bowl champion teams and hall of fame players by joe montana, jerry rice and steve jones. in 1982, the game-winning touchdown pass from joe montana to dwight clark was known as "the catch." leading the niners to their first super bowl. the 49ers hosted eight n.f.c. championship games including the 2001 season that ended with a loss to the new york giants. in 201, the last event held at candlestick park was a concert by paul mccartney who played with the beatles in 1966, the stadium's first concert. demolition of the stick began in late 2014 and it was completed in september 2015. the giants had moved to pacific rail park in 2000 while the 49ers moved to santa clara in 2014. with structural claims and numerous name changes, many have passed through and will remember

candlestick park as home to the legendary athletes and entertainment. these memorable moments will live on in a place called the stick. >> madam secretary, will you call the roll please. >> president maxwell. >> here. >> vice president ryan. >> here. >> commissioner colson. >> here. >> commissioner herring ton. >> here. >> we have a quorum. >> thank you. madam president before we start i would like the make a brief announcement. due to the covid-19 health emergency and given the public health recommendation issued by the san francisco department of public health and governor and mayor have lifted the

restrictions. this is being held via teleconference and televised by sfgovtv. there is a believe time lag between the live meeting and what is viewed on sfgovtv. i would like to extend our thanks to sfgovtv and the it staff for assistance during this meeting. if you wish to comment on an item dial 415-655-0001, meeting id1469408633-pound pound. to speak press star three. i will ask the commissioner and staff to mute microphones. madam president. the first order is item 3, approval of the minutes of november 30, 2020, and the regular meeting december 8, 2020. i did receive two corrections

via e-mail. first on the minutes of decembe5 general public comment. there was a date of 1994 that should have read 1944. also, on item 6 public comment. i had indicated ngd was 198. that should be 98. those changes we will make on the minutes. >> thank you. any further discussion or correction on the minutes of november 30th or december 8th? >> will you open up for public comment, please. >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment november 3, the minutes dial 415-655-0001

meeting id1469408633, pound pound. to raise your hand to speak press star three. there will be a chime when your time has expired. >> there is one caller. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i hope you are doing well. i am calling on the last board meeting. after i left i received a phone call 10 minutes after i left the meeting. i was told there was a potential violation of the browns act. specifically someone on the board that has been discussing item 10, the construction management contract with staff

prior to the public meeting. this is extremely serious. i hope the commission and city attorney take it seriously. not only had she lied to you and misrepresented facts and had to change her statement after i represented the facts. she had no choice but to change the statement. now we have evidence or what seems to be evidence of a commissioner colluding with staff on this issue. i take an exception, one, the commissioner asked what is our exposure? i hope you understand one thing. we are living in an environment right now where federal charges are being filed. it has nothing to do with your exposure. it has to do with how the city has to work and treat its residents. how difficult is that?

i am telling you again with all due respect to every one of you. what we do need is to pause for a second and just not do the same thing. commissioner harrington, i was today able to find a record of the public fund i did when you were general manager on october 2011. i went through it. i am trying to figure out i have these issues for years and years. >> thank you, your time has expired. >> there are no more calls in the queue. >> thank you. public comment on item 3, approval of minutes is closed. now, i have a motion and -- may i have a motion and second to approve the minutes, please.

>> so moved. >> second. >> moved and seconded. roll call vote, please. >> president maxwell. >> aye. >> vice president ryan. >> aye. >> commissioner paulson. >> aye. >> commissioner harrington. >> aye. >> you have four ayes. >> thank you. it is passed. madam secretary will you read the next item, please. >> item 4. general public comment. members of the public may address the commission for up to two minutes on matters within the commission jurisdiction not on the agenda by dialing 415-655-0001. meeting id1469408633-pound pound. raise your hand to speak, press star three. >> do we have any callers?

>> there are multiple call ins the queue. >> thank you. >> commissioners, i have a a number of issues to discuss with you, commissioners. i have been reading many documents linked to agenda items and some other documents relating to contact. i have been doing this for like 25 years. let me remind you, commissioners, these times are different especially these couple of weeks. with some feedback from the acting general managers and

others that it is business as usual, you will be sadly mistaken. in the past when i have said that a certain thing will happen, it happens. now it is time for the recall act. if you do not know how serious the recall act is, please read the recall act. as much as what has happened there are one or two people defying standards, defying ethics because the city attorney and the city controller have been kicking the can down the street, but within 24 hours in

the media you will witness what is coming down the pipeline. thank you very much. >> next caller. you have two minutes. >> to callition for san francisco neighborhoods. i am restating the public comments made at the capital planning committee meeting on december 14th, 2020. thetheththe infrastructure was . a street will only be attorney up once every five years. they ignore the policy. the 19th avenue combined city project is a prime example.

besides the m.t.a. improvements, the project will replace water and sewer lanes between lincoln way and holloway avenue. it will only upgrade existing pipes between irving and yolowa. it won't extend the pipes to holloway. even though major developments are in the pipeline nearby hollaway over. besides inconsistent with the city policy this is inconsistent with the civil grand jury report. act now before it is too late to enhance our high pressure emergency firefighting water system. iin 1984 dianne feinstein committed to the west side. the civil grand jury reports

state act now. i urge the p.u.c. to amend the 19th avenue combined city project to include dedicated 19t19th avenue. i would urge the pec to site the oceanside saltwater pump on pec property. thank you. >> next caller. two minutes. >> two items under general public comment. first, i recall from the last meeting that the 1550 evans topping offer event was to be held on friday, december 11th. i am hoping we might hear a word or two about that under the general manager's report. i am unclear how history will

view that project in the future. my other general public comment i am still trying to get our household p.u.c. bills paid. i will follow up with eric sandler and take care of that before the end of the year. thanks very much. >> i am dave warner palo alto resident. you are a strong set of commissioner was tremendous potential. one of the largest urban water agencies in california. others watch what you do. i say this to remind you of the opportunity you have. at a manning crolevel we have a reliable water supply 85% from the river with the highest percentage of water taken from it.

the damage to the ecosystem is substantial. in the last 30 years there are remarkable changes to the california urban water supplies. many water agencies shifted from imported to local sources. los angeles who is importing 85% of water is well down to 50% or less. there is a double benefit. sustainable supplies reduce environmental impact. the sfpuc is behind this. they weren't at the table. likely it would be cheaper to be part of industries cal springs project. if it was further along we might have increased our supply. we have companion issues. water is expensive. we have two address cost when thinking of the future. in summary you could find

solutions to improve liability and manage costs. not easy. there is another systematic issue to degrees. staff is slow at responding to your requests. to get things done you need staff which we response is measured in the meeting or to two. thank you. i will ride a copy of the comments for the record. >> two minutes. >> yes, good morning. i am harry bernstein. i would like to make a summary. harlan kelly resigned of general manager after being charged by federal prosecutors allegedly accepting bribes from a

contractor. this is part of what is termed corruption scandal at city hall going back to the arrest in january and walter later in the year. i believe mr. harrington was appointed to the commission in compensation for the misdeeds acknowledged and alleged. i wondered if there is going to be some -- mr. kelly is of course innocent until proven otherwise. i wonder if there is some public discussion of the situation apwhether doubt is cast on any of the large projects. i am thinking particularly of the balboa reservoir project. thank you.

>> thank you. appreciate it. maxwell for the record. the comments, first of all, the color content label for 2019. clean power s.f. we are doing well. 48.1% renewable and 47.5% large hydroelectric. it is good work, but i want us to be able to do more. i have seen other public power agencies that have higher level of content. for this coming year it should

be on building more storage especially within the city. of course, local development along the way because i believe electrification is our future. it is good for people to have a mission free source of cooking and heating in homes and businesses. i would like to see the website for clean power s.f. easier to navigate and access more of the material involved there in. also, i want to see sfpc become more user friendly how we are expanding on ways that people can pay sfpuc bills. in there communities and the world is changing. look forward, not backward to

ensure access to all of those in the communities in time of covid-19 when travel needs to be handled very carefully. thank you. >> commissioners, i am calling the correspondence log and what is transmitted from the p.u.c. as public documents. first of all, i am looking at the log right now as we speak. clearly, whoever prepared the board letter for your attention. i sent her an e-mail regarding item 10b, construction management to ask it to remove from consent to regular calendar. in addition to that e-mail i

sent you also cathy how well in addition to the fact she denied ever receiving any focus on the contract, i did get a response back from the steal. -- from the city. the request for public information that was omitted. i am not sure if the communications to public officials are ignored or for whatever reason staff are not acknowledging it publicly. this is an issue in addition to the brown act violation. i ask you to find ways to address these issues. if you do receive a e-mail from the public that needs to be in the correspondence log. in addition to protests that need acknowledged. you cannot simply ignore and say it did not exist and so forth.

thank you for your attention to this matter. >> hello. hello. i live in district 7. [ inaudible ]

thank you and the best to all of you in 2021. >> next caller. you have two minutes. >> i would like to comment on item 5 now or should i wait? >> this is general public comment. >> will i be able to comment on 5e? >> i will call for public comment on 5e separately.

>> thank you. >> hello. i apologize. i am taking care of my 92-year-old mother. i want to comment on item 8. so i can get back to her. i just want to comment that back in the early 1900s. >> we cannot do that. sorry. >> i cannot do that. >> this is item 4, general public comment. >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> that closes general public

comment. >> madam secretary will you read the next item, please. >> communications. item 5. any discussion on communications? seeing none, will you open up for public comment, please. >> members of the public on item 5 communications dial 415-655-0001. meeting id1469408633-pound pound. to speak press star, 3. do we have any callers? >> there are multiple call ins

the queue. >> this is specifically item 5e, communication. >> you have two minutes. >> david again. i want to speak briefly on item 5b. the contract advertisement report. it is a one page. i just wanted to ask in the future i think it would be helpful for me to include environmental determination and the city planning case number for work under these contracts so i don't have to chase it down at city planning. i am assuming the capable and competent staff can include that line in these reports to the commission. thanks very much.

>> next caller, you have two minutes. >> the on march 2017 is three years. it se it expired in 2020. the threshold of qualifying as construction management l.b.e. it was revoked. the status when they were not qualified. there will be status after the expiration of march 2020. the status on may 2020 was not valid. page one of the memorandum they state pursuant to chapter rules and regulations the contractor must be certified at the time of submission. the contract overrides this.

it applies to each phase of the selection process. you can see the memorandum page 2 background they will be applicable under the r.f.p. and selection process written proposal or interview at ops. they lost certification august 31, 20 to. interviews were held and the meeting of december 8th. they said it would not change outcome of rankings. it does. corrected there were two protested received. december 8th at the time of the ward the certification valid cathy stated they were. october 5th. it was revoked september 30th. expired on august 31st. commissioner as former general manager you should be aware.

it cannot be negotiated. it can be moved to the next one. >> thank you, caller. next caller, you have two minutes. next caller. you have two minutes. >> thank you. commissioners, with all due respect. mr. eric wright i want to really thank you. what you have said you hit it right on the spot. everything you have said i was going to say it. i want to ask for a small favor.

if you get this message and can hear me please call me on my cell phone (510)812-5210. commissioners, in addition to what mr. eric stated there are serious discrepancies in the memos. do not forget pdm is a project. same of the jones who was arrested in the year 2000 and as recently as 2017-18 charmed for the same thing. same group that says do it better than new york. what eric said is on the point. i want to hug you, to be honest. the other thing to your attention. this was issued on new year's eve, december 31, 2019. tell me who on your staff was

working on new year's eve to issue it. you are missing the biggest point of all. why it was issued the day before the new legislation with the city and county of san francisco which would have prevented the former gm for the job. that is a scam. nobody was listening. the third thing i want be to tell you is that there is a claim whereby cathy changes it to eliminate any conflict of interest. i am sorry to tell you this. this is bologna. if you do review the contract, the p.u.c. approved a company that had a clear conflict of interest. >> your time is expired. >> next caller. two minutes. >> commissioners, some of you

are. [indiscernable] you are very right to shake your rights until it falls off your shoulders. there is corruption here. you commissioners are not being given the right report in the assistant general manager. in this case cathy howe. you have to sit down with her and ask her exactly chronologically how did this mess happen? it has come before the commission before. i heard it. i did not comment, but i heard one of the commissioners comment, and i remembered it. are we going to fix this? why do we favor certain crooks?

why do we favor certain people who have access. [indiscernable] the contract monitoring division that has no commission. it is a policymaker. once had the human rights commission, a real commission. have you ever asked why the contract monitoring division no commission? the city administrator and the mayor and they may being all of the decisions. have you thought this or do i have to do the heavy lifting? thank you very much. >> thank you, caller. madam secretary, no more call ins the queue. >> that closes public comment on

item 5, communications. >> several callers raised some very specific points differing with the analysis in 5e. that may beings this a little difficult and we talked about it last time was that cmb is not p.u.c. entity and we rely on their work. given the importance of the issue and the tenderness of the times, i would appreciate the city attorney's review of the representations made in that memo from cmd. to make sure that the

interpretation of when certification was required and what the effect had to be. i guess one of the issues is whether the terms of the contract documents supersede the administrative provisions of the cmd. i think it would be appropriate and useful at this time if the city attorney could weigh in on that and indicate concurrence or nonconcurrence with the analysis that is in that memo. >> the rest of the commission agrees i will be happy to have the contract tores take a -- attorneys take a look and report back in. >> that would be appropriate. is everybody in agreement with that? >> fine with me. that would be appropriate. >> definitely fine with me.

>> then are we talking later in the meeting or at another meeting? >> it would be at a subsequent meeting. >> maybe our next meeting january 22nd. >> yes. >> january 26th. >> thank you. any other comments? madam secretary. next item, please. next item 6. annual revenue bond oversight committee quarterly report. presented by the co-chair. >> thank you, madam secretary. madam president, commissioners, thank you for having me here today. i am the co-chair of the revenue

bond oversight committee. on behalf of my fellow committee members, i present you with the annual report of the revenue bond over committee for 2019. highlights include site visits to the dam and southeast treatment plan, monitoring bond sales and ongoing debt plans. working with city staff to select audit caughttants for the up -- consultants for the upcoming audit. the staff of the duc and staff of the controller's office for the work of the committee. also, i would like to call out and thank michael brown and richard moral less and victor young from the board of supervisors for guidance and

support. now, i will pause and answer any questions you may have. >> i would like to thank you for your work. you are volunteers and you put in full-service. thank you for all you do on top of all you do and thank you to the city and commission. any other comments? >> commissioner harrington? >> i would like to add thanks to that. when we went out to issue bonds to get public approval. one of the things people counted on was the revenue bond oversight committee. it is very much appreciated. one question. it seems like a number of members were resigning over the last two years. did something unusual happen or does that happen over time and do you have a sufficient

quantity for a quorum for meetings? >> today we have a quorum. i joined this year. we have had i understand from the past there is a certain turnover, but so far we had one. >> okay. thank you. >> any further comments? >> thank you very much for your work. >> thank you, madam president. thank you, commissioners and madam secretary. >> madam secretary will you open this item for public comment, please. >> members who wish to make two minutes of public comments on item 6b revenue bond oversight committee report. dial 415-655-0001. meeting id1469408633-pound pound. to raise your hand to speak

press star three. >> do we have any callers? >> we have multiple call in cale queue. caller, you have two minutes. >> commissioners with my sincere apologies. i want to make a quick comment. again for public caller mr. eric white. >> i am sorry. if you would like to make public comment on the report please continue. if it is not regarding the report please call when you are ready for an item. >> i am. may i continue. >> please do. >> thank you. commissioners, we are looking at the bond, project, and the issues are the same.

don't take me wrong. every project has an l.b.e. contractors and consultants. the issues to your attention today and i appreciate very much the president of the board and commissioner moran with tremendous experience. i believe you understand the severity of the situation. what i am telling you is that what we need is some sort of system in place to address those shortcomings. the bond is there. projects are coming in. without addressing this once and for all we will not be able to move forward. you can not rely on cmd to make those decisions. also omission from the statements today how many know that cnb is ad by san francisco p.u.c. funds? they are not doing it for free. all of the staff working on the

p.u.c. projects are being paid and reimbursed. the city attorney it was office and other departments. you can stop this circus. i thank you for your time. >> next caller. >> it is david again. item 6 the annual report. i followed arboc off and on over the years. this covers their work from californiader year 2019 -- calendar year 2019. i noted that the agenda item somehow this is committee quarterly report. i think it is annual not

quarterly report. back to my prepared comments. if it is not prohibited by law, i would ask arboc to opine annually whether the bond proceeds have been used for their intended purpose. that might strengthen oversight mechanism here. i note the finances certification letter that is in appendix four is a staff certification, all most self-certification. i think it would be useful for arboc as outside entity to offer its opinion about the use of the bond funds. if that is not precluded by law anywhere. then just finally as a calendar year report in the future i would try to schedule this annual report earlier in the

year. we are now at the end of december and this is covering their activities for calendar year 2019. perhaps the calendar year 2020 annual report could be heard earlier in calendar year 2021. thanks very much on this item. >> commissioners, i would appreciate if some kind of report was posted on the website swebsite. for example, of course, the public is interested in the bond revenue and how it is spent, but we would like to know why there was an added expense on.

[ inaudible ] the dam and why initially the bond on the sewer system project of $6 billion, not $12 billion. if it goes to 18 or $20 billion, do we just get a quarterly report but we do not get the recent why for sure the bond goes up and has an impact. if the report was posted earlier and we were allowed to comment, then the gentleman would have something to say today. next time maybe we should have the report 15 days earlier so

that we can make some stellar comments so that the very intelligent man who is giving this report could shed light. we, the public, taxpayers, would like the gentleman to shed light where we peel abject documents especially on the sewer system improvement project. thank you very much. >> madam secretary, there are no more calls in the queue. >> thank you that closes public comment on item 6. madam secretary read the next item, please. >> next item is item 7. bay area water supply and conservation area update.

>> good afternoon. nicole c.e.o. first i want to punish you all a merry christmas to you and your staff. i hope next year is better for all of us. look ahead to 2021. we will work cooperatively with you and your staff to a busy year for us and also for your organization. there will be a determined effort to reach our goal, high-quality water at a fair price. it is the single goal for 20 years and will be so. we want to make progress with closure on the bay delta issue as it affected the water supply and usage. as the owner and operator of the water system, san francisco

appropriately decided to take the lead to resolve this issue. the reality is that little progress has been made. the situation must not go on without reasonable progress. it is supported by 16 member agencies. we are determined to do everything in our power and authority to protect residents, businesses and communities. as you know bossca purchased two-thirds of the water and pay $250 million per year. twice as much water used by san francisco. it is the california law that prevents interest of water customers. we expect you to do more to get results without further delay. 12 year voluntary agreement based on the management plan is

the right vehicle. it will help reach this goal and keep you informed and try to exchange ideas weekly. we expect your organization to continue to complete this within the legislative deadlines. we cannot be satisfied with anveements in 2020. you must continue to identify new sources of high-quality watt awater and deliver at fair price when and where it is needed. finding new water sources is an annual requirement under the 1823. while i appreciate this it must be on a faster track in 2021 to meet the schedule and deadline of the commission. it is committed to these critical results. that concludes my comments.

i will answer any questions you might have. >> any questions or comments? >> i would like to say that i think that is going to be a priority for us. it has been and will continue to be a priority for the san francisco p.u.c. commission. i think we are lined in our goals and i agree with you. more has to be done we are set to do that. thank you. >> any further comments? public comment on this item, madam secretary. >> members of the public may make two minutes on item 7, the update. dial 415-655-0001. meeting id1649408633-pound

pound. to speak press star, 3. do we have any callers? >> there are no calls in the queue right now. >> public comment on item 7 is closed. thank you. will you read the next item, please. >> next item is 8. presentation by the city department of human resources regarding the selection process for general manager o of recruitment including selection of recruitment firm or other action regarding recruitment and selection process. before ms. howard presents. there is something. >> i would like to make a statement to the commission. i will not participate in this discussion or any aspect of the

mission's position. i have informed you about this in writing. i will be offline now. thank you. >> colleagues. i asked the department to come in to give us an overview. some of you have been involved for a wheel everything i thought it was important to have it together. >> good afternoon. i am kate how were managing director of the department of human resources. i am here to provide overview of process for executive recruitment you will undertake in the coming months. i would like to cover an overview of the process. offer dhr support to you and to update you on the availability

of the recruit meant firms in the prequalified pool. i am happy to take questions at any time. i have a slide up. i will talk for a couple minutes then walk through the specific steps. as you know, the charter gives the commission the responsibility of evaluating candidates to be the general manager of the public utilities commission, and to then recommend three candidates to the mayor who will make the determination who the gm will be. in front of you, you have the steps we have identified that will help you go through identifying, evaluating and ad

vanceing candidates. the last time the commission went through this process you did use an executive recruitment firm. that was in 2012. we encourage working together. one of the firms that we have to conduct out reach, screening and presentation of the candidates. as you can see on the slide we have identified the 8 steps to the recruitment process. first asking the prequalified group of firms interested and available in doing the work. second then the commission reviewing the responses and making a determining which firm you wish to work with.

once you selected the recruitment firm they will work with you to prepare a profile and job announcement as well as strategy to recruit, outreach strategy to identify the best candidates and encourage them into the recruitment. they will conduct that outreach and recruitment and provide status updates along the way. they will then prevent those candidates that meet minimum qualifications for your review. you would make determinations who you wish to interview and conduct interviews of those candidates. at that point the commission

would likely ask the recruitment firm to do final vetting on any candidates you wish to forward to the mayors office and then advance those three candidates to the mayor's for her consideration and ultimately selection. typically the proves, you know, -- the process. i have seen it done in four months and as long as a year. typically six months is the timeframe to plan around. update on the recruitment firms. we have 11 prequalified vendors that are available to go into contract. nine of them submitted proposals

indicating they would be interested in working with the commission on this particular recruitment. seven are fully compliant with all city requirements, insurance and other things. those are the ones that would be available to work with you at this time. >> quick question. 11 prequalified only seven fully compliant. could you explain the difference. >> we just completed our newest r.f.p. for this group of prequalified vendors. there were several new vendors that came into the pool. a couple have yet to complete final steps to being able to enter into a contract with the city such as having insurance filed and documented and in place, those sorts of things. >> thank you.

>> in terms of next steps. it is my intention to take your direction here. i do have an option for you, which is that we would go back and review the proposals that came in, ask any follow-up questions you would like us to get any particular information and then that we would bring back a recommended firm or firms to the commission for review and approval for selection. ultimately the commission should select the executive recruitment firm that conducts this on your behalf and dhr will compete to have you. >> that concludes my brief presentation. i am happy to take questions or whatever the chair desires.

>> thank you, ms. howard, for your assistance. i think sometimes our listeners macon fuse what the requirements are versus what the appropriate process might be. i want to be clear the steps laid out was very appropriate. we are not required to have an executive search firm. it is one way the city chooses to do it. be clear should the commission choose to do something different that is quite allowable to do. the other question. my recollection is that we are to provide three or up to three candidates for the mayor? >> if language states the commission should provide three or more candidates.

>> in terms of your other question that is correct. what i presented is the outline of how commissions typically work and typically work with executive recruitment firms. of course, you could also request that dhr support you directly in this recruitment and we would develop the profile and review with you. those kinds of things. the reasons the commissions frequently choose to work with an executive recruitment firm is because those organizations have talent pools. relationships and are expert in recruiting high level executive

leadership for public sector organizations. a number of the firms in our executive recruitment pool have very recent experience working on behalf of another city commission, such as library, health commission, health department, police commission or on behalf of another public utility agency. frequently the commissions want to work with a recruiter to focus on the work. >> that may beings perfect sense. i want to make sure people understood this is a good choice, not the only choice of the required choices. >> any other comments?

>> thank you for your presentation. is there a way that you since we have particular things we are looking for. is there a way to find out if one of those firms is more adept or know more people say if we want to make sure that it is equitable and there are people of color involved. i think there is a particular group more able to do that or done it before? >> thank you the question. we did in our initial inquiry to the prequalified pool we asked them to identify their recent experience doing recruitment on

behalf of another city department, recent experience doing recruitment for public utility or other utility companies, and their approach to bringing the commission a diverse candidate pool for your consideration. they will have all addressed those points in there responses to ut. what i might -- their responses to us. i might suggest we do a review and bring back to you the ones we would identify as most highly qualified or most responsive in those areas. you could review a narrow group of proposals. >> i assume that process would be public?

>> that's correct. the selection of an executive recruitment firm would be a process that you would conduct in open session with your colleagues. typically, the items from hr point of view are truly hr items. when you discuss with the recruiter the candidates who applied for the position. that would be a conversation the commission would typically have in closed session. conducting interviews with candidates would be typically held in closed session. >> then if we were the we that you mentioned and that is to

allow you all to bring us three names and go through the seven. then that selection would be done in public at an open session. >> that's correct. we could bring back to you a subset of the seven based on who was most responsive to your specific needs and based on those criteria i laid out. >> i am good at asking if the selection. if we said we want aba, would that be in public? i see our lawyer. >> yes, the selection of recruitment firm will be done through an open vote of the commission.

>> just to clarify that a bit. there are seven people who might be applying. you would do the review for us. is the expectation that you suggest a ranking or these are the top three? how much as assistance do you give us for that decision? >> with the recruitment firm? >> yes. >> we rang them. our team would have a scoring rubric as we have done in the past with other kinds of processes to look at more than five years experience, more than two recent recruitments with either the city or with public utility, those kinds of things. really looking at experience and

also for your consideration the timeline they propose and the costs he propose. of course, you are welcome to see all proposals and review them or we can bring you a sub set on those proposals based on how closely they are responsive to this particular recruitment and the needs of this commission. some of them were closely focused on the specific needs and haverel laboratory specific experience, i think, versus some of the sores that are more -- didn't respond specifically. >> i am.

>> i assume the president will take the lead between the president and dhr. i would appreciate some guidance so we are not presented with seven proposals, have a good time. thanks. >> ny quick question. is this a pool of folks that would be in terms of the rubric or criteria more in the public sector in terms everycruitment as opposed to private sector. any distinction in getting to the pool based on that kind of stuff? traditional headhunter versus somebody more closer to dealing with public policy and needs to that effect? >> these are firms that responded to our -- they

responded to our request for recruiters for executive recruitment for the city and county of san francisco and the various departments and commissions that may being us up. they are largely 10 of the 11 only focused on the public recruitment. >> thank you. after that person is selected, is that when the we have comments, a certain specific thing we would like to see in that person since we have two paths, how would that work? >> thank you for the question. if you decide to use the firm, once you selling elect the term you will work with. that would be the time, i think, to review the last announcement

that was developed for the position to have a conversation about what qualities are you peopling in your next gm? the prior announcement meets your needs, in what ways to change? you want to have that conversation with the recruitment firm you selected. part of their job is to prepare the document on your behalf. >> any further discussion, comments? to move forward we would decide that we have the decision to make whether we would like it to get our own not to use the firm,

to use the firm. is that kind of the decision that is in front of us now? or we could make at some point? >> i don't know if that is a question to kate or to the commissioners, madam chair, i am going to say i think that considering the way everything is moving i want to error on the side of being as transparent as possible with everything as opposed to trying to fill a need, assuming that is the y factors in this piece. going through the 8 point chart is most transparent. i would bed towards that. as opposed to we know who we want and would duet ourselves.

i am making thursday this is as transparent as possible and what ms. howard ended. looks like, a thorough plan. this is picking the agency. we haven't gotten to who that person is yet. i am sharing that with everybody right now as i listen to this presentation. >> right now where we are. do we want -- i think a selection of a firm would be best rather than doing it ourselves i if that is the question we need to talk about. we are now selecting a firm to go out aplook. i would prefer a firm rather than doing it ourselves. the next question would be do we

want dhr if they could come back with three, four, five, that is the next question how we want to proceed with that. any comments? >> i would be grateful if the hr folks would go ahead and do that process and come up with whatever. if there are three fabulous or four or two and come back with those recommendations. that would be great. >> i concur with that piece. >> as do i. >> we are looking to having dhr come up with three to four or if they are all fabulous, fine.

if i further comments? thank you, ms. howard, for your help. we would definitely want dhr to be a partner. we are not letting you off the hook. we want to hold hands all the way. this is a huge undertaking and we need all the help we can get. >> i will be from every step of the way and take my marching orders to go back and evaluate the proposals and bring back the best ones for your consideration at your next meeting. >> if you could give donna something so we can look where we are. the eight steps so we know where we are so we can check them off. if we look at six months we are looking at june, july.

it would be helpful to have a calendar -- not a calendar but to know where we are in the process. thank you. we are open to any further comments. if not i will open this up for public comment. >> members of the public may wish two minutes of public comment on item 8, if general manager search update. dial 415-655-0001 meeting i id1469408633-pound pound. to speak press star, 3. >> there are multiple calls in

the queue. caller, you have two minutes. >> this is what i want to say. i have known. [indiscernable] harrington,. [indiscernable] each one of them have tried their best to 2,000 people at sfpuc. this discussion i would think that would go through the organizational chart and after that go to the history, offer that to see the changes that have happened in the bay area

and how resources have to be spread far and wide. of course, their attention the environmental issues. as i often say who is going to speak for the. [indiscernable] we had this woman who jumped ship recently. i do not have too much faith in that organization. this is my subjective opinion. what i want to say to you, commissioners, is if you had done due diligence and the previous general manager had done due diligence we would have a smooth succession. we did not. he went down the wrong road.

now we are left with a newcomer. we have two general managers over there. you know, what you are doing. >> thank you. your time is expired. >> next caller. you have two minutes. >> coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. speaking on my own behalf. i am in support of nationwide search for new general manager from the outside. new gm from the outside would work to turn the page. turn the page for the projection for the enterprise department doesn't have to listen to the public. turn the page on the algae bloom that negatively affected the

reputation. ground water would be treated prior to being flooded. turn the page abandon the push for political water which is controversial at best. turn the page. acknowledge the dangerous policy on the 19th avenue. as part of the moving forward project phase two. turn the page by withdrawing from the lawsuit against the state regarding the plan. turn the page by withdrawing support from the irrigation district study. some classify as junk science and questioning the conclusions.

thank you. >> next caller. two minutes. >> david again. item 8. general manager selection process. i don't think we need a national search for a new general manager. i would hire michael garland right here, very capable and knows the place inside-out. i think it was interesting on this item two former general managers are now on the commission. i hope we use their expertise about the selection process qualities and constraints on the general manager going forward. how ever you perceive the selection process, do it quickly and not put too much time and resources into it.

get it done and right so we can move on. i would be clear about the process including the recruitment firm, if you go that route. without revealing niche candidates if and when you get to that i would be clear about timeframes and number of people who have applied or been screened down so that we understand where we are in that process. i think you can preview that publicly without disclosing any names until we actually have elected a new general manager. i hope we would do it sooner rather than later. thanks very much. >> next caller. >> good afternoon, policy

director. this is an extremely important decision, and i think it would be valuable to engage the public. issue a draft job discretion for publicly review and comment. engage the mayor's group with interviews. they are looking for a good collaboratetor. we know that works under ed harrington. we reached the compromise and worked together on promoting water conservation, environmental groupings provided why. polling shows been fitting environment is the number one driver for conservation and provided how toes with rebates. in 2018 water demand was 31%

lower than previous projections. huge success. contrast to the bay delta plan. in 2016 when the documents were released. we approached at the public meeting to work together. together maybe we can take a look at the fourth agreement which applies to the licensing and the delta plan to make a case that the flow should be based on percentage of water diverted. the staff in the next week. general manager had an op-ed in the chronicle with alarming figures based on the old study. the new study was finalized but never corrected. we have been add odds for the past four years. we need a fresh new general manager to build partnerships. we have to work together to meet challenges of the future. thank you very much.

>> next caller. two minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. i would like to give you my two cents on this issue. what i am put on the table might be a little off-the-wall, the issue is not electing another quarterback. i am using the term quarterback. that is what we had before. a quarterback that came in and did whatever they wanted to do without adhering to rules or regulations that we all do. i would like the following. it doesn't matter national or local. keep open the option for both. don't limit to just headhunter. they reach out and process. the primary element in selecting

the new general manager at least michael knows the challenges. how do we get from where we are today with the federal indictment to a position to actually pause and say where is truth and reconsolidate everyone to the system. i am concerned about trusting the system. how do i trust d.p.w.? can i go back to do work i have been trained for? again, the issue is not the individual. the issue is the policy. where do we take it? a former board of supervisors manager here. two general managers. briefly. a couple years ago i was involved in the selection of assistant general manager. monday afternoon at 4:00 we received the phone call from a

candidate flying to be interviewed to san francisco to replace the position. i think that candidate everything that i know about the p.u.c. >> your time is expired. >> next caller. two minutes. >> thank you. she and her. certainly i think the idea the national search is warranted. of course, internal applicants should be made welcome to apply. i certainly believe that in the idea to promote from within. the united states military for the most part enlisted officers are generally started at the

lowest rank. san francisco is not an island but part of a larger ecosystem, a city in the state of california, california a state, one of 50, in this great country united states of america. our mission is to deliver safe and clean water and power to the people at the city and county of san francisco and those who set foot on the san francisco soil, such as myself. i would like to see a leader with a global perspective of leadership with a set of new eyes and ears on the landscape of our agency as we go through a period of change. i mentioned a period of change simply because as each year goes by, things change.

change is inevitable. change or get caught in the current. spread the net far and wide and look for the best and brightest mind wherever they come from including disability and diverse communities to lead this agency in the future. thank you. >> madam secretary there are no more calls in the queue. >> thank you. that closes public comment on item 8. will you read the next item, please. >> item 9. report of the general manager. >> thank you, madam secretary. first report will be on the update on the bay delta amendments and voluntary agreement with the state. i am asking ellen to give that presentation. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. i am the deputy manager for the water enterprise. the last update you received on this item was from michael car lanback in september, end of september. at that point in time what he shared with you was that we had continued meeting with the state team and we were really discussing dry and critical year water as well as continuing to have discussion about an additional 160 acres o of flo od plain habitat. we have been meeting on that 16. mr. car lanshared with you at the time that we needed to understand what the 160-acre bases was and to understand the

benefit of it. that is exactly what we have been working with the state on. i personally have been attending the meetings to understand the technical merit and to understand how the state has viewed the implementation of an additional 160 acres of flued plain. the voluntary agreement includes 80 acres of flood plain habitat with the flow schedule that we have thus far agreed to. there is a flood plain poll during the spring. it is in addition to existing flood plain. what we learned about the additional 160 acres. this would be flood plane at lower flee flows.

500 to 1,000 per second of flow. in the voluntary agreement is activated at 2750 cubic feet per second. this low flow activated flood plain is through physical improvement on the river. it is a relatively long river, 50 miles of river. there are not opportunities all along that river to inundate flood plain. there is quite a bit of land use development on either side of the river and built-up levees to reduce the effective flow in agricultural land. then the river has been heavily mined. there are areas of the river that have very large mining

pools. it is important for us to understand where the state team thought that opportunity of the 160 acres of flood plain could occur on the river. last meeting december 3 was very helpful. we have enough information from that to go back to our tools to look at how we can make that 16. to bto be able to look look at e flow schedule and physical constraints to figure out if we can come to agreement there is opportunity for that much additional fl ood plain. if we couldn't find enough opportunity for that additional flood plane there may be opportunity elsewhere. our team is now going back to try to look at where we could

create that opportunity for 160 acres of flood plain. it is slow. we have been at a slow pace continuing to discuss and continuing to have productive discussions so that we can take next steps. particularly, around this issue. >> would they open to having the flood plain in other areas? >> that is mentioned in the past. in the last two conversations we had with them it is focused on the technical feasibility on the bonthis. >> you asked if they are open to having it somewhere else. are they open to that

conversation? >> yes, they have been open to it in the past. yes. >> thank you. >> any other questions on the voluntary agreement? >> thank you. i am not an expert on this issue at all. i am catching up to speed on this. it seems like there were a lot of largish issues, flow being the largest. 160-acre is that major or make-or-break to come to a decision in if we are spending so much time in this how important is it in the greater scheme of things? >> it is a very important issue for the state. they wanted to see additional flood plain opportunities. the voluntary agreement is structured around rearing fish

in channels. there is a preference by the state and others to rear fish on flood plain and that habitat yields better fish. it is a relatively significant issue just because the structure of the voluntary agreement has been around in channel rearing. it is a naming or shift in where we rear fish. the flood plain may lead us to disrupting the in channel habat that time for the benefit of local flood plain. we want the river to react and get the productivity that we hope to get and improvement on the river by going to the low flow habitat rearing.

>> one point. in negotiations with the california department of february and wildlife -- fish and wildlife we came to agreement with them on that. it is the actual state board staff coming back to us to want low flow so we have a switch here. that is why it is an issue going back and forth. where do we need to land? we are saying what we believe in the flood plain and want to do something with it but we have to know what, where and what investments we are going to make and that it functions properly. those are all key factors. >> would there be an opportunity for you all to -- for u us to kw the big and small issues and the issues you agreed on already? we are all over the place. if we knew how to checklist, big

things that you agree, that would be helpful. if they change those things at least we would have an judged what happened. would that be possible? that is possible. when we present the science on the voluntary agreement and worksion we would present where there is and isn't an agreement and go into detail on that. >> eventhough this is a flow and long process, -- slow and long process, should we have goals in mind for at least -- i am sure your goal is to finish it by 2021. along the way if we could no your strategy and goals that you have, it would help us to realize that may be some of the people with us to know exactly where we are.

>> yes. that is do-able. it is slow because the state is moving that to make the decision from us. they provide us with something and we have to go back to analyze it. next steps we are glad to discuss. it is going to the two secretaries in this case and having the discussion on how to move to the state water board. if that doesn't work i will say we need to talk to the governor about how to move this forward. >> we have been saying that for a while. we need to know what is different. you can explain what is different talking to those secretaries. this started in 2015. we have been talking to them and i am glad to hear maybe the next step would be the governor.

>> you have to remember we had administration children in 2018. -- administration children in 2018. then it was different in 2019. we had to reeducate everybody where we are. >> do you think the new administration on the federal level will make a difference. >> they will weigh in on water in california. there is an interaction there. you have the department of interior and commerce who may change positions on certain issues that may make the easier for state government to settle across the board with different water utilities. >> before i leave this item. i want to share with you that the state board did release the water certification for the

licensing of pedro and comments are due on january 4th. we will submit comments on that. i wanted to make you aware of that. >> any further comments from colleagues? >> i will open this up for public comment. >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of comment on 9a dial 415-655-0001 meeting id (146)940-8633-pound. to speak press star three. >> we have two callers in the queue. go ahead. you have two minutes, caller. >> thank you.

>> major problem with the agreement. it tries to put all fish, big and small in the main channel. in the natural environment the small fish prefer flood plane. there is more food and protection from predators. big fish like the main channel where it is cooler. by putting the fish together you are putting the babies in with predators and they get eaten. they focus on predatory control when the peer review says it did not work. the key word is low flow flo on od plains. the river needs it higher. putting them someplace else in the basin is not going to benefit the river fish. again, i would love to see the

sfpuc acknowledge the voluntarily agreement will not work. the bay delta plan has a better chance to work and we can protect the water supply and we have shown examples of that in the past. thank you very much. >> you have two minutes, caller. >> hello, commissioners. i am a resident of pa palo altoo correct the record about the pc workshop on november 30th. when the council member called in to support the position on voluntary agreements. i was shocked to hear that since i attended the meeting on august issue was the subject. the city staff presented a letter supporting the voluntary agreements.

after the lengthy discussion and statements from sfpuc the council passed the resolution 9-0. this is agenda item 5. motion as amended restated. council member moved seconded to support the control board's plan to have 30 to 50% of unimpaired flow in the san joaquin to enter the delta from february to june. the objectives and send the letter expressing the letter. the california state water resources controlled board, public utilities commission and other stakeholders staff believes should receive this letter. council has not reconsidered this action since. it remains the official position on this issue notwithstanding the council member's statements.

i hope you will keep this in mind. palo alto is a customer. i think you should take this into consideration in your further deliberations on this issue. thank you. >> thank you, caller. there are no more call ins the queue. >> thank you. public comment on 9 a is closed. >> next item presented by steve richy on regional water system supply and demand worksheet. >> good afternoon, commissione commissioners. this is something we have been working on for quite some time. i think it is about ready for primetime. i am happy to make the presentation today. to the next slide. just a little background.

these are slides i have shown before relative to this. reminder of the commission about our 2008 levels of service relative to water quality and supply. those were developed as part of the water system improvement program have not changed since that time. providing the clean water and filtered water from the watersheds. the water supply and demand of 265 million gallons per day of customers. the rationing to 20% reduction during extended droughts. >> we are dealing with a lot of challenges. drought, climate change, wildfire, growth, environmental obligations, water for fish and others and the agingin from structure. over the last year or more our

planning process is alternative water supply planning. one of the tools in this program is what i am talking about today. water supply an and demand worksheet. the purpose of the worksheet to be interactive tool for users to communicate information and provide dialogue about regional water system demand projections wholesale and retail, yield related t to design graduate, options, different convibitions and other policy option choices and impacts. changing demand projections, changing design period and considering carryover storage, width of rationing policy, new permanent wholesale customers and other growth. the worksheet is to be something that people can work with and

identify options that we can discuss. it is two main sections. demand and supply. the project yields and rationing policies. one of the important things about the worksheet. it is big. it is about 190 rows long. i am not going to show the entire worksheet today that takes a long time to walk through it. it is something to work with to understand. currently includes projections through 2040 from the 2015 water management plans and 2020 urban water management plans developed now and updated projections extended to 2045 will be used when available in place of existing projections in the next few months. >> some definitions. there is a lot of words here.

it is important to know we are talking about firm yield, average amount of water provided to the service area during the design drought without racking s rationing of 8 afternoon a half years. how much water is available. the policy is a sequence during the design drought. that is 3 years 10% rationing and 3.5 years of 20% rationing. that can be translated into a number of mgd we are saving in terms of rationing. 29mgd over the design drought. total yield is the rationing that is not in effect. basically the amount of water that can be provided that then if we enter into a drought and

the rationing policy applied that is where it comes down. it is the sum of the firm yield and rationing policy. both are water supply options that we use. in the worksheet we provide policy options for people to paysicly -- i -- basically play with. the notion you would make different choices to see how it affects things. add other retail water supply projects and user selected modifier to adjust retail or wholesale demands and purchase projections. well, i think you are proposing to deliver more than you really have. see what happens if you change that. the choices. adding yield from new water supply projects, identify

different contributions to 12 new flows. design drought sequence to calculate firm yield. those are all options that i will show in a little bit. design drought rationing policy choices. removing second to last year. removing the last year of the design drought sequence. carryover storage if we take off a year. it is a planning process designed so it ends up at zero where your insurance is in those extra two years. if we took the drought and ran the storage to zero, that wouldn't be a good choice because we know that next year might be a bad one. we want a cushion. there is carryover storage. the new rationing policy with targets.

you can do that without violating the level of service which says no more than 20%. let's do 20% for six years as rappingsing policy. that is a possibility. we want a firmer supply so we only have 10% over the drought. those are choices possible. san jose and santa clara. the next few slides will show the screen shots of the different parts of the spreadsheet. this is the first part. you can see colored backgrounds there. basically everything colored is locked. by the staff white is where they may being choices. it is personal as to jane q use

error whoever was working the spreadsheet. here are a few lines talking about retail grand water. add project here. grand water supply on the retail front there. further down recycled water. you can add another project there. line 31 where you can say i think your demand projections are too high or low. i think that should change to something else. these are choices people can make. next slide. choices affecting wholesale demand. you can see a set of boxes in the middle you can select with an x that you turn on or afproviding the additional supply to and show say and santa clara. at the bottom there would be a user selected mo modifier that u

can raise based on the outlook for the future. we are about line 94. we are not quite halfway through or halfway through the spreadsheet. next slide. this section is set up so that you could add yield from new regional water supply projects. we have hey set of projects there that are the ones we are currently working on through the alternative water supply planting effort. what you would do in these cases is choose the year the project starts operating. 2030. then estimate affect on firm yield. that is tricky. some of the projects have a number to generate recycled

water for example. crystal springs water could do up to 6 to 12mgd. however, we don't know for sure if you pit it in crystal springs how that affects transfer of the water to the reservoir. add water supply but then have less supply that coming into the system that way. there are ways to work around that if we expand the reservoir you can take the excess water in wet years and put it in there. this takes work to get to a good answer. we have the ability to add additional projects if somebody thinks there is a project to look at, they can add it, pick the year and estimated effect on the yield and move forward. at the bottom we are talking about the stream flows, affect

on firm yield for the delta plan. 93 million gals per day. the voluntary agreement as of june 23rd looked to be 16 million gals per day for flows there. that has very purposeful flows. you can enter your own number as to what that might be. these are choices that users can make so we can have a conversation about them. this is the design drought and rationing policy choices. again. white boxes up there in the middle would be removing the seconded to last year of the design drought, last year of the design drought. now this is a little trickier because by doing those you change a lot of other numbers in the system. we have got a note it is

probably too small to read which basically if you change the design drought what you have to do is shift the spreadsheet off to our staff and we will run the calculations that affect different parts of the spreadsheet and ship it back to you relatively quickly. then the next box if you change the design drought do you wish to have carryover storage? i think if we end up with shorter design drought that is serious. we would lose insurance of extra time of the drought that we may want to make up at least part of with carryover storage at the end much the next section is about going with alternative rationing sequences. right now this x in the box with the 28 version which is

0010102010202020. that was the sequence developed then. you could enter in an alternative sequence. there happens to be one in here. you can take the x out of the first box and put the x in the second box to allow you to calculate that. if you do it for 8.5 years, it will give you the answer down in the lower gray box what that means if you select that with 8.5 year design drought. if you shorten the drought sequence it has to go back for recalculation for different factors to make it all consistent throughout. again, the white boxes are the ones that people work with. next slide. right here i think we are getting down to about 172 line

on the spreadsheet. this is where you would make changes to affect the wholesale supply assurance or have a different supply assurance for san jose and santa clara. additional supplies against the 9mgb part of the water supply agreement. you could have other potential demands. demands for other parts of the service area here. again, this is all very large spreadsheet with a lot of interactive possibilities. if we can go to the next slide i will talk about the next steps. excuse me. this is the readers digest version. this would be a separate tab in the worksheet so that you do all of the work in the very, very big spreadsheet and then your answers are spit out here. this is really a summary of the

results of choices that people would make in the spreadsheet. it captures the bottom line numbers for each section so that it is a much more manageable spreadsheet for most people to work with. at the bottom of this we actually have a section if you can go to that on the same page in the workbook. this is keeping score of the choices people made throughout the spreadsheet. that he made choices relative to other supplies. they made choices relative to design drought. changes relative to alternative rationing. you know what the answers were and what choices they made without having to look at the spreadsheet. this is all auto filled by the big worksheet.

>> we are looking at a basically instructional workshop for stakeholders. stakeholders.

>> it's very interesting to see how everything affects everything else. it's really hard to get it right. we think we got it pretty right now. good effort by staff. happy to answer any questions. >> commissioner paulson: you said they and stakeholders. somebody comes up with a light

bulb idea about saving water. who are the folks that john q public? who gets to say i got an idea. what has access to using this? >> we will make it available to all. anybody who's interested -- anybody who's not b adopted bete work sheet. >> commissioner paulson: let's say the mayor of that city says, i'm making this up, i don't want your water anymore, send me that link and then staff will obviously say, wow, we just saved a whole bunch of money. it's like what is that process? it's a great tool. it's it free for all?

obviously staff will monitor. >> these are things -- stakeholders will be very interested in this. other people will show interest and certainly if somebody doesn't want to wade into it, would say i got some ideas, can you test these out for me. i'm sure we can do that. we want to make this -- the word transparency has been used a lot -- we want to make sure this is transparent. all ideas are welcome. some might be little crazier than others. anything is open for discussion. >> commissioner paulson: i put a crazy one in there to see how it got answered. thanks. >> president maxwell: any

further discussion? >> before we get into public comment -- i'll have some comments later -- before the public comment, i wanted to make a couple of points. one is what you just touched on. which is kind of who gets to play the game. i think the short answer to that is, anybody that wants to. an important part of that is that there are bunch of different ways of doing it. if you happen to love spreadsheets you can get a copy of the spreadsheet and do it yourself. if you want to ask staff to do the equivalent for you, you want to speak in words and not deal with the numbers and make a request to staff, you can do that. the commission can do that as well. the commission might say, we

would like to do this that and other thing and have staff put that in the model and figure out how to balance the supply and demand. it's made so that you can get as involved as you want to. if you don't want to be involved you can deal with it on request basis and staff can respond to that. one of the hopes i have is that by making this a pretty comprehensive spreadsheet, hopefully will help structure the discussion. let me give an example of that. one of the lines in there for the delta plan of the estimate it would have an adverse impact. 93 m.g.d. that is the number that we

floated before. some have objected to it. what i think this spreadsheet does gives the opportunity to disaggregate the difference of opinion. that is to the best of our estimation, the impact on the bill. there's a place to adjust demand estimates. your design travel is too conservative. okay, there's a place to make changes in that. at least to suggest changes in that. there's projects that you don't have your list of projects that might be able to help us out. okay, there's a place on the spreadsheet to put those as well. what i hope it does is provide a structure that is both detailed and flexible enough where we

have differences of opinion we can try to understand those in a deep way and reflect those understandings on different version of the spreadsheet. i think that's my comment going into this. i'll have some stuff as far as what i think maybe useful next steps after public comment. >> commissioner harrington: than k you very much for preparing this. i'm a little lost. i have kind of more -- is that a big thing or little thing. how big and where it shows up. everything rolls down to -- that's going to take water and you got to add rationing or you got to add another supply. you will try to get it back in hat balance. >> ultimately it gets to a bottom line.

these are all demands whether they are for fish or for water supply. they're all just demands. this sums up all the demands. you get to bottom line of you have enough water or you don't. >> commissioner harrington: i love the workshop to teach you how to use it. >> president maxwell: anybody else? any further comments? thank you so much commissioner moran for your work on this. it's been a while. obviously it's been worth it. thank you. >> vice president moran: they took the various view of the world and reduce them to something quantitative in the spreadsheet. he's done great deal of work. i wanted to recognize that as well. >> president maxwell: thank you.

madam secretary, may we open this up to public comment? >> clerk: members of the public if you wish to make comments on 9b, dial know 415-655-0001 meetg i.d. 1469408633 >> to raise your hands to speak press star pound pound. >> first caller, you have two minutes. >> good afternoon commissioners. i appreciate the dire the commission to develop this work sheet to support conversations about the important topics as you heard. we do have some serious concerns about its correct use. we urge the commission and the

staff to tread carefully to ensure the information in it and results will not be misunderstood or misused. elements of the work sheet impact areas of policy which has implication on policy activities throughout the region. things like the rationing policy and the design drought. any changes to the policy need to be done to through a public process. also, any changes to the p.u.c. long-term planning should be involved by results from promote climate change studies and right now there's no way to incorporate that within this work sheet. p.u.c.'s fee has been engaged in climate change studies for many years. all the of the water customers have paid for these important studies. yet no results have been present to support important water supply planning, despite being so critically important to

future water supply and reliability. lastly, they completed projections through 2025 for all 26 member agencies. we will be able to provide to the commission purchase projections and projected use by source for the agencies. i look forward to presenting that information to you. thank you. >> next caller. you have two minutes. >> this is on item 9b, the regional water system supply and demand work sheet. the work sheet is exciting. i will get a copy of the presentation later. i trust the work sheet will be

publicly available prior to the next integrated water resources plan or urban water management plan public workshops. what i assume may be starting in the spring. i would suggest possibly the term, water accounting to refer to the assumptions and policy choices can available. it sound like it is all accounting exercise using spreadsheet. it has major implications for planning development and all kinds of things. this is clearly an incredibly complicated issue and reflects great work by steve richie and his staff. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. next caller. you have two minutes.

>> mr. richie, i think you done a wonderful job. when you have a tool like this, it allows us to share it with our university students and high school students who are very savvy. if they want to restrict sharing the information, within the major organizations, entities, the plan can be made available for the others to be submitted to small group of people who very deep into this. who can give you feedback. similarly, we normally do not

agree what -- this is a situation and this concept views or facts and data and they can take or leave it. mr. richie and mr. anson moran has done good by taking deeper into the digital road. which takes us deeper into the informational world. that's the way to go. we need to look outside the box. we need to be open with our heart in the right place.

thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. last caller. you have two minutes. >> hello again. this is very exciting. i want to thank commissioner moran for initiating it. i want to congratulate staff for getting this far. i've been impatient waiting for this. i apologize for that. i do know that lot of effort went in this. we produced water supply calculator which is similar and not quite sophisticated. that did take lot of effort. i didn't get a chance to see the slide. i do look forward to checking out the video when it's posted. one thing that's really important is for the public to have confidence in the work sheet to know that the figures are accurate and the calculations are accurate. we're very eager to work with

the sfpuc to compare results to our water supply calculator. if there are differences we'll try to figure out what caused that and make any corrections that are necessary. we're looking forward to the workshop. sound like it's on january 8th. one question, it sounds this is going to be a web-based tool, which would be great. i'm hoping to get confirmation that will be the case. thank you very much. >> thank you. there are no more calls in the queue. >> clerk: thank you public comment on item 9b is closed. >> president maxwell: do you have anything to report under 9c? >> we're not quite finished with this yet. mr. moran has a comment. >> vice president moran: i did want to hear the public comment before i did wrapup there.

several things, one, i think it will be useful to provide to the commission and probably anybody else who want it, a printed version of the work sheet. that takes a big piece of paper. we have big pieces of paper that will do that. the reason i say that, when you see it all on one page, you can see some of the interrelationships in how you build to a bottom line. that's a useful thing to be able to do. one of the uses of that is kind of keep track where you are any given moment. as commissioner harrington mentioned, it helps you think about the proportion, so what you're talking about has an effect on the bottom line. i think that's helpful thing.

if you can put up the slide that was the reader's digest version of it. this is only place in the presentation that shows the bottom line. it is literally the bottom line in the table. that view of the world is what i think is the before picture. this is kind of the beginning of a journey. this is where we're starting from. this is before you change

anything, before you change demand estimates or adding new supply projects. this is kind of the state of the world as we go into this process. what it shows is, there's a surplus that dwindles overtime. because there's a growth projection on demands. you don't go negative until 2040 and not much then. that's important to look at, i mentioned, it was the last meeting i gave a spoiler alert, my conclusion is that the water supply issues we have in front of us are not driven by demand. we're not having to look at building measure, water facilities to deal with the

growth of the service area. the major challenge that we have is providing water for fishery and other environmental purposes. we may end up getting into a position where we say, we want to build, fill in the blank, some project. not for normal use, i say normal is probably the best word supporting growth and demand of people. we want to do these projects because we want to dedicate amount of water to the fisher. i think that's an interesting place for us to be. frankly, it doesn't scare me. if it turns out that we need to provide x amount of water to do the right thing for the fishery, then we should figure that out. i think we're capable of doing that. that's the first comment. as far as where we go from here,

that's all i have on that slide. thank you, steve. as far as where we go from here, as i go through the spreadsheets, there's some questions that is some discussion. the first of those is the demand projections. when you look at current demand versus forecast demand, you look at the first two columns, there's a big difference there. we need to have a discussion about what we really think demand will be over the next 35 or 40 years. that work is already under way. what we heard, that should be available to us in the first few months of 2021. going down the page, another area we need to talk about is the interruptible customers. that's an issue we are obligated to address. i think we need -- this

commission never really had that discussion. i think we need to understand who they are, how it came to be and what they are asking for, what that effect will have. we need to have a full discussion of that. second one, the whole business about yield. i think steve described it properly. there's a lot of subtly to it. i think it's worth taking some time really understanding what the notion of yield is and then what the effect of the rationing policy has on increasing that. it's important because the more rationing we're willing to experience during a drought, that makes water available for our mill. it's a way of increasing your

useable water and it's tricky because it's too easy. it's one of these things, it's a number on a piece of paper and you can erase one and put in another and it makes you have more water up. really need to understand what the real impact of that is. a discussion both the yield and rationing policy. last one is when we look at the bottom line, what does it mean to have a surplus? what does it mean to have a deficit? it's not obvious. anything you do to that bottom line affects reliability for water supply.

having a dugs what that means will be important. that will be my hope for the discussion items that can take place as we proceed. some of that may be best done in a workshop. some of may be best done in regular meetings. we can take small chunks instead of deeper versions. take a small piece at a time. once we get through those and have a real understanding of how the system balances itself and what those decision points are, we can get into a really productive discussion about what are the opportunities and challenges that we have and then put together some scenarios about how do we balance various needs and obligations against the supplies that we have. thank you, steve and matt and

ellen was involved in this as well. appreciate all of your work. also appreciate the enthusiasm from peter and others to working with us and using this. thank you. >> president maxwell: that was question that was asked. is this going to be web-based. can somebody answer that? >> i cannot answer that right off the top of my head. we need to work through mechanics how it will be shared with people and how we do. we want to make it easy as possible certainly. >> president maxwell: right now it's uncertain? >> yes. we'll have that answer within a few days. >> president maxwell: thank you. all right. again, thank you all for that. i think we're headed for an exciting new year. with new tools and new conversations. that's great. thank you so much.

any further comments or discussions? we'll move on to item c. >> clerk: than >> i want to tell you, at your last commission meeting you approved an alpine contract. one was retroactive. the board doesn't like retroactive contracts. we we took to the board, we discussed it with the board and i wanted to tell you that we agreed to provide advance notice of any contract that will be retroactive to come to the board so that means that it hasn't come to you yet for a approval, but we'll provide the board with advance notice. i will be doing this by changing a policy of procedure and bringing that to you at the next commission meeting. that is on the record as the commission has taken this step.

i'll be glad to answer any questions. by the way, the calpine contract was approved. >> president maxwell: is there any other conditions or suggestions that they had? we may have talked about that. could we add that to ours so our staff understand we don't appreciate that either. i think that should be made plain and obvious that we don't appreciate it as well. in your wording, if you can bring something back that would include a resolution from us as well. >> that's what i was going to do. we'll have language in there that you don't condone that practice either. certain cases it may beers in. >> president maxwell: if so, this is the procedure for it? >> yes. >> president maxwell: any further comments?

secretary, please open up to public comment. >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on 9c, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. is, 1469408633 to raise your hand to speak, press star three. >> there are no calls in the queue. >> public comment on item 9c is closed. >> president maxwell: mac dam clerk read the next item. >> clerk: before i read item 10, i like to make note that closed session item number 20, which is the conference of legal counsel conferring with receiving advice from the city attorney regarding existing litigation in which the city of petitioner, pg&e adverse

party will not be heard today. i neated to make that announcement. your next order of business is item number 10. new commission business. >> commissioner harrington: than k you madam chair. i was looking for an update. we talked about having part 1b of our workshops on delta and

tuolumne river. >> we're talking to subjects. we're planning on a three-hour workshop. it's been brought up in the past that we would have a third workshop mainly around water supply and demand which was discussed with the new spreadsheet. right now, that's where planning will have an agenda put together probably within the next week or so. >> president maxwell: any further discussion? thank you. madam secretary, please open up for public comment. >> members of the public who wish to make public comment on number 10, dial 415-655-0001. i.d. code. 1469408633 , pound pound.

do we have any callers? >> there are no calls in the queue. >> thank you. public comment on item number 10 is closed. >> president maxwell: next item please. >> next order of business is item 11, consent calendar. which only has one item today. accept contract number w.w.656, $9,837,556. members wishing to make public comment, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 1469408633 to raise your hand to speak,

press star 3. do we have any callers? >> caller, go ahead, you have two minutes. >> thank you. president maxwell, good afternoon. i do have a minor comment that i like to bring to your attention and the following commissioners. reviewing the item document, there's absolutely no mention of who the l.b.e.s are. they are facing and have been encountering lot of corruption in c.m.d. and their certification. that's not longer a may be item. this is a fact.

d.m.b. is corrupt and l.b.e. certification process is corrupt. not knowing who they are and so forth, the general public does not have the clue who's been awarded these contracts and who's benefited from the contracts. i do ask you, since the p.u.c. is paying for the salary of the employees, to please amend some of those award letters to have them include exactly what the l.b.e.s are, what their state license is. it's a transparency issue. it's a policy issue. it is not directed to this company or another company. i do ask you to consider my request. i thank you for your time. >> thank you. there are no more calls in the queue.

>> president maxwell: public comment on item 11 is closed. >> vice president moran: thank you. consent calendar one item is unusual peace. kind of like a regular item. as for the caller that just called in, there's a report as part of the package from c.m.d. that list all the subcontractors as proposed and also what they were able to obtain. that information is there. which leads to my question, which is that in this case for variety of reasons, they were not able to obtain anywhere near the level of l.b.e. participation that they have been and hoped for. that memo goes through the reasons why. c.m.d. concluded they met the

good faith test. the question is, if for reasons they were not able to meet those goal, does that tell us about the l.b.e. program or the way that we manage contracts we should be paying attention to if we go forward so we can get a higher obtainment level. >> vice president moran: there's an error in the calculation. if you look at that letter, i sent a note to donna to have this corrected in the file. if you look at the letter, it says they actually met the goal and if you look at it, it says they did $338,000, which is 20%. it's that last couple seems to an error in terms of the calculation. that was my reading.

>> president maxwell: is there someone who can affirm that or speak to that? >> vice president moran: i'm missing the reading of it. >> commissioners, i'm here to talk about this item. we generally do work with c.m.d. they tend to have a higher percentage, 20 is the requirement. however, for as needed contracts, lot of the as-needed contract are very difficult to determine the location and the type of work that will be done at each location. c.m.d. move forward to reduce that 20% down to 8% for as needed contracts. i have greg limon with our contract administration bureau.

he can answer any other questions on this specific contract. >> president maxwell: could he go little bit deeper into the explanation please? it will be good to hear from him. >> he will be calling in because he's actually -- >> president maxwell: okay. >> commissioner paulson: this is a maintenance agreement. this isn't part of the ssip, correct? >> that's correct. the reason i say that is because of when it comes to ssip, all reports that i've been given,

the percentage is local hires and l.b.e.s and apprenticeship and all that stuff has been very good numbers. that's different from this particular contract, which is where the inquiries being pushed. we're waiting for call to go deeper into this? >> does anybody feel the need to do that at this point? mr. moran, you brat th brought e forward. >> vice president moran: if you don't have the right people available to us, there's no reason to pause the proceeding. commissioner paulson you're right, we outperformed our objectives. in this specific circumstance,

because of the kind of work that it is, last minute and vague. it becomes harder to meet those goals. the process question that i have is, that being the case, why are we accepting bids without higher level of promise? we ask people to bid that. that's something we evaluate when we evaluate their bids. we expect them to perform against what they promised and this is a case where structurally, it may not be possible. seem like there's something there that might need adjustment. i like to respond to an address. it doesn't need to be done right this minute. >> president maxwell: may be at the end of the meeting or the next meeting --

>> or by the next meeting or in writing. it's a clear outlier that it needs to be looked at and addressed. >> i move the consent calendar. >> i'll second that. >> president maxwell: roll call please. [roll call vote] you have four ayes. >> president maxwell: approved. next item please. >> next order of business is item 12. approve terms and condition of authorize general manager to execute amendment number two to lease to the san francisco public utilities commission and bakeworks l.l.c. and delegate

authority to the general manager to execute further amendments and provide rent relief to the tenant due to covid-19 through no later december 31, 2021. this will be presented by rosana russell. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm a real estate director. happy holidays. we seek your approval to suspend the lease for bakeworks. we can avoid charging rent to the tenant during the suspension period. the tenant has in right to use the premises. we're doing this because the building is closed pursuant to the shelter-in-place orders. please let me know if you have questions. >> president maxwell: any questions or comments? seeing none. commissioner moran?

any public comment? >> members of the public who wish it make two minutes of public comment on item 12, dial, 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 146940833 pound pound. >> there are no calls in the queue now. >> public comment on item number 12 is closed. >> president maxwell: may i have a motion and second on item 12? >> so moved. >> second. >> president maxwell: roll call please. [roll call voteyou have four ay.

next item is item 13. adopt an asset management policy of the san francisco public utilities commission. >> i'm assistant general matter for water. i'm speaking on behalf of the organization. this is office of the general manager because it does apply to the whole organization in terms of asset management. it was described back in early november meeting by mr. carolinn when he presented the draft to the commission. we felt it was important to have a policy in place to make sure there's a guide post for our asset management practices throughout the p.u.c. we all engaged in it now. we need to get better and having the clear policy direction. we felt it was very important for the water enterprise who is commitment to the water supply

agreement that we have an asset management policy by end of the year. we talked and felt it was best we had one overall policy in asset management. i would recommend adoption but i want to respond to comments that were provided president maxwell dated september 16th, i will read the recommendations followed by our response. sfpuc should consider how it intends to enforce the policy. enforcement of the policy is a staff function as stated in draft policy enterprise and bureau assistant general managers are responsible for communicating and enforcing the policy in the asset management policy is tied to budget and

capital planning efforts during the commission's review of the budget. again, policy is written at a high level to be overall guidance to the organization. it will be implemented and enterprise and bureau level. primary interaction with the commission will be in the budget development process as state the in the draft policy. this policy will be a guide to preparation of capital investment programs and updates

to commission of these budget and campaign investment programs will ensure regular review and report on this policy. this is not to say we're not doing all this work. we are doing all a lot of work in all of the enterprises. it's a very large undertaking and continual improvement process. for example, water supply treatment has roughly 15,000 assets in each organization. these are big undertakings with a lot of work and lot of organizational work to make sure we're on top of it. we really do think that the budget process is the best place to report out on that as we continue to go through this effort over the coming months, years and lifetime of the organization. i would recommend no changes to the policy. actually, i did notice there's one typo in it policy. there's an extra s some place. i will take that out.

i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> president maxwell: any >> vice president moran: comment on the policy basically says we should have a program. it does not really address boska says it doesn't say who will do what by men. generally that's a management responsibility. however, the commission is part of the enforcement mechanism.

it needs to be part of the policy. we should have an expectation as to when this is actually going to happen and identifying the responsible the procedure will be developed. i think it's appropriate. >> i would recommend we identify that as a procedure. we expect the commission to review it during the budget process and our performance against it. the assistant general managers are the responsible parties to make sure it happens for each enterprise. >> vice president moran: i'm not picky about wording. in the off year when we're not doing the budget review, i would expect this to be a policy that

we review as a commission and it will be hard to review it if we don't have objective criteria for what the expectation is. some place, whether it's part of this policy or some other place, like a work plan that exist. >> president maxwell: it doesn't seem like it would hurt anything. it would only be more -- yes. mr. carlin? >> i agree. i like a little time to have this policy in place than have it be operationalized within the organization. next discussion and procedurally we would probably have different committees in each of the enterprises, who's in charge and who's doing what. the then linkage to finance and others within the p.u.c. this is a first step. i agree with you, commissioner moran. we can come back and show you

how we're operationalizing this within the organization. >> vice president moran: i appreciate that. our normal cycle for doing general manager's work plan is about the summer. that would give this policy six months to be in existence before we put that as part of the accountability document. >> that's fine. perhaps we should revisit the general manager's report and make sure it's lined up with everything that's going on in the organization. >> president maxwell: public comment on this item. >> members of the public who wish to make public comment on item 13, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d.,

146940833 to raise your hand to speak, press star three. >> we have multiple callers in the queue. first caller, you have two minutes. go ahead. >> this is something i've been interested in and following. the proposed policy is okay but it's very high eventually at this time as you just discussed. you may need refinement in the future. it's not very clear to me what would change with the policy compare to now without the policy in place. i believe that the policy really just reinforces the commission's commitment to asset management as a concept and it be practiced throughout the organization. this policy would go with other

adopted commission policies which are posted on the p.u.c. website page 999. there's a whole section there on the various policies adopted over the years. i flipped through those today just to compare. i found that the existing rate payer assurance policy has language about asset management that's a little different from this. i would suggest that we avoid conflicts. you can certainly adopt this. i would suggest in the future, we tray to harmonize the various policies so they are not saying different things. i would review the commission policies either annually in the fall prior to the start of the budget process or in the spring in lieu of the budget process for the off budget years. seems like we don't really have

off budget years, we're continuing to review budget years. i would review all of those policies annually or biannually to ensure they are up to date. thank you very much. great work again. >> thank you, caller. next caller. you have two minutes. >> hi. i'm representing the citizens advisory committee. michael carlin presented the draft. we have an option to provide feedback. our recommendations are not adopted by the full p.u.c. our feedback was including in the areas of iso5501 aligning

asset management budget with campaign budget. >> next caller. you have two minutes. >> good afternoon commissioners. i appreciate the fact that this policy come before you today. i'm excited and appreciate the staff work in making this

happen. i look forward to continuing to work with the commission and with staff as you come up with a points that's operationalizing this. making sure it's instituted and implemented within the substructure of p.u.c. and staff. this is excellent job moving forward. i support the recommended action. >> thank you. there are no more calls in the queue. >> that closes public comment on item number 13. >> president maxwell: any further discussion or comments? seeing none, may i have a motion and a second on this item please? >> so moved. >> president maxwell: i think it was seconded. roll call.

[roll call vote] you have four ayes. >> president maxwell: next item please. >> next item 14, adopt revised 2020 baseline scope schedule and budget for the sewer system improvement program and presented by steven robinson. >> good afternoon president maxwell and commissioners. director of the wastewater capital program. this item is to adopt revisions for ssip. this is an important moment in

the program that deserves some time. the presentation is about 15 minutes. it comes in three parts. i'm open to questions throughout or i can wait until the end. we thought would help to look at the overall capital planning strategy before looking at the detail of ssip. let's start with this strategy. with the rebate like this, it's helpful for me to pause and consider why we're doing this and where we come from and what is the status of the work and where we are going. ssip is the largest program within the wastewater capital plan. the programs being established, it was concluded that affordability was a challenge. it was broken down into three phases. they were based on the relative

priority and magnitude of scope and dissipated at that time. this is a graphic that was used to describe that, showing how there's overlapping approach to these three phases of ssip. some projects like biosolids at the top line there, was fully included within phase 1. as time went on, there were other projects overlap between phases. 2020 has been a challenging year. it's good to note the evolution of change. we want to think about what we've learned and what are the primary drivers for now we need to adapt going forward. affordability is top of that list. historically wastewater has come in ways. back in the '50s and '70s with the clean water act, both

were driven and received federal funding. now infrastructure is approaching its 50-year reasonable life span with the federal funding is not there in the same way. as an agency, we're maximizing the use of low interest loans as much as possible. these result in significant saving but they're not grants in the same way. we do have a very positive track record in using all these financial tools in the tool box. next look at level of service. the effort last in 2019 provided lot more clarity to our level of service that we adopted for this program. things have changed.

when you look at market conditions, think about industry consolidation. consult constants and contractorcontractors are rulind this limits competition. there's the accessibility of material and used with labor all changing market condition around this. that last one, delivery capacity, the engineering what we need to do if projects in keeping up with reasonable pace. from a construction perspective, we think of our safety considerations on these sites. we've been talking about over the last number of months of this year. there are other programs that consume contracting capacity and add to that market saturation concern which ultimately can drive up costs. our operation staff are busy operating. they have to support the transition of all these new

assets. something ellswort else worth n. the previous item on the agenda adopts the new asset management policy. in this case, the wastewater enterprise is using asset management. this graphic shows our campaign work starts with planning on the left. we deliver the projects. there's a start-up and commissioning phase. then we operate and maintain those assets. we have an aggressive maintenance program to look after. the important point here is that it's not just a linear process, it has a beginning and middle and end. it is cyclical. there's a connection from if you look to the right, at the end, all the way back to the beginning. it goes on and on. our assets outlive us. there's in never-ending asset lifecycle and our investment

strategies should reflect that. in this next slide, we're moving from what some might describe unaffordable, large investment approach to a more sustainable strategic capital planning approach for the future. as i mentioned, the last major peak of investment back in the clean water act in the '70s, we've been in a valley so to speak. it's not easy to ramp that investment back up again. we need to keep pace with a more sustainable reinvestment approach, learning from industry as we go. the metaphor that i use here is borrowed from our covid times. it's about smoothing the curve. if you look at the chart on the left and ssip showing significant peak with infrastructure programs overlapping with it and then r&r, our work is at a steady level. we're talking about raising the

r&r bar and some of the infrastructure work. bencherring ssip with facilities and infrastructure together into one capital plan. this will be our vision for the future to right size the capital plan for both investment and delivery. this vision is not necessarily for approve today, it helps the direction we're heading in and providing context how to anticipate. that's the vision. how do we do this now through our capital planning process? when we look at asset life, some which have life span 20 years, some 50 and hundred years. that spans generations. we're talking now about a new 20-year planning horizon and we intend to include this as part of the next budget cycle.

this will be double what we currently do as a capital plan which we get to rebudget every 10 years. we've started to implement this. in the sense when you look at the 2020 capital plan, we initiated a selection of these higher priority projects. they are included in the budget process back in january and then again in july. now they're included in the baseline today. there are few benefits to looking ahead 20 years little further in the future, allows for continuation of the projects, tracking needs overtime, allows us for a more longer range planning opportunity as we respond to things like climate change and regulatory conditions. this last slide kind of sums up this first part of the presentation. it's about capital plan. this is reflected in hat budget.

in the budget. if you add up all the projects, some of which started before the current tenure point, some which will finish after this 10-year point. if you gather all those projects and add up the budget, it does come to the total of $9 billion. ssip is obviously the largest in green. you see r&r on top of that. and the facilities and infrastructure program on top of that. the next two parts of the presentation now get into the status and baseline of both ssip and facilities infrastructure. for the sewer system improvement program. this map figure shows the general location of projects within ssip.

the larger grade which contain multiple projects. there are 70 projects in phase 1. we added four more to the program in 2018. the next few slides, presented two weeks ago last commission meeting and part of our quarterly report. i wanted to reuse them again to show the current state of ssip and where we are. this is a table that shows the summary cost for phase 1. the columns summarize the expenditures, the current budget and forecast cost and variance.

we also show those with the green, yellow and red and 12 projects in this case on budget and five which have concerns. there are 14 projects which now show, according to our baseline of 2018, variance of 10% or more. the program schedule summary compared to 2016 the original to what is now the current baseline of 2018. now current forecast is schedule for phase 1 of ssip. it's red and it's extending to the existing baseline.

this next slide is new. it's something to help tie together what i started with in the strategy how this relates to ssip. i want to build up this graphic to show the change in our process and update the ruling plan. this is the way we thought it would work as we imagined back in 2010. countrily shown here, in the quarterly report, phase 1, these are the four projects. then we were intending to do phase 2 and 3. the arrows here implies the process. remember that the phase is overlapped. moving forward, we like to start with the same conditions that we have phase 1 and other are under way. they're in process. now we initiate the highest priority projects every two years with the budget cycle. in this case, there are 31 projects added into ssip. the new projects will advance from phase 2.

they have been selected based on a refined prioritization approach, consisting mostly these are projects related to security, safety and regulatory compliance. in addition to those projects, they're included in that. by baselining what we're doing today, really is clarifying more detailed scope, budget and schedule so they can be delivered and managed more effectively and carefully. this last slide for the ssip piece and the item today is to adopt revisions to baseline scope and budget and schedule for the 74 existing projects and ssip and adding these 31 new projects so we can move forward to execute and report them. this is 2018 baseline. the table shows ssip phase 1 at the top and then four projects were added as ssip other in 2018. you can see the overall total at

the bottom. now if we look at 2020, baseline, it's a forecast based on our updated current information that we know today and here we show how it compares to 2018. you can see the variances in the red and how intend to course correct. vaporses for phase 1 we talked about little bit and other in 2018. you can see highwa how we're ad1 projects ssip in 2020. last part shows how the 2020 baseline compares to approved 10-year capital improvement plan. to get a look at the red variances, the majority of ssip budget variance is due to biosolids and head works.

the schedule end date has improved. it's now less what we reported. the more significant schedule and cost changes, are really result of theme wes shared back in september. few that i would highlight just to remind us all things like project, market conditions, and different site conditions and the logistics working in these phases, of course covid-19 caused challenges. the next one is a briefer part for this much smaller program. we look at the facilities and the infrastructure program. it includes capital projects were originally in business.

the figure shows the location of these seven projects.

for the schedule perspective, having baseline before that current approved schedule in gray and comparing what we're now forecasting in red, also showing a similar longer period. last slide, the item today is a adopt a new baseline for the budget schedule and scope for program. in the same way, the current budget we're using is shown on the screen. for 2020, what we look at now and consider forecast and variances and see what the 2020 baseline looks like. how that compares to our budget.

these schedule changes and cost increases are the result of similar fees. to be more specific, the schedule variance in this case is primarily dictated by the -- [indiscernible] of the $200 million cost increase, $135 million of that is distributed to treasure island. another $43 million, both of those have evolved significantly. another $33 million is for the creek crossing project with real challenges resulting in emergency work and some additional scope and design changes and how to do that project and that costing. these are the three projects

with the red dots on the cost variance that we described. to close, now what? where do we go from here? we thought will be helpful to share some point house to move forward. i listed here some elements we expect to see in a mature capital program at this stage. each of these -- we're doing to some extent -- it starts with the greater emphasis on asset management and how we connect the dots. from risk management perspective, we can be doing more earlier in the design process. even in the planning phase and

programmatic risk. adaptive management, we have to prioritize the process allowing us to adapt. integrated planning, i'm thinking about concerns as we work with other departments and to sync up all the work. we'll continue to do audits. the capital planning piece at the bottom, i would say the framework is in place. people processes and tools are there. if we think about 20-year plan, horizon, that's our next action and part of the budget process. that sits on top of our ruling 10-year capital plan. apologies that took a while. i'm happy to pause and take questions. >> president maxwell: commission ers any questions or comments?

seeing none -- >> commissioner harrington: than k you very much for the presentation. lot of really good information there. what will be helpful maybe may be in the future, i don't know it isn't obvious, sometimes what we have is we have projects that are the same scope. then you have projects coming up from phase 2 to phase 1. all it will be characterized at overruns. it will be characterized that use to be $3 billion and now it's $155 billion. >> i tried to show areas of the

variance. i agree they all appear the same way. >> vice president moran: i second what i just said. i found it really hard to figure out as i was reading through this item, what was going on. it's easy if you look at one set of numbers to think this is a 42% increase in the size of the program. it's not until you really get into the presentation and you look at toward the end, you have a comparison what's already in the c.i.p.

it would really men. part of the problem here, you're doing many things and it's all part of one item. it's really hard to sort that out. whatever you can do to help us understand, one is question of reframing and reorganizing but no money involved in that. what is reflecting and real change to projects is scope or cost. >> commissioner paulson: i didn't find it without getting into all the details, i did not find it confusing. i thought it was succinct. i would echo what commissioner harrington said. there's little red lines on the end, those can be chopped up and

explained maybe with a little more detail. i know this was kind of 10,000-foot synopsis over 15 minutes. just in general, it looks like it could be cost overruns. >> president maxwell: any further comments or discussion? madam secretary, may we open up to public comment. >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes on item

14, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 146940833 pound pound. to raise your rapid to speak, press star three. >> we have no calls in the queue. first caller, you have two minutes. >> first and foremost, i found this presentation very -- [indiscernible]. in 2004, we went before the taxpayers. we had a bond measure san francisco for $2.6 billion. at that time, very large amount. rest of the region,

$2.2 billion. can you imagine that san francisco gets stuck with the clean water project and dumped the wastewater project? i think some of you remember that. the gentleman who is chronologically to explain the baseline. there's one fact, $2.6 billion was supposed to be spent on what is now called the system improvement project, it was not spent and it backed the baseline and the areas.

environmentalist, it was wrong. unconscionable. that is why we focus on community benefits. >> next caller. you have two minutes. >> besides the 16-page staff report, there's an 128-page report. not easy to find.

i tried to digest all of that information. i can't tell exactly what the bottom line is specifically. do the changes add $1.4 billion to the program and what is the new total ssip program cost? which was last point, $6.976 billion. i understand ssip well. i can't compare the new verse with the old and engage the possible rate impact. consistent with the asset management policy, i hope we're investing in assets that need investment and not in other things that don't warrant that kind of investment during this period. the rate payer insurance policy that i looked at recognizes who is paying for this. we should not include unnecessary projects that aren't required by regulatory drivers

or asset management or other needs. i don't have access to a presentation that was just made. i can't easily reconcile the proposed changes. i'm not sure if you have sufficient information to improve this change at this time. this seems big. i served on the wastewater subcommittee for 10 years. anyone can tell you, i followed that personally. the staff report does not indicate that this was presented to the wastewater committee or the full c.a.c. i'm not sure if you ready to make these changes. >> thank you. >> next caller. you have two minutes. >> commissioners, good afternoon. i want to address on this

report. my apologize it is i want to beat the cat again so to speak. the cost of doing business in san francisco on the cost of the l.b.e. program -- you cannot keep the budget under control when significant asset of the program is out of control. i like to bring your attention to an issue. from 30 years within the experience in which business, i can tell you that cost of fraud on public works project is absolutely no less than 40%. you can ask how and the answer is very simple. number one, with this kind of shenanigans, we are

administering number of l.b.e.s that can actually work. it is up to you to move forward and address the impact that lot of local businesses in san francisco has suffered because of c.m.d. and because of their policies that do not show anybody that are not qualified. i want to bring your attention -- [indiscernible]

>> there are no more calls in the queue. >> that closes public comment on item 14. >> president maxwell: thank you. any further discussion? >> vice president moran: i have a question. tell me what it is we're doing on baselining? this action is basically adopting a plan. it does not to my understanding change appropriations or budgets or contract amounts. is that right? >> adopting a baseline scope schedule and budget for the projects that are within the two programs.

>> vice president moran: i very much want to see what -- within all of this, what the change to the program itself is. i cannot get that out of the information we have in front of us. what i'm wrestling with is whether the plan should go forward and we can get that information following or whether we should get that information first. i don't know what the urgency is of this item. that's the question. is it urgent? >> i think our process need toe keep the projects going. we want to make sure new projects through the order.

we don't want to impact it. the project work continues but it's only appreciated if we're able to rebaseline. if more information is needed, i can pull back up that slide that summarizes the changes and the last slide for the ssip if that helps. >> vice president moran: thank you for that answer. i'm not sure if the information that i saw would help. i think the question goes to did the program just get bigger or not or is it just reorganizing the chairs? i'm not clear about that. if you have slides that can tell me the answer to that, that will

be fine. otherwise, i suggest we hold this over. to break this down, central red column that shows the variances, ssip phase 1 at the top has a variance from 2018 baseline of $676 million. the budget and the 2020 baseline shows $3.6 billion there. that $676 million is maintaining the scope of the existing 70

projects in ssip phase 1. those are increases. we're delivering the same projects those are recognizable increase to the delivery primarily with of the two projects and the few others. other ssip for 2018, those were those four projects that i mentioned. that's a similar story that $82 million is for delivering of the same projects and that's now what we're forecasting. the different part here, that other ssip for 2020 and you'll see that's a variance shown from 2016. look at the projects that did not exist in the 2016 baseline. that is the growth part of the program. we're adding $684 million worth to cover 31 projects.

this was all included as appropriations within the budget that we presented in january and then again with the covid rebudget back in july. it results in the total of 1.4 financially we're baselining against. for this program which brings the total to $4.8 billion compared to $3.4 billion that you can see from 2018. did that help answer the question? >> vice president moran: i think that helps. i'll just speak for myself, i would like -- what the other commissioners at their level of comfort maybe -- i would like for you to help me with what the

major variances are. i think we've been through a lot of that. >> i mentioned some of the themes. i also mentioned few projects. the report on the agenda item listed out some of those. i know certainly, you had asked to come back with some of the theme of explaining. we looked at the red dot, we walked through a few pie charts explaining what the themes will be for change. we talked about interdependencies. there are list of interdepartmental projects that are challenging to integrate with. the bidding environment or market conditions within which we work, some cases scope has

been fine on the cmgc contracts. there's other items that i can talk about. does that answer your question? >> vice president moran: thank you. commissioners, i can follow this up with mr. robinson. i guess the question for the commission is, whether this is just my issue, he and i can pursue this and resolve those questions. i will not hold up this item.

if that concern shared by other commissioners, we can go that way as well. >> i have a question. that is that, first of all, on a global level, i know we talked about it in terms of details as to what the scope is changed, what was added on, what is happen. this is an ongoing project. all the different pieces that can be in there. the question is that, what else would we ask for that we could change what our perception is at the next meeting. we don't already have right now to guide moving this forward or not. i don't know what that is. if it means, commissioner, just

knowing few more details, which i hope will be shared with all a of us as to what those pieces are, i don't know what will change in terms of of what is happening now. i don't know if there's a real reason to delay this. >> vice president moran: i appreciate there's a lot of complexity with this program in particular. concept of the original phase -- other elements are added. we tried to unpack. i'm more than happy to follow-up individually or afterward, whatever makes since to help to do that. >> president maxwell: any further comments or questions?

have we had public comment on this yet? >> yes. >> president maxwell: why don't have motion and second and see how that goes. may i have a motion on this item? >> i like to move it. >> second. >> president maxwell: it's moved and seconded. roll call please. [roll call vote] you have four ayes. >> president maxwell: next item. >> next order of business is item 15, approve modification number three to contract number ww628, increasing the contract by $106,321,923 and increasing the contract duration by 111

consecutive calendar days. >> that is kathy how. this item as donna hood mentioned, is asking for approval to amend the construction contract, increase the total contract value by approximately $106 million and increasing contract duration by 111 days. as you recall the last meeting the project scoped 1 and 2 at final and substantial completion. construction is currently under way for scope 3. the project scope changed significantly when commission approved award of the contract in 2016. the when was project was still early in design for all three scopes of work. under the cmgc approach. the contractor was brought on

early to evaluate. risk. they've been working with design and construction management team in developed and resized a bid package plan. current modification request will allow for the contractor stundt-walsh to continue advertising and award trade bid packages for scope 3. the it will allow revising the contract agreement around the general condition, fees, general requirements and bonds for the revised scope of work and extended duration. what is not included in this request for modification is seismic retrofit and relocation of new odor control facilities both of which are currently still under design. the project manager is also

available here today and he can then address any questions that you may have. thank you. >> president maxwell: any questions or comments? >> commissioner paulson: i know there have been various request for public records. i did notice that supervisor gordon mar asked for some public records to come in. most of this has to do with the third party consultants and what have you that might be attached to these contracts. $106,300,000 is a nice hunk of money. i don't know if that's all dedicate to this part of modification number 3. it says that this includes specialized outreach consultant

services to assess the g.c.s and the c.m., i guess that's the construction manager to do l.b.a. and deal with trade packages. i'm asking for a little bit of a pause or an explanation as to -- i don't know what this means in terms of that type of outreach. i know that our former general manager was going to be briefing us on some of these questions that we had earlier. that really hasn't happened. when it comes to some of the third party folks that are dealing with the outreach, general idea that we want to dig a little bit deeper into what that actually really means.

if that can't be fully addressed, i'm wondering whether or not -- i would normally be because of the tran track recore one of the first ones to move this forward because of the success of this program just in general. i do have concerns what i was talking about earlier. can can you answer my question about the scope of this outreach and the l.b.e. and local hire and whatever that contains in

the bullet point? >> yes, i can. good afternoon commissioner, president maxwell. i've been working on projects and programs over 21 years at sfpuc. to answer your question, i was going to spend a minute but your meeting has been quite long. i would indulge in the complexity. to answer your question, $106 million, 99.9% is for the construction work. there's a component $200,000 that is dedicated to help us with outreach to the l.b.e. and local hire aspect of the project to design components that we are still addressing.

one is the local pump station that address all the flow flowsm bayview, su sunnydale. second component is still under design. we still need to do trade packages related to those two scopes. in addition that are still more packages to be on scope 3. that's the only aspect for outreach consultant. as i said, 99-point% are all construction. >> commissioner paulson: you said 99.9, which is a big number that's going to the contractor performed on the site. $200,000 is being set aside for outreach for folks. do you have an answer to who or where that $200,000 is going?

is there like a particular group that is going to be performing that type of outreach and construction training. >> the outreach consultant is the same consultant that was brought in by cmpd. it's a continuation of the same outreach consultant that was brought on under sunda stundt-w. it's a continuation of service. it's not a new outreach company that they are trying to bring on. it's the same company that has been helping the projects since the beginning.

>> commissioner paulson: can you tell me who that company or consultant is? >> certain outreach company has been helping is r.&j consultant company. it's an l.b.e. firm. local l.b.e. firm. >> commissioner paulson: okay, thank you. >> president maxwell: any further comments or questions? we can open up to public comment. >> members of the public who wish to make public comment dial 415-655-0001.

meeting i.d. 146940833 >> to raise your hands to speak press star pound pound. >> there are multiple calls in the queue. first caller, you have two minutes. go ahead. >> commissioners, i was reading this very carefully. why would we have some privileged consultant and now one of the commissioners ask number of questions, you find out that it's dwayne jones. i have over 70 projects that i have evaluated and on each project, you got 200,000, 300,000. what the hell is happening?

this is like a social thing. we should be transparent. the guy is in big trouble. somebody else should be doing it. somebody should be doing real outreach. it doesn't mention hire. hire what? i read the language and i sent

it to some of you. let us do the right thing. >> thank you caller. next caller. you have two minutes. >> keyword, dwayne jones. congratulations. big construction outreach. construction outreach, it was zero. he aggregated $6 million or $7 million doing outreach. being in the city, 2002, never got a single e-mail of any

outreach done by dwayne jones. that's one. i'm a bit surprised as to why they pop up again and again. whether it's this job or other job or community benefits. it's just a scam, i hope you agree with that part. there's no outreach for l.b.e. dwayne jones is a gatekeeper. he's a leech. there's no reason to continue with him, specifically when he is being hired directly by the p.u.c. and hired directly by the general contractors. that's the conflict of interest. please again, i'm begging you to review these old policies and

all the environment that was created by the quarterback. we have failed system. it's time to address this failure and come up with solutions. i thank you for your time. >> next caller. >> i would remind commissioner harrington of his quite serious efforts to constrain the ssip ten years ago. the considerable staff and consultant work has gone into building trust regarding the ssip over the years including tyrone jew, lehman abrams, gina, karen quebec, dan, marty. lot of other people that have not mentioned.

lot of work has gone into that. i'm fairly surprised that the commission's action on the previous item. very significant. on this item, item 15, this is one of several southeast plant projects that improves the initial screening, reducing grit down stream and reduces odor in the neighborhood. this contract advances the project within the total budget. does not increase the total budget project. i support the construction contract modification and urge your support. thank you very much. >> thank you, caller. next caller. you have two minutes.

>> my name is mary. eye live in district 10. i'm calling because i'm concerned like the other callers about corruption in san francisco. i'm concerned about who's getting award contracts or outreach and community benefits. my grandson is on parole. couple of months i saw equipment during the pandemic. i went to the fence, i could have swore it had r.b.j. i'm not positive. this is ridiculous. my grandson family didn't have any outreach done to them. i would love to see data what type of outreach has been done and if the community feels they have been outreached to. most importantly to get with the

fbi. as far as communicationing with them because someone is under investigation or what not, it has their name or paper trail, e-mail, phone calls, they are connected to corruption, we don't deserve this in district 10. black and brown people have been suffering for years and years. the benefit and outreach needs to go to a nonprofit that has yielded results. thank you. >> there are no more calls in the queue. >> president maxwell: any further discussion or comments? seeing none, may i have a motion and a second on this item?

may i have a second? i'll second it. it's been moved and seconded. let's take a vote. roll call. [roll call vote] you have four ayes. >> president maxwell: item is passed. madam secretary, read the next item please. >> item 16, authorize the general manager to execute an electric service agreement with the master developer of the pier 70 project. presented by adrian hale.

we can't hear you. >> are you able to hear me now? >> yes, thank you. >> sorry about that. i'm assistant general manager barbara hale. i'm here to request that you authorize the general manager to do two things today. the first thing is execute the electric service agreement with the developer of the pier 70 project. it provides that the p.u.c. will be the electric service provider for the project. we would provide that service through our hetch program. approval of the electric service agreement is the next implementation step for our efforts outlined in our business plan and budget discussion to

expand the provision of greenhouse gas free electricity in san francisco. it implements the city's policy to supply electricity to all new city development through sfpuc where feesable. with respect to the separate agreement, the second item i mentioned, we would enter into separate agreement with the developer, for an amount not to exceed $1.7 million. the developer would install sfpuc electric facility on the pier 70 project. board of supervisors approval by ordinance will be necessary for waiver of competitive bidding requirements to allow us to contract directly with the developer to perform the electric facility installation. we recommend this approach because the electric facility's installation needs to be performed in an expeditious manner, power does not have sufficient number of qualified

personnel to perform this construction while also meeting our day-to-day operations and maintenance responsibility in the time frame required by the developer. there's no time to conduct competitive bidding process and still meet the developer's time constraints. some of the work will be on property under the control of the developer. coordination with them will be required and finally the developer has agreed to limit the cost to the amount that the p.u.c. will be required to refund under the commission adopted rules and regulations for electric service. the work to be performed includes providing some temporary power service and provide a permanent power for phase 1 of the pier 70 project. with that summary, i ask for your support and i'm available to answer any questions you may have.

>> commissioner paulson: i have couple of questions. why one does it have to be expedited and go to the no-bid process? i don't know what the timing is. this is something negotiated finally either at the last minute or it took a while to get it done. secondly, in terms of who -- this is highly unusual for utility to be making this type of partnership like this in at least my experience. that is developer solely responsible for picking who gets to do the work on their property to move the stuff together. i know $1.7 million is not a zillion dollars in terms of major infrastructure project. those are the two questions. one is the timing and why and secondly who gets to pick, who

does that work? >> couple of thoughts. with respect to the timing, we have been proceeding as staff, thinking we can do this through our rules and regulations without having to go to the board without having to come back to the commission. we discovered through the process that we could not. we're sort of put behind the eight ball timing wise. it took some time to negotiate the electric service agreement as well. with respect to the comment on this being unusual. i would -- couple of thoughts on that. when developments occur, predominantly for electric utility services, new facility need to be constructed. it's quite common for the

developer to build out the system consistent with the specification provided by the utility. then that property, once it's inspected and it's demonstrated to have met the specifications of the utility, it can be accepted by the utility as a utility property. that aspect is not that unusual within the electric utility sector. our rules and regulations specify that the developer can construct facilities. that's not that unusual. that aspect of it. then to the point of decision-making about who gets to do this. recall that for a redevelopment project that are entitled like pier 70, the city places in that

development agreement requirement. that includes competitive bidding and such. the city transfers those particular responsibilities to the developer in performing the development responsibilities. >> commissioner paulson: that sort of answers my question. in city like san francisco, building about ready to get hooked up. if it isn't public power, pg&e their folks get it put on the outside. then the owner of the property, public or private, they get to pick who does the rest of the work on the inside after the utility part gets put in and gets expanded, etcetera. that's what i meant.

>> yeah. it's true, little more detail on that. when typically when you go to pg&e, you want to connect, they will give you the option. you can build it yourself to our rules and pay the taxes on it or allow the utility to build it and the utility will tell you what their estimated cost is, plus or minus 50%. the aspect that the utility, typically dozen not allow the third party to perform are things that have to do with the actual electrified meter that's on the utility side of the system. the vault, for example, the vault construction that's under the street that has the transformer in it, the utility

would allow that work to be performed by a third party through the utility specification. connecting that transformer to the grid, no. that's performed by the utility. in the scenario that i'm describing here, we will be doing the steps. >> i'm trying to get to what's unusual about this one. you're saying we can do this rules and regulations and normally you could have them do this work. is it different that we're reimbursing them or paying for it?

>> i think it's a refinemenfined understanding of our process and interest by the guidance we received from the city attorney scrutinizing the approach. for example, when we connected the transit center, we worked with the developer there to perform similar work. >> that did not have to go to the board? >> correct. >> president maxwell: commission er harrington, did that help? [laughter] >> commissioner harrington: i was still looking for that grain of difference why it had to be done this way. i'm not sure i heard that. >> thank you. >> i'm not family with the transbay arrangement.

when the city is paying the developer to do this work, that was included in this development agreement that went to the board of supervisors. the board did approve and authorize it. the development agreement for pier 70 that was not authorized. that's why we're having to go back to the board now and get authorization. the authorization we are seeking is waiving the competitive bidding requirement because you are paying them to do construction work. >> which would have been done ordinarily. >> my understanding it would have been done by the power enterprise under your standard electric service agreement. but you can correct me. >> in the past we have relied on developers already in construction on the site to perform this kind of work. those developers under the

development agreement are required to go through competitive bidding processes to award the work. i also have manuel ramirez available to answer questions further if you like to continue. >> president maxwell: why don't we open this up to public comment. >> clerk: members of the public if you wish to make comments on 9b, dial 415-655-0001 meeting i.d. 1469408633 to raise your hand to speak, press star three.

>> there are no calls in the queue. >> thank you, that closes public comment on item number 16. >> president maxwell: any further discussion on comments? >> commissioner paulson: i'm a little uncomfortable with the noncompetitive bidding part. i don't know what it is. maybe i'm like with commissioner harrington. it's like who's on first, who supposed to be doing all this kind of stuff. i'm a little uncomfortable with. i probably should have asked questions earlier when i first saw it on the agenda. i know it's not a lot of money. i'm a little uncomfortable with the noncompetitive bidding part.

why do we have to truncate all that stuff? cutting corners, i don't like to set those precedents. i know the stuff has to get done. i do feel a little uncomfortable with that. i'm not quite sure where that goes. maybe question about the timeliness of this, again, you sort of mentioned it didn't go to the board as the counsel said. now it has to rego to the board and there's a time constraint and whatever. somehow, something doesn't quite feels comfortable. >> i would emphasize that, although, we would not be conducting a competitive bidding process, the developer has for the installation work i'm referring to. the site is an active construction site. it's hard to get others there

and coordination with the developer is key. as the development agreement provides, the developer goes through a competitive bidding process and manages the construction on the site. we're asking that this portion of the work be treated the same. >> commissioner paulson: pier 70 folks will make a competitive bid and they won't poo pick whor the hell they want. that cleared my answer. i feel a little better. >> president maxwell: may i have a motion and a second on this item please? >> i'll move it.

>> second. >> president maxwell: thank you. it's been moved and seconded. roll call vote. [roll call vote] you have four ayes. >> president maxwell: it's passed. thank you. please read the items to go into closed session. >> yes. item 19, benito taylor. item 20 is removed from the closed session calendar will not be heard. item 21 state water board cases, sacramento superior court.

>> president maxwell: public comment on these items? >> clerk: members of the public if you wish to make comments on 9b, dial 415-655-0001 meeting i.d. 1469408633 to raise your hand to speak, press star three. do we have any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. we're ready to go into closed session. >> president maxwell: i like to request motion and second to assert the attorney-client privilege regard matters

mentioned. >> i move to serve. >> second. >> president maxwell: call the roll please. [roll call vote]. you have four ayes. >> president maxwell: i like to take a 10 minute recess and come back. >> moving into closed

[roll call vote] four ayes. >> president maxwell: approved. i like to wish everybody happy holidays and we'll see you in the new year. this meeting is adjourned. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you.