you know, we found our champion with supervisor matt haney from district six who introduced this legislation and pushed this into law. mayor breed dedicated $1.5 million this fund, and then supervisor haney matched that, so there's $3 million in this fund. this is a huge moment for our coalition. it's what we've been fighting for all along. >> one of the challenges of our business is staying on top of all the opportunities as they come back. at the office of oewd, office of economic and workforce development, if you need to speak to somebody, you can find people who can help you navigate any of the available programs and resources. >> a lot of blind optimism has kept us afloat, you know, and there's been a lot of reason for despair, but this is what keeps me in the business, and

this is what keeps me fighting, you know, and continuing to advocate, is that we need this and this is part of our life's blood as much as oxygen and food is. don't lose heart. look at there for all the various grants that are available to you. some of them might be very slow to unrao, and it might seem like too -- unroll, and it might seem like it's too late, but people are going to fight to keep their beloved venues open, and as a band, you're going to be okay. [♪♪♪]

>> president maxwell: madam secretary, call the roll please. [roll call] we have a quorum. >> president maxwell: thank you. next item please. >> clerk: before i call the

first item, i like to make an announcement. due to the covid-19 health emergency and given the public health recommendation issued by the san francisco department of public health, recommendations issued by the san francisco department of public health and governor newsom has lifted the restriction on teleconference. those of you watching live stream, there's a brief time lapse between the live meeting what is being viewed on sfgov tv. i like to extend our thanks to sfgov tv staff and sfpuc staff for their assistance during this meeting. if you wish to make public comment dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 299 3417. pleat limit your -- please limit your comment to the topic being

discussed. we ask that public comment remain in civil and respectful manner. i like to announce that closed session item number 22, will not be heard at today's meeting. your first order of business is item number 3, approval of the minutes of may 25, 2021. >> president maxwell: thank you. commissioners, is there any discussion or corrections to the minutes of may 25th? seeing none, public comment please? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 3 of minutes, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 299 3417.

we ask that public comment be made in a civil and respectful manner and refrain from use of profanity. do we have any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue at this time. >> clerk: public comment on item 3 is closed. >> president maxwell: welcome mr. paulson. may i have a motion and second to approve the minutes of may 25th?

>> commissioner paulson: i will move them. >> president maxwell: roll call vote please. [roll call vote] you have five ayes. >> president maxwell: next item. >> clerk: item 4, general public comment. members of the public who wish to make two minutes of general public comment on matters that are within commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda, may do so by dialing 415-655-0001, meeting i.d., 146 299 3417. please address your remarks to the commission as a whole. not to the individual commissioners or staff.

do we have any callers? >> there are two callers in the queue. you have two minutes. >> caller: i'm coalition for san francisco neighborhood. speaking on my own behalf. the m.t.a. had the revenue bond oversight committee. the p.u.c. holds a seat on the m.t.a. committee, until recently that seat was held by the p.u.c. infrastructure. that seat is now held by the p.u.c.'s deputy cfo. while introducing himself at the

m.t.a., the deputy c.f.o. stated that he managely the p.u.c. $6 million portfolio. i thought i heard a few gasps. therefore, besides the amount of the debt portfolio, i would like to express other concerns. it's my understanding that there's some p.u.c. revenue bonds can are coming due. it's my understanding that some of these bonds have been paid on an interest only basis and that there will be a balloon payment to be made when the bond come due. i would urge the commission to have a staff report on the p.u.c.'s debt portfolio, including the bonds that are set up for interest only payments with balloon payments when they mature. thank you.

>> next caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: i'm david pilpel. on item 4, general public comment. as you will recall, i previously filed a ceqa appeal on the project. i withdrew that appeal yesterday. that will not be heard at the board of supervisors and has been withdrawn and final. i worked with acting general manager michael carlin to address my concerns. some of those talks are ongoing. thank you very much to them and to the other p.u.c. staff involved. i felt heard and believed that positive change will result. however, my concerns about the planning department are still unresolved and i hope that the planning department staff will

engage as well so we can address concerns there. finally, on separate topics, i i believe that some p.u.c. staff are retiring this month as often happens come june 30th. i thank them for their work and some cases for their long careers. wish them well in future endeavors. that's what i have for item 4. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. next caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: thank you. my pronouns are she and her. i would like to see an sfpuc

practice more about the electrical infrastructure and bringing that to the rest of the city government. i hear about the m.t.a. wants electric charging stations. they have to go through pg&e. i think you could all help them do this work. you supply the power and transmit it. since i advocate that sfpuc -- that way you control everything in the pipeline. i think that you should build some more energy infrastructure. we got half of the reservoir covered with solar panels we have another half that we can use solar to generate more electricity. it's being shown that renewable

electricity is cheaper. i like to see us be an agency that does more building. ideas are good, i like to see us put shovels in the ground more when it comes to electricity. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: public comment on item 4 is closed. >> president maxwell: next item please. >> clerk: next item is item 5, communications. >> president maxwell: any discussion or comments? i have a question and comment on e, cleanpowersf for

disadvantaged communities. >> good afternoon commissioner. i'm the deputy manager for power responsible for cleanpowersf. >> president maxwell: one of my questions relates to timing. you have june 15th is a date that is significant. we just got this last thursday. it's 38 pages. i'm interested in it. i don't have enough time to digest it. i'm concerned about that. this is important. i'm concerned about what is your plan and your strategy for doing the outreach that you are supposed to do to disadvantaged communities? i like to know that. your plan, your strategy, the timing of this.

i understand that it can be done -- you can always admit different things. i'm concerned. i'm not really -- i don't really like that. you might have a good excuse then i can like it again. right now, i'm not comfortable with us having such a short time to make -- we can't even discuss it because we don't have enough time. thank you. >> commissioner, i understand your concerns. part of the reason why we're providing this now is to give you a heads up. i understand that june 15th date is around the corner. we are dealing with a very compressed schedule on this overall with respect to the cpuc. schedule. there are few requirements the

cpuc is looking for to be reflected in our materials. there are plenty -- many details in the r.f.o. as you know. we're looking for input from you. it doesn't need to be today. it could be in the coming weeks. the memo that we indicated -- >> president maxwell: let me say we're on a three-week break. this came out april 15th. april, may, june. that's what it says, i believe april 16th is when the california p.u.c., that's what i saw. if it was any later than that, please let me know. >> when the california p.u.c. issued its resolution indicating that it was approving our

participation in the program. then that the clock started with respect to the timeline for providing draft materials to the p.u.c. we've been working on the draft materials. we do plan to engage with communities of interest on this solicitation and continue to get feedback between now and the target release date of septembe. >> president maxwell: that's why i like to know the strategy. i like to know how you plan to do that? >> we're still developing our strategy for the engagement. i'm happy to communicate that through the secretary, to you in writing before the next meeting. i'm happy to come back at the next meeting with more information. >> president maxwell: that would be helpful. for me an update before the september r.f.o. i like to hear more along the way. definitely, before that date.

>> absolutely. >> president maxwell: any further comments? >> i second that. i appreciate you bringing that up president maxwell. >> president maxwell: thank you. any further comments on any of the other communications? thank you. >> i have a comment. i was wondering on the water supply condition, i was wondering if you have any discussions around potential need for water conservation. it seems to be snow pack is

gone. reservoir seems to be okay. i'm wondering if we end up with few more years of drought, do we need to put emergency conservation in place. i know we have 10% voluntary going on. >> that's correct. basically, it's coming to an end. there are some tiny by thes of snow still melting. it's still there. iver if id that. we've been looking at the update for this year and looking at what next year might bring and thinking as we always need to do, what is next year a bad year as well. we currently told our wholesale

customers to try to target below 2019 demand and have recommended that they limit outdoor irrigation. in san francisco asking folks to cutout door irrigation by 10%. if this fall is dry and beginning of next year is dry, i think it is very likely that we would come to the commission and others with a call for a 10% reduction in overall demand off 2019. it might start out as voluntary. we would consider it mandatory. definitely, we need to get out and track if we're starting to reduce demands in the system to make sure we can extend our water supplies long enough until we do get alternative water supplies in place or hopefully before end of the drought. we're at a tipping point now. if this fall is dry, we could

call for a reduction starting in january to make sure that people don't think, it's a dry january, so i should turn up the irrigation a little bit. no, if it's a dry january, you should be turning down the irrigation a little bit. >> commissioner ajami: just a follow-up question. would it be more strategic to put those in place now and not wait for next year? the more we can save now potentially we'll have more water in case you end up in drier conditions next year. >> i think for this year we called response to our communications to our customers both in san francisco and outside. we've seen demand over the last few weeks flatten out. people already responding. the message has gotten out to lots of different channels.

our customers are stepping up. we don't see a need to add any additional call at this time. again, it will start to become more serious if we get into that situation as this all develops. >> commissioner ajami: thank you. >> president maxwell: any further comments? why don't we open this up to public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 5, communications, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 299 3417. to raise your hand to speak, press star 3. limit your comments to the topic of agenda item being discussed. we ask public comment be made in civil and respectful manner.

please address your remarks to the commission as a whole not to individual commissioners or staff. do we have any callers? >> there are two callers in the queue. first caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: thank you president sophie maxwell. first about the benchmarking, it's interesting, material, the format is not very accessible.

kind of hard for me to comment about it. i like to see the report done in a way where i can have more of the details that's in the 2018 report with the kilowatt hours it burns and other units, etcetera. i like to see our benchmark at least be a good message to try to increase electrification in the system. certainly, i'm supportive of the program for renewables in disadvantaged communities. renewable energy should not be for -- renewable energy should be for everybody. ideally, i think this could be used to make renewable energy affordable for those who least

can afford it. this should help bring more energy into the system so we can drive down the cost to eventually have lower cost for renewable energy for everyone. i support that. i hope you can get the information out. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next caller. >> caller: david pilpel again. focusing today again on item 5c, correspondence log. i want to thank commission secretary donna hood and anyone else involved, staff to the attorney or anybody behind the scenes. thank you, having not just the correspondence log but having the actual text to the communication, whether it's a

letter, an e-mail, the attachments, appropriately redacted. i think it was a great idea when i suggested it a couple of meetings ago. i thought it would take time to put together. no, the next meeting you made it happen. the way you got the information there both in a log and with the attachments, media clips at the end all of that, i think is actually a model for other boards and commissions in the city and perhaps other public agencies. regardless of people's expression or viewpoint, i think it's helpful to see what people are thinking, what they are communicating and to have that public. i thank donna and anyone else involved in making that happen. that was great and is great. thanks.

>> thank you for your comments. there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item 5 is closed. >> president maxwell: commission er harrington? >> commissioner harrington: i like to add my thanks. i did appreciate the correspondence. i can see it all there in one place. thank you very much, donna. >> president maxwell: i agree. thank you. >> commissioner ajami: me too. save time to search through the e-mail and find the communication. >> clerk: next order of business is item 6.

report of the general manager. mr. carlin? >> good afternoon presidential maxwell and commissioners. i have couple of things on the general manager report. first one is the san francisco commission racial equity plan update. >> good afternoon commissioners. nice to see everybody again. thank you for the slades. hi again, i'm the chief officer for san francisco public utilities commission. i'm joined here by my colleague, chief strategy officer for the san francisco public universities commissioner. we're joined by leaders to bring to you our agency's update on

our racial equity action plan and 2021 priorities. brief agenda, pretty straightforward. all of the details in this great work to achieve our 2021 racial equity priorities will be covered later on in the presentation. i like to orient to you a little bit to the slides that you'll be seeing throughout. you will see two legends on the slide. one will depict our progress to date on some of our initiatives. the other will show you the partnership throughout our enterprises and bureaus outside of h.r.s. activities to accomplish this work. i like to thank and express extreme gratitude to the many employees who have contributed thus far to advancing this work both within h.r.s. and external affairs and especially the

emerging leaders whom you will hear from today. honestly, those are the folks who have been driving this work and without them, their hard work, hard work of their teams, none of this would have been possible. i will turn it over. next slide please. >> hello commissioners. today i'll be sharing the engagement process for this internal phase of this work within our organization. we focused on entering our front line and remote work who come in everyday to continue our operations. every single one of our enterprises and bureaus is identified racial equity lead to represent them. we have met with them dozens of times since july. sometimes multiple times a week. we held multiple all agency townhalls at single one of our enterprises and bureaus have come and presented to you have shared. they gone out to sites to physically meet people where they are at, called folks individually to get their input

and provided anonymous means to provide input. we conducted multiple agency-wide surveys and other group. what we hope to do is build a foundation and make this work sustainable overtime. you'll hear about the work we've done through budgeting, bringing expert and developing i.t. systems. we worked to call in all of our colleagues so the work extends. this is reflected in the 80 plus people in our racial equity plan who contributed to this development. hundreds of other folks have not participated as we tray to highlight all the different meters. we're continue hag tradition by having staff from our human resources presenting to you. >> thank you. i'm the deputy people officer. i'll be talking about our recruitment efforts.

we will go from a single job board to having hundreds of recruitment sources, including hbcus, community colleges local community organizations and social media channels. we want to make data-driven decisions with the implementation of new applicant tracking system. we will be able to collect and analyze diversity data at all stages of the recruitment to hiring process. even measuring the effectiveness of our recruitment and activities. this new recruitment data will be integrated into our people analytics system, we have a comprehensive tool to ensure we're making promote progress towards our racial equity action plan goals. thank you. i will pass it on to my college,

jenny. >> hi everyone. i'm manager of the people science and strategy team. my focus today is on how we can use data to understand our racial equity strength and gaps and effectively target our effort to improve employee experience and be accountable for racial equity. we are reanalyzing all our past survey through an equity lens. we are also collecting new data such as through an upcoming racial equity survey which will be informed by our previous analysis and in collaboration with the agency racial equity team. this come together with a report of recommendation to help us prioritize action items and discover any blind spots that might not be covered by the plan yet to make sure we're pulling

on all the right levers. i will pass it to tiffany. >> hello. i'm a senior h.r. analyst. i'm also the h.r.s. racial equity lead. i'll be sharing our progress on organization accountability and incluestivety. our goal is to building inclusive culture not just from the racial equity working group but all employees of the organization. the racial equity resource library was launched by all employees to access. the library is a full web-based tool available to all employees. it includes resources from other jurisdictions and organizations, books and film recommendations for the sfpuc and o.r.e. we received feedback to incorporate training as well as feedback to modify our new employee orientation. we plan on using the feedback to

launch a microaggression training. now my colleague rachael will walk you through the next slide. >> thank you. good afternoon commissioners. i'm rachael, the p.u.c.'s employee labor relations manager. these programs help our employees not only know what it takes to be successful in their current job but to provide them with support and to develop next steps. we want to give our supervisors and managers tools and experience so we can support underperforming employees. as our employees promote into supervisory and manager role, building on the success of the development program and bringing

it to our current and developing front line supervisors. we are also working towards increasing transparency and looking to leverage data from our case management system to identify emerging trend in troubled spots. all these programs work together to support our employees and create diverse and inclusive leaders. thank you for your time. >> hello commissioners. i will talk about how we are resourcing this important work. in terms of budget, this past february, this commission adopted adjustments to the budget. additionally the business services and budget teams are working now to develop a budget equity tool to guide future budget planning. we are working to bring on consultants in the short-term to support project management and training and also working on a longer term contract to bring on

ongoing support for the implementation of the racial equity action plan. finally, existing staff is holding a ton of critical work. specifically racial equity leads and racial equity working groups and h.r. enterprise and bureau as well as agency-wide working such as power and sanitation, human rights and more. >> hello, again. this slide represents the long-term and sustainable approach that we're taking to achieve our racial equity objectives. this time it's in the realm of our data and systems. we created a multi-year road map that we link to our racial equity plan so we'll be able to measure our progress throughout our agency. some of the initial priorities within that road map are already under way. i like to give a huge shot out and thank you to our leaders and

partners in business services for their great work in launching a large-scale project towards resilient and equitable i.t. this project was born out of data we received from our workforce during covid-19. we had two surveys in that regard and most of this information came from our second. some of our employees said they did not have access to the right equipment they needed. this project was launched to address that need. that's a wrap for our 2021 racial equity priority for this agency. we'd be happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> commissioner paulson: i know that in our day in age, power and rights are always important. i want to thank the staff and

the team for not just in presentation but to the other ones. it's probably as thorough that i've ever seen other than within some -- including some trade unions that i worked with over the years. when you talk about rights i was somebody on the staff that can talk about what those actually mean from h.r. perspective. it's all about you can't fire somebody or start disciplining somebody or messing with somebody, without making it an equal playing field and dialogue, which is what the scaly ruling is about. i'm not asking -- this is not a grilling or anything. i'm wondering if there's something on the staff that can explain what they believe during this process, the scaly ruling

and things that were in that powerpoint actually means. thank you. >> as part of our transparency and discipline process, some of things we're doing, we always tell employee up front in the scaling notice, any problem that they have a right to a meeting. we set the date and time. we make it clear they have this right. also part of the work we're doing, we are building a diverse pool of scaly officers. usually folks who do similar work to serve the scaly officer and look at the p.u.c. pace and look at the information the employee represented and make a

recommendation. >> commissioner paulson: that is all just part of any h.r. disciplinary stuff that goes on? i assume it's what you're kind of saying. is there any extra emphasis on that during this process? i know that all city departments and all public agencies throughout america are supposed to -- throughout california are adopting this stuff. is there anything extra other than the great things you just said that you can say that are different today than three years ago? >> the new part is that we are having with our scaly officer pool, we're pulling from the supervisors and managers throughout our organization. typically within the city, departments around h.r. staff perform that function. that's actually a big pain for

us. we've been doing it now probably about six months consistently. it seems to have good results. >> commissioner paulson: that's good. the fact that you're pooling from management is a good thing. management is management. i'm making sure that workers know that is a right as opposed to procedure or some ways, two different things in terms of safety. thanks for that answer. >> president maxwell: any further comments? commissioner ajami? >> commissioner ajami: i want to say, i really appreciated the presentation. i really like how you had the circle and different sizes to track where you're going.

i appreciate how you guys came up with different benchmarks and elements trying to track them. it's really helpful to have a very solid plan that helps to work with. this is a lifetime process. it's not you can you can turn it off and on. we all learn everyday. you have to constantly add to it. i appreciate to see that you have a living document or living plan that's going to evolve as we are evolving as an organization. thank you. >> commissioner harrington: i like to add my thanks to the presentation but all the work that went into all of that.

i'm big on measurement. what i love to see is the effectiveness of this. it will be great to start to see, what about is the current make-up of our staff at different levels? how is that changing? are we seeing that different kinds of people are being hired or promoted? to start to see the staff results of this work would be great to see. you can figure out how and when to show us those things. that will be the next step to see the results of this work. realizing it's an ongoing thing. that would be great. >> sure thing. as we develop a more holistic data infrastructures, which is part of what we're doing as part of the 2021 priorities, we'll have more ease in that regard. but certainly, i believe it was kind of peppered throughout the presentation. we also value measurement and want to ensure that we're being

effective and there's lots of different ways to do that. either through recruitment data through employee survey data but all of that does take time to develop. we will look forward to being able to do that as it is a top priority for us as well. >> president maxwell: i like to thank you. i like to say, it's smart. when we look at all the people that are retiring. this is not just happening at this agency. it's happening all over. for us to looking under rocks and places that we don't normally look, is a smart move. also, i think it's a part of our mission. part of our mission is to deliver water and power and sewer. also the community and the community's interest. any good business knows how to do good business and that is part of engaging in the community what their interests

are and what's important to them. i think you're doing a really good service and a good job. along with that, some of the other parts like power and water, i think they can use a little bit more help on timelines. sometimes the first thing they say it will take time. for those of us who know, we know what that mean, maybe never or keep waiting. i think it's important that we deal with those people -- i like to see a timeline for some of those. i want to thank you for your good solid work. thank you. any further comments? all right. public comment? well done, guys. thank you. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of

public comment on item 6a. dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 146 299 3417, to raise your hand to speak press star 3. you must limit your comments to the topic of agenda item being discussed. we ask that public comment be made in a civil and respectful manner and you refrain from using profanity. do we have any callers? >> we have two callers in the queue. first caller, you have two

minutes. >> caller: the commissioner, i've been watching you all. i've been busy having several meetings in my office. i have some folks who are listening to what i have to say. they are young people. first and foremost, we need to do a needs assessment. you know, within the last 10 years, had lot of things going on adversely impacting our employees. we don't have any data on that. one of the commissioners stated, how have you used certain law or process that we have in the yunel? we need to see that. there used to be a person who was the external assistant

general manager of external affairs. she's not there anymore. there's another woman, she's not there anymore. we would like to know why? in order to do a needs assessment, we do need time. we need at least a year because of the very, very deep adverse impacts on so many employees. many of them are in touch with me. you are the policymakers. you have to listen to the

employees who work. they are the ones -- [indiscernible] >> thank you for your comment. your time has expired. next caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: thank you very much commissioner. i'm the chair of the san francisco public utility commissions citizens advisory committee. i have been appointed to the tech equity for it san francisco african-american reparations task force. in my role, as the chair of the sfpuc c.a.c. we support this report and the great work. they came in front of us several times.

we support the work they are doing. they came forward to us about a month ago in our full c.a.c. meeting. we had a deep dive in this report. what they did is quite right. i think it's a model. it's a model for the rest of san francisco. i personally want to thank the folks who are part of this report, doing this work to push it forward. on the c.a.c. side, we will including going in front of the board of supervisors. we want to make sure that you have the money necessary to implement this. i feel that we are along the

same course. we are in full support of of this report. the work has been done and the work that will be done. we look forward to working together on the actual metrics and next steps moving it forward. >> thank you for your comments. there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: public comment on item 6a is closed. >> thank you. madam president, next item is on green infrastructure program. including abupdate and incorporating feedback from the april 16th workshop. >> thank you, good afternoon commissioners. i work in the waste water

enterprise. i'm here to give you an update on our work following the april 16th workshop. today i'll review the feedback that we received, provide context for the challenge that we're working and give a high level snapshot how we're thinking about alternative to the pipe solution. some opportunities we see across the watershed and describe some of the tools. we got really useful feedback in the april workshop from all of you as well as from our colleagues from across the nation. our high level takeaways were to think big and play the long game. we are focused on learning from the past designing for the future and being able to change course when it makes sense. we're really wanting to take a

public policy lens and pose the question because our agency's investment to reduce flooding in lower is so large. this is our draft statement. our goal is to work with leaders from across the city family along with community stakeholders to deliver both long-term and quality of life benefits such as pedestrian safety, neighborhood connectivity and urban greening to san franciscans in the lower

alemany watershed. with that broader view, we're looking to achieve a long-term outcome of flood resilience using a corridor. changing a city in this way won't happen overnight. later in the presentation, i'll go over a phased approach to get us there. to quickly ground ourselves in the watershed, here are some quick context maps. here we are in the watershed. the flooding challenges occur at the drown stream end in red. you can see where where the creek used to flow. this is where flooding happens today. you can also see the steep topography that makes water move really fast in this watershed

and make flooding challenging to manage. the upper watershed is largely residential. while the lower watershed is dominated by industrial institutional and open space. this map shows the flooding extent in the five-year storm. this is what the pipe project was looking at. when you zoom in, we see that in total, 30 acres of in land in lower alemany are flooded. this is a very small area. it is about one tenth of one percent of the area served by

the sewer system. there are hundred buildings affected by the flooding. of the flooded area, the vast majority is on city right-of-way. it's important that of the 30 acres flooded only one acre is residential land use. here is the flood extent during 100-year storm. the area affected by flooding isn't multiplied by 20 of the 5-year storm. it doubles to 78 acres with over 200 buildings affected. similar, the vast majority of flooded area is city right-of-way and caltrans about 70% in this case. this watershed and land use data

really informs our pivot from underground solution to a surface solution where we can thread the benefits hopefully across a larger area than just one tenth of one percent. we want to make sure sfpuc rates matter. our basic approach is to soak up as much water as we can while acknowledging there will be floodwaters to manage the watershed where we'll need flood resilience measures to protect the structures there. with that in mind, the team has been hard at work since april 16th identifying a planning level set of feasible location for green infrastructure in the watershed. those are shown in green on this map. rain garden, and storm water capture our all important tools for these areas.

we're also looking at what we're calling a flood resilient corridor that's following it historic islais creek alignment. flood resilient streets and right-of-way will be important along with the option of acquiring land through voluntary buyout. they can be realized here through capital project, grants, regulation and partnership. here are some precedent images showing what these types of interventions can look like and you can see that they are designed not only to manage storm water but to make cities more liveable and provide multiple benefits for resident.

we're pursuing a phased approach that will focus on providing residents with flood protection in a 5-year storm within the timeline of the original pipe project which was to be completed in 2027. at the same time, we'll be working towards resilient with colleagues. we'll need support and way of thinking with new tools, not clust flood resilient construction and work in the right-of-way that is on it surface rather than underground. finally overtime interventions will build towards a longer term vision of a flood resilient corridor that not only manages storm water but it can make the city more beautiful and more liveable. our planning framework as we have it laid out now will include four main areas. the first one is project

governance on city family partners and learning from other cities. the second is watershed planning to understand the tools and the performance, measuring where we'll get. number three is equity engagement so the work can be informed by the needs and goals of the folks who live in these flood impacted neighborhoods. number four is funding financing and contracting, we need to use funds in new ways that my differ from traditional capital project. i'll wrap up by sharing few key next steps that we're talking about in june. in this month, we'll begin site visits to determine types of flood resilient designs. the next two months, we'll be completing model run that will tell us about the combined

performance of green infrastructure and flood resilient intervention. which we have not done together before. that will be very exciting. in the next six months, we'll be framing out a prioritization plan, which can show us which project is impactful. we'll be researching out to stakeholders to share our approach, get their feedback and learn about their experiences with flooding and needs in their neighborhood that could be kind of synergies with our goals as well. that concludes my update. i'm happy to take comments and questions. thank you. >> commissioner paulson: that was a very elaborate and wonderful schematic of all the different things that you're looking at.

especially living in california where droughts and floods and this volatility of being able to manage the water resources is so incredible. that's why i'm so much enjoying being on this commission to monitor and to make decisions about this. there's one comment that gets used sometimes very strategically and very lazily in san francisco. that talks about the city family. that's where i have the quick question. the answer could be just some bullet points because there are so many departments. san francisco and new york have more city departments than any urban city in the history of america.

van ness avenue, there's a continuation what is going to be a wonderful thoroughfare, everybody got a piece on that. they didn't when they started it. people had to do reactions to say, well listen, you guys are digging something up and screwing this up. we can't do this. i guess i want to have -- it could be bullet points -- what different departments are involved in this flooding. capturing water and residential i'm not asking for 20 minutes. maybe just a synopsis just couple of minutes as to what that means.

>> thank you for the question. that's a really great point. i think with this surface design, we'll have to be really rigorous with the city family engagement. when we're designing streets, we're going to work with m.t.a. not in the way we are coordinating to stay out of each other's way. where we're like, we're going to do our pipe project, let's make sure it doesn't interfere with your street project. it will go beyond coordination and into how can we work together to make a different kind of infrastructure. certainly, we will not be able to be lazy with this one or we won't actually be successful. m.t.a. is going to be very key, the planning department. we're going to be working closely on the parcel prioritization project with them to look at land use changes.

it will be to be very engaged with that for sure. at the base of this creek, outside of this project area, we'll have to work with the port. what we're looking at when we say city family in that little planning framework is establishing a true set of teammates. we're not just coordinating with one another. we're meeting regularly to envision the outcome together. that's in the next month or so, our goal is to establish who those teammates are, who the directors like to assign and start documenting roles and responsibilities so we can move beyond that coordination meeting and move into kind of co-creation. that's a brief answer. we'll keep that top of mind next time we update you all on the project. >> i will say, in terms of bullet points, you said planning

and you said m.t.a., you want to elaborate on that literally in bullet points? >> like verbally right now? >> i guess in general. in terms of who else? >> we could do that. we can work with folks. from the policy perspective, we're also going to be working with the city administrator's office and office of resilience. part of the regulatory strategy is going to be flood resilient building code so that new construction is builtly to withstand 100 years. there's going to be the infrastructure agencies like ourselves and m.t.a. and policy agencies like planning and city administrators office. i think you're bringing up a good point. we have not reached out to

create an academic board. you may have noticed on the framework slide, that we did have in there three committees. the planning advisory committee and one thought was that some of the colleagues who attended the april 16th workshop would be interested in sitting on such a committee since there was broad agreement that we're all just embarking on integrating green infrastructure and resilience together. the final advisory committee, which is acknowledging that we have set of plans capital investment for the pipeline which is $289 million. how will we pivot and use that money for the surface intervention that's going to be very complex? we wanted to identify experts on a financial advisory committee both from inside of our agency as well as outside. i think that will be an

interesting space. then water case studies is important. we have to start changing the culture around what our expectations are. there's still going to be water after the water storm. we want people to be clear. we're not -- we're just embarking on this. we're planning it out. we're getting started. as we establish the technical team of the city-family partners as well as the learning from other practitioners part, we can provide you, if you like to give any feedback or ideas, that would be fantastic on folks would be really great. >> commissioner paulson: i want to make sure when this happens, when things are finished or ongoing, the actual plumbers and

operating engineers, electricians and folks that dig the ditches and do all that stuff, which are the skilled folks that live and work in san francisco are also going to be consulted. i do encourage to reach out to the labor unions that have the apprentices that know how to do this work once everybody figures out what the heck has to be done. >> president maxwell: thank you for that. commissioner harrington then commissioner ajami. >> commissioner harrington: it's really exciting to hear us talk about this. now we're talking about managing it storm water. there's a much broader view.

we had a discussion about this in public few months ago. there's all these great ideas. because the staff had them all along. now they're free to express them. now they're free to work on things differently. i appreciate it so much. >> president maxwell: let me say, i have to give a shot out and a special to commissioner harrington. it started from him saying, wait a minute, when i was here, we were doing the same thing. now you're continuing to do it. thank you commissioner harrington, for really getting us going. this is your baby. it's coming. thank you for impregnating the idea and keeping it going. [laughter] >> commissioner ajami: thank you so much for your great

presentation. i'm thrilled and excited to see this. i have couple of questions for you and couple of comments. i was wondering while talking about land and trying to change the land use and all that, have you done any work to understand what the physics of the area. it's really important to make sure that element is accounted for. some areas can take forever for the water to go down. you had the comments how we measure the financing model and all that. you know i'm like, it has been my constant nagging. i'm wondering if there are ways

we as a city, can start thinking about how we would do a different way of measuring the performance of this system. how we come up with multibenefits sort of measures and standards.

i think that's really important.

one last comment or question, i know we have actually have put in place lots of green infrastructure across the city and over the years. i'm wondering if we have done any kind of -- i know some of has been opportunistic, do you have any sense if we have enough density evergreen infrastructure in one location. have we seen an improvement in the way in our storm water or sewage overflows or storm water or any of that. do we have any numbers for that? are we still looking into that. >> first one was about the

permeability and how do we know where the water is going. one is at the watershed scale with the ordinance and soil mapping etcetera. where we have plating scale, understanding where infiltration will be safe and good and where there might be places where we have to line our green infrastructure. which is also okay. we're still managing storm water. aside from that, watershed scale, we always do a site analysis. the city is extremely variable. you may see something on a map that says one thing, when you do a pilot infiltration test it's very different. we have high degree of rigor what's required for the site scale testing once you're contemplating a capital project. if we have any contamination or

any notion there will be down stream impact, the facility must be lined. it's getting down to the site to figure that out. the other thing we can do is capture it and reuse it. that's always exciting as well in areas where infiltration does not occur. in terms of measuring benefits. i'll try to be concise. we can talk for hours about this awesome topic. obviously the trick there, they are mixing values and money. there's certain things that people are all ready charged with hearing about with dollars.

m.t.a. has willingness to pay for vision zero. they can quantify how many we're willing to pay for build outs. we can quantity how much we're willing to pay for bioretention. those kind of traditional ways of thinking about infrastructure are quantified. when you start getting into urban greening, habitat creation there are no agency that's charged with caring about that with money. the problem with all of these bottom line tools, if you start to value it, knob has the money to put in the pot. they are not charged with doing that. i call that being allow to care with your money about something. i think that's where the trick

is more than all these fancy tools. you can have all the fancy tools in the world. if no agency charged with carrying about that, there's going to be nobody to pay for it. even if you did the best calculation in the whole world. that's where values come in as a city policymaker. the folks who make the policy around green connection, habitat, are the folks who have no money, which is the planning department, department of environment. they are charged with policy but there's no dollar following those policies. unless it's grant money or whatever. that would be a really interesting workshop.

>> president maxwell: we need follow up with policy. who else can say beauty if we are part of our mission is the environment. overseeing of that and how we deal with those resources. it seems to me that this is a great opportunity for us to come up with a policy whoever is here that's the policy. it can be with money. >> commissioner ajami: you are spot on this challenge of how to bring everybody together and who has the money and who doesn't have the money. i think there's an opportunity for us to pick a leadership in this area and identify how a city can actually create these qualitative measures and put together to move forward. i closely listen to every talk

that was given during the green infrastructure meeting. only one that i had not seen befores the new york one. i was the most impressed by the new york one. they had done pretty good job of trying to create some form of alternative performance measure to value their green infrastructure versus some of the other agencies. for example, one group that we are very -- it's part of our own family. power enterprise. the fact that we are all about clean power and trying to reduce our emissions. some of these green spaces do have some positive, net positive impacts on that. which we often don't measure. i know in new york, because they have a very distinct standards

around it, they are using some of those measures part of their greening. just a few talks there. >> president maxwell: commission er paulson? our next workshop is going to be on policy and how we go forward and how we really draw it like we do everything else. thank you very much and everyone else for your comments. thank you again commissioner harrington. thank you so much. you allowed them to have that opportunity. i'm going to give it to you. why don't we open this up to public comment.

>> clerk: if public wish to make public comment, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 299 3417. to raise your hand to speak press star 3. please limit your comment to the topic of the agenda item being discussed. we ask the public comment be made in civil and respectful manner and refrain from use of profanity. please address your remarks to the commission as a whole not to individual commission or staff. do we have any callers? >> there are four callers in the queue.

you have two minutes to comment on item 6b. >> caller: the commissioner, i would suggest that you disregard this conversation that you had, beating around the bush and get some environmentalists who are really seasoned. i'm listening to this rambling and allowed to give two minutes comment. people are fed up in the middle of the pandemic.

[indiscernible] that's all i got to say. it's boring. it's gotten even more boring -- you want to defend yourself. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, your line is open. you have two minutes. >> caller: hello, david pilpel. item 6b, always great to hear from sarah and her team on green

infrastructure. i rather have these kinds of g.i. problems than other kinds of g.i. problems. the staff presentation was interesting but it went by too quickly for me. i cannot find it posted on the web. just as we found a way to include correspondence and correspondence log, if we can find a way, doesn't have to be for the next meeting, find a way to post staff presentations on the web in addition to staff reports on agenda items that would be great. that will be very helpful. it would be nice to be able to download it. next just so remind the commission, i made a comment back in april at the workshop on the alemany diversion idea.

which was an old idea to build a pipe or facility infrastructure under alemany and brotherhood way to route throw from that watershed to oceanside rather than that flow going to southeast. that would be a huge endeavor. it could be done in phases. i'm interested in some kind of order of magnitude cost on that and if staff thinks some element of that might be worthwhile to move flow out of that area but to the west side rather than into the bay. that could start with simply a structure under brotherhood way and then extend along alemany. that's my thought.

more again later. thanks. >> thank you for your comment. next caller, your line is open. you have two minutes. >> caller: thank you very much. i've been focused and working in this area for decades. i'm thrilled that you're finally looking at ecological design and developing a framework for transportation. i like to add that in addition to the city family, which will be working with the state family, specifically, caltrans, which is actually very interested and there's a lot of opportunities for developing flood resilience in addition to using the city land. i like to suggest that we look

at the whole watershed. not just the down stream alemany area but we look at the whole watershed to include what could become northern and southern gateway community park. there's a lot of open space. it's a disgrace. the alemany one down stream and then further upstream where the end of it meets with the area from glenn park. further upstream at the school's location where there's an opportunity to create -- there's enough space to do that around the existing ball field. my group has been greening and creating the opportunity to

create these narrative linear flood resilient corridors both in the lower alemany and upstream from there as well as the chavez corridor and looking at the whole watershed. it's very exciting that p.u.c. is embracing this. i want to commend the team and other commissioners for their openness and creativity. >> thank you for your comments. [please stand by]

>> thank you for your comments. there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you. public comment is now closed. >> madam president, that concludes my report for today. >> thank you. then we have no need for public comment. next item, please. >> next order of business is item seven. new commission business. >> is there any new business to discuss or bring forward? seeing none, next item, please. >> next order of business is item eight, consent calendar. all items listed here constitute the consent calendar are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission. they will be acted upon by single vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussions with items unless a member of the commissioner public so requests. in which event, it will be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate item.

>> colleagues, any objections from this? seeing none, public comment? >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on 88, the consent calendar, dial the number on your screen. the meeting i.d. is (146)299-3417-pound pound. raise your hand to speak by pressing star three. he must limit your comment to the topic of the agenda item to be discussed. if you do not stay on topic, the chair can interrupt and ask you to limit your comment. public comment should be made in a civil and respectful manner and you refrain from the use of profanity. remarks your -- address your remarks to the commission as a whole, not to individual commissioners or staff. do we have any callers?

>> madam secretary, there are no callers wishing to be recognized at this time. >> thank you. public comment on item eight is closed. >> thank you. may i get a motion and a second to approve the items on the consent calendar? >> i will move it. >> i will second. >> it has been moved and seconded. roll call vote, please. [roll call] you have five eye. >> thank you. next item, please. >> the next order of business is item nine. approve of minute number three to a different and awful arise the general manager to execute this amendment, increasing the agreement amount and extending

the term by three years. this will include automated e-mail marketing capabilities subject to board of supervisors approval pursuant to charter section 9.118. >> hello. good afternoon, commissioners. i am the manager of customer solutions for clean power s.f. the item before you today is to request your approval of an extension to the contract that provides customer and administrative services for the clean power s.f. programme. next slide, please. first of all, i will provide background on the contract. we provide the number of business-critical services for clean power s.f. these include managing meter data, maintaining the customer information database and facilitating customer billing. it is highly a technical task. they involve processing hundreds

of thousands of data points per day through multiple databases coordinating with pg nd and others. additionally, along with the local business enterprise partner, we have been managing clean power s.f. call centres. the sfpuc will be bringing customer service over and taking over that portion of the contract. finally, we also support customer programmes says that -- such as energy metering, the upcoming disadvantage community programme. we will providing data and billing and customer and management services to support these. next slide, please. additional background on the agreement itself. it was awarded in november 2015 for a three-year term through october 2018 with options for us to extend the contract for two additional three-year terms. one of those options has already

been elected through amendment number one, which brought us through october 2021 when the current contract would expire. there's also amendment number two which added terms of service to integrate dimensions, which is an e-mail marketing service. that brings us to amendment number three, that is before you today. next slide, please. before getting into the details of the amendment before you today, i would like to highlight an important development for the clean power s.f. programme. partnering with the customer service bureau, clean power s.f. will be taking over customer service duty starting next month and we are excited about this. it achieves a goal that we have set for a long time, which the commission set for us when the programme launched, to be able to provide customer service using in-house city resources. now that we are through the enrolment period, we are able to do that. we have hired for customer service agents and we are currently hiring for a supervisor of that team.

i should note that two of the agents on the team previously served clean power s.f. through the contractor in the customer service team and now have been hired on into city positions. >> so while the p.u.c. will be providing customer call centre staffing, i should note that calpine will continue to provide technology services which support the call centre. the customer information database, the automated phone system, et cetera though systems are integrated with the billing and customer data operations that we have already. it provides important continuity as we make this transition. next slide, please. here are the details of the proposed contract amendment. it would extend the term by three years through october 31st, 2024. it would increase the contract amount by $13 million for a total not to exceed $32 million, and additionally, it allows us

to take advantage of a contract price decrease due to taking on call-center responsibilities, which amounts to $2.3 million amounts of savings over the three-year term. it also amends the scope of work to increase the e-mail marketing capabilities that were mentioned previously through click dimensions. it allows clean power s.f. to seamlessly is securely send mass e-mail communications to our customers. next slide, please. to conclude, the justification for this amendment is to allow clean power s.f. to continue receiving these essential services to maintain operational continuity through the transition of the call centre and also through the development of new customer programmes over the coming years. this is essential because the p.u.c. doesn't currently have these technical capabilities in-house. so having calpine provide them

is quite essential to maintaining continuity for our customers. additionally, the scope of work modification would allow clean power s.f. to further utilize those e-mail marketing capabilities, which would reduce cost and the environmental impact of physical mailing. finally, over the next contract term, clean power s.f. will be evaluating options for us receiving these services and developing a competitive solicitation for services in 2024 and beyond. with that, i'm happy to take any questions. thank you. >> there are two questions about -- both -- two of our commissioners have questions. >> thank you. i just wanted to make the comment that i'm delighted to see some of that work in the call-center coming in. it is something that, you know,

we envisioned and promised when we started this thing. it is sometimes easy to use a consultant as a crutch beyond what is necessary, but i'm glad that we are doing what we can do and the programme has stabilized. i wanted to recognize that. >> commissioner paulson? >> i have one question this is all very well represented. it is an organic thing that is sweeping forward. thank you for the presentation. i had a technical fiduciary question. the 13 and $14 million, you know, per year and where the ceiling, you know, was put into say, you know, $32 million a year. could that be explained little more? this is a slide two or three slides ago. >> sure. in regards to the not to exceed

amount, the 32 million-dollar figure was for the entire nine year span of the contract and what we are adding on is an additional 13.8 million to cover costs that will be incurred over the next three years. >> that is your question? >> the 32.6 was just inclusive the way everything started in 2015. is that what you meant? >> yes. >> thank you. >> okay. is there a cost associated with cost reduction, associated with us bringing it in-house? >> yes, that was $2.3 million. there is a reduction that was previously negotiated at the last contract term anticipating this transition.

now we are taking advantage of the cost reduction. >> okay. >> i have a quick question. maybe i missed it. what was the annual cost of having this contract? do we have that number. >> let me see if i have that handy. >> we can come back. >> if you can come back with the exact number. how it is structured is we are charged on a per meter basis with a charge for the data administration services and an additional charge for the customer service portion. that pieces getting reduced on a per meter basis. i can go back and get back to you with the specific numbers. >> the reason i i am asking is maybe you referred to this. it is valuable to see if we would have continued on this path contracting this, how much

we would be, you know, paying in 10 years. it would be good to have this comparable analysis are we better off, worse off i think we are saving money by doing this. it would be valuable to see that visually to make sure the number you are talking about is quite significant and less than what we would have paid. >> right. we're understanding that comparing the $2.3 million which is contract savings and the cost for us running it internally. >> yes. >> so the employees will love your comments. >> thank you.

>> any further discussion? why don't we open this up to public comment. >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item number 19, doll the number of -- on your screen. raise your hand to speak and press start three. you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed. if you do not stay on topic, the chair can interrupt and ask you to limit your comments. public comment must be made in a civil and respectful manner and you refrain from the use of profanity. addressed to -- address your remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual staff members. do we have any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue at this time.

>> thank you. public comment on item nine is closed. >> may i get a motion and a second to approve this item, please? >> i will move. >> i will second it. >> it has been moved and seconded. roll call vote, please. [roll call] you have five in agreement. >> thank you. next item, please. >> next item is item 10. with the duration of 755 consecutive calendar days to be responsible -- [indiscernible]

-- this action constitutes the approval action for the project for the purposes of ceqa. this could be presented by brian freeborn. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is ryan freeborn. i am the project manager for the local water programme at the sfpuc. this item is to request an award to ranger pipelines in the amount of 12 million dollars. the estimate for this project was 13.5 million. we received forbids varying from $12 million to $20 million. the contract duration is approximately two years and one month. the project is located at and around the reservoir and the

bernal heights neighborhood of san francisco. this project is part of a base programme to improve the reliability of the water distribution system from the reservoir to san francisco general hospital. it is designed to withstand a major seismic event and this project will address essential seismic improvements within the reservoir, reservoir, and the outlet. this project utilizes earthquake resistance, iron pipe which is able to withstand damage to both the pipe and the joint during and following an earthquake. this project also includes installation of a new control valve, replacement of reservoir and inlet and outlet piping, “placement of the first section of the transmission pipelines for the system up to the avenue. [indiscernible]

and water call -- quality improvements. thank you. please let me know if you have any questions. >> any questions? >> i have one. commissioner harrington? >> i don't have a question, but i needed to comment that 10% of the contract will be going to michael o'shaughnessy construction company. it is a nice roundabout way to get back to the o'shaughnessy. >> commissioner paulson. >> ranger has a history of working on contracted out stuff for the agency. does it not? or is this the first time? >> ranger pipeline has successfully done a lot of our

main replacement programmes and projects and reservoir projects and they have been very successful in the past and with projects from other public agencies. >> just give me one example for the record, if you me. [indiscernible] >> what? >> recently they did the main replacement work on van ness avenue as part of the bart work. there was a subcontractor for the 4 miles of main replacement as part of the van ness bart. they recently did all the water work for sfmta, in which the p.u.c. did the water main replacement and both of those projects were very successful.

they did great work. >> thank you. i just wanted to make sure when i saw this all of a sudden at the last minute to make sure that this was not a different ranger. thank you. >> yep. >> can you give me an idea of the range? we go from 12,000 to 20. they have done work for us before as well. do you know why there is such a discrepancy? >> they have done work for the p.u.c. in the rollover five years that i have been working at this p.u.c., they have not done any main replacement or reservoir project. the discrepancy could be that they are less familiar with the bidding environment and the type of work. ranger is and does do work, you know, so that could be part of the discrepancy of why the bid

was so much higher than the estimate. >> thank you. any further comments or questions? seeing then, this is open for public comment. >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 10 doll the number on your screen. please note you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed and we remind you if you do not stay on the topic, the chair can interrupt and ask you to limit your comment to the agenda item. it should be made in a civil and respectful manner and you refrain from the use of profanity. reduce your remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or staff.

>> do we have any callers? >> there is one caller in the queue. i have opened your line. you have two minutes. >> hello. sorry to be a nag on ceqa issues. but both in the staff report and in the last resolve clause on, excuse me, the last whereas clause on page one of the resolution, it refers to the determination dated by the planning department as october 14th, and the attached document appears to be dated november 14th, 2019. so can someone take a quick

look? if i am right then perhaps you can amend the last clause to have the correct date. this is something the staff should catch beforehand. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. >> there are no more callers in the queue, madam secretary. >> thank you. public comment on item 10 is closed. >> all right. is there a motion and a second to approve as is? >> so moved. >> second. >> it has been moved and seconded. roll call vote, please. [roll call]

>> next item, please. >> next item is item 11. adopt a resolution accepting the 2021 sfpuc wildfire mitigation plan update and sfpuc 2021 informational response to the california wildfire safety advisory board 2021 guidance advisory opinion to be cemented to the board on or before july 2021. >> hello. i am with the water and power. we are part of the water enterprise up here. i am here today to present our mitigation plan and accept the commission approval plan. next slide, please the overhead electrical lines -- by state law

we are required to maintain and operate these lines in a manner that will minimize the risk. so we are required to prepare wildfire mitigation and set this up under the california wildfire safety advisory board. we are also required to update the plan buying into pain -- independent evaluator at least once every three years. next slide, please i would like to remind everybody where the lines are and what type of risks we have. the california public utilities commission has created a high fire threat district map designating portions of california that are within high fire threat districts. the california public utilities commission has defined three tiers. tier one is a high hazard area that is shaded in purple.

next is tier two, which is an elevated risk above that which is shaded in yellowish orange and tier three, which is extreme risk, which is shaded in pink. this is an excerpt of that map. and as you can see, it has our facilities on it and all the way down to san francisco on the left. our -- coloured in green are the distribution lines. we consider those -- [indiscernible] -- and also, the transmission lines. greater than one -- greater than 100 kilovolts. they are shaded in blue. they take our energy all the way from the project and down and not up too far into the bay area. so looking at the map, we have over 210 miles of overhead

electrical lines. and 94 miles of the line is within these high fire threat districts, specifically tier two. next slide, please. the wildfire mitigation plan includes three principles. minimizing and ignition of a fire, helping protect the resiliency of the grid, and majoring in plan effectiveness and performance to make sure we strive towards continual improvement. next slide, please. to minimize source ignition of a fire, we have developed prevention, mitigation, and response strategies. that includes situational awareness for our staff and training. we also do equipment instructions of our transmission line distribution.

and vegetation management. we also have a strategy for closure and d. energizing the lines. restoration of service and how we can communicate with our employees and the public. i want to share a picture of our crews. hot washing the transmission lines. they are hot washing the insulators and other associated hardware to remove contaminants that can cause tracking. tracking and arcing can degrade the equipment and lead to failures. they can cause sparks, which fall to the ground, and cause fires. next slide, please. we have a lot of accomplishments in 2020. we updated our fire weather monitoring process.

we updated our vegetation management plans for all of our transmission lines greater than 100 kilovolts. we inventoried our high-risk equipment on the distribution pole and developed a project to replace equipment over the next three years. we continue to work on grabs. we have also done work with the forest service to develop an agreement to remove over 350 trees on the right of way. [please stand by]

>> we also look at numbers of times in the district. as you can see from 2019, we moved from one to four events. this will cause a little bit by type of conditions we have this year. but also as i said earlier, we changed our protocols and we de-energized on the distribution lines. we tracked how many wires we have down. whether that's in the high fire district or outside the district. we had two wires down. one was on the --

[indiscernible] we continue to ref in this effort. in fiscal year 2021, funding was provided. we used the funding towards training of our staff and to get the right equipment for them to prevent wildfires including water trailers and pumps. funding was mostly provided for equipment, we're using resources to administer the program and perform vegetation removal. hopefully within the next couple of months, we will be proposing permanent positions in fiscal year '23. this is going to be an ongoing effort. i think that's it.

>> president maxwell: any questions. mr. paulson? no. i have a question. the trees that you taken out, are these trees dead, are they hazardous? are you doing it because it will be more effective of fire? >> we have noted hazard type of trees that are dead or structurally wrong them. we have removed them. some of these trees that we're moving now that i identified, they are listed part of this sales with the forest service. those trees, some of them are healthy and we are removing them because they will fall on potentially fall on the lawn.

we are being little bit more proactive about removing them. it's just a combination. >> president maxwell: with spraying of the lines, is it just plain water? where does it water come from? is there kind of chemical in the water that helps? >> no. we are spraying them with water. the water comes from our own facility. they run in parallel with the transmission line. when we're out doing that, we're taking the water from the san joaquin pipeline. >> president maxwell: but the water is drinkable water?

>> yes. >> president maxwell: you mentioned that you set down some of your power line. does that mean that there's been power outages? >> what we have shut down, it's usually the distribution lane. there's more work that we have to do in that area. when we do that, we affect minimum customers. we shut it down. we can still deliver water without our distribution line. we also shut do down. evergreen is affected. we inform them when we're having an event or de-energizing. we inform them before hand. >> president maxwell: about how many people are there? >> during the winter, two or three. when camp is in session,

probably around 500 to 600 people. >> president maxwell: you probably try to de-energize when not very many people there. >> we get those lines back up within a few hours after the event is over. our main objective is not to start a fire. >> president maxwell: thank you. well done. commissioner ajami? >> commissioner ajami: thank you so much for your presentation. the plan was very comprehensive. i have question about prescribed burns. i didn't see anything in the plan on those. maybe i missed it. >> right. we coordinate.

within that group we have cal fire, the forest service, ourselves, the county and through cal fire, we used that as a process to develop burns for the hatchie area. >> good afternoon commissioners. margaret really did great job covering the plan, which is a really critical part of our portfolio. we do have just not by coincidence but by chance our prescribe burns. right now it is scheduled for tomorrow. if the conditions are appropriate. the weather conditions and the staff is available.

it is in the watershed. we do this annually as we can. there was another proposal by cal fire, ceqa document that we did comment on. that document is going to be modified and republished for people to comment on again. we're waiting for that to happen. i don't think we'll see a change in the footprint. these are areas along the perimeter of the watershed. not by distribution line that margaret talked about. it's part of our portfolio. it give us a chance to work side by side, in this case with cal fire. nothing for the alameda at the moment. >> commissioner ajami: thank you so much. i don't know if you can answer this question, you mentioned

getting grants and accessing different resources to do these efforts. i'm wondering how wide is that portfolio and are we benefiting -- are we trying to access some of the broader state funding that's becoming available on the fire prevention? >> there's going to be more funding that appears to be. we will continue to do that. we have put in the proposal. we will continue to move forward on that effort. >> for the barrier, we haven't applied this round but what we've done is worked with our neighbor and partners to support their applications. this proposal from san mateo

county to work on the peninsula, immediately adjacent to our property. our contribution is to do the work on our side of the line and the grant is to then finish the work between our property in this case highway 35. we're trying to support people's effort to bring more resources to bear that will help us. >> president maxwell: thank you. thank all your staff for this as well. >> thank you. >> president maxwell: when we open this up to public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 11, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 146 299 3417. to raise your hand to speak, press star 3. you must limit your comments to

the topic of the agenda item being discussed. please address your remarks to the commission as a whole. not to individual commissionersor staff. >> there's one caller in the queue. >> caller: i did not have a comment on this. keep up the good work, margaret. thanks. >> thank you for the comment. there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you, public comment on item 11 is closed.

>> president maxwell: may i have a motion and second to approve this item? >> move. >> i'll second. >> president maxwell: so moved and seconded. roll call vote please. [roll call vote] you have five ayes. next item is item 12. discussion and possible action to adopt the 2020 urban water management plan including the 2020 water shortage contingency plan and direct the general manager to submit the plan by july 1, 2021. this action constitutes the approval action for the project for the purposes of ceqa push saunt to section 31-04h of the administration administrative code.

>> the presentation will be by steve richie. steve richie i'm the assistant general manager for water. urban water income plans are prepared by urban water suppliers every five years in accordance with state law. the purpose is to assess water supplies and demands over 25-year time frame, described measures, report progress towards meeting a targeted reduction in per capita use by 2020, discuss and planned use of recycled water and other alternative water supplies and develop and adopt a water shortage contingency plan. our timeline here, basically, we released draft plan on april 5th. it was available for public review and comment until may 5th. comments received throughout this period and even afterwards

on april 13th, we presented the draft plan to the commission and public hearing was held to receive comments. on june 8th, that's today, the urban water income plan was being presented for your consideration. with the deadline of july 1 to the department of water resources. i will cover the broad public comment topic areas. we did have a number of public comments and then the agenda item via link is the final plan for red line version of the plan and a summary document showing all the comments as well as responses to comments. first, one comment area was on projections on matters concerned about the high population projections leading to high demand probablies. -- projections. that's one area we talked about over time that we in san

francisco, utilized the planning projections that we get from the planning department. their job is to actually do a projections in this case, of number of households that will be in san francisco and number of jobs that will be in san francisco. we relay that to the expected demand based on household level of demand and on commercial levels of demand. that is where we deal with this. in terms of alternative water supplies, commenters expressed to quantify yields including supply modeling. this is an area one that has been of contention. we have estimated that the alternative water supply that we're looking at now will yield about 35 million gallons per day. that is very much subject to change and will become more refined as we get come closer to the july 1, 2023 date which we

bring a plan back to the commission for development of alternative supplies. we really have held off on that because we don't want to start publishing numbers that are going to be definitely wrong and we understand that. it hasn't changed our efforts to actually achieve those supplies which we're doing quarterly reports on those to the commission. we finished the most recent quarterly reportings. we look forward to workshop with the commission on the alternative water supplies coming up in late august or early september. that is something we're definitely pursuing. on the design and drought, commenters expressed desire for scenario to be based on the design drought sequence. we disagreed with that. we have used the 8.5 year design drought sequence. we know there are questions

about it. it's premature to actually utilize different sequence because we're expecting again, a workshop on that coming up in september or october. at that point in time, we can evaluate what we might want to do with the future design drought planning. as we discussed at one of the previous meetings, there's no need to make sure we squeeze this or anything else into the urban water management plan. because it is just a snapshot in time. what happens in the future as communities like san francisco and wholesale customer area evaluates projects demands, they basically have to do a water supply assessment. in forming those water supply assessments what will need to be done if the commission chooses to make a change in how we

evaluate design droughts in the future. it's premature to say, let pick something that have drought sequence now and put it in urban water management plan just in case. we would need to do it in a more orderly fashion. there were comments expressed to include discussion on the emergency fire fighting water system. which is the subject of m.o.u. later on the agenda. commenters like to talk about this a lot. it is a very important topic. what we're talking about in the urban water management, long-term demands and long-term supplies. not emergency demands and emergency supplies, which is what fire fighting water is. it is a part of the water supply system. there's no doubt about that. it is a very short-term need as oppose to a long-term feed, which is what the urban water

management plan are designed to address. lastly, on water shortages. wholesale customers expressed concern with the water shortages with the implementation of the delta plan and commitments to the voluntary agreement process. we did provide a letter to all of our wholesale customers last week, which the commission was copied on. basically, reiterating that we have pursued voluntary agreements before adoption of the bay-delta plan. we worked with the adoption of the bay-delta and provided voluntary agreements. unfortunately, we did file litigation because the state went ahead and adopted the bay-delta plan because of ceqa statute of limitations issues resulted in need to litigate on that. we still are pursuing voluntary agreements or other sum limits

--supplements can be achieved. in 2019, we have been pursuing water supply alternatives. as we talked about before, we may need to do a lot of these alternative water supplies or we may need to do fewer. we don't want to over build the supplies. this is a challenging issue to deal with. set of issues to deal with because of the flux around all these things. as we've heard from public comments from our wholesale customers as well as many outside parties, there are lots of strong views on this. we're trying to navigate the course that makes most sense. we identify the issue and identify our path and solutions. there's a lot to be played out on all of these fronts. net result of all this, we believe the urban water management plan is before you, lays out the snapshot of where

we are at this point in time. it will change. it will be out of date tomorrow. all our wholesale customers are doing their own in relationship to this. that's where we are on this. sarah and can both answer any questions you might have. >> president maxwell: colleagues any questions or comments? i'm not seeing -- >> i put my hand up and i put my finger up. >> president maxwell: it went blank. i couldn't see anything.

sorry. mr. paulson? >> commissioner paulson: just couple of comments. i think of all the words that were said, the word that steve talked about was navigate. we're not in the sprint. we're not in a one shot type of piece. there's things to navigate. whether or not it has to do with litigation or what have you, we have to give ourselves the space to do it. i know that this is turned little bit political in terms of people asking us to deal with, stop this, start that. whatever else. i want to applaud professionals that are working in the department for giving us the reports that they are giving right now. then secondly, i do have to comment about the 7.5 year change. i really do think that's like a

last minute one game strategy to try to get some type of political victory out of something. i want the professionals to give us the assessment and the fact that we've had a different number doesn't mean we have to stick with it. it's the number that -- that's professionals the way we supposed deal with it. if we have to change it. make it longer. we're going into another drug stage now. i appreciate the professionals in our department giving us those answers. i don't last minute, let's just win something at any cost or let's just throw a dart at something because we're going to fix everything immediately.

i like the steadiness the things we're doing despite the political pressure we may or may not have to score political points. i want to thank the staff and listen, i'm a dart thrower. on this stuff, i'm taking it very seriously. thanks to the presentation. >> vice president moran: just couple of comments, i know there's been concern expressed in terms of -- one of the reasons for desire to put the 7.5-year analysis this there so people could understand what that might mean.

if things change materially it could be a change in policy, it could be change in demand projections. it can be a change in technology as to what people need inside their house. if the numbers change significantly, the concern i hear express somehow we would have tied our hand for the next five years. is there anything that cause us or to prevent us from publishing an update.

>> what we usually do are two things. one this last cycle about a year and a half in, we did a water supply analysis to basically update the numbers to some extent. we had a better handle on them. that feeds into the real operative things, which are the individual water supply assessments that required to the the ceqa process for the development. that's where you provide all the up dated information you have. not just rely blindly on the urban water management plan we

do deal with these every five years. the information is updated and utilized in decision-making processes. >> vice president moran: as those numbers change, change the bases which we can make decisions, that information is made public? >> absolutely. we plan a certain process. we're in the process right now looking forward to reevaluating that. i expect we'll come to an answer whatever it may be.

those things will be laid out. hopefully, we expect to be engaging that starting knall and we come to some conclusion, whatever it may be within the first half of 2022. >> vice president moran: thank you. >> commissioner harrington: i think you said something about them reported. there was no link anything in

this packet. i don't have what changes were made based on the comments. >> absolutely, i just clicked on the links. >> commissioner ajami: we did not get any links with this item. >> commissioner harrington: you said you got the comments and you had a report about what you

did with the comments. i thought maybe there were changes. >> it's just before the resolution. there's four links there. >> commissioner ajami: we don't see any links. steve if you can send that to us. that would be great >> that's interesting it doesn't come out. it is in the published agenda and the published agenda items. >> commissioner harrington: ther e's no link on the agenda. let's try that too. >> president maxwell: commission er ajami mentioned the same thing. i heard somebody gave kind of a

suggestion. was there you mr. richie? >> no. i looked to the published agenda and the items that you get from the link in the published agenda. that's where i get the information. it sounds like there's an issue in translation into director's desk. >> commissioner harrington: have you made any changes base the on comments? >> yes. we did make some changes. significant ones i tried to identify where we were headed. which is not going to be pursuant to the the comments we received. >> president maxwell: can you give us an example of changes you made with the comments?

>> the majority of the edits that we did make in the documents -- [indiscernible] >> of the changes we made were editorial. we did comments pointing out some errors in the document or some numbers that needed to be updated. we did make those changes. steve mentioned with regard to those major topics that we received comments on, we

provided responses those comments and reasons why we did not make changes and response to those. >> commissioner harrington: have any of the commissioner seen the final report that we supposed to be voting on? there seems to be a potential problem. >> president maxwell: this can be a discussion as well. it's down for possible action. if we don't act, it's okay. >> commissioner harrington: it's due before our next meeting. >> president maxwell: donna can you explain why we have -- [indiscernible] >> clerk: the agenda that was published on the packet and sent to the commissioners as well, had all of the links embedded in the agenda item. with the director's desk there

was an agenda included with the exhibit. we have those links. howeverred it appears i did not individually link the attachment with the item. that is my error. >> i would recommend commissioners that we basically -- the world will not end if we missed july 1st date. we will communicate with the department of water resources and let them know that we'll be late on submittal of this so we can provide the information directly. sorry that the connection was not made.

[indiscernible] >> i have a question. i think this is the same as one of the other commissioners might have mentioned. what in those comments would make us pause to deliberate on something that we would not have deliberated on if this was coming up for a vote? that's my question to steve. >> president maxwell: before steve answers i like to say, i think it's important that the commissioners have questions and they want to see something and since it will not take away from anything that we should go forth and let the commissioners look at the information. that's extremely important. i think we should do that. before you answer -- >> president maxwell, i agree

with what you're saying in terms of process. i'm just saying, before we get into that stuff, without putting anybody on the line and steve might want to say why don't you read it and totally shut me up. is there something in there that we really need to know about before we dig in tomorrow or later tonight or whatever to what donna updates on to read about. since we're here in the meeting s there something in there that we should red flag or at least pay attention to? that is my question. >> in terms of the changes, i don't think there's anything that is a red flag. we've seen it and not just taking my word for it.

i'm trustworthy. >> ox, thank you. >> president maxwell: commission er ajami? >> commissioner ajami: my first question was ed asked. i didn't see it link. he asked that. steve i want to go back to your comment, i know we been at this before, the planning process and the fact that we get information on population growth and it's not something we do ourselves. i know we have talked this before. reality is what we see is the population growth has not directly linked to water demand growth. i wonder if there is a way that we can take the leadership role

in acknowledging that rather than always depending on those numbers. there's definitely a demand growth coming. just a thought. every audit agency does it. i know it's very difficult to deviate from common practices. i think we've all seen it overall, those projections don't directly link to demand growth. that's my comment. >> i would just say, we put lot lot of work into individual and household used to be and lot of work there in these projections. there is included. you can actually tease out and

see the effects of price as well as starting to show up here. i think it's a very interesting topic. it's a matter how that relates what the overall planning projections are going to be for members of households, members of jobs and population. we are aiming for demand projections. that's part of the process going forward. we're looking at friday, july 16th for that. we can delve into that topic for detail. that's on the retail side. we can speak very clearly to that. we also would involve our wholesale customers to talk about how they care out their demand projects. that would be a very good >> president maxwell: mr. paulso

n, you have a comment? any further discussion or comment? like to open this up to public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who makes to make two minutes of public comment on item 12, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 299 3417. press pound pound. if it public comment made in a respectful manner. please address your remarks to the commission as a whole not to individual commissioners or staff.

do we have any callers? >> there are three callers in the queue. >> caller: hello commissioners. i'm nancy, i submitted comments to you opposing item 12. however, told, i have a suggestion for you to consider that will improve the process for developing plans like the urban water management plan. i propose that the water workshops which commissioner harrington developed and that commissioner maxwell supported be continued. this unique form for the exchange of ideas and for exploring solutions is not only innovative, and informative and it's productive and civilized. i was able to attend a workshop

on water demand and supply issues. i compliment both commissioners for their vision to create a forum that can be used to study complex topics and incorporates greater diversity at the early planning stages at the sfpuc programs and projects. this input can provide staff with relevant information and appropriate questions about a topic being examined to help guide their work. public concerns can be more effectively responded to during workshops and resolve before, not after the decisions are made. also, i would like to propose a new topic for consideration at a workshop. i request that workshop be dedicated to discussing the future of the auxiliary water supply system. that uses only non-portable water delivered through an independent pipeline that is redundant to the water supply delivery system.

to fight large fires in the city. major earthquake is expected before 2043, we have no time to waste to prepare for the possibility of 63 to 120 simultaneous fires. thank you for considering my suggestions. >> thank you for your comments. next caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: good afternoon, thank you. this is peter from the tuolumne

river. the plans projections don't seem reasonable. i hope we can address these issues at your july workshop. last night, the city council voted to request that the sfpuc produce the appendix the design drought by a year. couple of weeks ago -- i understand you don't want to be rushed. we have been asking for such an analysis for more than four years. that was before many of you were on the commission. we tried. having had that discussion in time to make a decision before the urban water management plan process commence would have been ideal. here we are. we are where we are. we're hoping that after the climate change vulnerability investment is released this summer, you'll consider in august or september, shaving a

year off the design drought and having appendix in the urban water management plan will would city to make that change. i like to commend sfpuc staff on releasing the plan early. some water agencies only gave couple of weeks to comment. thank you very much for the opportunity to comment. look forward to the july workshop. >> caller: david pilpel again. i was surprised to hear that

commissioners could not find the attachments on the public version page 4 at the bottom. it list the four attachments. they were all downloadable. it's in share file. it was there. there are 12 pages of comments and responses. i think the way the staff cataloged the comments and responded was very helpful. then there are track changes on both the -- then a final 432-page document. that was at least accessible to the public. great work by p.u.c.'s water resources staff. as i said before, i hope the next workshop ties water supply planning to the supply and demand drought planning

conservation alternatives, etcetera. i think it's important to pull all those topics together. i believe the staff will do that. those are my comments. if it's possible, if you need to take some time to look at those comments, i would encourage to take a recess or come back to this after closed session so hopefully you could adopt it today and not put it off the july. i'm pretty sure staffed worked hard to get this to you today. it will be unfortunate if it didn't get adopted until july. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: public comment on item >> president maxwell: colleagues

, have you had an opportunity to see it? >> i was going to suggest, sound like the commission is incline to continue the item. you can entertain a motion to continue your next meeting july 13th. alternatively, you could deal with the public commenter just mentioned and take an adjournment and review the items and come back and vote. >> president maxwell: colleagues , have you had an opportunity to see them or to find them? would you like to -- which one would you like to entertain? >> commissioner harrington: we do have a session meeting on

friday. is it possible to continue this item to that special meeting and vote at that time? that will give us three days to look at it. >> actually, i can address that. the agenda 72 hours prayer to the meeting. we are past that 72 hour deadline for modification to that agenda. >> i have heard that people do want to take the time. i heard steve richie say that there's not like a real downside to making sure that the paperwork is all in at the appropriate time. may be that's another question for counsel as to whether or not what mr. richie said is true.

there's no down said to us waiting to the next meeting. is there just from a process point of view, am i incorrect because of the 72 hour thing that was mentioned by donna, is that true? in your opinion? legally as opposed to policy? >> you missed the agenda dead - deadline. i would defer to mr. richie on that question. the agenda item did say that was a deadline for submittal. perhaps there are extensions granted. it sounded like -- >> we all want to read it. make sure that we know that as commissioners, everybody knows

that we read it. the downside of that, as you explained. >> there's actually no hard and fast penalty for missing july 1st deadline. there will be hundreds of these coming in around the state. it's not like starting to read all of them on day one when there are -- they are submitted. in my experience, it's not a good thing to miss a deadline. certainly it's not the end of the world by any means to miss the deadline. the other alternative if they wanted to schedule special meeting in consideration of this in another week or so. that's up to the commission for

that. >> would you suggest through the chair that a letter gets attached to that? >> we could definitely communicate to the state that for these reason, we did not make the july 1st deadline. >> those are my process questions. >> president maxwell: thank you very much. colleagues, what i'm hearing, we'll defer this until our next meeting. this will be our july 13th meeting >> commissioner ajami: i don't know where to find them.

>> clerk: i'll resend today's agenda that had the items linked. i'll do that. >> commissioner ajami: perfect, thank you. >> commissioner harrington: so moved. >> president maxwell: it's been moved and seconded that we continue this item until july 13th, our next meeting. >> clerk: on the motion. [roll call vote] >> president maxwell: we had public comment. on the motion, roll call vote please. it's been moved and seconded. roll call vote. >> clerk: to continue the item to the meeting of july 13th. [roll call vote]

you have five ayes. >> president maxwell: now we'll go back to item 10. >> clerk: deputy city attorney gessner has comments on item 10. >> item 10, which was approving contract number wd2717 for the college hill reservoir, a member of the public when you heard that item under public comment, mentioned potential error in your resolution that the date of the ceqa document and having look at that. he was correct. i would recommend that you correct that date in your resolution. what i would recommend is that you rescind the vote taken on item 10 and take another vote. you would take with each to amend the final whereas clause just to replace october 142019

with november 14, 2019. >> i make a motion to rescind with the correction with the technical correction made to make sure that it's consistent with facts. >> president maxwell: we have a motion to rescind. mr. paulson, thank you, second? we have a motion and a second. it's been move and seconded to rescind. roll call vote please. [roll call vote] you have five ayes. >> president maxwell: now a motion to and a second to amend

for the correct date. from october to november. >> clerk: november 14th. >> president maxwell: from october to november 14th. >> so moved. >> president maxwell: may i have a second? roll call vote place. [roll call vote] you have five ayes. >> clerk: next order of business is item 13, authorize the general manager to terminate effective june 29, 2021 the 2011 agreement between the city and county of san francisco and turlock irrigation district and modesto irrigation district on management and allocation costs for the tuolumne river fish matters below the done pedro

project until ferc issues a new license. >> hi, i'm the deputy manager for the water enterprise. this action is to authorize the general manager to terminate the agreement. the reason that we are coming to you, the agreement was initially entered into on june 29, 2011. at the time, we anticipated a new license will be issued by ferc in 2016. it was essentially intended to be about 5-year agreement. we do not have any license as you know. the agreement has persisted. on june 29th of this year, we'll hit the 10-year mark. under city charter, board of supervisors have to approve any agreement that extends the ten

years. therefore, we're asking to terminate the agreement and we'll into a new agreement with the district. we ask the district to waive the 90 day advance notice in order to not have the agreement go past the 10-year mark. the districts will be taking this item to their board on jun. they will terminate the agreement, ask for waiver of the 90-day advance notice. they will bring a new agreement to their board on the 22nd of june. i'll come back to this commission on july 23rd with a new agreement that intends to do the same thing this agreement does while bringing the cost allocation for the agreement that you've approved previously which is our early implementation agreement with the u.s. fish and wildlife

service. we'll be able to wrap that into the new agreement as well as continue on with the purpose of this existing agreement. any questions? >> commissioner harrington: than k you. two questions. one is is there any practical issue with having no agreements for a month? >> no. there isn't. we're all paid up for this calendar year. as this agreement describes the process at which we go through a discussion with the districts in october of every year about the anticipated costs for the coming calendar year. we were invoiced in february for this calendar year in 2021. we paid them. we're all paid up for the actions this year.

it won't present any problems. >> commissioner harrington: we have talked about changing relationships with the districts. is this an opportunity to start or have more of that conversation? >> of course. there's always opportunity. this agreement is really intended to be about how we manage and allocate costs between the two of us. the fourth agreement allocated costs between san francisco and the districts on ferc related action. ferc requires specific measures or specific studies, we have an allocation that's set by the fourth agreement that requires san francisco to pay 51.7.71% of those costs.

there are other activities that we have decided to do vol trailer with the district. it wasn't required by ferc. there was no agreement set up for how to allocate those costs. it's a temporary counting wheel that gets installed every year. we all agreed it make sense us to put in a counting wheel to monitor the fish coming in and out of the river. we had no agreement how to allocate those costs. san francisco did not believe we should pay 51.71% of those costs. that's what this agreement does. it handles those types of costs. we could make this agreement about something more. i think it would take longer could require us to go longer

without an agreement. that is up to you. >> vice president moran: i looked through the agreement. it was that thing in mind. it's right toward end of the agreement, there's a separate section that anticipates that the parties might want to do the things that are not mandated by ferc. it does not specify the details of that but it says this is anticipated and the specifics would have to be negotiated. i think that provides -- them to do the type of thing we talked about.

>> president maxwell: any more questions or comments on this item? >> commissioner ajami: i want to reemphasize ed mentioned about this is an opportunity to renegotiate. this is definitely a good thing. maybe we can have a broader discussion on some of the issues we are dealing with.

including the cost allocation. in addition to the cost allocation. >> president maxwell: if our partners come back and they say the same thing that we said, then, things start all over again? we have to negotiate whatever they decide to come up with as well? >> they will go on june 22nd with a draft agreement. as we have been working on it, it was really intended to just carry the intent and function of this agreement into a refreshed agreement. it's really intended to be this cost allocation agreement until ferc issues its new license. i hear what you're saying. i think commissioner moran did bring up a good point.

there's a provision in this agreement that allows for that more expansive relationship and provides a profits and how we could it. i'll get you a draft of that new agreement as soon as we finalize it. i believe the district have to have their agenda in and everything needs to be finalized by the end of the week. we'll have a draft for you to consider at your next meeting. >> president maxwell: it's important to remember that when we talk about early implementation, that's the agreement we're going on is what we have now. that's why we can discuss it and talk about how we would all come together with that. i think it does allow us to have some leeway. we should really consider that as we go forward. thank you.

any further comments or questions? >> commissioner ajami: i have a question. may be because i have not seen the process of renegotiation during the ferc agreement. let's say the process goes on and we get ferc relicensing. do we have an opening to figure out the details? >> let's see. the district filed an application with ferc that had a list of conditions that in

activities that we would implement on the lower tuolumne river to improve the fishery. ferc took that application. they created a staff recommendation that environmental impact statement was done on. the commission has not taken action yet. we've been talking a quite a bit about the quality certification. we're waiting on ferc to take action. the fourth agreement, which is an agreement that san francisco entered into with the districts in the late 1960s, actually sets the terms for what our obligation is when ferc requires conditions to license. there are two sets of obligations. one set is around cost, which is related to non-flow measures and

fishery studies. there is article xii of the fourth agreement requires us to pay 51.71% of those costs. there's another provision in the fourth agreement which is article viii. that lays out our responsibility and obligation around flow. the district has not indicated they wanted to renegotiate the

fourth agreement. it could address some other things we may want and they may want. >> we have a side agreement with the irrigation districts to deal with the portion and flows of subsequent proceeding back in the ivies. i think it was. we want to extend that side agreement. at that time, i think that agreement, we would want to renegotiate and extend that. that will be a time to have additional agreements to go beyond what's in the fourth agreement which is otherwise

control. >> president maxwell: thank you all. why don't we go to public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make public comment to item 13, dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 299 1347. , pound pound.

>> there are three callers in the queue. you have two minutes. >> clerk: thank you. i'm peter from the tuolumne river. irrigation districts petitions the regulatory commission to issue a water quality certification in the don pedro dam relicensing process. processed usedder decades to address climate issues called withdraw and resubmit and amount to the state waiving its authority. the license application to withdraw the application prior to the one-year time line and immediately resubmit it to restart the clock. in the don pedro case, the state

water board denied the application. termination of the 2011 agreement with the irrigation district followed by entering an identify agreement. this could be an opportunity to revisit provision 7 of the 1995 side agreement between sfpuc and irrigation districts. if san francisco really needs to reclaim its ability to represent its customers environmental values. i hope you will take advantage of this opportunity. thank you very much.

>> thank you for your comment. >> caller: item 13, i'm fine with the termination agreement understanding that a new agreement is anticipated soon. again, good work on this. just very briefly, back on item 12, i'm still trying to save the urban water management plan. i would point you to code and in particular, the city attorney good government guide page 140 and 149. the third bullet and on page 149 the last paragraph which generally provides if you continue an item within five

days you need not provide a new notice and you can take action on that item as long as it was properly calendar at abearlier meeting. not more than five days before. you may still have a way to continue this to friday and dispose of it friday at the same time as you're holding the special closed session meeting. thank you very much. >> caller: i like to start by thanking commissioner ajami and harrington for their comments about the broader issue regarding the p.u.c. and

irrigation district. leaders need to step back as an opportunity to review all the agreements. it's critically important issues now. it is clear to us they are on the same page. you have the ability to start your own path. we ask you to step back and find a way to review all the agreements. thank you.

>> there are no more callers in the queue. >> president maxwell: thank you mr. richie? >> yes, i would not normally jump in on an item like this, i feel like i need to. the reference made by both commenters, peter and barry nelson to the 1995 agreement and discussion supporting the irrigation district, related directly to that process. it does not relate to anything beyond that process relative that provision. we researched this before and we provided that information to mr.

we are not bound to follow the district. we have free choice on that. that's what we can exercise. that's a false issue they are presenting. i want to make sure that does not get in the discussion. there are many other worthy things, but that is not part of it. >> president maxwell: madam secretary? are we closing public comment now? >> clerk: do we have any additional callers? public comment on item 13 is closed. >> commissioner ajami: i have a question. is there anything we can get some advice on that? >> president maxwell: that was going to be my next question.

>> i will look at it now and we'll get back to you as soon as i can. >> president maxwell: in the meantime, we've already said july 13th. if when she finds out that we can look at that on june 11th and we can always rescind and go back. thank you. on this item, is there a motion and a second to approve this item? mr. paulson? it's been moved mr. harrington a second? it's been move and seconded. roll call vote place. [roll call vote]

you have five ayes. >> clerk: item rec and park, approve and authorize general manager to execute the amended and restated memorandum of understanding regarding operation and maintenance of the san francisco water supply systems between the san francisco p.u.c. and the san francisco fire department with sffd for $126,000 per year to help fund an employee. this action constitutes approval action of the project for purpose of ceqa.

>> basically, fire department uses water from the domestic water supply system and the emergency fire fighting water system. these systems are operated to maintained by the sfpuc. efws is a high pressure water system that's constructed between 1908 and 1913 and owned and operated and maintained by the san francisco fire department until 2010. on may 17, 2010, city's mayor transferred jurisdiction from the fire department to the sfpuc.

on may 26, 2016, commission authorized the sfpuc to enter m.o.u. with the fire department. it defines each department roles and responsibilities regarding the operation and maintenance of the emergency fire fighting water system. in 2018-2019 grand jury review, there was report titled "act now before it's too late." the civil grand jury made various findings and recommendations including finding 13 in the m.o.u., two agencies agreed to conduct joint training annually but the m.o.u. doesn't list specific drills.

there's a new section that we're proposing to mend in the m.o.u. the agencies will collaborate on table top and scale, disaster simulation drills. at a minimum, the agencies will conduct at least one major joint training annually. review the training effectiveness, identify areas for improvement. this is a standard practice in all kinds of incident command situations. such as a fire. we will host one annual joint training in the fire department will host a major annual joint training in a even number of years. we'll part with the fire department quarterly. examples of quarterly drills --

into the fire boat systems. they can apply it to a fire. simulation drills using emergency fire fighting it water system, that's a water supply in various locations throughout san francisco. simulation drills using pump station 1 and 2, that can provide supply of bay water for putting out fires. 5-inch holes that will relay pumping. you will pump from one to another to the emergency fire fighting water system. we're asking you to authorize sfpuc to comply with the recommendations of the civil grand jury an execute the m.o.u.

fire department commission will be approving the amendment. we work together to carry out these training. they've been very successful with the fire department. by december 31st, another tex nep is that after civil grand jury, there was a hearing by the board of supervisors where we were asked to present a city wide emergency fire fighting water system expansion and improvement plans to the board. for those who are aren't familiar with the auxiliary water supply, this is a photograph one of the fire hydrants listing those.

in case you haven't seen them, they are much larger than fire hydrant. it was designed to be a real asset to san francisco and that's what it is. i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> commissioner harrington: i love to comment on efws system. i think i would second the comment that this may be worth not just a regular commission item but possibly a workshop. [indiscernible]

we did get -- i sent a letter. i do find that sometimes her comments should be looked into. we should follow-up. couple of things. the reason for changing awss to efws, it's simply convenient and may be -- is there anything more than that is there some reason that this should be done more efficiently than it was done? >> there's nothing more than that. i think there was assessment by the city administrator and others that when you look at communicating with the public, auxiliary water supply system, they found the survey did not resonate with people. there was a directive to change the name to the emergency fire

fighting water system that people could actually relate to. if we wanted to do something more formal, that would be fine. we given the system that was never an official name. >> commissioner harrington: it doesn't add in the domestic hydrant. it only keeps the high pressure hydrants. >> that's correct. >> commissioner harrington: the discussion of having agreements with no terms. i believe one of the responses to that is, we're all part of the same family. agreements with no terms just seems awkward to me. is there any reason we don't have a 5 or 10-year term on this agreement? >> the only one is that we

expect a lifetime relationship here. we expect it to be stable and continue on the real action beyond the day-to-day bread and butter. what plans are made for expansion of the system and how those will be funded. those are the substantive issues. they just speak to the process of working together on making the system work better. >> commissioner harrington: i'm grouping this together. the final one is, does this give -- is there any change in the relationship or authority of the fire department or the p.u.c. in terms of the management? >> no, there's no change in the authority here. that was basically -- we operate water systems. they put out fires. fire department doesn't do

plumbing well. they do fight fires well. we don't fight fires well but we do plumbing well. >> commissioner harrington: than k you. >> president maxwell: the new position that says 126,000 to fund sffd employer to monitor? is that a new position? are we paying somebody that's already -- is this a firefighter or is this a civilian position? what kind of position is this? >> this is a firefighter position. usually within the senior ranks of the fire department.

>> president maxwell: that means a senior fire department employee gets another $126,000 on top of their salary? >> no. it's not added to their salary. it's focused on working on relationships. >> president maxwell: it says to help fund an employee to monitor the system and domestic. >> based on the amount, i would suppose we're going to share in the cost. this pays for about half of the senior fire agency management person. >> i think that's correct. >> president maxwell: all right. thank you. any further comments or questions? >> commissioner ajami: i have a comment. i have a comment about this position as well.

it says a fire fighting position. why isn't this a water position? i was confused. [indiscernible] >> sorry, you were breaking up. i think the question was, shouldn't this be a water position. well, i can't recall number of staff off the top my head that we devote to that part of the system. it is significant. this is a position where they're working with us to make sure that we are in agreement on how we're moving forward with any modifications or maintenance or coordination on these activities. it's really an important thing

that we have somebody there that we can talk to on these kinds of issues as opposed to just talking to ourselves. one of the things that we've experienced is just both the fire department and the water department have different lingoes. if our staff says something, it can get interpreted the wrong way by the fire department. i can give you couple of examples of that. they thought we were doing something that was really bad for the system. no, we were doing something that will be good for the system. they didn't talk the same language we did. having something there who really versed in what we're doing and who's on top of it and can put out their language doesn't get through to us the important thing. >> president maxwell: when there's a big emergency or fire, our folks go out with the fire department as well? >> yes, we do.

absolutely. every two alarm or greater, anything greater than three or four alarms, that's where we start to actually engage the emergency fire fighting water system. whether it's just the portable system or emergency system, you need to be able to manipulate valves so you can keep pressure up to the necessary level. there was a 5-alarm fire south of market about year ago that we were very proud to hear how the fire department pointed out afternoon ward -- afterwards

they counted on us. it was gratifying to hear that thanks from them. >> president maxwell: is that under the c.d.d.? >> yes. >> president maxwell: is that a special training? >> no, it takes special training to be able to work with the emergency fire fighting water system. folks who work in the gate room, that's the primary people turning valve. >> president maxwell: i didn't know. it would be interesting, i think to talk about what else we do, helping fight fires.

>> commissioner ajami: i really like that we are moving from auxiliary to emergency water it's important people understand what we do and not get stuck behind language that people don't understand and relate to. >> president maxwell: thank you. >> i assume when you're talking to the fire department on things like this.

the firefighters, 798 represented how staffing works and who's going to be from the regular department and who's going to transfer to p.u.c. or just like all the city family does. >> sorry. >> punch line. i assume that firefighters with the fire department are part of the discussions when we're talking about shared responsibility for all the water and safety steps that we're dealing with. >> yes. thank you.

>> president maxwell: any further discussion? may i have a motion and a second to approve this item? >> clerk: we have public comment. >> president maxwell: sorry, thank you. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 14. dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 299 3417-pound pound. to raise your hand to speak press star 3.

do we have any callers? >> there are two callers in the queue. >> caller: i would urge the commission to continue this item instead hold a joint meeting with the fire commission. this hearing has been rushed with staff requesting an accelerated ceqa determination from the proposed m.o.u. stated in section 14, time is of the essence. however, it was five years between the transfer and the original m.o.u. it was four years between the original m.o.u. and the civil grand jury report. the p.u.c. agreed to wait nine months timeline to create a new

m.o.u. with deadline june 30, 2020. it was five minutes past this deadline that the comptroller office contacted the p.u.c. the p.u.c. agreed to revised deadline seven months later. there are issues with extending the deadline a second time. also, there are changes in the m.o.u. which have nothing to do with the civil grand jury training requirements. in the original m.o.u., it states, shall continue to be independent of the whss. in the proposed m.o.u. section 8.3, it states the p.u.c. will continue to upgrade the efws, engineering standards, it goes on about emerging information. section 8.2 states project

specific design criteria maybe more stringent but not less than efws engineering standards. again, it's not about adding a section about training. it makes many more significant changes that i needed to be vetted thoroughly. thank you. >> caller: this is david pilpel. on this item, the restated m.o.u. the fire department. sorry to bring it up, i seem to remember that with the original transfer that former

commissioner was actually pretty instrumental in that. i believe at the time, he had previously sat on this commission. i believe at the time, he was sitting on the fire commission. i believe that he was an important person in making the transfer of the awss now the efws assets transferred to the p.u.c. to make that happen. i wanted to bring that up for what its worth. i did also want to call your attention in the staff report on page 12, the m.o.u. page 6 section 6.2, sfpuc contributions suba, there's an item that should be filled third to the last item. i believe it is actually -- it's

unit 2. i just looked up the m.o.u.s and the classification info. it include the h40 battalion chief. you may want to -- when the agreement is signed, that should be unit 2 on page 6 there. that's all i have on this. thank you very much. >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: public comment on item 14 is closed. >> president maxwell: before we go forth, ms. gessner? is there anything we need to do

with this item since there's some discrepancy? >> i believe that your resolution says that you're adopting on file commission secretary and filling in that blank is something that can be done by the general manager. so no. >> president maxwell: may i have a motion and a second? >> i make a notion move. >> i'll second that. >> president maxwell: roll call vote please. [roll call vote] 5 ayes. >> president maxwell: next item. >> clerk: before we move on to the next item. i believe deputy city attorney

gessner wants to speak to item 12. >> due to the mayor's emergency orders, suspended certain provisions of public meeting laws, the regular 74-hour notice required for special meetings have been shortened to 24 hours. those emergency orders are still in effect. thanks to that, if it is the commission's desire, you can put this on the agenda for your special meeting on friday. if you do wish to do that, i would recommend the mechanism will be to rescind your continuance motion and make a new motion to this friday. >> president maxwell: i need to speak to that and ask the commission what they would like to do. commissioner harrington? that was your idea in the first

place. >> commissioner harrington: that 's fine with me. as long as you think we have time on friday's agenda. i'll be happy to move that we rescind the previous continuation. >> president maxwell: is that okay with everyone. i'm seeing heads shaking yes. why don't you make that motion? >> commissioner harrington: i would move to rescind the previous continuance. >> president maxwell: may i have a second? >> second. >> president maxwell: move and seconded to rescind the meeting july 13th in regards to this issue. roll call vote please. [roll call vote] you have five ayes on the motion to rescind. >> commissioner harrington: i move to continue this item to our special meeting of the

11th of june. >> second. >> president maxwell: it's been move and seconded. roll call vote please. [roll call vote] five ayes. >> president maxwell: thank you. before we go forward, i would like to thank our listeners. thank you so much for bringing it up and thank you. next item please. >> clerk: item 15, authorize the general manager to execute a power utilities services memorandum of understanding with the housing authority of city and county san francisco.

presented by barbara hale. >> thank you commissioners. this is a renewal of an arrangement we had years with san francisco housing authority. our power and line workers provide the operation and maintenance services and emergency response services to the housing authority. we are paid for those services. we anticipate this year expenditures will be around $200,000. i'm happy to answer any question us may have. >> president maxwell: are they privy to our super green or green power? >> yes, the residents the housing authority received power. they received full bundle

service from the hatchie program. >> president maxwell: any further comments or questions? >> commissioner paulson: obvious ly, the housing authority has gone through incredible volatility over the last decade or more. i have to admit, i have not paid attention in the last couple of months to what the stake is. between public and private and what have you. do people in charge of running that place, does this affect anything in terms of the -- does it affect the workers that maintain and take care of the housing authority as it goes to

the public private partnership. that's kind of a 10,000 feet question. barbara, if could answer that in terms of what this means. there are people that used to work there that don't work there. this energy piece, the public power piece is -- has some complications. >> under this agreement, we're continuing to serve as we have for many years. those utilities that the housing authority oversees. i believe what you're referencing is the housing authority overseeing fewer properties than they have historically the arrangement that the city uses to provide this housing service is being managed now as the properties

get renewed to a public private partnership. the properties that the housing authority remains responsible for, our relationship with them are the same as it has been for years. i think the job impacts that you're referencing has to do with the change in the way the city is managing those properties. it's not influenced by our action here. we're continuing to support those properties that the housing authority manages with our unions workforce. >> commissioner paulson: there's no change the way the housing authority versus the p.u.c. distribute whatever jobs there are to deal with the issue that we're dealing with right now? >> that's correct. >> commissioner paulson: thank you. >> commissioner harrington: i'm supportive of this. we want to add that kind of

stability and reliability in the systems if the folks who live the places. i'm glad we're doing and extending it. >> president maxwell: any further comments or questions? seeing none. public comment please. thank you ms. hale. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make public comment on item 15. dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 146 299 3417. pound pound.

do we have any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue at this time. >> clerk: public comment on item 15 is closed. >> president maxwell: may i get a motion and second to approve this item please? >> so moved. >> second. >> president maxwell: thank you roll call vote please. [roll call vote] you have four ayes. >> president maxwell: next item please. >> clerk: item 16, approve the proposed security mitigation plan and authorize the power enterprise to implement the plan. presented by danny fong.

>> good afternoon president max well and commissioners. i'm the asset manager for power enterprise. i'm here today to ask for your approval for the security mitigation plan that we have prepared to comply with the california public utilities requirement. on january 10, 2019, issued a decision rule making regarding the physical security of electrical distribution asset such as substation. decision required electric utilities to identify electric distribution assets. that may merit special protection, assess risks and threats and develop and implement a risk mitigation plan. your action on the recommendation today will allow

us to meet this new compliance requirement. in response, we have identified facilities that merit evaluation which serves major transportation hub such as the airport. in evaluation of the existing security and mitigation measures of the substation serving the airport where identified and completed, mitigation plan was created to address the risk of long-term outage of the substation. this plan included resiliencecy that can be deployed.

after the security mitigation plan was created and evaluation from an independent third party was performed to provide any recommendations. these recommendations were implemented into the security mitigation plan. finally, once the commission approves the plan we will submit to the california public utility commissions with the official notice of resolution and security mitigation plan will be revisited every five years. with that, i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president maxwell: how about approximately, you mentioned the airport. approximately how many others have been identified? >> these facilities that were identified for just for high risk distribution facilities. only ones that we identified were the ones being at the

airport. >> president maxwell: is there any -- when you talk about security, i think about my phone and face recognition now. is there any idea of that going forward? >> we identified security cameras for the facility as a possible -- one of the substations have existing security cameras. the other substations is a little older, which would be one of the proposed security solutions that's going to be implemented. that's included in our mitigation plan. >> president maxwell: any other comments or questions? thank you. why don't we open this up to public comment. >> clerk: members of. the public who wish to make public comment on item 16. dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d.

146 249 3417. pound pound. do we have any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue at this time. >> clerk: public comment on item 16 is closed. >> president maxwell: may i get a motion and second to approve this item please? >> move. >> second. >> president maxwell: roll call please. [roll call vote]

you have four ayes. >> president maxwell: next item please. >> clerk: next item is item 17. discussion of the status and options regarding selection process for the sfpuc general manager position, possible position qualifications and possible direction by the commission regarding the selection process. >> president maxwell: thank you, at our last meeting on may 25th, we had a brief overview of some of the feedback that was gotten from the hawkins group. today, they are going to continue and give us the full briefing.

>> good afternoon president maxwell. i'm kate howard here with the department of human resources. >> well, good evening commissioners and president maxwell. it's so great to see you all again this evening. i'm going to move forward with sharing my screen. i prepared little powerpoint to review with you so you can see highlights of the discussions that we had.

thank you so much for this opportunity to present to you this evening. as you all know, we were asked by the commission to engage in a stakeholder conversation to meet with some of the most invested internal and external stakeholders with sfpuc to get a great understanding of what the ideal candidate quality is and expectations and critical priorities that the next general manager will need to possess and address coming into this new position as the new general manager. over the last three weeks, we met individually with internal

stakeholders and external stakeholders who are the most invested in the p.u.c. to get their feedback. we deployed all staff survey that was open for about a week and resulted in 398 responses. here is the feedback. consistent themes that we heard as far as the strength of the p.u.c., the p.u.c. has an outstanding reputation and has an amazing staff. the sfpuc and strong and sound utility, national model utility of the future and it is one of the most innovative environmental agencies in the country. we also learned there are so many talented people who take

their jobs seriously and are dedicated to delivering service even under circumstances such as covid and the wildfire. staff and the team are extremely enthusiastic, extremely dedicated and they are extremely responsive. they were very excited to speak with us and excited to give their input into what the idea candidate qualities are. we were so impressed with the enthusiasm that the talent the team shared with us during this engagement. sfpuc is in a very strong financial position.

we learned that sfpuc is currently in position to rebuild public trust. the executive leadership team that works really well together. has a tough time working through difficult issues. we learned that the executive leadership team has been working together for a very long time. as a result, that does create a situation where there's a lot of --we heard that sfpuc overextens itself. it constantly does too much and it's not within day-to-day delivery of water and power. there's a need to balance rates with the fiscal realities of the rate payer's capacity. finally, we learned a lot about

the upcoming retirements in the senior management position that can lead to a talent deficit in general. lot of institutional knowledge. will be leaving to sfpuc once those retirements occur. we learned that the majority of the executive leadership team is eligible for retirement at this moment. that concludes the summary of what we heard in our stakeholder engagement. are there any questions? >> president maxwell: commission er paulson? >> commissioner paulson: in

executive session, i might ask a question. i think that was noted, pretty good broad term summary what we have asked the team to do. there are some questions that have come up in terms of bullet points and analysis. >> president maxwell: we can open it this up to public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 17. dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 299 3417. pound pound. you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed.

please address your remarks to the commission as a whole. not to the individual commissioners or staff. do we have any callers? >> there are three callers. >> caller: thank you for your service. it seems like a key attribute for a general manager candidate demonstrated ability to work with the environmental community. this attribute is an important in three ways. a general manager who can work with the environmental community would experience fewer conflicts and advance sfpuc's agenda more quickly and get more results.

such collaborator will be taking work off you. in short, frees it up. third, as you the commissioners are collaborative with the environmental community and other groups, having a general manager who's collaborative with the environmental community would be better aligned with your values, reducing conflictses with you. i would think for these three reasons, gets more results, frees you up, collaboration, high on your list of attributes. which brings me to mr. herrera. for him to take the role in the sfpuc's latest lawsuit against the state water board after he's announced as a candidate for the general manager position, it show a complete lack of collaboration with environmental groups. it would have been so much better if he met with one or more environmental groups you know before making such all announcement or an opinion piece in the chronicle, he should have

talked about things to try to avoid filing the lawsuit, including meeting with the environmental groups. i'm aware of mr. herrera reaching out to environmental groups regarding candidacy. it seems like hiring mr. herrera sets up years of conflicts with more challenges and sets up for more complex. aim so puzzled why he's taken the approach he has. thank you so much for listening. >> caller: this is david pilpel. last time today. i promise. i'm not going to speak to individual candidates or qualifications. i wanted to say both when you exit from today's closed session, friday and any other closed session, you hold

regarding this appointment. i'm not particularly interested and don't want to hear about names but there's nothing that i read in the brown act sunshine ordinance or any other provision that precludes you from disclosing the number of candidates that applied. the number of candidates that you've narrowed it down to, whether or not when you agree to transmit some number of candidates to the mayor and just generally, disclosing the status of the process. i would -- if there's no to preclude that, there's nothing to require it. i think it's a good practice. i encourage you to keep the public apprised as to where you are in the selection process. you can say something like we have narrowed it down to x number we're planning to do interviews in the future.

all the things that are appropriate in closed session, should be done in close session. i would encourage you to disclose to the public following the closed session, where you are in the process so that people know. that's all. thank you very much. >> caller: hello, this is peter from tuolumne river. this is my last comment of the day. thank you for your patience. we're all very curious what's going to happen in the closed session on friday. my hope is you will further address the very tough hand you were dealt. focus on ways that we can really have a broad search that attracts a lot of high quality candidates for you to choose from. i wish you well. i look forward to the outcome

is. thank you. >> there are no more callers. >> clerk: thank you, public comment on item 17 is closed. >> president maxwell: thank you. that was discussion only. madam secretary, please read the items to to be discussed in closed session. >> clerk: following items will be heard during closed session. item 20, public employee appointment sfpuc general manager, pursuant to government code section 54957b and san francisco administrative code 67.10b. item 22, existing litigation.

item 22 has been pulled from the agenda and will not be heard. members of the public workshop wish to make two minutes of public comment on items 20 and 21, to be heard during closed session dial 415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 299 3417. do we have any callers? >> there are no callers in the

queue at this time. >> clerk: public comment is closed. >> president maxwell: may i have a motion on whether to assert attorney client privilege regarding the matters. >> commissioner paulson: move to assert. >> second. >> president maxwell: moved and seconded. roll call vote please. [roll call vote] four ayes. >> president maxwell: moved and seconded. we go into closed session. >> clerk: please stand by.

people will be moved into closed session when it's appropriate.