>> president maxwell: madam secretary, call the roll please. [roll call] you have five ayes. due to the covid-19 health

mening and given public health recommendation issued by the san francisco department of public health and governor newsom and layer breed lifted restrictions on teleconference. this meeting is tved televised by sfgov tv. i like to extend our thanks to sfgov tv for their assistance during the meeting. if you wish to make public comment, dial 415-655-0001, i.d. 146 705 6105. please note you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed. remind you if you do not speak on the top i can the chair can interrupt and ask that you keep

your comment on the topic. we ask that you reframe use of profanity. please address your commission as a whole. i like to announce that closed session item 17 will not be heard today and there will be no closed session for today's meeting. your first order of business is the approval of the minutes of may 11th. commissioner harrington did send me couple of minor edits to the minutes for the agenda item number 9, page 11. paragraph number 3 with paragraph starting commissioner harrington stated as part of the recruitment process, he asked that -- as if there was a suggestion, there was an expectation doing whole review of our strategic plan with

stakeholders to identify what the ideal candidate might look like to evaluate. also for paragraph number 8, same item. paragraph starting commissioner harrington indicated that hawkins group had a tentative list of stakeholders. he indicated that the hawkins group had a tentative list of stakeholders. he suggested that president maxwell can use that as a start. those were the amendments proposed by commissioner >> president maxwell: colleagues , any discussion on this item? seeing it none, public comment please. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item number 3, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 705 6105,

pound, pound. please note that you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed. do we have any callers. >> there are four callers in the queue. you have two minutes. >> caller: david pilpel.

several non-substantive corrections on the minutes. page 2 item 4, anonymous should be spelled differently. on page 4, item 6b, second paragraph, director bush on page 8, item 8f, prefer that it reads stated that he has no issue -- no ceqa issues with this project. on page 12 at the top, it should be concerned. at the end of the sentence, it -- end of the paragraph it should say the process so far on page 13 and 12, stated that he has no ceqa issues with this project. page 14 and 12, stated -- later,

administrative code 12b waiver on page 15 pilpel's. i don't think i should have to contact anyone prior to commission meeting. i did attempt to contact commission secretary earlier. she was busy. i can submit 150-word summaries under administrative code section 57.16. i don't want to do that. i think if i raised non-substantive corrections, you can just take them and ask that they be communicated and incorporated. i don't think there should be an issue. i hope these corrections. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, your line is open. you have two minutes. >> caller: i think the time has

come for us to really have a presentation on the san francisco public utilities commission. for us the taxpayers -- >> president maxwell: sorry, to interrupt you, this is public comment on the minutes. not general public comment. >> caller: okay, didn't hear that clearly. >> clerk: okay, call back next item. thank you. >> next caller, your line is open. you'll have two minutes.

you have two minutes to comment on item number 3. >> caller: i think you already got me. >> next caller. you have two minutes to comment on item number 3, the minutes. >> caller: sorry. i'll wait for later. >> thank you. there are no more callers in the queue. for those who are in the queue, i will clear everyone's indicated hand raise. you'll have to raise it again for the next section. >> president maxwell: do we have any more callers for item 3?

>> clerk: public comment is closed. >> president maxwell: may i get a motion and second to approve the minutes of may 11th? >> so moved. >> president maxwell: so moved and seconded. >> clerk: is this to include the amendment made by commissioner harrington? >> president maxwell: yes. this is for the amendments. >> clerk: thank you. >> president maxwell: roll call please. [indiscernible]

>> clerk: sorry, i missed that. on the motion to amend. [roll call vote] at this point you have four ayes. would like to wait for commissioner paulson? >> president maxwell: no. next item please. >> clerk: next item is item 4, general public comment.

members of the public who wish to make two minutes of general public comment on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction and not on the agenda may do so by dialing 415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 705 6105, pound, pound. to raise your hand to speak, press star 3. we ask that you refrain from use of profanity. please address your remarks to the commission and not individual commissioners or staff. do we have any callers? >> there are six calls in the queue. >> clerk: this is for general public comment. >> first caller, you have two minutes.

>> caller: as i was saying, i think we should have a hearing on the san francisco public utility commissioners. the public doesn't have clarity. you all really policy making commission. we thought we heard it all with the f.b.i. and the investigation. i think there should be a hearing. we want to know -- we have the commissioners and what are they doing there? who are they representing?

do we have any standards? do they have any ethics? do they have any morals? do they really follow the brown act? do they know anything about robert cruz? thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. next caller. your line is open. you have two minutes. >> caller: good afternoon. i hope you're doing well. i wanted to comment but there's some challenges with the previous attempt. i want to ask you real quick, once, you have been listening. thank you for that. i do see the corresponding law having all the attachments to it. we don't have to go and request those attachments separately. i would like to ask you if that is the case, i do thank you so

much for listening to the public. -others to go back and attach the rest of the attachments from the previous corresponding law. that's very important. the second thing regarding the minutes, which i wasn't able to comment on, you're asking us to be respectful and civil. i don't think that is any issue with a simple request like that. but at the same time, i beg you to have staff at the integrity when they inquire the public and they complete the lie and omit facts and use fiction. that is not only insulting to us, this particular staff had been consistently not only lying to you but lying to the public about real facts. when i said she received

multiple protests on specific contracts. she has. there's a record that shows this. you have an issue, commissioners. let's not deny it. what i'm asking for, let's stop denying and let's find the common ground to fix this issue. otherwise it will not go away. the l.b.e. program is a sham. the san francisco public utilities commission is paying to allow this trend to continue. there's no reason to have a good faith effort being done. >> thank you for your comments. your time has expired. next caller. your line is open. you have two minutes. >> caller: hello. thank you.

i'm calling from california salmon. we do have lot of membership within the san francisco bay area including lot of different native american people within the bay area. we are calling to say that we are really dismayed with the lawsuit filed on may 13th against the release of more water in the tuolumne river. not only are the salmon within the bay-delta facing immediate extinction, which is a big issue for native people and all people in california. also, this goes against the wishes of the people of san francisco who do support water conservation and clean water in san francisco bay. the bay-delta provides lot of

the east bay and parts of southern california with drinking water so the decision to put more water from the tuolumne river into the bay-delta not only helps salmon and helps the water quality in the san francisco bay but it also assures that more californians have access to clean drinking water. we feel like it's obvious by the san francisco city council's resolution supporting salmon and by the people of san francisco that san francisco what they said about this issue. the p.u.c. is consistently going against the wishes of the people and we urge you to support any resolution to drop this lawsuit. we also because of this lawsuit, we are opposed now to selection of dennis herrera to serve the mexican manager because of this lawsuit. there's a lot of mistruths in the lawsuit.

this lawsuits hold -- [indiscernible] >> thank you for your comments. your time is expired. next caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: the coalition has taken official position supporting board of supervisors' resolution 210577. in the resolution, whereas in 2018, the san francisco board of supervisors unanimously passed a resolution urging the state water resources control board to proposed updates from 2006 water quality control plan. page 2 line 22-24, whereas despite the unanimous adopted position of the san francisco

board of supervisors, last week, the sfpuc -- [indiscernible] whereas, despite the magnitude and complexity of the issues involved, the sfpuc proceeded with litigation without holding public hearing or underlining issues and without notice to legislative policymakers who are waiting on that issue. page 3 line 15, resolved. that the board of supervisors through the city and county of san francisco reiterates its support for the 2018 update to the bay-delta and plan and calls on the sfpuc to pause litigation against the state of california and the state water resources board to allow the deliver public engagement on the issues and negotiation among the interested parties.

thank you. >> next caller. >> caller: can you hear me? >> loud and clear. >> caller: thank you. appreciate it president sophie maxwell. good to be back bringing positive energy. i feel as we move this year, it's important for us to continue to push forward the development and procurement of renewable energy. i still scratch my head why we only covered one-half of the sunset reservoir with solar panels. that space can be used to generate more energy for our city. i do believe in the importance of building electrification. i worked in restaurant years

ago. [indiscernible] i support strong advocacy for building electrification in homes. i ask you to be sharp in your procurement of energy to build a clean and greener san francisco hopefully some day will be on the wires. thank you. >> thank you for your comments.

you have two minutes. next caller. >> please continue your search and allow the public to provide input regarding the top three candidates now. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, your line is open. tough two minutes. >> caller: this is david pilpel again. item 4 public comment. just two items here, i did file

a ceqa appellant. -- appeal. i hope to discuss that ceqa appeal with the appropriate p.u.c. it's my hope and desire to resolve issues and withdraw the appeal. i don't think if needs to go to a hearing. i think we can sort out my concerns and come to agreement and resolve the matter. i'm hoping that happens in the next couple of weeks. the other item particularly to president maxwell, the creek adaptation strange was discussed this morning at the m.t.a. policy and -- and governance committee. i saw photos of president

maxwell at prior public meetings about that. it dealt with protecting critical infrastructure assets around the creek from forecasted sea level rise this morning was focused on m.t.a. facilities. that certainly has great importance for the p.u.c. facilities. i would suggest it could be discussed here before this commission got a lot of impact on facilities out there. >> thank you for your comments. there are no more callers in the queue. >> president maxwell: public comment on item 4 general public comment is closed.

>> clerk: next item is 5, communications. >> president maxwell: is there any discussion on any of these items? i do have one. that's on the item e, the water main break maps. mr. richie available? >> yes, i am. >> president maxwell: thank you. thank you so much for that, by the way. i thought the maps were very helpful. one thing -- it seems that the outer areas maybe district 1 and 4 near the eocean, there seems to be less problems with the main breaks. i noticed that on the map that it seems like the middle of the city, seems to be where a lot of breaks are. is that because of the age of

the infrastructure there or can you make some idea what that might be? >> there are number of factors contributing to main breaks. in the middle of the city where you have lot more hilly areas, steep areas as well as as a result, you have bunch of areas where there are pressure differentials that occur. we've observed and danish research areas of high pressure tend to have more main breaks. so pressure, seem to be pretty consistent out in the richmond and sunset. there is one particular note i saw it on the maps, the 2019. there are four stars very close together on potrero hills.

we had a break that was result of faulty sewer construction underneath the main. the ground collapsed under it and the main broke. that was a major event that occurred at that time. it's a little story with every one. we always trying to find ways to what clues we should follow mostly on these. >> president maxwell: you saying that we should see them in places like nob hill and what's the difference in those areas than potrero hill?

>> they are not different. it's not just the hills but it's where we get pressure differentials. potrero is an area where the pressure changes substantially from time to time because of the way that the plumbing was constructed there. >> president maxwell: you're saying precious the water pressure? >> yes. water pressure. >> president maxwell: thank you. >> commissioner ajami: i want to thank the staff for putting this together. very much looking forward to this. steve, i have a question for you. i was trying to visually try to see how this would look like on top of each other. is there like a trend in a

specific line that we can see. that will help us to predict where the max break. maybe you're already doing this. >> yes, we are doing that. we are analyzing where breaks occur and why they occur, what we can learn from it. actually, we try to use that information to help prioritize or may replacements so we can focus on areas where we might expect there to be more break to occur. during constant balancing of accepting certain number of brains with the amount of mileage of new pipe you can put in the ground. these last couple of years, we did have a lot of emphasis on van ness for example, because all the transit system and

basically everybody was coming together on that. that took a big lift. thankfully we're out of that. those necessarily our highest priority but because of the construction project, it did become our highest priority. we had to back off on some other may replacements. we are constantly looking at different ways to protect main breaks. i noted that we are doing one pilot program where we have about 200 sensors in one area trying to give us an hint to where links may be occurring that come up turn to breaks. we already have four or five main breaks caught before they really broke. that was a real good outcome. we'll be doing more that overtime. >> president maxwell: do you think traffic, like heaviness of streetcars and cable car, would

that have anything to do with it? oit's not affected? >> sometimes those things do occur. i know that as i drive in to the city from time to time crossing market from 9th street, there's one particular valve, it's little falling apart. there are muni rail car tracks all around there. it's a real challenge. there's lots of different factors. we're always finding something new that occurred that we didn't expect before. the one at 15th was a real surprise. turned out to be faulty construction that had happened in the area. there are number of different things we're always looking at.

traffic can be an issue. we note on there, construction hits where contractors are working. they are hitting the main breaks. some contracts are set up, contractors are rewarded for the rate they go at. there's almost and incentive just go. if you break it five times you will get compensated for it. >> commissioner ajami: i appreciate the fact that the work with everybody else on the van ness projects. i was wondering how often that happens? there's this major work being done and everybody tries to do as much work as they can as the ground is open.

you're seeing the public. how often do we do that? >> we have several of those going on right now. tara vail and polk street and those are multistreet projects. market street was going to be a big one. because of the economy, that has shrunk down now a bit. i'm not totally clear what the plan is on that yet. where those are opportunities present themselves, can be good. it does add to costs to coordinate with everybody else and takes a bit of work. when you get to the end, hopefully you end up with a better product. >> commissioner ajami: do we have a sense of -- i know the answer -- i assume the answer is that it's much more expensive to

fix some broken pipes than do it preventively. i'm wondering if you have done any analysis to demonstrate that justify some of the investment that we are making ahead of time and to make sure it's fully valued and understood. >> we're trying to get ahead of the infrastructure. we know that older lines frequently will break more often. we're coming upon a set of pipes that's been in the ground for a long time. we increased the mileage we were trying to do per year to catch up with that curve of aging infrastructure that would be occurring. in terms of the balance between breaks and mains, that's kind of a constant analysis. there will be some breaks but if

you were actually to put in place enough main replacement to prevent them all, san francisco would have lots of torn up streets lot of the time. there will be -- we expect a pretty cranky populous if we did that. >> commissioner ajami: i have another basic question. how much does it cost to replace a mile of broken main versus going in and reinflation -- replacing it before it breaks? >> hopefully it don't break along whole mile. >> commissioner ajami: you used the mile -- >> we use mileage for many replacements. we've been seeing the price go up to i think the estimate now about $4 million a mile. in some of these dense areas, it

can be coming up on $5 million or $6 million a mile. main breaks are ones that we -- we do those with contractors. they do the main replacement and we do the connections. for main breaks we do with our own craws. they are the folks responding 24-7 to wherever there are breaks. just for the record, if there's break leaking water and the break takes place like 5:30 in the morning, we will let it run and not come and fix it usually after 9:00. so people finish their showers and things like that. nobody likes to have the water shut off in the shower. same thing in the evening times. we tray to -- we try to work around people's schedule. we have lot of things to balance there. actually, i don't know if we generated a typical main break cost -- in terms of main break.

>> president maxwell: any more comments. seeing none? public comment on items please? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes on item 5 communications, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146, 705 6105. you must limit your comments to the topic of agenda item being discussed. we ask public comment be remain civil and respective manner.

please address your remarks to the commission as a whole and not the individual commission or staff. this is for pub comment -- public comment item 5. >> first caller, you have two minutes.

>> caller: i understand there's controversy how much control city college would have for their use of that building. on item 5c, thank you for including the actual communications. i'm sure that required lot of effort on the part of donna and others. please be sure to include attachments as well. there are several e-mails that referenced pdf attachment. the e-mail itself was included but not the pdf attachment.

thank you very much. that's all for item 5. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, your line is open. you have two minutes. >> caller: thank you. i will talk about 5d, cleanpowersf. this is good work i'm seeing. we have 42% of greenhouse gas hydro electric. we're little over 96% by clean power. which is good work. i ask that you get down to 3.5

specified overtime. certainly, i like -- i appreciate the breakdown as well on the super green. we are showing that we are producing clean power for our city. i ask we get the word out so we can get more green power. making ourselves and continue to work these numbers favorable. i think we're about in the middle. other agencies are running about 60% plus renewables on their lowest price product. this is a good start. i appreciate it. let's bring those numbers up for the next year. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next caller.

>> caller: good afternoon. i thank you so much because the communication is better than what it was before. i noticed that lot of these attachments are not in. i kindly ask you to direct staff to -- include all the attachments. i did send you request to remove items 9a and b to consent. i did want to comment on it. regarding the correspondent -- again, he is managing her own son's the san francisco p.u.c. please tell me this is a private company or public agency? i see nothing but making sure

relatives, get work at p.u.c. third item i want to discuss is the event calendar. if you open and take a look at it, it does include the l.b.e. i have numerous occasions out to you that there's so many discrepancies. one day they have a contract for 20% and one day they have zero. they cannot come up and open up the hetch. every contract going on moving forward, please do not put it on the consent calendar.

every opportunity that i speak, there's shenanigans. thank you. >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: communicates is closed. >> president maxwell: next item please. >> clerk: item 6, bay area water supply and conservation agency update. ceo sandkulla. there neighboring for this >> thank you for this opportunity. earlier i did send a letter to you regarding board of supervisors desire for more public engagement around the state board plan and its call

for p.u.c. to pause litigation strategy. board of supervisors request of the p.u.c. are outlined in the proposed resolution for consideration in its regular meeting. we urge the commission to reject supervisor request. it is unnecessary. it disregards san francisco own analysis of the impact of the bay-delta plan. it conflicts san francisco's obligation to customers and it contradicts san francisco stated intention and legal obligation to preserve all of its water rights. it causes unwelcomed delays in the quest to have state board analyze as an alternative to adopt the bay-delta plan. as commissions well aware, there have been many opportunities for public discussion about the plan over the last several years.

these opportunities include the three workshops that this commission has hosted. each workshop three hours for total of nine hours. i appreciate your efforts to put these. they have served as a valuable resource for others that i continue to point them to. the state board plan itself, which has been out since 2016, has been discussed numerous times in public presentation at the state regional and local level. these meetings and workshops have provided ample learning and this will continue to happen with or without the board of supervisors adoption of the

proposed resolution. san francisco has an obligation to wholesale customers and three counties that bosca represents. p.u.c. own operational policies and california law. the board of supervisors draft resolution supporting the plan conflicts with san francisco's own analysis indicating greater 50% reduction in water supply. to the regional water system in multiyear droughts. these impacts are the exact same impacts that we have been talking about since at least 2015. any change in san francisco's litigation strategy related to the plan must consider the

planned impact of water supply of san francisco obligation to wholesale customers. b bosca is seeking to analyze the tuolumne river agreement as an alternative to the plan. an alternative must move forward. awareness of broad support for analysis of the tuolumne river voluntary agreement as an alternative to the plan by the state board from labor unions and their members, california legislators, businesses including the silicon valley leadership group and the bay area council. might be important and useful for the board of supervisors' to know as it considers its future opinion and actions on this topic. if the board of supervisors has not been informed about the public benefits of the voluntary agreement, as abalternative to the plan should be made aware of

it. bosca respects that these obligations to wholesale customer and as a result of those obligation, the p.u.c. cannot agreed to the board of supervisors' request outlined in this resolution. thank you. this concludes my remarks. >> president maxwell: commission ers any questions or comments? thank you very much for your comments. i know that you have well thought out. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> president maxwell: madam secretary? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make public comment,

dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 705 6105, pound pound. please address your remarks to the commission as a whole. not to individual commission or staff. it is item 6, the bosca update. >> there are two callers in the queue.

first caller, your line is open. you have two minutes to comment on item 6. >> caller: first and foremost, i think you have to read -- [indiscernible] in context of the act, we can see how far has gone in working out. i think it is not proper for the sfpuc -- the board of supervisors very lenient with

san francisco public utilities commission. lenient to criminal charges. they've been jumping ship because the san francisco public utilities commission is one of the most despicable agencies in the country. we have no standards. to ask the attorney to do what he wants to do, he's free to do that. you will see hundreds of people and many entities, sierra club and others will be giving their

opinion. bawsca can say whatever it wants to. but the entities that know better on issues, that's standards and ethics, morals, they will succeed. that's all i got to say. >> thank you for your comments. >> caller: good afternoon maxwell. i'm from the tuolumne river trust. i wanted to express my total disappointment and vote of no confidence in bawsca. last december, i gave a presentation to her board on the tuolumne river voluntary agreement. it was totally misleading.

we responded with a 15-page response. bullet by bullet. what did we hear back from sandkulla, she couldn't answer. she goes around pretending she's an expert on the tuolumne river agreement. if organization has to choose between renting out to the tuolumne river voluntary agreement, what are they going to choose? that's one issue. second is water supply. another issue covered in the workshop. last january, we sent a letter asking the contractual obligations be used in water supply and water management plans. the staff did that. then treated them to projections. that reduced by 27% just like that. snap of the fingers.

that third day, sandkulla try to rewrite issue claiming that bawsca supported that change. there was no evidence of that. this is very disingenuous. we hope to have workshop to have a discussion and take some action. i want to express my vote no confidence in bawsca. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next caller. you have two minutes to speak to item 6. >> hi. i wanted to say how disturbed i am by that update and how

disingenuous it is. san francisco p.u.c.'s actions with all these lawsuits against the state board, not only is undermining the ability for salmon to exist in the bay and in the bay-delta and for restoration on the tuolumne river. but it's undermining california's ability to actually enforce the clean water act and siding with the trump administration most anti-environmental laws. i think that the supervisors are actually representing people of san francisco and that the p.u.c. does not with its super conservative agenda. i think that people of san francisco would like to see salmon in the bay. it's not called agricultural work, it's called fishermen wharf out of work because of lack of salmon. p.u.c. is making so that salmon never have a chance to be restored. i like to say that i think it's

really selfish of san francisco p.u.c. to go against water quality measures that would help the drinking water supply of many of the people of california to say we got our water up so high, we want to make sure none of that water gets released into everyone else's water supply. it's so classless. last thing is i think it really is a disservice to the native communities of san francisco and to the east bay community that get their water supplies from other areas. i think the mischaracterization and tuolumne river trust has to continue to know in the signs the p.u.c. using is misleading and that voluntary agreements are not productive. >> thank you for your comments.

next caller, you have two minutes. >> can you hear me now? >> loud and clear. >> caller: okay, david pilpel again. on item 6, i was not planning to speak on this item and i'm not going to weigh in here on the substance. i wanted to note the exclusive charge language under charter section 8b.121a. and the authority, the exclusive authority or exclusive charge granted to the p.u.c. by the voters under proposition e of

2002. there is city attorney opinion number 2003-03 dated august 29, 2003 on the city attorney's website that discusses that in detail. thank you very much. 22 >> next caller. >> caller: hi, i'm co-chair of the water committee of the sierra club. i want to say that the public doesn't really know about the bay-delta plan update. they don't know about the prba. they could have presented it better. it could be presented to the

public if the staff truly believes that's a good proposition. the public doesn't know what's going on here. that's everyone's fault, including the public. you need to keep working on it and you can't say that three very nicely done workshop at sfpuc meetings was full public outreach on this reach. i hope we all can work more to be informed about what's going on here. i don't think it's right to say that the public knows very well nor decision makers. thank you. >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. item 6 is closed.

>> president maxwell: thank you. next item please. >> clerk: next order of business is item 7. report of the general report of the general manager. >> we have a number of items today. we'll start off 7a, infrastructure division racial equity action plan. >> good afternoon president maxwell and commissioners. kathy howell assistant general manager for infrastructure. on our agenda, we'll have our racial equity leads presenting. we'll try to be brief to leave time for questions. aside what's already on the

slide, infrastructure also helps to prioritize programs and projects in the tenure capital plan. along with the approximately 300 in-house staff, we hire about the same number of faculty talents to work with us in completing approximately $450 million worth of construction for the water, wastewater and power enterprises. i would now like to turn it over to the infrastructure racial equity lead. >> hello. i'm the racial equity lead for infrastructure. currently, we are doing the following in regards to engagement efforts for hiring recruitment. the student engineering training program, which has been in pipeline for future engineers for over 15 years, we have continued to improve and refine

the process as the years has come and gone. we attend the annual recruitment conferences such as the national society of black engineers and society of hispanic engineers to help us attract diverse candidates. we send engineers to the conferences to encourage the students to intern with us. because they can describe their current experiences working with the san francisco public utilities commission and they can tell them what they do on a daily basis and how they will be assigned to an engineer in working on specific projects that they have along with handson experience. this summer, we are happy to announce that we are hiring 16 students to be part of this program. will be working on site at one of our facilities or remote. we have used this program as a pilot in order for us to promote mentorship which helps us engage the students about their future

career pathways from student engineer trainee to the potentially the junior engineer program. this image on the screen is an illustration of our current recruitment efforts. you can see a former student engineer training participant who has completed the program and is now a full civil engineer in one of our bureaus. he is paying it forward for the next generation of future engineers. >> good afternoon commission president maxwell. i'm the construction bureau manager. when covid hit, three challenge were identified. keeping all workers safe from infection, continuing work to improve p.u.c. infrastructure and jobs. infrastructure developed the draft covid protocols that were the basis for resuming work on city projects.

we identified essential projects, reviewed covid health and safety plans submitted by contractors, obtained p.p.e. and developed covid inspection checklist. results were crafts continue to work. why is this important for racial equity? on construction sites the city's existing programs have resulted increasing number of workers who represent, black, brown and indigenous people of color communities. >> last year, we were tasked with completing the racial equity equity plan for our division. there were seven sections. we have decided to focus on a three priority which are hiring and recruitment, retention and promotion and mobility and professional development. you will hear more about the sections in a little bit. with regards to those three

areas, we recognize there's a long history of barriers to these opportunities in san francisco. we have to find out -- we have found out that we can't change things overnight. it's time for a change. our first racial equity goal focus area is hiring new recruitment. this, we are currently working on this area. we wanted to begin our future discussion on hiring new recruitment. first assess and review what is currently going on. you want to identify and plan for changes such as barriers and challenges that we're facing with partnering with our division in the sfpuc and our h.r.s. to support our current and future -- employees. we expand on specific target areas of positions that we most

utilize. we want to step out the box and not do the same things before. we want to establish relationships and networking with local entities. >> after hiring and recruitment, we must consider the next barriers. we should look to provide mentorship and opportunities for our staff and opportunities to expand the horizons through on the job education and trainings. managers need to engage in one on one conversations with individuals on their teams to identify and support career goals. we've learned through employee engagement surveys that the promotional paths should be transparent. i will hand it off to steve.

>> good afternoon. our third internal racial equity goal is around mobility and professional development. through our discussions in engagement with staff, we realized it's really easy to fall in a trap that it's all about training. professional development which can lead to real mobility comes from so much more. to open explain this, we looked at a 70, 20, 10 model that's adopted by many organizations. it shows that about 70% what we learn to do our jobs well is gained through experience and practice, 20% through exposure to other people and 10% of learning in the workplace through education and training. for us with infrastructure, we are setting ourselves the goals. for experience, by 70%, we use sfpuc competency-base pross to help staff gain experience.

for exposure, mentorship program, we want to formalize the process to engage with professional organizations and conferences. for education that 10%, we do want to formalize that process to make sure it's equitable so a staff can request training. we want to get people certified. those are our three focus areas. what are our next steps. we had another all hands townhall meeting more infrastructure last week which provided an opportunity to share plan and continue to open up opportunities for volunteers. we have formed subcommittees. we'll be tackling our action plan together. we've started this effort by taking a hard look at ourselves internally first. infrastructure also serves in an external capacity as well which will be tackling in due course. today marks the one-year anniversary since the murder of george floyd. the conversations are different now. we've come a long way.

only now we're starting to see clearly that there's so much more to do. but there is hope. a quote i found myself using is that not being racist isn't good enough. we need to be anti-racist. we do need to take action. with that, thank you for the time and i'm open to any questions. >> president maxwell: any comments or questions? missioner ajami? >> commissioner ajami: i'm increased to eso all the work that has gone into it. >> commissioner paulson: i'm having dealty -- difficulty hearing everything. the slides illustrated everything with the narratives. i want to remind everybody that

with the different project labor agreements that the agency has put together to do so much work that's done, especially in the contracted out sector, there's still an opportunity to talk about the apprenticeship programs which included everything in there. on the job training, recruitment and diversity, school set and mentoring and support and whatever else. can also be utilized with folks that do the maintenance and smaller jobs on staff at the p.u.c., which is what this ongoing report is all about. not just the stuff that's being done to build. the pictures you had, lot of the pictures you had did not reflect what some of the folks get up

and jump in the trucks do everyday on 18-story high-rise that they are building with another carpenter, plumbers or electricians. there's the opportunity to partnership with the apprenticeship programs that already exist here in san francisco that fit in that narrative. i would be remised if i didn't talk about how this great program, i'm just really wonderfully listening to as a commissioner, can be even more reflective of what we and many of us have done in the apprenticeship programs. i do hope that there's still a

connection all those apprenticeship programs from inside the p.u.c. and the staff. not just the outside but also the inside. >> president maxwell: i think the apprenticeship programs is one of the most important part of this program. this is we want people to be. >> this is where i initiated city build. apprenticeship programs, i was an electrician. i was a part of the apprenticeship program. we're trying to make sure these people are prepared and ready for those important apprenticeship programs. we have a great relationship normally with the union. that's the only way union jobs -- you hear the president. i'm part of that and so are these programs. we will be nowhere with them. without the yawn and without the apprenticeship program.

>> vice president moran: thank you. i will be glad to cede my time to tim just to follow-up what he was talking about. >> commissioner paulson: we're commissioners, we don't have to cede time. go ahead. >> vice president moran: one of the earlier slides talked about the possible areas that you can focus on. you chose three to focus on. i'm curious about what the process was that led you to focus on those three areas? >> i can speak briefly. we engaged the leadership of

infrastructure division to look at full list and ultimately concluded that those three were really the area that had the highest impact for us. majority of our staff are internal. we thought they would have the biggest bang for the bucks to start. anything you like to add? >> you said it greatly. >> yes. >> president maxwell: commission er moran, does that answer for you? >> vice president moran: part of the question. some of the reports there was pretty extensive outreach to employees. really to take a measure of the atmosphere within the organization to see what the employees identified as areas where they were impacted. they want to see.

really wondering for that process has gone on here or whether it's the leadership team deciding what the areas of impact were. >> there was a little bit of that through the infrastructure townhall. we tried to get input from employees. we wanted more formalized process similar to what the enterprises presented with more anonymous surveys. we also wanted to document what our existing conditions are in terms of how we hire what we go through and then get feedback as to what they are really -- what the rest of the staff are interested in focusing on. we will go back and do those more formalized survey. >> vice president moran: i forget which part of the organization was. there's the observation that the

form that you do and determines whether or not you get any feedback. if it's something like where somebody has to expose themselves and say something that may not be popular, you don't get a whole lot of response. anonymous surveys are in one case, one of the leaders made a point to individually go around and talk to people. those are one on one conversations. >> they can provide anonymous input. we'll probably do more formal survey. >> vice president moran: thank you. >> that somebody the cdc that went around and did that. >> commissioner paulson: i wanted to follow-up a little bit more surgically on what i was talking about and president

maxwell, i appreciate it. lot of the pictures in the slide show, people had their union stickers on the hard hat that meant that they were apprentices or journey people in the programs. i know that -- i don't think there's a problem at all in this agency. there are lot of areas where i know that folks when they talk about reaching out and moving forward, if they don't totally connect with the apprenticeship program, it might not happen. setting up parallel programs to get that stuff is something that can be worrisome. when you have labor and management, employers and workers working together to put

together apprenticeship program, that's the way it works just making sure that we have those connections. i know there are some folks in different agencies that say, yeah, when somebody calls them, when kathy howell, i'm putting you in a normal non-sector name, calls the sheet metal workers, i like to have some young and new sheet metal workers be part of our system. i'm just making up this scenario. there's going to be that intimate connection and may be just getting people directly from it apprenticeship program and make that connection little bit more connected. i'm belaboring the point a

little bit. i want to make sure we don't forget where the real training takes place. >> president maxwell: any further comments? commissioner moran? thank you very much. thank you all. >> vice president moran: thank you for all this great work. the resources and the attention paid to details. this has been very enlightening. >> president maxwell: i think we're ready for public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes

public comment comment, dial 415-655-0001, i.d. 146 705 6105. please note you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed. remind you if you do not speak on the topic the chair can interrupt and ask that you keep your comment on the topic. we ask that you reframe use of profanity. please address your commission as a whole. s >> there are three callers in the queue. first caller. you have two minutes to speak to item 7a.

>> caller: i've been involved with the career job fair for a long time. let me tell you, i was at the meeting at city hall. that one person that wanted to give a woman two quarters of the money that i had fought for to create city build. [indiscernible] i want to see 60, 20 or 30 with

this system regarding to sfpuc. i want to see about career jobs. the unions -- [indiscernible] in the last 40 years, i created more career jobs than sfpuc which has thousands of employees too. i am about career jobs. that is why one of the commissioners, he wants the

career jobs. they gang up on him. >> thank you for your comments. next caller. >> caller: thank you. hello commissioners. we're addressing circus shows. that's the best way to describe kathy howell's presentation. what did she do with a san francisco public employee and african-american. two engineering degrees. now he's standing up and telling us what she said "we will look into how he hire." she hires her son to work underneath her.

this is kathy howell. let me go further. let me show you discrimination at the san francisco public utilities. 66% of the l.b.e.s have no license. they are displacing licensed contractors and engineers by using unlicensed people. 300 full-time consultants. how many of them work for licensed companies? that is a discrimination. the outreach, the open house that was done by the p.u.c. two weeks ago, would you believe i've been in the city for 30 years. i never got the e-mail that there is an event? i'm registered with l.b.e. and i'm registered with the san francisco public utilities commission. this is the real diversity. now we're talking about brown and black. are you kidding me? is that all that exist in front of now? what about normal people?

i don't have any rights. which is really a is taking place. there's only one commissioner couple of weeks who asked the question. she asked it delicately. she got no answer. you know what, she hit the spot. it's bigotry being presented. that's all there is. bigotry. >> thank you for your comments. there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: 7a is closed. >> we'll go to 7b which is quarterly audit and performance review report. >> good afternoon commissioners. this item is your quarterly audit and performance review update. for the 3rd quarter of this

year through march. commissioners, the documents that you have on this item include a cover memo and the detailed audit summary is attached to that memo. you will see that again, as we noted in the second quarter update, we revised the report to expand the details of the audit. there's an audit summary and any audit findings are noted in the memo itself. we also included links to the memos, to the actual audit reports within the memo if you want to look at more detail. 12 audits and assessments have been added. we have 37 audits that were met as this graphic shows are in varying stages of completion.

what you'll see here is that end of the 3rd quarter, 16 of the audits have been completed or just under half of the total. 17 audits have been completed just under half. seven audits is in progress. one was canceled. overall about two thirds of the audit story has been completed or is under way with another one third left to go between now and end of june. the 3rd quarter was a very busy one. we had nine audit reports completed. here is the summary of what was completed during the quarter. the first one as noted here is the sales and use tax audit for the period of october 2014 through june 2017. this audit is performed by the california department of tax

and fee administration. they look at this from a city wide perspective pull of san francisco is reviewed. the goal is to make sure sales tax is paid on purchases of goods and services. there's about $220,000 assessment that was needed to be paid and 9% was allocated to the sfpuc by the city comptroller. next three reports is the audited financial statement for the three enterprises for fiscal year '20. these reports were presented to you on march 9th. the p.u.c. also had a confidential web application security assessment. that was wrapped up in february. the i.t.s. team is addressing the recommendations from that report.

lastly on this page, there was a franchise fee audit report also completed in february. that report found that pg&e underpaid their franchise fee by about 300 -- $3300. the franchise amount that pg&e pays is little over $12 million. pg&e was charged and has paid the amount that they should have. the recommendation that came out of that audit was the -- for the last three numbers, 7 and 8 here, were the fiscal '20 annual financial report as well as the popular annual financial report. these are consolidated financial reports that take financial information and make it easy to read format than the actual

financial statements themselves. these were presented to you at the march 23rd meeting. the last one noted here is the ninth one that was wrapped up during the quarter was the power enterprises reliability standards compliance audit. this was from the western electricity coordinating council. that's wecc, conducted compliance audit. the p.u.c. adhered to all applicable requirements. commissioners, you will see described in the memo and in the audit plan itself, two items have been added to related to public integrity. this work is tied to the general philosophy of impeccable stewardship transparency and accountability with the goal of

strengthening a public trust in the agency. key element of the effort is the development and execution of a multi-year plan of assessments and audits. certain functions, projects, mainly capital construction projects and contracts. as the city's internal auditor, the comptroller division is developing this plan. the second item noted here is the controller's office is expected to begin very soon in the next couple of weeks, sfpuc

public integrity assessment. that report is expected to be modeled after similar integrity assessments that they've done for other departments and issues around the city over the past year. the third area is the area that's under development. it is a multi-year plan of assessments and audits primarily to be focused on a variety of sfpuc contracting and procurement activities. once we have a better sense of the details of this, which projects and which contracts that will be under review, we'll share that with this commission and include that in our audit plan. lastly, a briefing group has also been formed consisting of representatives from the city controller. this commission and sfpuc management. that group will receive periodic

updates and progress reports on the assessments and audit work. in terms of the fourth quarter which we're currently in now, here's a sneak peek at the next quarter's report. three audits already done. 2019 post-audit, which reviews compliance with city's accounting policies and procedures for 2019. the 2015 single audit which looks at compliance for moneys that are received from federal grant funds. then lastly, the energy center franchise fee audit was concluded just last month. that looks at the franchise agreement. other work that's plan to get under way or conclude before end of june includes the other audits noted here.

i already covered the integrity assessment in terms of the social impact partnership as well as the controller's public integrity assessment. that includes the city wide audit and assessment of emergency contracting and no bid contracts. that is to be conducted by the city service auditor. that will be a city wide review of emergency contracting details. the fiscal '21 annual physical inventory counts will be concluded by an external auditor. that's a function of our year-end financial work. also, we have the work getting under way for our fiscal '21 financial statements. interim audit will get going there. the post-audit for 2020 will

begin in june. lastly, commissioner moran, i believe you wanted us to include the reference to audit recommendations. we don't have recommendations from the city service auditor. we're proud of it. any other audit recommendations that aren't tracked by the city service auditor, we're keeping an eye on wrapping those up as well. i'm happy to take any questions. >> president maxwell: any questions or comments? i have a question. with the city audit with the no bid soul source contract, what that include? we had a number of those. we were looking at the pg&e bid. there were lot of those. how did that work?

>> we don't have the details of the audit yet. however, it will be a city wide review. they will look at -- i'm just supposing with the p.u.c., it will be water main break, those emergency type declarations and emergency contracts put in place as a result of needing to get some unexpected work done. i would imagine that will be the area they'll look at sfpuc. there maybe other areas. i'm happy to share those details once we have those from the auditor. >> president maxwell: in another department, lot of our -- we do work with the city attorney's office. lot of those contracts were from them working with us. would they audit them as well? >> that's possible. >> president maxwell: all right. commissioner harrington and then

commissioner ajami. >> commissioner harrington: than k you. thank you charles for the work. when we started the internal audit group within the p.u.c., part of the reason for doing it was that there were things that never got priority and city wide kind of audits. golf courses, other places where we collect revenue, we get percentage of income. looking at the report, it doesn't same like our staff doing any of these audits. they are managing them and working with that. they are not doing them. i guess the question, do still have internal audit staff and what do it they do? >> we have an audit compliance function, commissioner. that function is provides oversight role of audits.

we have -- in working with city service auditor, we have been built a partnership with them where it's been clear that they are the city's internal -- they provide it city's internal audit function.

>> do we have internal staff? >> commissioner harrington, thank you for your question. we have two staff in the internal audit that report up to charles. the deputy c.f.o. there's been vacancies as well as extended employments to the covid command sector. the audit work flow has been reduced. same has gone on with the city services. as you'll remember in the budget presentation that we made to you, we proposed staffing up that function, the addition of a higher level position and really

enhancing and expanding the focus of our activities. we'll be looking at furthering that in a much broader way. >> can you do a report for us that shows the different lessees that have percentage of income? general size what those might be? last time they were audited. we can see if we're keeping up or falling behind? >> certainly. we'll follow-up with that. >> commissioner ajami: thank you so much. i have a question regarding how some of these recommendations -- there's so many audits happening it at the same time and different levels and scales. i'm wondering as we get different recommendations

through these audits, how do we implement them? how quickly they become outdated before duo the next audit. i'm trying to understand the process of the audits that sort of potential issues that we have to deal with and the next one that comes about. also, all the different things which might have conflicts with recommendations. >> you're right. there are lot of audits. there are lot of recommendations that typically come out of 37 different audits. there's different categories of recommendation. the city service auditor actually tracks all of the audits that they are involved with and create a public report that keeps track of all of the audit reports and all of the open recommendations coming out of those audit reports.

very diligent following up to ensure promises are made that are kept. in terms of -- i will solve in recommendation by doing xy and z. that was the final slide i shared showing zero. we don't have any current open audit recommendations. the row below that, you'll see that it was over 200. we've had a lot of recommendations over the years where we have reached out to our staff and typically with an audit, we have an recommendation that we respond with through the general manager's office to say you have seven recommendations.

those things are handled right away. financial statement audits, financial audits can be a different type of recommendation. there might be a notion of internal weakness or material deficiency. those sorts of things we treat very carefully. ultimately, making sure that we are abiding by the recommendations in the next iteration of the financial statement. those are some samples how we

handle different recommendations. >> commissioner ajami: thank you. >> harrington raised questions similar to ones i had in my mind. looking at the reports those program was a lot thinner today than in prior years. both number of audits that were out there being worked on and also the scope of those. part of my question is how we make -- how we make sure we are doing the job? it's a way of getting inside the

organization and have somebody look at it and certify that everything is going as it should be going. we manage strictly through the general manager. we don't see lot of stuff. i think it's been important for us that the audit program is robust and wide ranging. the other part of the question is that controller's audits sometimes because there's many of them are city wide in scope, they don't reach us. i think it was behest it gives audit. they decided they would look at

d.p.w. they didn't take a look at it so we can know that was the case. this question is badly framed, how do we make sure that we're looking at all the things that we should be looking at? making sure those audits being done by somebody else that they reach the part of our organization that they need to reach for our purposes. maybe not citywide purposes but specifically for the commission's purposes? >> couple of things. i believe that the sort of public integrity work effort that you'll see develop over the

next several years will be extremely focused on the p.u.c. and quite specific and extensive. it's focused on risk assessment. i would look forward to that. they are working on that. we can present it to you in more detail when we have the details. additionally, these are excellent opportunities for you to provide us some feedback and input into the development of any additional work that you would be interested in. that part of the purpose of the -- that's part of the purpose meeting with you. i'm happy to have that discussion at a quarterly meeting or if commissioners, if

2 know areas of interest or concern that you like to discuss, we can have a conversation. as we work to go about the function, incorporating your concern interest is critical. >> vice president moran: as an example, the way the city chooses to do business is complicated and fragmented and at times opaque. i would encourage us to have an audit that really looks comprehensively at the contracting process. we have been frustrated. in having some complaints made to us that really under the jurisdiction of c.m.d. which is not part of the p.u.c. they are responsible for the way

which awful lot of money is spent by us. for our own purposes and also for the trust of the public, making sure that there's an audit which really takes a look at process in its totality would serve us very well. even to the point of looking at the degree of complexity and complexity in my experience, breeds opportunities for mischief. it will be very helpful as we go into that public integrity assessment and doing that on a city wide basis, we include all of that. make sure that our city wide and procedure and practices and

policies are transparent and reasonable. >> in the briefing group, it will be helpful to have the commissioners express that. >> president maxwell: i don't think there will be a problem with that. we need to know when and where. thank you.

any further comments or questions on this item? thank you. it was a robust conversation and much appreciated. public comment on this item? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item number 3, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 705 6105, pound, pound. please note that you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed. this is on item 7b.

do we have any callers? >> there are two callers in the queue. first caller, your line is open. >> caller: commissioners have you ever wonder why doesn't the contract monitoring division have a commission? they report directly to the city administrator who reports directly to the mayor because in 1966, willie brown brought the city administrator under his purview. why doesn't the monitoring division have a commission? the two auditors have said many

things. reviewing every aspect of what they were discussing on the agenda item and again and again, auditing the sfpuc. commissioners, some of you who have your heart in the right place. i've been talking about this for a long time. you now and i ask you this question earlier, you now have to make up your mind.

are you -- you are policymakers. are you going to hold these people accountable? millions of dollars. >> thank you caller. your time is expired. next caller. your line is open. you have two minutes to comment on item 7b. >> caller: i want to pause for second and applaud commissioner who actually for the first time

in years that i have heard where you came up publicly addressing the issues.

again, i do applaud you. i thank you. this is the kind of discussions that we need whether public or private. we do have corruption. we do have contracts being fixed whether it's c.m.d., it's all the same game. i don't want you to believe me, just trust me on this one. the solution is in your hands and the commission hand. let's just pause for a second. once we admit the fact, the solution is there. thank you so much commissioners. you have a wonderful day. >> thank you for your comments.

next caller. you have two minutes to comment on item 7b. >> caller: thank you. my name is brian brown. i'm on the mayor's task force. we put on the ballot proposition p which created the revenue bond oversight committee. i was placed on there as number one chair by the board of supervisors. we worked diligently to get ucla and uc berkeley to present a contract, to give us an order to sfpuc. basically, where are they going. also, can they do it on time and on budget.

we were ready to sign. we spent months negotiating with these great universities. they had economist, engineers, environmentalists. both schools. we put out a search for the people. they were ones who responded. i ask the chairman of my committee. she refuse to answer. i might mention in the sfpuc, with the chairman of the revenue bond oversight committee. the most independent committee you can imagine formulated and

then after that, the revenue bond ended into a contract, m.o.u. [please stand by]

the lack of competency in the engineering and planning, has put it over budget several times. and now they're having to redesign it from scratch. this department is incompetent in the way it's failed to object to the city's requirements, which is straight -- raise the price of doing anything by 20%. and onerous requirements that the city has on any project, architecture and artwork and other items that have nothing to do with the security of water or treatment of wastewater or any other item they're responsible

for. the departments that are contracted for, it's garbage. holding non-tangible capital -- [inaudible] that has to have millions of dollars of repairs made to it, to make it functional. instead of worrying about what was political correct things, how about somebody paying attention to the region that you are empowered in the first place. drinking water, water treatment, and -- [inaudible] the environment that people who are proud to work there can have some pride in. if you take the time and go out and -- golden gate you'll see an entirely different rules from what you think you are administering. i'll warn you this is your legal notification. this apparently in violation of -- which is a federal suit.

[bell dings] >> clerk: thank you for your comments. your time has expired. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: public comment on item 7b is closed. >> now, madam president, we'll go to item 7c and katie miller will be presenting that. >> thank you. good afternoon, madam president and commissioners. i'm katie miller, director for water capital programs. today i will cover highlights of the hetch hetchy program for the third quarter of fiscal year 2021 from january 1st to march 30th. next slide, please. this slide provides a status overview of the program's 20 projects, representing $660 million in budget, the expenditures were $187 million,

the program spent $9 million last quarter and is now at 37% completion. you'll notice on the pie chart on the left, the green construction section, has gotten much larger since last quarter. this is because the mountain tunnel project is now officially until construction. next slide. this table shows the summary of project costs forecast, compared to their 2018 approved budgets. the projects are grouped into categories by funding sources. water, power, and joint of both water and power. as you can see, there are several categories with forecasted costs that exceed the 2018 budget. note that these forecasted project costs are in alignment with the fiscal year 2021-2030, budgets that were approved last year. over the past year, we have carefully analyzed the project's

scope, schedules and budgets. and we recommend revising many of the projects to better align with the revised approved budgets, changes in scopes and more realistic schedules that accommodate our current resources and permitting and contracting requirements. we will be bringing our recommended program for your approval until july. and i just want to note that this has taken us some time to bring you the hetchy program. this is because we've been systematically working through the program, starting with the water system improvement program last year. the sewer program at the end of last year, the water enterprise c.i.p. in march and now it's time for the hetchy program. next slide. this table summarizes the number of projects that are forecasted to exceed the 2018 approved schedules. note that you can see that most proms are now forecasted to exceed the schedules by more

than six months. this is for a number of reasons. but as i stated in the past slide, we've aligned the schedules with the current budget and the forecasted scope that we'll be bringing to you as part of the re-baseline for your approval in july. next slide. and now i will give you some highlights of some of the projects. the dam access and drainage improvements. we originally advertised and received bids for this project in the second quarter. but as you may recall, the budgets were twice over the engineer's estimate. during the third quarter, the project team reduced the scope to stay within the existing budget and prioritized critical safety improvements and repairs. the contract was re-advertised in march and bids were open last month. the low bid was below the engineer's estimate. this project was approved by -- i'm sorry, it will come for your approval in june.

and you can see this is a stairwell going down into the o'shaughnessey dam. we're adding protection for the workers that need to go down the dangerous steps. next slide. the mountain tunnel improvements construction contract received the notice to proceed on januaro michael's tunneling. the contractor has started providingals to a-- and that's the photo putting netting over the rocks.

-- we hope to hear from them this quarter. next slide. for the moccasin pen stock, a comprehensive internal inspection was completed in february, with support from a contractor. condition assessment report is being developed and anticipated to be distributed for review in the fourth quarter. the slide shows the fall protection equipment, so that the people inspecting the pipe could be lowered down into the very steep pen stocks. next slide. as you are aware during the past quarter, design-build contract for the moccasin powerhouse received one responsive bid. you all approved in february to allow staff to work with any

qualified contractor. these negotiations were conducted. and earlier this month, you approved awarding the contractor to general electric l.l.c., pending approval by the board of supervisors for changes to language in the contract. we'll be presenting it to the budget and finance subcommittee tomorrow. for the second part of this project, to install new generator step-up units, the installation contract opened bids in february. this contract was awarded on april 27th. the san joaquin valve project will comprehensively replace all the valves along the four soak pipelines to increase the pressure rating and provide safe access inside the pipelines for maintenance. not all the valves, but many of the valves. for this project, it was to align with the mountain tunnel

shutdowns, resulting in four future construction projects. -- contracts. during the quarter, the conceptual engineering report was approved ant the project proceeded to the design phase. next slide. the san joaquin pipeline valves replacement project is the first contract for the overall larger san joaquin pipeline valve initiative. construction of the valve replacement at the portal will take place this winter, during the first mountain tunnel shutdown. in order to expedite this project, we are pre-purchasing the large valves in-house and using a j.o.c. contract to install the valves. the purchase order was awarded in march and the team is reviewing construction proposals from j.o.c. contractors at this time. and that concludes my preparation. and i'd be happy to answer any questions.

>> any questions? i have a question. and that's -- when you talked about on the o'shaughnessey dam, what does fall protection look like? i think i've been down the steep stairs. what does the fall protection look like? >> so i cannot answer that in great detail, i believe it's a harness that the person going down the stairs puts on with a cable so they're attached to a cable that could prevent them fatality falling -- from falling to the next step. the cable allows them to go down the steps safely, that if they did fall, they would be prevented from -- so it's not completely rebuilding the stairs. it's giving the ability to catch somebody if they stumble themselves. >> okay. that would be one person? do people usually go down by themselves or go down in pairs?

how does that work? >> yes. the new safety with osha. i'd like to have a little bit more detail about what that includes. >> yes. we'd be happy to send you -- we can give you a short memo that has some of the details of what's in the contract. >> i would like that. commissioner ajami, did you have something? oh, you're usually my partner in crime. okay. anyone else? i also moccasin penstock, that's really amazing. i mean, since 1924. i mean, it has lasted forever.

i mean, that is amazing. i'm just really excited that we're doing something about it. and probably hopefully the life will be extended. >> yes. i'll share -- just as we shared the moccasin powerhouse is the only conduit that all the hetch hetchy water flows through, all of that water also needs to flow through the moccasin penstock. very critical facility. and this project has stepped back and taking a comprehensive view, trying to see what parts of the pints we can salvage. versus what parts really need to be replaced in entirety. it's a very thorough assessment and it should extend the life 50 years or more. >> oh, wow. that's great. good. thank you.

commissioner harrington. >> yeah. i hesitate. this is ongoing frustration, not directed at this one report. but it's been a frustrating thing for many, many years for me. if i can express it, we'll see what we can do about it in the future. we get these reports and the majority of the contracts are more than six months behind schedule. and then by next year, it will all disappear. so we continually rebaseline all of our errors out. and we lose track of the original what was going on. and it's hard for anyone to ever go back and reconstruct and say, well, that's because the scope changed. that's because we've opened up the street and things are different. no, actually we're getting less than we thought and it's costing us more. there's no comprehensive way of trying to figure out when will things are all delayed, and things are all over budget, that there's -- that we're doing our job right. and we need to figure out some way. that's not for an answer today,

katie. maybe figure out some way that allows us to evaluate whether we're doing our jobs well or not. and when will things are over budget or taking longer, that there's -- that we -- that something really was surprising or did we just not plan it well. you know, and then the whole project is over budget or delayed, it seems like there's more going on there than we get in a 15-minute little snippet at a board meeting. let's think about how we track our projects and the billions of dollars we're spending and whether they're really something bigger going on or little bits and pieces. but really try to evaluate that a bit better. i don't think we do that well. and this is not new. we didn't do it well when i was a manager. it's an ongoing problem that we have, that we've never quite cracked. so let's try again. >> can i quickly add to that, before katie responds. i think it also came up last

time that maybe, katie, you were presenting this. obviously you are the closest to the discussions around how money is being spent and all the discussion around some of these capital projects. but easy to pick on them. but that came up last time, too. that we discussed. you brought it up. you had the discussion about trying to create some timelines. and i would just on top of this, i will add when you mentioned -- you can see that the pie chart, the green has like increased, sort of like for me having been here for long, okay, when did i see that pie chart last. how does it change. it would be good to kind of have these transitions to be showing a little bit more comprehensively. i know it's so compact. i'm not piling on. i'm just commenting that it will be useful information to have.

>> commissioner moran and commissioner paulson. >> i appreciate commissioner harrington's comments. i've heard it for a number of years. it's something that we need to address. i don't think katie needs to address it right now. this is an issue across all capital projects. i'm taking it to heart. i'll come back to you with something that's more workable. we do lose history when we do this. and that's part of the problem. so, anyway, that's all i want to say. thank you for the comment. >> president maxwell: commissioner moran. >> yeah. and, michael, i think that's absolutely correct. i think it is -- it's a large issue of long standing. and it deserves mo -- more than a quick answer. the other thing that's part of that, and where it came up recently, is that within wsip, with looked as though we had a

process where we had an amount of money at the beginning and we were kind of tracking that to see how which did against that project. it was a discreet set of projects and that allowed us to track the history. we lost that history when we baselined and we took some projects out of wsip and put them as part of the regular capital program. and all that and now we're talking about doing the same thing within the ssip of going away from a discreet definition of what ssip is to kind of a rolling capital program that every year has stuff added and subdistracted. -- subtract.

we need to track that, we and they and everybody else knows, you know, what's going on, which is not to say we're always going to be within budget. we can't be. things happen. we have to respond to that. we do need to be able to understand and convey to people, the nature of those variances are. >> president maxwell: commissioner paulson. >> within the first few hours when i was appointed commissioner, i was asked to go out and do something that i didn't have time to do. and that was to be the emcee at the opening of the dam. it was a pretty wonderful experience. but i told staff at the time, you know, i'm pretty busy today. i don't want to take my whole day off just to go out to a groundbreaking. because i do a lot of that kind of stuff. they said, no, but you're --

because you're a new commissioner, the mayor or somebody wanted me to be the emcee of the thing. so i jumped in the car and drove out to the dam and it was incredible, wonderful experience. and i saw a bunch of equipment on the side of the dam. and people talked and they talked and they talked. and i had to introduce them. some of them i knew. some of them i didn't. and people did say, you know, this thing took years longer than it should have. and it's like -- it fazed me. that's not a good thing. whatever. i spent so many years in construction, where there's times when you start a project and there's a certain time where do you want the project to start or are you going to take like the extra 300th test before you get going. and there is a certain piece of that that is part of the way

that things get built. so, yes. the general public and the taxpayers absolutely deserve to know why we went over what the original cost was. but at the same time how many people are going to say we need to get this thing done. and i'm not doing this to diminish anything that my fellow commissioners have said. but there's a dynamic in there about what the criterion is to get something done, versus what are the pieces that really we don't know about, unless you take an extra year or two or three or four to really find out what happens, until you actually are committed to the project. or in this case, a piece of infrastructure or many pieces of infrastructure that have to be taken care of. this isn't like building a house. this is like building, you know, the safety net. the infrastructure of our region, our city, and our territory.

so i want to put this into perspective in terms of, you know, what it really means to get a project done, because, you know, i'm watching all of these add-ons and pieces and new contracts and whatever. and i have the same lens that everybody does. i think my experience is such that i'm still looking like are we going to wait or are we going to move. those are my comments. >> president maxwell: thank you. i just want to comment. and that is -- the reason why i -- the moccasin penstock because of the big red dot. and the big red dots were cost status and time. and i think physical you -- from what i'm hearing, and i agree with commissioner paulson. however, i think maybe there's a better way to save these things. and they need to be said. because if there had been an

explanation, i probably wouldn't have read all of that stuff to find out. but i think there's a better way to position it. and to talk about it. and that's what i'm hearing here. yes. commissioner moran. >> thank you. just one thing i'll throw out in the mix. we do a lot of the framing of the capital program when projects are at 30% or less of design. and that means that the cost projections are quite squishy. we just don't know what they are. part of this may be self-inflicted harm. if we establish fixed expectations based on 30%, not in design figures, we shouldn't take them terribly seriously. their order of magnitude expectations, as opposed to precision ones. as we look at how we deal with this part of this, michael, a question of when do we lock in a

number that we measure ourselves to. that may not be on day one. that may be somewhere further down the line. >> president maxwell: thank you. any further comments? commissioner paulson. >> yeah. i don't know if we -- i don't want to say that, you know -- and i don't want to disagree with, you know, a former general manager, who, you know, has so much more experience in these -- in this stuff as me. why do we want to lock ourselves in. do we want to be responsible ? do we want to be -- let the staff, the professional staff that we hire do the things that we hire them to do. and then make our assessments, you know, at meetings like this, as to, yeah, that's time to, you know, pull the plug on this stuff. i don't know if we need a, you

know, a line in the sand. that's just not the way construction works. so, you know, and i'm not saying this to stop anything. but, you know, i think the issues were said. and i just want to put a perspective on what it means to get something done in any type of construction from the beginning of time. people make those decisions at the appropriate time. there's never one appropriate time. >> president maxwell: thank you. commissioner moran. thank you. >> no. i think that's right. i would hate to be construed as thinking that we should draw -- when we lock in a price, that we're going to somehow artificially ourselves so real problems don't get dealt with. that isn't the point at all. the point is we need to be accountable. as public sector we don't have the bottom line kind of

checkpoints that the private enterprise has. and they have a tremendous -- you know, in the private enterprise, you have a tremendous incentive to make sure that you address problems, not only to get the job done, but to stay within your profit margins. we don't have that particular september to the same degree. we have to substitute other things for it. and i think one of the things you substitute for it is accountability, so that you don't lock your -- you don't constrain yourself by the fact that you've said that this is our budget. you do have to explain yourself. and it has to be, you know, an explanation that is in public and makes sense. >> yes. i agree. thank you. yes. katie miller. >> i'd just like to respond that i really, really appreciate all this thinking. and i have gone over all of this in my own mind as well. as director of this, you know,

very important program, accountability is a paramount importance to me. and i'm constantly thinking about ways that we can have a higher level of long-term accountability. one thing i will share is every project is unique and different. and with us working on construction facilities, that are being used as we are working on them, there's a lot of unique aspects. and we keep impeccable project records. so if you pick any one project, you could have a whole history of what happened on that project. and i'll just give you two examples from today's presentation. the moccasin powerhouse generator rewind. we've tried -- this is the first time we've tried to issue this contract, going back to, you know, i think we started working on it in 2012. so if you really look at the history of this project, it's a long time coming. the moccasin penstocks we brought to the commission in

2018, a construction contract for a small portion of the penstocks. and when the emergency storm event happened, all resources were diverted to the moccasin dam. and we decided, you know what, let's go back and do a bigger project and be more comprehensive in how we look at all the entire penstock. it's just small examples of how really there's an ebb and flow in the projects themselves. there's ebb and flow with government agencies, a lot of changes in resources and staffing and contract availabilities. every story is unique. that being said, i just agree with all of you about level of accountability and historic record. and we will take all your comments into consideration. >> president maxwell: thank you. commissioners, thank you. why don't we have public comment. public comment on this item. [ please stand by ]

>> there are three callers in the queue. you have two minutes. >> caller: commissioners i want

to speak on can -- [indiscernible]. when the first attachment was done by jacobs, i read the entire document and i mentioned it again and again. maybe 20 times. now, besaid -- besides that amount, you will be spending $238 million. it's time to write history. on each of the projects. you can give it to some university. students should do that.

you need the assessment. you have to have in-house experts and the commissioners -- i know some -- [indiscernible] on anything that's beyond $100 million now you have checks and balances. don't allow these people pay

loan and you'll accept it. >> next caller. >> caller: this is the second home run in one meeting. commissioner moran one and commissioner -- [indiscernible]. the reason you have thoughts oaf one, because none of these are being applied to. as a c.p.a., i'm asking you to go back and examine the community benefits in my statement in the past.

that's one cause. the second cause, i believe you made a small mistake, in particular richard bloom who is responsible for this. this is the second time i capture. not giving you the right reasoning. i remember that it very well. just lay low for a minute. the second thing about accountability, you're hiring your fem members.

hiring your girlfriend and put them in the same agency that you working for. there's no accountability. everybody covers up everybody. these are the primary reasons, gentlemen. you got very limited pool of contractors and consultants. >> thank you for your comments. next caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: david pilpel. on this issue, very briefly. i appreciate the good staff report and the good discussion. i thought that was very thorough both staff and commission's part. i appreciate the nuances here.

thank you. >> thank you for your comments. there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: public comment on 7c is closed. >> now we're go to 7d, which is the water workshop follow-up. >> this is an item where we'll talk about how to follow-up on the water workshops that we had previously. just for refresher, we have one first november 30, 2020 on february 5, 2021 on the tuolumne river voluntary agreement, the

third on march 26, 2021 water supply planning. out of those really looking at issues that needing further consideration. i got a slide for each of these. alternative water supplies, demand projections and demand management, design drought and effects of climate change and working with the irrigation districts. alternative water level supplies, the priorities we're trying to deal with are immediate -- medium level of water supplies. at 4.5 million gallons day per each and meet additional future demands of wholesale and retail customers. we're providing monthly updates for bawsca staff. the goal is to have it ready for

ceqa review by july 1, 2023. we're making progress here. we tend to schedule upcoming briefings on individual projects. or we could have a workshop covering multiple projects. i would recommend that we do that in the month of august based on staff availability where we can delve in those. you do see the quarterly reports but it doesn't give lot of room for lot of back and forth into the details of the projects. that may be appropriate. on the voluntary agreement, just to give the overview. negotiations have been sporadic over a period of five years from january 2017 right at the beginning of the year to basically now. those have been periods of limited activity with sporadic burst of energy. first was in mid-august 2018

when the bay-delta plan was about to be adopted. there was lot of interest doing some alternative. beginning of the new newsom administration, the additional progress was made. in mid-january to february 4, 2020 there was activity. there was an impending action by the federal government that was going to cause a lot of anxiety. then just past couple of months, from mid-april to may 9, 2021, there was an intense effort, watershed to get something accomplished. each one of those plans we had lot of activity. we don't quite get to the end. trva issues that we talked about, early implementation. habitat improvement project and strategic flow releases as an approach. i did appreciate very much commissioner moran's comment

that it would be great to get early implementation and let it speak for themselves. adaptive management it part of this and working with the irrigation districts on water supply options that are part of the voluntary agreement. we get monthly updates on the commission. that's the next item on the agenda. one of the things we seem to be is on the verge of coming to agreement with the state, together path forward never quite getting there. i'm hopeful that we can accomplish that now. on demand projections and demand management, we did talk some about our retail customers how our demand projections were made. we want to make sure we delve into the wholesale customer's demand projections and demand management. that would look like we can set up a workshop in the first half of july to dive into all of the demand projections and all of

the demand management activities happening throughout our service area. spend some serious time working into that and trying to set a chorus going out of it. design drought and affects climate change. it's not a prediction. it's really a stress test for regional water system and water rights. the effects of climate change being evaluated in the long-term vulnerability assessment or ltva, which should be rale ready for release late this summer. we will look for doing a workshop in late september or early october. finally coming to grips with some of the questions around that. lastly, working with the irrigation districts. these relationships are

critical. we have relationships on both water and power issues with both districts. not just water. we should be thinking of these little more broadly. we like to discuss with the commission how to follow-up on the initial meeting among president maxwell and vice president moran and district board members. see if we can start to create a dialogue there at the board and commission level to see if we can make progress. in summary, we're proposing having workshops in july, august and late september on demand projections and demand management. alternative water supplies and the design droughts, the effects of climate change. voluntary agreements, we are still pushing forward with the state and hoping to make some progress there. that is the path that we have embarked on and need to rend a

conclusion. i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> commissioner harrington: the issue is, thank you steve, for coming up with the comprehensive list of the things you want toque about. how we move from talking about it to doing would be obviously the nice part of it. when can do you it. we can work on that. these things i do get are longer term, it takes a while. creating these issues for years and it takes a while to fix them. i wanted to ask a question about kind of more immediate needs now. i wasn't sure whether this should be part of the water supply conditions update. since this is a more general

topic on the agenda, can you talk a bit about what we are doing this year in a critical drought year to make a difference? i know that typically, when we are any year, especially drought years, we work with a variety of organizations and people to make sure there's maybe more water in the river or different timing of water. we work with people that are working on fish issues. we work with people that are on the river rafting industry. just tray to make that happen. if you can give us an idea of what's the plan for this year to kind of keep the river as healthy as possible and also, if you could, tell us how that would work this year, versus how it might work under the voluntary agreement? voluntary agreement would change that dramatically in terms how we might do that or not, it would be helpful to have. if you don't have it today. i can understand that. some idea what will happen now while working on long-term

things will be useful. >> sure. first of all on the river flows, one of the things we've been doing since the early 2000s voluntarily to get with the districts and adding additional 50 c.f.s. of flow during the summer months. that's over and above the requirements for license down below pedro. this year that water will come in handy. we're trying to coordinate our work with hydro power generation out of home primarily. that is something that based on what we're seeing as the state asking us to do things on the power generation side, we're probably going to be reducing rafting flows as a result of

that. there's concern about the lack of overall hydro power generations. we're going to be shifting our generation patterns with that. on the voluntary agreement, if we had that in place now, we would be doing more. that's one of the things about the voluntary agreement. it would provide more water for the river in critical years. it would provide more water in the february through june time frame. more water in the summer as well.

curtailment where they request stop their diversions in favor of senior water rights holders. we like to think of ourselves among the senior water right holders. in this last drought, state worked out into curtailment for senior water rights holders. we're trying to work with the state on how they can most effectively implement curtailments on diversions. it's a balancing act among these things that we're trying to deal with and come to grips with. curtailment is probably wouldn't affect us right away because we are senior. if it extends into next year, we may end up looking at that. one of the things we did in 2015 was as the senior water rights holders in the san joaquin system, we signed a joint letter to the state saying, we're all in this together. one of the downstream water

right holders complains, we can take care of them. they didn't take us up on the offer. that kind of thinking is where we want to go on this. that's the picture of things that are going on right now. that we're dealing with. we sent the letter to the district saying, this year we want to put the extra water downstream. >> commissioner harrington: on your first slide when you listed those three priorities. can you bring that up again?

>> we have accomplish both of these. we'll make sure we have enough water for our water supply. we need month -- to give up some as we're doing now and the tuolumne river that we have enough demand management or water supply to make up for those obligations. >> commissioner harrington: if we're looking at san jose and santa clara, they'll want more.

that meets some level obligation. we're saying all our environmental obligations. i have no idea. what is your goal near this priority? what are we trying to accomplish? are we trying to reduce our work by half? we don't know yet. >> first there's san mateo creek where we have a new obligation about 3.5 m.t.d. stream obligations. we didn't have before. on alameda creek, we had i believe it's 9 or 12.

given water to the river over about the supply that we have. that's true in both case. those are fairly well quantified. tuolumne river and that's where it does connect up in part to the design drought and how we evaluate our supplies. we believe we run into a shortfall of 93 million gallons per day. that's a big number. that's where we're involved in the voluntary agreement. trying to come up with what we think is a better solution for the river. the target is a really big one if we have to do the whole thing. it's still a real number. on top of that, we can't actually meet the level of service goal right on top of it in the first place. that's why we have to look at all the supplies and 42 to come

-- try to come up with the best practice we can moving forward. >> commissioner harrington: what will ultimately come from this, this is what we're looking for. here are our options for fixing that gap. if it's only 4.5 for couple of peek, that's a whole different discussion. if it is 80 or 90 or whatever that environmental obligations is the most squishy one. we need to work toward what that might be and we are being aggressive enough being it. >> i would say that the number with the alternative water supplies that we're looking where we can quantify a number. it is an aggressive program even to get to about 35 million gallons per day. the things that aren't equaled are things we can do working with the irrigation districts. that's been something that we held off on because those are

kind of tied in the voluntary agreement. they are part of that commitment. that is probably the largest area of uncertainty and opportunity that we have. >> commissioner ajami: thank you so much for this presentation. i guess maybe a different way of asking this question -- i'm wondering why the demand understanding demand should not come first before we actually focus on alternative water supply? i say this just because, again, i think, i might be wrong, i think maybe from my personal work that i've done this, if we

don't really do thorough work on where demand is going, we may end up over investing in things that we don't need to. to be honest with you, may be we can -- regardless of voluntary agreement or if you go to an obligation that we have with the water board, regardless, we are the environmental issues -- because of climate change, becoming more serious and serious as the years go on. while you're having this back and forth now, 20 years, this might be something that will make or break us. the point i'm trying to make here, i think we need to look at this from bottom-up. we need to be more strategic about how to approach demand. we need to think about the alternative as something that we have to actually really seriously invest in. ultimately, we might not even

have -- end up dealing with a voluntary agreement at this point in time. at some point, it might not work. the last comment i want to make is that i was wondering when you're talking about the alternative water supplies, are we talking about solutions that people are putting place as individual utilities? are we looking at individual businesses or campuses or neighborhoods that are considering alternative water supplies as well?

majority ever -- 20 years from now, solar panels on people's roofs, the same as on site on people's home. if you have more and more those happening, what's the demand are we building for? more people are going to go partially off the grid and they will not have that much demand, investing in a different kind of solution. i know this is a compounded question, i would love to hear your perspective on this. i would love for some of this to be part of some of the discussions you're having. >> real briefly, there was all awful lot that i can talk about in there. the first workshop we're

proposing here in july is on demand projections and demand management. not just we are doing in san francisco but what our wholesale customers are doing as a collective and individual. i think we can get into those topics a lot there which would inform through the discussion on the alternative water supplies in august. we are not proposing to build anything that we're not going to need. that's for sure. i think that's one thing that i think we are not afraid of. our customers said yes, we should invest in the planning up to the point of spending real big money because we don't want you to build something that we're not going to need. i think we're all in agreement on that count. i think demand and how we meet it is really interesting topic. those two sessions together

should give us time to really explore that thoroughly and carve new paths that are out there. >> commissioner ajami: one last comment. the environmental obligations that we are having on san mateo and alameda creek, i think there's a great examples of how the environmental obligations for lot of our water utilities are increasing. more and more of you realizing that we have to leave more water in the system. various times and various ways. it is important to remember. i think tuolumne river is another example of that. >> president maxwell: thank you. getting back to the alameda creek and the other creek.

these are new obligations. where do they come from and how did -- how are they born >> both those dams built between 1888, environmental issues were not a gleam in anybody's eye at that time. there were no ox to do things. we did construction projects on both dams. we had to get permits from various state and federal agencies. one of the things that separates those two from the tuolumne river is those are dams that we control and the flow we control in the collection of data and the management of that information in working with the agencies is in our control completely. we work really hard to get good scientific information to inform what the permit conditions could be. we ended up with permit conditions that are challenging.

we can live with that. we're all on the same page there. it's difficult on the tuolumne. when i get downstream don pedro, you have big collection, and it's in the bay-delta system. it's part of the big hodgepodge. the big issues in the bay-delta system are on the sacramento river side. they haven't really come to the floor because they never started a regulatory process to deal with that. we're kind of stuck in this spot of well, why aren't you doing something. when the sacramento side just hunkering down and hiding out. if it lasted that way for 10 years, there were no regulatory, they will be happy campers. we're stuck. we got something to deal with. that sets us apart. >> president maxwell: when we talk about our environmental

obligations, would it help or do you think that it would be possible for us to come up with a number? we know what our obligations as far as our residential our industrial, maybe we should look at the environmental issues in that way as well. >> you'll see that in the report next meeting. we headed there. it's basically those three numbers added up. two small ones for the creeks and big one for the tuolumne river. if the state plan is put in effect. they're not how we meet the need, it's how we make up for the lost water supply that comes out meeting environmental obligations. >> president maxwell: when we talk about workshops. some of the success of our workshops, we work collaborative with our n.g.g.s and other

partners. i think that is what really set them apart and made a difference with the leadership of that ed -- harrington and anson moran. there might be an opportunity to have some of them involved with that. i think the more strange way out they are the better it is. somehow, the more weird things now are becoming more mainstream. any further comments?

mr. harrington? , all right, thank you all. why don't we up for public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes public comment on items 7d, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 705 6105. to raise your than to speak press star 3, 3. we ask that public comment be made in civil and respectful manner and you refrain from use profanity.

>> there are six callers in the queue. you have two minutes to comment on item 7d. >> caller: i'm barry nelson here. i want to thank the commission for workshops and for this agenda item. you talk about next steps. your staff just shared recently some additional model results. we appreciate that. we're going through those results now. we'll get back to you. i wanted to offer two other specific suggestions to be helpful next steps. first is, we still like to see sfpuc staff respond to the immense pier review from last august. that pier review folks rely on.

we have not seen sfpuc staff response. we like to see clear side by side embarrass of the agreement proposal. the status quo and the state board december 18th proposal. we urge you to work with the irrigation district agreement on your agenda to look at the -- [indiscernible]. i wanted to thank commissioner harrington and commissioner ajami for their comments about alternative supply and demand suggestions. we look forward to working with you. >> caller, you have two minutes to comment on 7d.

>> caller: i want to first thanks for the presentation. i appreciate the conversation being had by members of the commission about the bay-delta plan, the possibility for alternative supply demand and those kind of discussions. my comments has to do precisely the balance between the bay-delta plan and the delta conveyance tunnels that are being proposed right now. we are extremely concerned. we worked with tribes up and down the sacramento river and throughout the state of course here in the bay area. as we look at climate change and we look into the flow of water, we do see that the conveyance

system could be setting something up that could end up having harmful algae bloom. helping to make the collapse of salmon population be solid and place we cannot come back from. i would really like to help with outreach on the workshops that are coming up and help to increase conversations between the public here in the bay-delta throughout the delta. when you look at situations where we have the largest crop of aim monday -- almonds produced this year and we're looking at the bay area, i'm talking about making procurements here in northern california, while waters is being move. it seems to me like the alternatives are not being properly looked into. all of your workshops are extremely interesting to me. i'm wondering if they're all available online. i like to go back over them and

make sure that we're able to help with outreach. there was outreach that was done. >> thank you for your comment. next caller, your line is open. you have two minutes to comment on item 7d. >> caller: thank you. honestly, i think this is the third home run today. i think wake up call for whatever you want to call it. however, i do want give you a reason from the other side as to why sufficiency is not an option. most of those engineers that

you're dealing with are managers kathy howell, miller and some of the others. they have been molded into a specific way of doing business. that's the specific way that does not include efficiency. does not include common sense. it's a clear basic rule. if you do design, you don't get involved in the construction management or inspection of your own design project. yet, they do it. it's a charter city, you have 200 lawyers that will protect you. having said that, the issue that you guys need to think about as a policy, i stressed the word as a policy, is to open up again and listen to some of us that reason -- have been trying to communicate with you. only way to get sufficiency and

design is by engaging outside the bubble. that's the honest answer. it's the same bubble. you live with them, you marry them. you make them out as your girlfriend and boyfriend and you hire them at your work. it really does not work. if we get to the point where we can admit this path and find solutions and clean it up, that's the only way. again, commissioner ajami thank you so much for opening up. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, your line is open. you have two minutes to speak to item 7d. >> caller: thank you. to underline what the commissioners suggested, i'm so glad you did.

the greater public is under-informed. the workshops will be great. they weren't really wide open public workshops as opposed to now suggested. they're in the framework of your meeting. the public does not been informed nor asked to address these water challenges. just a little story, i lived next to a small cemetery in san mateo which by the way, pulled lot of water for the san mateo creek. the cemetery director said no one complained when the grass went brown in the last drought. no one asked for cemeteries how to do that. that's one of many stories that underline so much and potential. we see parts of texas treated

better than we do. we need look at ways to take advantage of that. creating small flows with utilities and user areas. this should be discussed later. we should be having discussions regularly. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, your line is open. you have two minutes. >> caller: thank you. i think some of you have sensed my frustration recently that things don't move quickly. i do realize that two of the commissioners has only been on for two years. we have two wonderful new commissioners who have been on for less than a year. you don't necessarily know the

history. in this recent round which started with the release of the bay-delta plan, which was in the fall of 2016, we approached the commission and said, before any one draws line in the sand, let's meet and see if there are opportunities for collaboration. we were denied that request and then there was an op ed in the chronicle from the ceos and bawsca that referenced 2009 economic impacts even though the report had been updated in 2014. those impacts more than twice were finalized. it's been like that for a long time. the commission didn't even take up the bay-delta publicly for four months. we suggested some things that you can do in the interim. one was to include an appendix

that looks at water supply. make sense to wait until the climate change vulnerability assessment comes out. there's going to be workshop in the fall. at that point, the urban water management plan would have been completed and revised for five years. i'm hoping you will discuss that today. it will be wonderful someone would say what about this. i think it's a very reasonable request. it doesn't create lot of work. it's just an easy appendix for the bawsca member agencies to put in the urban water management plan. if you do make a decision to shorten the design drought, they can point to those numbers. it will make housing a lot easier. will be appealing. please do address that today. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. next caller.

you have two minutes to comment on item 7d. >> caller: i spoken on this topic before. i mentioned the first peoples. why did you put a dam over there once the river was flowing freely with a lot of salmon? why did you do that? you did that because of greed. you never mentioned it. i know the white think he knows

everything. that's why less than 300 years, they have screwed up everything. that's speaking truth to power. you can't have disdain for the first people and think you're going to go somewhere. you're not going to go somewhere, you're going to fall flat on you're face! you talk about the salmon and then this one woman who thinks she knows everything, the only entity, the only people who know are the first people. the indigenous people. period. you will fall flat on your face! amen. >> thank you for your comment.

>> caller: i urge you to take the time to read the report by the public citizens group. development corporation has been rewriting california water supply in secret meetings often. they've been setting up water training systems.

i cannot fix this by yourself, but you can exercise -- [indiscernible] thank you for your time. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, your line is open. you have two minutes to speak to item 7d. >> caller: good afternoon commissioners. i want to thank you for the follow-up. both my staff and the commission today on the workshops that were held over the last several months. i agree with the commissioners that the workshops were productive. i don't think we agreed on everything, i think there was significant shared information and a better understanding. i'm encouraged these conversations with continue. we just start seeing this

proposal for follow-up coming up today. have not been privy to before hand. like to have the opportunity to provide some comments after reviewing it as to how we might make these workshops most productive. particularly with respect to the adequacy of the voluntary agreement. i think there's a huge opportunity for progress in shared understanding in terms of demand, projections alternative water supply and opportunities to work together to support reduced diversion from the tuolumne river. thank you again. >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you public comment on 7d is closed. >> next item is 7e, which is update on voluntary agreement. steve pretty much covered in his presentation where things are at.

there hasn't been conversations in the past couple of days because the state has turned the attention to the drought and how they're going to manage through the drought at this point this time. we seem to be very close but not quite there yet. other thing was that there is a little bit more focus on the sacramento river side because of the two projections. central valley project and state water project and their contribution to the voluntary agreement. you may recall that there was a decision by the state water board back in the 1990s called decision 1641, which placed responsibility for delta inflow on the two projects. as you can imagine, in a year like this, they are not meeting their requirements for delta inflow. that became quite a bit of surprise to the two secretaries who are now trying to regroup and think about how to approach the projects.

that's on the global side of things. we're waiting to talk about the tuolumne river and how to move it forward with that. i'll be glad to answer question. i think steve covered it pretty much. there's a lot of start and stop happening on the voluntary agreement discussions with the state. >> president maxwell: any comments or questions? >> commissioner ajami: do you think the drought year will impact some of these conversations in a bigger scale? not necessarily because they are delayed but generally speaking

the conversations around this issue? >> i think so. what you will start seeing is these petitions to the state water board to change flow requirements on number of different streams and diversions. as those get filed at the state board, we'll see different things. for example, some of the rivers that actually have requirements, they are trying to see if they can suspend them during the drought. that is having an effect about how we're looking at the voluntary agreements. how durable they are. >> commissioner ajami: there's no obligation at this time? >> that's right. it's like an off ramp. it's something that hasn't been discussed in any great detail. >> commissioner harrington: i may be conflating to the issues.

please disaggregate if i am. i appreciate mr. richie start and stop analogy. that's helpful to show that. we go to the certification and the lawsuit last week. to hold where the community can negotiate. it's a placeholder to make sure we didn't lose our ability to negotiate. for not losing our ability to negotiate but nothing is happening because they now gone on to work on other issues back on the river and drought. where does this go and what type of time frame. are we going to be sitting here with the same discussion? is that a probability? what happens?

>> if i can break your question or comments apart a little bit, just on the lawsuit, just comment on that slightly, that was kind of a procedural issue from my standpoint. we had the certification issued by the state staff. we petitioned state board to go to the actual board members. the state board did not act on that while the time clock was running. we have to do it from the administrative standpoint for the next action, which was to sue them to preserve our rights to question the 411 certification. i want to ensure people understand that wasn't we were looking at the requirements but we're looking at the time clock. we didn't lose our ability to have that ability to go back to the state and renegotiate. you're asking question about the global settlement. may be that continued discussion going forward once the drought takes place little bit longer.

i still believe that we actually should take the tuolumne river and voluntary agreement and take it directly to the state water board and let the public weigh in on that. let's have that discussion. we can't solve the delta issue just on the tuolumne river. we are part of phase one. we have a voluntary agreement outlined and framework. i think we should take it to the state board and have the public comment on it. >> commissioner harrington: mayb e at our next discussion, you can fill that out what that means. >> commissioner ajami: i second that request. i thought we already done that. >> president maxwell: i thought so too. >> we have not submitted the tuolumne river agreement to the state water board as a separate item. we have not done that. >> president maxwell: i think we should do that. >> vice president moran: it's not up to us to submit it to the

state board? isn't that up to the secretaries? >> no. actually in december 2018, when it was passed by the state board, there's a whereas clause which does call out when voluntary agreements are sufficiently develop, they should be submitted as soon as possible to the state board for consideration. it did call out the tuolumne river as an example. >> vice president moran: my impression was that we were -- we submitted those to secretaries. >> it's going to the state water board directly. >> vice president moran: we have asked them with their endorsement to the state board. >> right. >> i'm a little bit confused. this is democrat one --

definitely one extra step to ramp our negotiating position or else, let's just punt to the big statewide commission where we're at. are those like the two pieces that i'm missing here? >> i think those are the two pieces you broken it down. we go directly to state water board with our proposal or voluntary agreement or we stay with a larger group and have the two secretaries endorse the package going forward. >> that's what was happening right? >> correct. >> who has the discretion to bump up the food chain? i'm hearing other commissioners say let's bump it up right now. not that it's an action item. just little more meat on the bone on this one. >> i think i like to come back and frame it as commissioner

harrington asked for and at the next meeting. >> okay. got it. thanks. >> vice president moran: also, for the v.a. to be submitted that has to be us plus the districts, is that right? >> that would be correct. >> vice president moran: that's not something you can do all by yourself? >> no. >> president maxwell: i believe bawsca was mentioning that we would hope that state would take a look at it. do you think there will be a problem with the irrigation districts wanting to do that? why haven't you all done it before? it's been for a while. >> well, we have not done it before because we got caught up in this global settlement discussions and we wanted to be part of that. we thought that would give us a

greater chance of approval by the state water board. if that starts to fall apart, or becomes significantly delayed, i think we need to look at actually submitting it directly to the state water board with the two irrigation districts. >> president maxwell: okay. >> vice president moran: i'm glad we have this side bar discussion now. >> president maxwell: i agree. all right. without any further due, let's go to public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comments on item 7e, dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d., 146 705 6105. you must limit europe comments to the agenda item discussed.

we ask that public comment made be in civil and respectful manner and you refrain from using profanity. do we have any callers? >> there are six callers in the queue. >> caller: hi. berry nelson again. i would disagree with the presentation. he said close to package. that statement is not true. you heard us in the workshop present concerns about the voluntary agreement. i won't repeat those.

i like to talk about broader context. there's no proposal for more water from the senate. there's no recommendation proposal. this is a ceqa process. there's big gap in fund and biological goals and more. your staff mentioned the mother's day deadline. there's been a series of missed deadlines.

you have the time to do that because of certain delay in putting the package together. >> thank you for your comments. next caller. your line is open. you have two minutes to comment on item 7e.

>> sacramento river was mentioned. yes, while the sacramento provides more fresh water inflow into the delta, the san joaquin base is much worse off. regarding salmon, tuolumne is worse off all central valley river. phase two of the bay-delta plan is supposed to focus on the sacramento basin. they started more than two years ago but it's been sidelined because of the voluntary agreement negotiation. maybe sfpuc can do something about that. thank you. >> thank you for your comments.

next caller. >> caller: hi. i urge you to drop your post for the voluntary agreement and accept the mandatory minimum proposal. they are proposed in the bay-delta plan. the voluntary agreement are not sufficient to prevent the extinction of the salmon. they are not based on credible science. the national marine fishery service commission pier review found major flaws in the fish model used to establish the voluntary agreements.

finally, overall, i think your process of public comment is backward. it seem like you get all your commission members questions and comments and then you close the item. the commissioners do not get the benefit of hearing the public comment before they enter entire deliberations. i would suggest that should have staff presentation and then the public comment and then have the commissioners do their discussion. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, your line is open. >> caller: thank you. this is the difference between dealing with commissioners who came up with really good points

today and going back to the staff. here's what i heard you say. you filed a lawsuit to create your negotiation status. wow. you ever thought picking up the phone and just say, can we work out a deal? can we sit down and negotiate? most of the comments that i heard so far, fall in line what we have been experiencing from staff. lack of information, misinformation and straight it up lying. you you're on top of it and you're right. you're not. for someone who have -- [indiscernible]. you hit the point. let me share with you one thing. back in 2009 when he came up

with his comments publicly, i get a call from gavin newsom when he was mayor less than an hour on my phone. the problem was resolved there. i didn't tell the mayor and governor telling him i would sue his butt. where the hell do you get off men? be a human, pick up the phone and negotiate with the opponents. >> thank you for your comments. next caller. your line is open. you have two minutes to comment on item 7e.

caller, are you there? next caller. your line is open. you have two minutes to comment on item 7e. >> caller: thank you very much. i have two comments. first, in regards to his characterization of the lawsuit as a procedural step or placeholder or negotiating position. i do not believe that it was necessary to file a lawsuit that directly attack the authority of the water board in order to preserve a negotiating position or an order to contest the water quality certification in one or many points. that's what the substance of the

lawsuit is and that's frankly why lot of russ pretty -- us are pretty upset about the substance. second of all, in terms of the going forward. i repeat my request that rather than continuing and trying to proceed with a voluntary agreements, you sort of look around and what's going on in terms of the drought right now in terms of other entities that are seeking variances and waivers. one of the things that we believe this shows is that you need requirements that address droughts. you don't try to do it on ad hoc basis. my recommendation is that you consider working within the framework that the state water board has put together in the

bay-delta plan and propose drought rules. i will be willing and very anxious to work with your staff in order to propose that kind of rules. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: good afternoon commissioners. i'm nicole with the bawsca ceo. i appreciate the conversation that you're having here today. this is an important topic. i appreciate mr. carlin's remarks. bawsca supported the -- [indiscernible]. that has been our focus. the reason that is so specific is that this question of which science is better, how do we

compare them, how do we find the best solution forward, we are in a stand still until the state board actually analyze that. one of the things that -- [indiscernible] i think this is a way for us to move forward. as i mentioned, there's broad support in the region for this idea both from labor, from business, from local elected officials it and state elected officials throughout the whole cell service area. i'm please to hear the direction of this. i look forward to talking to you. thank you. >> thank you for your comments.

we have five additional callers in the queue. next caller. >> caller: it's kind of a shock that you're talking about moving voluntary agreement before i feel like the workshops would have been a waste because the workshops have opened up questions. one of the things with national marine fishery pier review, your staff has not reply. we want to reply to see how they would explain their defenses from the pier review and what they've come up with instead of say, you ned -- need to move

this forward. i had great hope when the workshops went forward. i thought there was some really good discussion by the presenters and also by the commissioners. maybe we should do that without answering the questions that were raised. i hope you will take the time and this has been going or if a while, to answer these questions. thank you for your time. >> next caller. you have two minutes to comment on item 7e.

>> caller: hi. i feel like i have deja vu, i gone to so many meetings about this issue. it seems like lots of fishermen and the board doesn't same to really actually listen or at least they listen and move forward and then there's not lawsuit filed. it's really sad. one of the things i want to say, phase one of the bay-delta plan was based on decades of science and the best available science. it was water the down and compromised in the first place. it was much less water than what scientists said that was needed. now we're talking about the b.a. this process has been going on forever. in reality, this was a watered down plan. in the meanwhile, we're literally looking at multiple species of fisheries and salmon that are moving toward extinction. what was mentioned earlier, when

it comes to drought conditions, lot of times people pull out. there needs to be standards there needs to be planning. or else we're going to have extinction. we're going to have water quality where people are getting too salty water to drink that get their water from the bay-delta. lot of these lawsuits are going against california's ability to regulate the clean water act. the last one specifically is. what does that mean for everyone in the state? every one beyond the state that the state cannot regulate their own clean water because of actions of san francisco. it is shocking to me that san francisco is one of the worst people in i deal with when it comes to water issues when people care so much about these issues. i really urge you to please stop going to this dead end and let phase two move forward. it was already compromised. there's water for san francisco. people are willing to conserve.

we need to do something. you literally can't be responsible for extinction of the salmon and tons of fibbermen losing their -- fishermen losing their jobs. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, you have two minutes to comment. >> caller: hello. i wanted to ask for more details regarding voluntary agreement. in specific, how is it that they are going to provide more water in the river system. that was one of the statements.

we need to rely on the science. ly -- about maintaining the

continuance of traditional fish or tribal people in the bay throughout the sacramento river and in waters. there's no other place where native california people from those specific regions are able to go and practice their culture. they have to happen in the location where -- [indiscernible] >> thank you for your comments. next caller. you have two minutes to comment on item 7e. >> caller: hi. i am a tribal water organizer with state of california salmon. i worked throughout san francisco over the last 20

years. i'm calling in today to reiterate the comments that just made by the previous caller in support of the bay-delta plan and opposition to the selection of the new general manager of the san francisco san francisco public utilities committee and the lawsuit filed. there was little flow condition will protect native fish and wildlife. which has seen it is false. there's scientific evidence that supports increased in fresh water flows on the tuolumne river to increase conditions on the river. we need water from the tuolumne. i will lot of difficulty here on the calm. i call.-- i called number of

times and wasn't able to get in. also the comments going first and p.u.c. members to respond to that would be very helpful. i'm not sure what that was about. i been on that calm since 1:30 and i had to call in a number of times. this was the first time that i was able to comment. thank you for your time. >> thank you for your comments.

>> caller: there's over 1000 salmon of the tuolumne river. recently, p.u.c. staff member was quoted, san francisco -- [indiscernible] staff member say there's a better way to protect the

salmon. the commission should not consider this as a endorsement of the tuolumne river voluntary agreement. instead, the better way plan must be part of the bay-delta water quality control plan. remember, a former commissioner had a commission meeting asked several years ago for the staff to come back with a plan that included a timeline and a budget that would protect the tuolumne river habitat. the commissioner request has been not been honored by your staff. why? >> thank you for your comments. there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: public comment on 7e is closed.

>> president maxwell: thank you. colleagues, i want to remind you after public comment, at this time, i ask if there's any further discussion. if you would like to further discuss anything that you heard, you certainly have the opportunity. thank you. next item please. commissioner harrington? >> commissioner harrington: at the risk of listening to public comment, it does seem like there were other suggestions. without making it too accuracy, we you come back next time, could we talk about moving forward directly, suspending and negotiating, implementing early or i think it was called a third party blind review? i think you're hearing their frustration about movement.

>> president maxwell: i think it will be important to talk about what we need to do that. some of them, we need other people. we need the modesto and the turlock. we need them to be able to do early implementation. i think we need to have an idea what that would entail on each one of those. commissioner ajami, did you have something to add? >> commissioner ajami: i wanted to say quickly, i appreciate everybody's comments. i'm not sure what the blind review really meant.

i'm on one of the boards of the national academy. that's why i say that. i think that's a possibility. i'm not sure whether it's blind just balls of things cross the state. i'm not sure what the blind review will be. you need to provide adversary and documents to whoever ends up reviewing it. that means they would know what's going on.

i think there's a value to add to this discussion. >> president maxwell: you mentioned one of the secretaries mentioned that. do you think what they meant by that? blind review? >> they basically -- any time the state water board does this, they have to put together science panel and review it. that will be an outside review. i think commissioner ajami talking about a blind review when you publish an article. you never know who the reviews are. which is unfortunate sometimes. that way, you're getting a blind review. the other thing that keeps mentioned is the pier review.

pier review is a very strict scientific process where you select experts across many fields and put them together and give themmal charge to look at things. that's a different sort of thing. i have the four things down that commissioner i'm scratching notes as fast as i can. >> president maxwell: any further comments? next item. >> 7f, i have nothing to report. >> president maxwell: then there's no need for public comment. this next item please. >> caller: item 8, new commission business. >> president maxwell: any new

business. seeing none. next item. >> clerk: next order of business is the consent calendar item 9. all matters listed are considered to be retain about the it's san francisco public utilities committee. there will be no discussion of the item. we did receive a request that items a and b be removed for discussion. >> president maxwell: as we have one more item. does anyone want to have that item removed? may you have a public comment on this item? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make public comment on consent calendar item 9c

only, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 705 6105. pound pound. please limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed. we ask public comment to be made in civil and respectful manner. please address your remarks to the commissioners as a whole, not to commissioners or staff. >> there's one call in the queue. your line is open. you got two minutes to comment on item 8.

sorry, 9c. >> caller: which is the item that was on the consent, correct? >> correct. >> caller: thank you. commissioners. i'm going to keep beating on this dead horse until we find a resolution. i think commissioner harrington at the last meeting, you asked where is c.m.d. i'm asking again. the issues that i have raised regarding the corruption at c.m.d. still exist and still running with the reports that you are receiving. the reports that you are receiving are previously misleading in a lot of ways. you got l.b.e., o.e.b. can any you tell the difference how much percentages. can you tell the difference why

is one contract has 20% and another contract has zero? can any of you decide why a -- [indiscernible]. last time i remember, coming up in front of the commission, you can hear his heart beat bumping up from fear. this is a policy issue. that l.b.e. has been given a contract and approved by your commission because your attorney has told you that risk is low.

your attorney need to be fired. i'm not going to file a lawsuit. i will tell you this, if you have an 800-pound gorilla -- >> your time is expired. thank you for your comment. there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: public comment on 9c is closed. >> president maxwell: further comments? may i have a motion and second to approve this item? >> move it. >> second. >> president maxwell: thank you. vol call vote please. >> clerk: [roll call vote] you have 5 ayes.

>> president maxwell: next item please. >> clerk: would you like for me to read calendar item a first? >> president maxwell: any discussion on this item? why don't we open up for public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make public comment on consent calendar item 9c

-- 9a only, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 705 6105. pound pound. please limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed. we ask public comment to be made in civil and respectful manner. please address your remarks to the commissioners as a whole, not to commissioners or staff. >> there's one caller in the queue. >> caller: i want to complete my statement. there's a lot more just discrepancy with l.b.e. and the certification. for someone like me who has no access to city records to find out about these things, it's becoming very easy.

i beg you again, the issue being procurement and the close relationship between the procurement staff and c.m.d. is very obvious. it is corrupt. as we see now, procurement staff -- they cannot come up and tell you how in the hell do they certify a company with a gross revenue $14.5 million with an l.b.e.? there's just no justification. there's one reason. the owner of the firm is a former department of public work employee. this is when you ask why the prices going up. you're keeping it inside a room. nothing more, nothing less. please address the issue and the

relationship between you and procurement staff and c.m.d. thank you for your time again. >> thank you your comments. one more caller has raised their hand. you have two minutes. >> caller: i wanted to comment on item 10. this is not item 10. >> no. there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: public comment on 9/11 a is closed. >> president maxwell: may i have a motion and second to move item a please? >> i'll move. >> i'll move it. >> president maxwell: moved and seconded. madam clerk, roll call please. [roll call vote]

you have five ayes. >> president maxwell: next item. >> clerk: item 9b, accept contract number ww607 decreasing contract amount by $759,973. >> president maxwell: are there any questions or comment? we can open up to public comment.

>> there are no callers to be recognized at this time. >> clerk: public comment on 9c is closed. >> president maxwell: may i have motion and second to move this item please? >> i'll move it. >> second. >> president maxwell: thank you

commissioner ajami. roll call vote please. [roll call vote]. you have five ayes. >> president maxwell: thank you. next item please. >> clerk: item 10. discussion of status and options regarding selection process for the is sfpuc general manager position and possible direction by the commission regarding the selection process. >> president maxwell: commission ers, it is determined at our last meeting that we continue with our stakeholder interview process. it was important for the

commission as well as the prospective candidate to have an idea of what staff felt, especially the staff that would be directly interfering with and interacting with and others. with that, i've asked kate howard from the department of d.h.r., and the hawkins company, which we have asked to go on this journey with us. to give us an idea where we are, timeline. i would ask kate howard if you have any comments. if not, please introduce the hawkins company. >> thank you. i'm kate howard. i'm happy to be back with you

today. i'm deputy director at d.h.r. today i have the executive recruitment team from hawkins with me. we're here to provide update on the stakeholder process. i will invite ms. byers to take the floor and provide the update. >> good evening president maxwell and commissioners. we are happy to be back here with you again to give you an update on where we are with the stakeholder engagement process for the general manager recruitment. at your request, we have begun scheduling conversations with the leadership team to ascertain

from them some expectations and priorities and role of the general manager moving forward. we also do some additional outreach with the staff. we have also deployed a employee survey. that survey launched on monday. it will conclude on the first. it's why for all employees to review and take. so far we received about 300 responses. in addition to that, we will be meeting with a few external stakeholders as well to get their feedback and the goal of s to capture the expectations and the priorities of the role of the general manager at this moment in time. we will report back to you at the june 8th meeting, a summary of that candidate profile.

>> president maxwell: where did some of the questions come from? >> the questions that we're asking, what are the ideal candidate qualities that you like to see as far as the general personal professional attributes. what kind of background and experience would you like to see in the new general manager as well as what will be your top priorities that you feel that the general manager should accomplish. initially we met with the commissioners before we did any engagement with any other stakeholder. out of that feedback we were able to create some common themes that went into developing the survey responses. on the survey, you'll notice that the employees will be able to prioritize or rank how they feel about those responses

collectively. >> president maxwell: any questions or comments? commissioner ajami. >> commissioner ajami: you mentioned what is the deadline for this? have you already closed? >> no. there's an employee survey that was launch yesterday. that survey will conclude on june 1st. in the meantime, we are also speaking with executive leadership team. we anticipate that those conversations will conclude this week. >> commissioner ajami: since this monday, you have received 300 responses? >> exactly. pretty quickly. we received about 300 responses. they are a valued and invested

stakeholder. certainly, want to chime in. >> president maxwell: commission >> commissioner paulson: ms. bye rs, you have interviewed all of the commissioners correct? >> that's right. >> commissioner paulson: that was part of the input into the surveys that you put out >> that is correct. >> commissioner paulson: no matter how the process has been going over the last period of time, that is what is driving whatever we're going to do. >> president maxwell: ms. howard , next steps and how are we in

this process? how do you see us in this process? >> thank you for the question. the initial next step, the hawkins company will return at your june 8th meeting and provide a summary of the work that they are concluding. that information can be used by the commission to likely working with hawkins, develop any interview questions that the commission would like to use going forward. typically, commission once receiving and adopting that profile or that set of expectations, would meet in closed session to conduct the next step of a selection

process. both in terms of developing any interview questions or any aspects of the selection process as well as to conduct the interview itself. >> caller: that means that the next, as possibly at the meeting on the 8th, we would have a closed session. at that closed session, we will discuss the questions along with the hawkins company. the questions that we would use for the interview? >> i think that's correct. you could use that opportunity to review how you want to proceed. >> president maxwell: as well as our next phase of the process and look at the -- certainly what we found and what they found. anyone else with any questions?

>> commissioner paulson: i had a question, kate howard, did i hear you say that at that closed session, scheduled for the 8th, we would do interviews at that time? do we decide on whether or not we do interviews at a particular time? >> typically, the commission would have a closed session to review the nexts in the selection process including developing interview questions and then subsequently schedule a separate meeting to conduct an interview. >> commissioner paulson: thank you, i'm trying to put a calendar of proper procedures in my brain.

>> president maxwell: our attorney with us. if anyone has a question for him. any questions? thank you very much. if there are no questions or comment, we have scheduled for every commission meeting. we will go forward in this process. any further questions or comments? thank you. thank you very much. now we'll have public comment.

>> do we have any callers? >> we have eight callers in the queue. you have two minutes to comment on item 10.

>> caller: i have two comments. we welcome the search and would be happy to be involved in the process. not just my organization, i'm sure my colleague organization who working with p.u.c. will be interested as well. we welcome that process. secondly, i wanted to draw your attention to a letter that we have sent to president maxwell and the mayor yesterday. before we start taking positions

but in the lawsuit and statements to the media, he has gone out of his way to take what unfounded positions on the science and unfounded position on water supply issue. irresponsible positions on legal issues. i won't discuss those concerns in detail that you received from us yesterday. it's with regret that we take this position. we think the p.u.c. is moving in a new direction. >> next caller. you have two minutes to comment on item 10.

>> caller: i will like to express that i'm concerned about the mayor's request to nominate mr. herrera to lead sfpuc. it appears there's pre-selected candidate. my second concern is about mr. harris track record with qualifications. he has no experience leading the sfpuc. in addition, his recent comments

demonstrate that he's snuck thinking. pitting people against the environment. i would like to remind us all that environment is our ultimate infrastructure if we don't take care of it, it would pay a heavy price. we need a leader that can work on this collaboratively. i'm a firm believer restore the bay-delta ensuring a reliable water supply. we need a leader to process this. >> thank you for your comments. hello caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: thank you commissioners. i too was dismayed to learn that

the mayor put forth a candidate sfpuc general manager who opposed increased flows twice filed suit against the state to block them. i encourage herrera to take himself out of the running. i encourage you to consider more leadership. i encourage you to drop the suit against the state water board and support the bay-delta plan. at this critical time, when the salmon and so many other species are on the brink of extinction, we need the general manager who will lead the sfpuc more environmentally responsible

management.

>> hello caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: i'm in a post situation with mr. herrera as general manager of sfpuc. we have difficult situation where entitlements are based on the assumption that the state board can deliver twice as much water as it delivered. clearly, need to be -- [indiscernible]. mr. herrera has disqualified himself as a leader who can help. by making false statements about the affected flows. he's also out of step with san francisco an area resident who demonstrated the ability to conserve water use. he's ignoring the example of other urban areas which have invested in sustainable approaches to their water

supply. i ask that you launch a search. >> thank you for your time. caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: hello, my name is arnold thompson. i'm from district 7 here in san francisco. i encourage commissioners to pursue a candidate that experienced working with large water district.

these stakeholders need to be heard from. the mayors does not appear to be too interested in stakeholder engagement for he has sued the water board because he doesn't like the science. he doesn't like the conclusions reached by the science. he's ignoring the inconvenient proof that we live in a desert here in california. you have to make a lot of compromises. we need creative solutions. not more lawsuits against the dedicated scientists cohort trying to do their best work for it state of california. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. >> caller: i ask that you not

select anyone within the san francisco public utilities committee, i think the culture needs to change. this was brought to me first workshop after the conservation just talked and it was the staff's turn for san francisco public utilities commission to reply. they refused. i was i a all pad it was slap in the face and arms. [ [please stand by]

>> i was feeling optimistic with the commissioners and the workshops felt like we were making a lot of progress and i was really disappointed with comments that mr. herrera made. he's not going to help us move in the direction of collaboration that we've all been working on. i question a lot of the information in the sfpuc's lawsuit. it's like it's cycled information that we no longer believe. for example. in a petition for reconsideration for water quality certification back in february, his office used a current demand member of 2009 and we open from your water management plans, projections for 435 or 236 it's going to be

hard to get people to apply and i think mherrera, it's time for him to withdraw his name. this has been a long meeting and i fear that we're going to see a lot more of this if mr. herrera is the general manager. let's work together to find somebody who we can all believe in. there's so much potential to turn around the sfpuc, and you really deserve to have a general manager you can count on who's going to make your job a lot easier. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. hello, caller.

you have two minutes. >> you had a run today, please keep in mind what the p.u.c. needs. i've been working with the p.u.c. for 20 years. p.u.c. needs a leader, not someone who comes in from the water industry. what you need is a leader that can take this agency from the stake where you are that's rigged with corruption and all the shenanigans that have been taking place on pages that deal with the corruption in san francisco. plenty of documents. what's the specific document is

the deny that these facts are not factual. they need to deny his involvement in the $19 million lateral replacement with $19 million. his own staff. we would not know about this. so dennis herrera has been guarding the hen house, public money that went up in smoke. i beg you to go and just check

the facebook pages of individuals in san francisco that have been documenting these cases. it's mind boggling that this krums has lasted for so long. >> clerk: thank you for your comments >> [inaudible] >> excuse me, caller, we cannot hear you. >> [inaudible] >> you're a little bit muffled. >> oh, i'm sorry.

i'll try again. [inaudible] san francisco.

>> clerk: thank you for your comments. hello, caller. your line is open, you have two minutes. >> i see ya'll started this process and according to the charter, ya'll have some authority in making the selection, but then the mayor can override you. what kind of [inaudible] is this? why should the mayor get involved in this. i've thought about it. how about the city attorney getting the job and making the salary of about $500 thousand

before he retires this corruption that's already what has happened to that doing the right thing sit her down. she's not a mature person. she's not a leader. explain to her the repercussions of such non sense.

now she closed her johnson ranch. oh, yeah, shame on the mayor. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> secretary: thank you. public comment on item 10 is closed. >> clerk: madam president, i think you're muted. >> president: this was discussion only. so next item please. >> clerk: 9,645 structuring for the green grant for resolution 2020-0024 to the

arch diocese of san francisco. this action constitutes the approval action pursuant to 31.0h of the san francisco administrative code. >> president: any questions. >> i'll be here to answer any questions you have. >> president: thank you. any questions or comments? seeing none. why don't we open this up for public comment. >> secretary: members of the public if you'd wish to make public comment on this item, to raise your hand to speak, please press star 3 and remind you the chair can interrupt and limit your comment to the agenda item and that you refrain from the use of

profanity. please address your remarks to the individuals as a whole, not to the commissioners or staff. >> there no members of the public in the queue to comment. >> president: may i get a motion. >> commissioner: i'll make a motion. >> president: all right. it's been moved and seconded. caught me off guard. moved and seconded. roll call, please. >> secretary: [roll call] you have five ayes. >> president: thank you. next item please. >> secretary: next item is item 12, 658 in construction

funding for the green infrastructure grant ordered on april 8th, 2020. to liche francis san francisco for the purpose of ceqa pursuant to 31.4h and i'm sorry for miss pronouncing that. >> president: colleagues, is there any questions? commissioner harrington. >> not a question. just a comment on 11 and 12. we know it's late in the day and we're not letting you talk at this point, so thanks for the work. >> no problem. >> president: yes. thank you. comment and then public comment on this item, please. >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of

public comment, dial (415) 655-0001. please note that you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed and remind you that you cannot stay on the topic. public comment in a civil and respectful manner and that you refrain from profanity. please address your remarks to individuals as a whole, not to individual commissioners or staff. moderator, do we have any callers? >> madam secretary, there are no callers wishing to be recognized at this time. >> secretary: thank you. >> president: again. thank you commissioner harington and i want to that the staff and i'm sure you appreciate and understand what we're trying to do here. may i have a motion and a second. >> motion. >> second.

>> president: it's been moved and seconded. roll call please. >> secretary: [roll call] >> president: thank you, next item please. >> secretary: possible action to approve the following for san francisco's clean power ago gaegs program. effective july 1, 2021, that such rates to the lesser of 5% higher than comparable pg&e rates or b rates that require clean power sf's programs for residential rates customers and building an implementation program that providing customer who is pay more under the new default rate that under the prior rate and three

reinstatement of clean power sf customers returning to pg&e in the amount of $5 for residential and nonresidential customers. this institutes approval for the purchases of ceqa pursuant to this will be presented by aaron franks. >> hello. donna, we've got slides if you guys still want to see them. >> i think we do, yes. i mean, this is a bit different. thank you. >> hello, my name is erin franks and i'm here to talk to you about clean power sf rates. as you heard, this is the three pieces of this. the rates themselves. there's also a time of use on transition and termination

fees. next slide please we provided this graph over here to kind of illustrate that. so clean power sf rates are that green portion of the bar chart on the right. clean power sf customers pay delivery charges to pg&e to provide transmission and distribution services. we're comparing this to pg&e customers, you can see that both clean power sf and pg&e customers both pay the charges. the other think that clean power sf customers pay to pg&e. when we talk about comparisons, because our customers have to pay those, we always want to compare the charges and the p.c.i.a. to the generation

charge. throughout this presentation, when i talk about comparisons to pg&e, i'm comparing that generation and p.c.i.a. to the generation part of the pg&e bill. go to the next slide, please. i want to talk a little bit about the power choice indifference with the p.c.i.a. which is backed by the california public utilities commission via regulatory process. this is a fee our customers have to pay. it's when it pro cured power supplies and when we talk about our comparisons and we always want to include the p.c.i.a. because it's apples to apples.

this graph shows that first color. that's the rates that you're setting and that are being impacted today for clean power sf. that blue portion is the p.c.i.a.. so this starts in 2016 which is when the program launched and goes to today. you can see that the whole bar together, both pieces of that chart clean power s.f. customers' rates have gone up to about $0.11 a day. but if you focus on the green portion of the bar, can you see we've reduced our rates in that time period. so the revenues that clean power sf is collecting we've reduced the total rates. the reason for that is because customers can choose to opt back to pg&e we want to keep an eye on that comparison to pg&e. and as that compareson has grown, we've had to reduce our

rates to stay into the same margin to be competitive with pg&e. go to the next slide. so our policy up until now has been we kept a close eye on that, we've delegated authority to the general manager, the set rates for clean power sf because pg&e changes their rates so often throughout the year that we like to be able to react in real time to follow them right now our delegated authority allows us to set rate its within plus or minus. what that's resulted in has been two rate changes since 2019 when the current authority was set. we had to decrease our rate.

this is obviously going to lead to some pretty serious financial difficulties which is on the next slide. if we keep our plus or minus 1%, we can at most be 1% over the pg&e rate. this slide is showing what our annual operating margin, that's our net revenues would be for fiscal year and net funding balance. this strategy really will not work. it results in some pretty significant losses and levels below our reserve target. next slide. rate setting as someone very wise once told me sometimes is a bit of an art. we absolutely have to cover our cost, but we also have to think about what's important for our customers. they care about price, but the community part of being a community choice aggregator is also that they care about community values and we know

we've heard in the launching of green power sf are all things we have to consider. we weigh all of these and we try to come up with a solution. it's also important to note that we are required and, right now, we're in the process of conducting the first rate for clean power sf which will go into effect in fiscal year between 23. we will adopt some rates and come back with a proposal about clean power sf. this is the proposal for the next fiscal year. we're keeping the idea that's delegated the authority. when pg&e changes their rates throughout the year, we will change the fall of them.

but the new formula we're using is saying that our rates will be set to 5% above the comparable pg&e rates. what that does is it says at most, we can be 5% above pg&e and never go over our personal cost of service. with this proposal, we're expecting that clean power sf will increase these rates on july 2021. that will be about a 4% rate increase and it will be set to that 5% above pg&e level. according to filings, pg&e will also have another rate increase in september 2021 that will probably result in another 4% increase, but those aren't certain. so we'll keep an eye on that as pg&e finalizes their rates through the regulatory process. you can see what this will look like on the next slide. so this is the same graph as before, but we've added those shaded bars that shows our projected rate increase. the red line is showing pg&e's

total generation rate and the yellow line is showing clean power sf comparable apples to apples plus p.c.i.a. charges and you can see we're forecasting our rates will be about 5% higher than pg&e's on average. next slide, please. this looks at the financial impact of this proposal. we're comparing in that table, the two columns, fiscal year 2022. current rates is under the current rate proposal with that 1% margin and with 5% margin is what we're bringing forward today. if you can see, this proposal significantly reduces the losses that clean power sf is going to occur. it's not totally eliminate them. one of our things we're trying to balance is to maintain relatively competitive with pg&e. it's whole purpose is to be

able to let us have a loss over a year so we don't have big swings up and down in customer rates. our plan is to make sure we have these rates for one year. unexpected cost increases and then we'll come back in the spring with a wholistic proposal for how clean power sf can deal with this going forward. this is the customer side. so, again, on the left there is that same graph that we saw on the very first slide showing our comparison to pg&e. this is only the generation portion of the bill. please remember, there's also these delivery charges down there. if we adopt the proposal in front of you in july, there will be a rate increase and at that point, clean power sf customers will be paying 5% for more pg&e. for this average customer, that works out to $1.60 a month. and if you put that in fact that the entire electricity

bill is about $80, it's a little less than shown here on the graph. next slide, please. we wanted to leave you with this because as you've heard, the p.c.i.a. is a big driver of the financial situation and this rate increase. the good news is the p.c.i.a. is forecasted to decline. since that fee essentially covers costs that pg&e incurred before clean power sf customers transferred over, when pg&e gets rid of certain things they purchased, they retire a nuclear plant, the p.c.i.a. has to go down. so really, you can think of this in some sense of a year of tightening our belts during what's really the peak of what we have to get through on the p.c.i.a. so that we can move forward. and then i have a few more slides on the last two pieces of this proposal. so that's the rates i just went through. the second thing in the

proposal is the transition of time of use. default all of our residential customers in the time of specific rates and as well to provide a bill of protection plan. this is us coming back and doing that thing that we were directed to do. so this chart on the bottom shows us what the rates are. in peak hours which is when the demand for energy is the highest and the supply of energy is the lowest and in particular, the supply of renewable energy such as solar and wind is not there on the grid so we're relying on dirtier forms of energy. so it incentivizes customers to switch their energy during the day at a certain time. most clean power sf customers

will be put by default onto this time of use plan. it's super important to note this is a choice. customers can choose to go back to one of the other plans that does not have time of use. they can pick a time of use plan with different peak hours. they can do all of that on pg&e's website as well as find information they can compare their usage to see which rate plan is cheapest for them. the idea is because this is a thing that helps balance the grid, it helps us achieve our green, climate goals. it's a thing we want to be a default for customers rather than the thing they have to opt into. next slide, please. the other thing that we're implementing along with this time of use plan is what's called bill protection. so some people might not be sure about time of use. they might not know when their usage is. the bill protection plan is aiming to help with that. the whied is that if you pay more than $10 on your time of

use plan than you would have on the normal plan over an entire year, we will provide a one-time bill credit that is the difference between the two. so the idea is try out time of use. if it ends up being a bad deal for you, you pay $10 more over the year and you can say hey, this wasn't a good fit. i'm going to opt to one of the other plans. and then the last slide here is on the termination fees. so the termination fee is what's charged to a clean power sf customer if they choose to return to pg&e. we had them when they first launched the program, we stepped into zero because we didn't want to have to make people upset about an opt-in program. since we completed enrollment, everybody who's now in the program is making a choice and we're part of that 2018 resolution reinstating for those who choose to leave. one of the things that i'm really happy to say that we are