>> calm the roll please. >> president maxwell. >> here, vice president moran. >> here. >> paulson. >> here. >> harrington. >> here. >> aj a.m.i. >> here. >> we have a quorum. i would like to make an announcement. due to the health emergency and given the restrictions ontelli conference this is being held and televised by sfgovtv. be aware there is a time lag. on behalf of the commission i would like to extend our thanks to sfgovtv staff for assistance

during this meeting. if you wish to make public comment dial 415-655-0001. meeting id1466828986-pound pound. to speak press star 3. know you must limit comments to the item discussed unless you are speaking under general public comment. if you are not on the topic the chair can limit your comments to the topic. we ask that the public comment is made in a civil manner and no profanity. your first order is item 3 approval of minutes of march 9, 2021. >> any discussion or corrections to the minutes of march 9th?

>> seeing none. public comment on this item, please. >> item 3 the minutes of march 9. dial 415-655-0001. meeting id146682 -- if you do not stay on topic you can limit to the agenda topic. we ask that public comment is made in a respectful manner and refrain from use of profanity. please direct remarks to the commissioner and not to individual commissioners or staff. do we have any callers? >> there are no caller in the

queue at this time. >> public comment on the approval of minutes march 99, 2021 is closed. >> may i have a motion and second to approve the minutes of march 9th. >> i move approval. >> second. >> moved and seconded. roll call vote, please. >> president maxwell. >> aye. >> vice president moran. >> aye. >> commissioner paulson. >> aye. >> commissioner harrington. >> aye. >> commissioner aj a.m.i. >> aye. >> five ayes. >> public comment dial 415-655-0001. (146)682-8986-pound pound. to speak press star 3.

comment to be made in a sieve c. make your comments to the group as a whole. >> there are six callers wishing to be recognized. >> first caller, two minutes. >> coalition for san francisco neighborhoods speaking on my behalf. i received a letter in the mail with the sfpuc logo which is not from sfpuc. it is from assurance services company called american water resources that administrator insurance on behalf of virginia surety company. in the letter the sfpuc is mentioned five times.

on reverse also mentioned five times. it states the competitive process the san francisco utilities commission selected american water insurance services awris as highest ranking proposer to offer the voluntary water and sewer line protection program for san francisco homeowners. why sfpuc chose american watery sores insurance services. they know unexpected repairs to your water and sewer lines can be expensive. homeowners need reliable programs to help. strict guidelines for quality, affordability apreliability.

end quote. this may have not come before the commission. there has been a significant turnover on the commission. i urge the commission to agendize this issue once again. thank you. >> this is carol, chair of sierra club water committee. thank you for your service to the committee that is needed for decision making during this time. our committee has three counties south of san francisco. we are seeing one obstruction in managing demand as utilities desire to preserve billable units of water as stated by the board of directors. this explains the emphasize on

expensive pipe solutions as alternatives, not the end of the pipe, not potable reuse and stormwater and so forth. please note san mateo uses 96 gals per day 85 residential. hayward 50 the,. [indiscernable] irrigation is the first target. water committee is asking you to create a forum or body of task force to share information and more importantly create implementation channels, topics could be alternative supply, local flows like stormwater and big gray water, local storage, alternatives to volumeetric. community-based solutions or

another organization could be created. now there aren't enough channels for information sharing and implementation. this should be addressed before the plan discussion is where it is at. we are talking about the most expensive water source. thanks again. >> thank you for your comments. next caller. two minutes to speak to item 4. >> can you hear me now? >> loud and clear. >> david pill plow. good afternoon. first, i don't think i recognized the passing every tired deputy city attorney george kruger awhile ago. george served for many years as the utilities general counsel, long time predecessor of the

current city attorney. he and i had a memorable exchange in 1993 or 1994 about a brown act issue before the commission. i don't know if commissioners harrington and moran remember that. i want to recognize his passing. next item. sewer system improvement program scope schedule and budget approved by this commission on december 22, 2020. most recently i wonder since there was a significant increase there if there is anything new to report on ssip. i had outstanding questions there. i am not sure if there is anything further about ssip. next. i tried to reasoning the manager of the bureau of environmental management several times since

last meeting. i am unable to reach her. i am frustrated about that and how environmental documents are provided or linked to reference in connection with calendar items. i wonder what else i can do that someone might suggest that is constructive because otherwise i have other avenues that i can pursue that are less constructive. finally, in connection with environmental documents, item 11 on today's calendar. the document that is linked is the wrong document. >> thank you. your time expired. next caller. you have two minutes to speak to item 4. >> good afternoon, president

maxwell and members of the commission. california sportfishing protection alliance. speaking as follow-up to my march 9 letter providing the comments on san francisco petition for reconsideration. the petition i am referring to is the san francisco appeal of the state water board water quality certification for the don pedro licensing proceedings. it gives sfpuc acting general manager as city's point of contact. the legal argument in the petition relies on the trump administration unlawful roll back of 401 of the clean water act. you may have read the trump rule on the part of the clean water act called waters of united states produce reduced coverage by 90%. the rule reduces subject matter

coverage by more than 70%. i would be willing to bet 90% of the residents of san francisco don't think the sfpuc should rely on weakening the clean water act to make its case. i have a lot of respect for many of the things san francisco city attorney's office has done in the last decade. it is work on gay marriage helped change the world. you should expect better from the office and work on your behalf and exercise more oversight as its client. please disavow the legal arguments attacking 401. appealing conditions is one thing attacking environmental law is another. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. next caller two minutes to speak to item 4.

>> good afternoon. i am virginia, president of san mateo harbor board of commissioners. thank you for working on the challenging water issues. collaboration is needed to develop policies to use water. last wednesday the county wide elected governing body in san mateo county adopted resolution help by endorsing the bay delta plan. the resolution using signs for flow in the rivers to restore the health of the salmon and wildlife. it recognizes that san mateo county salmon fishing provide jobs across a variety of sectors to nearby restaurants and fish possessing facilities. the local economy benefits from

the sales of salmon one of the few places where the public can buy fish and learn about coastal waters and the sustainable food source. it calls on the sfpuc to abandon litigation around the state water board and let them do their work. economic development and recovery and environment falprotection are not exclusive. the sfpuc has an opportunity to be an important stakeholder. on behalf of the harbour board i ask you seize this opportunity and work with stakeholders with the delta plan to rebuild economy and protect environment and healthy lifestyle. thank you. >> next caller.

>> good afternoon. i am a light weight. those were fantastic comments. i hope you will pay attention to them. i want to let you know i have been reading the agricultural water management plans for mid and t id they had public hearings this morning. plans are due april 1st. urban plans are due july 1st. there were a couple things to share with you that could be promising. first of all, the price of water for farmers is still incredibly low. in modesto $17.50 an acre foot. in the turlock $23 an acre foot

around $20 range. in the bay area, water costs $2,000. there is about 1% of the cost here. the problem is they don't have revenue coming in for the infrastructure improvements they need that is an opportunity for sfpuc to help out the low hanging fruit and share in savings. i don't think you need that for a long time but i know you are concerned about lengthy drought and that is the backup plan in the worse case scenario. second thing. the tid agricultural plan with the climate change and they are projecting there is going to be a shift of runoff from the april to july time period into closer to the winter. as you know. that could benefit the sfpuc.

the entitlements are 4,000 for the irrigation district after april 15th. >> thank you. your time has expired. there are no more callers in the queue. >> that closes public comment on item 4. general public comment. next item, please. >> next item is 5. communications. >> any discussions? >> yes. >> commissioner moran. >> on the advance caller i want to comment about the workshop this friday. yesterday you should have received the agenda and white

paper, water supply manning introduction and review. a couple comments about the white paper. there is nothing new in there in terms of information presented to the commission. however, i don't think it has been presented in one place like that. i don't think the issues have been presented. it is a worthwhile review. the other we are not discussing that during the workshop. the presumption is that everybody will have reviewed that, that it is familiar territory and that is the launching point for the rest of the discussion. if you have any questions about anything in there, give staff a call and straighten that out. second thing is just in terms of expectations. we are trying something that is unnatural in our environment to

keep advocacy out of presentations which is really hard. our discussions of format and content so far there has been agreement we would attempt to do that. what we will do is go through a series of water budget scenarios. success will be if all of the parties say those scenarios reasonably presented the water budget impact. that is not to say they agree with every number, they think any particular scenario is feasible or good idea, and not to say those are necessarily exhaustive of all of the things that should be considered. that is the attitude. so far there is really good cooperation with staff and the

ngos. i am looking forward to a discussion as much as possible staying away from advocacy and allows us to focus on the impact of policy options rather than the wisdom of the posse options. wisdom discussion will come later. >> that will probably be ongoing. any further discussions? seeing none, madam secretary, since we have had the comments. may we open public comment, please. >> members of the public for two minutes on item 5, communications dial 415-655-0001. meeting id1466828986-pound pound. to speak press star three. you must limit to the topic of the agenda item discussed. if you do not stay on the topic

the chair can interrupt and ask you to limit to the topic. we ask public comment is civil and refrain from profanity. address the commission as a whole, not individual commissioners or staff. >> there is one caller wishing to be recognized. >> thank you. just wanted to say i really appreciate the effort commissioner moran put into bringing this workshop together. very approachable, reasonable and really wants this to be productive workshop. we are looking forward to it and

appreciating the good blood. thank you very much, commissioner moran. >> thank you for your comments. there are no more callers in the queue. >> that closes public comment on communications, item 5. >> next item, please. >> 6. bay area water supply and conservation agency update to be presented by nicole sandkulla. >> good afternoon. pleased to be with you today. i want to take my time today to walk you through a presentation that i gave to the board in january. that presents the most current information about our projections at that time. they have modified a little bit but not significantly.

these are what we are using for the water planning work at this time. as i mentioned in the past, we completed the projection study june 2020. that work consisted of customized projected models for each member agency based on local policies, adoptedlant uses and characteristics that impact water use, climate, type of customers and those types of things. the models we're on population and job projections. primarily land use plans where they were more advanced. the study provides critical information to support water resources planning, particularly 2045 of the agency regional level. when we completed that study which is on the website, we then went to ask the agencies how

will they meet the demands? one exercise identified what level of the purchases do they anticipate, additional conservation efforts, investment in ground water, recycled water. this information was critically important to inform the individual say agencies and support the work we are doing on behalf of the agencies. the demand study really relies upon what is considered best practices for future demand. we have had a lot of conversations with the commission about demands. they are always wrong. it is never possible to get them right, but the question is can we try to get them as close as

possible to reflect the things we understand? our approach uses a comprehensive bottom up approach looking at the end use in each customer classification for water, considers the building age, type of fixtures in a home, in buildings based upon age. assumptions about change out and upgrades over time. it accounts for differences between customer classes and importantly right now one of the things is land use types and shift in development patterns. what we see in our region is not expanding service areas. what we are seeing densification within existing service areas. the models actively and effect fill reflect that and inform our thinking about that. it also uses a metric approach

for analysis for aspect goes like post drought water use and climate change from the perspective of the impacts on water use, not on supply basis. that is under your control and your climate change analysis but on the impact of what do we see with warmer weather, for example? we have multiple scenarios and changes of possible demand relies on adopted land use plans and new water use technology and conservation programs to each member agency targeting the areas within the jurisdiction most attractive with the greatest conservation savings. we engaged the work group to solicit feedback and educate on overall process and pleased to say the specific institute was part of this work group for us.

they were very helpful. they have always been helpful on the demand projections. they do support end use approach and they were very helpful in the stakeholder work group. some results. we always start with population first. this graph shows both past and projected. 1985 to 2045 population in millions. what we see projected is that the regional population is projected to increase 31% in to 2045. 2.5 million people. these population projections when you compare against the prior version of 2040, the end of our planning period in the last water management plan, 8% higher. 8% increase in population growth nor projections in that 2040

period. next slide. this slide shows total demand in the service areas. not pc performs going back to 1985 forward to 2045. demand 1 million gallons per day. gray areas are drought years to help understand the dips. what we are looking at here is the projections moving forward. that top line is essentially an estimate what demand would be before any conservation is put into place. this is helpful for us to understand this. is the benefit of the model to understand what are the benefits of investments in policies to include the fixtures and things like that and outside landscaping and irrigation practices. what we see in 2045 demand

reduced 13% due to planned investments in water conservation. again to compare to what we saw in our last round of river management plans, our projected demand in 2045 is 4% less than 2040. we are seeing farther out our projected demand in 2045 is 258mpd compared to the end of the planning period last time. 4% less in demand. the question is how are we doing this? to roll this up m.1986 to 2045 is showing both demand and

population. demand is in the blue. historic numbers in population in the green. between 1986 to 2045 we see projected population increase 76% in the regional wholesale service area which has not grown since 1986. it is the same service area while demand in the service area has decreased by 1%. clearly an increasing efficiency in the service area. the way to figure that out or internalize what that means. it is a look at what is going on in the residential basis. how are we seeing the changes, accommodating these increased populations with actually less water? this graph shows the daily per

capita demand on a residential basis which is the most effective way to do the comparison because at the service areas, different agencies are different. growth is not effective. residential per capita use in 2045 is now projected to be equal to the lowest recorded use in the region of 56 gallons per capita per day which was the low we achieved during the last drought. another way investments in conservation moving forward are going to enable us to achieve a level of efficiency we achieved during the last drought on a permanent basis as opposed to during a drought we know people took temporary measures. this is about permanent and part of ongoing water supply portfolio getting to a level that is really unseen pretty

much anywhere else in the state with a few exceptions, i would say. the question is how are the agencies going to meet that demand? this is the projected use of supplies over the five year increasements between now and 2045. the blue bar on the bottom is the san francisco regional water system purchases. that remains the single largest supply for all wholesale customers. it is a bedrock source for them. we are also seeing an increase use. that is increase investment in other sources including ground water, recycled water, use of other surface waters and those types of projects. those together are enabling the

wholesale customers to stay below 184 supply through 2045. this gives a snapshot of current use of alternate supplies. all supplies the agencies are using compared to fiscal year 2040-2045. we are seeing if you look at comparison in 1819 regional water system purchases made 67% of the supplies used by wholesale customers. in 2045 that goes down to 63%. the volume increases from 131 to 163 but the percent decreases. what we see the increased investments in recycled water that goes from 8mgb and 4% to 17mgb and 6% share.

ground water 8% share. ground water at 11% share. also other sources which is imported supplies through the state and federal projects. these are investments the agencies are making in alternative supplies in order to balance out their portfolio where they have this opportunity. as i mentioned we completed the study in 2020. following 18 months of work. that schedule was driven by the need to support the member agencies. since that time, we know there has been significant changes that are going to impact demand projections. covid-19. the state efficiency guidelines we anticipated to show up during our study period before are now anticipated to come out in fall

of 2021. those are going to have a significant impact. also, eagerly awaiting the results of your climate change study in spring of 2021 to inform this as well. then the results of the 2020 urban water management plan. given the timing and the way this worked out this time, many agencies have refined their demand numbers as they worked through their urban water management plan processes because when information was available. we know we need to go back and do a refresh of the 2020 demand study next fiscal year to pull in all of these change conditions to evaluate them and quantify the impacts. for us it is important to have a real solid basis of demand projections that can support the study efforts as well as alternative water supply planning program.

to summit up. what we are seeing the agencies in conservation, new water supply to meet the planned growth. the region is growing in a way that is infilled densification. some communities are affected more than others. all communities are feeling that you are seeing it with 31% increase in population. 13% reduction in water demand and result is that we are looking at between 86 to 2045 a 76% increase in population with 1% demand decrease. residential customers to use 56 gals per person per day in 2045. lowest numbers we have seen as

regional after age. the agencies rely on the regional water system purchases as bedrock supply for reliability. their investments in and reliance on local supplies enable the supply. we will update these numbers and be engaged with your staff and provide them to you when they are complete. that concludes my remarks. >> comments, colleagues. >> i have a question. thank you for your presentation, nicole. i have a question about the

56-gallon per person per day number you had, and the projections for the future. obviously, you know, we have worked together before in my other capacity and looked at demand and how it is evolving. i wonder like how realistic it is for demand to grow from where it is now. if you look at the last 40 years, one of the graphs, in the past since the '70s you guys basically bawsca reached 184 purchase line. the rest of the time has been below that. as you look at where you want to go from here, how realistic do you think it is to assume that there will be more than that 184

demand on the regional water supply system considering how demand is shrinking? another comment here before you give me your talks on this. the dens fiction is very important -- densification is very important. we have looked at this and i am wearing my other hat. what you see is increasing demand because you are reducing amount of after water use and video manned increasing so it doesn't fill the gap. i assume densification is going to reduce the water use in the region as we see more of that happening as well. >> your questions are very important, and i think they are

two different parts. first the overall demand is increasing slightly but at a significantly reduced rate compared to projections. what we are seeing the effect of growth. no matter how much densification we are going to have at some point that densification creates increase overall demand per capital use. a lot of that is going down, but you can't accommodate this 31% population increase and not have an overall demand increase. it is that massive. that is why those per capita members are so important. we see a continual decrease and pressure downward per capita. among the individual agencies and non residential growth per capital number, not as a group because that is difficult to

say. if you break them out individually we have the same trends. the growth is significantly coming down. you can't seem to overwhelm the fact there is so much growth. it is not just residential growth. it is business growth as well. those pressures are continuing in the service area. these numbers are before what is now the new numbers out on the table and the allocations beyond these numbers. unfortunately that is a reality these agencies are trying to figure out. how to accommodate significant increases within the service areas. that is why i keep going back to the per capita thing. how can we do this? that is on a total demand level. the purchases were actually

projecting well below 184. 2045 the projected purchases are 163mgd which is below 184. total demand is above 184. there is the question how reliable and how do we deal with those supplies? we have to be part of the things we are thinking about. there is also threats to imported supplies. those agencies have the ability to take up to the full supply. for now the projection is below the 184. >> thank you. >> any further questions or comments, colleagues? >> thank you very much. why don't we open up for public

comment? >> members of the public who wish to comment on item 6. dial 415-655-0001. clinical to the topic of the item discussed and if you do not stay on the topic the chair can ask you to limit to the agenda item topic. public comment to be made in civil and respectful manner without profanity. do not address individual commissioners or staff. do we have any callers? >> there are two caller in the queue. first caller two minutes to

comment on item 6. >> david pill plow. couple comments. i appreciate nicole's presentation. i am not sure how one makes good future projections right now given the amount of uncertainty in the world, but i guess one always has to make projections and we will see how they play out. i absolutely agree that more conservation and efficiency rather than focusing on additional supply and its impacts is better and cheaper for all of us, the environment, fish, everyone. finally, hopefully, this important work that bawsca has done will impact the next round of public outreach in the water

resources plan and urban water management plans. thanks very much. >> next caller. two minutes to comment on item 6. >> hello, i would like to appreciate the attention that they put into the 2020 demand projections. big improvement over past projections and a model for a lot of agencies. thanks for that. the population increase does not seem very realistic to me. i live in palo alto where there is resistance to change and development and that can be problem attic. it is a reality communities are not going to grow as fast as some outside agenciesou