>> this meeting will come to

order, welcome to the march 1, 2021 regular meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i am supervisor melgar joined by vice chair supervisor dean peskin and erin peskin. the committee clerk is erica major and i like to acknowledge and thank javierand maria for stopping this meeting. madam clerk, do we have any announcements ?>>erica major: due to the health emergency and to protect board members the board of supervisors legislative chamber and committee are" members will be participating in the meeting remotely. this precaution is taken pursuant to the statewide stay-at-home order and all local state and federal orders, declarations anddirectives. the members will attend through

videoconference andparticipate in the meetings to the same extent as if they were physically present . public comments will be available on each item on this agenda . either channel 26, 78 or 99 and sfgov.org are streaming the number across the screen. eachspeaker will be allowed 2 minutes to speak . comments are opportunities to speak are availablevia phone by calling the number on the screen at 415-655-0001 . again that number is 1-415-655-0001. the meeting id is 187 265 5594. the meeting id is 187265 5594 then press #, #. when connected you will hear the meeting discussion but you will be muted andlistening mode only . when your item of interest comes up please dial á3 to the

added to the speaker line. best practices areto call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn you down your television or radio . alternatively you may submit public comment through one of the following ways, id myself the transportation clerk at erica.major@sfgov.org if you submit public comment via email it will be soon forwarded and be made part of the official file. written comments may be sent via u.s. postal service to city hall, room 244. san francisco california 94102. finally, items after today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agendamarch 9 unless otherwise stated . madam chair. >>supervisormelgar: thank you madam clerk. now will you please call the first item ? >>erica major: item 1 is a

ordinance to implement expanded compliance control and consumer protection provisions for projects, individuals, agents and entities with a history of significant violations and affirming appropriatefindings . members of the public whowish to provide public comment on item number one should call the number on the screen. that number is 1-415-655-0001 . the meeting id is 187265 5544 and press pound and pound again. if you have not done so already please press á3 to line up to speak for item number one. thesystem will indicate you have raised your hand please wait untilthe system indicates you have been on muted when we get to public comment . madam chair >>supervisor melgar: this item was amended last week and we continued it as amended . we are now joined by amy

beinart, welcome miss beinart i see supervisor peskin has access speaking. we have ... >>supervisor peskin: i'm happy to defer to the chief of staff and i can go after. i think she will, our staff have beenworking together and i'm a cosponsor and i'll defer to miss beinart who is indicating she needs to be on muted . >>supervisor melgar: can we help miss beinart get on muted please ? >> unfortunately we can't unmute herthrough teams. let's see . if miss beinart is on the phone ... >>supervisor melgar: miss

beinart, are you here? >>amy beinart: i am, can you hear me? >>supervisor melgar: we can. >>amy beinart: can you hear me? okay, i'm really sorry, i'm having a lot of problems with teams but i'm here and i appreciate the time. amy beinart 82 hillary ronen. thank you supervisors for hearing this today and thank you for sponsoring lastweek . these are amendments to introduce today, these were emailed to you the clerkand your staff earlier today . city attorneys advised i respectfully ask that you adopt these today and send them to thefull board with recommendations . for the most part today's amendments are minor language adjustments to make the legislation more clear and go

and i'm not working with these unless you want to, first in section 103 861 describing the type of notices andviolations that will be tracked , we are further amending action 103 86142 delete including but not limited to work beyond the scale of the building permit and i think supervisor peskin may want to say something about that. second we have inserted language at the end of section 103 a-61 to conclude that the tracking file, that's not the expanded control list, the tracking file is internal purposes only and doesn't imply any violation of misconduct and last we have added language in section 103 a-63 to add factors that should be considered in making the determination through the party of project

onto theexpanded compliance control list . not limiting to but adding those supervised instructions for the analysis. so on behalf of of supervisor ronen i hope to receive your recommendation today. >>supervisor melgar: supervisor peskin. >>supervisor peskin: miss beinart cover the amendment this week and i want to thank her for working with my staff. we thank mister hafner as well. together with our city attorneys andthe department of building inspection , and look, i think we want to make sure that we are catching. we want to catch and not making legislation unenforceable or for that matter impeding less experienced folks who make

several honest mistakes. so she covered my amendments. i also want to reiterate the commitment made by dvi to my staff on the record here which is that they will promulgate administrative regulations and present them to this board of supervisors as to what constitutes substantial noncompliance in that subsection 4 that miss beinart just reference and what constitutesquote unquote egregiousnoncompliance inthe next agent , section 106 a 1038.6 .272 . and finally, it's not lost on me or i think on many of us that in some ways and i don't mean this critically, we have some fox guarding the hen house issues here and i just want to say for the record that i want

dvi and the building community to understand that supervisor ronen in my office will be monitoring implementation of this ordinance closely and one thing in particular that i will be watching is whether we see a spike in notices of correction or notices by previously issued because the former notices of corrections are not implicated in this ordinance and don't get you on the enhanced tracking list butthe latter notices of violation do and if that becomes the case , i believe supervisor ronen and i are ready to legislate accordingly so when it's the appropriate time i'm happy to move supervisor ronen amendments as set forth by missbeinart and that concludes my remarks . >>supervisor melgar: thank you so much supervisor peskin and after reading the amendment and

now you're in your explanation i just want to say i'm very grateful to you supervisor peskin for adding these amendments into this legislation. i think it's much better so thank you. supervisor preston, did you have comments? >>supervisor preston: just a quick clarifying question and i don't want to go the thanks chair melgar as you said to supervisorpeskin and supervisor ronen the work on this . i think this has been really solid legislation badly needed and i'm really pleased with what before us. the only question i have and this is not to suggest any changes but i just am trying to understand the scope of this and whether we would have to handle certain aspects of this in potentially in future legislation or through amendment and that's specifically on the issue of the other substantial

noncompliance . when i read that was in the 103 a-61, there's structural work beyond the permit, work or home without a license and then there's the broader catchall number four of other substantial noncompliance and i'm areas that , we're anticipating that violations from the housing inspection side, like repeated violations that are not technically violations of the permit but are violations of coderesulting in notices of violation , would it trip that and potentially when someone in the slip or if it's viewed as something maybe outside the scope of this understand the immediate and primary target ofthis is the abuse of permits . any clarification and i think especially sincedvi can deal with this , with a substantial

and repeated violations for example by a landlord who is also someone who is seeking permits . notices of violation against them, do we anticipate the trip subsection 4 substantial noncompliance wire or is it separate from that because it doesn't deal with abuse of a permit? and i don't know if that's an attorney? miss beinart. it's just a question for whoever knows the answer. >>amy beinart: that's a really interesting question, i don't know the answer i will defer to miss beinart at the subject expert. >>amy beinart: just venturing an opinion i would think it would include those substantial notices of violation and they are provided as notices of

violation and yes, but as you mentioned supervisor preston, if the follow-up to being on the tracking list is pending on theexpanded compliance control list for all measures to deal with for the department . so for the action taken after that which would only be with regard to the permits and not to other kinds of reports that thecity might want to take . for situations like that. i know john murray is here and i don't know if you want to add to that comment or not. >>chair melgar: mister murray, are you here? >>john murray: iam, john murray, department of building inspection . our understanding was this was pertaining to building permits specifically and not to housin

. i'm not sureexactly what the impact would be if we were to include housing under the umbrella here . again, this is all around misrepresenting conditions for building permits and not necessarily housing violations release income to the calculus here so i would defer to you all on that. but that isn't my understanding at this point. >>chair melgar: thank you mister murray, that's an interesting question supervisor peskin i wonder if having sat on the building commission and also on theboard of appeals , when it handful of folks as you know very well having done tenants rights work, the handful of folks who repeatedly violate you know, building code, housing codes and you know, if we put them on the

list and then if sort of you know, they can use that as an excuse not to hold further building permits . i wonder if we shouldn't be exempting them or trying to legislate further to clarify the intention and come up with remedies. is thatwhat you were thinking ? >>john murray: i just tried to clarity. i think has drafted and i should have prefaced all this with apologies to miss beinart and supervisors peskin ronen at this in the final minutes before i was preparing for this hearing. i wish i had raised this earlier, but i think that as miss beinart laid it out, abstracted that substantial violations are or noncomplianc , substantial noncompliance as

written would follow under a severe violation of housing codes by a landlord would presumably fall within that. but then also as miss beinart points out that wouldn't impact their conduct when they are seeking permits. but what i'm hearing from mister murray that may not have been the intent to cover those so i guess i'm just trying to avoid problems when there are implementing or creating the ranks around this . and hopefully have clarity does raise any issues to treat those violations as subsection for violations that would put someone on this list and if you say chairman you have to look at what you don't want to stop a permit from being pulled, that is to fixeverything that is in notice of violation . so yes, i don't know where that

ends up but it seems like at least having some clarity as we're moving this forward as to whether those are or not within these paragraphs subsection for violations. >>chair melgar: thank you, supervisor peskin. >>supervisor peskin: i put my little thumbs-up because supervisorpreston actually said what i was going to say . >>chair melgar: thank you. so if no other comments from my colleagues, let's take public comment on this item . >>erica major: thank you madam chair. it looks like there are no listeners in queue but if you'd like to make comments on item number one you can press á3 and we will see your handraised on our end .there are now 2 in queue . if you could unmute thefirst

caller . >>caller: good afternoon supervisors, corey smith on behalf ofthe housing action coalition . we appreciate the continued conversation around this topic and it's really important. just wanted to reiterate comments we made last week regarding death fund dvi to carry out this important task and other complicated pieces for you all to consider, thank you. >>chair melgar: thank you mistersmith. do we have any other public comments, madam clerk ? >>erica major: maria, if you can unmute the last caller please. >>caller: good afternoon chair melgar and supervisors, i'm ryan patterson and i'm often hired to help resolve notices

of violation and other problems withconstruction projects . i want to thank you againfor protecting the integrity of the permitting process. i am concerned about some of the specifics here . construction professionals will be deprived of their livelihood are being associated with projects as notices of violation but this decision would be taken behind closed doors dvi notices are not appealable in sanfrancisco. i'd like to highlight a couple sections . section 103 a-61 says identifying all individuals agents and other entities associated with the permit and/or project , section 10386.2 says associated with three or more reported violations. though there is a conflict between the first sections language aboutbeing associated with a permit of the project versus the second sections language about being associated

with a violation . second it would violate due process rights put someone on this list merely for being associated with a project or recorded violation such as an architect is hard to of a violation. 103 a-62 should beamended to say three or more violations rather than associated with . and the initial determination by dvi should be made in the process and testimony can be taken over penalty of perjury in the public will have the ability to give evidence. lastly today changes sound substantive but have not been read into therecord and i request anopportunity to review them before this is passed out of committee . thank you for your attention to this .>>chair melgar: thank you mister patterson, any other callers? >>erica major:maria, if you can unmute the last caller . >>caller: linda chapman.

i would hope that some supervisor sponsoring this would like to talk with me because i have a whole string of cases in which dbi did not take action about: circumstances in which people whocomplained only resulted in retaliation . serious retaliation. my co-op, i was driven from my co-op because i went to department of building inspection with the contracts and architectural drawings and so far how to structure 81 and a half billiondollars , $77,000 which was just being covered up by, the project manager we hired an everest construction people. john stuart was on the property managers is peskin's office and

a needy senior inspector says you will have to waitfor the next earthquake and i could give you details about that . same kind of thing is happening. i was told by my ho a and condo where i took refuge to go and get advice from the building inspectors. i did and they assured me this is noncompliance and it's very serious and dangerous threat to public safety, anybody could see it but on the other hand they were going to enforce so i've been two years biting it out of the department of housing as an ada complaint and now i am being sued for exemplary damages mind you, promotedby the president of my co-op , you know the nice guy with the equal opportunity to present of disabled people on the streets and whenthey're no occupying his time there's the elderly woman as he calls me ,

then there was nabil senior housing, that's a whole other story .the people from nobhill, they kept trying to filecomplaints about ... >> speakers time has elapsed . >>chair melgar: any other public commenters? >>erica major: dv has confirmed that was the last caller. >>chair melgar: public comment is now closed. is there a motion toassess the amendment as presented by superintendent and staff ? madam clerk, will you please call theroll on this item ?>> promotion as stated by supervisor peskin. [roll call vote]

>>chair melgar: thank you mada clerk, is there a motion to send this item to the full board with a positive recommendation asamended ? >> approved. >>chair melgar: madam clerk, will you call the roll please . >>erica major: [roll call vote] on the motion as stated by supervisor preston, supervisor peskin .supervisor preston. supervisor melgar. you have 3 ayes. >>chair melgar: please call item number two. >>erica major: item 2 is a resolution designating landmark designation under item to for the trocadero clubhouse and recreation grove located at 2750 19th avenue and extending the prescribed time which the historic preservation commission may render its decision by 90 days.

members of the public who wish toprovide public comment on item number two to callthe number on their screen , 1-415-655-0001 . the meeting id is 187-695-5994. please dial á3 to line up to speak. the system prompts will indicate you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicate you have been unmute it when we get to public comment , madam chair. >>chair melgar: we are not joined by supervisor mark who is sponsoringthis initiation supervisor, would you like to share some remarks ? >> thank you for your time today considering this resolution to initiate a historic landmark designation for the trocadero clubhouse inside stern grove and also thank youfor your cosponsorship . if you can walk into the annual music festival or participants

there you know that it's beautiful distinctive and beloved yellow building among the eucalyptus and pine trees right next to the third grove amphitheater. it'sa unique public venue used for many public and private events . managed by park. the trocadero has been a source of community pride especially on the west side since 1931 when they were gifted to the city by rosalie stern. built in 1892, the trocadero clubhouse is the earliest building in the parkside district , one of the last surviving 19th century doctors in western san francisco and one of the last contact examples of the 19th century rowhouses at once lined the roads of western and southern san francisco. it was by george green junior

is an example of state architecture. was originally meant to be an institutionfor san francisco elite as one writer put it , the roadhouse clientele usually consisted of troops of less refined men out for a day of drinking, dining and perhaps gambling and it was the site wherepolitical boss gave ruth was arrested during the government corruption trial after the 1906 earthquake and fire . in the decades to follow the trocadero became a rare recreational enclave for women. women's and girls club , job training classes and suffragette meetings and when rosalie stern bought the land from george greene in 1931 he hired renowned master architect renard ray back to restore the truck. she named the site site segment stern grove after her husband donated it to the city of san francisco to beused only for recreation , music, dramatics and pageantry and annual music festival was held in 1938.

the talkingclubhouse has been used for a wide range of special events , sponsored by the city and by the public on a rental basis and my first time inside this amazing building was actually with my daughter and some of her friends years ago at raglan park halloween festival where the trocadero was converted into an awesome hauntedhouse and the 19th century architecture definitely added to the ambience . colleagues, it's important that we look at historic landmark and through the lens of different experiences in all parts of the city including westside and not just in the realm of the most. architecture may be the most ornate, most and worthy of historical distinctions . the history and cultural significance of the parkside like many other historically working-class neighborhoods has often been overlooked this really sparked the creation of the group parkside heritage

last year.i'm very grateful for their work proposing and advocating for this landmark the efforts do lookforward to supporting their future work . and besides parksideheritage i have someone to francisco heritage, western project . i'm a part politicization sunset parkside education action committee for all their work to initiate a landmark in of the talking and really just for all of their ongoing dedication and advocacy for the sunset parksideand westside communities . colleagues and staff are availableto answer any questions . and at the request of the planning department resolution does include a 90 day extension or historic preservation review due to limited staff capacity thecurrent request for other landmark designations . so colleagues, i urgeyour support in this resolution . >> thank you supervisor.

it's also a family favorite for my family as well. supervisor peskin. >> i want to say how pleased i am so many supervisorsare initiate landmark designations . this one is absolutely deserved and i'm really pleased that they are being gone all over the city and in this case in the parkside and would like to be added as a cosponsor. >>chair melgar: thank you supervisor, supervisor preston class just wanted to thank supervisor peskin for bringing this forward and i want to be added as a cosponsor as well. >>chair melgar: i want to thank supervisor peskin for bringing this to us and letting me be added as a sponsor and its right between the border of 47. the stern grove is such a

vibrant, wonderful part oflife on the west side . it is, i am thrilled that we are doing this, thinking area supervisor peskin. >>supervisor peskin: i wanted to say insofar as this was the this where then boss even ruth was arrested, some things never seem to change. >>chair melgar: thank you supervisor. madam clerk, do we have any public comment ? >>erica major:maria is checking to see if we have any callers in queue . please let us know if there are any callers that are ready. if you have not done so less star agreed to beadded to the queue and for those already on hold continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmute it .

maria, if you can unmute, we have five colors in two. >>caller: island bogan, president of speak action committee. he is install support for initiating landmark designation for the trocadero clubhouse. the many reasons for landmark designation included in the resolution itself. as well as in speech written comments. now, speaking on my own behalf, i believe there to the talking in the recent move of the house of tori. in the headline in the book section, tony bravo described as and i quote, ss comes together for historic the victorian move and reclaims of these are the sole area he went on to write , in the scheme of things seeking one historic building is not make up for the other enormous losses we have suffered as a city, we needed something tofeel good about . even in the midstof the

pandemic , there was a feeling of joy as he watched the house process. there was also a feeling of coming together as acommunity that has been hard to come by lately . on a final note, on the passing lawrence ferlinghetti whose work helped us reclaim our heart and soul. rest inpower, rest in the changing light . thank you. >>. >>chair melgar: next speaker please. >>caller: this is woody malaki from san francisco heritage. also allof the parkside district is the context in which darrell was featured . there is the latest on the last example of what was thespring rowhouses on the west side of town and it has been an important community space or

generations of san franciscans . it's history and its design, itsintegrity and its connection and residence to thesouthwest part of town, the trocadero is a significant and special place to many of us . heritage strongly endorses this initiation , supervisor peskin and his staff forhaving put this forward and for the other supervisors are coming out as cosponsors thanks so much. >>chair melgar: thank you, next collar please . speed. >>caller: my name is jim marcel and i'mspeaking at a past president of san francisco victoria alliance . we also have enjoyed the treasure that the trocadero is. we've been having meetings there personally just enjoying it as a venue when we visited stern grove. i really supervisor mar mister

labounty stated all the reasons why this is so critical to save and preserve and so i won't reiterate, just offer my continued support for your efforts to advance this landmark in process with great thanks from the members of the victorian alliance. >>chair melgar: thank you mister rochelle. next speaker please. >>caller: good afternoon, my name is jonathan rothman and resident of the parkside district as well as a member of parkside heritage and i want to express my gratitude to provide mar and to the cosponsors spoken up as well as an the comments from all of her speakers.

i return to san francisco about six months ago afterbeing only about 15 years but i did grow up in the . there are many treasures locally here but the trocadero is especially sweet and it's nice to see that very committed effort to bring the trocadero to the attention of pursuing landmark status and sharing it with eight folks who come into the city and enjoy the treasures of all corners of the city is part of putting the western neighborhood on the map there. but thank you all very much and thank you for the time to offer this comment.thank you. >>chair melgar:thank you mister boston. any other public commenters ? >>erica major: 2 more callers into. >>chair melgar: next commentor please. >>caller: my name is evan rosen and i'm parkside heritage.

i'm delightedthis committee is taking a landmark designation for the there . too often decision-makers think and act like there's not much worth keeping and restoring in western neighborhood and sometimes there's even a stigma sunset and parkside district and that some of the architecture is different from that the orioles square but the longer i live in parkside the more i come to see how significant this neighborhood is and there's a lot worth keeping and restoring and improving in parkside. the trocadero is inappropriate for us to start because it's inextricably linked with the history of our city but you know, the trouble darrell is just one of the many structures that are part and parcel of the character and relevance of the western neighborhood.

you have chernow station in the parkside, foresthill station , the empire the building unless florida avenue and the list goes on and on . these structures give francisco the look and feel and the character that has drawn people here for so many generations so that you supervisors for recognizing the significance and role of the trocadero and thank you for voting infavor of initiating landmark designation . >>chair melgar: thank you misterrosen. next public commentor please . >>caller: the trocadero clubhouse is important to every san franciscan regardless of the neighborhood one lives and i'm glad the supervisors present on this call will vote in favor of this landmark will track all san franciscans fashion especially those who attendconcerts and events in the growth . thank you very much. >>chair melgar: thank you commentor.

any other public commenters madam clerk? >>erica major: dp has confirmed that was the last caller. >>chair melgar: public comment is now closed. can we have a motion to pass this resolution to the full board with positive recommendation? madam clerk, willyou call role please ? >>john murray: >>erica major: [roll call vote] you have 3 ayes. >>chair melgar: the motion passes. madam clerk willyou call item number three . >>erica major: item 3 is an ordinance amending the planning code by revising zoning matching sheet dn 07 to rezone 118 through 124 kipling street

from residential enclave to residential care district next and affirming appropriate findings. >>chair melgar:thank you very much. we have westlaw from the planning department who will present on the site . welcome. >> alex west, planning department staff. the proposed project will reconfigure an existing motor vehicle repair operation by converting 8006 nine square feet of existing vehicle storage on 39, 41 and 42 block 3516 two 4 parking level stackers. the project would install approximately 32 feet seven inch tall metal screenings and mckittrick street frontage and the proposed stackers would accommodate 200 net new

vehicles. the existing 46 and a half curb cut would be removed. a conditional use authorization was approved by the san francisco planning commission with the condition the board of supervisors approves a zoning amendment which read the 4 subject parcels from a residential enclave district zoning to a residential mixed zoning district which would then be available storage and the planning commission, this project fits in with the general plan as well as the san francisco planning code thank you and i'm welcoming any questions . >>chair melgar:thank you so much mister westhoff . colleagues, do we have any commentsor questions for mister westhoff ? okay, seeing a madam clerk let's take publiccomment on

this item . >>erica major: thank you madam chair. we have maria to check and see ifwe have any colors into. if you havenot done so pressed á3 to be added to the queue . not until you have been on muted . maria, we have one and two, if you can unmute the first colum . >>caller: good afternoon supervisors, john kelly on behalf of the project sponsor the reason the legislation is necessary to complete the proposal renovation of the existing auto repair operation between 11th and 12th streets, a quick review of theproject , existing operation consists of a auto service building to vehicle storage lot and the projects will construct a nonretail car wash new cars and service colors it would construct a series of stackers

on the service wants to increasethe capacity of vehicles on site . the stackers would be used for vehicles under service new vehicles being displayed dealerships on 14 south van ness and we will be constructing three walls with landscaping on both on both kipling. the project would improve the operations forroyal motors in the neighborhood role motors would no longer have to move cars to the nearby parking garage . of all the circulation would be internal which would take the number of cars off the streets and in particular kipling street which is kind of a low density more residential oriented street. it would also eliminate 60 feet of existing heard on howard and kipling so it will be a significant improvement for pedestrian safetyin the area the project will initiate existing pdr operation at the site . there are currently 88 service vehicles at the site, a large

operation and this will consolidate the vehicle storage and service for the nearby dealerships as well so we keep it all on one site . the commission approved the project in two phases and has recommended approval of the legislation, we work with two adjacent neighbors to the east anddesign modifications to get the principle of the project . a product will maintain and enhance theexisting pdr operation that has occupied the site for 40 years and with that werespectfully request you support the legislation and we're here if you have any questions . >> see one any other public commenters on this item ? >>erica major: maria from dp has confirmed that her no more callers and you see one public comment is now closed area are there any further comments for their emotion to process item out of committee with apositive recommendation ?

>>supervisor preston: when pieces of legislation come along they are usually answered bythe districtsupervisor . this is an exception to that general practice . i'm not through the board packet, before we do this supervisor haney i assume is fine with this. >>chair melgar: has anyone heard from supervisor haney's office western mark ifnot, mister westhoff would know this ? >>alex westhoff: wediscussed this with supervisor haney's office . he did not oppose rezoning. >>chair melgar:supervisor peskin, any further questions ? >>supervisor peskin: no. >>chair melgar:would anybody

like to make a motion ? >>supervisor preston: so moved. >>chair melgar:thank you. madamclerk, will you please take role . >>erica major: on the motion as stated by supervisor peskin . [roll call vote] you have 3 ayes. >>chair melgar: motion passes unanimously . madam clerk will you please call item number four. >>erica major: item number four is a reenactment of emergency ordinancenumber 154 20 . temporarily prohibiting construction projects and buildings of any residential units require the suspension of water or utility service to residential tenants providing alternative sources and affirming their findings,

members of thepublic who wish to provide public comment on item for you call the number on the screen, that's 1-415-655-0001 . and the idea is 187 665 5594. if you've not done sopressed á3 to lineup to speed and the system will indicate you greater hand . madam chair . >>chair melgar: supervisor peskin thank you for introducing this item, would you share your remarks. >>supervisor peskin: decided as a reenactment of emergency ordinance that we passed unanimously last august. remain in place for the days as emergency ordinances do before it expired and the legislation before us withrevised for another 60 days . this legislation not unlike the enhanced compliance legislation that we considered earlier on this agenda addresses bad

behavior at the periphery of the construction industry, not commonplace behavior and i do not in any way suggest that behavior that is being addressed by this ordinance is pervasive or the norm. actually to the contrary. it is the last resort for the handful of people experiencing repeated water utility shutoffs with consideration from a previous landlords. in isolated instances i believe those shutoffs verged on harassment approaching constructive eviction of long-term tenants. tenants often approach our office that we don't have the tools to provide any dpi short of this legislation doesn't have the tools to provide, and i know several offices have heard from tenants experiencing ongoing construction.

water shutoffs and electrical shutoffs, all trying to shelter in place and work from home . so i hope each of ouroffices can now point constituents to this guidance . as the baseline relief we expect during the pandemic. andfor the landlord and building industry this legislation is entirely avoidable if landlords and tenants arrive mutually agreeable terms . this is really about engendering and encouraging that type of communication. i really want to thank chair melgar for indulging our request on this report and know at least a few tenants who will enjoy its benefits in the near-term and onein particular in my district . this reenactment comes as this committee has unanimous support of the commission to ensure this legislation on the 17th and i look forward to it being reenacted unanimously at tomorrow's boardmeeting . i want to thank my staff and

also mention that we met with the san francisco apartment association to address questions that they had regarding re-upping this ordinance for an additional 2 months . >>chair melgar: thank you supervisor peskin and thank you for introducing thisitem. visor preston . >>supervisor preston: ,i want to go to roger peskin. please add me as a cosponsor i was with your original ordinance and i want to say that this is kind of emergency ordinance that does not lend itself to being on the front page of the newspaper in big headlines but has an absolutely enormous impact on people's lives and i think all of our offices were hearing from constituents who were dealing with this nightmare scenario of originally the emergency

ordinance addresses which you as you are stuck at home and your following rules and you have an abusive landlord, not a reasonable one and they are seizing the opportunity to make your life tell through water shops and other utility interference with utilities so i will say and this is not statistically significant at all but the numbers of those constituents reaching out definitely dropped after passage of this ordinance and we did have a place as you say for roger peskin to send both when this happened and the other thing to point out is that a lot of times when these things come forward people predict the sky will fall and it will be hard for people to navigate these rules and i'm not aware of any difficulty anyone's having in navigating these rules and we hear from landlords in the district if they are having trouble following a new road and as roger peskin has said this was

clearly tailored to deal with the situation that i don't think anyone operating in this space has any trouble complying with it so i'm happy and thank you for your leadershipthrough roger peskin . >>supervisor peskin: thank you for yourcosponsorship . >>chair melgar: i would like to beadded as acosponsor as well. madam clerk , did we have any public comment on this item ? >>erica major: maria from dp is checking to see if we haveany callers and you . if you'd like to be added to our queue for this item you just need to press á3 we have 2 callers. if you onthe first . >>caller: linda chapman. thank you supervisor peskin and if only i were a renter i would be able to benefit to instead of being sued and having to run around trying to find out if i'm going to find a lawyer to

sue theequal opportunity oppressor . so i would like to suggest you might want to consider instead of saying rental units saying residential units. i've mentioned in past hearing that those of us who live in ho ways , while there's a whole system of state regulation about what's supposed to be done by the board and so on that they do not have the equivalent of the rent board when we wrote the rent control law , we put a rent board that people can go to for enforcementbut we don't have that . the other thing that i would suggest is to put in compliance with the covid guidelines for construction. in my unit i've been living here through five months of industrial-strength noise. from the construction downstairs in the unit which i never complained about and all

what are shutoffs which i never complained about and all the times that they came into my unit because they weretrying to figure out where the leak came from and it wasn't from my unit but they came in a lot of times . finally i found myself in my little kitchen people from five different household for this lengthy meeting and the two poor latino plumbers back again being subjected to complete violations of the regulations and two of them in the sink where they didn't need to be and the next thingi'm told is that they're going to come in and read about my kitchen walls with no permits, no contract. the ho a has a right to do contract , obviously which would protect me and the ho way so i'm going to get permits and so onthat note, equal opportunity oppressor tells the owner downstairs you will authorize $1500, just have his contractors come in and knock out my wall .

quick's speakers time has elapsed. >>chair melgar: thank you very much. next public comment please . >>caller: seems the board is being a little bit disingenuous with this legislation insofar as initially when this legislation was introduced it was advertised as being something for people who had to go home all day, they can't go outside and if their neighbor is doing construction, who wants to shelter at homewhile their neighbor is doing construction . and now you're telling us that it's to prevent landlords from driving tenants out. certainly a wonderful thing to prevent landlords fromharassing their tenants . i mean, i applaud that but if

that's the case then why is it being done as a reenactment of the three-day emergency ordinance? surely there are other ways of preventing landlords from dragging their tenants out and spending a 60 day emergency ordinance to ensure that you can have some sort of long-term legislation to achieve this goal that a 60 day emergency ordinance. i suppose to give the benefit of the doubt maybe this is the easiest and most convenient way of achieving this goal since certainly there are a lot of landlords with a lot of nonpaying tenants right now who would rather not have those properties right now so i suppose that's a big issue right now. but in that case, maybe the board of supervisors need to

deal with these larger structural issues and of course there's a lot of large structural issues right now. so there's a lot to deal with but i don't know. quick's the speakers time has elapsed. >>chair melgar:thank you so much. madam clerk do we have any other public comment on this item ? >>erica major: maria from ds has confirmed that was the last caller. >>chair melgar: public comment is now closed. is there a motion to pass this item out of committee with a positive recommendation as the committee reports >>supervisor preston: so moved >>chair melgar: madam clerk will you please call the role . >>erica major: [roll call vote] you have 3 ayes.

>>chair melgar: the motion passesunanimously . madam clerk, would you and please call item number five. >>erica major: item 5 is a resolution urging office of economic and workforce to the planning department to meet the full transportation agency, department of public works, fire department and recreation department to develop a proposal for a permanent shared space program and affirming the board creating a permanent version of the program members of the public who wish to provide public comment on item 5 to call the number on the screen, that's 1-415-655-0001 . the meeting id is 187 265 2954. please wait until the system indicates that you have been on unitwhen the public comment . madam chair.

>>chair melgar: argument on file supervisor amy who is sponsoring this item. supervisor amy will you please share your remarks. >>supervisor haney: good to see you all. we are all familiar with the chairs program.it has provided alifeline to small businesses , neighborhoods and help to activate and beautify our commercial corridors. while this board has already unanimously established our support for the shared spaces program via resolution and unanimously passed by supervisor peskin's ordinance, fees for tables and chairs and creating the use of parks till april 2022 the future of the shared spaces program or some version of it is uncertain. the shared space permits will initially scheduled to expire

at the end of 2020 but in october permits were extended through june 30, 2021. the permit of thisresolution is todemonstrate the board's support for a permanent version of the shared spaces program that continues to streamline permanent . i've also had a focus on prioritizing equitable and accessible citywide participation . last fall we established support for moving forward and creating a plan to make elements of shared spaces program permanent and an analysis of how to make the program is currently underway. the resolutionurges oed to play a part in public works and the parks department to develop a proposal to make a permanent shared space program this year .as a board i know we have all had ... [b]

>>. [beeping] ...

>>. [the lost] >>. [the lost]

>>. [music]

>>. [music]

>>. [music]

>>. [music] >>. [music]

>>.

>>erica major: i spoke with sfgov tv, they just got back, if somebody can confirm that, weare good to go . i think we are good.

>>chair melgar: >>erica major: we are good, madam clerk. >> i'm still getting a network error . >>erica major: i spoke to someone over there at sfgov tv but do youneed confirmation that they are up if we're not seeing them ? we are live if that's so. >> if somebody can check channel 26. >> i'm getting a network error online to. >> if streamingis down we're not sending it off .

>>erica major: ijust turned it on and it's broadcasting right now . >> okay. >> are we confirmed it's on cable tv tv andstreaming online ? okay, so we just have to wait until the polls go up and we can resume itemnumber five. from what i hear , the meeting cut off when supervisor he was making hisopening remarks . >>chair melgar: we want him to remake those remarks ? >>erica major: please. >>chair melgar: i will let him know. let me know when we are streaming and on tv.

>>erica major: sounds good, i will. [music]

>>chair melgar: welcome to the land use and transportation committee of april 1. we are reconvening the meeting on item

5. and i have asked supervisor amy to resume his remarks because it seems that we were cut off during the first time he made them. supervisor haney. >>supervisor haney: should i start from the beginning? >>chair melgar: i'm afraid so. i'm afraid you were cutoff right when you started . >>supervisor haney: so this resolution is for our board to show support and demonstrate support for a permanent version of the shared space program. the shared spaces program over the last nine months is a vital lifeline to small businesses and activating neighborhoods and commercial corridors. i did want to thank and acknowledge the work that this board has alreadydone to

support this program including the resolution , the supervisor peskin's ordinance and renewal fee and also the leaving of fees through april 2022.the future of the shared spaces program and its permanence is still somewhatuncertain although there are positive signs . mayor reed established her support on the planto make elements of the shared spaces program permanent .this resolution would urge m.d., mta and the planning department to develop a proposal for a permanent shared spaces program in early 2021. there is legislation now being prepared and supervisor peskin has been working on it so that's a positive thing since this resolution was first introduced. i think it's important we make this statement together as a

board that we are in support of a permanent version but i do think it's important any permanent version that we learn from what happened during the last few months that things that we can improve if we want to make sure we include to ensure accessibility and all of those things i think are critical. the shared space program has had four 2300 applications nearly 2000 approved. the 1600 small business owners that filled out an impact survey, 80 percent want to continue operating outdoors 90 percent had these shared outdoor spaces havekept them from closing permanently . other areas with programs include already established permanent programs to support small this . i know that there are some amendments from supervisor peskin which i'm supportive of and we have today the president of the small business commission and the shared great

spaces program staff and the mayor's office sophia kitchener so i do think that this strong statement from the board of supervisors in support of a permanent shared space program is still absolutely needed and we're all looking forward to digging in and a lot more depth on legislation that comes forward that would do that. so i'll pass it back to you madam chair and we are prepared to present as well. >>chair melgar:thanks for your patience . president, thank you for your patience. if you could please present. >> is my joy and honor to present onthis topic and i'm very excited about . i like to thank you chair melgar and supervisors peskin and preston for holding this hearing and in general for its

support so far.the small business commission has paid close attention to this vital program and we've been working closely with the mayor's office, mole business community and the directors to make this permanent. >>. [please stand by]

>> taking a step back and looking at the big picture, we have only scratched the surface of shared spaces' potential. downtown small businesses have been decimated. we've lot a lot of foot traffic due to those working from home. our saving grace is san francisco is the most beautiful city in america. we attract visitors from all over the world and shared spaces can play a huge role in attracting more visitors in an

expression of culture and the arts. we can provide the support for businesses to make that investment. so in my view, shared spaces is the biggest opportunity of our lifetimes to turn the magic dial of san francisco up to 11. i certainly hope we can join the small business in support. again, this resolution is just a statement of intent, a note of reassurance to both businesses and the public that shared spaces will become permanent in some form. of course there will be the ongoing discussions and input from stakeholders and the community on what permanent looks like. but i think what small business wants to hear right now is that it will become permanent and the board does support that vision. thank you. >> supervisor haney, is that it for presenters?

>> chair: i believe so. that's all for supervisors. >> supervisor peskin, before we took a break, i saw your hand up. would you like to provide comments now? >> sure. thank you, chair. i represent the district that is ground zero for shared spaces and has been, as was said, a key part of the recovery, certainly in north beach where it got its start. i fully intend to vote for this resolution in respect that this is not the time or place for the discussion what sharky and supervisor haney acknowledged about the nuances and the

complexities of what will be a significant policy discussion and set of decisions. i want to acknowledge those at the outset and for the sake of moving this forward, i think that more in-depth discussions are suited and necessary in the coming of the forthcoming discussion that will extend the shared spaces beyond the current fiscal year expiration date. my office has been working towards that legislation ever since supervisor haney noted earlier, we waived the table fees and we allowed for a more robust conversation about what that program would look like in the longer term. it's one thing to say we want

this to be permanent. it's all together a different challenge to engage with these nuances and complexiies that come with this new and frankly exciting and occasionally very thorny change in the way that we think about shared spaces in the city. there is an article about a dispute between two businesses that has necessitated the city coming in and requiring the removal of one-third of a $30,000 parklet because it's in front of another business and that business doesn't want it. it also touches on privatization of public space and how we want to reconcile that. as i read through this resolution, i see how this will be a lifeline for small businesses in the pandemic and that's extremely important, but

we're talking about something wholly different when we talk about extending it beyond the term of the pandemic and into perpetuity, as this resolution suggests. frankly, there's nothing in here that addresses the challenges that various city partners and small businesses themselves will face going forward. to that end, and i'm circulated this to all of you and the clerk, i want to insert and thank you, supervisor haney, or welcoming what is indeed a friendly amendment. whereas as shared spaces transitioned from an emergency lifeline of small businesses to a potential long-term use for shared space, city certiorariings have grappled with a range of policy issues, including navigating who is

responsible for maintaining shared spaces in a safe and secure manner, prohibiting hostile design, and to ensure architectural development, ensuring that commercial use of this public space does not unfairly exclude any member of the public and ensuring that free public access is prioritized, implementing the shared spaces program in a way that is equitable and reflects the diversity of small businesses across san francisco, implementing tools for tracking the city's response on feedback. ensuring that interdepartmental coordination is ensuring an even enforcement of the program. i know that supervisor haney

introduced in december, but at page 4, line #, it says early 2021. it is early 2021 now. we should probably delete that and insert "prior to the current expiration date of the shared spaces program on june 20, 2021, or an extension of that term pursuant to the covid-19 emergency." i think that would give the various departments a reasonable amount of time instead of saying 2021. at the appropriate time i would like to make those friendly amendments and appreciate supervisor haney's willingness to accept them. i want us all to recognize that while it's easy to express our desire to make it permanent, it's going to be a little bit more difficult to implement this in a fair and equitable manner going forward and to grapple with the policy issues around privatization of public space, equity. so i look forward to that

ongoing discussion and policy formulation over the next several months. thank you, madam chair. >> chair: thank you very much, supervisor peskin. through, supervisor haney, for bringing this resolution forward and thank you, supervisor peskin, for that amendment. kit encapsulates some of the thoughts i had after speaking to numerous businesses in district 7. i love what the shared spaces has done in my district. it has definitely been a lifeline, especially for restaurants. it has also caused some problems for folks who are not able to take advantage of that program. going forward, i look forward to working with the planning department in figuring out some of those issues in equity particularly around signage. one of the complaints i had

heard the most and from non-restaurant businesses, just retail, who don't take advantage of the shared spaces because that's not what their business model is and are worried, just like in the case of the store fronts that was in the paper today, they're worried that the shared spaces

>> as was referenced, the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive from constituents, from our businesses and also has sparked a lot of neighborhoods and neighborhood leaders around the neighborhood considering how launching shared in their neighbor as well. i will say through my experience

with many aspects of our local government that the community engagement is really key. when i look at haze valley and the success there, we hosted five separate meetings before and during the program to make sure it was tailored to the needs of the neighborhood, taking into account that what might work on one block doesn't work on the next and needs to be tailored to match that. i think that is part of the success. and this program clearly -- i don't think anyone can dispute the statements made of this being a lifeline for so many small businesses. that certainly has been our experience with the program. i want to note another strongly positive aspect of the program that similar to slow streets is how it reorients the street

experience for the safety and enjoyment of pedestrians in a way that i think is really important and i recall when my legislative aid who worked on the haze valley went out and was volunteering at the entry to the haze valley and he relayed an experience of a family with a small child who was learning how to ride her bicycle. they didn't know about the shared. they unknowingly came on haze street and they were thrilled and delighted to see that it was closed to private vehicle traffic and just brought so much joy to that one family where their daughter could ride safely without competing with traffic. this is also part of the the shared spaces where you're having that for the community.

i appreciate the amendments. i do think important questions come up that i do think are worth consideration. i appreciate supervisor haney in urging departments to make a plan that they will factor in a lot of these issues that you have raised in this committee. in ours, that includes issues around disability access, shared spaces, the interaction between existing public transit, and especially like in haze valley there is a suspended line. what happens when that line comes back, the 21 and how does that interact especially as people are spending thousands and sometimes tens of thousands of dollar also investing in sidewalk and curbside dining facilities as well as potential conflicts with new bike share

docks and loading and unloading zones. the broader risk that supervisor peskin touches on is the tension around public park lets becoming private spaces or at least some blend of public and private and what does that look like going forward. i would just urge the departments as they're considering the program with long-term duration to ensure that there is community feedback elicited throughout. i continue to be strongly supportive of the concept of this solution. i think the three-year time frame that is referenced here is really -- there is some things that are essential for right now and the immediate recovery period. as we begin to look beyond whatever that immediate recovery period is, i think it's that much more important that we have stakeholders involved in creating a more permanent plan beyond this immediate recovery

period again. thank you to supervisor haney for your leadership on this and also thanks to the m.t.a. staff who do the legwork on helping community members set these up and make sure that shared spaces is a successful program. thank you colleagues for ensuring the long-term success of this program. >> chair: thank you, supervisor peskin. before we go to public comment, i wanted to make sure i gave a special shout out and thanks to robin at the planning department who has worked so hard to operationalize this program and make sure that it's a success. with that, do we have any public comment? >> clerk: we are checking to see if we have any callers in the

queue. if you haven't done so already press star 3 to be added to the queue. it looks like maria noted there are five in queue. if you could unmute the first caller, please. >> welcome. >> good afternoon, chairwoman melgar. i am here to speak in support of supervisor haney's resolution, urging departments to create a permanent shared spaces program. we have worked closely with agencies who participate in this program. our primary intersection has been with providing access to outdoor fitness providers. we were able to provide for closed studios. we are looking for spaces these

can be accommodated. we know the community loves to take these classes outdoors. we are interested in pursuing outdoor fitness, although many of the people we're working with who already have brick and mortar spaces, we will continue to work with them to make sure if they want outdoor fitness centers as part of their portfolio, it will be easy. restaurants have needed to be in front of their brick and mortar sites. we are looking forward to working with our sister agencies and we urge a passage of this resolution. thank you. >> madam chair, if i may say for the record and i like mr. bishop, but it's one thing

for rec and parks to be speaking about things inside their jurisdiction. it's another thing entirely for rec and park as a city agency to be weighing in on things entirely inside of rec and park's jurisdiction, like outdoor dining in the jurisdiction of public parks and m.t.a. i want to say that for the record. it's quite odd. >> chair: thank you, supervisor peskin. we will resume public comment. can we go to the next caller, please. >> good afternoon again supervisors. cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. we very much view the shared spaces programs as part of the city's future. i think that all three members of this committee laid out a number of the complicated factors that are needed to be taken into account in order to

produce an outcome. that is yielding the most positive outcomes for everybody and we look forward to participating in that conversation. thank you very much for all of your continued work on this important issue. thank you. >> chair: thank you, mr. smith. next commenter, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. chair melgar and supervisor peskin and preston and haney. i am the president of the san francisco council of district merchants association. i am the representative of many of those businesses that are unable or don't see the feasibility of utilizing shared spaces, but see the value of having the shared spaces on the avenue. supervisor haney, thank you for taking the initiative to bring this forward to everyone.

supervisors peskin and melgar, thank you for bringing this to those who might not see this as beneficial individually, but see the value to the community as a whole and being able to open up the dialog to bring dialog in the discussion so that everyone can mutually benefit from this program. we look forward to be part of the solution and the success of a permanent shared spaces program. thank you very much and i yield my time. >> chair: thank you. next commenter, please. >> one of the issues i've run into is [indiscernible] -- i've

already had to move and move some of them. i just want to make sure that a new protocol is set up about sidewalk furniture. thank you. >> i'm speaking as a long-time organizer from knob hill retired now that we are no longer active. i want to thank supervisor peskin for raising those concerns about thorny and complexity and so on. certainly there are many things that are completely delightful. i couldn't enjoy more going out for meals, for example, and eating outside and going over to north beach, completely delightful like an italian beach.

we have a restaurant serving alcohol, but they are a restaurant. their music is fine. maybe if i lived upstairs, i wouldn't think so. one of the bars only serves alcohol. in theory they're serving food with a place next door, very noisy. our street is one where there are a lot of s.r.o. and studio apartments. we had a whole period of time after supervisor peskin was no longer our supervisor principally, where david chu who didn't have an alcohol license he didn't like and there were expedited permit holders, they made the neighborhood unlivable. people could not go out on the streets anymore. the coffee shops went out of

business. people turned over restaurants and turned them into bars and dance halls and so on. the noise was incredible. i can only thank david bilobos, the expeditor of permits, for arranging a meeting with me and one of the residential managers who had been taping the sounds -- >> clerk: speaker, your time is up. >> chair: thank you, ms. chapman. do we have any other public comment? >> clerk: we have one more person in queue, madam. >> chair: welcome. >> yes. if this were an extension for, say, one or two years or however long we expect the pandemic to last, i would call in favor of

this because i certainly think that the shared spaces program has been a great boon to our economy in these trying times. however, i think it's maybe a little bit premature to extend this indefinitely insofar as i assume that at some point we will no longer have pandemic restrictions and things will go back to what we remember as normal. i could be wrong about this because people do keep on saying that there will be various covid-19 mutations and we're all going to be inside forever and we'll all get used to zoom or maybe we'll end up loving our computers and digital devices that we won't even want to go

out, regardless of whether or not there are germs outside that scare us. but let us assume for a moment that things will return to what they were like, say, back in 2019. it seems like it might be a little bit early to pass legislation saying, okay, we're going to have this program forever the way that it is now because if we have roads and people traveling like they were in 2019, then we might want parking or the shared spaces program might not function as intended. so it seems a little bit early. >> clerk: the speaker's time is

elapsed. >> chair: thank you so much. madam clerk, do we have any other public comment? >> clerk: the operator confirmed that was our last caller. >> chair: public comment is now closed. is there any further comment for my colleagues? if not, is there a motion to send this item to the full board with positive recommendation. >> madam chair, i would first like to move the whereas on page 3 at line 12 that i read into the record earlier and the additional amendment on page 4 to strike early 2021 and replace it with current -- prior to the current expiration date pursuant to the covid emergency, which supervisor haney indicated his support for. so i would like to make that

motion and finally thank my thought partner and staff who work with me to come up with those amendments, mr. lee hepner. >> chair: on the motion amending the resolution, madam clerk, will you take roll. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: we have three ayes. >> chair: that motion passes. now is there a motion to send this amended item to the full board with a positive recommendation? >> so moved. >> chair: madam clerk, will you now call role. [ roll call ].

>> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair: thank you. that motion passes unanimously. madam clerk, do we have any other items before us today? >> that completes the business for today, madam chair. >> chair: thank you so much. we are adjourned. [♪♪♪]

>> this is the meeting of the

san francisco puc commission. i'm president maxwell. madame secretary, will you take the roll, please. >> president maxwell: here. >> vice president moran: here. commissioner paulson will be arriving later. >> commissioner harrington: here. >> commissioner ajami: here. >> we have a quorum. before we start, madame president, due to the covid-19 health emergency and given the public health recommendations issued by the san francisco department of public health, and given that governor newsome and mayor breed have lifted restrictions on teleconference, this is held via teleconference and televised by sfgovtv. please realize there is a brief delay between the meeting and what is viewed on sfgovtv. i would like to extend our

thanks to sfgovtv and puc staff for their assistance during the meeting. if you would like to make public comment, dial 1-415-655-0001, meeting i.d., 146 350 2017 # #. raise your hand to speak, press star 3. please note you must limit to your comments to the topic of the agenda item, unless you're speaking under general public comment. if you do not stay on the topic, the chair can interrupt and ask you to limit your comments to the agenda item. please address your remarks to the commission as a whole, not to an individual commissioner or staff. i'd like to announce that closed session number 8 and regular business item 14, audited financial statements and 19, have been removed from the agenda and will be rescheduled.

the first order of business is closed session. item number 5, threat to public service or facilities requires that members of the law enforcement be present. to allow for the attendance of sfpd, closed session has been moved for this meeting only as the first order of business. we'll return to the regular order of commission. the items to be heard during closed session are number 5, threat to public service facilities, number 6, conference with legal counsel, anticipated litigation as petitioner. item 7, conference with legal counsel, unlitigated claim, sharon eastman versus san francisco. again, item 8 has been removed from the consent calendar. >> president maxwell: thank you. madame secretary, please call for public comment. >> if you wish to make public

comment on closed session items 5, 6, 7, please dial 1-415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 350 2017 # #. to raise your hand to speak, press star 3. please note you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed and remind you if you do not stay on topic, the chair can interrupt and ask that you stay on comment. we ask that the public comment be made in a respectful manner and refrain from profanity. address your remarks to the commission as a whole. mr. moderator, do we have callers? >> there is one caller wishing to be recognized. >> secretary: thank you. >> caller, we've opened your line. you have two minutes.

caller, can you hear us? >> going to closed session? put yourself in the shoes of we at home. so you're all going into closed session and trying to tell us something about nothing and then we're supposed to make public comment. i hope that when you go into closed session, that you all have your hearts in the right place and that you all do the right things. we know that this investigation is going into a situation that some of us know about.

but we're not privy to talk about it. so all i'm asking you commissioners at this time is, yes, speak truth to power. sufficient damage has been done. it's going to take years to get back on track. thank you very much. >> madame secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> secretary: that's closes public comment on closed session items. >> next item please. item 4 is a motion on whether to assert the attorney client privilege regarding the matters listed below as conference with legal counsel. >> moved. >> second. >> president maxwell: thank you. roll call, please. >> commissioner maxwell? >> president maxwell: aye. >> vice president moran: aye. >> commissioner paulson: aye. >> commissioner harrington: aye.

>> commissioner ajami: aye. >> secretary: you have five ayes. >> president maxwell: thank you. now we will be going into closed session. >> thank you. we are now back in open session. it is 2:54. madame secretary, please read the next item. >> secretary: -- >> president maxwell: i will announce it. the commission has recommends that the board of supervisors resolve and settle the unlitigated claim on item 7. >> madame secretary, you might be muted. >> secretary: thank you. may we have a motion whether to disclose the discussions in

closed session pursuant to 57.12a. >> president maxwell: a motion and a second on whether to disclose discussions during closed session? >> move not to disclose. >> second. >> president maxwell: the motion and seconded. roll call vote, please. >> president maxwell: aye. >> vice president moran: aye. >> commissioner paulson: aye. >> commissioner harrington: aye. >> commissioner ajami: aye. >> secretary: would have five ayes. >> president maxwell: next item. >> before i read the next item, i would like to announce for those joining the meeting, that items 14 and 19 have been removed from the agenda and will be rescheduled. the next order of business is item 11, approval 0 the minutes of february 5, 2021 and february 9, 021. >> commissioners, any discussion on those minutes?

seeing none, then open public comment, please. >> secretary: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 11, the minutes, dial 1-415-655-0001, meeting 146 350 2017 # # to raise your hand to speak, press star 3. you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed. reminder if you do not stay on the topic, the chair can interrupt. we ask that the public comment be made a civil and respectful manner and that you refrain from the use of profanity. please address your remarks to the commission as a whole, not to individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any callers. >> madame secretary, there are no -- excuse me, there is one caller to be recognized. >> secretary: thank you.

>> we've opened your line, caller. you have two minutes. hello, caller, are you there? caller, we're having difficulty hearing your audio. give you one more chance. madame secretary, no audio from that caller and no more callers in the queue. >> secretary: thank you. public comment on item 11 is closed. >> president maxwell: may have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of february 5 and february 9? >> so moved. >> i'll second that. >> president maxwell: thank you. so moved and seconded. roll call vote, please. >> president maxwell?

>> president maxwell: aye. >> vice president moran: aye. >> commissioner paulson: aye. >> commissioner harrington: aye. >> commissioner ajami: aye. >> secretary: you have five ayes. >> thank you. madame clerk, before we move to public comment, i'd like to say a few words about public comment. and in my years on the board of supervisors, i don't remember having any project that was not made better because of public discourse. and i think it's, in my mind, it is a part of democracy and why it works. and it's very fragile. and we have to be extremely careful of it. and i think it's built on respect and being civil to one -- each other and to listen. i believe that from the bottom of my heart and i think we can see when we take it for granted. january 6th was a prime example

of us letting go of civility and listening and respecting each other. and so to that end, i have another thing -- we're very fortunate at the puc commission to have public that when they call, they really know what they're talking about. they are knowledgeable and the dialogue is at a high level. we want to make sure we keep it there. we are respectful of each other and our differences and that is what is so important about public comment and about what we do here. so, again, to that end, i've asked the secretary just to remind us of that after every item before public comment on every item. [please stand by] [please stand by]

-- not to individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have callers in the queue? >> madam secretary, there are three callers in the queue. first caller, i've opened your

line. >> good afternoon, peter drunkmeyer from the quality river trust. reconsideration with the state water board demanding they rescind the water quality from project, emphasizes potential economic impacts which i think we all know now have been inflated. shortly after the s.a.d. was released in 2016, there was an op ed in the "chronicle" and cited numbers from a 2009 economic impact study, despite the fact the study had been updated in 2014 and the 2009 numbers were more than twice those of 2014 report. explanation was 2009 study had been finalized, the 2014 study which was prepared on the same group had not. but when the 2014 study was

finalized in 2018, the numbers were virtually the same, never corrected the prior statements. petition claims the present day demand is 230, and we know it's 198, and that under the 238 demand scenario could be greater than 95%, imagine that. and another serious question provided to the agencies to help them prepare the urban water management plans. among other things, conflated supply with demand, it has to be corrected as soon as possible to compare the urgent water management plans. i request you put it on the agenda for the next meeting. the draft will be released next month, so we need to act quickly on this. thank you, and thank you chair

maxwell for your comments about public comment. >> thank you for your comments. >> next caller, you've have two minutes as well. >> coalition for san francisco neighborhood, on april 18, 2019, p.u.c. for water gave a presentation, the bay delta and the future of our water supplies. since there is no audio or video of this presentation, i would strongly urge the commission to schedule a hearing on this subject. a copy of the power point is in the packet. in the introductory remarks, they said it's not a supply problem but a plumbing problem.

this is the first time i heard about the plumbing problem. slide 18 of the power point is titled acwd transfer partnership and potential transfer pipeline. slide 19, brackish water in contra costa, also shows potential plumbing fixes. it also shows potential desal plant in eastern contra costa. however, the water subcommittee has stated despite the study in 2007, the project has not moved forward and it's unlikely that it will move forward into issues of handling waste. it should be noted also studied the ocean site facility for the desal plant but was not part of the presentation. if the water supply issue is a

plumbing problem, this brings us back to a recurring theme. is it the plumbing problem, why is the p.u.c. hearing the water resource board stating that it's unable to move 40% unrestricted flowage, thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, your line is open. you have two minutes to speak to item 12. >> commission i don't know what's happening over here, i see the number 12 for the agenda items. i see the number 12 for all the agenda items. so, ever since this meeting began there's confusion. start the meeting, go into closed session, you come out and start barking at us about some nuances which i have read one of

your commission used the f-word. and no apology. i have read one of your commission used the f-word with no apology. now, i know sometimes following the shenanigans for years i'm fed up with you all, and then we are forced to say something, not because we want to say it, but because -- look at this. number 12 there, general public comment. i can guarantee you number 12 is general public comment. you come out from your closed session, for whatever reason, and if you are transparent, what your closed session was all about. closed session, any way you look at it, is about corruption.

so much so that fbi had to come in and general manager. where is your assistant manager for external affairs. come on, man. human beings, educated human beings, let's have a good debate. don't bark at us. and you want -- you want to know what your -->> thank you for your comments. your time has expired. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> secretary: thank you. classes item on 12, general public comment. madam president, i think you are

muted. madam president, you are muted. madam president, i believe you are still muted. is there a way we can unmute the president? >> president maxwell: i'm here, thank you. i had technical difficulty for a minute. madam secretary, next item, please. >> secretary: item 13, communications. >> president maxwell: any discussion with communications? commissioner moran.

>> thank you. i have a question on the advanced calendar. do we have dates yet for, i think there were going to be two additional deep dive sessions, i was wondering if we have times set up for that yet. >> secretary: are you referring to the workshops? >> yes. >> secretary: not yet. >> president maxwell: i think we are looking at march for the third one. and we, that's where we are right now. is that right? >> yes, as far as i know. asked folks to get some dates for us and recommend those dates. i have not heard back yet. >> are we looking at 1 or 2 additional? my sense was that we needed another one on environmental issues and then on to the water supply, that would be two additional. >> president maxwell: i think there was the green

infrastructure and then the third one, the third water workshop and then the -- you are requesting what, now? >> the water supply budget. >> president maxwell: yeah, i think that's coming up, yes, michael? >> yes, president maxwell. so, looking at the third workshop, probably the last week of march and i'm going to try and schedule the green infrastructure one fairly shortly, i have to meet with staff basically to go over a proposed agenda for that. >> president maxwell: and then the water supply? >> that would be the water supply would be the one at the end of march. water demand, water supply. >> oh. thank you. >> thank you. >> president maxwell: any other discussion or communication? seeing none, madam secretary, will you open up for public comment on this item, please?

>> secretary: members of the public who wish to speak on item 13, communications, raise your hand to speak, star three. please note you must limit comment to the topic of the agenda item discussed and remind if you do not stay on the topic, the chair can interrupt and ask you to limit your questions to the agenda item topic. we ask it be a civil and respectful manner and refrain from the use of profanity. your remarks to the whole, not to individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, no callers in the queue at this time. >> secretary: thank you.

13 is closed. reannounce that item number 14 has been removed from the agenda and will be rescheduled. next order of business is item 15, presentation of the department of human resources for the four highest scoring respondents to informal solicitation to a prequalified pool to a firm to recruit candidates for the sfpuc general manager and possible action by the commission to select a recruiting firm and authorize to engage the selected firm po perform the recruitment for an amount not to exceed $100,000 and duration not to exceed a year. >> kate howard, i have a brief presentation to update you since

we last met in january. i provided you with an overview of the process and shared more information about each of the four firms that we are interested in working with the commission, as you seek to conduct a recruitment for a new general manager of the public utilities commission. this document in front of you just reiterates the process, reminds you the first step is to ask for proposals from a group of recruitment firms, review and select the firm, that's the step you are in at the moment. then the selected firm would work with the commission to build a candidate profile, conduct outreach and recruitment, select the candidates in the pool and then the firm would present the commission with a slate of candidates for you to evaluate and determine which of those individuals you would like to

interview. the commission would conduct interviews, the firm would vet the finalists and the commission would refer up to three candidates to the mayor's office for the mayor's review and ultimately her decision who to select as the new g.m. next slide, please. so at our last, your last commission meeting i attended, you requested i provide additional information for you. which i provided to you in your packet, this is the summary of the four firms that provided responses to this recruitment, alliance resource group, bob murray and associate, and the hawkins company, and another. proposed fees, any additional costs for additional stakeholder

meetings beyond what they have each proposed. suggested timeline to enter, to go from the date of, the date which they start working with you to bring finalists to the commission for interviews, do we have recent experience either with the city -- or -- i'm in a meeting, excuse me, my apologies. do they have recent experience with the city or public utilities recruitment and do they have experience recruiting a diverse pool of candidates. in the last meeting you requested i provide you some additional information regarding their specific experience with respect to conducting recruitments on behalf of large urban jurisdictions. their experience and approach recruiting a diverse talent pool, the cost of additional stakeholder meetings and provide you with some sample recruitment

brochures. that information is provided in your packet, i'm happy to walk through some highlights of it. at this time. so this just for you and for members of the public, the brochures that each firm provided are listed here, alliance resource group highlighted their recent recruitment, director of the municipal transportation agency, as well as the port of oakland finance director. bob murray highlighted their work with mountain house community services district, general manager, glendale agm for electric services. and highlighted for the metropolitan transportation commissioner and hawkins shared their recruitment brochure for metro water district of southern

california. before we go to the next slide i want to make -- actually, let's go to the next slide. in terms of their experience working in large urban jurisdictions, each of them indicated that they had experience doing that work, those at the, ranging from sort of city manager-type roles to department and deputy directors, and you can see a sampling of the cities, counties and other public agencies that these companies have experienced working with. as i mentioned in your pocket you have the detailed responses related to the firm proposed strategy with respect to diverse

group of candidates to this opportunity. and each of them i think responded in a way that was satisfactory, indicating that they would each work with both with their own network professional network that they already have cultivated, as well as with industry professional network, as well as focussing on targeted outreach to canons of color. i'm happy to answer any questions at this time. that does conclude my overview of the update i have for you, president maxwell, but happy to take any questions or further direction from the commission. >> president maxwell: is there any further questions or comments?

in looking at this i guess two of them really stood out for my, alliance and hawkins. hawkins has worked for san francisco airport and they have done any number of recruitments. and that means we have gone back to them several times and they did the library and also looking at the water district in southern california for a g.m. so what i thought is well, they are already out there, they are already looking, they know what's out there, probably would not take them as long to find people, and they, they seem to be used quite a bit for large big jobs, executives, people that they need. so they stood out and i think

alliance stood out. but then when i looked at alliance they, i think they have done good work. i did not know about, when i looked at who they were, how diverse they were, whereas hawkins is diverse with women and people of color and so i think it just made it seem as if they were walking the walk and would have, and their outreach would be significant. >> madam president, i would like to make comments, if you don't mind. >> of course. >> i had a similar observation as you did, and i think, especially hawkins really stood out because i know to your point that metropolitan water district of southern california has been in the process for a while and benefits from some of the support that's done.

>> and i thought everyone's brochure was good. and i just think they are all very good, but again, that one stood out. >> my reaction was the same. >> that's three. >> would you like a motion? >> yes, is everybody comfortable with that, tim? are you comfortable making a motion now? all right, ed, would you make that motion, please? >> sure, the motion to ask d.h.r. to follow through and set up a contract with the hawkins group. >> is there a second? >> i'll second that. >> all right. >> roll. >> two things, you'll need to take public comment before you vote on the motion. second, to clarify the motion on the description of this agenda

item, it's said you may act to direct h.r. to secure a firm for amount not to exceed $100,000, and duration not to exceed one year. clarify that is part of the motion. >> yes. >> agree. >> ok. >> oh, gosh. >> madam president, would you like for me to call roll? public comment, i'm sorry. members -- members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comments specifically and item 15, the general manager search, 1-415-655-0001, 1463502017 pound pound, to raise your hand to speak, star three. note you must limit your topics to the agenda item discussed and remind you, you do not stay on

the topic the chair can interrupt and limit your talk to the comment on the agenda. and civil and respectful man and refrain from the use of profanity. address your remarks to the commission as a whole, not to individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, one caller in the queue. caller, the line is open. you have two minutes to speak on item 15. >> the way i look at this is that this head hunters are not doing a good job. and the way you commissioners are looking at this is blindfolders. do you know that we have -- if we take the plant, hunters point, who is the manager?

plotted there -- [inaudible] who replaced, planted there by julia garas. so you are going to bring in an outsider as a general manager and you have corruption and corrupt employees planted all over the place. and you are not even giving it a thought. there's no fix here, there's no morality here, there's no standards here, there's very, very, very poor leadership here. that's all i'll say. this is how you use the taxpayers. >> thank you for your comments. no more callers in the queue.

>> secretary: thank you. that closes public comment on item 15. moved and seconded. madam secretary, roll call please. [roll call] >> secretary: five aye. >> president maxwell: passed. next item, please. >> next item of business is item 16, report of the general manager. >> i am here, thank you. the first report that i have is the quarterly audit and performance review report, presented by charles peroll. >> this is our quarterly

standing update for our audit and performance reviews. and this is for the second quarter for activities ending through december for the current fiscal year. the documents that we provided you commissioners include the report memo and audit summary for the current fiscal year. we did make some changes based on the feedback that we heard from you in december for the first quarter update and those changes include a revised memo, or the report itself, which provides a bit of background on each report that's completed as well as a bit of a description on the findings and the relevance of the findings. and then the other thing we did was we, rather than adding the reports to the agendas, each commission agenda, we included

links in this report memo so that you are or interested parties could click on and find the reports directly through the memo itself, and happy to take any further input. based on that, i'm happy to jump into the quick summary for you. next slide please. so again, at a high level, we have 25 audits, and this year, and as at the end of the second quarter, again the end of december, 18 of the 25 audits were either completed or underway, so that's just about three-quarters of the audit plan. so, pretty good progress, and the summary of the audit data is attached to the report, audit by audit, you can go through the details there. we have two audits completed during the second quarter, those are noted here.

the first is the wholesale revenue requirement audit for fiscal year 19, ending in june of 2019, annual report which looks at how costs are allocated between the wholesale water customers and retail water customers. completed last october, i'll go into a bit more details on the audit in a moment. the second completed report for, was for the power enterprise, and that was the cal iso, california independent system operator, and this report was, is a biannual audit for 2018 through 2020, which looks at the details of the meter data that is provided to cal iso through our scheduling coordinator, and that essentially a performance audit to make sure the data is

accurate and correct, and there were no exceptions or findings reported in that audit. so as i mentioned, this audit i'll go into detail here, wholesale revenue requirement audit. annual audit looking at how we allocate costs. we did have two findings, as noted here, that the auditor highlighted, and that we remediated. the first finding was an employee cost was allocated to the wrong place, so we have made that adjustment. and then the second finding was receipt related to an error in debt service cost allocation, and the two of these together, the adjustment was a little over $300,000. to give you a sense of perspective, commissioners, the w.r.r., the wholesale revenue requirement, that what that stands for, for that year,

$268.2 million, so while we do take any adjustments, you know, seriously and will look to do better in the future, the value of the adjustments are relatively small compared to the bigger picture. and we concur with the findings and work to improve our internal controls. in terms of what's coming up as a preview, for this third quarter we are in right now, those are noted here. we have the wek and nerk, western electricity coordinating council, and north american electric reliability corporation. this is a reliability standards compliance audit. then we also have a performance audit for web application security assessment, that's coming out of the city service

auditor and we are expecting that report to be issued any time now this month. we also have the financial statement audits, which were scheduled for this meeting, i believe they will be scheduled for your next upcoming meeting to be presented to you, and then the pg&e was issued today and provide you more details and a link to that report in the next quarterly update. in terms of what's coming up later this year, community benefits audit out of the controllers office and then we also have a, some assistance from external auditors, the city service auditors out of the revenue bond oversight committee and that group and that set of auditors is looking at debt issuance and debt proceeds and how those monies were spent in

accordance with the issuance documents, to make sure it was spent properly. we expect that audit to go for the next few months and should have a report to share with you later, probably summer. with that, i am happy to answer any questions. >> well, thank you for explaining the acronyms. very helpful. mr. paulson. anyone else? that's good. i mean -- that's good. these financial guys, you are really doing well. ok. >> commissioner moran has a comment. >> yes, thank you. charles, thank you for that, and as you know, the audit program

is one of the favorite things we do, i think it's necessary to maintaining the trust that people put in us when they give us all this money. one thing that was missing from this report that i would like to see back in, a table kind of an aging of responses and corrective action and that disappeared from this one. >> i'm happy to add that as a reminder, we don't have any outstanding recommendations at the present time. so i'm happy to include the table but there's nothing to report as it relates to aging. >> that's the best combination, full disclosure. nothing to report. >> no problem, we'll add it back, we'll add that back. >> thank you.

>> madam president, quarterly budget status report by laura bush. >> we need to call for public comment on item 6a. >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 16a, quarterly audit and performance review report, call 1-415-655-0001, 1463502701, pound pound. star three. limit your comments to the agenda item being discussed and if you do not stay on the chair they can limit you to the agenda public. and civil and respectful manner and refrain from the use of profanity. address your remarks to the commission as a whole, not to individual commissioners or staff.

mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> there is one caller in the queue. you are recognized. caller, your line is open. >> ok. so i want to remind the commissioners public comment is essential, especially when it refers to the san francisco public utilities commission that has failed us all. now, regarding this audit, we need to put emphasis on the community benefits. one audit was done and relative to the information to the audit is missing. no mention has been made of that. so, rather this one audit, or partial audit was done, the documentation is missing. now the controller's office as

well as the city attorney by the federal bureau of investigation because they can follow the money once another audit on the community benefits. some of the commissioners who have been there for a long time know i've been talking about this. those commissioners kept saying oh, it's all about, i mean, they don't care, it's all about money. whose money is it? it's the taxpayers' money. but basically improvement project starts at 6 billion and is now 12 billion and will end costing us 20 billion, something is fundamentally wrong. so we can have 1,000 audits. this is something that is quite simple and is linked to ethics,

morals and standards. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. madam secretary, no more callers in the queue. >> secretary: thank you. that closes public comment on item 16a. madam president, quarterly budget status report by laura bush. laura. >> good afternoon, everybody. i have a presentation. everyone hear me? great. so, hi, everybody, laura bush here, sfpuc budget director, here to give the budget report to you. next slide, please. so overall we have a positive net result projected toward power prices -- driven by the

pandemic, causing delayed economic recovery leading to reduced retail revenues and weakened wastewater. however, water wholesale revenues are strong. cleanpowersf, a recent rate decrease, and power positive results driven by one-time savings. at q1, personnel savings across the agency, q1 also we are seeing significant savings in water usage debt refinancing, savings there. and then i explained this at q1, i can go over it again. we are seeing significant one-time benefit from close out projects we did through fund balance during our 19-20 rebalancing process. we are attempting these savings to be appropriated, and due to covid delays, not appropriated

until the fall, so that's why they are showing up in this year's quarterly reports. lastly, financial results projected policy target. next slide, please. water.8 million, and $9 million in prior year closeouts. drivers of this, reduction of $14.2 million in retail revenue, and also reduction of 5.5 million in nonoperating revenues, and reduced revenues collection moratorium. this is being offset by good news on the wholesale side, positive variance.

we have savings and debt service as i mentioned and also savings and salary benefits. next slide, please. wastewater, the net operating result has weakened since q1, now negative 5.4 million. we also in addition have the project closeout, 10.8 million. so what's driving that negative operating result is the same story that we have in water, reduction in retail service charges of 11.8 million as well as reduction in nonoperating revenue, offset by savings and salary and benefits. hetch hetchy, the net operating result is 15.5 million to the good.

this is being driven by good financial news on both sides, mostly one-time savings. as i mentioned, each enterprise has the closeout savings, 27.3 million. in addition to further support our rebalancing efforts to the upcoming budgets, 9 million from projects, we have general reserve budget of 1.5 million this year. so on the operating result side, this is, go back to the slide. thank you. we have a small variance in power, gas and steam sales, due to the departments continuing to be in pandemic mode.

however, we have a couple of items of good news, $3.6 million increased wholesale sales due to unbudgeted attribute sales, cleanpowersf and national lab, water purchases, $3.3 million variance. q1, large positive variance in nonpersonnel costs, mainly due to the closeout prior year forward, and savings in salary and benefits as well. lastly, cleanpowersf negative net operating results, this is largely driven by, as i mentioned before, a january 1st

rate decrease of 16%, $10.2 million negative variance in revenues, offset by savings. lastly, all ratios -- that concludes my presentation. >> any questions or comments? >> i have a question. >> thank you for your presentation. i wonder if we have any idea how these changes are going to hold. any forecast done to see where we are heading with all these changes and views and consumption and you know, a lot of these companies and different

groups of changing their, you know, work at home procedures and people, i'm just trying to understand like do we know really what's going to happen after the pandemic is over. >> i wish i had a good -- of course we have been trying our best to make projections, particularly in light of the fact we have been recently redeveloping our fy20-21 budget. i see eric has popped up on video. maybe he would like to take the question. >> i think you were doing a great job. we don't have a crystal ball. i think that over the next year we'll see how it plays out. we made some assumptions in the completed 22 budget something like what we are seeing now play out a little longer over maybe the initial forecast, but really it will be the developing of the

following year's budget, hopefully see a trend of recovery. >> maybe another question is, imagine in laura, either of you, imagine in the next five years we have another pandemic, so are we foreseeing what we are going to do next, we would not be in the situation where we are now, see how we can use it as an opportunity to be a little more strategic in the way we do budgeting and revenue and all that in the future. >> we actually have the city's economist who supplies reports in the future. part of that, is city-wide projections and helps on the retail level, especially for water, wastewater and power enterprises. don't have the same forecast on the regional level, so we have to work with the wholesale

customers and what they are projecting. what you stated about like large water users rethinking how they come back after this pandemic is making us think about how they come back, so think about the large tech campuses, whether or not they come back in some way, shape or form. the second thing we are looking at, basically development in the city of san francisco, lots of pressure to build more housing and also large developments committed resources and commitments to anchor tenants and things of that nature, may get delayed a year or two, but still will get built. we are trying to take that into consideration as we build out our budget models going forward in the next 2, 4, 6 years, and we have to do that as well because mr. sandler will point out we are going to go through a rate analysis over the next year and we have to have information how we build our rates going into the future. >> and i would also just add there are a number of different

groups within the region that are looking at developing regional economic forecasts. i know the city has a robust economist, the airport has looked at doing its own regional recovery work initially with mckenzie and that has morphed into some work that's chartered by the bay area council, so we are looking at these opportunities to try to understand what's happening at a regional level and translate that into a city-wide demand perspective. >> thank you. >> mr. harrington. >> thanks for that information, that was very helpful. on clean power, i know that we are dipping into our rate reserve because pg&e continuing to change things as california p.u.c. at one of these discussions, maybe not today, but could you talk more how you think you need

to set that rate reserve for the next year and how we are going to fund it, and how it plays itself out? i think it would be very helpful to know how many times we can go to the well, so to speak, as the changes happen. >> that's a very good question and we can address that. either before at the time of the next proposed clean power rate adjustment. >> any further questions? i have one. so, in the new covid money that's coming, is there any money in that for public utilities? for cities and public utilities? >> there is a fund in the bill just passed a while ago, stimulus bill, $638 million for public utilities. mostly on the waste and wastewater side. may be more for power. we are tracking in the proposed

stimulus bill, $500 million available for public utilities. we think that's too low, given sort of the need across the country so we are working with our different groups and lobbyists in d.c. to see if we can have the money raised. the question that has come up is how is the $638 million going to be dispersed and we are working on that and it will come through the state and get to the utilities as soon as possible. >> thank you. and mr. sandler, back to the question regarding looking at forecast for the future. when that happens, could you -- could we maybe have an item so that we have a good idea of where people are thinking that's going? >> definitely we can. we can keep you apprised. >> the presentation. great. thank you.

any further comments or questions? then madam secretary, public comment on this item, please. >> secretary: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 16b, 1-415-655-0001, 1463502017 pound pound, to raise your hand to speak, press star three. please note you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed and remind you if you do not stay on the topic the chair can interrupt and ask you to limit your comments to the item topic. address to the commission as a whole, not to individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue at this time.

>> secretary: public comment on 16b is closed. >> item c. >> nothing to report at this time. i have concluded my report. >> mr. -- sorry, mr. carlin, update on the bay delta plan. >> actually, we have nothing to report on that at this point in time. we, you know, are looking forward to working with the parties to move forward, the proposal that we have. but we are also looking to our third workshop with the public on water supply and demands, and hopefully later in march. >> item d. >> public comment. >> guess you did say something, ok. public comment. >> i tried not to. >> public comment on c.

>> secretary: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on 16c, bay delta plant and voluntary agreement update, 1-415-655-0001, to raise your hand to speak, star three. please note you must limit comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed and remind you if you do not stay on the topic, the chair can interrupt and ask you to limit your item to the agenda topic. civil and respectful manner and refrain from the use of profanity. address your remarks to the commission as a whole, not to individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, there are no callers in the queue at this

time. >> secretary: thank you. 16c is closed. >> 16d. >> i have nothing to report. >> president maxwell: read the next item, please. >> secretary: next order of business, item 17, new commission business. >> president maxwell: any new commission business? yes. commissioner. >> quick question. i'm not sure if it is the right place to ask it or i can send an email later and follow up. but so -- do i ask a question here? >> president maxwell: you have a question. this is new commission business. so, if it's something that you would like, francesca can answer

your question. >> i have a question about the bill that's going through the california legislature right now, and statewide water ability assistance program. do we know where we stand on that and -- >> commissioner, since this is not on the agenda, we can ask that staff bring back correspondence on that. >> that would be great. thank you. >> secretary: you are welcome. >> president maxwell: thank you. public comment on this? do we need to open public comment? since -- public comment, please. >> secretary: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 17, new commission business, dial

1-415-655-0001, 1463502017 pound pound. raise your hand to speak, star three. please note you must limit comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed. and remind you if you do not stay on topic. chair can interrupt. we ask public comments be made in a civil and respectful manner and refrain from the use of profanity. address your remarks to the commission as a whole, not to individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, there are no callers in the queue. >> secretary: thank you. public comment on item 17 is closed. >> next order of business, item 18. consent calendar. all matters listed hereunder constitute consent calendar, routine by the utilities commission acted on a single vote of the commission. no separate commission of the items unless a member of the

commission or public so request, which the item will be removed from the calendar and considered a separate item. >> president maxwell: item b. mr. moran. >> i was going to ask for the same thing, item b. >> president maxwell: anyone else? then let us have public comment on item a. >> secretary: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on consent calendar item 18a dial 1-415-655-0001, 1463502017, pound pound. to raise your hand to speak, star three. please note you must limit your comments to the topics of the

agenda item discussed and limit to the agenda item topic. we ask public comment be made in a civil and respectful manner and refrain from the use of profanity. address your remarks as a whole, not to individual commissioners. >> there are no callers in the queue. >> secretary: public comment on 18a is closed. >> president maxwell: may i have a motion and second on the item? >> i'll move it. >> second. >> president maxwell: moved and seconded. roll call vote please. [roll call vote taken]

>> secretary: five aye. item b, approve amendment number one, efficiency program, replacement of inefficient toilets and other devices for high efficiency models for the san francisco puc retail service area and execute the amendment, increasing the duration by four years for a total duration of eight years with no change to the agreement amount. >> president maxwell: mr. richie. >> yes, commissioners. this is an extension of time only, not for money, for our direct install program for high efficiency toilets, something we have been doing for several years now and there is money left and we understand there is still more market out there for toilet replacements.

i'm available to answer any questions you may have and also julia ortiz, our water conservation manager is available as well, depending on the nature of the question. >> president maxwell: commissioner harrington. >> this is a program near and dear to my heart. it combines conservation with equity, this discussion, and so it's great we have done 15,000 already, it's a little disconcerting we are saying it's kind of over, let the money run out over the next few years and i would like to make sure we have done as much as we think we should do, or add more money to it. but also brings up the larger issue that we have a variety of rebate and grant programs that tend to be available to only certain people because that's the way the world is. [please stand by]

-- i'll make just one general comment because we have been investing heavily in conservation for so many years,

investing heavily in our market penetration has become quite high so there's a diminishing return out there. i'll let julie speak to that. one quick comment, for this case for direct stall toilets we take the toilet there and install for the people so they don't have to do that. >> that's what is good about these programmes, yes. >> julie, do you have additional comments to make? >> yes, we have been doing a lot of marketing. we continue to do so, so we're always eager to find new pockets of opportunity. we are at a fairly high saturation rate of efficient toilets in the city. city-wide we estimate that to be about 80%. but that remaining 20% still represents over 100,000 possible old fixtures. so that's really, you know, what we're looking at, like i said, we regularly do outreach. we try to do it across all of our customer sectors, particularly to low income, but

we certainly, you know, we welcome ideas and thoughts on ways that we continue to reach out. moik commissioner moran? >> my question goes to the capacity of the vendor. it looks as though we're projecting that they'll double their rate of installations in the next increment. how do we know they can do that rate? >> based on the remaining budget we have left in the contract, we estimate that we could install another 1,000 toilets. so it is based on remaining budget. we haven't had any problem with

the contractor capacity. as noted, it is a constant effort to market and to get word out. we had a slowdown this past year due to covid. there were restrictions for a while and being able to enter customer homes. luckily we were able to put together a stringent health and safety plan that our contractor follows and with customers, you know, following those guidelines and interests, we were able to resume. so we have a little bit of catch-up due to covid but we see that picking back up and we definitely, you know, know that there's still customer interest. it's just a matter of the constant drumbeat of us getting word out and connecting with those folks. >> vice-president moran: okay, thank you. >> president maxwell: commissioner ajami. >> commissioner ajami: i have a question. what is the penetration rate with the multifamily units and also the small commercial units,

like, you know -- like small businesses, restaurants? just out of curiosity i'm wondering do we know how many of those are out there that we haven't really reached yet? >> well, the general rate i mentioned of efficient fixtures at about 80%, it is rolling out single family and multifamily and non-residential. it's a little bit lower for multifamily and non-residential, although it's similar to that. again, that's based on our model estimates. and our program is currently open for single family and multifamily properties. so we are, in fact, working with a lot of multifamily properties. some are very large h.o.a.s or rental apartment buildings. so we're actively pursuing those. it's closed to commercial because of san francisco's commercial conservation ordinance, which required efficient plumbing fixtures as

of 2017. >> commissioner ajami: so do we have like a map or a data source that you can just look and say, okay, this neighborhood has done more and this neighborhood has done less. or these commercial areas have done more. do you have something like that? or is this more -- i'm assuming that there's something, i'm just wondering. >> well, we have lots of ways that we track the data and we're always poring over that. and we can definitely plot those locations of the places that we have served on a map. that tells us some, but it really has more to do with the age of the building and the level of facility maintenance staff they might have. sometimes just different styles of fixtures they have may have been a reason why some buildings haven't replaced them in the last decade or so compared to other places. so it's really a mix of things that we look at.

>> commissioner ajami: so you could chart them? >> yes. >> commissioner ajami: i would be interested in seeing where we are as far as the neighborhoods are concerned. >> yeah, we can provide that information. >> commissioner ajami: good, thank you. >> president maxwell: any other questions or comments? yes? commissioner harrington. >> commissioner harrington: thank you, and thank you, julie, for all of the work that you are doing on this. if you run out of money before you run out of need, can you please come back to us and add more if you're looking at other conservation programs where this kind of idea could be useful, i would really love to see more of that happen. so thank you very much. >> well, terrific. i would love to come back anytime and ask for more money. and we will be providing an update on our 2020 conservation plan, my understanding is coming

out before too long. can i ask one more thing, madam president. julie, as you're mapping these, can you map the commercial penetration? i'm just really curious on how that is sort of working out since it was supposed to be done by 2017, right. >> we can map those that we incentivize through our program, yes. >> thank you. >> president maxwell: all right. any further questions or comments? mr. carlin, do you have something to add? >> i was going to add one thing, something that we have worked on for several years. unlike efficiency rebates with our non-taxable, and we have been working with the national coalition for several years and it looks like we might be on the verge of actually getting that in one of the stimulus bills.

so that this would make the program even more attractive to a broader audience. so i wanted, you know, to mention that to you. >> president maxwell: okay, thank you. all right, thank you. no further comments or questions? then may i have a motion and a second to approve item b. >> so moved. >> second. >> i'll second. >> president maxwell: thank you. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: want me to call public comment? >> president maxwell: call public comment. thank you. >> clerk: the members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 18b, for pro.0049, call 1-(415)-655-0001 and meeting i.d. 146 350 2017. and pound. to raise your hand to speak press star, 3. please note that you must limit

your comments to the topic of the item b and if you do understand stay on topic the chair can interrupt and ask to you limit your comment to the agenda item topic. the we ask that it be in a civil and you profane from the use of profanity. direct to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> there is one caller in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: i want to remind y'all that in the year 2021 you shouldn't be using green drinking water to flush out toilets. i see no solutions to that. number two, the last two years

we haven't got a report about the pipes, the clean drinking water pipes, that have been replaced, upgrades. and i know that in real-time you can get the millions of gallons of water that are leaking out of leaky pipes. you need to have the ability through a needs assessment. san franciscans will conserve water. in fact, they are. and if they go deep into conserving water they're not going to get any money. it doesn't mean they have to waste water. but stop telling san franciscans what to do when basically and

fundamentally they cannot do a needs assessment on the leaky pipes and marketing on why should we flush our toilets with clean drinking water. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the cue. >> president maxwell: thank you. any comments? >> no. >> president maxwell: okay, mic is on, thank you. all right, may i have -- it's moved and seconded. may i have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: [roll call vote]

you have five ayes. >> president maxwell: thank you. next item, please. >> clerk: madam president, i reannounce that item 19 is removed from the agenda and will be rescheduled and the next item is item 20, authorize the general mother to execute a memorandum of understanding with the modesto irrigation district and the turlock irrigation district and the fish and wildlife service. and to have a separate agreement to not exceed $1,500 to fund the planning and design only of potential habitat improvement projects and return to the commission following completion of environmental review for potential authorization to construct any such projects. >> i call on ellen to present this item.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. the deputy manager for water. so this is a memorandum of understanding with the irrigation district and the u.s. fish and wildlife service that essentially do early implementation of habitat improvement projects on the river prior to the issuance of the ferc relicense and the ferc license for la grange. and i'm happy to take any questions. >> president maxwell: commissioner paulson? no? commissioner annson. >> three questions and then i have some -- two results that i'd like to move. the questions are -- this is an m.o.u. stating the intention to

cooperate. and i guess that my first question is, what do we anticipate as implementing actions that follow this? second would be, what timeline we expect for those actions to be able to take place? and the third question is, what is the expectation as to additional flow levels that will be required in order to make the test meaningful. >> so to answer your first question, this is intended to cooperate and in choosing projects. we, as you may recall, we have a lower river habitat improvement program which is estimated at about $38 million that we included -- the districts have included in their amended final license application and it's also a program that we take

about with the voluntary agreement. and as part of this submission to ferc, we have included four projects as examples. and those types of projects are really about the augmentation to improve spawning grounds and to improve the habitat. there's some floodplain connectivity projects in there from the low channel habitat projects, where the -- you're actually lowering some of the channel so that you can access more floodplain. the four projects that we have identified range in costs from $75,000 to $6 million. there's a lot of interest amongst the parties to do something and to implement something right away. like in this calendar year. so we're looking for activities that have gone through some level of planning already.

and there are projects that have gone through some level of planning already. we actually have some projects that are at conceptual design. there are some projects that have gone through up to 30% design. and so we may be able to accomplish some of those projects and implement them this year. you know, specifically because we don't have ceqa we can't come to you asking to construct yet. so we're asking you for additional planning and design money right now, but the intent would be to come back as soon as we have ceqa to have you to authorize the construction, for in many cases it's the placement of gravel. to your final question i guess about flows, these projects are intended to be activated under the current flow schedule. so they don't require additional flow at the moment. of course, the additional flows as we move forward with the ferc

license and the amended finalized application, those flows were paired with these kinds of restoration projects. so that they could be activated and be more responsive and productive. but i think that the projects that we'll be looking at are really intended to take advantage of the flows that are there now. and as i said, some of these projects have already gone through some stages of design with the flow schedule that we have today. >> vice-president moran: okay, thank you. the commission has been on record for -- seems like a couple years now, looking for early implementation of some of the kinds of projects that we include in the voluntary agreement.

and so i'm encouraged that you are working on projects with some degree of development behind them. one of the things that's come out of of the workshops i think is the question about whether -- and to what extent -- predator controls actually works. and refer we've heard scientific testimony on both sides of that issue and i expect that we'll continue to hear the scientific testimony on both sides of that. i would love to have this opportunity to do a pilot test and to put our money where our mouth is and say if we think this works, let's try it. even if it's not a licensed term, let's try it. and if we're right, then that helps the cause, and if we're wrong, then we need to know that. so i would hope that we can

approach it in that way and also that the flows not be off the table for discussion. we have heard it said that if you -- if you did the flows without the non-flow measures it would be like throwing water away. it is also perhaps true that if you do the non-flow stuff, but you don't do enough water to access floodplains, then that is throwing money away. it seems that to do a robust test of the theory you may well need to do both. and we should be open to that. so that the two amendments that i would like to offer, the insertion of two positional resolved positives. and the existing resolution has two, so that these two go in the middle of those two. and i'll just read them and i

believe that the secretary has a copy of this. further resolve that this commission urge the parties to proceed with a sense of urgency. and be it further resolved that this commission urges the parties to size the proposed projects and to have appropriate related flows so as to ensure robust and meaningful tests of proposed actions. i would like to move for the inclusion of those two. >> madam secretary, is this the appropriate time for this? >> yes. >> then i would second your -- it's moved and seconded, the amendment. then we'll have public comment. yes, francesca? oh, i guess that we're good.

>> i was going to say public comment. >> president maxwell: okay. >> to clarify this is public comment on the amendment or the item as amended? >> it's on the entire agenda item. you have a pending motion for an amendment to the item but the public comment is on the whole agenda item. >> clerk: correct, thank you. members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 20, private picture m.o.u., dial 1-(415)-655-0001. and meeting i.d. 146 350 2017. pound, pound. to raise your hand to speak, press star, 3. please note that you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item and if you do not stay on the topic you will be asked to keep your comments to the topic. and we ask that you refrain from the use of profanity.

address your remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or staff. do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, there are two callers in the queue. first caller, your line is open and you have two minutes. >> caller: thank you. good afternoon, president maxwell and commissioners. my name is tom francis and i'm the water resources manager for the bay-area water supply and conservation. and speaking today to voice our support for the proposed action before you today. specifically the approval of the pilot project memorandum of understanding with m.i.d., d.i.d. and the u.s. fish and wildlife service regarding the party's intention for cooperation and funding and early implementation of habitat improvement projects on the

lower tuolumne river. and the ongoing license for la grange project. and it's consistent with the type of habitat improvements currently proposed in the tuolumne river agreement. and the entrance to the 1.8 million residents, almost 40,000 businesses and hundreds of community groups and alameda and san mateo and the counties served by them. and the number of anxiouses that rely on the regional water systems to provide the majority of their water supply. and the new ferc license is critical to maintaining that supply. and ask that the early implementation of the habitat improvements will move forward the critical efforts necessary to enhance and to protect the fishery needs on the tuolumne and show merits of the ferc license and to illustrate to the

public the commitments of the parties to address habitat needs. so thank you for giving boca the opportunity to voice our support for the m.o.u. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, caller. next caller, your line is open. >> caller: hello, peter direcmer. i would like to express my appreciation for commissioner moran's comments and my appreciation to staff for moving this forward, it sounds very promising. and third my appreciation to boca as expressed by tom francis to support this. and, finally, i didn't have time to say this at the workshop, but it was mentioned that they contributed $2 million towards the fields project and i really appreciate that. that project is doing so well. our partners have been doing a

fabulous job. so that's four appreciations in one minute which is probably a record for me. i also want to mention that there's another early implementation project that we brought up last year with our interim flow proposal that the ffpuc could voluntarily contribute its share of the unimpaired flows for at least two years. and if we were to hit a third dry year, you could take away that voluntary contribution and still manage the 8.5 year design draft. and the response from staff at the time was, well, that would require approval and an agreement with the irrigation districts. and i think that we should ask them. okay, if we contribute this water -- we're not expecting anything from you, will you release it to the lower tuolumne. and they have nothing to lose from doing that, maybe some political chips. but as commissioner mora

mentioned, non-flow measures without flow aren't going to be successful. and so why don't we give them both a try? so thanks again for moving forward on this. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> president maxwell: that closes public comment on item 20. the motion is moved and seconded. now on the entire item, including the amendment. or, no, is that right? or did we -- i don't think that we voted on the amendments yet. >> president maxwell: so we seconded them. so let's have a roll call vote on the amendment. >> clerk: on the amendment [roll call vote]

thank you. you have five ayes. >> president maxwell: perfect. now on the item as amended. may we have a second motion and a second on the item as amended. so moved and seconded. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on the item as amended [roll call vote] you have five ayes. >> president maxwell: thank you. next item please. >> clerk: your next order of business is item 21, approve the general manager's february 8, 2021 determination under san francisco administrative code section 6.23 [c] [1] that neither further outreach efforts nor removal or modification of certainly requirements in the

contract would likely result in contractors submitting responsive bids for contract nobody db-121r2, moccasin powerhouse generator rehabilitation project, and authorize the general manager to negotiate an agreement with any qualified firms and if such negotiations are successful, to return to the commission for the authority to execute such agreement. presented by greg leiman. >> good afternoon, president maxwell and commissioners. i am greg leiman, in the bureau. the item before you today is a request to authorize the general manager to negotiate the qualified bidders in accordance with the administrative code 6.23. the bureau has assisted the water and power and the teams with three solicitations over the last decade. each time all bids received were conditioned by various exceptions to the commission.

and the hydroelectric power stream is a very limited number of qualified contractors and we have had extensive outreach to them prior to and during the most recent cases. in coordination with the city attorney's office, staff is recommending that we begin negotiating with a number of qualified bidders to get the best terms for ratepayers. negotiations would commence immediately and we hope to resolve the outstanding issues quickly to replace the first of these aging generators in about two years. upon conclusion of the negotiations, we will return to the commission to request approval to award the contract. i'm available for questions. >> president maxwell: i would like to know, can you give us two of the most outstanding issues? >> i can -- indem nisks and limit of reliability. the contractors wish to change

the indemnification that requires to us go to the board of supervisors for approval. >> president maxwell: okay. and the other one was? >> limited liability. >> president maxwell: and is that because of the age of these generators? why was that? >> we will learn more by talking to them, but we suspect that it has to do with their exposure as a result of what these generators do. these generators -- all water delivered to the bay area customers goes through these generators. and if the generators are not replaced properly and out of service it reduces our capacity to distribute water to the bay area. so i believe -- we believe that their concern is about that critical nature of these generators and the ability to restore them within the finite time that we're giving them to

install the generators during the hundred days roughly of shutdown that we're anticipating. >> president maxwell: so if we were going to change in any way, what would that change be? if we were going to try to negotiate with them, what would that negotiation look like? >> right now we would like to find out what their day given or the language or the proposed changes to the limited liability and this, and we would like to talk to them more about this language. that limits their exposure, both potentially in contract value and the dollar value as well as their exposure to overall. so to their corporations. so we would like to explore that with them to find out if there's a common (indiscernible) and the language that we started with, where they're fully

responsible. >> president maxwell: okay, do we have a b plan? i mean, is there a back-up to this generator? >> no. i believe that the correct answer is -- (indiscernible) -- to step in at this time. >> the assistant general manager for water. there is not a back-up plan for this project. so as a project team we should negotiate with multiple parties, but at the end we really need to have a contract with some entity. and to negotiate with the multiple parties gives us the best opportunity to do that on reasonable terms. >> president maxwell: i guess that we have looked into new versus re-do? >> yes, this is just basically replacing the generator itself.

so what you typically do is that you have to basically rewind the electrical coil to make it work. so, in effect, it's a new unit inserted into the powerhouse. >> president maxwell: got it. thank you. any further comments or questions, colleagues? thank you very much. may i have a public comment, please, on this item. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 21, db-121r2. call 1-(415)-655-0001. and code 146 350 2017, pound, pound to raise your hand to speak press star, 3. you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed and to remind you if you do not stay on the topic the chair can interrupt and ask you to limit your comment to the topic.

we ask that the comments be in a civil and civic manner and you do not use profanity. do not address individual commissioners or staff. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you, public comment on item 21 is closed. >> president maxwell: thank you, may i have a motion and a second to approve this item, please. >> i make a motion. >> second. >> president maxwell: thank you. it's been moved and seconded. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: [roll call vote] you have five ayes. >> president maxwell: next item,

please. >> clerk: next item is 22, authorize the general manager to execute a project partnership agreement with the army corps of engineers for the construction of ocean beach beneficial use of dredged materials project for an amount not to exceed $2,800,000 and a duration of two years. it's represented by anna rose. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm anna rose roche, the project manager. mostly with the wastewater enterprise. i'm also the project manager for the ocean, beach climate change adaptation project which is a multicity agency project to address climate-induced sea level rise and associated erosion along ocean beach between slope boulevard and fort funstun. this applicant has three phases, one which is a partnership with the army corps of engineers to design and to construct or to place dredged material from the

san francisco main shipping channel at ocean tweech, which is the item before you today. and the commission approved the design portion of the work on march 1th, 2018. by resolution number 18-00040. the design work is now complete. we are here today to request authorization to execute of construction portion of the agreement. the required funds of up to $2.8 million are available through the ocean beach climate change adaptation project, project number cww-sac01. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president maxwell: any -- commissioner harrington. >> commissioner harrington: thank you, ana. just to comment about how long these things take. over 10 years ago we were trying to get the army corps of

engineers interested in doing this project and we were talking to senator finestein and all kinds of folks in d.c. to try to push it. it's so nice to see it come to fruition, so congratulations. >> thank you very much. and it's nice to see your face. >> president maxwell: any other comments? >> i just have a question. (indiscernible) and the activity, where we have to keep replenishing the sand? >> so the project will require a sand nourishment proponent in perpetuity once the project is built. that's part of the reason that we're working with the corps of engineers. this is one source of sand that we're looking at for this area of the beach. the other source of sand is ocean beach itself. you may be familiar with one of the other phases of the project where we moved sand from the north end of the beach down to the south end of the beach in

trucks. and that's meant to sort of prevent the area from further eroding while this longer term project is being designed. and it's expected to go to construction in 2023. so, again, it's a very large project. it has three phases. the army corps of engineers' component is just one of those phases. >> thank you. >> president maxwell: just briefly, what is another phase? >> the short-term project, i just described is where we are protecting this area, it's about a 3,000-foot stretch of ocean beach between slope and skyline where it abuts that area of the city. we move sand and/or we use sandbags to protect our wastewater infrastructure while this long-term project is developed. which is the biggest part of the project, which will be implementing a low-profile seawall to protect wastewater

infrastructure. we'll be implementing a technique called managed retreat to address sea level rise and climate change. when we do that, we will be removing the highway between slope and skyline permanently, and opening up some open space amenities. that's why it's a multicity agency project and we're working with rec and park as part of our large team to be including the coastal access trail, parking lot and amenities in that area. >> president maxwell: that's great. because you can see the parking lots are getting shorter and smaller and smaller. so are we doing this in terms of a great storm? what if we have a huge storm? and now they happen to be occurring more than a hundred years, so i don't want to say that. but are we planning for that? >> yes, the long-term project is designing for sea level rise through the end of century. we're following the sea level

guidance developed for city-wide projects. so that area is designed with that criteria. in the interim, we have a pretty robust monitoring program that after certain sized storms we go out and we monitor the area and if the city needs to take action we have the ability to do that. >> president maxwell: it seems that the great highway is closed now more than it is open all the way through for any number of reasons. but, thank you. >> just to, you know, we're sort of stepping away from protecting the highway because we'll be removing that eventually and more on the wastewater infrastructure in that area. >> president maxwell: that's smart. thank you. all right, any further comments or questions? >> i have a comment. first of all, i am so glad to see that dredged material is being used, being put to beneficial use. obviously, that's really key to kind of value a resource that we

have, rather than trying to get rid of it as fast as we can. the second comment that i had was that you talked about the short sea wall. i was wondering whether the other options if you don't want to build a seawall, and if you wanted to protect the wastewater down there? >> well, we went through a pretty robust alternative analysis a number of years back, and we looked at different options. one of those options included relocating the tunnel which is the most huge component of this large complicated infrastructure that has the oceanside treatment plant. the issue with that is that if we were to remove the tunnel, one, the cost at that time were expected to be more costly than implementing this project. secondly, it becomes a domino effect if we moved the tunnel, it would be -- i think we

estimated approximately 20 years we'd be in this situation again because there's another piece of important equipment behind that. eventually reaching the oceanside treatment plant. so we did an alternative analysis a number of years back and we looked at all of those different options. some of the other options that we have heard that come up through particular people that are interested in what we're doing in terms of the public, we have large rocks on the beach right now that we place under emergency -- emergency situations. folks have, you know, encouraged us to why not just leave that material and the coastal commission will not permit that. so we're working in collaboration with the coastal commission, and we're meeting regulatory requirements. so there's a lot of -- sort of threading the needle, you might say, trying to find the right solution. and this solution was developed through the ocean beach master

plan which completed in 2012. and that went through a fairly robust public outreach process and we worked with all of the different agencies, including the army corps of engineers, usgs, and all of the city agencies and the national park service. and i really do believe that we're bringing the best option forward and the idea is that this project will protect this area through about 2060. and then we're going to re-evaluate what is happening and given the uncertainty with sea level rise and climate change, and also with, you know, with what happens with how we're dealing with cleaning the water, all of those technologies may change by that period. and so then we'll have to re-evaluate where we are, what makes the most sense, what is the economic best choice, and what meets regulatory requirements at that point. >> so i assume that when you build the seawall you're aware

of the other parts that will be affected by the seawall and that is taken into consideration? >> yes. and we just completed 35% design. we're moving into 65% design. and, again, it's a very large complicated project, a lot of people at the table, including some of the entities that i have just described -- the park service, usds, the coastal commission. there's a lot of -- there's a lot of interest and a lot of smart brains thinking through the solutions here. >> all right, thank you. >> president maxwell: any further questions or comments, colleagues? seeing none, then thank you very much. and why don't we open this up to public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 22 project partnership agreement, dial

1-(415)-655-0001. meeting i.d. 146 350 2017. pound, pound. to raise your hand to speak press star 3. please note that you must limit your comment to the topic of the agenda item being discussed and remind you if you do not stay on the topic the chair can interrupt and ask you to limit your comment to the topic. we ask that public comment be in a civil and respectful manner and that you refrain from the use of profanity. do not address individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> there is one caller in the queue. opening up your line, caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: eileen boken speaking on my own behalf. when the sanctuary was established in 1992, the waters

off ocean beach were classified as exclusion area, known as the donut hole. one of the reasons for the exclusion is the dredging spoils the depoints off the beach. and to rectify this, the spoils are deposited at locations within the bay as part of the restoration, or being deposited in the deep ocean disposal site. in november of 2011, the board of supervisors passed resolution 507-11 to support the northern and western expansions of the lines and the national marine sanctuaries. i personally have been advocating since 2003 for inclusion of the waters off ocean beach in either the greater area or the monterrey bay national marine sanctuaries. it would be unfortunate if the army corps of engineers project

interfered with that. finally, the former p.u.c. g.m. was informed that sand mining in san francisco bay is a contributor to erosion in south ocean beach. the reaction was dismissive. and yet in 2013, dr. patrick barnard of the u.s. geological survey in santa cruz published a study that documents the relation between sand mining and erosion. i would urge the p.u.c. to also resolve the sand mining issue. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> president maxwell: thank you, that closes public comment on item 22. >> clerk: madam president, you're muted. >> president maxwell: you read

my mind. thank you. may i get a motion and a second please on this item. >> president maxwell: so moved and seconded. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: [roll call vote] you have five ayes. thank you. >> president maxwell: next item, please. >> clerk: your next order of business is item 23, approval the plans and the specifications and award contract ww-645r, westside pump station reliability improvements, in the amount of $48,328,300 with a duration of 1,020 consecutive calendar days to the responsible bidder that submitted the lowest responsive bid, anvil builders,

incorporated. represented by mr. cargano. >> good afternoon, commissioners. good afternoon, president maxwell. my name is brian calimano, the project manager for the improvement projects. i'm here before you today to talk about the conservation reliability and improvements project which is part of the program. this contract provides redundant electrical power service in replacement of the essential wastewater and mechanical and electrical equipment and ancillary, and plumbing and instrumentation and control improvements. as well as the construction of a new electrical building out at westside pump station. the completion is weather dependent and the potential delays to award this contract may jeopardize the critical sequencing necessary to complete the work while the pump station remains in operation.

the original contract ww-645 was bid in december 2018 and was cancelled due to bids received or significantly over the engineer estimates. a request for qualifications were advertised in january 2020. where the p.u.c. received 10 applications and had prequalified eight applicants. the request for bids was opened for this contract on november 10, 2020. three of the eight prequalified firms submitted bids. the builders corporation, the apparent low bid, anvil builders and western water constructors. following the receipt of bids the p.u.c. received protest letters. protests against the apparent low bidder thompson builders corporation. and the p.u.c. received protest

letters from anvil builders and western water constructors protesting the bids submitted by thompson builders corporation. and it was not responsive to the requirements. anvil builders alleged that thompson builders failed to comply with the p.u.c. procedures for substitution. and thompson builders submitted a response to those protests. after that the p.u.c. made multiple requests for supporting administration from thompson builders corporation, and they were unable to make a clear determination on thompson builders corporation local business enterprise sub-contracting participation requirements. they determined that thompson builders corporations' bid was non-responsive for failing to meet the good-faith outreach requirements. a protest letter was also received from the apparent low

builder, anvil builders. they received a protest letter from western water constructors protesting the bid submitted by anvil builders that it was not responsible to the minimum qualification. anvil builders submitted a response to that protest. after review of the protests and rebuttal, the bureau in consultation with the city attorney denied the protests on january 14, 2021. and determined that anvil builders to be the lowest responsible bidder of the contract. staff recommends awarding the contract to anvil builders. >> president maxwell:

commissioner paulson? do you have a comment? anyone? commissioner moran? >> vice-president moran: i think that it was thompson also has submitted a letter just prior to the last meeting and again prior to this meeting and their claim was that anvil also did not meet the -- because have a standard, and we have received a letter -- i think that it was from c.m.d. saying that anvil as well as the first-ranked firm were asked for supplemental information at the same time and where the first was not able to come up with -- not able to come up with more information, but anvil did.

is it the position of the city attorney and the contract management division that basically this matter has been resolved, that anvil did not receive any kind of preferential treatment? >> sorry. i'm the deputy city attorney and i reviewed all of the issues including c.m.d.'s response and, yes, it's my conclusion that c.m.d. acted appropriately and based on its representations that it did go back and make anvil confirm that it complied with the good-faith outreach requirements of the r.f.d.

>> vice-president moran: i think that there was also the -- there was more than a suggestion that some of the supplemental information provided by anvil was produced after the fact and was not with part of the proper documentation. have you taken an opinion on that? >> i have not seen any allegations in that regard. i did see the objection that they sent prior to the first hearing. the one on february 5th. i haven't seen an objection since then. >> the c.m.d. is here today and prepared to respond to any questions about the letter that came in today. >> president maxwell: thank you. >> the director of contract monitoring division. yes, so we did review their letter as well. and we stand by our

determination that anvil may be -- was compliant. and that based upon the facts with the timestamps and the info, there's no reason to believe that the information -- was not as presented that they submitted. >> president maxwell: so then you're saying that all of the information was received on time and in a timely manner? >> was received in a timely manner, yes. >> president maxwell: okay. any other questions? or comments? i mean, this is a very involved process. and, unfortunately, i don't think that we know enough about it to know exactly how it all

works. and so that's why we are asking the questions and when people bring it up we feel an obligation to try to get to the bottom of it in some way that they can understand and we can understand. any further questions or comments? would you stand by because there might be more after public comment. >> this is commissioner paulson. >> commissioner paulson: i'm going to say as commissioners that i rely on staff, you know, to take care of the things that, you know, that i don't do on a day-to-day basis, and like any of my colleagues or commissioners to do. and i'm hearing the answer today and i need to be dissuaded if there's something that is different. so if they're saying that things got done timely, there's many contracts and there's a lot of money involved, and i assume that, you know, we are doing this, you know, with tremendous

checks and balances that we have in this city. so i want to thank the staff for reminding us of that today. >> president maxwell: thank you. any other comments or questions? all right, then, madam secretary, may we open up for public comment on this item, please. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 23, contract number ww-645r, dial 1-(415)-655-0001. meeting i.d. 146 350 2017. pound, pound. to raise your hand to speak press star, 3. please note that you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item discussed and remind you if you do not stay on the topic that the chair can interrupt and ask you to limit your comments to the topic. we ask that public comment be in a civil and respectful manner and you refrain from the use of profanity. address your remarks to the commission as a whole and not to

individual commissioners or staff. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, there is one caller wishing to be recognized. caller, i have opened up your line. you have two minutes. >> caller: this is paul thompson with thompson builders. i hope that everybody can hear me okay. this morning we submitted a detailed letter regarding this agenda item for the award of the contract to anvil builders. i have a simple request that we respectfully request that the commission in the interest of fairness and transparency to do the right thing and delay the award of this contract. this is a significant contract. it's a $47 million contract.

and thompson builders corp was the low bid. to highlight the reason behind this request is that d.b.c. had a freedom of information request on february 5th regarding anvil's bid documents after our bid was disqualified. we received the information from the p.u.c. on february 17th. and this was supposedly all of anvil's good-faith documentation. lo and behold, physical information was either intentionally or unintentionally withheld from our request. c.d.c. then became aware of the omitted information last friday, february 19th. and we again had to submit another freedom of information request for this information for the omitted information that

should have been provided the first time. we finally received this information february 22nd -- yesterday. and based on this information, with a quick review, we scrambled and provided the best response that we can give in a short time frame. and i realize that it is a last-minute effort but there was the own doing by not sending us all of the information the first time. we have all heard the commission and the p.u.c. talk about being transparent and forthright. now is the time for the commission to walk the talk. >> clerk: thank you, caller, your time is expired. next caller, your line is open. you have two minutes. >> caller: good afternoon, president maxwell and commissioners. i am a representative for anvil builders.

i would like to point out that something that we're not discussing here is the actual determination of a non-responsive bid by thompson builders. not only due to their lack of good faith or inadequate good faith but due to their lack of meeting their requirements on this job. so while the comment and question is whether anvil met the good faith, anvil, in fact, made the l.b.e. requirements. so regardless of whether thompson builders had met their good-faith requirement, they did not meet their l.b.e. requirement goals. anvil and some of you are aware has grown up through the l.b. process and is very knowledgeable about the process and what must be listed as contractors score their goal and that is where thompson actually fell short. thank you.

>> clerk: thank you for your comments. there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: public comment on item 23 is closed. >> president maxwell: okay. any further discussion on this item? yes, commissioner harrington. >> commissioner harrington: is there a way to get a confirmation from c.n.d. to what the gentleman from anvil just told us that they had met it all along? >> my staff should be able to answer that question, sir. >> hi, good afternoon. are you asking about the requirements for anvil? >> commissioner harrington: the comment in public comments is that anvil had met the l.b.e. requirements so the good-faith

requirement was superfluous, and so that's how i heard that. did they meet the l.b.e. requirement in their bid? >> they did, yes. >> commissioner harrington: thank you. >> president maxwell: any further comments? questions? theurchg. thank you. is there a motion and a second to approve this item? >> i'll move it. >> president maxwell: a second? okay. pardon? >> seconded. >> president maxwell: all right. it's moved and seconded. madam secretary, will you call the roll, please. >> clerk: i'm sorry.

[roll call vote] you have five ayes. >> president maxwell: moved and seconded and passed. madam secretary, is there any further business before this commission? >> clerk: madam president, that concludes your business for the day. >> president maxwell: thank you, then this meeting is adjourned.

>> there's a new holiday shopping tradition, and shop and dine in the 49 is inviting everyone to join and buy black friday. now more than ever, ever dollar that you spend locally supports small businesses and helps entrepreneurs and the community to thrive. this holiday season and year-round, make your dollar matter and buy black.

>> when i first started painting it was difficult to get my foot in the door and contractors and mostly men would have a bad attitude towards me or not want to answer my questions or not include me and after you prove yourself, which i have done, i don't face that obstacle as much anymore. ♪♪♪ my name is nita riccardi, i'm a painter for the city of san francisco and i have my own business as a painting contractor since 1994 called winning colors. my mother was kind of resistant. none of my brothers were

painter. i went to college to be a chiropractor and i couldn't imagine being in an office all day. i dropped out of college to become a painter. >> we have been friends for about 15-20 years. we both decided that maybe i could work for her and so she hired me as a painter. she was always very kind. i wasn't actually a painter when she hired me and that was pretty cool but gave me an opportunity to learn the trade with her company. i went on to different job opportunities but we stayed friends. the division that i work for with san francisco was looking for a painter and so i suggested to my supervisor maybe we can give nita a shot. >> the painting i do for the city is primarily maintenance painting and i take care of anything from pipes on the roof to maintaining the walls and beautifying the bathrooms and

graffiti removal. the work i do for myself is different because i'm not actually a painter. i'm a painting contractor which is a little different. during the construction boom in the late 80s i started doing new construction and then when i moved to san francisco, i went to san francisco state and became fascinated with the architecture and got my contractor's licence and started painting victorians and kind of gravitated towards them. my first project that i did was a 92 room here in the mission. it was the first sro. i'm proud of that and it was challenging because it was occupied and i got interior and exterior and i thought it would take about six weeks to do it and it took me a whole year. >> nita makes the city more beautiful and one of the things that makes her such a great

contractor, she has a magical touch around looking at a project and bringing it to its fullest fruition. sometimes her ideas to me might seem a little whacky. i might be like that is a little crazy. but if you just let her do her thing, she is going to do something incredible, something amazing and that will have a lot of pop in it. and she's really talented at that. >> ultimately it depends on what the customer wants. sometimes they just want to be understated or blend in and other times they let me decide and then all the doors are open and they want me to create. they hire me to do something beautiful and i do. and that's when work is really fun. i get to be creative and express what i want. paint a really happy house or something elegant or dignified.

>> it's really cool to watch what she does. not only that, coming up as a woman, you know what i mean, and we're going back to the 80s with it. where the world wasn't so liberal. it was tough, especially being lgbtq, right, she had a lot of friction amongst trades and a lot of people weren't nice to her, a lot of people didn't give her her due respect. and one of the things amazing about nita, she would never quit. >> after you prove yourself, which i have done, i don't face that obstacle as much anymore. i'd like to be a mentor to other women also. i have always wanted to do that. they may not want to go to school but there's other options. there's trades. i encourage women to apply for my company, i'd be willing to train and happy to do that.

there's a shortage of other women painters. for any women who want to get into a trade or painting career, just start with an apprenticeship or if you want to do your own business, you have to get involved and find a mentor and surround yourself with other people that are going to encourage you to move forward and inspire you and support you and you can't give up. >> we've had a lot of history, nita and i. we've been friends and we have been enemies and we've had conflicts and we always gravitate towards each other with a sense of loyalty that maybe family would have. we just care about each other. >> many of the street corners in all the districts in san francisco, there will be a painting job i have completed and it will be a beautiful paint job. it will be smooth and gold leaf and just wow. and you can't put it down. when i first started, it was

hard to get employees to listen to me and go along -- but now, i have a lot of respect. >> we take a lot of pride in what we do. the electric shop covers all of waste water, so out of this location here, we cover everything from oceanside to southeast plant and all the computations including treasure island and yerba buena. we have all the preventative responsibility, maintaining maintenance and also keeping up with work orders from operations. i would say one of the things fortunately for me is the staff is incredibleably motivated.

the staff here knows what to do, how to do the job safely, and it makes my job incredibly easy. >> they know the job, and they know the challenges, and i think it's all about personal pride. they want to do a good job. from our maintenance group to our i.n.c., dedication to the people. when they're going home, and they're crossing the bay bridge, and they get a call that there's a problem with a pump station on treasure island, they return to work. they turnaround in westbound traffic and get back to work and get this pump back in line, and i can't tell you how much that means to me as a boss and the city and county of san francisco. >> as a group, if they didn't do what they do, the streets would be flooded with waste and gray water, and it could become

a health hazard. we take a lot of pride in what we do, and we do the jobs right, and you walk away fulfilled that you've done the city a >> chairman: good morning and welcome to the rules committee of the sanfrancisco board of supervisors. i'm aaron peskin, joined by raphael mandelman and connie chan. our clerk is mr. victor young. mr. young, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. due to the covid-19 health emergency, and to protect board members and the city, the committee room is closed. our members will be participating in this meeting remotely. the committee members will participate in