to open up our schools in less than two weeks. we can't wait to have your students back teaching and learning all of of this together again. we're looking forward to make it safe. >> i want to go back to what chief smith was saying, we one of the things i said back a year ago important. it's how important it is we take care of each other. tell your parents. any signs, stay home. >> thank you. sadly, that is the end of our time. we want to thank all our panel

and people participating for making the time to be with us today. as well as the host partners, the department of public health, uc san francisco. we know that there are many more questions that we have time to answer. we will work to get these answers to these questions and share that information through your organizations. we'll send material and esend out recording of this meeting that is on sfgov tv youtube channel and facebook live. thank you again for being here and good night.

>> i am president sophie maxwell. madam secretary, will you call the roll, please. [roll call] >> clerk: okay. madam president, you have four members at this time. you have a quorum. due to the covid-19 emergency,

this meeting is being held via teleconference and is being televised by sfgovtv. please be aware that there is a slight delay in the timeline between what is being heard and what is being seen on sfgovtv. if you would like to make public comment, call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 187-655-2935, pound, pound. please address your remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners

or staff, and i do see that commissioner ajami has joined the meeting. madam president? you're muted, madam president. >> before calling the first item, i'd like to acknowledge that the san francisco public utilities commission is located on and owns the land of the muwekma ohlone tribe. the san francisco p.u.c. also recognizes that every citizen residing within the greater bay area has and continues to benefit from the use and occupation of the muwekma ohlone tribe's aboriginal land since the san francisco public

utilities commission's creation in 1932. we acknowledge that the muwekma ohlone have adapted a working relationship with the san francisco p.u.c. and are a valuable addition to the san francisco community. next item, madam secretary. >> clerk: item [inaudible]. >> any discussion? on the special meeting minutes of august 19? seeing none, why don't we open it up for public comment. madam secretary? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment, specifically item 3, the minutes of august 3 and august 19, dial

415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 187-655-2935, pound, pound. if you wish to enter public comment, press star, three. moderator, do we have any public comment? >> operator: madam secretary, there are no public callers. >> clerk: madam president? >> seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. may i have a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> roll call, please. [roll call]

>> clerk: and you have three ayes. we must have lost commissioner paulson. -- i'm sorry. you have four ayes. >> thank you. may i have a motion to approve the minutes of august 19? >> so moved. >> okay. thank you. may i have a second? >> second. >> roll call vote, please. [roll call] >> clerk: you have four ayes. >> thank you. next item, please. >> clerk: next item is general public comment. members of the public may make two minutes of public comment by calling 415-655-0001,

meeting i.d. 187-655-2935, pound, pound. to raise your hand to speak, press star, three. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, we have two callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> operator: caller one, i've opened your line. >> [inaudible] in the commissioners' packet. in the subject line, [inaudible] i would strongly oppose this. how many more give aways to big tech is the bay area willing to give? the salmon were here before humans, the salmon were here before big tech? who should get the water?

the salmon or big tech? are we as human beings entitled to decide which species go extinct? are we entitled to decide that the salmon go extinct? i would urge the san francisco p.u.c. to deny the request to allow san jose to become permanent customers. [inaudible] >> operator: hello, caller. you have two minutes. caller, are you there? hello? you have two minutes. i'll come back to you. hello, caller. i've opened your line. you have two minutes.

>> can you hear me now? >> operator: loud and clear. >> great. david pillpel. for general public comment today, i already conveyed a couple of things about the minutes to the commission secretary, so i didn't need to take up your time on item three. my only item here is that my thoughts are with jill thompson, long time retired commission secretary. i hope that she's okay. i heard a recent report that she is going down, and i wonder if vice president moran could convey my thoughts. and while we're on the thought, the other commission secretary, mary jung, who am i forgetting? renee baldridge, and mary rodriguez, i hope they're doing

well, as well, so just a shoutout to retired commission secretaries. thanks very much. >> operator: thank you for your comment. next caller, your line is open. you have two minutes. >> yeah, my name is francisco dacosta. some of you know me, and i'm here to remind you all that you all have to represent the people, and that's not happening. and so when we get an opportunity, it's not because we cannot do something else. it's very helpful [inaudible] for example, right now, i'm helping the people in afghanistan, and i have to be

on the clock helping them. but i have to attend to you all because you are corrupt, and all we see is corruption, so let me go back to my work. thank you very much. >> operator: thank you for your comment. madam secretary and commissioners, we've had additional callers join. hello, caller. your line is open. you have two minutes. >> thank you. commissioners, [inaudible] again. i hope all is well and safe. this comment today is part of a series of stop blaming the contractors for the p.u.c. misdeeds. i hear nothing about how the projects are moving forward. i hear everything about blaming anyone and everyone except the staff that are responsible for this. i do want to share a personal

experience and a recent article that just came out how san francisco is paying $2,000 or $3,000 per trash can compared to 300 in new york city. also, a report where the london [inaudible] cost 350 million per mile while the san francisco project cost 3.4 billion per mile. one p.u.c. project that i bided on a while back, and it required a pump station -- required pumps from a specific manufacturer, which is fine. but when i got the price from the local vendor in the bay area, it was 70% higher than through a different vendor in southern california for the same machine. if you wonder why your projects

are going through the roof, you need to look at who is specifying pump stations and other controlled items on your projects. they're buying it at 60 to 70% higher for the exact same manufactured equipment, so please, stop blaming the contractors, stop blaming the consultants. these are the type of companies that you hire over and over again. the third [inaudible] is the one that made -- >> operator: thank you for your comments. unfortunately, your time has expired.

next caller, please. >> alita dupree for the record. my pronouns are she and her. i continue for the advocations of clean power s.f., and i'm sitting here in my clean renewal home, sitting here watching your proceedings, and i advocated the work to help

large industries such as muni be able to access clean power so we can advocate cleaner [inaudible] in san francisco. i want clean energy and local produced energy for san francisco, or at least energy that comes from california and negative instead of importing fossil fuels, so i think clean energy is the centerpiece of sfpuc, and it definitely comes and touches me when i spend time in san francisco. i ask that you not forget about advancing the work of electricity in san francisco.

i like breathing clean air and enjoying cheap electricity. thank you very much. >> operator: thank you very much. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. that closes general public comment. >> thank you. next item, please. >> clerk: next item is item 5, communications. >> any questions or comments on communications? seeing none, why don't we open this up for public comment? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make public comment, dial 415-655-0001,

meeting i.d. 187-655-2935, pound, pound. press star, three to raise your hand to speak. mr. moderator, do we have any callers in the queue? >> operator: madam secretary, we do have one caller in the queue. >> yes. david pillpel. i actually don't have any comments, but i'm having a problem downloading the attachments, and i wanted to make sure that i didn't have a problem before we get to item 7. >> operator: thank you for your comment. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you. next item?

>> clerk: next item is [inaudible]. >> i wanted to spend [inaudible] talk and our messages and the work that we're doing with our agency. next slide, please. one of the things that we do know for our region because we

cover several regions, is that a percentage reduction, while helpful for some of us and that is helpful in tracking customers' response, it isn't the most helpful thing during a [inaudible] and reminding our customers that every drop of water that is used today is stored in our -- that is saved today is stored in our reservoirs for later use. and summertime offers the best opportunity to easily reduce water use by considering reducing outdoor water use,

watering of lawns and gardens, but we have some programs that take advantage of conservation programs and rebait opportunities, as well. next slide, please. the coordination of our message with our agency but also with the other wholesalers, so with [inaudible] water and our other bay area water agencies, we're expanding our outreach and conservation programs and implementing new programs to reduce water demand. one of the key things that we did was update our website, and i'll show you a couple of images from that. we know from the last drought that because our name has bay area and water in it, we get a

lot of hits of people generally searching for answers, and we get a lot of phone calls for it. we are responding to extended requests for public outreach, as well, and replying to the current state of the water system. clarification on what the actual call to conserve water is, and what our member agencies have asked with response to the drought and then our conservation program. next slide, please. so we've changed our website to make drought the headline on our home page. we almost couldn't make it big enough. we basically put it across the entire top, so wherever you hit on this thing, it'll take you

to the drought page. we decided this year, we were going to [inaudible] as opposed to being subtle, so that's a major change that we need to really drive people in the right direction. next slide. and then that sends everyone to our 2020 drought page. and in that drought page, we have linked to, you know, programs and rebates, water saving tips for both indoor and outdoor use, and other additional drought information. but one of the things we have on this page is a find rebates map. as you can imagine, we've got 26 member agencies. a lot of them provide rebates through bawsca. eight of them are in santa clara counties, alameda county water district offers its own water programs generally, and so people that come to our website and want to find out

who is my water supplier and what kind of rebates do they offer, this map is a very useful tool that they can hover over it, find the service area, and it'll take them to that agency's website for information about rebates. next slide, please. one of the things that we did work write up a report about lessons learned, and one of the things that we learned was there are electronic billboards in the region. and these electronic billboards, while not generally owned by cities, have a dedicated amount of work for public information display. so we quickly reached out to these billboards that we are aware of and asked them about their display.

we have two in san carlos and one in hayward.

the other thing that we've done during the last drought is basically pulled together a suite of materials that can be used for our member agencies with their customers. things like door hangers, postcards, bill inserts, images that can all be personalized for an individual agency. they're set up for printing, and we basically have a catalog of those available and a printer for our agencies. this way, there's ease to get it printed, the images and messages are consistent with the current campaign. this was a lesson learned about how -- it's a big push when

these droughts happen, so this is something that we think is going to be very helpful, especially if we're going to move into -- lord help us, if next year is dry, as well. next slide. just to talk about a few of our rebate programs that we're really pushing as part of this drought. as i mentioned, we see outdoor water use as really the greatest opportunity for that not just drought savings but long-term savings, so we have three things that are focused on that that are better customer oriented, if you will, and they do actually go together very well. we've got a rain barrel rebate, we've got our lawn watering rebate, and our smart irrigation control rebate, and they -- you know [inaudible] if you can go back one slide, please. thanks. there also is an additional

rebate with lawn guard program with rainbird rebate, as well. our goal is to increase participation in these programs in a way that really makes the difference, not just this summer but moving forward. next slide. in addition, a big message we've got is really, you know, is your yard drought ready, and what can you do to make your yard drought ready? so we offer free landscape classes, and that's one of the things that has really benefited from covid. this is something that we've historically offered twice a year, in the fall or the spring, and we would offer 20 classes or so in the region throughout the region, and people would come and attend, and we'd get ten or 15 people,

you know, on any given evening, to participate in this class. with covid, we've seen an incredible increase in the participation of these classes, and as well, we have them all recorded, and we have them on bawsca's youtube channel, so they're actually available classes, so someone can say, i'm interested in sheet mulching because i want to get rid of my grass or i'm interested in drip irrigation. all of those things are available as a resource, and all of our garden classes are on-line, as well, offering a free resource in the region about how you can make a water efficient garden look attract

-- attractive but also friendly for the environment and efficient. we have a variety of new classes, as well. one is targeting your existing irrigation systems, so it's not trying to change what you have, but make what you have more efficient. this is reduced cost for high efficiency sprinkler nozzles. reduced cost for larger ones for larger landscapes, and then high efficiency motors, depending on the type of irrigation system someone has. in addition, we have a

residential self-audit tool available on-line, and that also has the opportunity to get a home water audit kit, as well. we're excited about those two resources. they're launching on-line this week, and we're hoping they can get some additional resources to our customers. and then, how do our customers respond? we've only just started our message in the last couple months, and i think you'll hear from mr. ritchie later on in his slide presentation that we're just starting to see the customer's response, but i pulled this chart out because this was the last drought, from 2015 to 2016, when we had that very significant call for water conservation, and what we see throughout the region for each

of our agencies is this very strong response from customers. you know, overall, the region's target was at 25% mandatory reduction per the governor's request, and we exceeded that at 26.5%. we may have to rehave that conversation, and i'm back to being the most popular person at a zoom dinner party when people want to talk drought and what's going on. next slide, please. so that really concludes my planned remarks. i'd be pleased to answer any questions that you might have about our programs or our

drought actions in general from our side. >> well, i would just like to thank you so much. you all are doing good work, so thank you so much for that. anyone else want to comment? >> i just want to add thank you so much, nicolle, for your presentation, and i really like the map idea. it's great that there's a one-stop place for everybody to get information. sometimes it's difficult for people to know where to go and have to get information. you want to minimize the amount of search that people have to do. >> it's always a good idea. >> yes, absolutely. all right. well, thank you. why don't we open this up to public comment? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make public comment

specifically on item 6, the bawsca update, dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 146-355-9001, pound, pound. do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, we have one caller. hello, caller. your line is open. you have two minutes. >> hello. david pillpel, and i, too, wanted to join in the chorus and thank nicolle for her report. as i was sitting here, i learned a couple of things, and i appreciate that. i think there are times when we have to disagree about things and do so respectfully, and then, there are times that we work together, and whether it's supply, demand, education, finance, planning, all kinds of things, i think hopefully we

just all learned something from nicolle and bawsca, and i appreciate her and what she discussed. thanks. >> operator: thank you for your comment. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment is closed on item 6, and i would like to respond to mr. pillpel's comments about the agenda. i did try to download some of the links, and i did encounter some issues, as well. i.t. is working on that, and hopefully we can get that taken care of. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: next order of business is item 7, report of the general manager, and i believe that a.g.m. ritchie is presenting that today. >> yes, commissioners.

i'll be presenting that for mr. carlin, who is away at another event. the first is the water enterprise capital improvement program quarterly report, and katie will make that presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i apologize for any background noise as there's work going on in my neighborhood. good public improvement. today, i will present an update on the status of programs in the water enterprise c.i.p. as of the end of the fourth quarter in june 2021. next slide. this slide provides a comparative snapshot of the 36 projects in the program. these pie charts show that expenditures at the close of the reporting period were 759 million or 28% expended, whereas at the end of q-3,

shown in the pie chart on the left, there were 680 million expended or 25% expended. the program has achieved 25% completion, which is 2% more than last quarter. next slide. this table is out of the report, and this shows the cost summary for active projects. this -- there is a typo on this. it's compared to the 2021 approved budget that was approved by this commission in march of this year, so these are grouped by types of project, and as you can see in the regional and the local, all the projects are still on track since their approval in march, and we have no cost variances. next slide. so now, we'll discuss the regional projects. the total current approved budget for the 25 regional

projects are shown by their phase in this pie chart, and as you can see, most of these 15 of these projects are still in the planning stage. that is because almost about 17 new projects were added out of the 36 projects. and now, i'll give you some project highlights. next slide. the [inaudible] water treatment project continued in the planning phase for base and flow rates and hydraulics, ozone building configuration, implant electrical planning requirements, and the facility layout. two criteria were selected during the period, including the number of ozone generators, and the configuration of the ozone coaling and water carriage system. the report was finalized during the period, and the round two

treatability testing work was completed and round three treatability testing work was initiated. next slide. for the sunol long-term water project, this shows a view of the main entrance of the facility that's now starting to take shape. you can really see what the visitors are going to experience, and on the left is an etching of blue slate, and this etching -- these are tiles that will be installed throughout the center, and those are starting to be produced at this point. i'm sorry. go back one. the architectural concrete walls were completed, as well as the sewage tank, and rough grading, and interior utilities and wall framing also started, and the design of the public art is continuing.

next slide. and at harry tracey water treatment plant, this shows -- is from an inspection of one of the failed filters and shows the filter gullet or underdrain system. note that you can see the failed grout that dislodged from the filters. for this project, the team completed the conceptual engineering report and design was initiated. the 50% milestone is anticipated to be completed within the next quarter. next slide. the southern skyline [inaudible] bridge trail extension certified the final environmental impact report on april 29.

next slide. the notice to proceed was issued in june after all the environmental permits was obtained and the contractor is mobilizing. next slide. and now for a taste of the local project. there are 11 local projects, and you'll note that more than half of the value of these projects are three projects that are in multiple phases. this is the main replacement program and also the emergency firefighting water system projects. next slide. this is an aerial view of college hill reservoir. this project had its bid opening on april 22. the engineer's estimate was between 12.5 to 13.5 million. four bids were received ranging

from 12 to 21 million, and on june 8, you all awarded the construction contract for 12.1 million. the construction notice to proceed is estimated for august 2021, and this is for seismic improvements for college hill and also pipelines that will lead to san francisco general hospital, so it's a very exciting project for the city. next slide. for the new city distribution division headquarters at 2000 marin, this is architectural rendering of what the new campus will look like. the schematic design is under way, and proposals for the contract were received. there will be delivered through a construction manager general contractor or cmgc, and proposals were advertised on june 18, and the bids are due in early august.

next slide. so our water main replacement program completed 8.5 miles of replacement in fiscal year 21, and this was less than was anticipated for a variety of reasons, but much of it was due to covid related delays while contractors prepared their plans. but we did reach substantial completion of the el taraval project, the 21 and castro project, which is pictured here, and geary street between van ness and kearney, so very significant projects. projects that started last year are the [inaudible] and the college hill reservoir and pipeline project. next slide, please. for the emergency firefighting water system pipelines project, remember, we divided it into a pipelines project and a pump

station project, this graphic shows a schematic of the future configuration of projects that are funded, which are shown in solid and projects that will be needed to be funded in the future, and those are shown as dotted lines. these are for the west side potable emergency firefighting water system. projects that are already under construction include pipelines on 19 avenue and terry francois boulevard, additions to the project that are currently being constructed. the one that is being constructed on the potable efws is the 36-inch diameter pipeline, and this is being constructed as part of that

wawona and 19 avenue project. next slide, and that completes my presentation for today, but i'd be happy to answer questions. >> any questions or comments? no? thank you. why don't we -- thank you for your presentation. it's good to see all the completions. it's always exciting. then why don't we open this up to public comment? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 7-a, dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 146-355-9001, pound, pound. raise your hand to speak, press star, three. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there is one caller in the queue. hello, caller.

i've opened your line. you have two minutes. >> david pillpel again. so i might have some comments on this, but again, i'm still having problems with the sharepoint. it seems not to be working. i've used a different computer, i've used a different browser. i've done all the things that i can hear. if it's not working, and it's the underlying documents for this -- and if the underlying documents for this meeting are not available for the public, i would strongly urge you to recess the meeting until the public can have access to the documents. it is fundamentally unfair to continue a public meeting where there are documents at issue that the public cannot access. i'm certainly very interested in the vicente wawona project, and katie just made some reference to that, but i have

no document to review the talk about that, so i -- talks about that, so i might have something to say about it, but sharepoint's not working. thank you. >> operator: thank you for your comment. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: public comment is closed. >> we did make an announcement earlier that it was not working, and this is discussion only, and i'm so sorry, but we are doing the best we can to make that work right now. thanks for your patience. next item. >> the next item is 7-b, the water system improvement program quarterly report, which will also be presented by katie miller. >> good afternoon again. i will be sharing with you an update on the water system

improvement program. can you bring up the slides? great. go onto the next slide. this slide shows, again, pie charts comparing the third quarter to the fourth quarter and shows a snapshot in time for our 52 regional snapshots. expenditures at the close of the reporting were $3.7 billion, or 97% expended. the program has achieved a 99% completion. there are no projects left in preconstruction. during this quarter, one project moved from bid and award to construction. that was the alameda creek recapture project. thus, we have 44 out of 50 projects that are entirely completed. five are in construction, and one is now in closeout. next slide. this is a summary of cost that's taken out of the report,

and as you can see for both the san joaquin region and the bay region, we completed the two cloutout projects, so there are no active projects in any of those regions. of the remaining projects that are active, you see we have the sunol valley region, where we still have sufficient funding, and in the san francisco regional region, the 9.6 million forecasted cost increase is for the groundwater regional recovery project, and it has stayed at this level for several quarters now. next slide. and now, i'll give you an update on the few active remaining projects. the alameda creek recapture project, the top is a rendering of what the final facility will look like, and the bottom is the pond f-3 quarry, where this

project will be located. this construction contract was awarded on april 13, and notice to proceed was issued on june 21. the preconstruction meeting was held on june 30, and we will see the contractor is now mobilizing and construction is beginning. there are some erosion concerns that are still being discussed with the quarry operator that may come up as a risk in the future and for construction. next slide. for the regional groundwater storage and recovery project, we initiated seven-week testing at four of the wells, the millbrae yard facility and the b.a.r.t. three wells that feed into one treatment facility. at sierra monte, the pump was

pulled in a previous quarter for repairs due to corrosion, and the [inaudible] and the pump was reinstalled during the quarter. for the phase two quarter -- i'm sorry. go back. the bid package was being finalized, and this will include cathodic protection for all of the wells as per the information that you received for this meeting. the phase 2-b has been separated out. this is for the work on the san francisco main well. there's some concern on this contract that the easements that are needed to connect this well to cal-water's water system may take a long time, so we separated that out so the phase 2-a work can get completed, and we'll issue this work when we have the easement in place.

next slide. the contract b, which is the alameda creek diversion dam, which is pictured in this, we are just negotiating the final change orders with the contractor, and that is just taking some time. we still couldn't do the [inaudible] at either of the facilities, and we couldn't do the testing at the reservoir because there has not been sufficient rain, so those responsibilities are being transferred over to the water enterprise and will be conducted in the future but will be taken out of the wsip project. it was also decided that there's some remaining work on communication systems for this facility, some satellite facilities and the backup power for that. we will pull it out of this project and put it in the sunol project, which was really

established just to do these last little remaining bits. that way, we can close out this project in the coming quarter and be done with calaveras dam. next slide, please. and the sunol valley regional closeout project, the work that was on going in this project, which was the polymer feed system was completed during the water. this project would have been closed out, however, we decided that we are going to keep it help and extend it an extra year and remove the phase diversion from calaveras dam and move it over to this project. and this is an overview of the fish passage facility. for the peninsula region closeout project, significant work was completed, and this

includes security work around the lower crystal springs dam, which is being done jointly with san mateo county. that work, all the design work was completed, and some of the fencing was begun to be installed, and we think that this work should be completed in the next quarter. and the remaining work that's going to be done for the security, we're going to move it over to the r&r program. we want to make sure that we have sufficient time to get the communications program right and program them. all the flow meter programs was completed, and that is in final closeout. next slide. so that's it. we are winding down to the tail of wsip, which is a great accomplishment, and i'm happy to take any questions.

>> thank you again. any questions, discussion? thank you. why don't we -- oh, yes -- >> just wanted to say it's really great to see how much progress we have made and how close we are on the end of the system. >> yes, and it's really great to see the facility transitioning over to operations and being used. >> yeah. thank you very much. >> public comment? >> clerk: members of the public wishing to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 7-b, dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 146-355-9001, pound, pound. to raise your hand to speak, press star, three. mr. moderator, do we have any

callers? >> clerk: madam secretary, there are multiple callers in the queue. two at present. hello, caller. i have opened your line. you have two minutes. >> commissioners, [inaudible] wonderful presentation. it doesn't tell you anything. it doesn't tell the general public anything. it doesn't tell the general public any overruns, over the cost, over the schedule. it doesn't tell kate miller how many of her managers she hand picked and put them in her construction managers. it doesn't say how many lovers or how many acquaintances are involved simply because they know someone under or above the bid. what it does say, a lot of these construction projects, nobody tells you how many of

them are l.b.e.s. nobody tells you how many l.b.e.s have a license or how many l.b.e.s are a pass-through. this is the work of an establishment that doesn't have a freaking clue what they're doing. thank you for your time. >> operator: thank you for your comments. next caller, your line is open. >> david pillpel again. so once again, sharepoint is still not working. i really don't want to take anything away from what katie and her team are doing. it's great for the projects and the wsip. it's all well and good.

i'm just frustrated because sharepoint isn't working, and i can't get the rest of the attachments for items 7 through 15, and i'm going to need to take a minute to download them and review those as i do to prepare for the meeting, but again, it hasn't been working, and i would strongly urge you if it hasn't been fixed, to recess or continue the meeting because if that isn't working and you continue with agenda items, i may be forced to file a sunshine complaint, and i don't want to do that, and i don't want to slow down the work of the commission, but you've got to have public information available to the public, and this is just not okay. hope that gets fixed. thank you, and thanks to katie and the staff. >> operator: thank you for your comments. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on 7-b is

closed. >> i have one -- go ahead, please. >> you have one more caller? >> no, i was going to say, there's one item to bring up under 7-c. >> just one second. madam secretary, will you tell us the status of where we are on working on this issue? >> clerk: yes. i.t. is looking at the issue. we're not sure, but the links aren't working for this item. they were working prior to this meeting. mr. pillpel did have access to the minutes, so i know that they were working. i don't know why they're not working now. we are working on it. may i suggest for your consideration perhaps hearing item 8. there were no documents associated with item 8, and we may be going into closed session, and while we're in closed session, we can work on those links and repost the

agenda? >> all right. we will definitely consider that. >> clerk: thank you. >> thank you. but we are working on it, and we are aware of the situation. thank you. mr. ritchie, please. >> yes, one item to bring up under item 7-c. we don't usually bring up water line breaks, but it was a big one and an item of note. this one took place at 22 and sloat across from our central pump station, and the merced manner reservoir. as you can see, traffic was unaffected, but it's a doozy of a geyser. we're working with the park and recreation department to see

about the damage to sterling grove. we lost about 780,000 gallons. this was where a valve broke off on san andreas pipeline number two, a 54-inch pipeline. we'll be working with recreation and park department to see whatever work needs to be done to repair that. >> thank you. any comments or questions? >> i have a question. thank you so much, mr. ritchie, for the -- for bringing this up. i just had a quick question. like, i know that we are doing this asset management and trying to identify an area that might be vulnerable to these kinds of breaks. were these at all showed up at all in any of our work or were this unexpected?

just wondering if there's anything we can't -- we need to do? [please stand by]

>> members of the public who wish to make public comment please dial the number. to raise your hand to speak press star three. >> there is one caller in the queue. hello caller, i've opened your line. you have two minutes. >> great. david. on the main break yesterday, i

could actually see it from the street by the house here, it looked like it was 50 or 100 feet up in the air. it was a substantial guiser.

staff was right on it. there's that on the hard issue. and thanks to all who attended to that. the share point thing is still not working so i do support of taking the closed session first and indicate how long you intend to be in closed session so we have a sense from the public when you'll be back in session or update the public, that would be great. thank you so much. >> thank you for your comment. >> next caller, your line is up. you have two minutes. >> thank you. i wanted to comment really quick. i think the problem with the closed session is we never know

when we'll be back for a closed session. they throws off our schedule. it's not the best information for having the forms and information readily available for the public. taking the schedule from the general public that was probably the worse source of action. i encourage you to resolve the technological issues and keep the meeting going on. thank you for your time. >> thank you for your comments. madam second, there are no more callers in the queue. >> public comment on 7c is closed. >> the next item is a discussion

-- it's a discussion only. why don't we go next item. >> next item is itemle. the water supply. >> may i have the slides, please. >> just a second. good afternoon commissioners, this was a presentation that we put together with in response to some question that's were raised last meeting on where we are with our water supply and 12 new

river flows as it relates to state actions. you've seen some of these charts already in the water supply updates. california extensive parts of it are in severe drought. here we have the chat we normally include on water supply reservoirs. if you click forward on the animation. i circled in red the state and federal project reservoirs that are in the worst condition. they are all quite low. as compared to these others which are not where they should

be but certainly much better off than other reservoirs. this is a slide from our update. we just got yesterday the latest numbers. system storage is about 70% of maximum storage. this graph shows sh soming things, the burnt orange line there is the 2012 to 15. the first year of the drought it did the same throughout that first year. second year dipped down lower and recovered somewhat. it's starting to dip down again

as it does every year. the water bank slide, the yellow is the 2012 thank you 2012. basically that's where you can see this drought is coming upon us faster than the last one did. definitely water bank has recovered somewhat is we will see where we go as we proceed through the presentation and to the next quarter. this is where we are on total delivers and it shows compared to 2020 we have definitely started to down lower than

between 2020 there. one of the things that did occur, we had the governor's drought exec it active order expanded emergency to include other bay area counties other than san francisco. they asked families to rea deuce their water usage. -- wrong direction. levment slide. yeah. we were requesting the voluntary

15 percent reduction in yeus for the levels. what has actually occurred? this shows from our weekly delivery reports how 2020 and 2021 have dpaired for the period of january one through june their. for the first six months, san francisco cuff mefers have received about a 15% rea ducks. this could be due to the man demic. a net reduction of only one percent for the pisser half of

the first half ofthis year. it's not a complete picture relative to what they are achieving overall. the next slide shows how we've done overa month and a half. san francisco customers have stated that the whole sale cuff meres have received about 'search percent reduction. they drped did you know pea low twep twenty levels ch the imeened retucks there is seven april a half percent or half of what the governor called for.

the san francisco puc logo is on there as well. we participate in helping make sure the bill boards are getting out there. we expanned our leak alert profram that reports hourly what cuff mere kp smtion is is. it a hers them when they had throw deas of non stop water use amgs, which could be a water

leak. we hope it catch more leks this weigh ask customers to act op. one of the things we have been doing ever sense its againing of the last year was ask for water waste reporting to be 311. things that are prohibited in san francisco such as having a hose without a shut off nozzle or watering while rain.

all of those things reporting to us. last week there were four errors of wawer weave. we physical up p all of these. the tetional water transfers, dpleat the recycle water promg in fy22. we have all of those prplgs under way. he want it talk about our in stream thre res tower storage

-- for hydro powergeneration, s generally governed by the water delivery system. as much water we deliver it's generating toy kirkland.

just to show comparisons over the the last few years. this is compares mon home is is you see in 'trout year like this, we're jp ring a pit less some -- we had a wet year before that and the ground was fully saturated everywhere. we had had water coming down in large volume in may and run off dropped off very rapidly after that. the rest of the year looks more

like 2021 than 201. 2019. we expended this out. i have to od mitt that we have had mechanical problem at home power house that won't get fixed until early september. we also are kp treb awe it some in crease fle rer m. .next slide.

the exciting news lately has been on curtailments. regulations and orders. on june 15th. the state board noticed water unavailability in the delta water shed. draft emergency water ride curtailment and reporting regulations basically that if applied with the curtailment order would put in place these regulations where diverters would have to by plas throw an provide for initiation based on current information for ply and

demand. on july 23, you will pre in the waw r shed holder. >> excuse me. did you explain the previous slides. on july 23, could you slow down a bit and explain the three bullet points. >> the first bullet point is by pass all diversions. that means for we could not add

any water to our storage, we had to let it go down stream. that applies to all the reservoirs through ought the san jaunquin water shed. give themselves the ability to occur kale more or less dpenning on how conditions are. they are tray to be prey lesm emmy ement here.

p pe we received no points of -- last friday the state issued curtailment orders and did it on their website and said these are now in effect. these are are our eight water rights that are curtailed with curtailment orders. early intake, for some smn the small filter fal ri. i don't think that blngs in the delta water shed. the curtailment orders

yesterday. there's a hard could by in the nail and distributed them to our attorneys and staff to see exactly what they mean to us. we're currently releasing water above natural throw and provide for rafting while generating hydro power. it does not include previously y staffed water. we concluded that the crafting throws to not make a sick sit in

our water ply. we're able to ten to. unfortunately we have -- >> where it was reduces to in requires or whichever is less? if we did that, would we not be comply withing the natural order. >> does super flow soup seed natural flow requirements. that's why we're reading the

orders carefully. ya you're sawing 'at a mun mum full natural flow. >> to does this wrk the water bank? is that also required it. >> that gets us into a interesting situation. we store water in cherry. one interpretation is that it's just one part of storage to another part. we're not really increasing any.

once the curtailment fully goes into effect. we would not be able to keep that water. don pedesdon pedestrian roll.

we take the pessimistic view and see what it looks like. the dashed line is where we expect the water lines to be. from water bank it's basically flight. we're assuming that water bank storage would not increase anymore than what it is now because it would be occur staled. the storage in our upcountry reservoirs would increase dramatically. we would be in a much worse position in the 2015 and 2017.

>> basically the orange line that is what is don pedro or cherry or just don pedro. >> that was water bank storage during 2012 and 2015 we pulls water down heavily for maintain water storage. >> that is don pedro right? >> yes. >> the light blue color is what.

>> that is what is in don pedro now. that's why it that's why it stays flat instead of recovering a bit. i'll talk about what i think we'll do next in the next slide. first and foremost if this fall remanes fly rntion wee take a more aggressive stance with wawer reduction use in january

through july. i modified the slides. we're trying to thoroughly understand what the orders mean for us and what actions we should take. ask people by september third that they are comply withing the order. by september 10th if you would like to apply for a exception for the order. there are various way tom apply for a exception. ten the need to continue kp

seven eation which in san francisco they've been doing a great job on. the curtailments now make this a difficult challenge to work with. >> on the second bullet point. if our collective water use is less than fifty gallons per day gentleman that's where we trying to understand. it's written into the draft regular leations with 'read them. self of our whole sale customers but not all. is it that meap we can a play for a seption for par our water

use? it may. we have supply notice of p compliance, various possibilities out there. at the root of all this, they are taking actions against 2014 water rights users, we're not sure they can do that. we sent a polite letter that said, we disagree with you and we're not going to do that. the matter ended there. we never heard any further.

>> i have a question raring the p if was better to take from our water bank or store let's talk p the 'four, '15, it doesn't seem low,. >> we generally rely on water bank as our emergency storage. that's the thing we go to first

to maintain our reservoir storage. the peaks all came up pretty high. i think the worst year, we only filled into 95 percent because water bank absorbing the the hit for us. there's no specific number that you go after with the storage to

say okay, it's more like drought as a climate condition. >> yes. >> the pre1914 and the camp mather water rights. is it possible to stay we don't believe we are already matching that but we're going to do that.

>> i would like to confer with legal on that. >> water as it currently stands, when does it expire? >> i have not looked at the expiration date. the draft regulation said they were review it on a monthly basis and if conditions removed would term neat the orders out side of that. one of the other pex he had it ohm lasted until september.

that's why we want to take our time and really understand what this is is saying. >> if it gets into refill time, it could mean a lot to us. our whole calculation of yield during the critical period depends on refilling drought sequence. you recognize some years you have a little by of thipgs will he. if it goes owe way orr becomes ep certain. that can esk water kn assumption. it's a heumg esh eu.

ironic the state board whohelps. >> we will certainly be reporting back at the next commission meeting. those are the dates when we note our compliance and ask for exceptions if any. we'll be talking about then and may even have some maining some decisions before then. >> thank you. jool nether way of thinking

about this is to tb back back an demonstrate on water alternative. if it's a wettary or dry year or in twep. maybe they can km up with many come up with howmany people arer waterout of this system. your water use, potentially you

could be exempt from this. will way be a way to -- >> the state did not

if there's no reservoirs and you can't take any out of the rivers, what are people doing? what will happen? >> any professional observation over years when water in the state of california think being the state valley project, the state has really been pushing hard on the message of doing something. they are in worse trouble than anybody else. what's going to happen here, lots of different scenarios. i know valley water to the south of us have started to try to maining much more aggressive action earl yil on.

they are scared. i'm scared but they are really scared. because they rely on so much. southern california has been in ppt news because they invested heavily in heavy stompleg but that only lasts so long. >> i know alimmed alameda.

if the water is not there, the desalination plants might be built by the national guard

.>> people wishing to make publc

comment please press pound three. >> there are three callers in the queue. hello caller, your line is open. you have two minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon commissioners. nicole. i appreciate mr. richys very sobering report here today op a very complex topic. we can retain copies of the curtailment order. those orders and the impacts are are on the water supply that we all rely upon. including sufficient publish safety for the nearly one million people that you serve. we stand ready to work with the

puc in the event that the fall remains dry. it takes action to make sure that water is available for our region. when you look at the numbers across the state, it's a sobering picture. our job is to make sure that we have a reliable level of water to serve to the constituents. >> i've been asked to give some presentations recently on water

supply issues in santa clara county. valley water has a lot of reasons to be nervous. if you look at your graphic, it it's like driving a car with a very large gas tank full, not time to panic yet. there's a million acre feed -- there's enough water in storage to last four years. i hope you can consider this

some good news. it's this need to constantly fum storage, six years worth that creates unnecessary panic. thank you very much. >> good news. i have the rest of the attachments. that doesn't mean i'm using water unnecessarily. i don't know if we should pappic panicor cut back on use or waitd see.

careful planning and more conservation and diversifying our supply and the limited supply that we is all to the good and prude and thanks to staff for doing the job they do everyday. they teak care of our rez departments and people. that's all i have on this. thanksfor the work. >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> item eight is closed. >> i ko confirm that the sell point is back in operation. >> thank you.

next item, please. >> i was told that the cloud broke. we had a temporary interrepresentation of services from our share file. that's why the links weren't accessible. we apologize for any inconvenience for the public. gentleman i was wondering if there was some rain vfed in that process. >> thank you an again, i want to thank the public for their due diligence. >> new commission business. >> i have some. juf one second.

just one second. i would like to ask the legal council to bring language formally authorizing the impact program and professional services. we have had great success when we look at our bio solids program and our building on third street. the the results have been amazing for community benefits. i would like to see us continue that and form luz it. thank you. >> any further business on anyone else.

>> public comment on that? >> members of the public who wish to make public comment specifically on item nine please call in. to raise your happened to speak press star three. >> there are no callers in queue at this time. >> public comment on item number nine is closed. >> item number ten is

presentation by mr. free born. >> hi there. so -- i apologize. one second, real quick. this item accepts the work performed the iron pipe and earthquake and iron pipe to ham shire and authorize the final

payment. total contract duration is 676 days. includes installation with

linear feet of ductile iron pipe. this project included a tole of six modification in addition of 61 calendar days. boamg were within the commission's approved 10% contract contingencies. the modifications included work perform asbestos abatement at the water main. deep hole training. reduce quantities to shared responsibility by oanch plan

work in another private utility. absurd tean a permet for work with the bart raight of way. connections pieces for water mains. the lbe for this contract was 2. mitchell engineering committed to 23 point three six percent at the time of the award. as part of a contract

modification completed under this project $402 in work -- which was planned to be completed by mitchell engineering but not known at the time of contract award. sfpuc required mci to pay 50% which results many saving for puc. per frmed pe the seam. >> president koppel: tract yars. it was treat from this thp tract

and paid trek ri by mci. there was also 102,000 in paving work scope. overlapping paving work scope which was not known at the time of contract award. this was in the sub. >> president koppel: tracting sg goals. the overall work scope performed by the subcontractors when you include the $402,000 paid by lbi was a goal of 23 percent presented by mitchell

engineering. this concludes my presentation. >> thank you. any questions or comments ch seeing none. thank you. public comment on this item? >> if you wish to make public comment on this item please dial the number,. >> there is one caller in the queue. caller, i have opened your line. you have two minutes. >> tmd, we're back at square one. it's amazing how a contract that

stipulates 23 percent just went down to 13 percent. that's roughly 50% reduction in participation. the thirty that you've heard is probably quite accurate. it doesn't tell you the disway of planning. it sells you this is how much you need to pave. during execution of a contract because there's a lot of knuckle heads designed in the puc. could not remember there's an mci project at the same time. just like the tunnel, they missed a huge foundation for the 101. this is the problem,

commissioners. an agency backed -- all their job was to blame everyone and their another's for their mises takes. i just left click up mft names of kn tract yars. all cope of heavy siment equipment is divided by

>> commissioner paulson: -- you're muted. >> commissioner harrington: aye. >> looks like he's back. >> commissioner ajami: aye. >> commissioner paulson: --

>> you're muted, can you hear us? commissioner paulson. you have four ayes. >> thank you. next item i think there is an announcement to be made on the next item. >> we're going to read items -- 11 and 12 out of order. i'll be calling item 12 first. the presentation, public comment and vote and then we'll be hearing item 11 after that. so for item number 12, authorize the general manager to execute the lows vaqueros reservoir expansion and appoint the general manager on behalf ott san francisco public utilities commission and the assistant general manager of water as the alternate director.

>> go ahead. >> before you start -- >> you're muted now. >> before we start, commissioner paulson would like to get our attention. or he's trying to get our attention. >> commissioner paulson: i was permanently on mute and i was trying to -- put me down as aye. >> thank you, i noted that. >> yeah, for the item 12, i'd like to introduce the director of our alternative water supply program. she has been with us for 15 years and is a very capable individual who runs that program and she's been working on the los vaqueros expansion project for quite some time as well as the other alternative water supplies. please proceed with the

presentation. >> thank you, steve. good afternoon, commissioners. it's my pleasure to talk about the reservoir expansion project with you. as commission secretary mentioned, this presentation covers two items that are on the agenda today. item 12 and item 11. so i will be giving you a presentation on what the project is and overview of the project, and the action items before you today. so an overview of the project, the los vaqueros reservoir expansion project is a storage and conveyance project. those are the components of the project. so at the heart of it, if you look at the diagram below on this slide, at the heart of it is an expansion of existing reservoir owned by contra costa water district. this reservoir has been in place since 1998 and has been expanded

previously. but now what we're talking about is an expansion that is a regional expansion with multiple partner agencies. so it is the expansion portion of the project is really truly a regional project. the project includes not just the expansion of the reservoir itself, but the conveyance facilities that provide -- that allow water to be put into storage and then taken out of storage to various delivery points. so really it's a significant project that includes storage and conveyance. and that is essentially the definition of the project that we'll be talking about today. now in addition to the project itself, there is certainly two other components that are very important to the puc. the first is supply. what water do we put into the reservoir? and that's something that staff is looking at closely right now. and contra costa water district

has been helping us as well. and then finally, how do we take delivery? how do we have this water supply that is in storage benefit the sfpuc and our customers? so really those are the main components. here you can see on this slide the project location relative to sfpuc facilities. the horizontal line in the center of the map is the hetch hetchy aqueduct. you can see the old treatment plant. and then san antonio reservoir. these are some of our primary facilities. now switching over to the top of the slide, you can see the los vaqueros reservoir. it's north of the facility. we're talking about expansion of this reservoir. so it's not directly connected to our regional water system, however, as part of the project,

there is a new pipeline that is proposed at the orange dotted line presented here and that's the transfer bethany pipeline. what that pipeline would do is connect to this expanded los vaqueros reservoir to the south bay aqueduct. it is part of the state water project and there are different agencies who use this pipeline right now, zone 7 water agency, alameda county and valley water are the three contractors who currently use this. but this pipeline does run fairly close to the san antonio reservoir which is our facility. so there are a couple of different ways here that san francisco can -- puc customers can benefit from this project. we could take water off of the south bay aqueduct.

that would be one way to get it directly into our system. alternatively, we're considering exchange opportunities with alameda county water district. they're one of our wholesale customers, so they could take water from the south bay and forego purchases from the regional water system. that is one way our customers would benefit. and another would be valley water taking water, which is at the end of this line, at the end of south bay aqueduct. they take the water, we share common customers with valley water. we also have intertie with them, so there may be other ways we can exchange water supply with them. so a few different ways for the sfpuc customers to benefit from this project. so, looking at the relative size of storage that we're considering here.

there was a lot of discussion from agm ritchie's presentation on storage and how storage works particularly in a drought. so here you can see some of our other reservoirs. you see san antonio, hetch hetchy. what we're speaking about, you can see there, the third is los vaqueros expansion. the entire expansion is 115,000 and our portion of that, what we have planned for is 40,000 acre feed. which is the green bar represented there. you can see it is significant, but smaller than our other storage in our regional water system. this slide shows you the regional component of this regional project. there are a number of partners. they're widely dispersed around the bay area.

7 partners in the contra costa water district. they're shown in different colors. the local area agencies that are partnering on this project and they're getting some water supply benefit from this project. so those same agencies are listed here on the left. these are the different individual agencies who have been participating in planning around this project since 2016. that's when we began participation in the project. each of these agencies have participated in a lot of the planning, ccwd, contra costa water district, has led that planning effort to date, including completion of the environmental report and a lot of the design has been completed, but that is currently ongoing. so we're in the planning phase of this project. a significant amount of work has already been done. one of the items before you

today is for these agencies to collectively form a joint powers authority. the joint powers authority would be the governing body for this project moving forward. and our participation in the j.p.a. agreement, which is before you today, would signal our interest in continuing to participate in planning and design for this project. now, once the j.p.a. is formed, there are a number of agreements that that j.p.a. would then need to negotiate and enter into. and some of the critical agreements are listed here on the right. there are service agreements, facility agreements, operation and maintenance agreements. agreements with the state and federal government and design and construction agreements. these agreements will really dictate how the project is operated. the nuts and bolt, if you will, of how we will operate the

project. i would like to also point out that for the sfpuc specifically, we are thinking of this as a dry-year project. so the project where we would take advantage of storage in drought years. a little bit about the funding for this project. ccwd has led an effort to obtain significant capital grant fund from both the state and the federal government. so this is about a billion-dollar capital project and you can see how it's broken out on the capital side here. sfpuc's share represents about $91 million out of the billion dollars and that's significant leverage -- that portion is proportionate to our share of both storage that of the expansion as well our use of the facilities. you can see here that about 60% of the project is expected to be

funded by grant funds. now, these -- we are making a lot of progress with the leadership here on obtaining the grant funds, both from proposition 1 at the state level and the federal government level, but these are not yet final. these are still being -- there are key milestones that we have built into the project planning that really relate to getting these grant funds in place. and a lot of the progress and the momentum around this project is driven by some of those grant funding requirements. the near-term grant funding requirement for the state is actually coming in october, where we are looking to this establishment of the joint powers authority to show this is truly a regional project with regional partners continuing to be committed to the planning and design of the project.

so in addition to the capital funds, i will note that there would also be ongoing operations and maintenance costs associated with the project. so those are all things we're looking at. there is a financial consultant on board who has been preparing and working with all of the partners to look at both the capital and ongoing o. and m. costs and how those costs would be distributed and share. that's something we're very interested -- not just the immediate capital needs of the project, but what the long-term operational and maintenance needs will be, it's something we're looking very closely at. so i mentioned that in addition to the actual storage and conveyance pieces of the project, we're also interested in the water supply and delivery pieces. and that's something that we are working extensively on at a staff level. on the conveyance side, as i

mentioned, also we are not part of this. so ensuring that there will be sufficient capacity for the sfpuc to move water through the south bay aqueduct and take deliveries directly or via exchange is a very important component of the feasibility of this project and it's something we've spent the last year and a half looking closely at and working with the south bay aqueduct contractors to determine if there is sufficient space there to put another straw in that distribution line. so, yes, the short answer is that capacity analysis has been very positive, that we believe that -- and our partners concur that there should be sufficient capacity available for us to take water during drought through the south bay aqueduct. and certainly that is something we would need an agreement on with d.w.r. as the owner of the facility and that's one of the

agreements that the j.p.a. would enter into. so it would be the project entering into agreement with the state to ensure that we can take deliveries through the south bay aqueduct. we're also continuing to talk with our partners, as i mentioned, whether we take direct delivery or take exchanges. those are ongoing conversations that we're having right now. on the water supply front, as you saw from the map, there is no direct connection between the los vaqueros project facility and our system. so understanding which water we'll be able to put in as a source of supply and how we'll get it there is a really important consideration as well. we are working, as i mentioned, closely with d.p.w. d. to ensure we'll have a water supply. i see that as a primary task in the coming year before we enter

into some of the bigger agreements on this project and before we make any financial commitments on this project beyond planning. so this gives you a sense of the timeline for this project. we are looking at, today one of the decisions before you is authorization of the j.p.a. once that j.p.a. is established, then that j.p.a. will take over some of the negotiations on different agreements with individual agencies. so we expect that process to begin in november and continue at least for a year where various agreements are going to be negotiated. that is going to be something that is going to be a very hands-on effort. i will just note that even in the current planning phase, this has been a very, very involved effort from various parts of the puc and the city attorney's office to ensure that the

agreements and the planning work that we have been doing is well coordinated between our operations, our water quality division and then, as i mentioned, the city attorney's office and, of course, planning. and while these agreements are being negotiated, sfpuc staff will continue to focus on the water supply piece. what water and how and when we'll get that water into storage and how we will take delivery. so we expect that to be happening concurrently and we expect to make recommendation to the commission before asking for long-term financial commitment which would come through the service agreement. and that's identified here as currently scheduled for november of next year, when we expect to be coming forward with the service agreement. so this is just a quick summary. this is a storage project.

and as we discussed -- as you all discussed earlier with a.g.m. ritchie, storage does allow for flexibility during drought. this adds storage to our system and in a different area, so can provide some reliability for dry-year supply. it is a regional project. regional water supply and environmental benefits and it is well within planning, likely to be constructed by 2029 and in operation by 2030. there are many partners and several agreements that need to be completed to really secure the project's benefits and that's an institutional process that we're going through and paying a great deal of attention to. there are also state and federal grants that can significantly reduce the capital portion of the project costs, but we're still looking at the long-term operational and maintenance costs of the project. and we are continuing to

evaluate the location and timing of delivery as well as options for water supply. okay. so the actions that are here before you today, item 12, is basically sfpuc's participation in the joint powers authority. so our signing on to this governance board. and that would be represented by a director on the board -- which is proposed to be general manager -- and an alternate, would would be agm ritchie. so that's basically showing our continued commitment to the project and starting to negotiate these various agreements. it does not represent a final commitment to the project as i mentioned. there are several things that we're still working on, from

water supply to delivery points. and full understanding of the costs. so those will continue in parallel as we move forward with planning and we expect for those to come to you by the third quarter of next year. that's what we're planning for right now with the service agreement. when that is being called for signature. the second item, item 11, is our participation in the multi-cost share agreement. and the purpose of this if we participate in the joint powers authority, the joint powers authority is not yet ready to take on some of the responsibilities of planning. we expect it to take some time before there is staff hired and enough in place to take on some of the planning responsibilities. so in the meantime, the contra costa water district would continue to take the lead so we would need to fund that continuing planning, which would have gone otherwise to the j.p.a., but now we're proposing

it stay with contra costa water district until the j.p.a. is ready to take on the responsibilities. that is an amendment to the current cost-share agreement not to exceed the puc's portion, not to exceed $897,121. that would take is through the end of next year. a significant portion of that is design. and that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president, you're muted. >> president maxwell: commissioners, any questions or comments? >> thank you so much for your presentation. that was great. a couple of questions. i think you sort of touched on them. i want to clarify. couldn't figure out what -- how much water is right now in los

vaqueros just out of curiosity to know, where would that water come. i just want to know where that water would come from. if you have more storage, you'd have more water. maybe you mentioned it and i missed it, i apologize and my son just arrived and i got distracted. did you talk about, it's been $91 million, that does not include the connection pipe that you're talking about right? that would be on top of the $91 million. and do we have an estimate for that? i couldn't see it in the document. >> sure. on your first question, the current capacity of the los vaqueros reservoir is 160,000 acre feed. that would be increased by another 115,000 acre feed with this proposed expansion.

so we're looking at, we've got a reservoir that is sitting 160,000 acre feet and then we're adding on to that as a regional project, 115,000. >> commissioner ajami: i appreciate that. maybe i asked the question incorrectly. i'm wondering what the level is right now. second year drought. we're in a severe situation. i couldn't find the historical data and the question was not about the size that you are gaining. i got that part. i was just wondering what water would be put in there and if this year, for example, as an example, and the reservoirs doesn't have that much water, what is going to go there? >> yeah, so right now there is 113,000 acre feet in storage.

that is the current storage level there. and as far as new water that we would put in there, we are -- that is really intended to be the focus of our work in the coming year. but there are a number of options. certainly one option that had been studied before is the bay area regional project in contra costa project. that's a project that we've considered under the bay area reliability or bar program. and so desalination could be a potential supply source. that's one. there are others. we're looking at transfers. so various transfer opportunities that could be available in wet years for example, that we could store for dry-year storage. we are also looking at a few other projects, pure fied water opportunity and we expect to do a study on the various options and consider the costs, consider the size and the reliability of

various options. no matter what the options are, they would require some sort of exchange or involvement with ccwd because we do not have a direct connection into that reservoir. >> i would just add, los vaqueros was built as a reservoir to store better water quality for contra costa. so it's kind of been a get-water in wet years and use it in dry years. so that's what we're talking about is water added in wet years that we could call upon in dry years. >> commissioner ajami: i'm sorry. i'm a little confused about something. didn't they just do a project on that? >> [laughter] yes, yes. this was built to about 98,000 acre feet and then they just expanded it. that's why we're excited to

follow their in their footsteps. >> so they're adding on top of what they already added? >> yeah. and one other comment here, of all the projects we have, this is the institutionally most complex, but because of the prop 1 funding requirements which the amount of money you get is substantial, but the schedule, the timeline that they want to district that money on is distribute that money is on very tight. this is moving on a faster schedule than any of the other projects by far. >> commissioner ajami: if we are going to put the desal nated water or pure fied water in there, i'm wondering how we need to calculate the cost of that water? just because it's basically, you're building an infrastructure, making water and moving it into another infrastructure, and putting water in.

i wonder what is the financially that makes sense rather than just purified water and you use it. >> that is why that service agreement would be where you would have the information about water supply, what the water supply would be, what it would cost. you can see the total cost of that and that's why off ramps exist until you get to that point. once you've committed by signing the service agreement, then you're committed to paying for the reservoir pieces regardless of whether you ever pay for the water. obviously, it wouldn't be of value to us unless we were paying for water as well. but we need to understand the total costs. >> commissioner ajami: right. and then one last question going back to the expansion process. when they expanded it last time, did they strengthen the dam enough to basically be able to tolerate this new expansion? or do we need to do some

additional fundamental work to be able to do this? >> yeah. the original expansion was when lve was built, it was always intended to be able to have this level of expansion. >> yeah. this has been contra costa's plan all along. >> commissioner ajami: thank you. thank you so much. >> president maxwell: commissioner harrington. >> commissioner harrington: thank you, chair. and thank you. this is a good project. wish it could happen faster. i realize when we say thinks on a fast track, this is still glacial. i realize what we're looking at here is dry water supply and we're still talking about what the supply source can be. but one of the other issues that we're still dealing with is san jose and santa clara wanting to

become permanent customers and wanting to get more water from us. does this provide any kind of a way of maybe dealing with that also that wouldn't just be dry year, it would be other kinds of things hooked into the plumbing better than we are, or they could be? are we looking at that? did we decide not to? where are we with that? that may be a ritchie question. >> she's thinking about these things much more than i am. >> i am happy to answer that. with every project we think about who it would be most appropriate to go to. so it could certainly go to san jose and santa clara, it's a possibility. but as a dry-year project or if we look at it first as a dry-year project, then there is a lot of potential to help meet our dry-year needs which is when the majority of our customers, including our permanent

customers have significant needs. so i would say it is possible that it could go to san jose and santa clara, but at this point we have continued to look at it as a dry-year project because it readily helps meet the broadest needs possible as a dry-year project. >> commissioner harrington: could we help san jose and santa clara to be additional partners where their need wouldn't be dry-year? >> yes. i think we could. and there is maybe a few different ways that we could structure something with san jose and santa clara. there is also the possibility that they get additional supplies through our regional water system in normal and wet years and a different supply source in dry years like the los vaqueros project. so there are a few different ways that could be structured. >> commissioner harrington: i'm hearing you say that could

happen, but don't hold your breath [laughter]? is that the right thing i'm hearing. >> i'm hesitant to commit to what supply sources we would recommend to pointing to for san jose and santa clara until we see more of what the different supply options are for the various priorities we have meeting environmental flow requirements and meeting our permanent retail and wholesale customers, obligations to them and their demands first. so i hesitate to point to any specific supply yet. >> commissioner harrington: thank you. >> president maxwell: commissioner? >> commissioner moran: this points to something i would be thinking about for a while. it would be useful for this commission to have a discussion about the interruptible

customers and what it would mean to make the system permanent. i would encourage we try to schedule something about the interruptibles sometime this fall. >> president maxwell: good. we'd love to do that. >> commissioner ajami: sorry, i asked this question, but i think it got sort of forgotten in the mix of questions i asked. what is the cost of the pipeline going to go on top -- i'm assuming it's going on top of $90 million and do we have an estimate for that? >> i apologize, i missed that question. but the cost that we're looking at, the billion-dollar cost i showed on capital, that includes the expansion itself and the new transfer bethany pipeline, so that is included in that capital cost. what would be additional is if we made a direct connection from

the south bay aqueduct to san antonio reservoir, for example, which is a fairly small turnout. or if there were any improvements needed to take exchanges from the alameda county district. those are not included in our cost. but everything physically attached to the los vaqueros project is already included in that. >> and then the $91 million, i assume, sort of -- we know which part of our money is going to go to the pipe, or is it like a pot of money, we're just going to spend it based on the contract on what comes up, or do we specifically have divided this money based on who gets how much and, you know, what portion of it goes to the pipeline, what portion goes to the dam expansion? >> yeah, it is a very detailed

pro forma model that goes into a considerable amount of detail on the storage component. all the different storage components, the administration, the, you know, both the capital and the o and m cost. there is a lot of detail broken out. as those agreements that i mentioned start getting negotiated with the j.p.a., we'll be able to fine-tune those details even further so that, you know, if we're, for example, there are other partner agencies maybe taking water every year, we would only -- if we are only taking water during drought that may represent only 5-10% of our use of conveyance. so that kind of thinking is reflected in the cost, but as we negotiate agreements and maybe make changes, those numbers will also continue to change and we're watching that very closely. >> commissioner ajami: sure. just one last request and comment. it would be good to kind of keep us posted on the water supply

study that is being done because also i'm wondering the more frequent drought year that we're experiencing, like impact availability. and it would be good also -- i'm assuming you're going to do this, impacts of climate change, trying to look at different scenarios and even though we're thinking about alternative water supplies for this, but if you need to tap into alternative water supply for our permanent water use, that might actually impact the amount of extra water that is available. so it would be good to have as you're developing this scenario to see them and provide feedback on them. >> yes. i will definitely do that. and certainly reliability of any water supply source is at the top of the criteria for finding a water supply source. >> yeah and i remind the commission that we have a workshop coming up on

alternative water supply projects in september. and we're looking at a climate change workshop not too long after that. >> president maxwell: all right. thank you. any further comments, questions, discussion? public comment, please, madame secretary? >> secretary: members of the public who wish to make comment on item 12, call 1-415-655-0001, meeting i.d., 146 355 9001 # #. raise your hand to speak, press star 3. do we have any callers? >> there are two callers in the queue. >> secretary: thank you. >> hello, caller, your line is open, you have two minutes. >> thank you very much.

good afternoon, commissioners, c.e.o. i like to speak in support of the recommendation from staff on both your items on the los vaqueros project. we have been engaged with your staff on this project and look forward to continuing planning studies and possible development and also look forward to more full and complete discussion with you in the fall about alternative water supplies. and the policy issues before you related to making san jose and santa clara permanent customers, thank you very much. >> thank you for your comment. next caller, your line is open. you have two minutes. >> can you hear me now? >> loud and clear. >> great. david pilpel again. much happier than i was earlier. so on item 12, which i guess we're hearing first, which is

fine, i appreciated the discussion. this clearly is important. i'm wondering if we should start planning now for a new intertie with the south bay aqueduct, either through the hetch hetchy aqueduct or directly to the san antonio reservoir or at least do preliminary work to assess high level, what the order of magnitude would be for those interties and other factors might come into play so we didn't have to be subject to transfer through valley water or alameda county to balance the supplies in some other piping way. if this is the best approach for this project for the j.p.a., then so be it.

this would create a new j.p.a. with public meetings under the brown act. i wonder if the j.p.a. would continue after the expansion is built. if it is. or if the j.p.a. could end at some point? and that's the responsibility to the member agencies. i would ask for project status reports on this at least twice a year, either under communications to this commission or to the general managers report, particularly at the front ends the j.p.a. gets set up. i appreciate the second paragraph on the ceqa box on page 7 which pointed to the environmental documents that contra costa prepared. and on the j.p.a. itself, page 39, 48, should the puc address be the 13th floor and not the 10th floor.

just a thought. anyway, that's what i have on item 12. thanks. >> thank you for your comments. madame secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> secretary: public comment on item number 12 is closed. >> president maxwell: may i get a motion to approve this item and a second, please? >> move it. >> second. >> i'll second. >> president maxwell: so moved and seconded. roll call vote, please. >> president maxwell: aye. >> commissioner moran: aye. >> commissioner paulson: aye. >> commissioner harrington: aye. >> commissioner ajami: aye. >> we have five ayes. >> president maxwell: next item please. >> the next item is item 11 authorize the general manager to execute amendment number 3 to the multiparty cost share

agreement for planning of potential expansion of the los vaqueros reservoir extending up to one year until december 31, 2022 for a duration of 44 months and increasing the total amount by $6,279,848 divided equally among the partners. not to exceed 897,000. for sfpuc contribution not to exceed $2,264,911. >> this represents the continued investment in planning money for the project. you know, 11 got listed accidentally before number 12 because if you hadn't approved the j.p.a., we would have pulled out of the planning. since you voted for the j.p.a., we will go with this before we

get to the hard decisions that are before us. >> president maxwell: okay. any comments, questions? seeing none, then public comment, please. >> secretary: members of the public who wish to give two minutes of public comment on specifically item 11, dial 1-415-655-0001, meeting i.d., 146 355 9001 # #. to raise your hand to speak, press star 3. do we have any callers? >> there is one caller in the queue. caller, your line is open. you have two minutes. >> hi, david pilpel again. so on item 11, this item also

could have had a second paragraph in the ceqa box like on item 12 to reference the contra costa water district's previous environmental work, but it was already in item 12, so there's that. just in the future it would be nice. and just one other thing i notice on the contract page 8, the staff report, page 15, the reference to acting general manager, it says carlin, i would insert manager on the signature page, otherwise it looks like a good deal for next phase. thanks. >> thank you for your comment. madame secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> secretary: public comment on item 11 is closed. >> president maxwell: any further discussion? seeing none, then may have a

motion and a second to approve this item? >> so moved. >> i'll second. >> president maxwell: so moved and seconded. roll call vote, please. >> president maxwell: aye. >> vice president moran: aye. >> commissioner paulson: aye. >> commissioner harrington: aye. >> commissioner ajami: aye. >> thank you. next item, please. >> our next item is item 13, approve the responses of the san francisco public utilities commission to the relevant findings and recommendations of the june 29, 2021 civil grand jury report entitled a fluid concern, san francisco must improve fuel resilience and authorize and direct the commission to submit the responses to the civil grand jury no later than august 28, 2021. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. john, i'm joined by my colleague, head of emergency manning here in puc -- planning here in puc. and thinks the first -- this is the first of two reports the commissioners will hear today. i'm seeking your approval to provide the responses to this civil grand jury report. next slide. thank you. so just a high level summary of the civil grand jury report, what this report is really about is the need for a reliable fuel supply in light of a natural disaster or emergency. so, our essential services could face fuel shortages after disaster. so an example that was given is

if there is, you know, an emergency and police cars and fire engines are driving for hours and hours and hours, if there is no fuel to fill those emergency response vehicles, you know, during the response, it could be that these vehicles can't continue to provide response. this also related to fuel shortages for emergency backup generators that could be powering communications equipment, pump stations to remove water. that's what this report is really about, fuel for emergency response. what the report found and what they're recommending is that the city should invest in a systematic program to address fuel preparedness for disaster response and the key elements of the program should include clear organizational ownership of fuel preparedness from the city government, improved assessment of fuel demand and supply, better equipment for managing local fuel reserves,

comprehensive planning and dedicated funding for fuel preparedness and improvement. and long-term planning for keeping critical infrastructure reliable in a fossil fuel-free future. four fs in a row there. so that is the basic summary of the report. that the civil grand jury gave. next slide. so, in terms of responding to the report, the mayor's office helped coordinate the response. and really one of the key leaders obviously was the department of emergency management as well as the city administrator office and the puc, because we have so much infrastructure in the city both outside and we are a key component of emergency response. whether it be providing water for fires or providing water to residents that may need it. we also have power services that

are essential for response and water services as well. so those are really the four agencies that really work together to respond to this report. so there were two recommendations that the puc was asked to respond to. i'm going to go over those two recommendations. i'm happy to answer any questions and comments. so the first recommendation that the puc needed to respond to was civil grand jury recommendation number 3. and that the agency sponsor of a city fuel working group should select members with strong experience in supply chain logistics and emergency management. d.e.m., the office of the contract administration, the city administrator's office and other city departments who are significant useers of fuel,

including puc, m.t.a. and d.p.w. should dedicate staff time each month through december 2024 or until the subsequent recommendations in the report are implemented. our response is on the next slide. and so the response is that actually pre-covid this working group did exist and was meeting monthly. the members included emergency managers such as josh gale who i mentioned earlier who was on the call from d.p.w., the city administrator office, d.e.m., the fire department and s.f.o. central shops and public works. port staff is going to be included once the group relaunches. and we're going to go back to having regular monthly meetings within the next 90 days. so we're implementing the recommendation of the civil

grand jury. the second and final recommendation that the puc was asked to respond to was in the 2023 capital plan, the city should commit to building an additional fuel station with five 10,000-gal storage capacity for gasoline and diesel fuel in the space to be freed up at the southeast treatment plant when the digester replacement is done or an additional fueling station in the southeast plant was not available. this was the grand jury recommendation. next slide for our response. our response, and we felt strongly about the response, the city administrator's office, office of resilience and capital planning, will have to complete analysis of the city fuel need and identify project scopes, cost and target date to understand if there are locations in san francisco that are viable for such a storage

project. it should include the fuel needs and potential locations for city infrastructure located outside of san francisco such as the fuel needs for the hetch hetchy regional water system. this response continues. regarding the potential use of the southeast treatment plant, which is what the civil grand jury recommended, the puc is completing a campus plan to determine how to best use the space at the southeast plant. so any analysis of using the southeast plant for fuel storage would need to be completed in the context of the southeast campus plan and must include our

future wastewater and recycle water for the southeast plant. the safety of storing as a wastewater treatment plant and really this last one is key to us, and ensuring consistency and compliance with the sfpuc racial justice policies. so storing 50,000 gallons worth of fuel in the southeast area at the southeast plant, is that consistent with our racial justice policies. and with that, i'm happy to answer any questions. so we had a minor role in this report, but those are the two recommendations we needed to respond to.

>> waiting for commissioner president maxwell to resume. just thanks for the work on this, john. and specifically that very last part, because we're saying that we think we need to clean up our act in the bayview and let's throw out more bad things in that neighborhood. clearly, something we need to really be clear about. >> thank you, commissioner harrington. >> any other comments or questions from the commission? seeing none, you can call for public comment. >> secretary: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 13, dial 1-415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 355 9001 # #.

to raise your hand to speak, press star 3. do we have any callers? >> there are two callers in the queue. hello, caller, your line is open. you have two minutes for comment. >> the commissioners first and foremost pay serious attention to this report. we do not have a consignment of services, anybody of the commander, the emergency services. the city does not have it. the one who is allowing the city

is to be the office of the -- [indiscernible] . so you all do not understand the report when it comes to safety. and secondly, one of you stated, it's very easy for you all, or for the grand jury, that's the mentality, the white mentality. oh, you know, let's dump it where the treatment plant. why don't you dump it near your house? why don't you dump it, you know, in the, you know, up where the presidio? the bayview hunters point has suffered a lot. that is why a task force was created so we could get

community benefits. what happened? you all commissioners were fast asleep in the cockpit while jones wasted over $300 million. and there are blacks in our community, they call them house negroes because they sell out to the community. we talk about racial here now when we have blacks who are the dominant -- who are corrupt and they don't know about environmental issues. i've been -- [bell ringing] -- for 40 years. >> thank you for your comment. your time has expired. next caller, your line is open. >> you can hear me okay? >> loud and clear. >> great. david pilpel. on item 13, the board of

supervisors usually hears the reports of the grand jury and invites members of the grand jury to report. in the future, perhaps when and if there are grand jury reports that implicate the puc it might be worth thinking about to inviting the grand jury members to present before the commission so you could have a little interaction and not just back and forth in writing. nevertheless, the proposed response refers to a southeast treatment plant campus plan. i'm not sure that i'd seen reference to that before. i would still like to see either a city or puc overall for all the various facilities and space that is owned by the city or the puc kind of chavez and east of

101 including the new cdd facility and the d.p.w. corporation yard and the southeast treatment plant. there is a lot of space there and not just a small campus, but a look at the real estate there would be useful. otherwise, the responses seem thoughtful to me. thank you to john and others for their work on this. i would also send copies of the puc response to both the board of supervisors and the controller for their tracking in addition to a copy to the mayor and the original to the presiding judge. thanks. >> thank you for your comment. madame secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> secretary: public comment on item number 13 is closed.

>> president maxwell: yes. moran, i'm back. thank you. may i have a motion to approve this item? and a second. >> so moved. >> i'll second. >> president maxwell: so moved and seconded. roll call vote, please. >> president maxwell: aye. >> vice president moran: aye. >> commissioner paulson: -- >> commissioner harrington: -- >> commissioner harrington: aye. >> commissioner ajami: aye. five ayes. >> president maxwell: thank you. next item. >> item 14 i prove the responses of the san francisco public utilities commission to the relevant findings and recommendations of the june 28, 2021 civil grand jury report entitled van ness avenue, what

lies beneath and authorize and direct the commission president to submit the responses to the civil grand jury no later than august 27, 2021. >> actually, alan jo hansen is going to be presenting this one, commission secretary, so i'll pass it over to my colleague alan. >> thanks, john. good afternoon, commissioners, commission president maxwell. i'm the acting assistant manager for infrastructure and moving ahead we're here to seek your approval for our responses to the recommendations from the civil grand jury on the van ness project. here's a little bit of a overview of the project. i'm sure a lot of people are familiar. it's basically -- it's already almost installed, bus rapid

transit corridor during the center of van ness and it goes from lumbar to mission. significant for the puc, this includes the replacement of underground utilities. the sewer lines were replaced because they were directly under the bus lanes and the water lines were replaced due to age, but at the same time, they did not want to have laterals crossing underneath the transit lanes in the center of the van ness corridor. the project started in 2016 and is expected to be completed in 2022. so, the summary, the report findings, project and delays had occurred illustrated organizational shortcomings the

city faces in delivering public works projects. they failed to capture the scope of the project adequately. processes failed to instill accountability. and ongoing project management failed to remediate problems effectively and efficiently. involved in the response to the recommendations, the mayor's office, of course, coordinating and taking the lead. m.t.a. as the lead, the department that advertised and managing the contract. public works participated in design and construction management and the sfpuc, we, of course, had our assets that were involved in the construction. and water infrastructure cdd designers did the design for the water and did the inspection.

the response from the mayor's office basically recognized the project delays, frustrated the residents and were identifying that were analyzing the delays, so we do not experience similar ones in the future. we're learning our lessons. the city needs to ensure that the future capital projects do not experience similar delays and we want to improve our delivery methods. we do not believe that, however, the city is solely responsible for the delays. and they're analyzing the delays that occurred. the city is implementing remedies. in other cases, using

alternative industry standards best practices to improve project delivery. there is five recommendations for the puc and so the first one is by june 2022, the city should adopt a policy that all capital project feasibility plans include an itemized assessment of risks and costs which must be accomplished with specific procedures that will be undertaken to mitigate those risks early in the project. next slide with our response. our response is this has been implemented at the puc, early on at the puc. we established risk plans and risk registers, especially the tunnel projects were the first and then the major treatment plants. and this -- we had a lot of success wisa and we're

implementing that into broader and broader. of course, the focus is on the more complex and the larger projects. that's where the emphasis and risk management will be. recommendation 2. by june 2022, the city should adopt a policy that all capital projects sponsors before proceeding to the construction phase. and itemize assessment of de-risking activities actually performed. the response. basically, i think, laying out our whole risk plan and what we did to mitigate risks in terms

of whether we decided to design around it, to accept the risk as a city-held risk, to share the risk with the contractor or place the risk with the contractor, i think providing that whole plan is a potential for being a road map for a change order request during construction by the contractor. the contractor can analyze those risks, can find ones that we didn't successfully mitigate. and at the same time, they may be able to find risks that we didn't include. and i think it's opening us up to, you know, not with all contractors, but certain contractors may take advantage of a list like that. and that's why, you know, i'm recommending against it. >> i'm sorry, there seems to be a delay in the advancement of slides. >> that's okay. i have patience.

by june 2022, the board of supervisors and sfpuc review and update policies and regulations to ensure that detail as built documentation of both private and public utilities is filed after all projects whether taken by the sfpuc, another city agency or private enterprise, with sufficient resolution and precision to allow accurate design of any future work. while totally endorsing the -- this recommendation, i think there is a challenge, because the puc we do a very good job of keeping as-builts. they double check those. and we keep our records. we have record retention

procedures. the challenge is, when this is cast to require the city to guarantee precision -- i think that's going to be a challenge when it's private utilities, when it's other utilities, say at&t, pg&e. who is going to be able to assure their precision? while, you know, 90% of this is a great recommendation, i think that the emphasis on precision and the city guaranteeing that, i think that will be a challenge. next slide, please. i guess i got ahead of myself on the response. we can proceed to the next slide after this recommendation 4.

recommendation 4. board of supervisors should direct all city departments to adopt a policy that all projects that include work include as part of the design process the use of exploratory and practices that identify unknown underground obstructions adhering to -- anyway subsurface. this should take effect and the work should be required to be performed before final construction terms or prices are agreed to. next slide with the response.

and i think basically once again it's mandating that all projects -- i think that's a broad brush. and one example are small diameter water projects. we have been very successful with going out there and selectively potholing during construction. they are very flexible. they're able to reroute the alignments around conflicts. and i think this having one methodology for all projects, i think that might not work. i would agree some of our larger water lines, any duct banks for power, that all makes a lot of sense and especially in the, you know, very busy corridors and the heavy commercial areas. i just -- it would seem to me to going into full potholing phase

for a small water utility line would subject the people in the area to more construction over a longer period of time in the potholing phase and not really getting much for that extra effort. so, i mean, while, once again, to a large degree, you know, we recognize the infrastructure, this is an excellent suggestion, it's just not -- it doesn't fit for all projects. i believe that's -- next slide. recommendation 5. by june 2022 and before entering into future cmgc relationships, the board of supervisors to direct all city departments to adopt, publish and enforce and all contracts in its industry standard best practices for

management of cmgc projects. and moving to the response. the next slide. for the sfpuc, we're actively implementing the best practices and we're learning on cmgc contracts. you know, we have three ongoing right now. we've updated our procedures. we're, you know, everything we are learning on a regular basis, we're incorporating it into our future contracts. one of the things we did see, and i think it was a good decision, 1550 evans, we got consultants who knew about building. that's not most of our staff and c.m. are not experienced in building, so we went out for a consultant contract that knew buildings and we got management assistance from department of public works. they do vertical. and we're going to continue with

that mode for 2000 moran. bring people in who know the specifics of individual types of projects. that concludes. >> commissioner harrington: thank you, president maxwell and thank you, alan, for your presentation. i have often been critical of grand jury reports because some are badly written. this one, i thought, was actually pretty well written. and i thought it really connected to a lot of things that were important. i think we're being unnecessarily negative in our responses. so in the findings, we disagreed partially and completely with all of them and the recommendations, three of the five we said, we will not be implementing because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. and i think that maybe you're

putting too fine a line on some of the smaller parts of it. so if i could go through a couple of them. so recommendation number 4. it says that we should do potholing or another equivalent industry best practice to identify underground obstruction. we talked about that being important. your response will not be implemented because it will not fit some small projects. my response would be, great, the industry best practices doesn't require potholing on some small projects, so it fits we're following best practices, we're not going to do potholing on small things as opposed to saying no to everything. on recommendation 3, we talked about as-built. we don't think it's good recommendation because we can't ensure the accuracy. what this is asking is that the board review a policy. nobody can ensure anything in life, but as part of the

policies we could say if a utility doesn't provide as-built, and record it, they have to pay for whatever the actual costs are. or they have to pay a fine. you ensure compliance by requiring things. you don't ensure compliance by adding staff to make sure what they've done is right. there is different ways of doing it. i think we could agree and say this is how we think it should be done because we don't think the puc should be responsible for all that. of course not, utilities should be responsible for those kinds of things. there is a 9/11 issue, i wouldn't change -- whatever the current disclosures are, or the regulations are, sure. that doesn't mean we shouldn't have access to other as-built that are reasonably accurate when we go to do things. wouldn't it have been nice to know what was underneath before we started working on that? the one that i think is the most

interesting is recommendation 2. because what they're saying is, so recommendation 1 said you should make a risk assessment. recommendation 2 says you shouldn't publish it. our response is if we publish that they'll take advantage of it. i guess in my history, partnerships between contractors and owners where we're honest with each other makes fort best possible projects. and if we think we've gone through a risk assessment but we're not going to tell the contractor, what we're asking them to do is get. when they have to get, they have to build into their price what risk they don't know we actually mitigated. i think that's why we have bids that are so varied because people are guessing what they may be responsible as contractors versus what we think we have mitigated against. so i would think our response

should be the opposite. we should try to figure out how to tell contractors what we expect them to absorb and what we're going to absorb as opposed to hiding it and saying, your guess, we don't want to have a problem possibly down the line with change orders. so i think that there is different ways to address recommendations 3 and 4. that come back to your same issue, but, too, i think we may disagree on what we should be doing there. so sorry about that, but i wanted to say, i think we need to be more positive and accept some of this, because they seem like pretty good recommendations to me. i'm seeing nodding, so thank you. we'll see if you'd like to add or if ellen wants to respond or whatever. >> would you like to respond, alan? and then commissioner ajami? >> yeah, i think -- i agree.

i mean, i think we probably on some of these responses, we looked at it individual and focused on that. and, you know, i like what you said about industry practices on the potholing one. that is fine. that would make sense. it's a good solution. i think, i probably have the largest disagreement with 2. and, you know, i used to be a general contractor and i actually probably, you know, i have -- i'm probably more open to contractors than a lot of people on our construction management side because of that. but there is a certain group of people and especially we set up our game when it's low bid. when it's not best value, when we're not trying to negotiate something that is fair with the contractor, we're just saying put your lowest number in. there are contractors that will use services or try to figure out where they can find the change order.

where they can twist the words in the contract and i just think opening this up is going to put us at a disservice. you know, i think we're providing our whole, you know, risk plan. and we should, you know, in our contracts be fair about who carries the risk, but at the same time i think opening it up to the contractors could be something that comes back to get us. >> commissioner harrington: and i get your experience and i get your concerns. i think my response would be that if we are clearer about the risks and what we expect them to absorb, that would actually possibly minimize change orders and being used against us. because if they come back and say you didn't handle this, we could say, yeah, we didn't and we told you we weren't going to and it's your responsibility. being clear might minimize the ability for people to come after us is my thought. i understand there is a difference of opinion on this one. >> president maxwell: however,

alan, could you -- could you just consider a way of a possible middle ground on this? is there one? and could you consider that? -- before we just say no. >> yeah, let me give thought to 2. i think, you know, the other ones commissioner harrington mentioned, those would be easy to revise and align with his suggestions. but 2, let me put some thought to 2. >> president maxwell: yeah, because i think one of the big reasons why we are having to go back over some of our issues -- is because of risk. them having to absorb it. so i think that is an issue and we should consider it. thank you. commissioner ajami? >> commissioner ajami: just first of all, thank you so much for the presentation.

and i agree with my colleagues here and i want to say, i haven't read that many grand jury reports, but this one was excellent, so i really enjoyed reading it i would say. >> president maxwell: me, too. >> commissioner ajami: while i was waiting for my daughter in the or that -- ortho. i agree with 2 and 4, just last meeting we had, on item 9, we had the same discussion that we didn't have to add bills and then we had to reconsider the projects and the design and i'm just sitting here thinking, we live in 21st century, surrounded by google and facebook and twitter and all these people have all this data, like, and all this advancements that we

have now, digital technology, and in the heart of that, we have still don't have basic as-built available, updated one available for us to be able to say, you know, this one on top of this one looks like this. all it takes is for somebody to scan these things. maybe have a central place for all of them to go. i understand. i work for -- if you don't mind, i'm going to tell this story because i think it's important. i work for the legislature in 2010. we were trying to pass laws on logs which said how the underground looks like. every time you log. and there were people lining up said, oh, my god, somebody is going to put like, you know, this and that in my water as soon as i tell them where the well is and what is going on. the line of people that were

complaining about all the terrorism that is going to happen because of the logs, it was shocking to be honest with you. so, it is -- i understand it's a security issue. i understand we have to pay attention, but i also think potentially we can have a central place for the city that would include a digitized map of all sort of underground infrastructure that we have and it has to be required for public and private utilities and then you can provide access to it for people who want to bid on these contracts. and they can go and get it and use it. because this is adding on to the costs of doing business for ourselves, too. it's not just them. i mean, just, again, two weeks ago we were talking about this. so maybe we actually have to take that number 3 more seriously and maybe we should collectively as a city work towards having this corral

centralized depository of digitized maps of what is underground. and, you know, going that direction. sorry, i know it's sort of like what ed said, but it was something that had been bugging me, so i wanted to add to that. >> commissioner ajami -- sorry. whoops. >> sophie, you're muted. >> president maxwell: alan, will you respond to that and then commissioner paulson, please? >> thank you. i think it's something that is a long time coming. that we really need to have better tracking of what is going on in the field. you know, in our industry, construction management, we're with on the bottom of the -- about on the bottom of level of

technology. we're above hunters and gatherers. that's where we are. people are taking measurements with tape measures and, you know, writing them on pieces of paper when they could do it with gps and get it all digitized. so i think it's a place where focus is needed. >> president maxwell: sounds like a good business for somebody. commissioner paulson? >> commissioner paulson: so i'm just sort of weighing in on this as somebody who came from part of his career in life in the construction industry. and i've been on so many different construction jobs, both in public-private sector, a combination of the two, and i can always -- because, you know, i was in charge of running work on many of these projects over time. you can always tell a job you went on as to the level of -- i don't know if it's the vibe or

the trust or the tone that is either set by the general contractor, the agency or the owner or whatever else, and it can vary very fast and very differently and to set the tone where people trust each other to know where information is going to be spread is a much better job than the ones where people walk into a room and say this is all screwed up, they just wanted to make sure they put down and covered the company they were working for to, you know, make sure they weren't going to be liable for something they didn't know about. whether or not it was a simple job or they just made the damn thing up. i do think that setting the tone for everything that everybody has been talking about, you know, not just on, you know, this particular, you know, discussion about van ness, but even the things that came up

about the fuel resilience stuff in the previous item was that if a tone is set and information is shared and it's done for a hopeful purpose, for everybody involved, it just means the entire difference in the way a project can go. and i, you know, my offices, you know, for years, have been right on van ness avenue and like many people, you know, i've just wondered, why is this taking so long? and people, the next thing you know, you see some piece of hardware on the street and, you know, you want to take a picture of it because you've never seen anything like it before, because nobody knew it was there and it slowed everything down. so the whole idea of, you know, doing the pre-work and setting the tone and making sure that that is part of the specs or just the culture of approaching it, in particular our case, public works jobs, it's incredibly important.

so i don't have any, you know, problems with any of this thing, moving it forward, but i can see that maybe tweaking our responses even though -- and maybe this is a question it says we have to have a response in by the 27th if i remember correctly. >> that's correct. >> i don't know if we have the time to tweak anything if we give a partial report and then have a reference within the next, you know, 15 seconds, that, you know, we're going to continue to -- and the commissioners have weighed in on this to make sure that our responses can be. and i don't know what the answer is to that. [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> so it might be a good way of using this as a lever to make that change. but it's going to take awhile for it to come.

i don't want to interrupt this conversation. i have another comment or question actually. if we want to continue on this path, i can continue it later. >> is it in the same regard? >> yes. >> okay. then i think there's a question. i see our league count, do you have a comment. >> yes, i just wanted to say, that is a statutory dead line that unfortunately is this friday. it lays out that you have to give a response as to each finding and as to each recommendation and they gave you only four choices as to how you frame them. so i think commissioner moran, to get to your point, i don't think we can say we're working

on it and come back. >> one option you could consider, if you want to right now i know when the sfmta board considered the same item last week, they asked their chair to address some of these issues in a cover letter. that's something you could delegate. but as to recommendation three, for example, you do want to change it. we would need to do that now with specific language before you vote. >> commissioner: you're muted.

>> president: commissioner paulson, did you have a comment? all right. commissioner harington. >>. >> commissioner: i just wanted to point out in one of the four options when we have to respond to these recommendations, there are four omgss. has not been implemented, will be implemented and i think may work well requires further analysis. so even if we say requires further analysis, recommendation two, we would need to -- like we could come up with a sentence right here but r2 and r3, that may be the right one. recommendation for commissioner harrington, we're basically saying has been implemented.

the best practices industry standards are small streets you don't pothole, but on larger streets, you pothole. >> commissioner: thank you. and i can live with that. i could also, i think, franchesca, i would think that we could also say you've gotten our point, you've made the adjustments on the language. i wouldn't think we'd have to go through and change words right here in the middle of a meeting. we could delegate it to do what we've all agreed to do. seems okay. >> commissioner: and, also, if the n.c.a. looked at theirs last week, could we have seen ours sooner or could you have gotten it to us in some way that we could have looked at it before -- today's the twenty-fourth, three days before it's due? maybe we should look into that

as well or is that the best we could do, allen? >> i think what we were trying to do is coordinate our responses with the m.t.a. and we weren't able to get all that done in time for the previous commission meeting. so i apologize for that. >> commissioner: okay. thank you. commissioner ajami. >> commissioner: i think i follow along that line. in the report, i mentioned and sent my comments to both john and franchesca, we were not at the table early enough to be able to provide feedback and i was wondering if how -- i didn't see that in the recommendations. maybe it was -- maybe i can't remember right now, but can you actually clarify that, is that the case where we in a sense were not invited to the table early enough to be able to provide feedback? >> i'm trying to confirm that

with the project managers because i came in about 2016, early 2016 before we started construction, but i mean, i think we're -- what the report said was planning would have been beneficial to have the p.u.c. involved in planning. >> commissioner: and it's not apparently. >> i'm not sure. that's what i'm trying to confirm. >> president: you know what, i do remember that our harlem was saying that he's the one who brought somebody in to help the project, the project manager. and so when we did come in, we did come in with some help, but i don't -- yeah. i'll let you know. >> commissioner: sorry go ahead. >> yeah. there was a project manager with a lot of construction management background and he's made quite a bit of difference in the contract and i think that's why it's finishing up as

strong as it is, actually in terms of getting it to work, resolved and done. the meetings that i was in 2016, i remember there was a very late change on the water scope which kind of surpriseded me that, you know, that it was coming in that late. so that's all i know about the earlier phases during design. >> president: okay. so does it seem as if we might have a plan going forward. i think, john, your comments are two and three. we'll be working on those. we're going to have public comment and then maybe we can go back to some more discussion. all right. thank you. any further comments or questions? public comment, please. >> members of the public who wish to make public comment on item 14 dial (415) 655-0001. meeting i.d. 146 355 9001,

pound, pound, press three to speak. >> i can tell you in the past, many times, grand jury reports were just universally ignored. by all departments, by the board, and everybody. it is nice they zoom to be doing a better job and we seem to all be responding better. >> president: you know, i think the previous, the fuel was interesting and really made a lot of sense for people to think about our fuel. i agree with you on that. public comment. >> do we have any callers? >> brad, do we have any callers?

>> brad, you're muted. >> sorry. connection dropped. and i'm back. you're looking for public comment? >> yes. >> yes, on item number 14. >> excellent. secretary, there are three callers in the queue. >> secretary: thanks very much. >> go ahead, caller. your line is open. you have two minutes to comment. >> so first and foremost, this is a freeway and the grand jury got involved in this because many businesses went under and ya'll keep laughing and joking and thinking about b.s. which cannot be said in two minutes. the way ya'll are doing --

ya'll can do a needs assessment. even though somebody may be a general contractor at one time. you can do a needs assessment on this. people we're working one day and they stopped it for three days and ed ruskin came to the rescue. where's ed ruskin? here holland? do you know where he is? where's nuru. you know where he is. this is b.s. that should come from you all knowing what it means to do a needs assessment. you can't do a needs assessment if you do not have common sense and you might say and talk about a digital world, but talking doesn't do it. where's the walking. and ya'll are so stupid that ya'll still do business.

so don't waste our time. the grand jury to ya'll because ya'll impacted the businesses. they aren't being compensated and made whole. thank ya'll very much. >> thank you for your comments. next caller. your line is hope and you have two minutes. >> thank you: this is a dark day in the history of san francisco. allen, i can't believe the reasons why you're putting in which is completely b.s.. let me start with commenting on the guy that you guys brought

in or whomever brought it in. a company that had been indicted with bribery with the sweet water school district case. a person that would not fit, not even remotely in the specification and the requirements of the p.u.c. that they put for me and for others. because you only have school experience. yet, someone allen kelly, muhammad nuru and ed ruskin just in on an s.c.a. project that required a qualification, all of that got wiped off. the only reason we know is because of the text messages that were released. the second thing i want to mention to you guys, utility relocation is not a top secret where arab and middle eastern could not work on it. like the way allen put it in

911 my ass. this is discrimination. the reason why it was taken out from that contract illegally -- let's take the logic for a second. i'm a general contractor. i'm going to go and take out one of my subs that's signed on this contract with a $20 million package because allen johannson is saying it should be only $15 million instead of $20 million and i go ahead and give that contract to a that's paying off nuru for $30 million. what do you think the time limit between exterminating the contract and rebidding the contract. a couple months? and then all of a sudden the estimate from allen johannson comes in for $15 million. where did the fucking money go? >> thank you, caller. your time's expired.

hello, caller. your line is open. you have two minutes. >> yeah. can you hear me okay? >> loud and clear? >> okay. david pillpel will your. so there are different lessons that should be learned here on various streets across various agencies. as franchesca and deputy city attorney indicated. the m.t.a. board did not want its response to be quite as defensive as the staff proposed and they toned it down and added language in a cover letter. i appreciate the civil grand jury effort here and hope that m.t.a. works better with d.p.w., p.u.c. and others in the future. projects like geary, better market street, others. the issues here clearly include agency coordination, the project delivery, underground

utility mapping and others. i would also discuss agency coordination and practice at the agency's capital committee. seems to me like that would be a good place to talk about this. specifically today, i would change the resolved clause and maybe you're looking at that now to a language that just essentially says to incorporate today's discussion so it's not specific as to the attached response, but, you know, gives them flexibility to incorporate the discussion you're having now and i would give direction or have an agreement to add to the cover letter you could add a sentence or two that says mission is still going to consider this matter in the future and thanks again and once again, i would send copies of the p.u.c. response to the board of supervisors and the controller as well. thank you for listening and for having a thoughtful discussion about this. until next time.

>> thank you for your comments. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> secretary: public comment on item 14 is closed. >> president: okay. thank you. allen and john, do we have some comments or alternative wording for two and three? and four. >> so, for four, this is john. i'm not sure if you can see my video or hear me. >> we can hear you. >> excellent. so recommendation for which was the one that commissioner harrington that has been recommended. i just changed z it to and speaking for the agency not the board of supervisors and the

reason that language is in there is because a lot of these recommendationings refer to the board of supervisors. so all city agencies will speak for themselves. speaking for the agency, not the board of supervisors. regarding the use of exploratory potholing. small capital projects of the small streets do not require potholing. that was the recommendation number four. commissioner harrington and allen, was that seem like what you all were recommending? >>. >> commissioner: that would be fine with me. >> head, you're okay with that? >> yeah. >> all right. good. thank you. is everybody else okay with that? all right. then item number three. >> do you mind if we start with two? i'm going in a weird order here. thank you. thank you, president maxwell.

for r2 change the response requires a further analysis and speaking or the agency not the city as a hole, sf.p.u.c. determines how to best assess and disclose risky activities. >> president: that's fine. allen and everyone? okay. good. all right. next. >> for recommendation number three also requires change to further analysis. again, speaking for the agency and not the board of supervisors. and this is where i could use a little support, allen. as a p.u.c. standard project procedure requires a maintenance of detailed documentations on our recent capital projects. however, further analysis is required in regards to a city repository, you know, for all private and public utilities in the filing of detailed as

billed. >> can we put the board digital in there that way it doesn't become the paper gathering place. >> yeah, the paper gathering would be monstrous. >> the only other thing is i don't think they're required. we've talked about a central repository. they're saying it should be filed. maybe with each utility or whatever. they're not requiring that. >> president: yes. commissioner moran. >> do we need to address the geographic issue, you know, that i'm not sure how to reframe it. one issue is within i'm

wondering if that needs to be addressed or not? >> president: allen? john? >> yeah. you know that was something i was thinking, commissioner moran because we have a larger scope than a lot of the other departments. >> i mean, this is the problem with a commissioner meeting in public. i think that your vague wording may be the best we can do for today on analysis. >> president: commissioner ajami? >> commissioner: i agree. if we can somehow agree to an additional repository that somebody else may pick up and start the conversation, i would love to see something like that

there. >> president: i understand about the words missing, however, i think this is where we are and this is when we can do it and maybe they're at least getting some ideas and kind of think about what we've said and put that in there. so i understand it's awkward, but, you know, if my name is on here, i want the conversation and i appreciate it so much. any further comments, allen? >> i was just thinking on the filed part of it, the admin has available. so the different utilities might have to be changed. >> so what are you suggesting? >> yeah. i mean it requires further analysis because there's more

things to look at too. >> president: okay. >> president: commissioner moran. >> that's not even on city streets and we want to make sure that somehow we either have or have access to that kind of stuff and that may take legislation to the next level. >> president: yeah. it's something to be considered because, you know, we had to hire a contractor to go down and fish for it. >> commissioner: i'm with you on that. >> commissioner: i guess, maybe it can be around within the city boundary, whoever is doing business needs to do something like that. obviously, i'm not a lawyer and i'm not very good at drafting such language, but it will be something around having a

repository of all these underground whatever we have as builds would be great. now, if people want to do business in san francisco, for example, caltrans has a lot of infrastructure, and they actually have to provide that to us in some form or another. >> john. >> so taken all i've heard here bringing in the additional repository, i would ask the commissioners to consider speaking for the agency and not the board of supervisors, the s.f.p.u.c. requires build digital documentation on our recent capital projects, that's what we do now, the next sentence. however, further analysis for all projects and private utilities. such as a digital repository.

>> president: allen? >> commissioner: i'm fine with that. >> president: tim? everybody, you good? all right. that's good so we've got two, three, and four. are we -- franchesca. >> sorry, just to clarify in the column, john, you have on your screen, is that all being changed from will not be implemented for requires further analysis. >> for r3 there's been a requirement for analysis, for r4, it has been implemented. >> president: okay. all right. looks like we're good. then, when we vote on this, we

will vote on the amendments some how should that be worded for our vote? >> i think in the motion, we need to state as the recommendation number two, these are changes, as to three, these are changes, and as to four. i'm sorry, john. so whoever the motion maker is, we can help with that. >> president: okay so -- >> commissioner: are we open to a motion? >> i move we do what franchesca just said? >> commissioner: i second that. and maybe it should be read. >> president: well, i don't know because we don't quite have it yet, but i think. >> commissioner: john has it. >> president: yeah. actually he did read it.

thank you, everyone. all right, john. we will -- should we ask franchesca. could we ask john to read it and then we all approve it? >> sure. >> so the motion is to approve with the following amendment. who is the motion maker? >> i am. >> president: oh, good, anson. >> okay. so these are the following amendments starting with recommendation number two which is the now recommendation responses requires further analysis with the following statement. speaking for the agency and not the city as a whole, the s.f.p.u.c. believes additional analysis is required to determine how to best assess and determine and disclose derisking activity. amendment to recommendation number three, the new

recommendation responses requires further analysis with the following statement. speaking for the agency and not the board of supervisors, requires the maintenance of details as built digital documentation on our recent. recommendation number four amendment. the new recommendation responses has been implemented and the statement is the following. speaking for the agency and not the board of supervisors, the sfpuc regarding the use exploratory potholing. small capital projects on small streets do not require potholing. that's it. >> all right. then it's been moved and

seconded. role calm vote. >> secretary: i have a question for the city attorney. the last clause says that this commission attached to here. do we need to revise that resolve clause to say the approved response as amended. >> yes, you can say as amended and then we'll do a red line of the document for the file showing the changes. >> secretary: thank you. on that motion, [roll call] you have five ayes. >> president: thank you. next item please.

>> next item is item 15. approve the water supply assessment for the proposed 490 brannan project. water code section 10910 california environmental quality act section 21151.9 and section 15155. ritchie. >> this is something that needs to be done so that the planning department can continue the ceqa process for the brannan project, the 490 brannan project which would basically replace a 48,000 square foot commercial building. 106'tall building. this assessment is the same as

ones we've done previously which we've updated now and included the urban water plan to include information 2020. and that was contained in the document and we would recommend approval of the item because, again, it has the reference to the different scenarios of what could possibly happen in the future relative to the requirements. so, available to answer any questions. >> president: any questions or comments? all right. public comment please. >> secretary: members of the public who wish to make public comment dial 4156550001. meeting i.d. 146 355 9001, pound, pound. to raise your hand to speak, press star 3. do we have any callers?

>> madam secretary, there is one caller in the queue. hello, caller. i've opened your line, you have two minutes. >> thank you. this is peter creditmark. for those of you who weren't on the commission a couple years ago, a whole slew came up around the same time and a lot of questions were raised and i don't feel like we've really addressed them. first of all, there was discussion about better coordination with the planning commission because water agencies feel it's their responsibility to have enough water, but they don't often -- i encourage you to consider that in the near future.

another thing is people were looking at 2,700 square feet of office space and 3,000 square foot retail. and what had came up before is that maybe housing should be part of that cumulative impact. if you bring these jobs, it's going to put more pressure on housing. so that's the agreement. it looks very convenient. it doesn't require. they still haven't responded to the commission. and i think that's really important. so what i'm really looking forward to is the discussions about [inaudible] . it really could make all of our lives a lot easier.

the master plan projections we heard from [inaudible] -- >> sorry. caller, you've dropped off the call. madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> secretary: thank you. >> president: commissioner ajami. wait one second. >> he said there were no more callers in the queue. >> president: madam secretary. >> secretary: public comment on item 15 is closed. >> president: all right. thank you. commissioner ajami. >> commissioner: thank you president maxwell. i wanted to make this comment before the public comment period. i had a little bit of a

technical difficulty. so i have a question which i appreciate this analysis and i think it is important to kind of have this connection between all these different projects we have. as you know, as you might know, santa monica has this program that they basically basically a new building and construction going up they actually have this other program they have to go retro fit a bunch of other buildings in order to basically have zero water projects and i know what efficiency projects around this city and they're trying to kientd of have this to improve efficiency as much as we can. but i was wondering if

something like that would be a useful process as part of reducing, the second comment i have obviously this is the at this time, i'm so glad we have them and i'm wondering if we had done a detailed analysis to know how much sort of demand reduction we have achieved to this unpleasure use project and, you know, as the potentially might go to a smaller footprint with, you know, expanding the requirements. it would be good to know what is it that we are sort of doing, how much we achieve and if others want to model this based on what we have done,

what can they learn from this process? >> yeah. two things on that, first, what you were talking about is what we've referred to as net zero ordinance and that is something that we have looked into from time to time and i think it's something else that we should go back to and see if we can make something work but a project effectively has to bring its water with it whether it's retro fitted inside or some other alternative. i believe one of the north bay cities has something like that. we can look at that and include it in our next discussion of alternative water supplies. second, on the what have we achieved, i actually can't lay my hands on it instantly, but we just did, again, our water resources annual report for the year and there may be some information on that in what has been achieved so far with our

on site ordinance. many of those projects are still in development so there's more to be gained there, but we probably do have a number we can point to that's been been accomplished so far and we can present that as well. >> president: do you think we could maybe have that by our next meeting on september 15th? >> actually, i would probably urge us to take that up as part of the alternative water supply discussion in the workshop setting a couple days later. >> president: good idea. any further comments or questions? yes, commissioner ajami. >> commissioner: one more thing. not to try to expand all the things we do ourselves to other regions, but i wonder if there is -- is it possible to have these kinds of conversations with our wholesale customers as

well on this net zero level since there's a lot of development happening as well and voums they are doing their demand based on some of that i know they're talking about 26 different facilities and utilities and so i can see how complex this process can be, but i'm wondering now since you're in a drought, this can be an opportune moment and gradually move towards something like that. >> commissioner: yeah. i think we can have that discussion and we can never say bosca and assumes that covers all 26 and so it is more complex. certainly, we're happy to initiate that conversation and maybe we even invite them to participate in that way in the workshop, so we will see how that develops.

but definitely, i think we were happy to initiate that conversation. we've had several conversations already. >> thank you. >> president: any further comments or discussion on this item? >> actually, i have one comment to allow in here quickly which is, you know, not necessarily before you take the action, but, sarah, can you turn on your camera, please. i just wanted to mention that the work on the urban water management plan was done by sarah truollo and i wish her well because she's going to be leaving our service at the end of this month thank you all for all your work, sarah.

>> commissioner: now you can take action. >> president: okay. thank you may i have a motion to approve this item, item 15? >> commissioner: so moved. >> commissioner: seconded. >> president: so moved and seconded, roll call vote, please. >> secretary: [roll call] you have five ayes. >> president: thank you. madam secretary, will you read the items to be heard in closed session and then call for public comment, please. >> secretary: actually, madam president, prior to this i believe we need a motion on whether to -- you're right. i'm sorry.

my script is backwards. the following items will be heard during closed session item 18 pursuant to government code section 54957b and san francisco administrate icode section 67.10b to consider public employee appointing hiring for the position of general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission and pursuant to government code sections 54954.5f and 54957.6 and sfrang administrative coat sections 67.8a 5. representative of the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission. wages, hours, benefits, working conditions, and other.

item 19. conference with legal council pursuant to california government code section 54956.9d 1 and san francisco administrate icode section 67.1d 1. proposed settlement of action as to munition. item 20 conference with legal counsel pursuant to california government code section 54965.9d 1 and san francisco administrative code section 67.10d 1. members of the public who wish it to make two minutes of public comment specifically during these items to be

discussed in closed session, dial (415) 655-0001 meeting i.d. 146 355 9001. pound, pound, press star to speak. are there any callers? >> there are no callers to be heard at this time. >> secretary: public comment on items to be discussed in closed session will be closed. >> president: we will be in closed session and we will take a five minute -- commissioner moran. >> commissioner: i would move to assert attorney client privilege. >> commissioner: second. >> president: all right. all in favor. i mean, where am i? okay. roll call vote, please. >> secretary: [roll call]

you have five ayes. >> president: now, we will go into closed session and when we're all convened, we will . >> president: we are out of closed session. item 18, there was no reportable action. the item 19, the commission recommends that the board of supervisors approve the settlement. item 20, no reportable action. read the next item, please. >> secretary: next item is item 22, a motion regarding

whether to disclose the discussions during closed session. >> president: may i have a motion and a second not to disclose discussion during closed session. >> commissioner: move not to disclose. >> commissioner: i'll second. >> president: it's been moved and seconded. roll call vote, please. >> secretary: [roll call] you have five ayes. >> president: thank you. madam secretary, is there any further business? >> secretary: that concludes your business for today, madam president. >> president: all right. thank you. this meeting is adjourned. you all have a good week and thank you.

>> look at that beautiful jellyfish. the way to speak to students and motivate them to take action, to save the planet, they do, they care and my job is to speak to them in a way that they can understand that touches their heart and makes them feel powerful with simple actions to take every day. ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ >> i was born and raised in the desert of palm springs, california. my dad was the rabbi in the community there. what i got from watching my father on stage talking to the community was learning how to be in the public. and learning how to do public

speaking and i remember the first time i got up to give my first school assembly, i felt my dad over my shoulder saying pause for drama, deliver your words. when i was a kid, i wanted to be a teacher. and then when i got into high school, i decided i wanted to get into advertising and do graphic art and taglines and stuff like that. by the time i was in college, i decided i wanted to be a decorator. but as i did more work, i realized working my way up meant a lot of physical labor. i only had so much energy to work with for the rest of my life and i could use that energy towards making a lot of money, helping someone else make a lot of money or doing something meaningful. i found the nonprofit working to save the rainforest was looking for volunteers.

i went, volunteered and my life changed. suddenly everything i was doing had meaning. stuffing envelopes had meaning, faxing out requests had meaning. i eventually moved up to san francisco to work out of the office here, given a lot of assembly through los angeles county and then came up here and doing assemblies to kids about rainforest. one of my jobs was to teach about recycle, teaching students to reduce, reuse, recycle and compost, i'm teaching them they have the power, and that motivates them. it was satisfying for me to work with for the department of environment to create a message that gets to the heart of the issue. the san francisco department of environment is the only agency that has a full time educational team, we go into the schools to

help teach children how to protect nature and the environment. we realized we needed animal mascot to spark excitement with the students. the city during the gold rush days, the phoenix became part of the city feel and i love the symbolism of the phoenix, about transformation and the message that the theme of the phoenix provides, we all have the power to transform our world for the better. we have to provide teachers with curriculum online, our curriculum is in two different languages and whether it's lesson plans or student fact sheets, teachers can use them and we've had great feedback. we have helped public and private schools in san francisco increase their waste use and students are working hard to

sort waste at the end of the lunch and understand the power of reusing, reducing, recycling and composting. >> great job. >> i've been with the department for 15 years and an environmental educator for more than 23 years and i'm grateful for the work that i get to do, especially on behalf of the city and county of san francisco. i try to use my voice as intentionally as possible to support, i think of my grandmother who had a positive attitude and looked at things positively. try to do that as well in my work and with my words to be an uplifting force for myself and others. think of entering the job force as a treasure hunt. you can only go to your next clue and more will be revealed.

follow your instincts, listen to your gut, follow your heart, do what makes you happy and pragmatic and see where it takes you and get to the next place. trust if you want to do good in >> this facility is the largest project in our sewer system improvement program. it has a price tag of 1.3 borghese. it is rebuilding one -- $1.3 billion. the policy and government affairs team helps the finance team talk to legislative officials and policymakers creating financial programs for us to get low interest loans. >> getting the funding for the project was important to save money for the ratepayers of san francisco and enable us to build

the project on budget. >> we were able to secure for the sf p.u.c. the loans from the epa and state mostly for the facilities project. >> we are providing low cost funding for projects that really provide tremendous social and environmental impact. for example the $699 million loan is going to pay for half of the biosolid project. >> what is challenging of the new sources of financing. they require the group to look at creative option ways to take the funds and build them to the existing process. >> the southeast plant is in hunter's bay. it is across the street from residential homes. one of the objectives was to make it an asset. >> it will be at another plant

further away from houses. it is going to help in terms of odor, air emissions, noise. >> this project that receives the federal loan funding is going to create 3,000 jobs in the community. >> in addition the streetscape improvements and architecture there is a lot of thought so that it is an asset to the community. >> it feels great to win the financial assisting ability award. i believe the group works hard to an chief financial stability in everything they do. >> we are getting world wide recognition for the work we are doing because of the green infracture projects in the communities with a lot of social impact. to me i am very proud of that effort to be a part of that. >> i nominated the team for the financial sustain ability award.

they got some of the largest state and federal loans in the country. it saved the agency 10s of millions of dollars. i am proud of temperature team for put -- proud of the team for putting this together. we got the largest >> thank you very much. would you call roll call and after roll call read the admonishment to the group. [ roll call ]