>> president moran: please call the roll. [ roll call ] you have a quorum. >> president moran: thank you. before calling the first item, i like to announce that the san francisco public utilities commission acknowledges that storage of unseated lands located in the territory. sfpuc recognizes every citizen residing within the greater bay area continues to benefit from the use and occupation of the

waccamaw land. it's important that we we not only recognize the history of the tribal lands but also we acknowledge and honor the fact that the people of the established working partnership with the sfpuc and members within the many greater san francisco bay area communities today. please read the first item. >> clerk: before i read the first item, i like to announce due to ongoing covid-19 health emergency and given public health recommendation any emergency order that the governor and mayor restrictions on teleconference. this meeting is televised via conference for those watching, there's a brief time lapse between live meeting and when

it's viewed on sfgov tv. i like to extend our thanks to sfgov tv staff and sfpuc i.t. staff for their assistance during this meeting. if you wish to make public comment, dial (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. 146 290 6991 please note that you must limit your comments to topic of agenda item being discussed. we ask that the public comment be made in civil and public manner. please address to your remarks to the commission as a whole. first item, adopt renewed findings under state urgency legislation to continue allow remote meetings for the next 30

>> president moran: commissioner s any comments or discussion? seeing none, please open up for public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes on public comment on item 3, dial (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. 146 290 6991 to raise your hand to speak, press star 3. >> we have one caller in the queue. first caller, go ahead. hello

caller? the caller has lowered their hand. >> clerk: public comment on item 3 is closed. >> president moran: any additional comments from commissioners? may i have a motion and a second? moved and seconded. roll call please. [roll call vote] you have five ayes. >> president moran: the item passes. thank you. next item please. >> clerk: next item 4, approval of the minutes of november 23,

2021. >> president moran: any additional corrections on the minutes? seeing none, please open up for public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes on public comment on item 3, dial (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. 146 290 6991 to raise your hand to speak, press star 3. do we have any callers. >> there are no callers for the minutes. >> clerk: public comment is closed. >> president moran: any further discussion? seeing none, motion and a

second? motioned and seconded. roll call please. [roll call vote] you have five ayes. >> president moran: motion adopted. next item please. >> clerk: item 5, general public comment. members of the public who may address the commission on matters within the commission's jurisdiction and not on today's agenda by dialing (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. 146 290 6991 to raise your hand to speak, press star 3. do we have any callers?

>> there are four callers in the queue. caller number one. >> caller: i'm speaking on my own behalf. when voters passed the municipal bond in 2002, where they have voted for it if they knew at the end of the the program that the water quality will be worse. there are those who believe that voters would have rejected bond. in 1930s the all was used for drinking water. despite this, as part of the p.u.c.'s water diversification program, hetch hetchy water has

not been pretreated. blended water remains controversial. even without factorying in the possibility of salt water intrusion into the west side base aquifer. there was staff who stated that the p.u.c. is an ecochamber. i strongly urge the commission to revisit the blended water issue. thank you. >> next caller? >> caller: good afternoon president moran and commissioners, this is peter drekmeier for the tuolumne river trust. it's been three years since the state water board adopted the bay-delta water control plan. it's been more than a year since

you launched a series of fixed workshops focused on the tuolumne river. we have learned a lot of issues. some materials have been posted. you need a log-in. i'm hoping we can get a report on that. we haven't seen any action and couple of years ago, we pointed out that the sfpuc can contribute its share of flow.

i think there was interest from some of you on that. staff said, we could feed to -- need to get an agreement with the irrigation district. looks like we're going to lose another year. thank you. the tuolumne has nearly 500 salmons. stanislaus smaller river, historically fewer salmon has 11 times that many. why? 40% impaired flow in average year from the stanislaus, 21 on the tuolumne. please have the conversation about the design drought, your first meeting in january. thank you. >> thank you, caller. next caller.

>> caller: this is david pilpel. on item 5 general public comment, i wanted to take a moment as i mentioned couple of previous meetings to recognize those departing or retiring employees at the end of the year for their public service over many years. although we talk a lot about planning policy, infrastructure and operations, i can't emphasize enough the employees who do the work, day in and day out 24-7, delivering the water power and sewer services for the public. i wanted to take a moment to recognize them. thanks for listening. >> thank you. last caller, i have unmuted your line.

>> caller: commissioners, i have a number of things to bring to your attention. first thing is i appreciate very much when you open up the meeting and pay your respects to the muwakma maloney, it's important that you pronounce the name correctly. i did bring to the attention of the higher-ups about the death of a security officer 80 years old. i was an immigrant.

i thank the management to pay attention to safety issues. 80-year-oldman patrolling, car hit him and he died. let's make amends. finally, i was reading this report from the san francisco environment on climate change, i would like to the san francisco public utilities commission to give us real data on the leaking pipes. if you address the leaking pipes and millions of gallons leaking, we can conserve lot of water. thank you very much. >> thank you. the queue is clear.

>> clerk: item 5 general public comment is closed. >> president moran: thank you. commissioner harrington? >> commissioner harrington: can somebody information about someone dying on our property? what that is about? >> commissioner harrington, this was a contractor who did not die on our property. security contractor who was off property immediately adjacent to our property that was hit by a car and passed away. >> commissioner harrington: than k you. >> that happened about ten days

ago. >> president moran: couple of items that came up -- the vulnerability study have been posted. if that's the case, other commissioners and i would like to have that link and made to the available. i believe we have scheduled a discussion of the design drought for early next year. i don't believe it's the first meeting. dennis, can you tell us what the schedule is for that? >> we'll get that to you, yes. >> president moran: thank you. commissioners, any other comments? public comments is closed. next item please.

>> clerk: item 6, >> president moran: commissioner s any questions or discussion on communications? commissioner harrington? >> commissioner harrington: on item 6d, lot of work gose into alternative water supply. we spent lot of time doing the report it tend to be 58 pages. at least half or more seem to be duplicate. it will be great if we can figure out some way to give executive summary or front page like we've been doing with other reports that can point out what the highlights are and what the new things are so we can concentrate on those. that will be very helpful.

>> okay, it will be done, commissioner. >> president moran: vice president ajami. >> vice president ajami: i think it's valuable. i want to thank the staff for your hard work to make this happen. >> president moran: thank you. any other comments? i have comment on the alternative water supply program. there's a lot of material in there. i know there was some attempt to highlight literally to put in

bold things that have changed. we need a better version of that. i would like, no later than the next quarter to schedule as a regular agenda item so we can have extended discussion on it, i think there's a lot of issues we need to discuss. couple of things that are on my mind. one is, i'm not sure that the program is ambitious enough by its own terms. it sets an objective of meeting that include the delta plan. there was all of the identified projects in the plan we don't meet that level. by its own terms, it fails to meet objectives. it results in the circumstance

where every identified program is something that we would assume we would do because we have no other options. i think we need to have more options so we can have a discussion about what are the characteristics of these supplies that we value? do we need to lesson our dependents the tuolumne? do we need to have a water supply that has a different wet year, dry year characteristic. it's kind of like balancing your investment portfolio between stocks and bonds. right now we don't have enough choices that we can make that decision. going in the other direction, the balancing of it seems to be driven by demand projections. we had some discussion that we may need to reorient our thinking away from demand projections and to more active

approach instead and setting demand targets. it's a more active approach. we seek to drive demands to some different level. those are examples of kinds of things i have in mind. i think there's more material there. it's a very -- it's a long and rich report. i think the staff has developed that over time. each one gets better. i think it's high time that we have a discussion at the commission level about the contents and the assumptions behind that. >> vice president ajami: i want to go back to your comment on demand projection versus demand target. may be we don't want to have a demand target. we have to have a better and more accurate projections which is more grounded into the drivers of demand. for example, one thing that is quick to impact demand is all

sort of water cycle programs that are going online in various scales. eventually, that will change water demand portfolio. it is important to account for that, for example. in addition to the conservation efficiency programs that we have putting in place. i would say may be not having a target but having a better projections would be a more sort of strategic path forward. >> president moran: commissioner paulson?

>> commissioner paulson: again, i do want to say that i'm very proud that i sit on a commission that has the amount of talent on it when it comes to actual policy issues that we're talking about. i want to make sure that i know that i'm sitting on a commission, not a think tank. i'm going to reiterate the pieces of intelligence that come from the tremendous staff that we have. in terms of the alternate water supplies athe resources. we are getting better and better reports and it's really important. i'm sitting here as a commissioner who's making decisions on policy and advice is always important. i want to make sure that i'm clear about the distinction between sitting on a commission versus the ivory tower.

thank you. >> commissioner harrington: i'm hearing lot of good suggestions. may be some time in january come back with a plan for three months out or six months out, the design drought, the river, flooding and resilience in the city. there's so many meaty topics. it will give us an idea when to be there. that might be helpful. >> i've already given direction as we've gotten in this first month about scheduling out, getting in advance thing. i can give you heads up on from big policy discussions. we're going to be scheduling that in a forward-thinking way come 2022.

>> president moran: also helpful to identify the decisions in flow from that. there are some. so we can -- discussion with a purpose. that should be part of our thinking as we look to the first part of the coming year. anything else on communications? seeing none, please open this for public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minute on public comment on item 6, communications, dial (415)655-0001, meeting i.d. 146 290 6991 to raise your hand to speak, press star 3.

>> there are three callers in the queue. >> caller: hello given this is peter drekmeier tuolumne river trust. i notice it has demands for fiscal year 2020 and 2021 which is lower than last year. very positive. water supply development water report coming up has it 193. they are pretty close, not quite matched. i wanted to note in the alternative water supply program report, there's talk about ground water banking. it says, feasibility study is an

option including in the tuolumne river voluntary agreement. the progress on the potential water supply option will depend on the negotiations of voluntary agreement. which makes it sound conditional. if the voluntary agreement is adopted, then there will be a look at ground water banking. it seems to me the real priority has a lot of potential and regardless, sfpuc should look into that. the comment deadline on the ground water sustainability for the modesto turlock subbasin is tomorrow the 15th. i don't know if san francisco p.u.c. has commented. that would be a great opportunity to express interest and collaboration. thank you, i appreciate the 30 second warning. that's helpful. we pay 100 times more for water

than farmers in stanislaus county. thank you. >> next caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: this is david pilpel again. are we still on item 6? >> clerk: yes. >> caller: okay. the phone bridge connection dropped for a few minutes. i missed some of the commissioner discussion. i'm not sure who to alert when that happens. i had a brief comment in relation to item 6b, the contract advertisement report. that jogged my interest in a narrative report or presentation on p.u.c.'s real estate issues in the southeast corner of the

city including 1550 evans, future use of the newcombe property. i think there's a lot happening there. i'm sorry, bayview plaza. there's lots over there. it will be useful to have narrative report and presentation on where all of those property issues are going and what the current thinking is on that. i would encourage you to ask for that or schedule that as some point. >> thank you. there are in other callers in the queue. >> clerk: in response to

mr. pilpel, the phone bridge briefly dropped. we brought that back up quickly. we were aware of that. thank you for bringing that to our attention. >> president moran: next item please. >> clerk: item 7 the water supply development report. >> good afternoon, this is steve ritchie assistant general management for water. this is the water supply development report. this is a report we produce annually. the primary issue of this report status of making san jose santa clara permanent customers. first is a bit of background. san jose and santa clara requested to become temporary

customers around 1970. the rest of the customers were well established already. there was litigation in the mid-'70s that resulted in settlement in the mid-'80s. san jose and santa clara were not included within the supply assurance at that time as they were temporary customers. that was an opportunity where they would have been made permanent but they were not. fast forward, the 2009 water supply agreement provided for san francisco to make a decision regarding permanent status for san jose and santa clara by 2018 or to issue a conditional 10-year notice of interruption or reduction in supply of water to the cities. we've been introducing the annual water supply development report since then. as noted, we continue to recommend that no such notice be

given to them because demands are low enough. it's not an issue. the 2018 amendments to the water supply agreement extended this date to 2028 because of the decision was not ripe in 2018. for the last year or so, we have been meeting with staff with two cities. with that i'll be happy to answer any additional questions. >> president moran: thank you, any questions for steve before we go on to the presentations? seeing none. steve, you can introduce each of the presenters. >> the first gary welling, relating city of santa clara.

take it away. >> thank you. please bring up my presentation. i want to talk a bit about city of santa clara. little bit of background. our city is 130,000 population daytime population is about 250,000. we've been sfpuc customer since 1974. we appreciate the collaboration

and coordination with sfpuc and bawsca. we have three important connections two from sfpuc and one from valley water. recycled water is an important component. we're proud of our system that we have and number of users that we put together on this. we offset about 90%.

we have city code that requires the use of recycled water for new development. we are in the process of updating that new development to define uses and also retrofitting opportunities. we have industrial cooling, number of data centers, 15 in number in the pipeline. we also have our own power utility in santa clara. 50% of our city parks are irrigated in recycled water.

city conservation outreach, we're one of the cities to declare drought in july 12, 2021. we implemented water shortage plan. our residential is 58.9 for november it was 52.4. october numbers, we had 15.9% compared to 2009 as of november, we're 20.3 reduction. about 27% reduction for november compared with 2013. we issued water smart reports to residential customers. we have save our water drought conservation tool landscape

ordinance implemented in 2016. we're in the process of updating that.

we continues collaboration that's been really nice to see with sfpuc staff and with commitment to make santa clara a customer. that's all i have. i appreciate the time. i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> president moran: thank you very much. commissioners, any questions for gary? >> next speaker is from the city of san jose. he was charge in water resourcers if the city of san jose. please proceed. >> thank you. my video has been stopped.

good afternoon president moran and commissioners. i'm deputy director water resource division with the city of san jose. i'm responsible for both south bay water recycling and san jose municipal water system. this map portrays where all the water retailers serving san jose and few of the surrounding cities. in blue municipal water systems including north san jose. that really cool animation there, the purpose of that and this supplied is -- this slide is to demonstrate that it's relatively small compared to the whole. when we're talking about collaborating with sfpuc, we're talking about this small and very parent of our san jose

community. to provide water to north san jose, constructed by san francisco, with continuous water service delivery sense. as water agencies we have many shared interest that you can see a few listed here. providing a space and reliable water supply but also there's others such as affordability, supporting the environment, adapting to change in climate and its impact on water for people and social equity.

we have several other programs that you may find interesting. we have few of them here listed. one society -- one is south bay water recycle. our annual water delivery on recycled side is 13,000-acre feet a year. in north san jose the area where we purchased water and serve our customers from san francisco about 1100 acres a year. or about 20% of our water usage in that area. recycled quarter in north san jose will continue to be an important water supply component for us.

due to small scale, they are often deemed cost prohibitive. our intent here is to look at harnessing some of the alternate water supplies. one of the prohibiting factors has been what you do do with this water once you collect it. we have the advantage of a regional, distribution system south bay water recycling to take advantage of these non-portable supplies. another one we're doing is welo

update. the goal is to decrease water usage, support the transition nightive landscape, reduce urban heat island effect, increase energy and support carbon sequestering. we're expecting to bring forward recommendation to our council in the march time frame. next year. last, water conservation, water conservation and will continue to be an extremely important components for us going forward. currently we have two day a week watering limit in variety of outreach, to support continued flux -- production portable water. as a water retailer, a total of all our service area, our total retailer gcpd is in in the

70s. north san jose area is very low. some of the reasons for that are both the outreach and the community involvement on conserving water but also the majority of the residential units there are multifamily and mobile home parks. we're kind of short on time. san jose has a climate change resiliency program called climate smart san jose. one of the identifiable ways reducing greenhouse gas emission and to conserve water. our goal to reduce residential gcpd by the year 2030. that will be a city wide objective. we are encouraged by your progress made over the past year in evaluating water supply projects. we'll continue to collaborate with your staff on permanent water supplies and when you're reviewing the water supply development report, we ask that the commission consider expediting affordable, equitable

water supply and include us as you go in our. thank you for the opportunity to speak today. we are their to answer any questions. >> president moran: thank you both for your presentations. commissioner, any questions? i have a couple. the amount of water that is currently being provided to the customers, that is how much? >> the current demands is something less than 4.5 m.g.d.

that was the original request. we've been working around the demands of 9 total. the combined is closer to 5. >> president moran: that's amount of water that's been growing overtime but providing almost 50 years? >> yes. >> president moran: what actually changes if they were to be granted permanent status? >> well, the one issue is the supply assurance which i think they like the regional water system, they are not part of the supply assurance that would have to be agreed to by the rest of the customers. than will be a challenge.

we're looking at are there alternative supplies that can be provided that san jose and santa clara would pay for, in particular in dry years. we talked about different possibilities with the two entities and some version of recycled water. >> president moran: in termingss -- in terms of the water budget, i think nothing would change to that water budget if they were to be made permanent? >> currently it would not. i have to throw in this minor anecdote, when we first started to meet with the cities, was two

days after the state water board released its october 2016 draft as a bay-delta plan. it put a big question mark on the first meeting. gary may have attended that meeting with santa clara. we thought we were playing in one forum, now we have to shift gears little bit. that's been bit of uncertainty hanging out there. >> president moran: as i read the memo that was distributed, stated that the goal is meeting the 184 interim supply limitation and developing additional water sprays that will allow the interruptible customers to become permanent.

i guess in the alternate water supply report, it talked about how the planning phase was intended to conclude by it was end of june next year. which was in time for any work to be done around making the interoperable's permanent. in order for us to consider making the interoperables permanent, do we have in mind the amount of water that needs to be identified in order to make that feasible? >> from the get go, we have been working towards the 9 million gals per day. both santa clara and san jose based on future projections were looking at larger numbers than

that. that does raise the question what we started to raise in the last version in the alternative water supply report. we should plan for actual demands while -- excuse me, we should build for actual demands while we're planning for our obligations and 184, at this point, falls in the obligation category. there we face the question of how real is that in light of the various other issues we have to deal with out there and supply for santa clara and san jose will be independent of the regional water system supply.

>> president moran: that gets to my question. the memo talks about the supply assurance of 184 plus 9 additional supply for the interoperables that comes up to 193 m.g.d. it seems there's a disconnect there. if we have an objective of reaching a supply of 193m.g.d. before we can make them permanent, demand is so much less than that, there seems there's a disconnect. i'm wondering, did i get that wrong or what is your thinking about that? >> that is something that we've started to come to grips with.

harking back to why the 2018 date was originally chosen here was the projections at that time were that the total system demand would be 265 m.g.d. which did not play out. when we extended the date for 10 years, it was knowing that there was not immediate pressure to meet all those demands and it gave us time to think through those kind of questions about where are we here. frankly, i think that's a conundrum to deal with if we have the supply assurance of 184 million gallons a day and demands is not there and how we deal with that issue.

>> president moran: the idea building facilities when we have unused capacity and the existing system will seem to present the ceqa problem. i would hope that doesn't -- that's not the subjective or the thresholds we're trying to clear >> i think it's the building for real demands and planning for obligations. i think all of the customers, not just the commission and san francisco customers but all the customers don't want us to over build if the demands aren't really there. that kind of puts a new light on what does the supply assurance means relative to all the supplies. there's also balance the with the rhna numbers.

>> vice president ajami: thank you for all your questions. a follow-up to that, i want to thank gary and jeff for their presentations. follow-up to that, steve, would be are there any other opportunities that they can create some form of trading or formal trading with some of the existing customers that have not been using their whole entire obligation or the amount of water being obligated to provide them. is there a way that they can collaborative other supplies together? are there other alternatives in this process? >> developing additional water supplies is something has been contemplated. i think the issue of the supply

assurance that individual supply guarantees can be traded among people. that can be traded among people who have the 184. outside the 184 would require all the customers to agree they will be added to the supply assurance. >> vice president ajami: if it's two different utilities, that should work? >> if it's talking about a different supply, if it's

talking about within the 184, it has to be something else. some of the projects we're looking at involves other wholesale customers. those are for additional supplies. those could fit in the possibility of making something work. you get into the question who's paying for it. >> vice president ajami: obvious ly, you are facing multiple challenges when it's our obligation based on the issues you're having at the state board, statewide discussions you're having. the second is obligation towards different, the wholesale customer and then also our alternative water supply portfolio that you're looking into. i wonder if this is something

that can be done in a more creative way that can provide resources for some of the utilities that don't have the resources to invest in some solution locally and potentially they can transfer some of those additional supplies. >> once you get into reducing i.s.g.s and individual supply guarantees, i think that's where you get into the issues of everybody needing to agree with it. if it's something outside of

that, i think there's some creative opportunity there that we would consider. >> vice president ajami: even though it might be more complicated from the policy perspective and little bit messier, it might be smoother path forward. >> it might ultimately be. none of these decisions will be easy. i think that's the supply assurances kind of core thing that we have to deal with or not deal with. think that's a big question. getting all customers to agree on something does prove

challenging from time to time. >> vice president ajami: thank you. >> commissioner harrington: stev e, i don't envy you. [ laughter ] we kick the can down the road. it really was all those different issues about current customers. i'm glad that we're trying to deal with this now. i'm a little confused on the amount we trying to solve for. we originally said we worked with nine million gallons forever. then you said 5m.g.d.

the 9 m.g.d. was the beginning of the discussion. both san jose and santa clara requested additional supply assurance of their own for future planning purposes. santa clara was relatively small. san jose is relatively large. combined it's potentially up to 15 million gallons per day if all of their future needs could be met. we signed up for 9 that we hadn't signed up more beyond that.

>> i think we need to do more work on what do we do when there's this large gap between current demand and the 184. i think there needs to be a clear statement as to how we view that. that's not going to be easy to come up with that, there are lots of different ways to look at that. in terms of what i would consider some very promising opportunities, would have to do with potentially directing and reuse projects which have their

own set of issues that make them a bit challenging particularly on the direct front. there are no recollection -- regulations now. those will be attractive options. it's breaking new ground. valley water is pushing in that direction. we are pushing in that direction various ways. those projects should not be viewed as a slam dunk. certainly, i think in california, we have to be serious about that. i think that's something that's important to consider. we need to -- i'll be doing this with projects that san jose and santa clara would find it affordable.

those are some of the issues that are there. >> president moran: let me ask them both, if they have any additional comments? >> i appreciate the discussion. great discussion, very good comments. we would like to have the

ability to transfer within the 184. i appreciate the discussion, time and attention being paid to this. much appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you for the time and discussion. everything that mr. ritchie mentioned that we're aware of and the challenges that you face. we look forward to working with you as you go through this. we though there's not an issue conversation. there's lot of different aspects together as we go through it. looking forward to further collaboration. >> president moran: thank you. without any further discussion by the commission, why don't we open up for public comment.

i would expect bawsca will have some comments as well. they are the other party to this has a great deal of interest as well. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes public comment on item 7, water supply development report, dial (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. 146 290 6991 to raise your hand to speak press star 3. do we have any callers? >> there's one caller in the queue.

>> caller: i've been with the coalition san francisco neighborhoods. give the water to the salmon, not the silicon valley growth machine. i strongly oppose making san jose and santa clara water customers. humans need to share water with nature. >> thank you for your comments. there are no other callers with their hands raised. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item 7 is closed. >> president moran: commissioner harrington? >> commissioner harrington: it's interesting that we don't go away. the first contract was negotiated by andy and the current contract -- we just keep coming back to the same topics.

>> president moran: it would be good to bring this to a conclusion. while we're both still alive. it does strike me one of these problems where i think if we were talking about water supply, there are answers that you can get to pretty quickly. i would like to see that move more quickly. with that, madam, please call the next item.

>> clerk: next order of business is item 8, report of the general manager. mr. herrera. >> thank you madam secretary. first item is presentation california community power long duration storage procurement. presented by assistant general manager. >> thank you and general manager herrera. i have provided all with a briefing packet and powerpoint presentation. i will not go through every slide. i intend to meet the time requirement. this is just an informational item. we are expecting to come back to you with an action item. this is a complex transaction. it's the first time we've done

this. we thought it was tim to warm up --time to warm you up to the topic. the california p.u.c. has mandated that all low serving entities procure certain levels of resources and certain types of resources. under cleanpowersf program we are required to bring resources on to the grid. we participated with the j.p.a. california community power to request a bid from that type of resource. which we are happy to say cp power is poised to receive. that the tumbleweed project. once the j.p.a. approves the

project, we'll return to your approval. that's likely in january or february. we sinned cp -- we joined cp back in april. we have a requirement by california p.u.c. they've directed us to procure 15.5 megawatts of long duration storage. if we failed to comply with that procurement order, we will face significant costs. the tumbleweed project will need more than half of our long duration storage for procurement

observation. we intend to pursue dimensional procurement both with the j.p.a.cp power and issuing our own request for offer. next slide, it describes the objectives for this request for offer. i want to highlight for you that this long duration storage is the technology that allows us to integrate our renewables and support for reliability on the bridge. it will help us to share the risk and meet our regulatory requirements. long duration storage is eight-hour storage location.

drawer j.p.a. collaboration, we also placed conditions on the project to address workforce. lot of stuff we can do when we procure. similarly, making sure that the project meets environmental permitting requirement of the local authority.

we'll be bringing those three documents to you to sign them and then we proceed on to the board for approval. we're anticipating that in the january, february time frame. slide 14 please. this helps put that transaction into context. we have nine contracts today. long-term contracts that is, ten years or more, 658 meg megawatts clean energy capacity.

to support that commitment, we have an annual power supply budgets of $235 million a year. tumbleweed project, would be $3 million to $4 million of that. total cost over the 15-year pier, 45 to $65 million. with that, i'm happy to take any questions you may have. i have my time here to assist if there's anything that we need to help with. >> president moran: commissioner max quell? >> commissioner maxwell: thank you for your work. i have a question and a concern. it says workforce, encourages

local labor and apprenticeship program. i think that's problematic. then you have environmental injustice requires developers to test requires. then environmental project must. when it comes to labor, encourage. i think we can do better than that. >> i appreciate the guidance. and the feedback. i do want to say that we have to recognize that not every local community has the particular skills and trades that are needed for a project like this. just like the sfpuc brought in skilled trade for projects we do. i imagine that this new technology being brought to bear

on the market may require some workforce that's not necessarily local. >> commissioner maxwell: they never will, if we don't make them. that will always be the excuse. it's been the excuse forever. there's words that we can say, requires when available that is a requirement when they can be met or something to that. just encourage, then we're never saying that this is that's important to us. we have to be leaders. yes, you're right, it may be difficult but if we don't ever make it an important -- they will never make that happen. we've seen that. that's historic. have to do little bit more to encourage you to do the right thing. >> i hear your sentiments. this will be the storage contract we sign.

>> commissioner maxwell: that's why it's important we do it right the first time. >> thank you for your comment. >> commissioner maxwell: thank you for your comments. however, i like to see some working on the language that does more than encourage. we've had this battle. it's been really pulling teeth all along with the power industry. i'm not going to take it okay. i appreciate your comment. i want to see something else, something different before i sign on it it. >> ultimately you will, but not today. thank you. >> commissioner maxwell, i hear the sentiment. we'll be working with staff to see what the art of the possible is on the language without

compromising the substance of the program. >> commissioner maxwell: thank >> commissioner harrington: also , thank you for all the work on this. i view this as an insurance policy when something goes wrong. we will not be taking advantage of this unless something else goes out. >> it's more akin to additional source. many of our renewable resources are very dependent on when the wind blows, sun shine. we need to have resources that can help address those periods of the day where when the wind and solar resources are available. it helps us meet the requirements on the grid for the shoulder hours.

>> part of the reason why the state is mandated like cleanpowersf is to support the grid. we'll be using it, our share of the project to help with balance the resources that barbara was referring to. one other point about the benefits of this effort is by participating as a group, we have the opportunity to participate in larger projects that are more cost effective. >> vice president ajami: i was

wondering, may be either -- thank you for the presentation. really great. i was wondering may be this goes back to what michael was saying. if this is a collective, what happens -- you all have the same problem of sun doesn't shine at the same time and all the places. is there a priority in the system who gets the electrons when this happens? how do we make sure we get what we need when we need it? >> i can address that. very good question. we will be working through -- one of the agreements that barbara had on that slide that showed the structure of this partnership is an operating

agreement. that operating agreement will form a committee of the participants that will in ongoing basis provide updated direction to operate the plant. the plant will be operated based on market signals. wholesale market prices. you'll use the market to really determine when that electricity that's stored is most valuable. that all applies not to just our operate payers, the idea is to maximize the value of the resource to all participant rate payers and sort of secondarily we'll be looking into how do we use this resource to shape our

own portfolios? as you're getting to here, it's complex when you have multiple participants with different power supplies. >> vice president ajami: do we have a power agreement with them? >> the agreement will be between cc power, the joint powers agency and battery storage operator and owner. then the participants will enter into an agreement with cc power and j.p.a. the power purchase agreement will be between the j.p.a. and the developer.

>> vice president ajami: it's listed on that slide. not as a power purchase agreement but storage agreement. >> vice president ajami: i remember, michael, is this related to what you presented to us may be a month ago or two months ago on the storage procurement as well? is this a totally different project? we did have another item that was a battery-driven item. >> this is a different project. it was amending an existing

agreement add batteries to a solar project that we were purchasing the energy from. in this case, we're really joining forces to purchase the services and products of a standalone battery system that is what we would call utility scale connected to the transmission system. it's supporting the grid. it's helping grid balance, all of the additional renewable energy that we're seeing come online within california. that's why the california p.u.c. is mandating entities like cleanpowersf do this. >> vice president ajami: i thought this was the follow on what the discussion we had couple of months ago. thank you for the clarification.

>> president moran: other questions or comments? seeing none, please open this for public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wishes to make two minutes on public comment on 8a, dial (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. 146 290 6991 this is item 8a. >> there is one caller in the queue.

>> caller: this is david pilpel again. i have no objection to this proposal. i appreciate barbara, michael and others who may have worked on this. i did want to raise a concern when i saw number 10 on the various technology types. all of which , well, have various environmental impact from greater than others. they are all different. this has the effect of, we get the power or access to the power. but the environmental impact of the operation of this thing would be in the county and presumably the battery storage thing would use resources and create waste ultimately. i heard recently about the issues with lithium and nickel

mining and all kinds of thing. the question really is are we moving the problem elsewhere so we can continue to have power for our current and future residents. ultimately, i'm asking who has the ceqa responsibility for this facility? is it us? is it consortium? is it curran county? i'm wondering about what that means for the environment. again, keep pleading. thanks. >> the call queue is clear. >> clerk: thank you public comment on item 8a is closed. >> 8b a drought conditions update from water.

steve ritchie. >> i did get a text from nicole from bawsca, who is out on medical leave. she wanted to make sure that was not due to lack of interest of topic discussed today. i want to give a brief drought update. this is dated december 6th. every monday i get an up date on where we are relative our water supply and other conditions. this is the one in the packet i will verbally update. level of historics has not changed because this particular out country area has been seeing

more snow than actual rainfall. the brown area keeps getting smaller but the red area is not really changing. i guess it's coal comfort that we're in extreme drought rather than exceptional drought. this shows hetchy participation. it doesn't show update on this. if we go to the next slide, the snow pack, you i can see the red line is below the historic

median with the snow that we've gotten so far from the storm. definitely it is above the median line as we get there to the middle of the month. we do still expect some more to come this week and the next. water available to the city. we have not seen any immediately. we are already above where we were last year. it's not a big number yet. if we can retain some of this snow pack, we could get fair amount of water available to the city this year. you'll see on the right-hand side, the year to date total was seven quarter inches.

these last couple of days moved us up to 30% of the annual total. more to come. we've got about 11 total so far this year. we see more storms coming. next slide please. we have not updated the bay area precipitation. anyone was paying close attention, highway 92 on the coast was closed yesterday. one of the creeks in the watershed basically decided to use highway 92 as path to take all the water. this shows the natural precipitation forecast and brighter colors means

precipitation. you can see that upper box this week, you can see there's lots of orange and red colors there in california. then you see next week, starting today and moving into next wednesday, lot of bright colors over the period of time. we expect to see more precipitation over the next couple of days. clear on friday and then into the week but then more precipitation probably will be getting closer around the 22nd towards christmas. it's not over yet. here total deliveries. we had that big drop on the green line there. that first atmospheric river. then, demand and rebounded little bit recently. it's now up to about 159 millio.

it's definitely back above 2015 levels and close to 2019 levels. definitely below 2015 levels. curtailment have ongoing basis been suspended going forward. they continue to be suspended as of yesterday. i fully expect they will be suspended probably through end of the month. the big question curtailments if we keep a snow pack, how this le be viewed during the snow melt. i'm happy to answer any questions on the current

conditions. >> vice president ajami: that was great. i want to note that right after the previous drought, the demand bounced back. this is how people react to different precipitation events. >> president moran: thank you. seeing no other comments. please open up for public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to public comment on 8b, dial (415)655-0001, meeting

i.d., 146 -- 146 290 6991 do we have any callers in the queue? >> we have a caller in queue. go ahead. >> caller: hi, i'm from palo alto. i'm the one who provided the tuolumne update. this last weekend, i was lucky enough to be in the valley. walking across one of the bridges of the merced river. i look down and didn't see any fish. if i was at a place in tuolumne, how long would i have to wait to see one. i did a calculation, there are

21 days between the prior fish passing chart and yesterday's update. during that time, according to fish bio, 215 salmon passed by. if i assume salmon only moved during the day, that means one salmon would pass by on average, every 70 minutes. of course the point of fish passage chart and any story is to try to make the situation to help tuolumne feel more real. thanks commissioner harrington that fish passage be reported if water supply updates. thanks so much.

>> there was another caller. the call queue is clear. >> clerk: public comment on item 8b is closed. >> 8c is an emergency fire fighting water system update. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm here to provide quick update on the emergency fire fighting water system. the board of supervisors with file number 191029 request that

the p.u.c. develop a citywide plan that relates to two items. both expanding the pipeline and making sure that these pipelines are build with the appropriate water to meet the high pressure fire fighting demands of the fire department. p.u.c. took the lead on that. as a note, the resolution also requested city administrator's office, mayor's budget office, the board and budget legislative analyze geobonds to fund this work.

in this map, let me walk everybody through it. the gray pipeline in northeastern side of the with pipelines in the east and southeast. are the existing emergency fire fighting water system pipeline. i like to draw your attention to the pipeline in red. those pipelines are funded. they are currently under construction and they are funded by the 2020 bond and passed by the voters of san francisco. the black pipelines also on the west side that connect to the red ones. complete what we call the westside project. those are unfunded. additionally, what the citywide

plan really looks at are the green and blue pipelines which have been drawn in here. it what would bring high pressure water systems to the areas in the sea where it's lacking. you can see districts 7, 10 and 11, if those a are familiar, really in the south-southeast parts of the city, you'll see the large majority of where we are proposing to install additional higher pipelines. those are unfunded. to ensure that both existing pipeline, the pipeline funding currently under construction, we need to make sure that the pipeline have enough water for fire fighting at a high pressure. on this slide, you'll see the blue water sources are primary water sources that feed in the

system. comes from twin peaks and summit. those are the primary sources that feeds in the existing pipeline. we have two backup sea water pump stations also in blue. lake merced is funded to be connected. those blue ones are funded or existing. they are already on the books. in order to fill the remaining pipelines, we have proposing connect additional water sources both from sunset reservoir,

college reservoir. we proposed increasing the capacity of the existing sea water pump stations, ps1 and ps2 as well as adding conventional sea water pump station in the southeast area. this is just to ensure there are adequate water supply to meet the fire fighting high pressure need. when we look at the estimated cost of this expansion in $2021, it comes up to approximately $1.6 billion. this excludes the previously funned phase one west side project that i discussed. includes the red pipeline and connecting lake merced. in terms of a realistic timeline, in terms of when it can be implemented, the system

couldn't be built all today. the board ask us to look at a 15-year planning horizon. we looked at a 15-year horizon for completing this project with escalation, the dollar amount is estimating to be closer to $2.6 billion. if we looked at 25-year construction period closer to $3.3 billion. this is assuming 4% annual escalation. what the b.l.a. will be looking at if this program was to move forward, how will they face off the general obligation blond i'm happy to take any questions that >> president moran: commissioner

s any questions? >> commissioner harrington: than k you, john. as you know, i'm not a fan of this whole project. once again, i'll ask the question, do you know if i any other place or country in the that has something like this? >> great question. vancouver has a significantly smaller system. that is a separate high pressure system. the system that is most like ours actually, we model the west side system off of it is in japan. japan has a similar seismic challenges that san francisco faces. they have strengthened their backbone of portable water line to serve two purposes. you have to strengthen that red line and black line. those are actually going to be

table to carry portable water, 99.99% of the time. if there is a large seismic event, there happens to be a fire on west side that needs to be fought, we can isolate that line and pump the pressure up to provide high pressure fire fighting until the fire is out. we can drop the line, do any cleaning of the pipeline that's needed and flush the line to ensure it's safe and turn it back over to regular drinking water use. that's what tokyo and japan uses. those the most similar. >> commissioner harrington: i realize there's religious fervour, we all seem to go along with it.

i kind of lost faith in this when i was told it will would never happen for a variety of reasons. one reason was if, you don't use the system, the water degrades within the pipes and there could be problems with that. the firefighters wouldn't put up with it. they basically threaten that if we put water into the system, they would tell people that we're spraying feces on side of people building when they are putting out fires. that seem to have killed all the the discussion that we had about using this in san francisco. we end up not being able to do it as non-portable.

it will keep rolling down the street as if this is the requirement. but i don't think it is. every time we have this conversation, it doesn't go very far. i do think, may be the p.u.c. should say, this doesn't make sense. if the p.u.c. believes that. that's my belief. not sure what the p.u.c.

believes. >> president moran: vice president ajami? >> vice president ajami: thank you for your presentation. may be follow on what ed was saying, we have had this conversation. i always wondered, is there any information or data available on the failures of our fire fighting system. that would have been solved if we would have had such a sophisticated system set up? it's valuable to look at this and say, we have 50% failure in the system. we are trying to turn that into 20%. that extra 30% is worth all the money we are spending.

are we doing this because we want to do this? i don't think i have an answer to that. the second thing i want to say is, i think to commissioner harrington's comments about alternative water supply as a source, i see that a lot more valuable part. because we are developing alternative water supply. the money we are spending is going -- i understand the pipeline is not going to be connected to alternative water supply. there's a little bit of multi-benefit efforts may be rather than this single lar system. those are my two comments. >> president moran: i will

underline something that commissioner harrington talked about the decision basically not to use non-portable water there's the issue raised about where are we building a separate system that would put portable water in there and the complications is waste. i think it's the fact is, that's what we're doing now all over the city. anything else?

please open this up for public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minute of public ecomment on 8c, dial phone. meeting i.d. 146 290 6991 to raise your hand to speak press star 3. >> we have one caller. >> caller: at the november 18th neating of the board of supervisors, government audit oversight committee, the committee conducted a follow-up hearing on the civil grand jury

report. supervisor mar stated that he would not support granting lake merced for fire fighting. in other words he would oppose it. each page is marked, document is preliminary/incomplete. figures 2-2 and 2-3 indicates error. the same is true of the tables in section 2-1 in section 3 planning methodology. section 7, improvement cost and section 8, conclusions and recommendations are missing. section c, feasibility section

has used current system and distributed the stations. it doesn't study ocean pump station south of the facility. in conclusion, it's a similar study where presented to another commission or to the board of supervisors, would it be well received or seen just as embarrassing. thank you. >> another caller has joined. caller, go ahead. >> caller: this is david pilpel again. i think eileen has been waiting long time to make those comments. on this, if and when expansion of the system is chosen, i think manning and construction should be coordinated with other projects, p.u.c. water, power

and sewer projects, department of technology, telecom cable and other city and non-city projects along the corridors. while public interest here may be somewhat low, the audience -- [ indiscernible ] i would suggest a small public workshop on this where perhaps, we could discuss which other staff what are the pros and cons of doing this at whatever cost. i take commissioner harrington's comments very seriously. i suggest the discussion in that workshop or before the commission at some point or board of supervisors somewhere about the risk to the city during an earthquake, fire or

other emergency.

>> caller: i'm katie miller. i will provide a very brief update on the status of the water system improvement program for the first quarter of fiscal year '21, '22. i like to share the quarterly updates for two reasons. staff has been working long hours in great detail to provide the c.i.p. budget submittal you will review in january. as we shared with you during the september 28th meeting the quarterly reports will be provided. the quarterly reports with these revisions for the hetch hetchy water enterprise and sewer system improvement program will be presented to you in van. -- january, we decided to make these revisions for the water

supply improvement program report for several reasons. this report has stayed in the same format for the past 15 years. second, the wsip report provides better performance than the other program previous report. third the wsip is almost complete. i will give you a quick update. these pie charts shows programs are 99% complete. this cost summary table shows the status of the seven active projects that are remaining that are reported in such -- this has low activity during the quarter. this low spending is because for

the remaining active projects are very close to being closed out. one is just starting. two have yet to be issued. construction mobilization was initiated for the alameda recapture project. for phase one of the regional ground water storage recovery project, the water operations and project team successfully completed seven week operational testing for four wells. thesis are the wells that will be focused on for steady operations in the near future for the drought. the phase 2a project is under various improvements with

advertised on september 27th. progress was made to obtain permit prior to advertising the phase 2b contractor if the san francisco main well and pipelines that will connect to cal water systems. the next three projects are in some state of closeout. >> president moran: any questions? i see no questions. thank you very much. general manager, herrera, is that end of your report? >> clerk: would like to for me to open for public comment?

>> president moran: yes. >> clerk: members of the public who likes to make two minutes on 8d, dial (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. you 146 290 6991 >> the call queue is clear. >> clerk: public comment on 8d is closed. >> president moran: mr. herrera? >> one item as commission is aware, the controllers office on december 9th issued its performance audit of sfpuc's

social impact partnership program. while that item is up for discussion today, i wanted to alert the commission that we will be prepared to discuss the report at our january 11, 2022 meeting and steps going forward. that concludes my report. >> president moran: do we need public comment on that? >> clerk: yes. members of the public who wish to take two minutes of public comment on item 8e, dial (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. 146 290 6991 to raise your hand to speak, press star 3.

do we have any callers? >> there are no calls in the queue at this moment. >> clerk: public comment on item 8e is closed. >> president moran: next item is a new commission business. do any commissioners have new business? seeing none, next item please. >> clerk: item 10, the consent >> president moran: commissioner s any requests or items on the

consent calendar? seeing none. please open the consent calendar for public comment. members of the public who wish to take two minutes of publi comment dial (415)655-0001, meeting i.d. 146 290 6991 to raise your hand to speak press star 3. do we have any callers? >> we have two callers in the queue. >> caller: i'm calling for coalition san francisco neighborhood speaking on my own behalf. urging that the commissioners sever item 10e.

this report is similar to other staff reports and it has no photo. in the description of the scope of the section, bullet point number 6 states providing above ground pipe segment between the codable and non-codable pipes to be installed during major fire events. why would the p.u.c. wait until a major fire event to do this installation? modification number one, unlike charges group together, the 20,361 charge includes the survey and the modification to control the panel. there's no explanation why the p.u.c. distribution division doesn't include this modification request in the original contract. the reason for the increase 240

calendar days is for public hearing. since there were number of rescheduling, could the project have been designed to obtain the tree. in the result of inaction section, it states a delay or denial of proving the request will result this project being further delayed posing continue risk of the city's ability to provide events, fire suppression capabilities. the westside has been waiting to honor its commitment to bringing it out to the west side. >> thank you, next caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: this is david pilpel. last time today. i have no issues with the

consent calendar. i support all of the item. i support the balance of the calendar. i want to thank you for listening and enjoy the rest of the year. hope to talk you again next year. thank you for all your continuing good work. thanks. >> the call queue is clear. >> clerk: thank you, public comment on item 10, the consent calendar is closed. >> president moran: may be we can address her concerns with item c. it -- can we respond to those at this time >> clerk: i will defer to the city attorney.

ms. bregman? >> the consent calendar to take a vote on the whole consent calendar? is that the question? >> president moran: the question is, we received comments about the item requested to be severed. can staff now respond to those comments without actually severing the item? >> yes, the staff -- it's entirely up to the chair whether you pull the item off consent and have separate vote. the matter can be included as part of the consent calendar as long as public comment is recognized for the consent calendar and the vote taken. >> president moran: let me ask staff to respond.

>> good afternoon, howard fong, manager of the product management burl. the question was asked regarding why was this structure not connected full-time. what we are trying to do is connect a potable water system from our summit reservoir system to connect to a non-potable efws, awss system existing by delbrook. to be able to have a direct connection, we can only do it through a section of pipe that we have to insert. we can only insert that during an emergency. it is a domestic drinking water source that we're connecting it

from. that is the reason why there's structure needed to be installed. it had to be above ground. we're located corner of clarendon avenue. we have to do public process of processing. the notices takes several months. we're asking for additional time address those delays due to that >> president moran: commissioner s any questions for mr. fong? any desire to sever item c.

can i have a motion and second for the consent calendar as a whole? >> so moved. >> second. moran thank you, roll call please. [roll call vote] you have five ayes. >> president moran: the consent calendar is adopted. next item please. >> clerk: next item 11, authorize the general manager to execute memorandum of understanding for amount not to exceed $9695 with the duration of 58 months. presented by ritchie. >> good afternoon. this is a routine item that we

do several of these agreements in different places throughout the water system to engage in monitoring. it is 58-month agreement to continue maintaining that stream gauge on pilarcitos street. >> president moran: please open public comment. >> clerk: members of the public

who wish to make two minutes of public comment on item 11 dial (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. 146 290 6991 to raise your hand to speak press star. do we have any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you public comment on item 11 is closed. >> president moran: thank you. >> so moved. >> second. >> president moran: roll call please. [roll call vote]

you have five ayes. >> president moran: item passes. item 12 please. >> clerk: item 12. authorize the general manager to execute amendment number two on memorandum of agreement to extend the terms of the agreement by 15 months until march 31, 2023 with no change in the contract amount to include marin municipal water district to participate collaboratively to develop the bay area shared water access program. >> this is an extension of the memorandum of agreement for the bay area regional reliability partnership which includes

alameda county water district, bawsca, contra costa water district. this is a cooperative effort among these the bay area water agencies, looking for opportunities where we can share facilities and supplies to increase overall regional reliability. some of the things we've been looking at are transfers. delta supplies between agencies in different ways around the system. in particular, we're also adding in marin municipal. marin municipal has been talking to us originally but decided not. with their situation on in the the drought where they have been affected. they will be looking at the possibility of establishing a pipeline about different ways

water can move to assist them under emergency conditions. we recommend that we continue this partnership for a bit longer. it has proved useful in terms of discussions. i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> president moran: questions for mr. ritchie? the intent is to provide a facility that can be used in time of drought. it makes me wonder whether there are opportunities here to actually speed up the real world -- the ability to do may be emergency approvals.

>> the work is about making normal conditions. you end up with a lot more complex system when you find that both the state and federal water projects are delivering less to their customers and very frankly in the emergency conditions once you step outside of the project structure. when i say the project structure, central valley project, they can be creative within each of those structures. it's harder to get it across those structures. that's where some of the difficulties lie. in this case, marin municipal coming in this way, is looking to see if there's a way that newell their situation, water can be moved basically to east bay mud where east bay mud can

move water to them that is not project water. we actually have been involved in several discussions about other ways to use the plumbing that can make that work. working within the relative constraints of project and state water project rules.

>> caller: you heard one constituent citizen say, in the best part of our city, there's missing water. this is also happening in other areas. three weeks ago, when i opened the faucet, the water was stinking. i made some calls. i was told that ground water was

added. why don't you inform us before you do this? we need to do needs assessment the quality of water that is being transferred. we are ready for some liability issues. you heard the concern that part of the water was not even treated. i don't know, when i open the faucet that that water was treated or not. let us fine tune things in our own category first before we pick up transfers like this. thank you very much. >> thank you, caller. there are no other callers.

>> clerk: thank you, public comment on item 12 is closed. >> president moran: i have a motion and a second? >> so moved. >> i'll second. >> president moran: roll call please. [roll call vote] >> clerk: you have five ayes. >> president moran: next item please. >> clerk: item 13. approve the terms and conditions and authorize the general manager to execute and enter into three spratt purchase and sales agreement with oakridge ranch estates smolinski, arroyo hondo ranch smolinski and mount day ranch estates -- associated

with the acquisition in the amount not to exceed $200,000. must be presented by dent general manager -- carlin. >> i will say this, three sides, this sfpuc land on the east bay park district. there's no development that occurred on these sites. i will be glad to answer any questions.

>> commissioner maxwell: how much do we own in that watershed? alameda? >> in the alameda watershed we own about 38,000 acres. this is adding 653 acres to that 38,000 that we already own. >> commissioner maxwell: what's the approximate value? >> i'm going to give you very approximate value. if you were to take the value that we're paying for land right now in the alameda watershed, take the existing purchase, taking a low end of our pay is $12,000 per acre. if you take the 38,000 acres the land value that we have now is $456 million. if you wanted to take the high end, $16,000 per acre.

>> commissioner maxwell: are we up in the market, down in the market, middle of the market? >> this is an interesting approach that has been in private holdings for a long period of time. we pretty much -- they approached us. this is very mutually agreeable situation we're in where these properties, there's not a lot of value to them in the long run. the market is good right now. >> commissioner maxwell: thank you. >> commissioner harrington: i'm glad we're buying this. i love that map it shows the hodgepodge of historic squares in there. the idea of what's on our side, do we let park users come on some of these properties?

>> we do have an agreement with east bay regional park district that they will manage some of the park district. they will take care some other things. we have that existing in this watershed. we can show you a map of what properties they do lease and which ones they don't. >> commissioner harrington: do you think this will open up additional hiking trails? >> that's to be determined. yes, we can be in discussion. >> president moran: commissioner paulson would like to see that map. any other comments or questions? please open this for public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes on item 13, dial (415)655-0001,

meeting i.d. 146 290 6991 to raise your hand to speak press star 3. do we have any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: public comment on item 13 is closed. >> president moran: any other questions? roll call please. [roll call vote] you have five ayes. >> president moran: that passes. next item please.

>> clerk: next item is closed session. i will read the closed session calling public comment on those item. next item is public comment on closed session. following items will be heard during closed session. item 16, conference with legal counsel, regarding the existing litigation in the matter of initial orders and imposing water rights in sacramento, on water rights numbers f002635, s s01379 and s018735.

san joaquin trib stories versus state water resources control board versus the california state resources control board. members of the public who wish to make public comment dial (415)655-0001, meeting i.d. 146 290 6991 to raise your hand to speak press star 3. >> there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment for items to be heard during close session is

closed. >> president moran: may i have a motion to assert attorney-client privilege? >> so moved. to not disclose. >> president moran: move to assert. >> i did that last time. >> president moran: do i have a second? roll call please. [roll call vote]. >> clerk: you have five ayes. >> president moran: the motion passes. i will go into closed session.

. >> can i have a motion on whether to disclose motions that are in closed session? >> move not to disclose. >> i'll second. >> moved and seconded not to disclose. roll call vote, please. [roll call] >> clerk: you have five ayes. >> the item passes. is there any other business before the commission? >> clerk: no other business, but i would like to announce that the sfpuc regular meeting for december 28 has been cancelled, so i wish everybody a happy holiday. >> thank you, and yes, happy holiday. >> happy holidays. >> happy holidays to everyone. >> yeah. >> stay safe and healthy. >> we'll be meeting again in january. it promises to be a big and

exciting year. get your new year's resolutions ready. >> enjoy your holidays, everybody. enjoy your holidays and be safe. >> yes. 2022, here we come. >> okay. >> bye, everyone.

>> chair borden: please call the roll. [ roll call ] you have a quorum. >> chair borden: next item. >> clerk: announcement of prohibition of sound producing devices during the meeting. we have no announcements. item 4, approval of minutes forever the december 7, regular meeting. >> chair borden: is there any additions at this time? seeing none, we'll open up public comment. are there any callers on the line? hello mr. pilpel? >> caller: hello. how did you guess? [ laughter ]

>> chair borden: you're our best proofreader. >> caller: i apologize i have not gone through everything. i do see couple of things on the minutes on page 2 on my public comment. i would never said motion. i hate that word. i believe it should say recording as well as recording who made and seconded either items or motion. that's page 2. page 3, eric rozzel. page 5 and perhaps elsewhere bob finebaum, fourth commenter. those are the things immediately jumped out at me.

>> chair borden: thank you. are there any other callers on the line? next speaker. >> caller: hey. it is spelled corrected,rozel. >> chair borden: are there any additional callers on the line? we'll close public comment. is there a motion on the minutes? >> i'll move it. >> chair borden: please call the roll. >> clerk: on motion to approve the minutes. [roll call vote]

the minutes are approved. >> chair borden: that moves on to our next item. >> clerk: item number 5 communications. >> chair borden: this meeting is held virtually with all members of the staff and public participating via teleconference. we ask the public to participate remotely by writing the board or leaving a voice mail message. for those who gone so in advance, thank you so much. we really appreciate you continuing to honor this request. if you haven't had your chance to do so, you can still and always any time you want, send us an e-mail or leave us a voice message. while this technology allowed meetings to be teleconference, it is often not seemless.

there are different platforms we used to be connected. sometimes there's gaps and silence as we're transitioning. if the phone line is lost, we will bring it back. we are doing the very best that we can considering there's so many different platforms we're working with. we ask for your patience and understanding. with that, i will thank you for tuning in for this last year joining us for our last meeting of the year. i want to thank everyone on the team who has been with us online for the whole year to conduct these meetings. happy holidays to everybody and thank you all for all your hard work. that includes you all, sfgov tv. >> clerk: this meeting is televised by sfgov tv. be aware there's a time lapse between the live tv and what the public is seeing on sfgov tv. if you member to comment on items on the agenda, phone

number to use is (888)808-6929. access code is 9961164 to creates board dial 1, 0. please make sure you are in a quiet location so the board can hear you. you will have two minutes to provide public comment. i will announce a 30 second warning and when time is up. item 6, introduction of new or unfinished business by board members. >> chair borden: directors are there any items new or unfinished business? seeing none, next item. >> clerk: item 7, the director's report. >> chair borden: director tumlin? >> director tumlin: we'll start off about the state of transit. >> hi, everyone. i'm going to cover two narrow

topics. the first is we did have a major service disruption last week. i did want to share with you some of the details. we're still working those out. i wanted to come back with recommendation for how to phase the 2022 service changes that you all review and approved last week and get any final feedback that you have on that approach. in terms of the service disruption, we had a major incident where a train that was going from forest hill to castro took down about 500 feet of overhead wire. this is a massive repair and it required crews to work all afternoon and through the night and even delayed our opening of

service. the following day. there's some positive things to report. we have ruled out any lapse in preventive maintenance. this wasn't an issue of fatigue. we have ruled out the vehicle as a cause. the actual cause is something that we're narrowing down to having to do with how the overhead was put together right near a major piece of infrastructure that supports the castro crossover. the extent of the damage was made worse for couple of reasons. first of all, this was a train.

the drain would have stopped so we would have experienced the initial break. we would have not experienced the extent of the damage. we are reviewing the operator's response as well given that this was a long duration that the wire was dragged. the second issue is that it was the first graph that broke the overhead wire. that pentograph went through. that's what dragged the overhead wire. i'm really grateful that we have created the integrated engineering and maintenance task force that did so much of the work in the subway over the break. they are looking at how this

area of the subway is designed and looking at any reinforcements that they can make. we are narrowing in on cause. we do not have a cause yet. i will make sure that we follow up with the board likely through a memo once we have that information. before i go on to the second part of my presentation, do you have any questions on this incident? also, i wanted to thank not just the maintenance staff who worked around the clock to address this issue, we had many volunteers in the agency that came out to help with the customer information, help people make connections at

that van ness station to the buses. we are trying to have an increased focus on customer information during this types of incidents. i think this was an example where we were successful. the second thing i wanted to do is talk you through the phasing for the service changes. we are -- can you see my screen? >> chair borden: yes. >> we're really chasing the clock here because in order to meet our schedule timeline and be able to implement these changes as quickly as possible, we have been working since i saw you last, to figure out the phasing process. as a result, these have not had extensive public vetting. we have got them up on the wex. i'm sharing publicly available

information at the sfmta website at sfmta.com/network2022. we'll be sending a follow-up e-mail blast to everybody who has been tracking the project. i wanted to share with you that we have done this quickly in order to get the benefit of the customers quickly but have not had extensive outreach on it. the phasing that we're recommending is that in february, we implemented changes to the rail. the rail, we have sufficient rail operators to make these changes. we want to match bart's timeline. in february, bart is going to be extending their hours of their sunday service. we would like to match that. in february, we will be implementing the change you

approved last week on the j church. j church would operate seven days a park from balboa park to embarcadero station. we'll extend all the subway service until midnight. having the saturday service match sunday service. then march 5th, we would implement the first set of bus changes. we do not expect to have significantly more operators in march than we need to around the current schedule. we were fairly conservative in what we are restoring. we're recommending, in order to be able to restore more than we keep in place some of the changes that we've made over the last few months in order to minimize missed service. for example, we are currently not running the one california short line. we recommend we keep that change

in place but that the long line run little more frequently on the weekdays. from every eight minutes to every seven minutes. there would be more service than we have today on the one california but less than we scheduled in august. ax and bx will be restored on the weekdays. the nine rapid is a place where we think we can reduce service a little bit in order to free up resources. it would go from every 10 minutes to every 12 minutes in march. we would restore back to the 10 minutes in june. you will continue to keep the

changes we put in place for the 14 rapid. it would rate every 10 minutes and we would not have the supplemental short line service that we had scheduled in august. the 21 hayes from st. mary's hospital to the civic center station will be restored 20 minutes instead of 15 minutes. the 23 will be restored to its pre-covid route. the 28 will be extended to van ness and north point along the wharf and 49 will be replaced to historic terminal. one route we did not discuss two weeks ago with the 29 sunset. as part of our routine crowding review in preparing for these scheduled changes, we all

recommending that weekday 29 go from every 10 minutes to every 9 minutes to reduce crowding for students. the 30 stockton, we would restore the short line but only restored for most crowded 8 or 9 hours of the day. the 43 extension would go into effect. small extension of the 56 so we can make connections to burton high school. the 57 will be extended to west portal. the 58 would be move to brotherhood way and operate every 30 minutes. that's the package of changes for march. then, as we continue to hire more operators, we would implement in early june, final changes that you approved last

week. that would include increasing the two frequency from every 20 minutes to every 15 minutes. increasing frequency on the 5, restoring the six parnass. increase the frequency on the 10 townsend. implement the new 12 shortline that we had talked about to provide more service south of market. likely, add more service on the 14 rapid. we will continue to monitor. have the 21 hayes go from 20 minutes to 15 minutes. restore the 28 rapid. we would also do the extension of the 31 balboa in june going from fifth and market street to

the caltrain station. we would restore the 52 and the 66 to their pre-covid routes because they would not be needed to be extended with the six restoration. then as we think about august and beyond, we're prepared to continue to hiring and continue a community dialogue about where to continue to restore service, respond to new and emerging trends and also continue to build up things like our rapid network. we know that's a lot of information and details. the main principle was that we try to get all of the new connections in place on either if they were at a lower frequency than we had initially proposed. we tried to be very conservative

in our operator assumptions so we can deliver what we are committing to deliver. we are going to also look for opportunities to bring out some service in a more ad hoc way as we do hire up operators because there will be a period in april and may where we're graduating new classes. with that i'm happy to answer any questions all have. >> chair borden: directors are there any questions? i will ask you one question about the one ax and bx. i saw we got some correspondence about that. there's nothing in the near future for those routes? >> it does not because the downtown demand is still relatively low.

we're running very frequent service on the one. the express routes are convenient. i would expect you will get increasing requests for them to be restored. they are very resource intensive. weapon want to wait to restore them until we know we're filling the buses. >> director hinze: thank you. my question is about the 6th. we did -- that was one of the community routes that had a lot of advocacy around it for meeting restorations. there are other routes covering

it right now? >> yes. >> chair borden: does that complete your question? >> director hinze: yes. >> chair borden: director yekutiel. >> director yekutiel: i hate to be the one to ask this question, are you starting to come up with omicron contingency plans for the fleet? >> we have taken a number of precautions on our vehicle. they have very good air circulation. we do have the protective barrier for our operators and all of our operators are vaccinated. we will continue to have the masking requirement in place. we will look to the department

of public health as in the toe on omicron. if they see for us to any additional modifications. i do also think that it is an indication that continues to be evolving pandemic. >> director yekutiel: i guess i ask question bit more perspective from small business oner. you have lot of restaurants and bars shutting down because folks contracting the virus. i'm just wondering where we worried that might happen within

the operator team? >> i think it's something that we have to be prepared for. >> director tumlin: we are more prepared for omicron than any

transit agency. 100% of our workforce is vaccinated. we have a strong department operation center and we maintain all the relationships with the department of emergency management and department of public health. our people know how to handle this. if there are waves after this, we will handle it again. >> chair borden: that concludes your question? i see that director heminger has his hand up. >> director heminger: just to follow-up on that point, what do you mean by vaccinated? does that meanwhile three shots or two? >> director tumlin: right now it's defined as two shots. we are now having regular conversations being led by the department of public health about to what degree that we

will require a booster. data is clear that getting boosted dramatically reduces the intensity of symptoms and death rate. >> director heminger: that's squares with everything i'm reading. to the extent that you could put the pedal to the meddle on that whether it's incentives or some other strategy to get folks boosted, that seems to be really what we need. time of the essence. this thing is spreading so fast. thank you for that answer. julie, the reason i wanted to go back to you is to compliment you for trying to think of your rail change schedule with bart. that does seem to be coming little bit more routine in the region. that's a good thing. i think bart doesn't quite always extend the favor back. i know they are still working it out with caltrain. i did want to thank you for

checking that box this time and in the future too. >> i think we're going to miss them by a week. if we know to do this because all of the regions, service planners have been meeting throughout covid and as the discussions about a network manager and what that means are happening, they are doing the hard work to actually align the schedule. i'm really appreciative of the staff that have been doing this coordination and to bart who let us know well in advance so we can be prepared. >> director heminger: thank you. >> chair borden: i see that director lai has a question. >> director lai: hi. thank you for the update.

it's really good to be able to see and thank you for uploading it on to the website already. i think i heard you say march 5th is the first date. i missed the second date. >> it will be the first pay period in june. i apologize that i don't have the specific day. we typically try to align it with the end of the school year. >> director lai: thank you. could you remind us what needs to happen between now and when the service needs to change? i know -- we have to do the training. what does that lead time looks like? >> i'm still building the schedules. it takes about ten weeks. once we've locked down all the

details and don't come back with the little changes we've been guilty of in the past. that includes a built-in review time for union partners to look at the work and to give feedback. it also includes some posted times so the operator have time to see what work fits best with their schedule and their needs and therapy -- their preferences. this also includes a time to upload and coordinate with all of our digital partners. that includes not only our next best program but also all of the other third party apps that you help push up the arrival times. >> director lai: just pertaining to that the ax and bx, thank you

for accommodate it. is that the lead time if prepare for the change that applies. even though the ax and bx is splitting an existing route. >> it is for a couple of reasons. one is in order to keep individual route relatively frequent, it's not a cost neutral change. we are adding buses to that route. it also -- we need to change the actual start and end time as well as the trip pattern for all of the operators. in an emergency, we have made those kinds of changes if they are cost neutral without a scheduled change. it's very disruptive.

it means operators has to start at a different time. may be they selected and it can compromise the quality of the bus productions. >> director lai: thank you for that detail. i think my one feedback is it at all possible, if staff could please look into preparing for the lunar new year period where there is usually an increase amount of activity and if they can step up to try to support the community activities that go on and provide a little bit more, concentrate frequency during the day just for that one week period. that would be awesome. i understand it sounds like we won't be able to bring part of the axbx back. we have to plan and make sure we execute it well. we want to also ask about some of these school routes. i'm glad that you mentioned you

trying -- i'm wondering, how you've been manning for that? for example, the 52, i know this is one of those routes that director yekutiel when we were out there, we met some high school students that had concerns about the frequency for the 52 in particular. i am wondering -- are there routes frequencies that you're able to essentially reduce frequency after the school year? put that service to other places. could you talk about the how our schedule is matching up? >> there's couple of changes during the summer. we don't operate the school trippers which start empty at the schools.

in the past, we have, for example, reduced the frequency a little bit on routes like the 29. however, during covid we're seeing such an increase in travel to recreation areas to neighborhood commercial, between neighborhoods. i don't anticipate that we're going to do a lot of reductions related to school this year. it's such a learning year for us. that is the opportunity as we get more year-over-year data. we have the ability to make small but cost effective changes. >> director lai: okay. next question is how we're going to prepare for the next school year? do we have a third route we

might be able to bring back in august? some of the student, we heard from basically said they have to wait like 30 minutes for a bus. which seems like a long time to me. >> we will have enough operators that we can start look at additions. we'll be under competing pressures for downtown service restoration, our express networks and things like that. those are the things that will have to balance based on what

we're seeing from the data and in your direction and the public feedback. >> director lai: my last question is about your hiring? how we doing with our classes? do we need to attract more folks to our responses? >> for the operators, we are on track. we're also seeing very high graduation rates which is hearting and a tribute to the caliber of candidates we're giving as well as the quality of our training program. we are going to go up to 36-person classes and then 42-person classes by february. we have not trained at that pace ever. i do think we may start to see

some challenges, five, six, seven months out that we didn't anticipate. we are trying to be really proactive in terms of increasing the frequency which we create operator lists, continuing our successful partnership with oewd and city drive. i'm more concerned about the pace we're able to hire mechanics and other craft people. you'll see at the board workshop that one of my highest priority is for our next budget cycle is an increase investment and more structured apprentice program. we're really starting to tap into more diverse workforce and really grow the potential pool

of candidates can -- that can do these jobs. we have exhausted without fulfilling our vacancies. while i'm grateful for the hiring that we've done, i am concerned about the hiring challenges ahead of us in the technical class. >> director lai: thank you. >> chair borden: great. uncharacteristically, i know that we're -- director eaken? >> vice chair eaken: i have one question. thank you for the update. i wonder if you can help us and the public to understand what goes into all of this planning.

how once you set a plan in motion, how fixed are we to that plan? how much lead time to being able to deploy next phase of service in february or march? if circumstances change dramatically as director yekutiel getting at. there's constant tension and balance between setting out a plan, preparing for that plan, wanting to adhere to that plan and dealing what the world sends you. does that make sense? >> i think i understand what you're asking. most agencies that are not in a

period of dynamic change like we are, would decide six months out what they are going to do with their schedule. that's what bart did. we've known for months that their sunday schedule was going to expand in february. that gives time to build the schedules vet the schedules. we have really pushed our scheduling team and also our more digital technology to really compress that time. for example, because we didn't have a phased in plan december 7th, we were not able to implement a bus changes the third week in february when we're implementing the rail chains. just me coming to you on the

21st instead of the 7th, set us back two weeks in order to be able to implement the bus changes. even today, if you all had significant feedback or changes that probably would have meant a skip in the schedule. the schedulers, once they have the details, when is the route going to start and stop and how frequently does it come. they spend over a month building what the buses do, how that gets assigned to work shifts and then how that gets assigned to seven-day a week work. then they share that information with the union partners who have about three weeks to review it, to flag concerns, to request

changes. then it gets posted up at the division and it takes about a week for operators to pick their different work assignments. at that time, they are uploading all of the differential information for next thoughts as well as our own management tools. then it rolls out. we try to roll out on a pay period on saturday. again, to reduce the amount of manual adjustments we have to make to make sure people are paid properly. there is a lot of rigidness built into it. it does take about a 10-week process. we can always use more time depending on the complexity of

the changes. >> chair borden: thank you. with that, we're going to take public comment. just specifically on the train sit service update because it was such a very extensive item. then we'll go back to the director's report and have all the rest of the items and a separate public comment just on those items. if you are on the line at this moment and you like to respond to the director's transit service update for 2022 and the corresponding questions from board members, now is your opportunity to do so. if you on the line to speak press 1, 0. are there any callers on the line? first speaker. >> caller: my concern is that they have a pull restoration of

the service as early as possible. at the earliest possible day. according to the controller's report, there's no deficit in funding, you are fully funded and you can restore the service. i think that most people want that full restoration of service, including the three jackson line and the 47 line. we have to restore these services. right now, the 7th street doesn't have any transportation on it. that consist of business and professional services as well as residents. i should have the full restoration as soon as possible. there's no excuse for not doing so. thank you.

>> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: thank you. i will talk about service. i did hear mention, i'm appreciative of the j church, which is coming into the subway. that will make life much easier for me and people like myself where riding on thej church, we will maintain our seat for the entire trip in and out of the subway. i need to have those sideways facing seats. i think we can get our service back, getting new people hired and i think there are people out

there in the world who want to try buses and trains. i can't do it. not now. i would have done it 30 years ago. now the channels is opening up for more people. i think we can get this done and have more comprehensive service throughout the city. i depend on service, especially when it's cold and wet. i have to stand outside with an umbrella. i support more service. i thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: this is kathy. i like to thank the board for your decision to restore the j church to the subway. we look forward to collaborate with the citizen's advisory council to ensure that the implementation of the j subway

service is positive. thank you very much and happy new year. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: good afternoon, this is edward mason. regarding the 48 line that was not mentioned between about 7:30 to 8:45, 9:00 on the 48 westbound, the buses there completely crowded with school children. i'm little disappointed to see there's no relief on the 48 line, at least for that short period of time. regarding air circulation, i think we need to have a definition what air circulation is? is it the internal circulation of the air? is it open windows and then open

windows cold weather. there are so many vehicles that are not heated in this temperature. there are some operators that have the courtesy to in the passenger compartment. regarding hiring, more than defer before the covid, which probably goes back three or four years ago, at the policy on governance committee meeting, there were presentations made about the apprenticeship programs with the city college of san francisco. i think this board should have a review of when that program initiate end and the successes and failures of that program because the way it sounds now, we're starting back at square one in trying to hire the craft

trade. that concludes my comments. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: on the muni service changes. i note that metro service on sunday has typically been less than saturday. that sounds like she's proposing to provide the same level of service on sunday and saturday. there may be an opportunity to say it -- i can't remember now. i think a 15 might work on sunday. i need to look more carefully at the schedule. it may vary by route.

i'm just noting that metro service has not always been the same. it's typically been less on sundays and saturdays. on the 28th, the 28th needs ten minute service on weekdays and 12 minute services on weekend. to offset that, i don't believe the 28r in the summer should be return. i would restart that in august of '22. in my view, should have 20 minute service on weekday. i think 30 minutes it service is sufficient on nights and weekends. date on weekdays it's is more

important. i would cover the six route. that can be done now at no cost. you can flip the 37 and have the 66 operate to hayden masonic and cover ash berry heights. >> chair borden: next speaker please. [ indiscernible ]

>> chair borden: that's not now. that's under general public comment. i don't believe the director's report will be covering this item. we're on item number 7 now. if you don't mind calling back in when we get to nine. next speaker please. >> caller: my name is michael. i want to thank all of you for your hard work on planning and implementing the 2022 service plan. my comments are directed to the j line. i expected that the reduction in service frequency from the current 10 minute headway would be much more palatable to the j riders.

i would request that the m.t.a. prioritize the j. i would wondering if the m.t.a. board monitoring the progress of the next gen project and when the board expects to receive a report from the project manager at a board meeting in early 2022. if so, whether there's a date set for that particular meeting

where the report will receive. thank you very much. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: i'm just here to say -- [ indiscernible ]

sfmta transit is a government function and not business. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: good afternoon sfmta board. i want to thank you for your decision to restore the j church to the subway. it will make us a huge difference in my life to be able to ride to downtown as a senior. i am still hoping that you'll restore the 47 so i can go to trader joe's. i like to be an independent person, even though i am 75, i can go shopping at trader joe's if i can pick it up, the 47 at van ness and that it would

continue along to the caltrain and it will pass by the criminal courts. which people need to get to if they're on jury duty. i think you should consider the 47. the 49 gets pretty crowded. parallel would be great. also the 14, i have reservations taking it because it's awfully crowded at certain hours. thank you. >> chair borden: are there additional callers? with that, we'll close public comment. it will resume the director's report. before we do that, within the report, you had update on the 48? >> i wanted to add that in

addition to what we're implementing in february, march and june, we will also be addressing some minor crowding issues when we implement the operator general signup the third week in january. that will include more morning service on the 48 because of the crowding patterns. >> chair borden: thank you so much. we can move on to the rest of the director's report. >> director tumlin: thank you i like to add that the updated muni service map will include all operators that are operate in san francisco by route number and the two weeks ago, golden gate transit changed route system to communicate with the muni services. next topic is human resources.

on vision zero, we had two solo fatalities that's friday december 17th. investigations are currently still under way with rapid responses pending. these are keeping with the theme that we have seen throughout covid with high speed, solo vehicles crashing into a fixed object including motorcyclists who -- crashed into a fixed object and another motorist crashed into a light pole at high speed at oakdale and new hope. next topic is shared spaces. which has gotten lot of press. as you all know, this program was developed incredibly quickly

by the mayor's office knowing partnership with the san francisco fire department. the department of public works. we were under pressure to help merchants get to yes in order to save small businesses. we worked with the board of supervisors to get an ordinance approved to make the shared spaces permanent. to continue operating within the temporary pandemic program but providing more detailed design and operating regulations that would go into effect gradually. those operating regulations cover four really important criteria including providing access to people with disabilities both on the sidewalk alongside the shared space as well as the shared space itself. clearing out space to make bus stops work, providing access for

emergency personnel to get through the shared space in order to access buildings and stand pipes packed through ladders, get up medical gurneys and other equipment. for us here at the sfmta, daylighting, particularly on the high injury network. daylighting is really important for allow motorists and pedestrians to see each other at crosswalk and meet our vision zero compliments -- commitments. some of the parklets built was too close to crosswalk and don't allow for proper visibility. many businesses temporarily under utilized bus stops on transit routes operating. many of those bus lines are now coming back and those parklets need to be adjusted or moved. all of the departments together spent the last several months developing a new practice

reporting and tracking and shared cases and compliance cases. no citations are currently being issue the to the vast majority of shared spaces. public works and the san francisco fire department are the key enforcement agencies. they are focused on shared spaces that pose a significant risk to public health and safety. we know, however, that businesses need more time to be able to hire contractors and source supplies in order to make necessary changes. we are working very closely with the mayor's office and city department. as the mayor introduces new legislation to provide more time for businesses to adjust from temporary program and permanent program so we can have accessibility and fire safety and traffic safety and thriving small businesses all at the same time. the next topic is the

controller's report that was issued on december 16th. we are very happy with it. the controller's -- office confirms all the approaches to save jobs here at the agency. reducing costs and working really hard to secure additional funding. the controllers office points out over the last couple of weeks we've been very successful in closing our financial gap. thanks to the help of commissioner hillary ronen as well as others. we are getting an extra $30 million in funds from the metropolitan transportation commission. unexpectedly, the general fund and very importantly, the city's pension fund, performed enter the -- better than