't say who. it just says water system improvement program status of construction change orders. >> can he respond to you? >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is cathy howe, a.g.m. for infrastructure. this is a report that we provide at the request of some of the former commissioners and they basically wanted to know the status of all the list of projects that we have and how

close -- how much of the construction contingency we were using and how many change orders we had and basically to report out on the change orders for all of the construction that is happening under the water system improvement program. >> ok. and the reason for that was? >> at the time, the bids were coming in quite a bit lower because the economy was not doing that well and a lot of the contractors were really eager to bid on our projects and so the bids came in very low and so everybody wanted to know twr contractors going to put in a lot of change orders to try to recupe some of their costs for the low bids that they had put in for. >> and was that happening and is it happening now? >> the program is now about 98,

99% done. and so for the change orders, it really was very specific to the project that was being done. on some projects, the construction change orders was well under the 10% that we usually budget for. on others, it was a bit higher. for example, for calaveras dam, i was quite a bit higher but a lot of that had to do with not knowing what the soil conditions were and not knowing that we had hit a slide area and a unstable area for putting in the dam. but in general we stayed -- if you exclude calaveras, we stayed pretty close to the 10%. >> great. thank you. >> madame secretary, there is one caller in the queue. >> ok. thank you.

>> operator: you have one question remaining. >> caller, this is on item 5, communications. >> caller: yes. i apologize. my comment is actually for just a few minutes ago in the general comments. but i was unable to get through. i was on the whole call. can i take one minute to comment in a general way? for item 4? >> president caen, is that ok? >> yes. please take two minutes. >> caller: ok. i'll take less than one minute here. yes. again, my name is jeralyn moran. i live on the peninsula. this is a comment on the need for water stewardship on the river regarding the bay delta. i am a wildlife biologist by background and i care deeply

about sustainable stewardship of our natural world. [echoing] i'm sorry. i can't understand you. i am also one of your constituents here on the san francisco peninsula. the urgency to correct the continued overwithdrawal of water from this region's ecosystem is reaching a crisis level. there's no more time to continue what has already been tried. i'm not alone in this perspective. i implore you to boost all water conservation and water recycling projects, including the resumption of work on the bay delta water quality control plan. thank you for considering my comments. thank you. >> thank you. mr. moderator, are there any other callers? >> there no other callers in the queue. >> ok. so public comment on item 5,

communications, is closed. >> could you please call the next item. >> next item is item number 6. , report of the general manager. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you once again for your support and for helping us to continue the essential work. we must keep delivery of water, power and the global pandemic continues on. we continue to rethink and revamp our operations at p.u.c. right now many of our employees are still working remotely. for the employees who were still reporting to facilities, we continue to take every step necessary to ensure their safety and well-being.

despite all the disruptions to our way of life, our customers continue to receive water, power and sewer services without interruption. while we continue to upgrade under this current condition, we must begin to shift our focus to the future. to determine how we move in a post-covid-19 world. we have a team of employees representing every enterprise to put together our business continuity plan. that plan will summarize -- that plan can be summarized in three key words -- response, recover and reimagine. we continue -- we consider it a master playbook for how we will adopt where we work, how we work and what we work on while

continuing to provide our critical services to our customers. many of the issues that this team is tackling comes directly from responses that we collected from our very first covid-19 pulse survey. more than 1100 employees responded to our survey and that represents 48% of our total workforce. overall, 73% of our employees view the p.u.c. response to the covid-19 [inaudible] at this time. a mark that we can be proud of. however, from the survey, we have collected detailed feedback from our customers, which includes -- which included valid concerns around using public transportation, health and safety conditions in the workplace and the tools and resources we need for

performing work remotely over the next 12 to 18 months. my deputy, general manager and chief operating officer, michael carlin and the chief people officer are leading the business continuity planning team and we expect transformational changes as a result of this work. as always, we will keep you all updated on this effort as it progresses. while we continue to push forward with efforts to meet the needs of our employees, we also focus on responding meaningfully to the needs of our customers. just two weeks ago, we launched our emergency customer assistant program with the goal of helping residential customers maximize their discount opportunities. this effort automatically extended the program for

current enrollees and provides new enrollees who are experiencing financial difficulties due to covid-19. so far the response of this program has been outstanding. in one week, we received over 2,000 applications and i think we're approaching 3,000 applications as of friday. the covid pandemic has brought on challenges to our agency ies and we see hope amidst crisis. we are already exploring plans for similar, temporary saving programs for businesses and nonprofit customers. by continuing to work with our customers, employees, city partners and others, we will look to move forward from these dark times and be a stronger, better and more responsive

agency. i want to thank you for all the support on all of these efforts and i look forward to continuing to work with the commission for the weeks and months ahead. and that concludes my comments. do you have any questions, i'd be willing to answer them. >> commissioners, any questions? >> yes, i have one. last week, or i think we had some issues with some of the employees with p.e.e. they were having some problems. has that been resolved? >> yes. actually, we had been receiving literally pallets of p.p.e.s and so we are in a much better place and i want to give thanks

to the e.o.c., with the mayor's emergency operations center that is led by our very own person who actually led our operations over here, so, yeah. they have done an outstanding job of providing us with p.p.e.s lately. >> ok. so, those -- those employees are -- have been satisfied or you're work on their satisfaction? >> well, you know, we -- we are, you know, we take everyone's concerns seriously and so, you know, the issue about p.p.e.s, we're making sure that we're providing p.p.e.s more regular to folks because at one time they would have to use one p.p.e. for, you know, for a couple of days and now we're providing more p.p.e.

so that they can use them less frequently. and in the beginning, even doctors and everyone, it was a shortage of p.p.e.s. and now i think we're in a better place. and then as i stated in my comments, what we did is to do a survey of p.u.c.-wide and close to 50% of the folks responded. although we received over 70% favorable, you know, saying we're doing a favorable job, the 27% we are wanting to hear what their issues are and a lot of their issues were about [inaudible] [echoing] i hear an echo. and they also were concerned about taking public transportation and i think they're just nervous about coming back to work.

and so we move from the concept coming back and repopulating our office to basically, you know, seeing who absolutely needs to come back to work and so that is sort of a shift on how we're looking at, you know, progressing and operating on what we call reimagining how we do work in the p.u.c. so a lot of the things that we're working on, we're working with the department of human resources, the city administrator, they're taking a leave on how to bring city back, to -- you know, back in service. so, we're working closely with them. >> any other comments? on the general manager's report. madame secretary, could you please open public comment?

>> members of public who wish to provide comment on item 6, report of the general manager, dial 888-273-3658, access code 3107452 and pound, followed by pound again. dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the speaker line. mr. moderator, do we have any calls? >> yes, madame secretary. we have one question in the queue. >> thank you. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> caller: here is how i see it.

the san francisco public utilities commission is an enterprise department. so you commissioners understand you generate your own money. so, we shouldn't include the people who are involved with the general fund. when it comes to p.p.e.s and other things that have to be in place. if the wider equipment is up in place, somebody is at fault and it doesn't mean that [inaudible] could predict a pandemic, but since the pandemic is here, we have to learn from that. now having said that, we are talking about things and go all over the place when it comes to the community. in the community, and i've been serving the community for over 40 years, and some of you all know that, i'm one of only ones continuously within the

trenches, our children are [inaudible] our seniors are dying and one of elements that has brought about this slow death is the sewage treatment plant. and all the suggestions like what happened during the pandemic now is really not relevant when what is at issue is what is a san francisco public utilities commission and i've said it a million times, what are y'all doing to help the community? the bay view community. some of the [inaudible] $200,000 in grants and are closed down. y'all know about this. and you look the other way. and now this is our time to do justice. this is a time to have your heart in the right place, to help our infans, our children,

our youth, our elders. from slowly dying. otherwise -- >> thank you, mr. decosta. >> caller: thank you very much. [bell ringing] >> do we have anymore callers? >> there are no more callers in the queue, madame secretary. >> thank you. public comment on item number 6 is closed. >> next item, please. >> next order of business is item 7, new commission business. >> commissioners, anyone? new business. >> yes. >> commissioner moran. >> thank you, madame chair. i'd like to request that staff develop a water supply budget worksheet for use by staff and the commission and members of public. my reason for that really is two-followful -- two-fold.

one is to provide transparency as to the process we use to make decisions about water supply and the use of that water supply. and the second is to hopefully create a common can framework for the discussions that we have been having and will continue to have about the allocation of our water supplies. so i have send a more detailed version of that request to staff but i wanted to make that a request through the commission as well. >> so noted. commissioner maxwell, did you have -- >> yes. yes. thank you. i would like to request a report. i'm sure our fire is season has more than started and sko -- and so i would like the see a report in our next meet in regards to where we are, what we have done and the work we have to do to make sure that

we're doing all that we can do to be safe. from fire. >> excellent. yes. any other new business, commissioners? >> is it appropriate for me to ask -- to go a little bit of what we're thinking a little bit further than that. i think that is extremely important and i wanted to catch all of it. can you elaborate a little bit on that move? -- on that more? >> i will slightly. >> ok, slightly is good. >> it is not a calendared item so we can't have a discussion about it. but i think that we sometimes get lost in the weeds of particular calculations. without stepping back and

saying, how do those calculations relate to the bigger picture of how much water we have available and how much demand we have placed on that water. so, what i'm looking for is a tool that will help summarize that at a pretty high level in order to facilitate the discussion, to identify not only areas of disagreement but also to help modify how much that disagreement might reflect. that is the intent of it and i think if we want to get into greater discussion, i think that, first of all, i think it shouldn't take very long to develop the work sheet. i think it would deserve probablying having a couple of sessions in regular p.u.c. meetings about what it means, how it is constructed and how it might be used. >> thank you. >> any further new business?

>> i have additional clarification on that and i'm wondering if we could possibly ask the staff and i don't know if this is what you had in mind, commissioner moran, but for an outline of what would be in the water supply budget by the next meeting, at a minimum. >> next meetings come pretty quickly. i think -- i think we should be able to have. a general outline of it by then. but that is something i'm not producing, staff would be. so i'd have to leave it to them. [talking at once] >> yeah, thanks. that's good for now. >> just to let you know that we're giving a water supply update the next meeting. so, just wanted to let you know that.

>> any further -- >> this is commissioner paulson. i want to make sure that you guys can hear me. >> yes. >> we can't see you. >> he's dialed in. shall we call public comment on item 7? >> yes, please do. >> members of public who wish to provide comment on item 7, new commission business, dial 888-273-3658, access code 3107452 and pound followed by pound again. dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the speaker line.

>> do we have any calls? >> there are no callers in the queue at this time. >> thank you. public comment on item number seven is closed. >> next item, please. >> next item is item 8, consent calendar. all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar, are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission and will be acted upon by a single vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussions of these items unless a member of the commission or the public so requests in which event the matter will be removed from calendar and considered as a separate item. >> commissioners, is there any matter that you would like removed from the calendar? seeing none, please proceed to

public comment. >> could i make a comment on the consent calendar? i don't want to remove anything. would now be a good time? >> i -- i believe so. >> i just want to comment that i -- there are a couple of items related to pier 70 and i did learn recently that that development project is going to have a black water treatment project as well as fossil-free fuel system so they are going to be cutting themselves off from gas and using renewables and i just think that's quite laudable. we saw that when they became our largest customer for clean power s.f. so i was just very pleased to learn about that and to see that and just would like

to alert and request potentially our communications team if the item does pass that we want to be tracking and promoting those kinds of projects as a p.u.c. really reduce our water use and fossil fuel use and that development seems to be really exemplifying those two pieces. >> thank you. >> to clarify -- sorry. this is franchesca. just to clarify for the public. pier 70 is being heard item 13 under regular calendar and is not part of the consent calendar. >> oh, sorry about that. >> let's proceed to public comment. >> members of the public who wish to provide comment on item 8, consent calendar, dial 888-273-3658, access code

3107452 and pound, followed by pound again. dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the speaker line. [honking] >> mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madame secretary, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. public comment on item number 8 is closed. >> commissioners, any further discussion on this item? may i have a motion? >> move to approve. >> and a second. >> second. >> second. >> madame secretary, could you please call for the vote. [roll call]

>> you have five ayes. >> the motion carries. item 9 has been removed from the calendar. [papers rustling] >> item 10. public hearing adopt a new scheduling of hetch hetchy power enterprise general use municipal electricity service rates for fiscal years 2020-20 2* 1 and 202-22 to take effect on july 1, 2020 for certain city agencies, certain noncity governmental agencies such as the san francisco unified school district and certain nonprofit entities such as the california academy of sciences

and that are closely related to the city through city governance, financial support and other legacy relationships. the proposed action constitutes the approval action for the purposes of ceqa. and this should be -- will be introduced by deputy c.f.o.s charles pearl. >> good afternoon. commissioners, charles pearl, deputy c.f.o. the proposal before you today is to increase the general municipal electrical rates by one cent per kilowatt hour each year over the next two years beginning july 1 of this year. as the commission secretary noted, the rate applies to certain city department and other discounted electric customers. the rate increase has been included in the city-wide five-year planning and is necessary to support the ongoing financial health of the hetchy power enterprise. enable it to continue reliably

providing greenhouse gas-free power to its customers. the rate increase will provide the enterprise an estimated additional $3.5 million next year and fiscal '21 to pay for necessary planned operating and capital investments. the rate increase is supported by the city's required 2016 power cost of service study which recommended moving all of our customers, all of our power customers to closer and full cost of service over time. this proposed rate action supports our sfpuc rate payer assurance policy as well as our strategic plan goal of financial sustainability. commissioners, this rate action ties with the financial plan and the budget that you approved on february 11 of this year. but as you know, we are currently working to retool our

budget and all of our enterprise, including the power enterprise, with updated revenue projections and we will be reporting back to you in about a month, either the end of june or very early july with a revised budget and how we're planning to rebalance those. with that, i'm happy to take any questions you have on this item. thanks. >> commissioners? everybody's muted. any questions? comments? madame secretary, please open up public discussion. >> members of public who wish to make public comment on item 10, dial 888-273-3658, access code 310. . 7452 and pound followed by pound again. dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the speaker line.

more moderator, do we have any callers on this item? >> there are no caller in the queue at this time. >> thank you. public comment on item 10 is closed. >> commissioners, is there any discussion further on this item? seeing none, may i have a motion? >> move to approve. >> second. >> madame secretary, please call the roll call vote. [roll call]

>> we have five ayes. >> the motion carries. thank you very much, mr. pearl. our next item, please. >> next item is item 11, retroactively authorize the general manager's implementation on may 12, 2020 of a temporary emergency bill discount for certain sfpuc residential customers who have been financially impacted by the covid-19 emergency. the temporary emergency customer assistance program for covid-19 relief program provides eligible residential customers with a bill discount of 15% on water, 35% on sewer and 30% on hetch hetchy power bills for the next six months, spaning from march 4, 2020 to september 4, 2020. and this will be introduced by

erin ranks. >> hi. good afternoon, commissioners and members of public. so, the item before you today is just one piece of the sfpuc's response to the really devastating financial impact that covid-19 has had on our customers and our community. because of how suddenly this hit, what we've seen is that many residents and businesses who might otherwise have thought they were doing ok are really struggling to cover basic expenses, including our utility bills. so, to provide at least some measure of support for customers as they try to adjust to the new normal we're all dealing with, we're proposing a temporary emergency six-month bill of discount for residential customers who have lost income and who are experiencing financial hardships paying their utility bills. as was mentioned, this discount ranges from 15% to 35% off the the water, waste water and hetch hetchy power bills and open to customers for their primary residence only and they certify they experienced income

loss related to covid-19 or the shelter in place order. further more, the income before that loss happened has to be under 200% of the san francisco area median income. the full description of the program will, as well as the application that can be filled out online, is all attached to this item. because this is a time-sensitive program -- we know people are struggling now and they can't wait months to get this support -- to meet this need t general manager took action on may 12 to launch the program and began accepting applications. so, the item today seeks to retroactively approve it and to authorize and continue it until september 4 and if there is any questions, i'd be happy to answer them. >> commissioners, any questions? madame secretary, please open it up for public comment. >> members of public who wish to make public comment on item

11,dial 888-273-3658, access code 3107452 and pound followed by pound again. dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the speaker line. >> mr. moderator, do we have any calls? >> there are no callers in the queue at this time. >> thank you. public comment on item 11 is closed. >> may i have a motion on this item? >> move to approve. >> second. >> madame secretary, please call the role call vote.

[roll call] >> thank you. you have five ayes. >> the motion carries. thank you. next item, please. >> item 12 is authorize the general manager to negotiate and execute a memorandum of understanding with the public works department, municipal transportation agency, fire department and port commission regarding the authority and responsibility for operations and maintenance of public improvements at the mission rock special use district. and approve amendments to the mission rock infrastructure plan. >> and deputy g.m. michael carlin will introduce this item. >> so, the title of the item

actually explain what is we're doing here. it is a memorandum of understanding to outline responsibility and authority for each city department as we go into port property in the future. port property, port streets are going to stay under the sdwru, of the port but we'll have infrastructure under those streets and we want to make sure we have the ability to fix those streets going forward. i will naention mission rock is the one doing the black water system and the micro grid. >> commissioners, any questions? >> yes. i have a question. since part of another reason that it's coming before us is because there's going to be a change, i think because they're going to do something different, which is the light

weight cellular concrete and i don't know whether it has been done or not, but they don't know how that's going to affect the streets. and so my question is, since it's unknown, the cost associated with the maintenance of utilities and the light weigh cellular co-concrete will exceed the cost of maintenance, utilities in the street without the light rate cellular concrete. if we find there is a problem, who's going to be responsible for that? will the developer be responsible for differences from the light weight concrete to the regular? >> yes. so, we're going through the process right now and evaluating light weigh cellular concrete with the port and the public works. it will come under the jurisdiction of the city engineer who will have to make a determination of the use of light weigh cellular concrete. it's also that we have written into the m.o.u. that it's --

there will be acceptance criteria and there will be failure criteria and it will come out of the incremental tax fund for the project as a whole to make up the difference between what we would normally pay for in a street the differences with the light weight cellular concrete. so we're working on that with all the other domestics as well. we haven't landed on that as well. it's not an alternatives and not the final say to say that's what we're going use. >> if we decide to use that. who is going to be -- >> yeah. if the city engineer makes a determination on the use of it and the responsibility again will come out of the tax benefit for the project to make up the difference at that point in time. we have a responsibility for if it was a normal street, if something broke, we were replacing it but if it is

failure of the light weight cellular concrete, that difference between normal fixing it will come outs of the tax increment for that project. >> lit not be the san francisco p.u.c. that will pay for that. >> for the increment. that's correct. >> ok. so, we will not be liable. >> that's correct. >> ok. thank you. >> i just wanted to also let you know that we have, you know, negotiated to put a pilot out there, a real live street section where they actually had [inaudible]. i think that was the first day i came out of quarantine to go and visit that site. and it is interesting. the basic concept is that normally you have bay mud, you [inaudible] so it will settle over time. again in effect that they didn't have time, they removed a portion of the bay mud and put lightweight concrete that

was lighter than what they removed. so, they're releasing -- removing weight from there so that it will settle. so, that is the concept. s the concern we had is that what if our facilities are buried into light weigh concrete. you can't dig it up. so, that was one of exercises they performed in front of me and the city engineers. and you can actually dig it out. it's different than soil. so they -- the developer is commited to whatever tools or equipment necessary for us to dig it out and they will provide it, and as michael indicated, if there is any differential and cost than we would normally do in the street versus this, they will cover it. and so, yeah. right now it's really up to the city engineer to accept this light weight concrete or not. >> so, what -- so we would have

soil and asphalt? normally? >> yeah. so normally, you know, it's layers, right? so we have, you know, soil and in this case it will be bay mud. and then we would have some gravel and then we will have the light weight concrete and then we'll have half the concrete and then we'll have -- i mean thes a fall, asphalt and concrete on top. so you have a wearing surface that looks like every other street. >> i see. so, we have four steps with the light concrete rather than three. >> yeah. >> basically, yes. >> normally, yeah. normally we have all streets that have concrete. a portion of the street is asphalt, concrete and then you have the soil and stuff. now we just have a lightweight concrete and in the wearing surface, which is asphalt-concrete. >> wow.

so it -- so is there a concern that it's less durable or as durable? i mean, our streets are pretty rough right now. you know? they don't seem to last as long as maybe they used to. there are a lot of pits in it. so i'm just wondering. >> well, my take is that, you know, if you have a thicker concrete section, you won't see a lot of, you know, breakage because what we experienced in especially the bayview is that when you have the settlement, you have a concrete base and after a while when you have a void, you can't really see it and what happens if you have a

leak in the pipe, it starts eroding the soil. now it is concrete and you won't get that erosion. so i think it could have [inaudible] better, but my fear is when you go to dig it up, we want to make sure that we can easily access our pipes just in case something happens. >> ok. so you're thinking it might be more durable, but it may be more of a hassle to dig it up. >> yes. >> ok. thank you. >> this is commission kerr paulson, if i could just say a couple of words in. so many of these projects, especially projects that are, you know, might be adjacent to rising tides and whatever else, this is being, you know, heavily experimented with and commissioner maxwell, your questions are absolutely apropos because anytime

different construction technologies come into place, everybody wants to know is this going to work, is that going to work? sort of like when the plasters said well, sheetrock will never replace it. [laughter] and things -- you know, things sort of change and i've heard nothing, you know, as the -- in my day job -- that this is going to be nothing but, you know, not just good for the roads, but good for all accessibility to infrastructure and all the new ways that people are looking at doing the horizontal parts of these development projects. so, that's just my two seconds. thank you. >> any other comments, questions? madame secretary, could you please open public comment? >> members of public who wish to make comment on item 12, dial 888-273-3658, access code 3107452 and pound followed by pound again. dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the speaker line.

>> mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> there is one caller in the queue, madame secretary. >> thank you. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> go ahead. >> caller: i've been hearing some of your statements and y'all can make whatever statement you want to. but how does this project on

mission rock, where we environmentalists for the longest time have been working or informing the department about toxic and substances control about real contamination on the site. the other things don't count much. the main thing is, has the site been mitigated? just because there's some land there, we just cannot use it for whatever. this is what we've done all over candlestick point. we've done it on hunters point. parcel d, c, e, f, it's all contaminated. don't look at it in a

superficial way and i've come before you before, when the people make the right type of comments, you don't like it. what is holistic about this project? that is what you should ask yourself. what is holistic about this project? at mission rock. this is a very, very, very contaminated site. >> are you done? >> ok. thank you. do we have anymore callers mr. moderator? >> the queue is empty at this time. >> thank you. that closes public comment on item number 12. >> commissioners, are there any further discussion on this m.o.u.? seeing none may i have a motion and a second?

>> so moved. >> second. >> madame secretary, please take the roll call vote. [roll call] we have five ayes. >> the motion carries. next item, please. >> next item is item number 13. authorize the general manager to negotiate and eke cute a memorandum of understanding with the port commission, san francisco public works, san francisco municipal transportation agency and the san francisco fire department

regarding each drm's operations and maintenance of public improve. s the pier 70 special use district, including improvements located in streets turned por's jurisdiction. and this will be introduced by deputy general manager carlin. >> so it is the same sort of idea. this is another m.o.u. between authority and jurisdiction. the thing here is basically they did surcharge this site with dirt so there is no light weight cellular concrete involved but we need the m.o.u. to have. the other department outline authority and responsibility moving forward. i'd be glad to answer any questions. >> commissioners. questions. comments. madame secretary, please open public comment. >> members of public who wish to make public comment on item

13, dial 888-273-3658, access code 3107452 and pound followed by pound again. dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the speaker line. [music playing] mr. moderator, do we have any calls? >> there is one caller in the queue. >> thank you. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> go ahead, speaker. >> caller: so, pier 70 was used during world war ii to build ships.

there's also the stack there which means there was a power plant over there. now i never mentioned this before, but never once do you all know about this and maybe you know about it that you look straight in the eye and lie. and this is what it is. there's one million tonnes -- i repeat one million tonnes of coal tar by the stacks. it needs to be mitigated. there are two huge ammonia spills which were done by the navy. which needs to be mitigated and abated. now why i was choosing sites that are contaminated, and others have said this, too, others in the know -- why are we choosing sites that are

contaminated so that we have some housing? and you know when they do this, the passing of the e.i.r.s and all during christmastime. but they never expected this pandemic to come. now listen, i said this 25 years ago. no good will come at hunter's point and there is one commissioner there that's heard me say that. no good will come at hunter's point and no good will come at pier 70. now here's another factor that you all never, ever took into account. human remains of the first people were found at the site. why don't we respect the sacred sites and respect the human remains of the first people? because spirit,ly y'all are bankrupt. [bell ringing] and, again, to go forward with

this project, you have blood on your hands. >> thank you, mr. decosta. mr. moderator, do we have any other callers? >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you. that closes public comment on item 13. >> commissioners, i would like a motion and a second on this item. >> move to approve. >> second. >> madame secretary, please take the roll call vote. [roll call] >> you have five ayes. >> the motion carries.

madame secretary, could you please read the items that are to be heard in closed session? >> item number 16 is existing mitigation, david alfaro et al. versus city and county of san francisco and item number 17 is existing litigation state water board cases, scament tore superior court jccp number 5013 originally filed on january 10, 2019 in tuoloune superior court as san joaquin tribute tears authority et al. versus california state water resources control board case number cu62094. >> madame secretary, please open the line to public comment for the items on closed session. >> members of public wishing to

speak on items 16 and 17, dial 888-273-3658, access code 3107452 and pound followed by pound again. dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the speaker line. [music playing] >> mr. moderator, do we have any calls? >> madame secretary, there are no callers in the queue at this time. >> thank you. public comment on closed session item 16 and 17 is closed. >> at this time, i would like the request a motion on whether to assert the attorney-client privilege. >> move to assert.

>> second. >> madame secretary, please take the roll call vote. [roll call] >> you have five ayes. >> the commission will now be entering closed session. and we'll be departing from the regular teleconference meeting. members of public may remain on the line until the commission

>> the bicycle coalition was giving away 33 bicycles so i

applied. i was happy to receive one of them. >> the community bike build program is the san francisco coalition's way of spreading the joy of biking and freedom of biking to residents who may not have access to affordable transportation. the city has an ordinance that we worked with them on back in 2014 that requires city agency goes to give organizations like the san francisco bicycle organization a chance to take bicycles abandoned and put them to good use or find new homes for them. the partnerships with organizations generally with organizations that are working

with low income individuals or families or people who are transportation dependent. we ask them to identify individuals who would greatly benefit from a bicycle. we make a list of people and their heights to match them to a bicycle that would suit their lifestyle and age and height. >> bicycle i received has impacted my life so greatly. it is not only a form of recreation. it is also a means of getting connected with the community through bike rides and it is also just a feeling of freedom. i really appreciate it. i am very thankful. >> we teach a class. they have to attend a one hour class. things like how to change lanes, how to make a left turn, right

turn, how to ride around cars. after that class, then we would give everyone a test chance -- chance to test ride. >> we are giving them as a way to get around the city. >> just the joy of like seeing people test drive the bicycles in the small area, there is no real word. i guess enjoyable is a word i could use. that doesn't describe the kind of warm feelings you feel in your heart giving someone that sense of freedom and maybe they haven't ridden a bike in years. these folks are older than the normal crowd of people we give bicycles away to. take my picture on my bike. that was a great experience. there were smiles all around. the recipients, myself,

supervisor, everyone was happy to be a part of this joyous occasion. at the end we normally do a group ride to see people ride off with these huge smiles on their faces is a great experience. >> if someone is interested in volunteering, we have a special section on the website sf bike.org/volunteer you can sign up for both events. we have given away 855 bicycles, 376 last year. we are growing each and every year. i hope to top that 376 this year. we frequently do events in bayview. the spaces are for people to come and work on their own bikes or learn skills and give them access to something that they may not have had access to.

>> for me this is a fun way to get outside and be active. most of the time the kids will be in the house. this is a fun way to do something. >> you get fresh air and you don't just stay in the house all day. iit is a good way to exercise. >> the bicycle coalition has a bicycle program for every community in san francisco. it is connecting the young, older community. it is a wonderful outlet for the community to come together to have some good clean fun. it has opened to many doors to the young people that will usually might not have a bicycle. i have seen them and they are thankful and i am thankful for this program.