site. interesting thing about the oak is there isn't anymore in the entire world. the floors in china was cleard and never replanted. if you look up at the seceiling you would believe that's hand kof carved out of wood and it is a cast plaster sealing and the only spanish design in an arts building. there are no records about how many people worked on this building. the workman who worked on this building did not all speak the same language. and what happened was the person working next to the other person respected a skill a skill that was so wonderful that we have

this masterpiece to show the world today. [roll call] . >> clerk: we have a quorum. >> thank you. i'd also like to announce that the commission will have a different order of business at this meeting, and we will hold the closed session first before moving into our regular business. madam secretary, will you read the closed session prior to public comment? >> clerk: yes, ma'am, president. and prior to doing that, i'd like to make a brief announcement. due to the covid-19 health emergency and the recommendations issued by the san francisco department of public health, and that

governor newsom and mayor breed have lifted the restrictions on teleconference, this meeting is being held by teleconference and broadcast on sfgtv. on behalf of the commission, i would like to extend our thanks to sfgtv and sfpuc i.t. staff for their assistance during this meeting. if you would like to make public comment, 415-655-0001, meeting i., 146-723-0055, pound, pound. to enter the queue to speak, press star, three. madam speaker, the item for closed session is richard denton versus city and county of san francisco et al..

the requested resolution is to pay the plaintiff and the plaintiff is to withdraw from employment and accept this as settlement for any and all claims. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secret, there are no call -- secretary, there are no callers wishing to be recognized at this time. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item 5, closed session, is now closed. >> may i have a motion on whether to assert the

attorney-client privilege on the matter listed below with the legal council? so may i have a motion and a second? >> so moved. >> second? >> second. >> thank you. madam clerk -- madam secretary, will you call roll, please? [roll call] >> clerk: you have four ayes. >> it's been moved and seconded. we >> the commission is back from closed session at 2:05. may i have a motion and a second on whether to disclose

[indiscernible] in closed session? may i have a motion? >> motion not to disclose. >> second. >> whether to disclose -- whether not to disclose discussions. so the move is seconded. madam secretary, may we have a roll call vote, please. >> president maxwell? >> aye. >> vice-president? >> aye. >> commissioner paulson? >> aye. >> commissioner harrington? >> aye. >> you have four ayes. >> all right, thank you. moved and seconded. madam secretary, may we read item 8, please. >> item 8, approval of the minutes of october 13, 2020. >> the chair: is there any

discussion or corrections to the minutes? may i have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of -- >> so move. >> second. >> madam secretary, will you open public comment, please? >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 8, the minutes of october 13, . mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, there's one caller in the queue.

>> thank you. >> caller, can you hear us? madam secretary, the caller put their hand down just before i opened the line. >> okay, thank you. public comment on item no. 8 is closed. and you have a first and a second. >> yes. roll call vote, please. >> president maxwell? >> aye. >> vice president morin? >> aye. >> commissioner paulson? >> aye. >> commissioner harrington? >> aye. >> you have four ayes. >> the chair: thank you. madam secretary, will you read the next item, please. >> the next order of business is no. 9, general public.

members of the public may address the commission for up to two minutes on items not on today's agenda by dialing 1-415-655-0001, meeting id146-273-7257. to raise your hand to speak, press star three. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, there are three callers in the queue. i will unmute the first caller. >> thank you. >> commissioners, it's very interesting to see the deliberations of these virtual meetings. the very first thing you will do is go into closed session, and i

think it would be a good idea in the future to tell us what the closed session is all about, more because of what is happening with [indiscernible] today. i want to talk about a project called the amcent project. i was reviewing the details of this project, and for two years a gentleman called dwayne jones and his partners were being paid for two years, and then suddenly it stopped, and i believe that [indiscernible] has been given to consultants, and it is such dubious and nefarious activities that are going under your nose you need some good leadership. that is why i propose that maybe

mr. harrington and mr. anson malone would take charge of this sinking ship and keep it afloat. [indiscernible] and so we are left with no other alternative since our sunshine task force doesn't work, our ethics commission doesn't work, we are left with no other alternative but to cooperate with the federal bureau of investigation, and i hope you all understand we are in dire straits and our city does not deserve this. we do not deserve the [indiscernible] system improvement project that started with a $6 billion project and now $12 billion. >> thank you, caller. your time has expired. next caller.

>> good to be back with you. as i look forward to future events sfpuc certainly start off with the idea of awareness. as sfpuc is now the default provider of electricity in san francisco, i would like that to be something that is more made known, because sfpuc through clean power sf should not just be a seller of kilowatt hours but a developer of relationships. and so how resiliency is essential to be involved with increasing our renewables

percentage and building distributive storage throughout the city and hopefully putting solar panels on the rest of the sunset reservoir, we don't have to be so dependent on getting electricity from beyond the borders of this city, especially considering fires and power shutoffs. and renewables are proving to be cheaper all the time. i would like to see us work toward a day when clean power sf will be 100% renewable and cheaper than the pg & e default option, because then we will be truly showing the world how we do clean power, and clean power sf, even at this moment, is very good at doing clean power with the oversight of this board, which is why i support public power and i ask that you continue the work of building a municipal utility district so

sfpuc can have control of the delivery side of the house. thank you. >> moderator: thank you, caller. next caller, your line's been opened. >> good afternoon. this is peter drekmier. i just wanted to report that we are officially in salmon spawning season as of a couple days ago there were 225 salmon that came up the -- to spawn. that compares to 558 last year and more than 1500 in 2018 for this time. and i would, therefore, guess we'll see about 2,000 spawners this year, perhaps as many as 3,000. to put this in perspective, in 1944 there were 130,000 salmon spawning in the twalmy. now 1944 was a fwood year, but

keep in mind it followed decades of mining, ranching and logging that all had impacts on the river. vats were introduced in the late 1800 and o'shaughnessy dam and the original -- pedro dam had been constructed and yet we still have 130,000. what changed? well, in the early '70s, '60s and '70s, there was the construction of new don pedro dam which is seven times as big as the original and has the capacity to capture all of the water in an average water year. and so agriculture grew and urban areas grew and a lot less water was flowing down lower twalmy. it became warmer and the harbour's invasive predator fish, flood plain channels not inundated as often as it was, and the water is just not in good condition for native fish. and that's why the bay delta plan is so important, and you

have heard me say it before. i hope you will draw up your support for the voluntary agreement and embrace the control plan. thank you. >> moderator: thank you, caller. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you. public comment on item 9, general public comment, is closed. >> thank you. madam secretary, will you read the next item, please? >> madam president, your next item is item no. 10, communications. >> commissioners, is there any discussion on communications? will you open up for public -- >> i'm sorry, commissioner maxwell? >> yes. >> if i might, i have a question on 10g, which is the power enterprise custom program.

the question is whether our programs mimic pg & e's customer support programs or whether they are different. that may be a longer answer than we can get at the moment, but i would like to have a table or something that helps me understand what the comparison is between the programs that we're offering and the programs that pg & e offer. >> the chair: thank you. i think that's a great question. >> we can do that. >> okay. >> madam president, i had a question on that same item. great report. i would love to see something -- we have so many programs that sound so good. i would love to see something about number of people taking them up or energy saved or money spent, or some measure of -- it's hard to tell which ones are big or which ones are small, so something like that would be

nice the next time we see a report like this. >> the chair: a bit more detail. >> something about the effectiveness. >> all right. >> the chair: okay. colleagues, any further discussion? madam clerk, will you open up for public comment, please. >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 10, communications, dial 1-15-655-0001, meeting id146-273-7257 pound pound. to raise your hand to speak, press star 3. mr. moderator, do we have any

callers? >> moderator: there are multiple callers in the queue. your line has been opened. >> good afternoon, david pillpel. just wanted to comment on two items on communications, item 10d and 10f. on 10d i think i was the one that triggered that two weeks ago and just wanted to follow up and say i had a good conversation with assistant gm eric sandler. we were getting somewhere. we were about to solve the problem and then general manager kelly called and we had to cut it off, but we will finish that conversation shortly, and if there's anything further, i will follow up with him or marge and resolve that so that we can make payments and others that are similarly situated can make payments. we don't want to have all this debt outstanding unnecessarily. and then as to 10f, i just

wanted to appreciate that rich stevens and his team that maintains the street lights, and they don't get a whole lot of appreciation around here, and they really should, i just wanted to point out over the last several months during the shelter-in-place, i've actually seen a lot more street light maintenance during the day and at night, and things seem to be pretty good out there in terms of street light maintenance, but i would again -- you know, encourage people to call 311 if they see lights out at night or lights on during the day so that those work orders can get in the system and rich's grew can get up there and fix those. there's a little p.s.a. thanks very much. keep up the good work, everyone. >> moderator: thank you, caller. next caller, your line is open. >> thank you, president sophie

maxwell. lots of good things. i like what i'm seeing with the power enterprise update. most of my focus is going to be on the in-person payment. covid is a very challenging time for us, and we want to reduce our exposure because sfpuc is an absolutely necessary service, and i'm seeing that there are very few people who are making in-person payments and the idea of mail payments or electronic payments is not new. and we should be encouraging more toward the electronic payment realm, i submit to you as a person with disabilities and as a veteran that i have been receiving electronic payments since 1989, definitely not new. and i have been making electronic payments to my various utilities since 2002,

autopay i think is the more recent system, and there's a lot of community options. if a person needs to pay cash, there are plenty of -- in their community and not necessarily having to make a trip and [indiscernible] will be issued. but even for somebody who does a payment electronically, one can get a receipt printed, copy off eemail or library printer place if they don't have a printer, i think overall we're doing a pretty good thing. let's encourage simplicity. in-person payments at one place is a very expensive way to go, and i think we can use the efficiencies with this current model to have other programs for the greater good of the city. thank you.

>> moderator: thank you, caller. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you. that closes public comment on item no. 10. you're muted, madam president. >> madam secretary, will you read the next item, please. >> the next order of business is item 11, report of the general manager. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have three items, and the first item is an update of the december 2018 bay delta plan amendment and voluntary agreement negotiations with the state. we'll have michael carlin, deputy general manager michael carlin to give you an update. >> good afternoon, president maxwell, commissioners. today's update will be kind of short since we have only had one meeting since the last time i've

updated you with the state teams. the issues still remaining on the table center around dry and critical water and habitat improvements. habitat improvements was the subject of a technical meeting that was held with the state team last week. it revolves around the fact that we had proposed in our voluntary agreement to activate 80 acres of the flood plain habitat in the spring -- -- it's a lot of water, and the state team is asking for 160 acres of flood plain habitat that would be activated at a lower level of 500 to 100cff, that's cuber feet per second. we are having a discussion why the switch by the state team, what is the rationale behind it, what is it that you're trying to hope to achieve. we've had one discussion with them and we're trying to raise the second discussion with them on this technical matter, seeing

if we can get some sort of breakthrough. if we can do that, i think that would be fairly significant and we can actually move forward with, you know, other discussions on -- this is one that trickle and dry year water is a very tough subject to broach. it is a dry year or critical year, there's not a lot of water in the state, and even though we would be rationing, we still need to look at how much water we actually have in our system because we don't want to run out. so we still have to have those discussions and we're trying to move forward with that at this point in time, but it's a very slow process at this stage. and i would be glad to answer any questions as i think there will be quite a few. >> the chair: colleagues, any

questions? sorry, michael, no questions. >> okay. >> all right, the next item is the -- >> excuse me. i'm sorry, general manager, i'm going to call public comment at this point. is that appropriate, madam president? >> yes, open public comment, please. >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 11a dial 1-415-655-0001, meeting id 146, 273-7257 pound pound. to raise your hand to speak, press star 3. mr. moderator, do we have any

callers waiting to be recognized? >> quick comment on critical and dry years, they have a much bigger impact on water agencies that depend on river flow, and as you know, san francisco is very storage dependent, and the goal is to have all the reservoirs full by july of each year. when all the reservoirs are full, there's enough water in storage to last six years, so it would take a number of consecutive critically dry years to drain that. we have a great example recently. at the height of a recent drought, san francisco had enough water in storage to last three years, and then one year later in the summer of 2016, there was enough water to last five years. that's because in an average year the sfpuc is entitled to three times as much water as it uses. and then we had the big water

year, 2017, where your entitlements enabled 12 years' worth of water. obviously there wasn't any place to store it and it got dumped down the river. so i just never see the rationale behind the sfpuc worrying about critical and dry years. it really has very, very little impact when you have so much storage. thank you. >> moderator: thank you, caller. next caller, i've opened your line. >> i know you've opened my line. so whenever this topic comes, i have requested you, commissioners, to bring the first people to the table as i did myself once, brought them all the way from yosemite to san

francisco so that the elders could tell you all white folks, mostly, you have destroyed a lot of water's pristine. we have to keep it real. so [indiscernible] is suffering, and the most important element of the twalmy river are the salmon. they can't speak for themselves. so we'll have to speak for the salmon. and so when the elders come and the indigenous people come and tell you all something, they don't want to listen. they want to go by some [indiscernible] some slows. even though the reservoir with

afford to let some water into the twalmy river, they know that. the indigenous people cared for the river for 15,000 years. you all can go into your records and find out when you all arrived in this country, and anyone can arrive in this country. i have no problems about that, even though i represent the -- [indiscernible] i don't have a problem about that. what i have a problem is being a snob, being proud, having no empathy and compassion for the first peoples, and one of your representatives going to sacramento and pretending to represent [indiscernible]. >> moderator: thank you, caller. your time has expired. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you. public comment on item 11a is

closed. general manager kelly? you're on mute. >> the chair: before general manager goes on, could you give some light on the concern about storage and us having enough water during those lean years? could you add something to that, please? >> sure. i'll try and -- i'll ask steve ritchie to jump in as well. we are a storage-dependent system. we do try to hold back water, and we did change our operation during that period of 2012-2016, and we were very close to having zero water bank which would have meant that we would have to be

releasing water from hechee to the irrigation districts to fulfill their water rights obligation. i think he kind of simplifies our operation quite a bit, and you never know how long things are going to last, and if you start making mistakes and you put yourself in a situation where you're perilously out of water, you can't make it up, so i would turn to steve if he wants to add anything else on that. >> assistant general manager for water. i would just add that when we talked about having three years of water left, in my world that means we're one year away from -- and maybe already into a period where we start needing to take emergency measures just in case we're wrong, because as mr. carden pointed out, the water bank was almost empty, only 50,000 acre feet left in it

at the end of that dry spell. if it had continued, we must have been on the path to a very, very serious problem. the other comment he makes is that there was a very big year later on, and that's what we're trying to look at in our different water fly projects is how we can capture some of those big year waters and find some place to store it, such as in an expanded reservoir or in a groundwater basin. we are following up on that vigorously, but otherwise i think mr. carden had it absolutely correct. >> the chair: thank you. >> all right, so the next item is the pilot program offering on our portfolio content category three renewable energy credit, agm barbara hill will give you

an update on that program offering. >> thank you, assistant general manager for power. thanks for the opportunity, commission, to inform you about this new pilot program that we're offering. we're offering it to our -- customers. this pilot program will help them certify their facilityings under the leadership and energy and environment design program or leed program administered by the u.s. green building council. so first let me give you some context, and then i'll go into the particulars of this new pilot program. so the leed program recognizes and awards buildings that meet certain environmental standards, up to 100 points can be received for various environmental benefits, such as water recycling and bicycle access and use of renewable energy. the point system is used to qualify buildings as leed

certified, silver, gold or platinum. platinum is the certification that our own sfpuc headquarters building received. building owners have the option to buy renewable energy certificates to qualify for these leed points in the green energy category that the u.s. green building council has established. these renewable energy certificates document the renewable attributes of the generation of renewable energy, and in the leed program context, when building owners buy unbundled renewable energy certificates, they are buying the renewable generation attribute from one renewable energy source and applying it to electricity from other sources. usually non-renewable sources. some people refer to this activity as greening up the other electricity source. some of our city department has seen customers have approached

us for help with obtaining these renewable energy certificates so they can meet the renewable energy requirements of the leed standards for their buildings. unfortunately, our customers can't simply point to our hechy power to gain the green energy leed points. the leed rules require the renewable energy or its attributes, some from power plants that came online within the last 15 years. as you know, you know, we were very much early adopters of green gas house-free renewable energy, and so we ear disadvantaged under that 15-year rule. they do not receive credit for our substantial early investments in renewable energy under the u.s. green building council's rules. under the city admin code, we are the city's energy supplier. we should take responsibility for making these purchases on behalf of our customers. so now some of the pilot

particulars. we plan to conduct the pilot where we would purchase renewable energy certificates for our customers seeking this leed certification. the pilot is first of all, you know, a response to something that our customers value. it's a service that our customers need. we also feel it's important for us to take responsibility for making these purchases. we have the -- among the city departments, we have the most experienced with operating in these renewable energy markets. it's also a learning opportunity for us in the pilot setting to document the level of effort and the cost and to better understand any procurement or program risk, and all of this is to inform the setting of a self-supporting fee structure and a recommendation on whether to provide the renewable energy certificate purchase service as an ongoing hechy service

offering. recall that the city discourages the use of unbundled renewable energy certificates in our clean power sf program. this -- there's what i would describe as a discomfort when the underlying electric generation being greened up with the certificate might be emitting greenhouse gases. but the use of unbundled renewable energy certificates as proposed here in this new pilot is different. in this case we know the renewable energy attributes are being used to, if you will, green up the hech hechy generation supply which itself is already greenhouse gas free. in other words, use of renewable energy certificates, these unbundled renewable energy certificates in this case is greening up an already green product, right? so the practice of purchasing unbundled renewable energy credits in this case seems appropriate to us.

it provides a product that our customers are asking us for and need, and because the underlying generation is clean hechy power, the purchases don't contradict the city's guidelines in this area. hopefully the pilot that we're proposing here will be a success, and if so, we'll bring the program and fee proposal to you for consideration as appropriate. so with that, i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. thank you. >> the chair: why don't we open up for public comment. thank you. >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 11b dial

1-415-655-0001, meeting id 146-273-7257 pound pound. to raise your hand to speak, press star 3. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, there are multiple callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> go ahead, caller. >> thank you, president sophie maxwell and members, for the record, she and her. this is good work. i would like to see a slide deck about this so we can view it in more detail. and renewable energy credits whether bundled or unbundled are indeed a legitimate way to purchase clean energy. i do that myself.

i design renewable unbundled energy credits i think since 2009. i'm sitting here with wind power in my home, in my all-electric home. it's anything that will help us to make these legal claims is worth the time and investment of money. i hope that this is a program that we'll be able to increase renewable energy credit usage across the board, not just for those who are using the hedge hedgy hydroelectric power, which is greenhouse gas free, but to be able to expend this to other forms of energy because renewable energy credit unbundled or bundled can create additionality, because the money that i am sending to a wind farm in oklahoma is helping to create wind energy. so this is a step, a beginning,

i hope, that we can use to move san francisco towards the 100% clean energy future. >> thank you. next caller. >> hi, commissioners, i'm calling on behalf of the sierra club, and i am a san francisco resident. we strongly oppose allowing large hydro power to be considered renewable -- because of the environmental damage done by dams and because large hydro renewables allows existing hydro resources to be used to meet clean energy requirements instead of building actual renewable projects. we want to applaud you for being an early adopter of ghg renewable energy, but this is not the end goal, and we really

need to actually push for new renewables to be built out and not simply take advantage of the low hanging fruit. thank for this opportunity to comment. >> thank you for your comments. next caller? >> commissioners, what i want to speak about is having a solar farm. you'll have a lot of land that we can have a solar farm, and that's the way to go. we are talking about bundling which leads to stacks where we don't have the empirical data. you say something, they're not going to take the words as gospel truth. you have a lot of land. millions of acres of land. why is it we can't have a solar

farm? much like they have in europe. going into this bundling, trying to make some agreements, buying solar, [indiscernible] that it's green when it could be purple, yellow or red, just go to the point. build a solar farm. end of the story. i've been in this business for 35 years, much before some of y'all came on board. 40 years, really, but i'll take 35. thank you. >> moderator: thank you, caller. next caller, i've opened your line. >> thanks. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm hunter cuttings, a san francisco resident and i serve

as an elected member of the san francisco sierra club executive committee. i also serve as an expert reviewer for the ipcc, the intergovernmental panel on climate change, and i serve as an expert reviewer for the landmark ipcc report on global warming of 1.5°. and i flagged this report because the power program for the sfpuc to existing hydro budgets is wholly inconsistent with the best available science on decarbonizing the california power grid. as you know, that report calls upon all countries to reduce carbon pollution to zero by 2050 and further reduce global pollution 50% by 2030, and it's well established that the least cost pathway for doing so involves rapidly decarbonizing the power grid over the next 15 years, and in fact, former vice-president biden has called for zero emissions by 2035. that's just 15 years from now, and to reach that goal, we're

going to immediate a ma moth increase in the production of clean energy, and to do that we need to dramatically ramp up incentives to build new clean energy capacity. and so the power project before you now goes in the opposite direction, creating a disincentive to build new capacity by retroactively grandfathering the existing hydro into our crediting framework -- building new capacity, and that includes san francisco, sitting on our hands and pointing to stuff we did decades ago isn't good enough, and that's what the crediting framework is designed to accomplish. greening up already green projects is essentially a form of green washing by double counting. if the staff wish to change the rules for crediting projects, then we have to go back and also change the framework for which the credit rules were designed, and that's clearly not going to happen. commissioners, i really urge you to evaluate this project

critically. it's taking us in the wrong direction, and it needs to -- >> moderator: thank you, caller. your time has expired. next caller, your line is open. >> hi, commissioners. this is eric brooks with california's for energy choice. hopefully you saw the email or will see soon the email that i sent you that states some of the things you've heard already. back in the day, a few years ago, we were one of the lead groups that worked with commissioner harrington who was then the general manager to get clean power sf off the ground. it's good to see you up there on the screen again. glad you're back. and as the previous callers have said, this is going in the wrong direction. and i'll add another reason for that. for years and years staff in the sfpuc has been saying, even in public documents, that hydroelectric is greenhouse gas free. the email i sent you has a key

article with links to studies that shows that it is absolutely not greenhouse gas free. the science shows that it can be 25% -- upwards of 25% higher in greenhouse gas emissions than we previously knew that it was, and we previously knew there were greenhouse gas emissions from dams because of plant decay in the dams. so it is just -- it's the 21st century. we need to build new renewables, not rely on hydro, and hydro is not greenhouse gas free, and we need to stop calling it that. there are no climate scientistologists that call it that. we are demanding that washington, d.c. start following the science. well, we need to do that now at the sfpuc. so please do not credit large

hydro, which has substantial carbon emissions from this biological activity that happens in reservoirs, don't allow that to be called greenhouse gas free or credited as greenhouse gas free. thank you. >> thank you, caller. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you. that closes public comment on this item. and i don't believe the general manager has anything else to report on item 11c. does that close your report, general manager? >> that concludes my report. >> thank you. i have -- i'd like to ask robert hail if he could comment on some of what we've heard. briefly. >> certainly, certainly. i would emphasize that what we're talking about here is not a change to the definition of

renewables in the context of the renewable portfolio standard, so we're not proposing to change any of the standards. we are proposing to take -- to provide our customers with the opportunity that the u.s. green building council's rules provide them to purchase renewable energy credits or certificates to qualify their building for leed certification. these buildings would continue to receive hechy power, and as an organization, power enterprise will continue to invest in renewable resources to comply with the renewable portfolio standard. as you know, we've made long-term commitments for the construction of projects in california that will generate

renewable electricity, including projects that incorporate storage. so we will continue on that path. this pilot program allows us to meet the needs most effectively for our customers to qualify their buildings for leed certification purposes. we will bring back to you -- as this is a pilot, we will bring back to you the performance of the program and whether we recommend we take it from pilot to a permanent program. i value the input we've heard from our stakeholders, and of course we will continue to listen and learn from them on the pros and cons of this pilot. so thank you. >> the chair: thank you, and what about the large hydro plants being not -- not being

efficient or greenhouse gas free? >> yes, well, we can continue to look at the citations that mr. brooks has provided us with, and we can come back to you with further thought on that, commissioner, if you'd like. certainly the state of california has -- under the renewable portfolio standards does allow certain large hydro to qualify as compliant. our kirkwood generation does qualify as compliant under the renewable portfolio standards established by the state. so we're working within those frameworks as we engage in the market and market our products to our customers. >> the chair: great, thank you. >> madam president? if i might?

>> the chair: yes. >> as i understand the concern about large hydro and, you know, whether or not it is greenhouse gas free, it has to do with the greenhouse gas impacts of building a reservoir as opposed to the generation of power on the release of water from the reservoir. and in that case, our reservoirs were built not as power projects really but primarily as water supply projects, and the electrical generation is something that was added on to that to help make it pay for itself. and also to assist with what at the time was considered conservation, which is if you are going to do something you take out of it all the benefit that you can. one of those benefits being power. i think the discussion to the extent we want to have it about whether or not our hydropower is

greenhouse gas free or not, we could look at it from the standpoint of what the the greenhouse gas impact of operating. it was built for a different purpose, but the question is if we turn on the generators does that great greenhouse gases or not -- create greenhouse gases or not, and my understanding of that is it does not. that goes to the underlying question of whether our power generates greenhouse gas. for the other thing that i think barbara hill mentioned and just is worth repeating is we are not saying that power from hechy qualifies under the -- as a renewable resource where it does not, and we're not seeking a change in that designation. it's saying because it does not that we will apply our credits, and that credit program does

encourage the building of greenhouse gas-free generation. so i think it's consistent with our values and consistent with the designation that is on whether or not our power generation qualifies, you know, for greenhouse gas credits or not. so i find this really [indiscernible] and frankly i think it's a creative approach to solving, you know, the problem of our customers. >> the chair: then item c, this is the report? >> yes, that concludes my report.

>> the chair: all right. then, madam clerk, public comment? or not? >> we've already called for public comment. we don't need public comment on 11c, no. >> the chair: all right, may we read the next item, please. >> your next item of business is no. 12. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm actually joint presenting with my colleague who is also here. >> i can jump in. so good afternoon, commissioners. we're here to provide you with an initial update on our racial equity work at our agency to date and give you a little

progress update. mr. moderator, if we can jump into the first slide, please. thank you. so as you know, there are two major components to our racial equity work at our agency that we're beginning planning around. the first relates to the office of racial equity and the sfpuc is one of the departments in the city that will be providing a racial equity plan aligned with the racial equity framework that the office of racial equity developed for the city. so last year the city passed a law establishing an agency called office of racial equity under the human rights commission, and they developed the framework under which there are multiple phases to develop a city-wide plan in response to racial equity. the first component of that framework focuses almost entirely on internal city and agency hr issues, and they have

promulgated a template and a plan, an action plan that every single agency has to develop and submit by december 31, 2020. so we each are developing our racial equity action plans and would be submitting our agency-wide action plan that we're beginning to develop in december 31, 2020, like every other agency. once we have submitted all of our plans, all of the enterprises and bureaus when they have those plans ready, they will be returning to you to present their plans and their priorities in early 2021. if we can go to the next component of the presentation, please. and then as you know, in july of this year, this commission also adopted a commission resolution condemning systemic racism and promoting racial justice, and we'll review the details around that component of the requirements for our planning at the end of our presentation. so jumping into the next slide

around the office of racial equities, racial equity plans, the o.r.e., office of racial equity, action plan mandates seven core key pillars that focus almost entirely on how we conduct business within our own agency. and every city department has to respond to these areas. as you see, they focus on hiring, retention, promotion, discipline, diverse leadership, and with that heavy focus i'll turn it over to justine to give you an overview of the internal h.r. focus component of it. >> thank you. okay, so i'm just going to give you a high level -- if we could go to the next slide, please. a high level of each of the pillars which you'll see on the slide here. and also generally what our approach is that we're taking is we're going to be trying to strike a balance between the things that we can do now, which would be things that our agency

has control over, has resources to do, while also planning and building for foundational items, things that may take city-wide coordination or may take much more of a heavier lift from a resources perspective or building out systems, things like that. so that's in general how we're approaching this planning exercise. some early highlights here from our hiring and recruitment pillar is that we're really looking at our existing hiring practice, and where can we insert equity text? so already we have certain things like interview panels have to be made up of diverse panellists, but there are definitely other opportunities within our hiring process that we can make similar mandates or requirements for each and every one of our hiring processes of

which we conduct many throughout the years. we'll also be, again, looking to establish a stronger data analytics program, specifically regarding our hiring process, and that's going to be a longer-term plan. and we're also looking at how do we create more robust recruitment functions, and we also want to be able to balance here again, not only find of -- advertisement and recruitment and outreach, but also really start to build out our more traditional message through our connections with the community and various community organizations. next slide, please. for recruitment and promotion, some highlights here are things that i mentioned at our last -- on september 22, when i was here

at the last meeting with you, and a lot of what we're looking at here for our retention strategy is within that competency model framework. we spoke a little bit about it at that september 22 meeting. the framework shows our candidates as well as our employees, what success looks like, and how various different career paths can emerge within our organization. not only does it highlight those career paths, but it also allows employees to focus their own personal professional development within those various paths. so this is something that we currently have under way, but it's also something that we're going to need to plan out more specifically, especially as it comes -- as it relates to resourcing this particular function so that we can more effectively use it. next slide.

within this pillar, discipline and separation, this is really a small slice of a larger performance management spectrum, and again, our competency model framework is going to be really helpful here so that at the earliest point possible we are showing our employees what success looks like, being -- enabling our supervisors and managers to set clear expectations and development tools so that discipline is less likely because people know what to do in their jobs. they have a good relationship with their supervisor, with their peers and all of that. and one short-term item that we're developing that i mentioned at that september 22 meeting is that we're developing more tools to help our employees within the probationary period, which is kind of that last phase of the selection process so that when people are first starting they know what they need to do to succeed in their job, and our

supervisors know how to support them in order to be successful. next slide, please. these next two slides i'm actually going to talk a little bit in tandem, but diverse and equitable leadership, this has a lot to do with recruitment, retention and promotion kind of all converging together as well as having very specific training programs, things that are going to address implicit bias, but also help develop a more effective leadership team, and also really harnessing our already-formed engagement culture here at the puc because our engagement culture allows our workforce to confidentially provide feedback back to leadership so that leadership can understand things that are going on more specifically in the workforce and address them. so really trying to harness the

feedback loop in order to create a more diverse and equitable leadership within the entirety of our agency. next slide, please. and here kind of similar to the last slide we're again talking about, you know, leadership development, and in general at the puc we're very supportive of providing development opportunities, but we want to make sure that all of those opportunities are, you know, made available to everyone, and also ensure that we have multiple ways to develop people. and i will say that, you know, in our current pandemic state, this is then made a little bit more complicated because everything has to be online, but we did recently launch within this year both our leadership development program for our senior leaders, which we planned to iterate throughout our agency, and also we launched a

brand new modern learning management system within [indiscernible] training but we are able to offer online training to all different sorts. so these are just some of the early things that we're thinking about on how to harness and develop even more for those last two pillars that i just covered. and now i'm going to turn it back over to cover the last two. >> thank you, justine. next slide, please. and just to round out the last two components of o.r.e.'s requirements, the sixth component relates to organizational culture of increasing and belonging. you can see the components up there. for us, we have already began by creating the racial equity team of racial equity leads for each enterprise and bureau. we've started to begin the work on these racial equity plans, report to the commission and staff as we are doing right now and as is done with our own staff, conduct engagement surveys and things of that sort. if we can have the next slide, please. and then the finally component

relates to the commission and making sure that the commission itself is very diverse and also is welcoming in an environment for everyone to participate and have actual experiences. so it has components around demographic data for commissioners, including that in our annual report, even developing a mentorship program between newer and more experienced commissioners. if we can go to the next slide, please. and this is a final slide, and just to give you a quick update and being mindful of time, this is related to the sfpuc adopt a resolution from july. we took the resolution and each of the actionable items from the resolution, we categorized into the categories you see on the screen, and now we have identified clear, specific actionable items and a plan in responding to each. so what is a concrete, immediate and near-term actionable item we can take? what are some long-term deliverables? who are the parties that can be involved and that are important

to the success of that? what are some timelines related to that? and then finally what are the resources to make that successful? do we need external support? do we need better systems? as we see, you guys gave us a mandate around implementing not just the racial equity action plans, but we went into detail. there's a component around land use and environmental justice. water as a human right, some of what we're doing around affordability, shutoffs, department of public health, trauma-informed systems. what we're doing around covid and our response right now as we're in this, you know, unprecedented time, what we're doing around outreach and engagement within our organization and externally. and also within our contracting equity, which i gave some details around some of what we have done and hopefully as infrastructure picks it up in the future, some of what they will be doing in the future. so as i said, each of these categories, we have now had committees identify from each enterprise and bureau who should work on each of these item, and

there will be intraenterprise and intrabureau committees working on these issues and coming back to the commission to update us on these issues. and justine and i will be coming back to also continue to update you as we progress. we will be returning in december and we're currently scheduled to come back in february to further provide you with an update, and then we will continue to provide you updates. when the enterprises and bureaus are done with their plans, as i said, they'll be coming in the beginning of next year to begin to provide you with their office of racial equity plans. and with that, that concludes our presentation, if you have any questions or comments. >> through the chair, i have a comment, commissioner paulson, i'm incredibly impressed with the amount of engagement that this blueprint has put together and just the way everything is being thrown together, it sounds like it's incredibly serious. i know there's not total metrics attached or don't know, you know, what piece or other pieces

have gone into the field or is a manual for a supervisor or whatever, and the fact you said you're going to be coming back on december and january i think is incredibly important. you know, i probably should be -- you know, if the other commissioners agree with me, that being almost like a line item report during these crazy times is something that is probably going to be important. again, all of us only sit on one commission, i think, so i don't know what the other commissions are doing, but i'm impressed with what we're seeing, and i think you guys are doing some good work, at least by showing us this top-line stuff that we're looking at right now. i just want to say thanks for jumping on this, because what was it, it was only i think two months ago, wasn't it, that we passed the resolution. or maybe it was longer than that. lose track of time these days, but so anyway, thank you.

>> thank you. >> madam president? i'd like to echo commissioner paulson's comments about the number of programs and they seem to be taking this seriously. i am a person who likes facts and data, and so it would be great when we're looking at workforce, for example, if you could do a baseline of where we are today or where you were when you started, or whatever, in terms of racial, sexual, whatever, different breakdowns, how we compare to the population of the city, whatever calculations you want, and then we can see if things are working. if we have this baseline and you come back to us in six months or one year or two years, if we see movement that people are being promoted and people are retaining, then we have faith that these programs work as opposed to just having them sound good. i would ask that you give us that kind of a baseline of real data that we can track to, that would be really handy. >> if i may, we did provide kind

of baseline workforce equity data in july, and so i would be happy to forward that presentation on to you. that happened before you joined our commission. >> that would be great. thank you. >> any further comments? i would like to say i think well done. very succinct and well done, and i think looking forward to having -- i think what ed mentioned, having some goals would be really great, and since we already have that data, i think this is really on our way to that. so thank you both for a great presentation. it was well done. >> thank you. public comment on this item?

madam secretary? >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 12, dial in. raise your hand to speak by pressing star 3. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, there are several callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> i've opened your line, caller. you have two minutes. >> commissioners, let me first speak about community benefits. we, the people from the bayview hunters point [indiscernible] only to find out that millions of dollars have been wasted.

i don't want to shame anybody because the whole world knows about it, but nobody can speak about racial equity when you call a person the n-word and you are taken to court. but i'm going to provide the evidence of that one case. so the other woman, i haven't met her, but i have listened to her now for the second time, she has no concept about cultural equity or cultural competency. and more importantly about racial biasness which is being fostered at puc. somebody rightly pointed out if you really want to find out if the people are happy, you should

watch them [indiscernible] in charge of human resources, she got set up with sfpuc and left y'all. what about karen cubic, a wonderful project manager. why did she have to leave? what about tony flawless? why did he have to leave? what about mark harris who is now in charge at pacifica? why did he have to leave? do you want me to go on and on? commissioners, your ship is sinking. we need a change of people who have to have their heart in the right place. these people need a brain transplant and a total blood

transfusion. thank you very much. >> thank you, caller, for your comments. next caller, i've opened your line. >> yes, hi. my name is ali apa hah. i hope you guys are doing well and everybody is safe. mr. harrington, it's been a while, couple years by now, and i hope you're doing well. ladies and gentlemen, i have a few comments regarding your racial and equity update. one, the racial inequity can be for the local -- for the employees of the san francisco puc and two it can be for the other vendors of the [indiscernible] and so forth. so with all due respect, racial equity justice within the [indiscernible] why is it that i see staff at the san francisco puc filing lawsuits because they have been discriminated against? is the program supposed to address it? and a lot of these issues can be

addressed with employees, just and fair practice and treat them well. but you do have a lot of lawsuits, and there's one today on the agenda, apparently, and you know, the game goes on and on. so this is no racial and equity within the puc. two, let's talk about the small [indiscernible] and the vendors and so forth. i have written to you details which is [indiscernible] even though i got a confirmation from the secretary of the board that it would be submitted to the board. gentlemen, we are dealing with ldes that are currently on contract with the commission. some of them have lost $14.5 million in 2017. the threshold by the 12-14b for services is 2.5. so with all due respect i want to ask you a question. how can an lde reach that much

in the county and city of san francisco to excluding everything else that no one ever noticed it before until it became public? that's one. two, the racial and equity update for everybody, can someone please explain to me why for exactly myself, a licensed contractor in the state of california have -- >> sorry, caller, your time has expired. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you, mr. mode rater. public comment has been closed. >> madam clerk, will you read the next item, please? >> the next order of business is item 13, the policy and government affairs update presented by emily lam.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is emily lam and i'm the director of policy and government affairs. we are a small but mighty and responsive team of six people that works with everyone in the agency to meet their policy and legislative agenda. in addition to my remarks today, i also included in your materials a memo detailing some of our work from the last year. the one thing that the memo doesn't capture, however, is that in addition to the legislative items that we are in charge of, on any given day each of us on our team have additional numerous urgent requests that pop up that [indiscernible] move on it immediately. so for example, very recently the cca train association issued a request for signatures on the letter to the copc about the -- on a late friday afternoon with

a deadline of monday close of business. so part of the six folks on my team worked together quickly to coordinate that task and were able to get the mayor and all the supervisors to sign by the deadline. so on the local side, the sprisk board of supervisors level, i want to thank those who handled getting several dozen pieces of sfpuc bills passed. on the state and federal level i would like to thank megan scott who advocates on hundreds of bills that act us at the p.u.c. she manages the work with the lobbyist and the team at the state level and the federal level. megan scott also works closely with the enterprises -- from water -- from power and someone else from waste water who i also want to thank for their hard work. and thank you to suzanne -- who specializes in handling

power-related items at all levels of government as this area this be particularly active in the last few years. and last but not least thanks to justin ballboa who supports the whole team. because of my previous work experience and other accountings, i handle all of the legislative items and constituent requests that the county operates in. [indiscernible] lands and i have been -- on our fire prevention plans and our firefighting activities, especially about our most recent fires. deployed for months to serve in the emergency operations center. i was asked to serve on a cross-department ccsf policy team setting up the needs for the city family and helping the acts on behalf of ccsf.

there was a liaison to the elected officials in the area and a san francisco native we were happy to step up and serve in a dire time of need. and because i want to keep my remarks brief, i'd like to take a moment just to highlight one of our top priorities from past year that is also a top priority for the next year. for the last seven months i've been working on securing financial funds for systems and infrastructure stimulus. these funds are particularly critical given the restrictions on taxpayer dollars for assistance programs and a deepening financial crisis of customer utility that piles up -- budget crises due to the economic fallout of covid-19. the last two rounds the act did include 1.5 billion in funding for assistance programs along with a shutoff moratorium, but it was not included in any of the senate proposals. on the infrastructure side, we want to make sure the water

sector is -- stimulus dollars as possible and communicated sfpuc's capital priority projects that could be funded through such stimulus. the tasks, the moving forward act which includes 25 billion for drinking water and 40 billion for other funds representing a huge increase in funding that could be used in this instance we lobbied not only for traditional infrastructure loans but potentially grants as well. i anticipate this bill will be taken up in the first few months of 2021, and we continue to work closely with senators and representatives to make sure funding for the low-income assistance program and infrastructure remain a top priority of negotiations post-election. and while it's been a battle to get these funds, i'm hopeful that the coalitions we've built, such as the water agency alliance, a national group of executives from water and waste

water utilities will be a strong voice in d.c. for these acts. additionally in the last few months i helped form a cross-sector coalition of water-related stakeholders who are not usually on the same side of arguments, but the water industry, environmental justice, environmental policy and business groups, and advocating to the california congressional delegation through many calls and letters this group has also helped other states create the same type of cross-sector coalitions to advocate for more acts including virginia and washington state. in summary, it's been a tough and unusually challenging year due to covid-19, but i'm proud of my team and the way we have adapted to the environment to continue providing high value and high satisfaction on the work we do for the agency. thank you for your time and i'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

>> madam president? this is commissioner harrington. thank you, emily, for that presentation. a lot of good work going on. i was wondering who represents us in sacramento and you mentioned don gilbert. doesn't have a website anymore. could you send me an information about what they are currently doing or at least how they may be contacted? >> sure, absolutely. and if you want to, i can connect you directly to them as well. >> thank you. >> thank you, emily. well done. thank you. >> thank you, president. >> comments or questions, colleagues? thank you. madam secretary, may we open this up for public comment? >> members of the public have two minutes of public comment on item 3, please dial in, meeting

i.d.146-273-275 pound pound. to raise your hand to speak, press star three. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> yes, madam secretary, there are multiple callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> yes, hi, good afternoon. this is ali apphah again. mr. harrington and mr. moran, both of you have been at the organization for years and years. so my second part of the question was why is it that i'm a contractor in the state of california and duly certified --

>> caller, are you there? madam secretary, i believe he was disconnected. i'll move to the next caller. >> okay, if he calls back, we can reconnect him. >> caller, you have two minutes -- >> so the lady, i was listening to the lady, and she seems to be on track because she's very passionate in bringing people together, and maybe giving others an orientation as to the mission of justice of the san francisco public utilities commission. so if you have a woman like her or a lady like her, who is working so hard, i want to ask you, commissioners, when we read the newspapers about the ongoing corruption, how does that

reflect on the employees? how does that impact on the morale of the workforce? how does that impact on the leadership? now in all the talk, there is no explanation as to standards, ethics, morals, which we all know are important. we can't just be doing stuff just because we think we can do. we just can't be taking junkets and granting one or two room. so there are many good things that sfpuc could have done, but

they did not and once you tarnish our name, it's very, very difficult to restore respect. in this life you have to have honor and respect. you have no honor and respect, you can go sleep with the hogs. >> thank you, caller. your time has expired. madam secretary, i will attempt to get the previous caller back. >> thank you. >> this is me again. for whatever reason i've been cut off and i don't understand why. i'm not out of line. i'm asking a very specific question to both mr. harrington and mr. moran. i'm a duly certified as an led by the cmv and for years and years i've been trying to get

work and i can't get work. you're spending millions of dollars, millions of dollars on dwayne jones outreach df. i have for years and years i never got a single email from any of the consultants that kelly has been hiring on the side for outreach. could someone please tell me as a policy why is it that the ldes are being driven out of work for no reason so that just the ones that are paying off the family can get work? i'm also asking you again why is it that there are unlicensed ldes that don't have a license in the state of california that have been awarded millions and millions of dollars worth of work? when there are licensed individuals that live in the city and work in the city cannot work with the puc? isn't that a policy question, sir? then please i get an answer? >> thank you, caller. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue.

>> thank you. that closes public comment on item no. 13. >> thank you. do you think that there is an answer for the caller? is there something that we can point to? i mean, an unlicensed -- i find that difficult, mr. kelly, can you answer that in some way? >> well, first of all, the certification of the lbes is made by contract monitoring division, and those are the folks who, you know, certify the firms. a lot of the other accusations that were made, you know, i can go tit for tat, you know. >> no, i just think -- you know, how he asked how could that be,

that somebody from out of town, not certified, and so i wanted you to answer that. i think what you just said -- >> yeah, basically they are certified by the contracting monitoring division. >> and that they have to be certified in order to work in the city. >> certified to be listed as a lbe, and so that is -- that's what the firms select their own lbes and, you know, so that's how they're selected. i would say that mr. ataha, his company needs to go in and reach out to the primes and see if he can get on a team. he has asked me in the past, you know, to help him get on the team, and so it's up to him to, you know, get on the team for

himself. >> thank you. madam clerk? the next item, please? >> madam president, the next item is the barrier water supply and conservation agency update presented by the c.e.o. >> ms. sankuva. >> hi, good afternoon, commissioners. i am pleased to speak to you briefly today through this regular report. first, i want to congratulate you, president maxwell, on your recent election as president of the commission. it's exciting to see you there, and i look forward to working with you in this role. your service on the board of supervisors and with other san francisco bodies will truly be valuable to your leadership at p.u.c. specifically i look forward to working with you for a common interest in responsibilities which are so important to the 1.8 million residents and 40,000

businesses, including most of silicon valley and hundreds of vibrant communities in almeda, santa clara counties whose water interests bosca represents under california law. i'm excited that you will join us at the next board meeting in november. i know the board chair was very pleased that you will be able to join us. i want to congratulate commissioner harrington on his new appointment to this commission as well. commissioner harrington knows bosca very well. he was especially helpful to us with his experience and insights as bosca began to implement its legislative mandates to represent our constituents and work closely with the commission during his previous tenure as the p.u.c. general manager. i also want to recognize the other distinguished members of the commission. commissioner moran brings his vast background on water issues and a complete understanding of bosca's legislative underpinning and authority, and commissioner paulson's more than 20 years of experience in the labor movement will help him understand and

deal with water requirements, more affordable housing and community developments in bosca's territory. finally these consequencial water supply issue facing bosca's constituents now is uncertainty about the impact of the bay delta plan and the state board's final orders on our water users. we are working very hard to help reach a voluntary agreement on the river as an alternative to the state-board adopted plan which could reduce water for all our water users that rely by 93 million gallons of water a day, which of course would be completely unacceptable given the amount of impacts we would expect. fortunately the governor is very strongly in favor of voluntary agreements to improve the bay delta plan rather than mandated orders, and to continue our strong support for his leadership for our river voluntary agreement, i will continue to work cooperatively with general manager kelly and his senior staff to make this

voluntary agreement happen. we appreciate your active and strong support as well for the governor's alternatives. i look forward and hope that we have great success with it. that concludes my comments. i wanted to be respectful of your time today. i know you have a full agenda, but i'm certainly available to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you very much. colleagues, are there any questions or comments? thank you, and i certainly look forward to working with you as well. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> madam clerk? public comment on this item? >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of comment on item no. 14, dial 1-415-655-0001, meeting id 146-273-7257 pound pound. to raise your hand to speak,

press star 3. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, there are no callers in the queue at this time. >> thank you. public comment on item no. 14 is closed. >> madam clerk, will you read the next item, please? >> the next order of business is item 15, new commission business. >> new business. commissioner harrington? >> madam chair, these meetings are good for what they are there for, obviously getting to a lot of business and having discussions like this, but they don't tend to let us go for deep dives and to really engage with a lot of the stakeholders. and so i've been talking to president maxwell about the possibility of doing some workshops, and the workshops would allow us to actually do that kind of a deep dive that will allow people to engage without a two-minute or

three-minute kind of barrier to be able to have full conversations, and so what i'm hoping is that there's agreements here that we can start to do some of these kinds of workshops. the first one i would suggest would be on the twalmy river and getting us all up to speed in terms of education but also working on, again, engagement. so all the things that happen with the river i realize could take 75 years, but trying to figure out what are our rights, what are our obligations, what are our operating procedures that involve how we manage the river that is so loved and so important to all of us, and to all the other stakeholders in and outside of the p.u.c. so i'm hoping if we do that, we can work with the staff and they can come back with some dates and times and who might be speaking and how we can kind of get this together. >> and the fish. >> the fish can't testify. >> but we have to be -- all

right, thank you. >> dan, commissioner, can i add in something? you know, i think that it may be challenging to do as part of a workshop that's tied to the commission meeting because there's going to be back and forth, and i don't know how to structure that. is there a way that we can have -- invite folks to a meeting to have, you know, input and then bring the results to the meeting? [please stand by]

>> we have, you know, commissioner harrington, there has been a lot of data that comes across this commission without the engagement that you're proposing, but i'm more than willing to explore and listen to these. again, that was the first one you mentioned. i don't know what you had drummed up or was thinking about specifically? >> there are a lot of important issues, yeah. sorry, commissioner moran. >> vice president moran: well, one thing that state and legislative bodies do, and i

don't recall san francisco doing it, is basically you have a legislative hearing, where people have been invited before the body to speak. they often have limits of some kind, but that can be adjusted. there's simply a model for that at both the state and the federal level that we could take a look at. >> i'm willing to take a look at that. again, i think there are parts of the p.u.c. that are worth a deep dive over a period of time. this was the first one, but i'm open for suggestions from any of you. i think in the wastewater-sewer enterprise, there's a chunk of

things that are interesting there that also would be worth kind of a deeper discussion. any way, that was it. and i'm sure there's a better way to do it. >> yeah, and i certainly am in fav favor of it. i think there's a lot going on in this area, and we kind of need to reach a base that we all can agree somewhere, and i think this is a good start. so we'll work on how we can get more engagement in the presentations. thank you for that. >> thank you. >> president maxwell: any further discussion, new business? then, madam secretary, may we open this up for public comment? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make public comment on item 15, new

commission business, dial 415-655-0001 and enter the meeting code, then press pound, pound. to raise your hand to speak, press star, three. mr. prartooperator, do we have callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there are multiple callers in the queue. >> commissioners, i agree that we need to have a meaningful dialogue, okay? if we do the right thing, nobody's going to argue. the argument is about when people do things behind closed doors. can we get a report how many

times people behind closed doors to make decisions? fundamentally, when someone makes $400,000, a special contract, the taxpayer pays the money. are you telling me that i

was -- i was in some very high institution. we had panel discussions all the time. we don't need representation for the tuolomne. we represent ourselves. we need the sfpuc to not treat him like s-h-i-t. we can have talks in a similar manner on community benefits, on leadership, on orientation, on human resources, the history of the water department, and how we went against anson moran. who is the machine, the machine behind pulling strings, we can talk about all that shit if we've got the balls. >> operator: thank you, caller. your time has expired. next caller. >> peter drieckmeyer, tuolomne trust. i think commissioner harrington's idea is wonderful. i think workshops are long overdue, and i think it would

be a great opportunity to get beyond the he said, she said. my sense is we could agree on a lot of the fact and have some discussions on solutions. we might not agree on everything, but at least we have a foundation based on facts. so thank you very much, commissioner harrington. you've already earned your keep. >> operator: thank you, caller. next caller, your line is open. >> hi. i'm carol steinfeld, and i'm chiming in to simply support this. i think it's okay to just try something. i'm in san mateo, and we have very little democracy around water supply, and that's a whole other discussion, and i think there are a lot of

opportunities that are missed with the san francisco p.u.c.-supplied water, so i look forward to hearing where this might go. thanks. >> operator: thank you for your comments. next caller, your line is open. >> can you hear me now? >> operator: yes, we can. you have two minutes. >> great. david pillpell again. i also want to speak to commissioner harrington. it's strange referring to him as commissioner harrington. he's just ed. i recall several successful commission retreats in the past on-site and off-site, and also workshops more recently regarding various aspects of ssip, power enterprise, water projects, other things, so

there's certainly precedent for having commissioner workshops in various fashions, and i'm sure the way it's structured can be handled, and i look forward to them. i think that should be very enlightening and productive for everyone. thanks. >> operator: thanks for your comments. madam secretary, there are no more caller in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. that closes public comment on item number 15. you're on mute, madam president. >> president maxwell: next item, please. >> clerk: the next item is consent calendar. you only have one item on your consent calendar today, approve amend number three to contract number ww-647-r.

members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 16, dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 146-273-7257, pound, pound, to raise your hand to speak, press star, three. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item number 16 is closed. >> again, i move to approve prematurely but timely, i hope. >> president maxwell: okay. there's a motion to approve. second? >> second.

>> president maxwell: it's been moved and seconded. roll call vote, please. [roll call] >> clerk: you have four ayes. >> president maxwell: next item, please. >> clerk: next item is item number 17, approve the water supply assessment for the proposed 2500 mariposa street, san francisco municipal transportation authority potrero bus yard project, presented by general manager ritchie. >> hello. steve ritchie, general manager of water. this is a redevelopment of the potrero bus yard into a joint use facility that would have bus maintenance activities but also have development uses,

including a mix of residential uses, including 575 residential units. as always, the water supply assessment is a requirement that the commission deliver to the planning commission so that they can engage in the ceqa process. so it's not approval of the project by the commission, it's simply approval of the technical report regarding water supply for this development project, and i recommend your approval. >> president maxwell: any discussion? public comment on this issue? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make a two-minute -- >> sorry. i release you've been doing a lot of these, and this is my first one. i'm not going to ask you to go through all of these in detail, but i realize that this or any individual one of these is pretty small. i think this is less than

one-tenth of 1% of the water that we use. do you have, like, an advanced calendar that you have for us that could tell us how many of these that would come before us in the next year or the next few months so we have an idea of the volume what we'll be dealing with? >> sure. the department has a pipeline of all developments that are queued up in the process, so we can get an equipment of it in that, but probably, from a bigger picture, what's coming up from the p.u.c. in the next calendar year is the approval of the urban water management plan, which is looking at the next 25 years of demand and what that's going to look like. for example, this project was already included in the 2015 urban water management plan, so that's a plan that has to be done every five years to identify that, you know, we know what the demands are going to be, and we know how to identify water sources for

those. the challenge in the current approach is with the uncertainty around the bay-delta plan, we have -- you know, we have to grapple with that uncertainty when, you know, coming to these conclusions that there is sufficient water to supply for the project. >> thank you. >> so when we do using those -- having to think about this, the delta plan, are we considering that what if the state plan goes through? >> yeah. >> we're making our projections with that view in mind? >> yeah. all of these that we've done since the state adopted the plan in december 2018, we layout all of the possible scenarios in the future. one of which is the state plan goes into effect, one of which is the voluntary agreement goes into effect, and another is that the plan does not go into

effect because of litigation, which we're actively engaged in, as well as many others. all of those outcomes are possible, and so we try to factually present those as possibilities, then try to make the best assessment that we can of how this fits into our potential water supply. it's also why we're engaged in the alternative water planning process now to make sure that we're identifying supplies that could be, you know, up to that big figure mentioned of 93 million gallons per day of shortfall if, worst case scenario from a water planning point of view comes about, and frankly for growth in san francisco. the growth projections that we're starting to work with now, again, call for a great deal of growth, and it's been odysseying, with covid, you know, people potentially moving away from urban areas, but then, they run into moving into

an urban wildfire interface area, and that has its own problems. so i think everybody in the urban planning world is transitioning the best they can in terms of what the projections are in the future, but it is a challenging time to work in this field. >> president maxwell: madam secretary, we should move onto public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment, dial 415-655-0001 and enter the meeting i.d. then pound, pound, to raise your hand to speak, press star, three. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: yes, madam secretary, there are three callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> can you hear me now?

>> operator: yeah, you have two minutes. >> david pillpel. i have a number of comments for this, and hopefully, this is my last comment for the meeting. first, it's the municipal transportation agency, not authority. hopefully, the reports should notice who the staff is, not just a.g.m. ritchie, who knows everything about everything, as we know. but i hope there's some policy person that's the point on this. i think that these w.s.a. reports should clearly link to the latest urban water management plan, and i appreciate the discussion just now about updating the 2015 plan to 2020, which i guess will stretch into 2021, so i assume we'll hear more about that update in the future, including new projections, ranging wildly based on

covid-19 impacts. next, i think planning should updata tachment a, starting on page 27 to reflect the latest plan bay area numbers. i think that was the 2013 memo? next, could someone please provide me the september 6, 2016 p.u.c. guidance memo? it's referred to in pages 32 and 33, and attach that in the future? next, i see the gross projected water use by the project, but i did not see the next change from today's use. maybe it's there in the table, but i didn't see it quickly. and then, to conclude, i support the conclusion of the w.s.a. that there is sufficient water to supply the proposed project, but i express no opinion at this time on the merits of the project or whether it should be approved. thank you for taking my comments. >> operator: thank you, caller. next caller, your line is open.

>> thank you. it is [inaudible] again. president maxwell, first of all, i want to thank you for your comments and follow up on the question that i have. but just for your benefit, the city certifies company to whatever rules they carrie. this clearly has nothing to do with chapter 14-b, but it is the duty of the san francisco p.u.c., when they issue contracts -- construction contracts to check to see if they have licenses, not just for -- [inaudible] >> i have my two minutes. you want to cut me off again? >> clerk: this is public comment on item 17.

>> water supply, so contracts related to water supply. construction contracts related to water supply. is that related enough to item 17? i'm asking a question. something said it's not my fault, it's c.m.d.s fault, and i'm saying no, the contract, including the water supply, co comes in from the p.u.c. so where is the process to identify the contractors whether they have a license or not? is that too difficult? miss maxwell, you're hearing a lot of things from staff just to justify things. i don't mind going tat for tat. you have my cell phone number. call me, and i'll give you the courtesy. but you are hiring people with

no licenses whatever. you tell me to call the [inaudible], but they won't [inaudible]. i mean, you read the papers, harland? thank you. >> operator: thank you, caller. last caller, your line is open. >> hi. peter dreickmeyer -- >> hi. i just wanted to say this is public comment on item 17. thank you. >> yeah. when i speak with employees of water agencies, and we talk about demand projections, they say well, you know, we're expecting all of this growth. and i say well, isn't that a problem? maybe we've reached our carrying capacity, and they say well, that's not up to us, that's up to cities and counties that approve development. but then, they apply these water supply assessment that

say yes, we have the waters, and they don't say that there's a tradeoff, that we might have a degraded environment. and so those who approve development feel, like, oh, we've got the water. let's just go ahead, and we just grow and grow and grow. even plan bay area doesn't look at the care and capacity. the plan of plan bay area is to reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions. but if the overall population is growing, the emissions are not reducing. we need to have a plan of what we want san francisco to look like. what's the carrying capacity? is part of that that we have a healthy tuolomne river and a healthy bay valley? there was a presentation last fall, but it was basically, here's some information, okay, we checked that off the list.

so that would be another wonderful workshop to have, is bring together the leaders of san francisco and talk about what we want our city and our region to look like, and what's the connection between water supply and development. thank you. >> operator: thank you, caller. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment is item 17 is closed. >> president maxwell: thank you. i just wanted to say that the planning department has done many planning sessions for ten years out, 25 years out, 50 years out, and i think it is important to maybe get some of that information and start talking with them about some of the issues that you're concerned about with water, as well. madam clerk -- thank you. may i have a motion to approve

this item, and a second? >> vice president moran: i'll move the item. >> commissioner harrington: second. >> president maxwell: madam clerk, roll call, please. [roll call] >> clerk: you have four ayes. >> president maxwell: item is passed. next item, please, madam clerk. >> clerk: madam president, your next item is item 18, adopt findings declaring as surplus to the san francisco public utilities commission utility needs under charter section as exempt surplus land in the unincorporated town of sunol in alameda county, that is under the jurisdiction of the sfpuc, and recommend that

the board of supervisors authorize the city's director of property to execute a quitclaim deed conveying the property to the east bay regional park district, and b, the sfpuc general manager to execute an agreement for sale of real estate to convey the property to the east way regional park district for 500,000. >> we have struck a deal with east bay regional park who has all the surrounding land around this 20 acres, so they will incorporate it into the east bay regional park's system. we think this is a good deal for us and a good deal for the east bay regional park, so i'd

ask that you move the item. >> president maxwell: public comment on this item. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 18 dial 415-655-0001, meeting 146-723-7625, pound, pound. to raise your hand to speak, press star, three. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there are no callers with their hands raised at this time. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item 18 is closed. >> president maxwell: commissioners, may i have a motion and a second to approve this item, please? >> commissioner harrington: so moved. >> vice president moran: second. >> president maxwell: roll call, please. [roll call]

>> clerk: you have four ayes. >> president maxwell: item is approved. next item, please -- would you read the next item, please. >> clerk: madam president, your next item of business is item 19, authorize the general manager to execute on behalf of the city and county of san francisco a joint funding agreement with the u.s. geological survey for an amount not to exceed $32180 and with a duration of 11 months. >> this is vice manager ritchie. this is an agreement to manage stream gauges in our watersheds. we've been entering into agreements with the usgs to

manage stream gauges, and this is a continuation of that. this one is a short-term agreement because they've been changing their rules about how they do contracts in effect, so we're trying to work with them to make sure that the next one can be a longer-term agreement because this one only lasts for a little less than a year, and i request your approval. >> i have one question. what does hydrologic mean? >> hydrologic basically means the movement of water in the environment. water evaporates out of the ocean, goes up in the air, falls as rain, and it's the hydrologic cycle. anything concerns water movement has to do with

hydrologic matters. >> turned into an adjective i didn't quite get. >> president maxwell: public comment on this item. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make public comment on item 19, dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d., and pound, pound. to raise your hand to speak, press star, three. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: there are no callers in the queue at this time. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item 19 is closed. >> president maxwell: commissioners, may i get a motion and a second to approve this item, please? >> so moved. >>

$160,661, presented by a.g.m. ritchie. >> good afternoon again, commissioners. this is extending our work with those six agencies to evaluate closely all of the portable reuse wastewater options around the area of redwood city and

san mateo, including transporting highly treated water and placing it in crystal spring reservoir. we've been working successfully together for the last few years, and this is a continuation of that. again, on the feasibility side, one of the things that, you know, we still have to go through with the state is, for direct potable reuse, we have to evaluate the possibilities for those, but we are looking at what it take to reuse waste wear. this is a continuation of that work. the total for the work is about $282,000 in this next phase, and i recommend your approval. >> president maxwell: and how close are you to coming up with a plan? >> these are very interesting

and challenging subjects and d delicate subjects. we don't want to run to those too hastily, so this next phase of effort is going to take about two years to make sure we come possible use for options that we can find for that part of the world. and hopefully, you know, within -- i think this one, i don't recall off the top of my head, but we can get to a feasible project possible in about six years. >> president maxwell: really? okay. thank you. public comment on this item? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 20, dial 415, 655-0001. meeting i.d. 146-273-1257, pound, pound. to raise your hand to speak,

press star, three. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there is one caller in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> operator: go ahead, caller. >> hi, peter dreickmeyer, tuolomne river trust. you heard a figure from staff, and it was repeated today, that you might need up to 93 million gallons a day, and i think that figure is so overblown. i sent you a letter in may, laying out a plan for managing water supply with the bay-delta plan in effect. my conclusion was it was a reasonable approach that you'd need about 19 million gallons per day of additional water. i'd be happy to send that letter to you again or discuss it with you. this crystal springs project or whatever it turns out to be is

looking at about 9 m.g.d., so just about half of what you might need. and it's a great idea, and i encourage you to approve it, and, again, look forward to having more conversations about how many more you really will need in the future. thank you. >> operator: thank you, caller. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item 20 is closed. madam president, you're muted. >> president maxwell: that's why you weren't answering me. may i have a motion and a second to approve this item, please? >> vice president moran: i'll

move it. >> second. >> president maxwell: it's been moved and seconded -- it's been moved and seconded. may i have a roll call vote, please. [roll call] >> clerk: you have four ayes. >> president maxwell: motion -- item is approved. next item, please, madam clerk. >> clerk: madam president, your next item is item 21, approve the reallocation of 20 million in existing appropriations in the fiscal year 2020-21 power enterprise capital plan from the s.f.o. substation project, street replacement project and intervening facilities project

to the bay corridor transmission-distribution project and authorize the general manager to seek mayor and board of supervisors approval of a supplemental appropriation for the deappropriation and reappropriation of 8 million from the streetlight replacement project to the bctd project. >> good evening again, commissioners. recall this project, which is under construction now, is critical to provide power service to the improved southeast wastewater treatment facility, pier 70, and other new customers along the southeast waterfront. since the commission approved the plan in february, the cost estimate for the plan has increased by $28 million, to a total of $175 million. the main increase in the project cost is attributable to the cost of the project substation. the substation was estimated at

a cost of 35 million, based on preliminary design. with completion of the 35% of the design, the engineer's estimate was 55 million. the lowest bid evaluated for the engineering procurement and construction of the substation was approximately 60 million. to allow the project to continue, given these higher cost, power enterprise staff recommends reallocating 20 million in existing budget allocations by reprioritizing three other capital project appropriations. first, the appropriation of 9 million to the s.f.o. substation project. second, the 8 million

appropriated to our streetlights facility project. the remaining 8 million is for project contingency. we aren't asking for that in this particular action. we will continue to monitor the budget for completion and will bring forward any additional funding requests at part of our fiscal year -- as part of our fiscal year 22 budget if necessary to complete the project, and with that, i'm happy to answer any questions you have. i'm asking for your support. >> question. >> questions? >> yes. on the s.f.o. project, i understand that that project's not needed right away. do you have an estimate as to how soon that project is going to need to be funded again? >> yeah. we don't have that yet,

commissioner. our staff continues to work with the airport staff as they readjust their capital planning in the face of covid and in light of their changed needs, so we're in ongoing communication with them, and really, just sort of trying to be available and responsive to their needs. >> is there any work going on on that? what i'm wondering about is, if we suddenly have to start this thing up again, as the economy gets into gear, and we have to start this thing up, will we be able to respond to meet that need? >> yeah, so at this point, we're -- the -- any efforts would be the early planning and engineering development work for it? we are continuing to look at what the airport's loads are and the capacity -- if the

capacity of the current substations are adequate to meet their loads. we realize that this substation construction and refurbishment involves a lot of long lead time purchase items, so we will need to continue to work with the airport to be responsive to their needs? they -- they are not sounding anxious or ready to advance this -- this substation work. we would need to do more preliminary planning work, professional services needs would be our early need, and i feel like through our existing contracts and professional services dollars, we should be able to meet what are modest planning work would continue with the airport staff. >> okay. thank you. >> you're welcome. >> president maxwell: any other

discussion? i have a question. so what was the main reason for the project substation increase from 35 to 55 and then, ultimately, $60 million? >> yeah, i think part of it is just learning more about the extent of the project, some of the additional civil work that needed to be completed that hadn't been anticipated in the initial -- initial assessment. >> president maxwell: in particular, what was that? was it foundation? was it something -- what did they find? >> so as i understand it, there were -- there was a need to do some more civil work on the walls around the -- around the site. that's my understanding. it was mostly a civil work of that nature. >> so they had the -- the structure, the infrastructure

of it, the walls the foundation or something like that, and they weren't expecting that? >> yes, and just the nature of a project like this, that as you learn more about it, cost estimates are refined. >> yeah, but from 35 million to 60, that's quite a bit. that's 25 million more for walls, so that's what makes me wonder, you know, what else there was to that. >> so barbara -- >> yes. >> so this project, when the initial estimate was that at what percentage -- >> 35%. >> the original 35 was at what? >> it says, upon completion of the 35% design the estimate

was -- >> right. that's when it -- it was -- it was originally -- the preliminary design, harlan, was 35 million. then with the 35% design, it went up to 55, and then, the bids came in at 60. >> so -- so, commissioner, i just -- so the progression of bids, that's why i was asking a 10%, which you really don't know much, just about, you know, general layout, you know, information about some of the equipment that you may have. when you get to 35, that's when you have more detail about, you know, how far you have to excavate, you have to look at the soil there. so when you look at a 35% estimate, you'd have a better, you know, indication of, plus or minus, of what that bid is,

and the actual bid -- i mean, the actual price is when the contractor bids it. so i just wanted to say the actual progression of when it was 35, i don't know if it was 5% or 10% of design, where you had no details. >> so that's what it is, the preliminary design, the very initial, the very beginning, and as they went deeper into it, they found more issues. >> more requirements, more details. so the theme that you'll see, when we normally come to the commission, it is when we have 95% drawings or 100%, and then, we go out and do or get a contractor bid, so you'll start seeing the prices be llow

engineering estimate. we don't share the prices with 35, 65, until we get to 95 because this is what the commission is used to seeing. it's unforeseen conditions that we start incorporating into the price. in this situation, it was a, you know, 10%, and now 35, we based it, and then, the actual bid, you know, came in 5 million over what it was at 35%. >> well, i just think when the public is listening, they don't have all that information. >> oh, yeah. >> so it's important to plug in what happened between 35 and 55 so people don't go astray here. all right. so thank you. >> thank you. >> mm-hmm. any further -- any other questions or comments, commissioners? public comment on this item? >> clerk: members of the

public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 21, dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d., and pound, pound. to raise your hand to speak, press star, three. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, we have one caller with hand raised. >> clerk: thank you. >> operator: caller, do you wish to speak to item 21? caller, are you there? >> i'm sorry. i did not sign up for this one. this is peter dreickmeyer. i think it might have been from last time. sorry. >> operator: thank you.

madam secretary, there are no other callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment is closed. >> president maxwell: may i get a motion and a second to approve this item? >> i'll move it. >> president maxwell: may i have a second? >> vice president moran: second. >> president maxwell: it's been moved and seconded. madam secretary, roll call, please. [roll call] >> clerk: you have -- >> president maxwell: thank you. motion has been approved. madam secretary, is there any further business before the commission?

>> clerk: sorry, madam president. that concludes your business for