>> madam secretary, read the roll please. >> president maxwell. >> here. >> vice president moran. >> here. >> commissioner paulson. >> here. >> commissioner harrington. >> here. >> we have a quorum. i would like to make an announcement. due to the covid-19 health emergency and given public health recommendations by the san francisco department of public health and government and mayor breed lifted restrictions on teleconference. this is being televised by sfgovtv. for those watching be aware there is a brief time lag between the live meeting and when it is viewed. i would extend or thanks to the sfgovtv staff for their assistance during the meeting. if you wish to comment on an

item dial 415-655-0001. followed by meeting id164929414. to raise your hand to speak press star 3. before calling the first item i would announce that item 17 to approve the california community joint powers agreement is removed from today's calendar and will not be heard. your first order of business is item 3. approval of minutes of december 22, 2020. >> is there any discussion or corrections to the minutes of december 22? >> may i have a motion and second to approve the minutes. >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you. madam secretary will you open up for public comment, please.

>> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on the minutes of december 22, 2020. dial 415-655-0001. meeting id1649294145-pound pound. raise your hand to speak press star 3. >> there is one caller. >> david pill plow. i have five very small clarifications and word changes. i would just suggest it would be easier to take them up with donna after the meeting. if you will authorize her to

make non substantive changes to the minutes, that would be fine unless you want me to go through them now and take up more time. i would prefer not to. thanks. >> thank you, caller. next caller. speaking to item 3. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i hope you are doing well. i am commenting on this because i do recall back in late december there was a lot of going back and forthwith the construction management with election process. i recall that the commissioners were asking questions to go back and address the gross violation of the fraud lde participation on both contracts. i don't see anything in the minutes to reflect there and anything in your againca for this meeting to address those

items. i humly request the commission take this item seriously. it is affecting a lot of small companies not getting work because fraudulent firms with the help of end are taking the majority of the work. you have seen this clearly more than one-time. you have another contractor award for the first time in the history of p.u.c. for the same issue. i beg you one more time. there is a lot of risk for you with these issues. you cannot just simply say i am not going to deal with it. this is a public policy that needs addressed by the commission. thank you for your time. i look forward for someone to respond back to my inquiries. take care. >> thank you, caller. there are no more caller in the

queue. >> thank you. public comment on item 3 is closed. roll call on this item, please. >> president maxwell. >> aye. >> vice president moran. >> aye. >> commissioner paulson. >> aye. >> commissioner harrington. >> aye. >> you have four ayes. >> next item, please. >> next item is 4. general public comment. members of the public may address the commission for up to two minutes on matters within the commission's jurisdiction and not on the agenda by dialing 415-655-0001. id1649294145-pound pound. raise your hand to speak press star 3. >> do you have any callers? >> yes, there are multiple callers in the queue.

>> thank you. >> you have two minutes. >> the commissioners i am francisco de koster. recently there was a report about community benefits. now, generally if you look at you folks on the commission, we have two former general managers. you have a person who represents the union. you have another person who was a former supervisor and thanks that she knows quite a lot about the sfpuc projects. yesterday at the rules committee, we welcomed a woman who purports to know a lot about

environmental issues, climate change and so fort. whatever i have said the general in nature, but you commissioners have a moral duty to the taxpayers. we want to know how the taxpayers' money is spent. every single dollar. now when we have the audit and we read the audit. now we are told that a lot of what was in the audit has evaporated. that is disgusting. we don't need to do the investigation to come to our rescue. we have two general managers, somebody who purports he worked for the union. the union is for the people.

you have another person who purports she knows something but she knows nothing. who is going to be responsible to the taxpayers? i want to know. thank you very much. >> next caller. you have two minutes on item 4. >> i am dave warner resident of palo alto. thank you for your public service. in advance of next week's science workshop i would like to talk about the voluntary agreement and the state water board's plan. they use the term differently. adaptive management as used by delta is important to fishing groups. it has two key features. tied to buy logical goals and

additional resources are applied if they are not reduced if they are exceeded. the management feature in the plan was unimpaired flows increase or decrease 40% depending on the impact. quick to remember what adaptive management needs is there is a backup plan if goals are not met. it means optimizing a finite set of resources to native salmon. the management means optimizing timing for the fall run of salmon. no back up plan and no application of additional resources. adaptive management as used in the bay delta meaning backup plan is one of the most important features of the bay delta plan. adaptive management is an

excellent solution to the eye sense debate in front -- science debate. i would endorse the backup plan of unimpaired flows to 50% if the proposed plan didn't work. if someone says the t r.v. a has adaptive management clarify what the speaker means when using that term. i will provide a written copy of comments for the records. >> thank you, caller. next caller you have two minutes on item 4. >> thank you. this is policy director for the river trust. i want to give you an update on the irrigation district petition to deny the state water board facility to issue water quality certification in licensing process. you might have heard last tuesday they cooled on that.

5-0 they denied the petition so the state is still in the game. it is very interesting the irrigation districts claim the water board did not act. in fact, they acted twice in denying without premthe application. theren they denied was irrigation districts did not complete cequa. they might sue. this is an authority granted by the clean water act protecting states rights to maintain standards of water quality. this is a great opportunity for the sfpuc to distinguish itself from irrigation district. we hope you join us to support the deferred action on this item. >> next caller. you have two minutes on item 4.

>> good afternoon commissioner. i am addressing one of the items number 10 on the consent calendar. >> i am sorry, sir. this is general public comment. if you wish to speak on item 10 i ask you do so when we call for public comment. this is general public comment for items not on the agenda. >> pronouns she and her. i am concerned removing item 17

concerning the joint power authority from the agenda. i hope that this is the matter that will be brought before you so it can be discussed in public and you will have a chance to vote on it up or down. i am concerned about removal of items when they deserve to be heard. i think that is very important. moving past that as we continue with covid, we continue to streamline the ability for customers to interact with you, especially through payment networks in their communities. as we move forward the conversation about electrification continues. i advocate for the electrification of restaurants and other cooking facilities. i have been watching videos. i notice that kitchens on cruise

ships and ships of the united states navy are all electric. i submit some of the very best food i have ever had is prepared by the united states military. some of the best training in the world. in kitchens running on electricity we can addvo indicate to the restaurant industry it is do-able. i ask to expand electrification in the city and county of san francisco in buildings and transportation and lighting and heating. thank you. >> next caller you have two minutes on item 4. >> thank you very much for being here during the time of covid. i am a public citizen. i just want to talk about history and how it relates to

today and what is going on with the utility. back in 1906, the supervisors who, the city supervisors who set rates for gas, well they weren't a public utility. utility. there was a scandal as far as them setting the rates. out of it we hadgraphs and the public trust in our supervisors as far as protecting them for utilities was shattered. now we have with the recent charges against the manager we have charges again and as far as my friends who follow things with the utility people are worried about corruption and how you are going to fix it.

you know, i see it you can't fix it within. we look back to 2004 when the ethics commission said the person ahead of green for all contracts should resign. yet the utility kept the person on. it is not one individual, it is a culture. people with a utility know how cultures. they are aware of things how they have been going. if you are going to fix this, you are going to have to bring someone from outside. thank you very much. again, it is history repeating itself, corruption. i hope you can fix this. thank you. >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you. that closes public comment on

item 4. general public comment. >> will you read the next item, please. >> item 5. communications. >> any discussion on communications? seeing none. open for public comment, please. >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 5 communications dial 415-655-0001. meeting id1469294145-pound pound. to speak press star 3. do we have any callers? >> there is one caller in the queue. >> you have two minutes to speak on item 5.

>> david pill plow again. three items on 5a. advance calendar refers to staff no longer with the p.u.c. sometimes that can be adjusted. that will be great. 5d. i read through that memo. this is to the commission. if the pc power cost to acquire varies by time of day, i see there are time of use or tou waits. i wonder if staff could require or default customers to time of use rates to both promote conservation and the environment and to reflect the cost of service and strongly encourage by way of rates.

equal to use power at off hours where the cost to provide is less. something to think about. i am sure staff has already looked at that. it would be nice to hear back on that perhaps next time. we are talking about power rates or power enterprise business plan. finally, on 5f i am looking forward to considerable precipitation here and i thank steve and his staff for making that happen. let it rain. thanks. >> next caller. you have two minutes to speak to item 5. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am addressing item 5e, the cnmd division of performance on construction contracts. i want to bring to your

attention. cmd have been certifying companies illegally for construction management without the required state of california license in accordance with government 4525 and ab605. in effect in the state of california. for whatever reasons cmd think they have authority to allow fraud, l.b.e.s with no experience whatsoever to come and engage in this. i want to reminds you one of your staff went on record in the december meeting stating and i quote. we will bring people in without construction experience and put them in construction management. not only is this outrageous. i want to ask a common sense question. does that mean the city and county of san francisco have

qualified minorities to work in these jobs and his corrupt company brings in people from the street and put them on the job because it is convenient for him? what is wrong with this picture here? if any one of you can say there are no qualified in san francisco, i will take that. you can bring in people with no experience to displace people with experience is outrageous but not public policy. i am not sure what it would take for the c. d to get this in their head. enough is enough. thank you. >> next caller. two minutes to speak to item 5. >> thank you. she and her for the record.

i will talk about the memo concerning the generation rate change. looking at the chart it does look that power sf is slightly more expensive, not by much. i want us to be able to encourage people to join and stay with clean power s.f. i believe in the long game. certainly, i think we have to look for opportunities to be able to reduce or acquisition costs and pass to the customers. the previous comment about time and use of electricity from the previous speaker. i am a user of the time and use electricity and it works for me in an all electric home averaging 30 to 40 kilowatt

hours per day. this is rate chart but the platform to make adjustments to continue to have clean power s.f. be the value oriented proposition for the county and county of san francisco going forward. thank you. >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> that closes public comment on item 5. communications. >> thank you. next item, please. >> next item is 6. bay area water supply and conservation agency update presented by nicole sandkulla. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today.

very near the 20th anniversary of the creation in 2002 to represent the water interests of 1.8 million residents and hundreds of community groups. this is a good time to consider and clarify the operational facilities of the commission going forward. this is particularly important in light of challenges that both bawsca faces today for the water quality control plan. it is an immense challenge to protect health, safety, economic well-being of water users. by ensuring a reliable supply of high-quality water fair price

when and where they need it. the obligations and responsibilities are spelled out by the legislation bill 2058. san francisco has a perpetual obligation to the customers in the three counties to provide up to 184 million gallons of water per day from the san francisco regional water system in accordance with the agreement. this policy in california law, san francisco must complete the $4.7 billion water system improvement program within the time ordered by the legislature. it is the obligation to maintain the system properly to preserve the operational life exectancy of all the infrastructure and the sfpuc is to identify new water sources annually by bill 1823 which says the p.u.c. shall submit a report to the

legislature each year describing the progress mailed on the supplemental sources of water, augment supplies during dry years. in addition they are responsible for environmental expenditures related to the operations and the watersheds it relies on to provide water supply for the system. water customers pay their fair share of the costs. as owner of the system from which they get 85% of the water, it is the responsibility to manage public resources. they understand the responsibility is shared with the irrigation district. in october 2006, the sfpuc adopted the water environmental stewardship policy and the 2020 strategic plan identifies the stewardship as one of the six

goals focused on achieving the mission and vision. they support this policy and the efforts to implement it. the agencies pay their fair share of costs to implement these policies. sfpuc and districts analyzed the impact on the system and water customers. bosca agrees with the impact analysis. as a result they have serious concerns with the bay delta plan, impacts on water customers and environmental analysis. the p.u.c. and district proposed the science based river voluntary agreement as alternative to the delta plan to increase production of salmon in river and provide protection for water supply. that is important for the member agencies. the agreement forms the basis of

preferred analysis. the state board is responsible for adopting and updating the bay delta plan which establishes the water quality control and providing reasonable protection to the watershed. state board has broad authority including existing water rights for the control plan. given this combination of authorities and responsibilities, they believe the state board should perform the environmental evaluation of the river agreement. if improvements to the agreement are needed, those should be proposed and analyzed. by its enabling legislation they are authorized to represent the water users on the regional water supply matters, procuring

supmental water, recycling and maintenance and repair of the water systems they rely upon. sfpuc has responsibility to ensure the operations and meet the needs of environment in accordance with the state and federal laws. in closing, on february 5, p.u.c. will host second in series of water workshop. it is appropriate for them to present the scientific data to support the voluntary agreement and sfpuc's position. it their obligation to defend the scientific basis of the agreement. it is time for the p.u.c. to take this critical step. we look forward to the workshop and carefully consider the information presented. that concludes my remarks.

i will send these to you in written format the end of the meeting today. >> thank you very much. any discussion? seeing none, madam secretary will you open this up for public comment, please. >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes public comment on item 6. dial 415-655-0001. meeting id1469294145-pound pound. to speak press star 3. >> do we have any callers? >> there are multiple callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> two minutes to speak to item

6. >> supervisors, the way i look at this situation, and i remind you again and again you have to bring the indigenous people to the table. they were here for 15,000 years. you are regional partners, sfpuc has been delibberating this issue and my concern is that the river and the salmon and i ask a question that is simple. who will speak for the salmon? there is only one entity that can give the answer. those are the indigenous people. if you do not do this, this

matter can be easily now since we have a native-american who will be appointed as the head of the department of interior. we will approach her so that you can pay attention. don't kick the can down the street. we are changing our views but my main issue to you, commissioners, who is who will speak for the salmon? if we can increase the flow in the river? that issue, that situation has been there for 15,000 years. thank you very much.

>> two minutes to speak on item 6. >> thank you. i want to thank you for acknowledging the importance of the environmental stewardship policy. i want to encourage you to think back to a comment david warner made earlier today. pointing out the voluntary agreement doesn't have a backup plan. another problem is that in responding to the peer review of the fish models, irrigation district acknowledged the models were not based on long-term management. they did not retire that. it is different than the state water board. the state water board requires to look at long-term management and improvement of eco systems.

that is a problem with the voluntary agreement based on those models. last thing to mention is the sfpuc has a contractual obligation to 184mpg if san jose and santa clara are permanent then it is 193. if they are given 6.5mpg they requested that is almost 200mgd, higher than the total service area demands today. that question can be easily answered when it comes before you in 2028. thank you. >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> that closes public comment on

item 6. >> i have a comment before we move on to the next important item. i want to say. there has been a lot of discussions about l.b.e.s and work force development and what have you. it is very complicated issue, but straddling the line between pushing and making sure everybody has access to jobs as opposed to just policy itself is incredibly important for us to continue to discuss. it is not like sometimes when we recruit people maybe they are not the most trained, but it is our goal in not just on the commission but throughout life to make sure that folks are

going to have opportunity. i think that is not policy or people, it is opportunity for everybody. i just that is part of my policy moving forward on the board despite the different issues we have to deal with. i knewed to put that out there. there is a lot of comments about who gets there and that. it is all about opportunity. i just wanted to make that before we move to the next thing. thank you, madam chair. >> next item, please. >> item 7. presentation by the city's department of human resources of the four highest scoring respondepartments to dhrs informal solicitation from a

pre-qualified pooling for a firm to recruit candidates for the sfpuc general manager and possible action. >> good afternoon. i am kate howard. deputy director at d hr. i am here to report on the executive recruitment firms available to get additional direction from you, the commission, to support the selection of a firm. when i came before you i provided this road map of the process which outlines how the key steps in how the commission might work with an executive recruitment firm. today i would like to provide you with ausummary of the

proposals we received that were responsive to the commission's needs. i am happy to answer any questions. in our prior meeting we have 11 firms. mine submitted proposals indicating they were interested in working with the p.u.c., seven of those firms have become fully compliant to be city suppliers, and our team reviewed the proposals from those 7 and they identified four that most closely meet your needs. i would like to -- go to the next slide. as i mentioned previously. we invited the prequalified group of firms to submit

proposals to outline their proposed approach to recruit comment, i'd if i timeline, cost as well as the experience of their team and their work recruiting diverse candidates to an applicant pool. >> $115,000 to $125,000. we reviewed proposals and identified these four as best meeting your needs. >> all four focused in public sector recruitment, they have extensive experience on behalf of city council's answer board of supervisorses and governing

boards and commissions in other public sector environments. all four firms have a record of supporting and process to engage diverse candidates to an applicant pool and all four have recent city or utility experience. each of the firms have their style and they describe their approach differently. however, all four firms, the overall approach is consistent. they would work with you and key stakeholders to understand the position and develop the job profile. they would conduct extensive and proactive outreach to build the diverse candidate pool, screen and evaluate candidates and

present qualified candidates to you in order to identify finalists that the commission wishes to interview. finally, they would support the interview process as you would request. this table tries to present a high level apples to apples comparison of each of the four firms. they are listed in alphabetical order and highlights the overall professional services fee and timeline and that they do have these relevant experience. there are some potential costs that could change the overall price at the end. that would include things like additional meetings or workshops beyond the scope that each proposed. additional marketing materials

like videos, those kinds of things. these proposals -- proposals reflect the professional services fee. to the degree there are reimbursable costs, those might not be reflected here. the subsequent slides provide more detail on each firm. this is a brief summary of alliance resource consulting. in addition to the information listed here i would note for you that alliance has existed since 2004. led by cheryl who has more than 20 years experience.

she would be assigned to this recruitment. they are based in lapalma with a local office in palo alto. they have utilities and city and county variance within the past five years. they have proposed $48,000 fee and 11 week timeline to get you to interviews. essentially the profile development and outreach and screening would in their timeline take 11 weeks. they pride themselves on the diverse pool of candidates both using their own professional networks as well as outreach to specific professional organizations and they do individual par getted outreach

to candidates. babb marie was founded 30 years ago. phillips has 18 years of recruitment experience and based in roseville. they have recent utilities and city and county experience. $25,000 fee and 13 week timeline to get you to the interview process. next slide. you can see the approach. i just sort of outlined the approach that they outlined in their proposal. the overall approach for each is consistent with what i described initially. the hr consulting has more than 19 years recruitment. pam derby would be the consultant assigned to this project with more than 17-years

recruitment experience. it is based in sacramento and they propose the $27,500 fee with 13 week timeline. they have rent utilities experience and experience with other agencies. finally, the hawkins company was founded more than 35 years ago. brett buyers would lead. she has more than 15 years recruitment experience. hawkins is based in los angeles with additional office in sanra money. 15 week timeline. they have city and public utilities experience as reflected above. that is my high level summary. i am happy to answer questions.

i would welcome any feedback you have that would allow me to support you in identifying the firm you would like to move forward with. >> a quick question, madam president. i think all of us or at least i know ed without going to the top level had to recruit candidates for various things. i have done the same thing. i question what the sweet spot is this between the four different people as to where the pool comes from. i have done everything from craigslist to specific websites that deal with specific contacts and what have you. obviously, these are professional firms that know how to do what they are doing, which

is not in my bailiwick. what is the sweet spot to look at talent? where do you find people that have the experience to run a major agency? how do you separate the four groups? you have separated them to four that you feel comfortable with. i am not telling you to recommend anybody and i am not going that line. what is the common denominator about where you can get talent? not political talent, not other stuff. where do you get the talent to run a major agency between them all? is there a sweet spot in this that we should be aware of? >> i think one thing and thank you for the question,

commissioner paulson. one thing that will drive the outreach strategy is the specific experience and qualifications of the candidate you are seeking. i think the profile or the description, job description drives where you focus your outreach broadly. however, all of these firms describe their outreach approach. to talk about specific things they would do to identify highly qualified candidates. it might include things like using their own network for candidates or the recruitments

previously. that is utilities experience because they have experience in the industry but also because they have a network of candidates they may have seen be in the past to recruit to a recruitment. in addition, trade organizations, you know,th mic professional organizations. blacks in government, those organizations would be places that these firms would be looking at. >> let me ask you this question. is the description for this position driven by what we set down, not what they are dealing with, right? this is what we want and they are all using the same tool for recruitment no matter how they utilize the tool, is that correct? >> that's correct. they will work with you to

develop the position description and job announcement. i do have the. >> no, no. they are tweaking what we are supposed to have as job description. is that what you are saying? >> what i am saying is first step they want to do with the commission is look at the prior job announcement and work with you to update that and make sure that it addresses everything that the commission needs at this time. once that task is complete they will begin their outreach. >> you assed that. i got it. even the description is a work in progress? >> that's right. >> i read all of that stuff. thank you. >> the other thing that i think all of these recruiters will do

for you. they want to talk with the commission and other key stakeholders you would recommend to them. one of the things they will ask is do you know any candidates you think we should try to recruit? are there specific organizations or people we should talk to to try to identify candidates that might be a good fit? they will be mining their own resources, using their network and the professional organizations and also be looking for your guidance and input about how and where they should be doing additional outreach. >> thanks. i just was wondering how fluid this works. this is what we need versus this is how we get it in. thank you. >> any further comments?

>> how do we derm? when we have a lot of stakeholders? how do we know what they described as their stakeholder approach? i think for me that would be important. it would be important to know the approach, to know if we decide we need more than what they said, how much would that cost? i think about low balls and work orders and all of the other things you want become piled up. they cost more than the highest one. i would like to have more information on their approach. there are things you decided were important. there might be things we would like to see, who they are and how they go about doing their work. i don't want to get too caught

up on this first part. i think it is important how we proceed and that we have a little bit more information on the selections. they certainly vary, and there is so much that is not there that you say they are going to do but we don't see it. i would like a little bit more information. >> thank you, president maxwell. i am happy. there is a couple options. one i can reach out to the firms and get clear information about how they approach stakeholder engagement and then is there any additional cost associated with it? if you want to dial the scope up, what would that cost? that is a piece that you can use

as informational and then you can derm how you want to proceed. to the degree the commission wants to review the proposals themselves, i am happy to -- >> i don't need to go through every proposal. >> they are quite lengthy. if there is specific other information i can provide to you related to stakeholder engagement and specific approach with respect totic topic. recruiting diverse candidates or experience with utilities recruit meant or how they worked with the city and county in the past, i am happy to do that. >> they did help with the

library, one of them. i would like more how that approach went. i think it was hawkins. from 50,000 to $25,000, what is in between there? i don't know how because again, we look at the price. you say, if they all do the same thing. there has got to be a little difference especially since you all use them to do the library. what was the ultimate cost for the library? did it go up from where it started from that recruitment process? >> i don't have that number today, president maxwell. i don't believe it went up. the library did a series of

public engagement forums. because of the work of the library distributed throughout neighborhoods and multiple languages, the cost of the recruit meant was more expensive than what proposed by hawkins here largely due to the community outreach work that they wanted to have included. >> this is commissioner paulson. sophie is doing the same thing i am doing. i am trying to find out are there four agencies that you are recommending based on the recruitment and the weeding down of stuff all sending out different things based on their specialties as opposed to what the boilerplate job announcement is. i guess there is a little -- without getting in the weeds

because we don't have to spend our entire life on this. we trust professionals. is there multiple recruiting methods going on as opposed to boilerplate job description? that is where we are going. the answer is, yes, each agency is going to be recruiting based on the skill factor and hopefully the job description is going to be one that we all can center ourselves on? i am be laboring this at the front end as opposed to later. that is where my question comes from and i think that is where president maxwell's question iscomming from. if we find something lacking in the outreach it will want to flag it. >> thank you very much. i think you have an idea and we look forward to the next

meeting. >> thank you very much. >> hold on. >> one question. have we done outreach to the entities they have done work for to engage their satisfaction or nature of their experience? >> i do have references and i can follow up with several more. they have generally positive references from everyone. >> one of the things that in a way it is like picking any other consultant. it is not what they listed but the skills with which they execute and experience they have doing that. there is a couple that seem to have experience with large governmental entities and then

there are others who are smaller or work agricultural districts as opposed to urban districts. the nature of those is very different in terms of how you have to do your work and the nature of the people that you end up knowing as part of your network. if there is a way of assessing that element of it, i think that would be valuable as well. how much does their experience represent ourself and who we are? are they comfortable working this kind of environment? >> i am happy to review proposals with those kinds of elements in mind. >> thank you.

>> any further dialogue? thank you, kate, we look forward to our next meeting. >> open this up for public comment. >> members of the public dial 415-655-0001. id1469294145-pound pound. raise your hand to speak press 3. i would remind the public if you have a radio or tv on in the background please turn those down so we don't get the feedback. thank you. are there any callers? >> there are multiple caller in the queue. >> two minutes to speak to item 7.

>> commissioners, on this topic, first and foremost you have to zero in on needs assessment. what has happened is we can choose these firms. they have to know what is happening at ground zero. we need to get a review about the talent project manager and the treatment plan, manager, what the previous general manager and his cronies have done is flaunted the worst type of crooks. this woman trying to tell us that she chose this and she has any long relationship with

making talent, that is dubious in nature. we need to go back to tony flowers and ask him the relevant questions. we need to go to mark harris and ask the relevant questions. we need to cubic and ask her the relevant questions. if you want a list of others, i will give it to you. we need to go to the engineers who contact me to tell me how rotten the sfpuc is. we don't need hogwash when the commissioners speak in generalities or tweak this and skills and whatever. who can do a needs assessment? how can you do needs assessment when you do not know what is happening at ground zero?

good leaders know the way, show the way and go the way. >> thank you. next caller you have got two minutes to speak to item 7. >> thank you. first of all, i want to express appreciation for recent effort by the commission to engage with the public. we have the science workshop november 30th. another on february 5th. a couple weeks ago there was a workshop on the water supply and demand worksheet initiated by commissioner moran. it was a good workshop. we identified opportunities for improvement. that is positive. we need a new general manager who will follow this positive trend and equally open to dialogue and collaboration. i appreciated stakeholder

engagement in the process. we are very interested and hope you get an opportunity to weigh in on the job description and interview process. thank you very much. >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> that closes public comment on item 7. >> thank you. madam secretary, next item, please. >> next item is 8. report of the general manager. >> good afternoon president maxwell and commissioners.

on 8a update on the delta amendments we have not been in a discussion with the state team. they are concentrating on the state budget to get that passed. there is no discussion. we continued to work on technical issues they ray raised on habitat improvements. we hope to get back to them in the beginning of february, second week of february. we have a meeting scheduled. we will have a better update for you in february where we are at on the delta negotiations at this point. that is all i have for that right now. i would be glad to answer any questions. >> open this up for public comment. members of the public you have two minutes to comment on 8a. dial 415-655-0001. meeting id1469294145-pound pound. press star 3 to speak.

do we have any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue at this time. >> thank you. that closes public on 8a. general manager. >> just wanted to update you last meeting we talked about bringing back a resolution on retroactive approval of energy contracts. we have been talking to supervisor peskin and may have a different legislative solution we are working on. we don't be have exact language we will report the path forward there. i want to make sure you weren't expecting to see that on the agenda today. we have pushed it out because we have a different solution. i will answer be any questions. >> can you give us a little

direction that solution is going on? >> it would be legislation that allows this to happen under certain circumstances. supervisor peskin has indicated recognition that this has his support. we are working with his office on the exact language. >> any further comments or questions. public comment, please. >> members of the public with two minutes of public comment on 8b dial 415-655-0001. meeting id1469294155 upon pound. to speak press star about. do we have any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. public comment on 8b is closed.

>> next item, please. >> item 9. new commission business. >> any new business, commissioners? seeing none next item, bless. >> next is item 10. consent calendar. all matters listed here are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission and will be acted upon by a separate single vote. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission or the public so requests in which event the matter will be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate item. >> commissioner 10a please.

>> madam secretary. commissioner harrington asked t remove item 10a. >> yes. we will remove that. >> the commission can open public comment on other items. >> any other items. that is it for now. public comment then. members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment be on item 10 consent calendar dial 415-655-0001 to speak press star 3. 10a will be removed for separate discussion.

>> there is one caller in the queue. you have two minutes. >> david pill plow. this is specifically item 10a. i understand that commissioner harrington pulled for further discussion. here are my comments. i have no concern about the protest issue. that is not my issue. the staff report doesn't mention any civil service commission approval for the work. fundamentally i don't understand why this work is contracted out. there should be enough staff to do this in house otherwise additional staff had been hired to perform the work. it is not clear if staff considered having public works perform this work under a work order. whether this agreement is approved or not. i hope you consider contracting

out. when do we start to transfer willing to city staff and start to reduce the amount of contracting out? thanks very much. >> that is it for now. >> caller you have two minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is delay is causing me issues. i am here to discuss item 10a if i am allowed to do so. what i am seeing through the documents that have been provided in your agenda is that the group of contract administrators have selected a company as the highest ranked company with serious issues.

for some reason none of the interview panel members have thought about it or included it even though it is part of the selection criteria. this is turned around only when a protest is filed. think about it for one second. a group of individuals working for the duc engineers or managers or whomever. they ranked them the way it was ranked initially. none of them have thought about the qualification and l.b.e. and what they qualify for. the same issues on the contracts for the last 16 years. my question to you as a policy again, what would it take for the commission to straighten up the p.u.c.?

how many more of these contracts do you want to have controversy, have it cancelled, reissued until it gets straightened up? thank you for your time. >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you. that closes public comment. may i have a motion and second on the rest of the consent calendar, please. >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you. roll call, please. >> president maxwell. >> aye. >> commissioner moran. >> aye. >> commissioner paulson. >> aye. >> commissioner harrington. >> aye. >> five ayes. -- sorry four ayes. that is items 10b through 10e.

>> 10a. >> commissioner harrington. >> commissioners i have a lot to say on this one. i will be brief as much as possible. big picture. i believe that natural resources are our friends and we can work things out. they are a partial solution to the difficulties we encounter. there is nowhere where that capacity is more available than stormwater management than flood control. when i was general manager preparing the master plan i raised integrating green with natural resources and solutions with gray ones. the engineers kept telling me nothing worked for green. you couldn't make it work.

i think as much as anything else they shut me up. a dollar amount in the master plan with no projects listed with the dollar amount. it was what was important. that was the best i could do before i retired. over the years i have heard mixed reviews how p.u.c. was integrating gray and green. when i returned to the commission i was told i would be happy because they embraced. this 10a is the first time since i joined the commission there is a specific item in front of us to talk about working on flood control, stormwater management and those things. i was excited until i started reading it. the first disappointment is that there was no mention of green integration. the firms interviewed were on the qualifications, experience for the old things we could have

done 50 years ago. tunnels, pikes and pumps. over the last two days i have been asking the staff questions. i am more discouraged. the idea of integration is use gray on everything big and important. take care of funding needs. green on less critical for stormwater management if they don't work who gives anything? the big things are going to happen. rarely if ever is there a mix of the two approaches on the project. i think that is something fundamentally missing. we should look for opportunities within projects to integrate those solutions. in that e-mail correspondence i was asked to look at a presentation in 2017. that was discouraging because in that presentation which i gather was accepted there was an

increase in the budget of $450 million for gray solutions and decrease of $84 million for green solutions. that was adopted by the commission at that time. i think our staff are good people, but i don't think they are approaching this topic in the right way or aware of all of the green infrastructure solutions through out the world to meet flood control problems. we decided to hard scape the cities and wonder why we had flooding problems. more concrete and pipes and pumps. climate change is not working because of more severe storms. our proposal is more concrete, more gray infrastructure. i am not sure that is the right solution. what i suggestion we postpone this decision on the contract. i would love to have the commission workshop on green

infrastructure and reintegration from the systems. we can bring in experts that have experience doing this and talk about the different be ways to do this that we are not exploring fully. this may be the last chance to do it right. i realize we will be told any label wrecks the project. the contract was held up for seven months for another bidder. it was to last six years. i don't think spending a month or two for a more full discussion of the larger topic is really a horrible thing. we are talking 10 to 20 years to complete the projects. i am happy before i may being the motion. i will make the motion to continue after we hear from people. thank you. >> mr. paulson. >> commissioner harrington, i have to say that part of my

business life has been i like concrete and i like infrastructure and tunnels and i like all of the things because infrastructure is important and of course that is in many ways the core of what we do here at the commission in terms of the water and the power as well as the things that we do. we do have to continue to deal with this incredible ability to not know exactly where green power comes into life. in terms of all of the work that is being done, there are changes happening. people are like we are not going to dig coal probably and i will get killed for doing this.

we will not be digging coal too much longer to sustain what we are doing. i support continuing that discussion because in our own world in the labor movement all of the different electrical and plumbing and other infrastructure stuff we have never quite hit the sweet spot, as we say. i am into having those discussions because there are a lot of jobs that can be taken care of if they are going to deal with our environment. did dealing with climate change and whatever else. i will support this amendment. i am not supporting not moving this project forward just in general because we have to continue the process that we are doing. i will support the commissioner as we move forward. i don't think this is going to

change the earth this tech piece but it is a statement that has to probably be said. that is where i am going to go with this. i am incredibly supportive of finding out the best ways of creating opportunities without destroying the environment. [please stand by]

>> roll call vote. >> motion to continue item 10a to the call of the chair. [roll call vote].

four ayes. >> president maxwell: public comment on this item? >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes public comment specifically on item 10a, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 146 921 4145. do we have any callers?

>> there are multiple callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> hello again, i'm with tuolumne river. i want to say i'm impressed and pleased by commissioner harrington's comment and by the vote of the commission. i attend lot of meetings with lot of different agencies. it's incredibly rare to see that kind of leadership. so thank you very much commissioner harrington. >> thank you for your comments. next caller. >> david pilpel. i made comment on item 10a. i'm little unclear why public comment was reopened. i hoping my comment was clear for the record. thanks. >> thank you caller.

there are no more callers in the queue. >> president maxwell: thank you public comment is closed. next item please. >> clerk: next order of business is item number 11, authorize the general manager to execute this amendment by $1,250,000. represented by how. >> good afternoon commissioners. kathy how. this item we need to request the extension of time and also the additional cost. the time is really because the project has been delayed because staff were responding and the team was responding to the dam emergency work. the project was delayed for that reason. the other issue regarding the

cost is that the condition assessment and the investigation ended up being a quiet bit more extensive. there were divers and underwater infections. we are asking that for the cost increase as well, the budget increase to the contract. >> i have a question. >> president maxwell: it says that it is not functioning as intended. did it ever function as it was intended or did it stop? is there a reason? the valves are encased in concrete, are you going to blow them up so somebody hang on the side with a sledge hammer. how is that going to work? >> i'm not extremely familiar with the construction approach. i will tell you that all of that

was functioning. it's just a matter of age and refurbishing some of the parts that go to the valve. the contractor, -- this is a design contract. the contractor would likely be breaking out parts of it and taking the equipment out and then doing refurbishment and then putting it back in place. this is for the design to put out a package for the contractor to bid on it. this is professional services and not construction project. >> i understand. i wanted to know -- i thought somebody would know. if it's encased in concrete and it's a valve, how would you -- >> they would normally cut on

other side of the valve is usually in the pipe. they would cut on either side. they would have to rebuild that concrete around the valve as well. >> president maxwell: any further questions on this item? seeing none, let's open up for public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes on item 11, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 146 929 4145. to raise your hand to speak press star 3. do we have any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue at this time. >> thank you. public comment on item 11 is

closed. >> president maxwell: may have a motion and a second to move this item? may i have a motion and a second? >> so moved. >> second. >> president maxwell: thank you. roll call please. [roll call vote] you have four ayes. >> president maxwell: it's been approved. next item please. >> clerk: item 12. approve the plans and specifications and award contract number ww-685r in the amount of $2,010,000 with the duration of 750 consecutive calendar days. western water constructors incorporated. >> this item is basically to

replace a dry weather pump with a wet weather pump. so that the wet weather system will be redundant pumping capacity. there was a protest on this that has been resolved. we would like to move forward with this project. the work would probably start in springtime. >> president maxwell: any comments or questions? public comment on this item? public comment on this item please? >> clerk: sorry, i was muted. members of the public who wish to make two minutes public comment on item 12 dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 929 4145-pound

pound. to raise your hand to speak press star 3. do we have any callers? >> there is one caller wishing to be recognized. you have two minutes to speak to item 12. >> david pilpel again. item 12, i have no comment or concern about the protest issue. not my issue on this item. my concern is with the ceqa documentation. i'm not sure if this is a project management or environmental staff issue on the bottom of page 2, top of page 3, there's a link to the environmental document. i was able to get that but neither there nor on page 4 in the resolution is the city planning case number referenced.

the date is referenced but not the case number. i don't think it's necessary for this approval but in the future, if the case number could be included both in the staff report and the resolution along with the date, i think that would make it more complete. in this case, -- otherwise, this does seem like an important necessary and useful project and i support the contract award. thanks. >> thank you for your comments. there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: public comment is closed. >> president maxwell: may i have a motion to and a second? >> so moved. >> second. >> president maxwell: don't race to it. >> i said second.

i was muted. >> president maxwell: thank you. roll call vote. roll call vote. [roll call vote]. you have four ayes. >> clerk: next item is item number 13, approve the terms and conditions of and authorize general manager to execute amendment number one to the office lease dated april 5, 2016 between bayview plaza l.l.c. at the existing annual base rent of $412,189.56. >> president maxwell: any questions or concerns regarding this item? seeing none.

thank you. i think we're good. you welcome. we'll go to public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make public comment on item 13, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 146 929 4145. to raise your hand to speak, press star 3. do we have any callers? >> there is one caller in the queue. you have two minutes to speak. >> david pilpel again. item 13, i have no objection to this particularly extension. i do appreciate the real estate work including on leases. indid see that the last resolved clause was spelled hereby and

signature page suggest 2020 approval and we're now no 2021. my real concern is the city through the p.u.c. t bought the 1550 evans property on the basis with the explanation we'll be leaving the bayview plaza office space. i would like to know what the current plan to move the staff from bayview plaza to city-owned space. wastewater rate payers was supposed to benefit from lower office lease cost by getting out of lease space and moving staff to city owned space. that has not been the case. it's really not about this particular lease extension, it's what the overall southeast office facilities situation is for the wastewater enterprise. thanks. >> thank you for your comments. there are no more callers in the

queue. >> clerk: public comment on item 13 is closed. >> president maxwell: thank you. we have a motion and a second to move this item? >> i like to hear some discussion of the question that mr. pilpel raised. >> i'm michael carlin once again. we do have looking at all our facilities. we bought 1550 evans to move the community facility thin we'll have 1800 oakdale additional. we're planning a administration building on the southeast plant sites eventually. once we leave 1550 evans, we will vacate to bayview plaza. renovate that because the tenants will no longer be there. that's the interim plan right

now. >> president maxwell: 1550 is not built yet. we can't move into it yet until it's finished. when will it be finished? >> i believe it's 2022. >> president maxwell: 2022 it will be moving from the plaza to that building? >> it will go to 1800 oakdale. once we have 1800 oakdale, the tenants there, someone will move down to 1550 and then we'll have space in that building and we have some other tenants that we need to negotiate with whether or not they are going to leave the building as well. >> president maxwell: thank you. commissioner paulson, do you have questions? thank you. may i have a motion and a second

on this item please? >> i'll move the item. >> second. >> president maxwell: roll call please. [roll call vote] you have four ayes. >> president maxwell: next item. >> clerk: next item is item 14, authorize the general manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the treasure island development authority setting forth the term and conditions under which the san francisco p.u.c. will continue to provide utility services on treasure island and yerba buena island with the term of two years expiring june 30, 2020. >> michael carlin again. we're contractors supplying services to the treasure island

development authority. until such time that the infrastructure is completed on the island, when the city would accept those, then they will be our assets. for the time being now, we are just an operator to tie up. i'll be glad to answer any questions. >> commissioner harrington: is there a reason we can get it year by year opposed to rolling this through all the time? [indiscernible] >> i don't have a good answer for that. we've been doing it this way and negotiating with tida. second thing is, we were expecting or they were expecting or all were expecting all the construction would have been completed by now. it slowed down quite a bit.

>> commissioner harrington: than k you. >> president maxwell: public comment on this item? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 14, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 146 929 4145, pound, pound. to raise your hand to speak press star 3. do we have any callers? >> there's one caller in the queue. >> sorry, david pilpel again. my only question on this is why it's retroactive, i have no objection to the extension. unless there's a need as acting

general manager indicated to review capital cost and recapture those. i'm wondering why it's retroactive and wasn't handled prior to the expiration date june 30, 2020. >> thank you caller. there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: public comment on 14 >> president maxwell: mr. carlin , can you speak to that question? >> i can. part of it was actually negotiating some capital reimbursement cost that we wanted to include in this one. also, refining the time lines for construction of the wastewater plant and making sure that synced up. we got a new permit from the regional water board. all of those things compounded

led to long-term negotiations with tida and others. again, it was unfortunate it's retroactive but it was agreed to with tida. >> president maxwell: any other questions? thank you. seeing none, may i have a motion and a second to move this item please? >> i'll move it. >> second. >> president maxwell: roll call please. [roll call vote] four ayes. >> president maxwell: next item please. >> clerk: next item is item 15, authorize the general manager to execute the 2021 amended

restated water supply agreement between the city and county of san francisco and wholesale customers in alameda county san mateo county and santa clara county to another wholesale customer when transfer portion of its individual supply guarantee to another wholesale customer. presented by ritchie. >> good afternoon general manager for water. i will talk about the water supply agreement amendment described in the title. basically, the proposed amendment is to carry out to make the use of water supply more efficient and to maintain the guaranteed revenue stream.

the proposed amendment is intended to encourage individuals supply guarantee transfers among the wholesale customers while maintaining certain minimum purchase requirements for revenue stability. it does not include any increase in the supply assurance of 184 million gallons per day or changes in water supply or facilities. just to go over the term, supply insurance is 184 million gallons a day and mentioned earlier in the meeting. it was a perpetual obligation of the p.u.c. to the wholesale customer. individual supply guarantees are wholesale customer shares. in terms of supply assurance that were negotiated among 23 of the wholesale customers. those individuals supply guarantees were not dictated by the p.u.c. but rather they were

negotiated among the customers. they are the basis for the urban water management plans and used in land use decisions by the planning agency associated with the wholesale customers. section 3.07 of the water supply agreement talks about the minimum purchase obligations. there are four customers that have minimum purchase obligations. they have access to other supplies but they are required to purchase specific minimum annual quantity of water from the sfpuc. if they do not meet the minimum purchase requirement in the fiscal year, that wholesale customer must pay the sfpuc for the difference between meter water purchases and the minimum annual purchase quantity. these referred to as imputed sales.

all of the wholesale customers benefit from the minimum purchases. the four customers are shown here that have minimum purchase requirements. alameda county water district, city of mountain view, city of millipedes and city of sunnydale. where we are today, wholesale customers may transfer a portion of their individual supply guarantee to another permanent customer. they are limited incentives for professional transfer to take transfers. no wholesale customer exceeded their supply guarantee. city of mountain view has a minimum purchase obligation to exceed their total annual.

demand. they -- this obligation to purchase or pay for water above their demand can be incentive of recycling investments. particular case have been the mountain view transfer of east palo alto. it was the first successful transfer of individual supply transfer of one million gallons a day. at the same time, mountain view has been paying 2.5 to $3 million annually for imputed sales. east pal alto paid mountain view $5 million. it was intended to offset the minimum purchase obligation. this transfer highlighted the interest in developing new terms for the w.s.a. that allows a

minimum purchase obligation as part of a i.s.g. transfer. this slide has a lot of information and kind of a compact form. listed across the bottom are all of the wholesale customers and the things to know first the blue bars are the fiscal year 2019 and '20 purchases. the green bar is the individual supply guarantee for each of the customers. as you note upon inspection, you can see lot of green. which means that people are generally well below their individual supply guarantee. the orange bars are gold bars are the projected 2040 purchase requests. you can see most of those are still within the green bars. hayward is unique in that, it doesn't have an i.s.g. that's noted here in quotes. they have a contract that does not put a limit on the amount of

water they can buy. they're projected to actually grow beyond their allocation and at that time, they will be able 184 issue. others are well within the bars on san jose and santa clara show projections above. they have no i.s.g. they are not permitted customer. also, to note, the red bars are for the four minimum annual purchase customers. on the left alameda county water district, their demand exact exactly the minimum purchase quantity. they have other supplies. milipitas they are just above. mountain view is the one that has the challenge where they can't keep up with their minimum purchase because of demand is so

low due to lot of conservation and recycled water use. sunnydale also the red bar is right about exactly at their demand level. the proposed amendment is proposed to revise section 3.07 to allow minimum purchase customer to permanently transfer obligation to other wholesale customer to that wholesale customer. transfers will be subject to the same requirements as transfers of a portion of i.s.g. and other conditions. with the p.u.c.' role in those transfers, basically limited to evaluation of two things. one, does the transfer comply with the terms of the act and two, is the transfer actually accommodated with the hydraulics of our plumbing system. we're not allowed to make

judgments on it but rather on whether or not it meets those conditions. this slide is actually a depiction of what is shown in the attachment e of the part of the amendment. this shows graphically what a transferrer would experience if they transfer one million gallons a day when they had minimum purchase obligation starting out five million gallons a day. on the left, you see that the green bar, minimum purchase obligation, the blue bar is annual purchase. you can see, they fell short of their purchase obligation by a half. they had to pay for those imputed sales. the next year it is automatically transferred to the transferee. -in this case, you see their demand kind of bumps around.

they have a new minimum purchase obligation of only four. this one is pretty clear cut. actually, from most transfers the transferee would be relatively similar. we chose e2 is shows more nuances. this shows that the customer with one million gallons a day with minimum purchase obligation is acquiring a second m.g.d. of minimum purchase quantity. six million gallons a day, usage in year zero. for years 1-7, they have a period of the temporary modified minimum annual purchase quantity. what that is, they're obligated to purchase an amount equalth to average of the last five years of their demand plus the

new minimum purchase obligation that they have. in this case, they continue on about seven million gallons per day per year, little bit 6.5. they had some sales in there. the temporary modified minimum annual purchase quantity continues until they have three consecutive years where they demonstrate with a track record that they will actually have additional demand online. that they will be fulfilling. if they never reached the three consecutive years, they got that temporary modified minimum purchase obligation obligation going on. this is point where question has come up about, does that

diminish the minimum purchase obligation? the wholesale customers collectively have worked on this quite heavily and they have analyzed lots of different possible scenarios and they are quite confident that having that minimum purchase obligation really turned into real demand is something that will stick. these two tests of the stabilities some of the demand, the prior five years and then three years and new level of demand is the satisfactory test to making sure they will accomplish in that demand is going to be unlikely to go away. there's some restrictions. proposed restricted minimum purchase customer transferring 50% minimum annual purchase quantity. folks felt that we shouldn't

just spread all the minimum annual purchase around. let's little bit more prudent about this. second restriction is that collectively no more than 6 million gallons a day of the total current minimum annual purchase quantities can be transferred. we have noted that if the minimum quantity of transfer exceed, that the p.u.c. and wholesale customers agree to consider further amending section 3.04 to increase. i think it's unlikely that will be a goal that might be achieved. we're also proposing there be

certain authorities delegated to the general manager. basically, there are a number of small details that need to be included in the water supply agreement in attachment ce and e1. also in the individual water sales contracts. we're proposing that the commission would basically approve a transfer. once you approve the transfer, the administrative details can be handled by the general manager consistent with the approval action. policy considerations kind of summing up, we'll get greater utilization of supply insurance, customers will use existing supplies rather than new supplies. we'll get revenue stability, minimum purchase obligation will remain until greater demand is established. the revenue stability risk is

when minimum purchase obligation may become less meaningful if demand decreases. we get rid of the incentivization of recycle investment. because they result in impugntive sales, we think that's a bad thing to do. there might be some increase in overall system demand. it could increase up to 6 million gallons per day because actual sales will be replacing imputed sales. this is that limitation that we're going to live with.

i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> president maxwell: any questions? >> sound like a very complex but managed relationship of all these different places. sound like you're in control of it. is there any downside to any of this stuff? >> we don't think there's a downside. we've been working on this since the end of 2018 when we approved the last amendment. mountain view has been a very proponent of doing something, anything to resolve this. this took a lot of work by our staff and very frankly, they

have been working with all their individual members to answer all their questions and include changes to help satisfy them all. they were all concerned about the potential for somebody demand falling off. i think they went through a lot of work and lot of analysis to indicate that is not really expected to be the case. certainly the new demand coming in as we talked about with our water supply seven. they are all coming in extremely low water users. those demands once they hit, will stick. i think we all feel confident on that count. >> it sounds pretty cool. mountain view bought too much and they decide to share it with somebody else. you're moving all those different pieces. okay. >> you said they bought too

much. that's one of the problems as they didn't have to pay for the i.s.g. they all divided it up. that might have changed the situation if they were obligated to pay for it. but they aren't. >> i'm just doing the math back and forth. great report. thanks mr. ritchie. >> commissioner harrington: i'm supportive of this. the reason we put the transferability in it 2009 contract, you had larger agencies that had do of the water. you had these smaller, poor places like east palo alto who had to do moratorium on buildings where the larger -- the ability to move water to where it was needed in places i

viewed as an equity issue. moving the transfer with that makes sense to me. >> president maxwell: thank you, anyone else? any other comments? we open this up to public comment please. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 15 dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 929 4145, pound pound. raise your hand to speak press star three. do we have callers? >> there are multiple callers in the queue. you have two minutes to speak to item 15. >> thank you. good afternoon commissioners. this is nicole. i'm very pleased to be speaking to this item today.

this amendment informations between p.u.c. and member agencies. this conversations centered how existing water supply provided about the regional water system is managed under the water supply agreement to meet the region's water needs. bosc and the p.u.c. supported the water transfers outside the region as a means to increase water supply reliability. sfpuc and bosc will continue to investigate this concept. water transfers between the wholesale customers are existing supplies to meet the needs of developments. this proposed amendment would overcome a current hurdle that is limited transfers of existing regional water system supplies between eligible wholesale customers. the amendment protects the interest of san francisco retail

customers. as mr. ritchie mentioned, we have been in intense and complex discussions and analysis concerning this over the last year. this was essentially the starting directive from my agency. that does not participate cannot be impacted by this. the bosc member agencies are prepare to present this amendment to the governing body following the commission action today. thank you very much. >> next caller. you have two minutes to speak to item 15. >> thank you. i think this is one of the occasions where we all agree. that can happen. one other issue, there's often concern about running out of water. there's also i heard an issue

raised recently that water demand and water sales has been up slightly. which is a good thing based on revenue. that's a reality of economic. i'm wondering if there might be some way to decouple sales and revenue, similar to the way we done with electricity in california. i haven't seen a great example. it will be nice if there was an economic incentive to conserve. mountain view and east palo alto is a great example how this can be helpful. mountain view has done a great job at conserving water and using recycled water. unfortunately they were penalized because they weren't buying much from the sfpuc. they have this obligation. we want to encourage conservation. i think this will help do it. we also want to help make a community like east palo alto

whole. that raises the issue again that mr. ritchie brought up that when the 184 was divided up, you have to pay for i.s.g., just the water use. that's problematic. communities can sit on water and there's no penalty and other communities are worried and they lobby against the bay delta plan. i think we can avoid some of that. my only concern is, it's easier to shift water around, which do you think this will be a problem, we might get more development -- >> clerk: thank you, your timex priored. >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: that closes public comment on item 15. >> president maxwell: any

further comments? may i have a motion and a second to move this item? >> i'll move it. >> president maxwell: roll call please. [roll call vote]. you have four aye. >> president maxwell: next item please. >> clerk: item 16, authorize the general manager to enter into a transmission facilities agreement with the pacific gas and electric company in the amount not to exceed, $18,000,600 plus monthly cost of charge of $57,000. initial term of the agreement is five years. represented by h. hale. >> good afternoon.

the commission approved about $167 million in the power capital plan to support that project. it's under construction. it's critical to provide a power service to the improvements the southeast wastewater treatment facility and other of our new customer in the southeast waterfront. the project will connect to the electrical system at a new p.u.c. owned yard. the agreement lays out the term and condition for pg&e to construct a transmission line that will interconnect from station to our new switch yard. under the agreement, we would be compensating pg&e for the work needed to upgrade their switch

yard to our corridor of transmission distribution which we're calling the davidson substation. the work includes final specification for the project, purchase of the major equipment and materials that are needed, construction of the switch gear. not to exceed amount of $18,600,000. with your authorization of this item, we would take the item forward to the board of supervisors for their approval. i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> commissioner harrington: two questions. we have often been critical of pg&e for expecting us to do too much or overcharging from our

point of view. is this what you consider to be a reasonable thing and these are reasonable charges for a reasonable project? second question, smaller one is, we said five years, is there somebody we don't extend it in the first place? >> second question is quick and easy to answer. we're syncing this agreement up with all other agreements with pg&e. so we'll able to approve them and move them forward in a cohesive way. with respect to the reasonableness of the cost, yes, our engineers have gone over what's being asked of us here. we regard it reasonable. we have found the transmission conversation that we're having with pg&e to be much more business like than the distribution conversations we have with pg&e. that's part of the reason,

frankly, that reinforces our interest in connecting with pg&e at the transmission level rather than relying on that distribution service. >> commissioner harrington: than k you. >> president maxwell: any further questions or comments? thank you. seeing none. i like to open this up to public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make public comment on item 16, dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d., 146 929 4145. -- >> there are no callers in the queue at this time. >> clerk: public comment on item 16 is closed.

>> president maxwell: may i have a motion and second to move this item please? >> so moved. >> president maxwell: roll call vote. [roll call vote] you have four ayes. >> president maxwell: item is moved. >> clerk: next item, item 17 has been removed from the calendar. i can call items to be -- call the items and public comment for closed session? members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on closed session item 20 and item 21, counsel receiving advice from city attorney regarding city litigation in which the city is

petitioner in specific gas and electric company. members was public who wish to make two minutes public comment on closed session items 21 and 22, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 929 4145, pound pound. to raise your hand to speak, press star three. do we have any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you, public comment on closed session is closed. >> president maxwell: may i have a motion to assert the attorney-client privilege regarding the matters listed below as conference of the legal counsel? >> so moved. >> second. >> president maxwell: roll call vote please. >> [roll call vote].

you have four ayes. >> president maxwell: next item. >> clerk: at this time, we'll enter closed session. >> starting closed session for second? >> motion. >> second. >> i'm sorry not to disclose?

>> a motion regarding whether to disclose the discussions during closed session pursuant -- okay. request of motion and second whether to disclose discussions during closed session. we have been moved and seconded. >> the motion is not to disclose. >> correct. >> right. >> clerk: president maxwell. >> aye. >> vice president moran. >> aye. >> commissioner paulson. >> aye. >> commissioner harrington. >> aye. >> president maxwell: then this meeting is adjourned. thank you.

>> january 25, 2021 with the meeting being called to order at 4:21 p.m. we thank sfgov tv for live streaming the meeting. members of the public who will be calling in, the nur