>> president moran: please call the roll. [ roll call ] vice president ajami is excused today. you have a quorum. >> clerk: this meeting is held in-person at san francisco city hall room 400 as authorized by the california code.

all individuals attending the meeting in person today that our health and safety protocols must be adhered to at all. failure to adhere to the rules may result in your removal from the room. we appreciate your cooperation with these important rules and requirements in the interest of everyone's health and safety. hand sanitizer stations are available throughout the build and masks are available upon request. we welcome the public's participation during public comment period. the commission will take two minutes for public comment. members of the public may dial (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. 2497 390 5690 # #

press star 3 to speak. you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed unless you're speaking under general public comment. we ask that public comment be made in civil and respectful manner. on behalf of the cushion, -- commission i like to extend our thanks to sfgov tv staff for their assistance during this meeting. >> president moran: thank you. before calling the first item, i like to announce that the san francisco public utilities commission stewards of the territory of the hick federally recognized mission san jose of alameda county.

sfpuc recognizes that every citizen resizing in the greater bay area continues to benefit from the use and occupation tribe since and before and after the san francisco public utilities founding in 1932. it's not only important that we recognize the tribal land, we honor that ohloen people. >> clerk: thank you. your next item is item number 3, adopt renewed findings under state urgency legislation to allow hybrid in-person meeting during the covid-19 emergency and direct the commission secretary to agendize a similar

resolution at a commission meeting within the next 30 days. >> president moran: any comments from the commissioners? please open public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make public comment please press star 3 to raise your hand to speak. seeing none. do we have any speakers with hands raised? callers, please note this is for item number 3. you have two minutes. >> caller: i wanted to make a general comment during general comment period. not on this particular item. >> clerk: that will be called next. public comment comment on item 3 is closed. >> president moran: any further

discussion? could i have a motion and a second? >> move. >> president moran: roll call please. [roll call vote] you have three ayes. >> president moran: item passes. >> clerk: next item is 4. approval of the minutes of marc. >> president moran: any additions or corrections? seeing none. public comment please. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of remote public comment on item 4 approval of the minutes, please press star 3 to speak. mr. there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: public comment on item 4 is closed. >> president moran: any further discussion by the commission?

motion and second. >> move to approve. >> second. >> president moran: roll call please. [roll call vote] you have three ayes. >> president moran: the minutes are approved. >> clerk: next item 5, general public comment on matters within the commission's jurisdiction and not on today's agenda. members of the public who wish to make two minutes of general comment, please press star 3 to 3 toraise your hand to speak. any members in the room want to speak? seeing none. do we have any callers? >> there are seven callers in the queue.

>> caller: good afternoon commissioners. thank you for your time. i'm president an organization called california outdoors, out fitter association. i want to call and let you know that we recognize that things are changing. we look forward to working with your commission as we find ways to take care of your interest and the interest of the citizens of your city. we look forward to working with your staff as we navigate the next few years with the project that you folks want to operate. that's it. that's all i wanted to share with you. take care.

>> thank you for your comment. next caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: thank you. i hope you can hear me. as i talk about sfpuc today, i did spend little bit of time in san francisco. it was fine. it was like it was before. sfpuc touches me in my ways in san francisco because you provide water and electricity. as i continue to think about the importance of electricity, how do we in san francisco spread the word about the importance of

electricity and so that people can be enlightened in how to use it in a sufficient and cost effective way? not the limitless resource that comes out of the wall. how do we get the word out about sfpuc and what you do? i like to see the website little bit more streamline. i have to go through quite few clicks. i like to see something where i can click on an agenda and then click on one time and it brings up a pdf about the material. i'll talk about electricity

later during cleanpowersf. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. >> in your 2020 plan, there references to the potential for 49% rationing. while technically the math works. in reality such rationing is highly unlikely to occur. please consider not using it in your public settings. i put this figure in similar vain of socioeconomic studies which you stopped reporting. like roughly 50% rationing figure, the math can be understood but something different occurred.

the figure is base on the higher demand than today which is called an outside envelope of demand projections. lot of the event have to rely on 50% rationing figure to occur. we're in odd set of circumstances today despite our drop, we have 40 years of supply of water storage. it doesn't seem right for us to be mentioning 50% rationing when we're nowhere close to the water space. situation. while the 50% rationing reference was disappointing the pushing was -- please consider

avoid using referencing 50% rationing. i will be submitting full comments for the record. thank you and sorry for speaking so quickly. >> caller: good afternoon. i'm director of the tuolumne river trust. last year we asked you to consider making changes to the design drought in your urban water management plan. we weren't successful. now almost half a year has passed since the final workshop. you have yet to address the design drought. president moran directed staff to produce a timeline.

we haven't seen or heard anything yet. why. staff doesn't do things they don't want to do. for example, nine months ago, president moran requested an explanation difference between plan bay area and california department of finance projections. it was four times greater than those provided by the state. nothing happened on that. five months ago, the commissioner harrington requested updates on environmental metrics focusing on health of the tuolumne and nothing happened. we're still waiting. it used to be that we can request information from your staff and they'll provide it. january i submitted a request

for data staff used to use calculate rationing figures. we know staff cook the the books on demand. they used 238mgd when it's been less than 200 for the past seven years. staff denied my request citing so called attorney-client privilege. i now have a hearing scheduled with the sunshine ordinance task force. is this really what it come to? i'm sorry to be so blunt. nothing else seem to work. thank you for the opportunity to comment. >> caller: thank you very much. i'm morty, i own a white water rafting business in the stanislaus forest. we run our rafting on the tuolumne river much of the

summer. i wanted to say thank you very much for the last 30 years of cooperating with running the system in such a way that it benefits the white water boaters. this is the third year of the drought. in past droughts you've been able to run the power house upstream so it coincide with the daytime users of boating. i'm concerned about change of power demand of supplies coming from solar. i'm meeting with hetch hetchy staff april 21st to go over the summer projections of water from the river. i want you to know that again, i really appreciate your history of working with us. it's great for tuolumne county.

also have a hetch hetchy power line easement across my property. we are partners. thank you very much for your time. i look forward to future collaborations. >> next caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: good afternoon commissioners. thank you for having public comment and the important issue of flows in the tuolumne river. i'm a former deputy secretary of the california natural resources agency and also the main person when it comes to the campground for the tuolumne run. i will ask you to ask your staff to have a look at the slow schedule releases of the american river. the smug has cooperated closely with the white water community and came up with a release schedule that works for all

parties. it's a little harder in some ways in the tuolumne and easier and you control the system by yourself. you might want to mention the tribe up on the hetch hetchy area as well the ones in the bay area. they are also partners with you in the operating system. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. next caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: my name is therese. i'm the california stewardship director for american white water. american white water is a national river conservation organization founded in 1954. we have over 6750 members,

50,000 supporters and over 100 affiliates across america. our mission is to protect and restore america's white water resources and to enhance opportunities to enjoy them safely. thousands get the opportunity to enjoy iconic whitewater on the tuolumne river. i'm calling today to thank sfpuc and staff at hetch hetchy for working with the commercial out fitters to provide this beneficial use of the state's water. we look forward to the whitewater meeting coming up next week on the 21st. i'm also calling because american whitewater recognizes that changing energy are impacting your ability to provide whitewater reserves.

it is our hope that we can work with sfpuc and staff at hetch hetchy water and power to find solutions to address these impacts to whitewater releases. we want to find solutions that will benefit the city of san francisco the tuolumne river and commercial out fitters that depend on this. thank you for your time. >> next caller. >> caller: i'm cindy charles. i'm also a native of s.f. and still reside in the city. i fish the tuolumne river all my life. as i told you in my previous comments, the lower tuolumne in the worst shape ever with regard to trout and salmon population.

i want to ask about the commission's position concerning about the fight about the state water certification on the tuolumne river. the district has been fighting state water board to block regulations to protect water quality standards including the tuolumne river. on monday of this week, there were oral arguments before the court of appeals as the district continue to fight the certification on the tuolumne. the supreme court upheld the trump rule until a new regulation is created which will take an estimate of two years. the district used the trump rule to support their argument in fighting the water quality certification for this tuolumne. my question is, what does the sfpuc think about that? are you with the state or with trump? why is the sfpuc so subservient

to the irrigation district. those of us who have been working to protect the habitat and restore the fish population are getting tired and frustrated with the delays. it's been all talk and no action for years and years. please take some meaningful actions now to save the river which gives you so much. thanks. >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment is closed. >> president moran: next item is communications. commissioners any questions or comments on communication? seeing none. i have one on the advance calendar, the section on

outstanding commission request. third item down is a request from me which has been satisfied. that was not only for mr. richie providing the projections by various entities in the state that is considered part of our forecasting. that information satisfies my request. i will also like to make sure that was provided to the other commissions. thank you. any other comments on communications? seeing none. next item please. sorry, public comment. thank you. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes remote public comment on item 6 communications please

press star3 to speak. seeing none. do we have any callers? >> there's one call in the queue. you have two minutes. >> caller: thank you, again. as i talk about the cleanpowersf item that is in communication, lot of good things in this report. certainly going to re-read it. looks like we are making good progress on this work of building out our cleanpowersf so we can get more engaged. i asked that you continue to work with all parties involved when it comes to completing these renewable energy projects.

i'm very encouraged about the work that we're doing with storage. we talked a lot about storage. i think storage is a real big part of our future. we're seeing some delays in getting that battery work going. i think that certainly with your purchasing and engagement power, we can get moving along with it to get those battery more storage. i think it was in this report that i read something about municipalization. for us to take cleanpowersf to the next level, we'll involve making the sfpuc into a municipal utility district. we can control the delivery

aspect of getting the electricity to the people of the city and county of san francisco. thank you for this. i hope next time we have one of these reports -- [ indiscernible ] thank you. >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: public comment on item 6 is closed. >> president moran: thank you. next item. >> clerk: item 7, report of the general manager. >> thank you. first item is drought condition update from steve richie. >> good afternoon commissioners steve richie assistant general manager for water.

this is the regular drought update. this is a little bit dated now. it's about week and a half old. this is april 4th reservoir storage. it shows hetch hetchy 300,000-acre feet of storage. currently little bit more than 310,000-acre feet of storage. we had warm weather and runoff to bring water in the reservoir. storage is looking good. one of the things to note is that with the amount of snow up country, we're having to make sure we make releases from both cherry and hetch hetchy to make room for that. i think we're looking forward to the meeting with the rafters next week and talk about what the conditions will be. next slide shows other california reservoirs. i keep coming back to that upper left corner where reservoir only 38% of the capacity.

orville is only 48% of the capacity. those two major reservoirs in california. the california drought monitor. the picture isn't changing a lot. everything is in severe drought or extreme drought according to this figure. although our watersheds are in the lesser category of severe drought. on the hetch hetchy precipitation level, we actually have made sure that we've got enough more water than we got last year for the entire year from the storm earlier this week and later this week, we're expecting to get about one and a half to 2 inches of precipitation at hetch hetchy and cherry with each information of precipitation is equal to 8 to 10 inches of snow. we're getting snow in the high

country and cool conditions persist. snow pack is melting. as i noted we're getting runoff coming down. we still have a reasonable amount of snow up country that have to come down and melt. on the water available to the city, we started to have greater outflows and it's gotten to the point now what this diagram shows is 150,000 acres feet of water available to the city that is now come up to about 172,000-acre feet of water available to the city. we're doing relatively good. certainly compared to last year's level of 57,000-acre feet. which was a very small amount. the precipitation, again we're seeing some precipitation up country. this week, we've seen a little bit in the bay area as well. not a whole heck of a lot here locally. looking at the national precipitation forecast.

you can see that this week, which is the lower box there, does show there's going to be unsettled weather and bring it up to precipitation that i just talked about little bit earlier. real new information is actually not on this slide. this is the slide showing demands and it showed demand dropping down to about 181 million gallons per day in the last week in march. that helped pretty good. what we just saw last thursday which results for the first week of april. demand jumped 198 million gallons a day. very substantial increase in demand system wide. we need to make sure we're getting the message out. this is clearly a very severe drought. secondly, we'll make progress on it dealing with outdoor demands. that seems like lot of outdoor demands. we'll, pushing on that message

harder in the coming months. if we can keep demands below 200 million gallons a day throughout the summer, i think we'll be in good shape. we got to neighbor -- make sure we do that. overall drought tracker, we've been saving about 8% since july 1st of last year through end of march. for the periods from january 1st to march 31st this year, it's a little bit less. partly san francisco demands have increased which i think, i'm hopeful my own independent measure of economic activity that we're seeing demand increasing in the city. now for the last couple of slides. last monday march 28th, the governor did issue an executive order directing the state water board to adopt emergency regulations by may 25th that will impact san francisco and our customers in two areas.

one requires urban water suppliers to submit a draft assessment and shortage report to the state by june 1st. this is actually not very onerous. because a final report is due july 1st. sharing a draft with them a month early is not a big deal. i think that's a need for the state to try to feel like it's got a better handle on the overall picture going forward. the second item would require urban water suppliers to implement level two shortage response actions. up to 20% shortage. we're currently at level one where we're having 10% reduction. if we were to move to level two, level two actually ranges from 11% to 20%. right now i think we're going to be challenged meeting 10% system wide. that's partly because san

francisco has a residential water use of 42 gallons per person per day and wholesale customers has an average residential water use 63 gallons per person a day. these are well below the statewide average. the real progress if the state make it, we realize on southern california. we're looking forward to the draft whatever the state board puts out, potential impacts we see for retail customers. wouldn't be any difference if it's the 5% reduction level that we have identified back last november. for wholesale customers there might be minor increase of less than 1%. which frankly is little bit in the noise. we'll be evaluating allocations once the emergency regulations are adopted by the state board.

we expect to comment on them as we go forward. a requirement in the executive order, basically, it was kind offal statement by the governor that we could be looking at a third year drought so the governor was encouraging water agencies to voluntarily consider activating more stringent requirements based on the shortage level of up to 30%. i think he was loud and clear that if 20% isn't good enough, maybe the state needs to go to 30%. we'll see how that plays out. we need to see if we can get to 20%. also requires the state water board to ban irrigation of non-functional turf in commercial, industrial institutional sectors during

emergency. it would not require urban water suppliers to actually take action. we will be prepared to propose adoption of this prohibition. frankly it's hard for san francisco to find non-functional turf in commercial industrial institutional settings. our wholesale customers are may be more. one important thing that's not here is the use of recycled water for irrigation of non-functional turf. should that be included. the governor's executive order was silent on that matter. >> could you give me an example of non-functional turf? >> it will be like campus, office campus lawns that aren't used for picnicking or recreational purposes. they are just green space.

that will be an example. we had little conversation with city hall as do the grass areas outside the city hall, are they recreational or non-functional. we want to make sure we got a clear answer on that how we'll deal with that. do we find alternative water source to irrigate those areas. i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes remote public comment on item 8 drought conditions update. please press star 3 to speak.

seeing none, do we have any callers? >> there's one caller in the queue. >> caller: i wanted to comment on the drought conditions update. one of the slides titled water available to the city. right now, today, sfpuc is entitle to any runoff above 2400. very soon, possibly even tomorrow the cutoff increases to 4000c.f.f. until mid-june. has this recent runoff come next week instead when it did, we

would have lost most of it. it would have been ended up belonging to the irrigation districts. however according to the long-term vulnerability assessment, we're likely to see runoff come earlier, which is going to benefit the sfpuc. if there's a three-week shift, whatever comes in the next three weeks would be in that range where you get anything above 2400 c.f.f. long-term vulnerability assessment shows runoff will come early. we looked at the actual runoff data that make up the design drought and found that runoff came three weeks earlier that sfpuc will pick up enough water in the last year. which is good news. we know we're right because staff hasn't challenged us. at this point, silence is

consent. again, we ask remove one year from the design drought. you will still have by far the more conservative planning in it state. thank you very much. >> clerk: do we have any more callers? >> there are no more callers. >> clerk: item 7d is financial report. >> good afternoon. i'm deputy achieve financial

officer. i'm here today to present the fiscal year 2021 annual comprehensive final report and popular annual financial report. sfpuc issued its fiscal year financial report on february 25th of this year. report includes a transmittal letter from our general manager highlighting the activities and audited consolidated financial statements of our three enterprises and it includes a section detailing of financial trends, metrics and local demographics and economic information. for the consolidated sfpuc financial statement, kpmg issued an opinion and noted no material misstates or control deficiencies. this report is developed by the financial reporting analysis by financial services. at the same time, we also issued our fiscal year 2021 popular

annual financial report. this report is prepared by the same financial reporting analysis and the project management team in close partnership with the communications division of external affairs. the report is designed to be accessible to the general public and any parties without a background in public or finance. sfpuc's report theme was to respond, recover and reimagine. we continue to safely provide access to clean drinking water, protecting public health through the wastewater covid monitoring. we encourage everyone to read the report and share feedback. lastly, the government finance officer association has awarded sfpuc the achievement award for the popular annual financial report every year since 2010.

the certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reporting for by the annual comprehensive financial report every year since 2009. these awards acknowledged organizations's excellence in requirements for these requirements and producing high quality product for public use. sfpuc is only department in the city and county of san francisco that issues a comprehensive financial report and popular annual financial report. we're honor to receive these accolades and award every year. we thank the team and communications division for their commitment to excellence. this concludes our presentation. i'm glad to answer any questions. >> commissioner maxwell: congrat ulations thank you for the good work. >> thank you, it takes a village. >> clerk: members of the public

who wish to make public comment on item 7b press star three to speak. seeing none. do we have any callers? >> there are no callers wishing to be recognized. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item 7b is closed. next item is item 7c, upper islas creek watershed update. >> before you ask to come up, you missed if there was any commission questions and discussion on that item. >> president moran: are there any further questions?

>> good afternoon commissioners. great to be back in person. happy to see everybody. my name is sarah minick. i'm here with my colleague steve robinson today director of wastewater capital to give you all an update on the upper islas creek watershed plan alternative. today we're going to give you a brief update on the progress that we've made on our multi-benefit watershed planning approach to managing flooding in the alemany corridor. first, i want to ground

ourselves back in the space. this map shows the flooding extent in the five-year storm. at the base of upper islas creek watershed. this is the flooding challenge we're trying to solve. you will recall that when the project team came before this body for engineering services for the pipe project, you asked us to pause and consider a multi-benefit at that time. then convened green infrastructure workshop last april where we received useful feedback from all of you and colleagues from across the nation. our high level takeaways from that -- the feedback that we got

which is summarized here, let's step back and think big about the problem, plays a long game. really to change course if it does make sense to do so. this pross is really required us to think differently than we normally would. we normally take an engineering lens and that is very important. we will do that here as well. however, we're adding that city planning lens and public policy lenses, to pose the question since we are investing $289 million to solve the problem, would it possible to deliver more long-term flood resilient benefits so san franciscans can see in their daily lives in the neighborhood?

just as a reminder both projects are moving forward at the same time. we have pipe project at 10% design, we have watershed approach at planning and evaluation stage. today's update is about the watershed approach. the benefits of the watershed approach are really about the incrementalism. transforming the surface of our city would allow us to deliver benefits on the surface of the landscape incrementally over time. to provide a higher quality public realm at the same time that we are delivering our core service of managing storm water. we also know that once a pipe is cited and built, the performance is set. it's a very important part of our system. what we want to do is adapt on

top of that over time as climate change happens over time. then finally, we know that when we're adopting on the surface of the city, we need to engage stakeholders. these changes will influence their neighborhood and what they see on a daily basis unlike our other infrastructure which is more hidden. we've been very busy since we last got direction from you all. we've established an interdepartmental, interdisciplinary team. we completed studies, hydraulic modeling and we've begun to learn more from community members about challenges that they are facing. our spatial analysis has shown that the flood stept and the five-year storm is one tenth of 1% of the area served by our combined sewer. almost 80% of the problem that we are solving is to take water off of the right-of-way.

can we solve that problem while improving the watershed in ways people see and feel. our evaluation so far showed that the answer is yes. there is more than one way to do it. we are just in the idea phase now. i like to share the approaches that we've modeled. the approach is to soak up storm water in the upper watershed and use flood resilience measures to protect sidewalks down stream. we see that if we managed about 200 acres using green infrastructure by retrofitting large parcels, we can shave off about 20% of our total goal. that's to soak it up scenario that we've modeled so far.

then we've looked at five different storage opportunities and just sharing one today if we create 4 million-gallon storage facility in the middle of the watershed. we shave off another 60% from our total. we're still left with 20% down stream in very important flood area. this is where a street redesign would keep the remaining 20% of flows away from property, sidewalks and neighborhood streets while delivering a better public realm. the protect zone, which is where residents and businesses are most vulnerable to flooding is very important. because not only is it burdened by flooding but this is also where the environmental justice burden is highest in our watershed area. our specific outreach reveals this is a very diverse

multigenerational neighborhood living in diverse and denses housing next to where the flooding occur. if we want to deliver multiple benefits we need to learn from residents what what see as opportunities. in the protect zone, we sent over 300 letters and we've conducted in-person door-to-door surveys and coordinated with community-based organizations to learn from residents. we provided materials and received feedback in chinese, vietnamese, english and spanish. we found that noise, air quality, flooding, pedestrian bike safety and access are top concerns from what we've heard so far. we need more to get a better sample size. these are issues that can drive a multi-benefit design solution. with all of that in mind, we're looking at the corridor as it

exists today. then coming up with a configuration that achieve the goal of managing storm water while improving the public realm. we've envisioned a neighborhood street that's protected against flooding and separated from loud and fast moving it nature by a nature-based solution. even though this is a new idea in the utility space, it's a very old idea in transportation. here are some iconic boulevards in san francisco. the innovation here is to make this a storm water boulevard and that can deliver multiple services to san franciscans. this approach will require us to explore new way of doing business. we would have to integrate flood resilience into the public realm with city partners. we invited team meets to vet,

evaluate and contribute to ideas. we'd be directing water safely through our city in ways that can contribute to flood resilient neighborhoods. now i will pass it over to my partner steve. >> thank you. steve robinson director of wastewater capital improvement program. we want to conclude with a reminder with the alternative parallel approach up. heard about the watershed approach that sarah mentioned. the pipe traditional tunnel solution is being designed. it's at 10% stage. sarah mentioned we had the workshop in april and in july we had authorized contract to

proceed. few factoids about the project, you can see the timeline here. i'm currently on schedule to work through final engineering report in december of this year. next steps really for the whole effort integrated with sarah's work. with that, i think sarah and i are happy to take any questions. >> president moran: thank you, steve. commissioner maxwell? >> commissioner maxwell: thank you for your work. really appreciate the parallel track you're on. could you give me ton of idea. i know the lower alemany, can you give me streets? i go that route but i'm not sure

where? >> middle of the alemany corridor where the most flooding occurs where base folsom of alemany. for context, st. mary's park is on the west and alemany farmers market is on the east there before you get to the freeway and then the industrial space is on the other side which are more in the bayview are also part of the area of concern that we're looking at. >> commissioner maxwell: i look at -- i saw the pictures. i wasn't sure -- i guess the room that you have in some of those areas to do -- i guess you wouldn't do it in every area. there are some areas that are more conducive to that. are those the lower or upper?

>> terms of amount of space. for the green infrastructure in the upper watershed we're working with m.t.a. to do an analysis with their capital planning so we're working in the right-of-way together. in lower alemany that will be the most disruptive complex and time consuming. we have city right-of-way and caltrans. we do have space. those sections are two scale that you saw. we didn't remove any traffic lanes. we did look at other configurations that would reduce traffic lanes. this one seems more practicallable. there's space but it involves reconfiguring that entire public realm. >> commissioner maxwell: pretty dense in there. that housing around that area

would really benefit. >> yes, the public housing and the apartments an condos, we did get some good response from the survey responses that you saw from from those residents in that most impacted stretch there. >> commissioner maxwell: we're not dealing with the farmers market? >> correct. at this moment, we have outreach to them. we are looking at configurations that leave the upper part of the farmers market but may encroach on the bottom third to let the storm water pass through. >> commissioner maxwell: thank you. >> commissioner paulson: thanks for that presentation. it was as a system, it was pretty impressive to see this all bundled up the way you presented it. three corridors through the flow and whatever else.

very impressive to see this. i had one question. i want to reference commissioner maxwell. i also live within realm of that neighborhood and experienced so much of what it means from it farmers market to the housing. i had one question. that is you mentioned one facet, one tool was to reach out to the residents to get input about if my house will blow away and what about bicycling. what method did you use to reach out to folks and what the target is? i know this has been -- i'm saying this because this is pretty impressive to see this all laid out in this system. what were the tools that you used for outreach?

that's always important for any infrastructure. [ please stand by ]

food pantry days and make sure we coordinated with the events to make sure we heard from those folks. that's where we are so far, but we would like to do additional workshops to get deeper into the information. >> that sounds good, but you had staff with clip boards knocking on selected doors and with p.u.c. vests on or whatever the heck it was. >> yes. >> okay, thanks. >> >> president moran: thank you. any more questions or comments. thank you very much. let's open up for public comment. >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of remote public comment on item c, press star 3 to raise your hand

to speak. do we have members of the public present who wish to address this item? seeing none, do we have any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. public comment on item 7c is closed. >> president moran: thank you. mr. general manager. >> that concludes my report. >> president moran: thank you. next item. >> next item is item 8, new commission business. >> president moran: seeing none, next item, please. >> next item is the consent calendar. >> president moran: commissioners, any items you would like removed from the calendar, the consent calendar?

do we have any members of the public present wishing to address the item? seeing none, mr. moderator, any callers? >> there are no callers. >> thank you. public comment on item 9 is closed. >> motion to approve. >> president moran: motion, seconded to approve? roll call, please. >> president moran: aye. >> commissioner maxwell: aye. >> commissioner paulson: aye. >> you have three ayes. >> president moran: and the consent item is adopted. next item. >> next item is item 10, approve amendment number 1 to contract number cs249, increasing the contract by $7.7 million and increasing the contract duration by three years for not not to exceed contract amount of $28.7

million and a total contract duration of 13 years. >> hello, can you please pull up the slides, sfgovtv. hello, good afternoon, commissioners, i'm the project manager for s.f. p.u.c. for the mountain tunnel project. today i'll be presenting with the city s.f. p.u.c. engineer, the project engineer. and today i am here to request approval for amendment number 1, for professional services, contract, cs249. amendment one will add $7.78 million and increase the time duration of the contract by three years for a total not to exceed contract amount of $28.78 million. and a total contract duration of

13 years. to provide specialized engineering services for the mountain tunnel improvements project. this amendment number one will continue to provide the necessary funding for engineering support during construction to complete the construction phase and for project closeout from the mountain tunnel improvement project. i think at this time it would be beneficial if i gave a quick overview of the project so everybody can understand the scope of the work. this is large dollar amount. this is an overview of the hetch hetchy regional water system and showing the location of the mountain tunnel project with the large red arrow. the water system conveys water to 2.8 million residents and businesses over four counties and generates around 1.6 billion kilowatt hours of clean hydroelectric power annually. the mountain tunnel is a

critical component of the system. the mountain tunnel is over 90 years old and is being rehabilitated. this slide is showing most of the project scope of work. there is a few pieces that we haven't shown in here, but this gives the major guts of the work going on. starting at the priest reservoir just above the moccasin reservoir, it's a regulating reservoir and moccasin pin stocks come down from that into moccasin reservoir. at the priest site we are presently constructing a new flow facility. it is 150-foot deep shaft. it's a very large wide deep shaft. the shaft being constructed

presently and we have approached the 100-foot depth on that large shaft. two bypass tunnels will be constructed and tied into the existing tunnel during one of the outages. mechanical and electrical equipment will be placed in the bottom of the shaft to give flow. also, little bit upstream from the new flow control, a 1074-foot long access tunnel is being constructed. this tunnel we're presently in 300-foot depth on the excavation and that added tunnel will be tied in during the same outage as we tie in the tunnel of the shaft. the red and green, we're going to be rehabilitating the inside of the tunnel, repairing the

tunnel lining defects and doing contact grouting between the lining and the existing rock to fill in all the voids so we get a solid surface. when that tunnel is full of water, so we can sustain all the pressures of tunnel. that will take place for seven miles. there were interim projects that repaired the larger defects. we're going to go in and repair all the remaining defects. we'll be putting in a mile-long tunnel invert to make a smooth transition between the unline tunnel and the line tunnel. the tunnel was 18 miles long. 11 miles is lined and 7.9 miles is unlined in solid granite rock. but a lot of those rock pieces have come off over time and there is existing rock debris inside the tunnel.

so from 5-6 will be a massive rock debris cleaning out the tunnel. at south fork to improve the water quality and provide better hydraulic flow under the tuolumne river, it's a 8-foot diameter shaft, doing a syphon extension that will tie into the existing mountain tunnel. that's all underground mining work and a very difficult location down at the bottom of the south fork road. in addition to all of that work, all the inside work and all the work tying into the tunnel, we have approximately five miles of roadway work. and this roadway work is for the access roads that are being used for the ongoing construction and

that will be used for the -- all the maintenance for the next hundred years of this tunnel's operation. and this roadway work includes rock stabilization, rock removal in rock fall protection. road widenings, getting them to a wider width for the construction traffic. turnout areas to facilitate the construction passing with their large vehicles. retaining walls, better drainage and resurfaresurfacing. this is just a quick overview of the contract. the construction schedule. it's a six-year construction schedule with all inside tunnel work and tie-in work, the bypass tunnels and the south fork syphon and the new addity, that will be taking place during the

outages. we recently completed outage number one and we're moving to prepare for outage number 2. the water is turned off in the tunnel and we have full access for 600 days to 1 -- 60 days to 100 days. this is the overview of the tunnel budget. the first three phases are completed. the planning, environmental and design and we're left with two phases, construction management and construction. for construction management we're about 15% spent of the budget and construction, we're about 17% spent of the budget. timelines were at 19%. so it gives you an idea of where we are now in the project. and overall, we are 25% spent of the entire mountain tunnel

budget. at this time i'd like to turn it over to joe just to describe the reasons why we're asking for this modification. >> hello, good afternoon. i'm the project engineer for the mountain tunnel improvement. i'm going to speak on a few points why this contract modification is required. so on october 27, 2017, the commission awarded contract number cs249 for the planning and design services for mountain tunnel improvement. the scope of work and budget were for planning and design of a new bypass tunnel, however, during the analysis planning phase completed in october 2017, the selected alternative was a turn am rehabilitation as described by mr. anderson. that came with the cost savings of $370 million. subsequently the scope of services required for

engineering support during construction has increased due to the much more complex location-specific work scope for tunnel rehabilitation project, including adit road improvements, relocation and a flow control facility. so in summary, the budget increase and schedule extension requested is to support this additional work and extended contract duration. the next steps we're seeking commission approval for the contract amendment to increase budget and extend the schedule and then we seek subsequent approval by the board of supervisors. so this concludes our presentation and mr. anderson and i would be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> president moran: thank you. >> commissioner maxwell: you mentioned that at the end of this -- not the tunnel -- i think it was 100 feet down, there is going to be mechanical equipment down there? >> right now -- i'm sorry, are

you finished? we're in drill and blast right now for all the remaining excavation for the shaft and for the bypass tunnels. we're in pretty hard rock. the top 50 feet or so was mechanical excavation. it was somewhat softer rock. >> commissioner maxwell: so, i thought you meant there was going to be at the bottom of the shaft mechanical equipment. >> yes. at the bottom of the shaft will be all the control valves, large diameter control valves, that they'll be able to control the flow. it's not controlled right now. they can fill up the tunnel and keep it full of water if that's what they desire and then release the water out in a controlled manner into priest reservoir. >> the valves won't be submerged in water? >> no, no, no.

no, the valves will be at the bottom of the shaft. there is waterproof -- >> commissioner maxwell: good. i was wondering. how are they going to get in and repair this if they need to? i hear you talk about access. >> that's a great question. this is a large diameter shaft and the reason they sized it to this diameter so they have access in the future to get equipment on. it will have steel beams on top and a roof over the shaft and they'll be able to put a crane up there and lift equipment out if needed. >> commissioner maxwell: all right. and this equipment is supposed to last initially how long? >> well, the design life is 100 years. you know, the equipment will probably need replacement in a sooner time frame than that. probably in a 30-year interval

for the mechanical equipment, but the design that we're going to achieve from the tunnel rehabilitation is 100 years. >> commissioner maxwell: so i'm sure there is technical and it can be monitored from anywhere, right? >> yeah. >> commissioner maxwell: because of the -- well, this is so exciting. and i'm going to say this. i want to be as a second shutdown. i really do. i want to see that. that's an amazing -- it really is. i'm so excited that we're doing it and you decided to rehab. i know it's a big job, but it's an amazing job. you must have learned an awful lot. i mean, it's just really something. >> and i'd like to tell you, we would have liked everyone there for the first shutdown and we did a virtual tour with sfgovtv and we're presently putting together four videos and you'll see the although lot of the work

-- a lot of the work that is taking place. we'd like to present that. >> commissioner maxwell: that would be fine, i want to do the video, but i want to see it. this is historical to me. this is really special. so i just appreciate the work. i know it's difficult and we see when they were building hetch hetchy and we're all marvelling, well, this is something like the same thing. so, again, thank everybody for their work and i hate to use the word exciting because i know it sounds different, but it is, it really is. >> it's a legacy project and joe and i are thrilled to work on it for the city and county. >> commissioner maxwell: thank you. >> president moran: there is nothing like being there to really get the sense of it, that there is no video that can give you the sense of scale and the forces that are involved that

you get from actually being there on site. so i think that's very valuable option to provide the commissioners. and it's a challenge. you talk about it being a challenging location. it is. so being able to do that in a way that is safe and appropriate, it's not just a tourist attraction, it's a work site, so we need to take care of those issues, but if there is way to do it appropriately, i think there is real value in doing that. thank you. any other questions? -- on this item? thank you, both. public comment, please. >> thank you. >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of remote public comment specifically on item 10, press star 3 to raise your hand to speak. would any members of the public

present wish to address this item is this -- this item? seeing none, mr. moderator, any callers. >> there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you, public comment on item 10 is closed. >> thank you. any additional questions? seeing none, could i have a motion and a second? moved and seconded. roll call. >> president moran: aye. >> commissioner maxwell: aye. >> commissioner paulson: aye. >> you have three ayes. >> and the item passes. next item. >> item 11, approve an increase of $500,000 to the contract account contingency and increase of 300 calendar days to the contract duration contingency for contract number wd2797 and authorize the general manager to approve future modifications to the contract for the amount of $18.1 million and a total

contract duration of up to 1334 consecutive calendar days. >> good afternoon, commissioners. project manager, infrastructure division. can i have the slide deck, please? the item before you is requesting your approval to increase the contract cost and duration contingencies for contract wd2797, san francisco westside recycled water pump station and reservoir. today's presentation will provide a brief overview of the west side recycle project and its objectives, the status of the various construction contracts and discuss the issues impacting contract wd2797 and i'll conclude with a summary of our request. the p.u.c. water improvement program passed in 2008 had several goals of the upgrade of the water infrastructure system.

including improving seismic and delivery reliability, maintaining high water quality and enhancing sustainability. it also had a water supply goal for sfpuc to meet water needs in drought and non-drought conditions. one of the strategies to meet this goal was to diversify the city's water supply by increasing the use of new water resources, including recycled water for non-potable uses, ground water and increasing its conservation efforts. the west side recycled water project is a key component in meeting this commitment. funding for the project is through a combination of water enterprise funds and the capital plan and the project has state revolving fund loan and grant. the west side project will produce 1.6 million gallons per day of recycled water from the

affluent of its oceanside plant to be used on the west side of the city. it includes golden gate park and the pan handing and the lincoln park golf course. we're working to add additional customers including the san francisco zoo, sunset boulevard and lower great highway median and the presidio golf course is also a potential customer. the west side recycled water project is constructed through four construction contracts. contract wd2798 constructed almost eight miles of pipeline connecting the treatment plant with the oceanside plant to the new reservoir in golden gate park and to the end customers. this contract was completed in 2018. contract wd2776 is constructing the new recycled water facility

at our oceanside plant. this is in the final phase of its construction. completion is anticipated in late summer of 20223. contract wd5284 is modifying the irrigation system so they are compliant with recycled water regulation. this is also nearing completion and is expected to be completed in summer of 2022. finally, contract wd2798 is constructing the pump station in golden gate park and its completion is delayed until early 2023. the facility in golden gate park includes the construction of an 840,000 gallon buried reservoir and above ground pump station that will deliver recycled water to the lincoln park golf course

in the future to the presidio golf course. this contract was initiated in july of 2018. the contract has experienced delays and continues to experience construction delays related to reduced productivity and material delivery delay associated with the pandemic and its impact on the supply chains. in the fall of 2022, in the late stages of construction, the project was notified by pg&e that it could not provide power per our design further hampering the project schedule. the agenda item before you today is requesting the approval of an additional $500,000 in construction costs and 300 calendar days in contingency.

the installation of interim power supply to serve minor house loads such as lighting, security and critical instruments while we work on our power service issues with pg&e and it will address ongoing delays related to material delivery procurement. if we are required to change the power service for the facility, there will be a future formal contract to construct that work. that concludes my presentation. >> president moran: okay, thank you. any questions? -- or comments on this item? >> commissioner maxwell: [indiscernible] -- -- the facility -- we have the facility -- the wastewater

facility on, you know, out near the zoo. so there is no -- there is no synergy there, there is no way that that can happen. >> no, the facility in question is the pump station in golden gate park. they're separated by three or four miles. >> commissioner maxwell: hmm. >> so it required a new power service. >> commissioner maxwell: okay, thank you. >> president moran: one question. how functional is the system as a whole without the pump station being functional? >> so without the pump station, we won't be able to serve lincoln park golf course. but the treatment plant will be up and running and we'll be able to serve golden gate park which is the bulk of the 1.6 million gallons per day is golden gate park. >> president moran: thank you. >> commissioner paulson: i know it wasn't directly addressed,

but this is just a comment, not a question that i'm seeing some code in there for the fact that part of the cost of this as well as possible future costs is complication with access to power by way of pg&e and i'm just making a note that's what i heard in the presentation. >> if i might, mr. president, we've alluded to the -- this is a very high priority issue and we have initiated negotiations and conversations with pg&e because this is a little bit, um, let's just say the position they're taking now is contrary to the position they had taken before. and this is part of our ongoing conversation with them and discussion related to some other things and delays that we've seen on other projects and we've let them know that this is a very, very high priority for us. so we have our full attention on that.

>> thank you. >> president moran: not seeing any other comments, let's open up for public comment. >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of remote public comment specifically on item 11 please press star 3 to raise your hand to speak. any members of the public present who wish to address this item? seeing none, do we have any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you, public comment on item 11 is closed. >> president moran: okay. any other comments? a motion and a second, please. motion seconded, roll call. >> president moran: aye. >> commissioner maxwell: aye. >> commissioner paulson: aye. >> we have three ayes. >> president moran: the item passes. thank you. next item. >> item 12, i prove the project

participation and share agreement, the buyer liability pass-through agreement and the coordinated operations agreement and authorize the general manager to execute the agreements with a total cost not to exceed $60 million for a term of 20 years and authorize a general manager to seek approval from the board of supervisors to execute the agreement. the agenda item published referenced $45 million and it should be $60 million, but the resolution does correctly reflect $60 million. >> president moran: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the deputy manager for power responsible for the cleanpowersf program. it's a pleasure to be here before you today in person. my first time since the pandemic started. we have before you for your approval three agreements that

would allow cleanpowersf to participate in the goal line project. as the commission secretary just mentioned, there is a typo in the agenda item summary referring to not to exceed cost of $45 million. i wanted to reiterate that the value should be $60 million as stated in the resolution. i do have some slides. as we've discussed at previous commission meetings, last summer, the california public utilities commission ordered cleanpowersf and other power providers under its jurisdiction to procure long duration storage resources to support statewide electric reliability. cleanpowersf participated in a request for offer for long duration storage as a member of california community power. cleanpowersf's participation in

the first long duration energy storage project, the tumbleweed project was approved by this commission on february 22nd. the board of supervisors on march 22 and the mayor on march 31. on february 25, california community power approved its second long duration community storage project goal line. california community power member agencies are now seeking approval from their governing bodies to participate in this project. with the approval of the goal line project cleanpowersf will be able to comply with the cpuc procurement order. there is background information on california community power. the new agency that we have joined and we presented here before the commission and the board of supervisors approved cleanpowersf membership last

year and cleanpowersf became a member in april of 2021. california community power conducts its business according to brown act meeting requirements. these are the current 10 members of california community power. membership includes all of the bay area, community choice, aggregation programs, plus programs surveying the north and central coasts of california and the sacramento valley near the city of davis. and here's an overview of the goal line project. the developer on ward energy will finance, construct, own and operate the project. goal line will be a 50 megawatt lithium ion battery capable of storing 400 megawatt hours and discharging that energy over an

eight-hour period. it will be located near escondido, california. this will meet the cpuc requirements to procure statewide reliability. the specific location demonstrated high energy market value in california community power's evaluation process. the goal line project is committed to building its project in full compliance with the wage requirements and using a project labor agreement for the construction of the facility. on ward energy is guaranteeing a commercial operation date for the plant of june 1, 2025 with a purchase term of 15 years from the start of the project's operations. as i noted earlier, the project cost is not to exceed $60 million over the term of the agreement. again, with payments not

commencing until the project reaches its operations. combined, the tumbleweed project and the goal line project will allow them to comply with the order. together, they'll provide cleanpowersf with 17.1 megawatts of net qualifying capacity or about 1.6 megawatts more of what was ordered of cleanpowersf. net qualifying capacity is the amount of power an electric resource can provide to the grid when it is most constrained. that can be counted towards meeting the cpuc adequacy requirements. staff believe that the additional 1.6 megawatts of capacity gives cleanpowersf an appropriate buffer to protect against regulatory changes that might reduce the net qualifying capacity of these projects and

put cleanpowersf's compliance at risk. the agreement structure is the same as approved in february. there are three documents we're seeking your approval to execute. those agreements are noted on the slides here with the numbers 1, 2, and 3. number 1 is the coordinated operations agreement. number 2 is the project participation share agreement. and number 3 is the buyer liability pass through agreement. to receive approval and execute their required agreements. if approved by this commission, staff will seek board of supervisors' and mayoral approval later this month and early in may.

and with that, i'm happy to take any questions you may have about this item. >> president moran: thank you very much. >> commissioner maxwell: thank you. i believe also you mentioned -- well, in the workforce requirements that was collective bargaining agreements and community workforce agreement. >> that's correct. that is the language that is within the contract, those terms. >> commissioner maxwell: which i think is extremely important you mention community because that's the local and that means they're participating in that and that's very good and helpful. so i think it's important to mention that as well as all the other ones because that means you all are working with community. >> understood, thank you. >> commissioner maxwell: also, have you learned anything -- were there any lessons learned from the first storage project? >> well, the -- the first storage project hasn't yet begun construction -- >> commissioner maxwell: okay. >> and actually this one will be

done before that one, so sequentially, really, the reason why this project is coming to you now is really a result of the pace of negotiations. so we're about four weeks after -- a little bit more than four weeks, maybe eight weeks after we brought to you the last project. and to be clear, too, these projects were bid into the same solicitation. >> commissioner maxwell: i see. and i'm sure there are other ccas around the country. yes, no? >> there are some. electric regulations are highly driven by states. so it's not a model that exists in every state or even most states, but it does exist in a number of them. massachusetts being one example. >> commissioner maxwell: have you all had an opportunity to engage and talk with them about

-- since this is our first entrance into this, have you had an opportunity to talk to them about some dos and don'ts, or just experiences? >> yeah, that's a great question. yeah, when we started work to launch cleanpowersf, we absolutely did. the interesting thing about this moment in time is that we're actually probably leaders in the country now in developing -- in pursuing and procuring projects like this. now we absolutely will share our experience and information with other states and also learn as they gain their experiences, but the state of california is really on the leading edge as far as greening our grid and making investments like this, which are really intended to reduce our dependence on fossil

fuel. >> commissioner maxwell: thank you. it's good to hear. thank you. >> president moran: any other questions? thank you. let's open up for public comment. >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of remote public comment specifically on item 12, please press star 3 to raise your hand to speak. do we have any members of the public present who wish to address this item? seeing none, do we have any callers? >> there are two callers in the queue. first caller, i've opened your line. you have two minutes. >> thank you. [indiscernible] i've been talking about -- i can't call myself an expert on this kind of storage, but i've been using batteries for decades and this is just a bigger version of what i'm using here

at home. i think this is the beginning, hopefully it's just the beginning, because the possibilities of storage are great. and i hope that once you get both of these completed sooner rather than later [indiscernible] finding this -- forget that role. as i said many times, california, there is the infamous curve of which power demand spikes greatly in the afternoons and only for a short time. so storage can allow us to capture the renewable energy that is often being curtailed only to have a run more fossil fuel generators to meet the curve. this will help to level the day.

i think you should sign this and more of this so you can have a cleaner, greener and more affordable san francisco. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, your line is open, you have two minutes. >> thank you. this does look like a promising project and while i was listening to it, i was thinking back to the commenter during public communication were talking about the rafting flows and the challenge that oftentimes were generating hydropower for sale are not necessarily with the rafting flows. this seems like a great opportunity for san francisco to look into its own project where energy could be hydropower energy could be released at the

time, so that's basically in the morning and that energy stored and sold at a time when it's more valuable. i think it's a really good potential win-win here. i used to guide the tuolumne and people come up and spend the night, eat out and enjoy the amenities and it's very important. so that stretch of the tuolumne is wild and scenic in large part because of its recreational valley. and without the flow, it loses that value. so perhaps that something p.u.c. could think about is adopting this technology locally to the hetch hetchy system. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you, public comment on item 12 is closed.

>> president moran: thank you. commissioners, any additional comments or questions? seeing none, motion and a second, please. motion seconded. roll call. >> president moran: aye. >> commissioner maxwell: aye. >> commissioner paulson: aye. >> you have three ayes. >> president moran: thank you. item 12 passes. next item. >> item 13, adopt findings declaring a surplus to the san francisco public utilities commission's utility needs approximately 10,000 square feet of real property designated as portions of assessor number 10, 104-28-066 in the city of sunnyvale, santa clara. >> i have a couple of things to add to the description in the title. one is that we're selling it to santa clara water district and therefore we're exempt from the surplus lands act. we're selling it for $33,000. i'd be glad to answer any

questions. >> president moran: thank you. commissioners, any questions? seeing none, thank you, mr. carlin. public comment, please. >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes of remote public comment on item 13, press star 3 to raise your hand to speak. do we have any members of the public who wish to address item 13? seeing none, do we have any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you, public comment on item 13 is closed. >> president moran: thank you. additional comments or questions? motion and a second? moved and seconded. roll call. >> president moran: aye. >> commissioner maxwell: aye. >> commissioner paulson: aye. you have three ayes. >> president moran: and item 13 passes. next item. >> mr. president, i'm going to

call items 14 and 15 together. 14 is authorize the issuance of up to $950 million of the 2022 series abcd taxable water revenue bonds and item 15 authorize the issuance of up to $475 million of the 2022 series ab tax exempt wastewater refunding bonds. >> president moran: thank you. >> good afternoon, president. commissioners. deputy c.f.o. these two items before you today request your approval of a bond refinancing for each of our water and wastewater enterprises. commissioners, we regularly look at opportunities for refunding our bonds, especially when lower rates present themselves. and we've done this several times over the past few years. most recently in 2020 with the water enterprise. if i could have the slides, please.

i'll spend a few moments talking about the transactions before you. i'll spend a little time with the water transaction and the wastewater transactions will follow that. i'll go over the plan of finance which provides a little bit of detail around the sale transaction itself. and then some disclosure q&a which is fairly standard with these types of transactions. so for the water refunding, we have several bond series we are considering for refund, upwards of $950 million of bonds are open for refund opportunities across four different series of bonds. commissioners, we issue water bonds based on the asset category and the location, that's why you see the four different series here. so we have a water system

improvement bonds, our regional water bonds, our hetchy water and then our local water bonds. the bonds will be issued taxable as this is an advance refunding which basically means it's being done before the standard 10 years of time has passed. and so that's what's called an advance refunding. i'll talk a little bit about a regular refunding and wastewater enterprise in a moment. we want to take advantage and do advance refundings when interest rates are very low. our aim, of course, is to maximize the savings. when we do these refinancing we're aiming for refunding target of $23 million with this refunding transaction. however, interest rates have bumped up as you heard in the

news, but the bottom line we'll aim to achieve 3% savings for the ratepayers and all of this is outlined in our debt management policies. also, commissioners, we include changes to our indenture within these transactions and the indenture just to remind you is a document that governs the issuance and repayment of our bonds for each enterprise. so, we are proposing some relatively minor changes in definitions, streamlining how debt service is calculated and our goal is to make these details consistent across our three enterprises, water, wastewater and power. so the changes we are proposing will become effective once 51% of the outstanding bonds have the provisions associated with it.

so what that means is over the next few years, we will include those same provisions in future refunding bonds and in future new money bonds and once we have 51% of the outstanding bonds with these provisions attached to it, then they will become effective. on the wastewater side, we have upwards of $475 million of refunding bonds that we're targeting for refunding. we have four subseries as well. two of them are tax exempt refundings which basically means the bonds are ten -- have been outstanding ten years or more and so we're going to do those on a tax-exempt basis and those maturities that are within the next ten years of time, those will be done on a taxable basis, like what i just described with

the water refunding. so we have our sewer system improvement program, ssip, and then our non-ssip which is other portions of the wastewater enterprise debt that we'll be teeing up for refinancing. we are aiming for $32 million in debt service savings and, again, this transaction complies with our debt management policies. in terms of the plan of finance, the sales dates that we're aiming for will be from mid april, so in a couple of weeks or so, through may for both of these transactions. we -- however, as i noted earlier, interest rates have bumped up over the past month or so. we will only take advantage of the refunding transactions if

the interest rates translate into a minimum savings level of 3% or more, of course. so 3% is our floor. right now, if we were to do this transaction today for water, we wouldn't be able to move forward with the transaction because rates have moved so much so quickly. so what we will do is seek your authorization today for both our water and our wastewater transaction. we will move forward with the wastewater transaction, because we have significant savings that we can realize there. however, our water transaction, we will hold and we will wait until potential interest rates to fall back so that we achieve the minimum 3% savings goal. let me see. the underwriters were selected competitively from our controllers' pool of preselected

vendors. and we performed a competitive selection through an r.f.p. process to choose the underwriters as noted here. morgan stanley and citibank. and the last couple of slides here, commissioners, again, just to walk you through some disclosure question, answer. this is in line with the training that we had with all of you last year as it relates to debt transactions. so, again, size of the transaction, up to not to exceed $950 million for water, $475 million for wastewater and we're aiming to bring ratepayer savings for our customers. we have several series as i've described to you, up to four series for our water enterprise.

up to four series for our wastewater enterprise. and the bonds will be sold and negotiated as i described earlier with the underwriters. we will -- we've already budgeted for these bonds just to reiterate. we have not incorporated any of the potential savings into our budgets or financial plans as is standard procedure. this will provide savings in next year's budget if we're able to realize the savings that i described. but everything -- all of the debt service for the repayment of the bonds has been incorporated into our budget. the interest rates that we're aiming for are noted here. and we don't believe that the issuance of the debt will provide any negative rating action. in fact, will provide a positive story as it relates to savings. i'm happy to answer any questions.

>> president moran: thank you. commissioners, any questions of mr. pearl? seeing none, let's open up for public comment and that will be on both items, 14 and 15. >> correct. members of the public who wish to make two minutes of remote public comment on items 14 and 15 combined, please press star 3 to raise your hand to speak. do we have any members of the public who wish to provide public comment on items 14 and 15? seeing none, do we have any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. public comment for items 14 and 15 are closed. >> thank you. additional comments. >> commissioner maxwell: i would just like to thank you for both reports. i found myself really kind of getting into them. they were easy to read and i really appreciated all the

information and it was succinct and in a good form, because thank you for that. it could have been very difficult, so thank you. >> president moran: commissioners, we'll proceed with separate votes on each item. on item 14 a motion and a second. motion and seconded. roll call. >> president moran: aye. >> commissioner maxwell: aye. >> commissioner paulson: aye. >> you have three ayes. >> president moran: item 14 passes. on item 15, a motion and a second? motion and seconded. roll call, please. >> president moran: aye. >> commissioner maxwell: aye. >> commissioner paulson: aye. >> you have three ayes. >> president moran: and item 15 passes. next item. >> next item is public comment on matters to be addressed during closed session. the following items will be heard, 18, conference with legal counsel, pursuant to california

government code section 54956.9b 2 and san francisco administrative code section 67.10d2, settlement of unlitigated claim, usda forest service versus city and don't of san francisco, unlitigated claim against the city and county of san francisco with city to pay the usda forest service, $203,056 for full and final release from the forest service. and 19, conference with legal counsel, and san francisco administrative code section 67.10d2, unlitigated claim and existing litigation, san francisco bay regional water quality control board versus city and county of san francisco and versus environmental

protection agency. those who wish to make public comment on 18 and 19, please raise your hand to speak. do we have any members of the public who wish to make public comment? >> there are no callers wishing to be recognized. >> thank you, public comment on items -- closed session items is closed. >> president moran: thank you. commissioners, may i have a motion on whether to assert the attorney client privilege. >> moved and seconded. >> president moran: aye. >> commissioner maxwell: aye. >> commissioner paulson: aye. >> you have three ayes. >> president moran: item 17 passes. we'll now go into closed session. once in closed session, we'll take a five-minute break. >> please stand by.

>> president moran: thank you. the commission is back in open session. during closed session, the commission acted on item 18 to recommend settlement to the board of supervisors. there was no other action taken. can i have a motion regarding whether to disclose the discussions that took place during closed session? >> move not to disclose. >> second. >> moved and seconded not to disclose. roll call. >> president moran: aye. >> commissioner maxwell: aye. >> commissioner paulson: aye. >> you have three ayes. >> president moran: thank you. there being no other business before the commission, this meeting is adjourned.

hi, sandy, how are you? >> hi, fine, thank you. how are you? >> good. i want to ask you what inspired you to be a paramedic? >> that's a good question. you know, i wanted to go into med school and after i found out how much time it took and all of that, i decided that that was going to be a little too much schooling, but i still wanted to figure out a way that i could provide medical care and doing that as an emt as well as a paramedic was a way to do that. >> can you give me a break down of a typical day for you? >> i come to work and sit at my desk and then i respond to e-mails and try to figure out what are some of the issues we need to address. can we hire more people. what kinds of policies we want to try to create that will help us do our job as ems. >> what does it take to be a female paramedic? >> you know, it takes quite a bit of schooling, but also

required somebody who's empathetic. it can be a very stressful job and so we want people to be able to hand that on a day-to-day basis. >> so what's your greatest satisfaction in your job? >> trying to make sure that the work that we provide and the services that we provide to the community is the best that we can in ems so that when we go out to see you if you call us for an emergency, that we'll be able to treat you in the best way possible and that you get the care as quickly and as effectively as possible. >> why is it important for young girls, women of color to see women in these roles? >> i think it really is important for us to be able to get into these roles because we are effective, we are able to reach out to the community. we are able to do the job in a very effective manner and to be able to relate to the community and be able to do that is one of the best things that we can do. and people of color and as women of color, you know, we are in a great position to be able to do that.

>> supervisor preston: good morning. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the april 7, 2022 meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. i am supervisor dean preston, and i am joined by supervisors connie chan and rafael mandelman.

mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. the board recognizes that equitable public access is essential and will be taking public comment as follows. first, public comment will be taken on each item on the agenda. first, we will take those in the room first, and then, we will take those listening on the public call-in line. for those watching on cable channels 26, 78, 99, or sfgovtv.org, dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2488-337-7338, then press pound and pound

again. those in the room should lineup by the curtains to speak and those listening on the phone should dial star, three to enter the queue. alternatively, you may submit written comments. you may send your comment to the gaoc clerk, j-o-h-n c-a-r-r-o-l-l@sfg.org

or you may send your written comments in by the united states postal service to city hall, room 204, 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place, san francisco, california, 94102. i believe we have spanish interpreter assistance for the first item. if you would please repeat the directions in spanish. [speaking spanish language]

>> clerk: thank you. that completes the initial announcements. >> chair preston: thank you, mr. clerk, and before we call the first item, i want to thank the clerk's office. thank you, mr. clerk, mr. young, for being here today. our usual committee clerk, mr. carroll, was up until the wee hours this morning. he does a lot of work for the clerk's office, and we appreciate all of your work and you for being here, mr. young, filling in for mr. carroll. with that, please call the first item. >> clerk: yes. item 1 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to establish the shelter grievance

advisory committee to advise the department of homelessness and supportive housing regarding policies and procedures for clients of city-funded shelters to appeal denial of shelter services, and to codify the city's shelter griefance policy establishing an administrative appeal process for clients of city-funded shelters denied shelter services for violating a shelter's rules. members of the public who wish to make public comment please lineup by the curtains. if you are listening in, please call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d.

2488-337-7338, then press pound and pound again. mr. chair. >> chair preston: thank you. i want to turn it over to our president, shamann walton. president walton, the floor is yours. >> president walton: thank you, chair preston. if a client is denied service, this may result in a client losing shelter, often being released back to the streets. to prevent release back onto

the streets and to provide an appeal policy, the city's shelters have adopted an appeal policy. these appeals often result in an agreement between the shelter and client, remedying the underlying denial of service, allowing the client to remain in shelter, and reducing the likelihood of a repeat rule violation, and most importantly, keeping someone from being put back on the streets and violating their civil rights. i want to highlight that this is not new. it's been a part of our shelter system for decades, but while it's been successful for

decades, it has never been codified in our shelter goals. i want to thank my legislative aide, evan, for drafting this legislation and facilitating this process for our community and city agencies, as well as our deputy city attorney, henry lipton, for drafting this

legislation. this legislation has a broad range of support and has been endorsed by the shelter advisory committee, the coalition on homelessness, third street youth center and clinic, providence family foundation, mission resource center and health center, g.l.i.d.e., housing rights committee center of san francisco, faith in action bay area, and many more. i'm also proud to have the cosponsorship of supervisors chan, peskin, preston, haney, melgar, and ronen on this legislation. making sure our shelters have a transparent set of rules and rights for our clients, including the right to a fair and speedy appeals process creates accountability and increases the quality of our

shelter system. this shelter grievance policy codifies one of the strongest tools we have to create a positive shelter system. thank you, chair preston and colleagues for your time. i look forward to your support in making our shelters the best they can be. >> chair preston: thank you, president walton, for your leadership on this, and i'm proud to be cosponsoring this. i was surprised to hear the policy around this as we start

to see a different type of shelters. i was shocked that this was not in our municipal code and this policy had not been codified because i know it's such a long-standing part of the system because it allowed folks to be heard. i believe that we do have -- colleagues, if you have any questions, i think dylan schneider and emily cohen are available. i don't see them in person, but they're available for questions. >> i believe miss cohen is on the line via teams. >> chair preston: right, thank you. so colleagues, any comments or questions before we hear the public comment on this item?

seeing none, mr. clerk, let's open public comment. >> clerk: yes. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item and are joining us in person should lineup on the side by the windows at this time. for those listening remotely, you should call 415-655-0001, entering the meeting of 2488-337-7338, then press pound and pound again. once connected, you'll need to press star, three to enter the speaker line. for those already in the queue, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted, and that will be your queue to begin your comment. i would like to give our translator a brief moment to make a statement for the public. [speaking spanish language]

>> clerk: thank you. can we first have -- have our first in-person comment, please? >> yes. my name is paul boden, and i came up in hospitality house in 1983, as we were starting our

homeless programs in san francisco and was involved in the coalition on homelessness, and i wanted to give some input because i was part of the group that created this group back in 92. starting in the 80s, most of us, there wasn't a homeless program. it was community members helping other community members crash at churches, on church pews, in empty offices, and it was going to be temporary. in 87, when the feds started funding programs through united way and shelter agencies, we realized this wasn't going anywhere. rules started being imposed on

an emergency benefit shelter for homeless people. that's what we addressed in 92 when we brought this in, and it should be codified because unfortunately, 39 years later, we're talking about sanctioning our tent encampments and bringing this up again. >> clerk: thank you. your time has elapsed. i'm sorry to interrupt you, but

we're allowing two minutes per public comment. you will hear a soft chime when your time is almost up, and another when your time has concluded. can we have the next speaker, please. >> my office is actually across from the shelter advocate, and there's no reason we wouldn't want to expand this type of program citywide, yeah. thank you. [speaking spanish language]

>> clerk: speaker's time has elapsed. i'd like to give the interpreter a chance to provide translation on that testimony. >> interpreter: the bishop has spoken in english, but he is bishop jorge garcia. he is a spiritual and political leader in the community, and he understands that it is hard to change rules, but there is a way to do it. he explained how there are now trans people that come to the church now and get communion.

there is also a trans nun now that has joined the spiritual community, and these are things that can be done. >> clerk: thank you very much. can we have the next speaker, please. >> yeah, good morning, supervisors. my name is tyler, and i'm the policy director on the coalition on homelessness, and i'm urging you to vote yes on this ordinance? this policy has been in effect 30 years, longer than i've been alive. this is a time tested procedure that serves the public interest by reducing the number of people forced out of shelters

and back out onto the streets of san francisco. thank you. i yield my time. >> thank you, supervisors. jennifer friedenbach for the coalition on homelessness. this procedure has been one of the few bright lights in our homeless services, where we have transparency, what's happening with folks, why they're put out, if they're able to stay in shelter, why that was. it provides the shelters with a level of accountability that without with i really don't know what's happening. this procedure started, and it's -- if we look at the legacy of american women in san francisco, there's so many huge ones and small ones. this procedure in particular is a legacy of arnett watson.

what happened was arnett was at the hamilton family shelter doing outreach, and that was when it was in the haight, and a family with a newborn baby was put out of the shelter because the father, when he got done with work, went out and got a beer. there were no rules about that, it was just that the shelter decided they were going to kick him out. today, every shelter in the city supports it. why? because it helps everyone.

we urge you to vote yes, and thank you so much. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is [indiscernible] i wanted to urge you to vote yes. currently, there are no mechanisms in place to prevent abuse or to model good behavior, to model appropriate communications. that's why this is desperately needed. i lived in an encampment near sixth and market street for about 1.5 years, and we self-organized during the pandemic as we were kind of left alone. and due to the abuses and unethical of [indiscernible] of the sfpd, i threatened to sue the city, and we settled out of court for $10,000. that's how bad their behavior

was, how appalling it was, so we desperately need this system in place. even though people aren't guaranteed shelter, they need to be able to appeal these decisions when they're in these situations, and these are my values, and these are san francisco values, and thank you so much. >> my name is christian. i'm a formerly homeless person, and i was also homeless in the castro for about 1.5 years. i also was in the shelter for a minute and was kicked out of a shelter. i'm a covid -- sorry. i'm a concussion survivor, and when i was there, they put me in a bunk bed, and i couldn't really do that. so i left and decided i would come back the next day and

renegotiate my sleeping quarters at the shelter, and i was told that i had abandoned my bed, and i couldn't be at that shelter. at the time, the shelter waiting list was 90 days, and i had already waited, so it was pretty brutal. i'm a person who believes that shelters are a solution to homelessness. i don't really believe in shelters, i believe we should be housing people, but i believe that shelter people should have due process. i'm kind of horrified to learn that this policy was let go during covid. i want to say that i support it, and i'm also against any amendments that would undermine this policy. thank you very much.

>> good morning, supervisors. my name is ben, and i'm one of the shelter client advocates. i work for the eviction defense collaborative, and we are tasked with representing residents who are denied services from shelters. over the last 30 years, this policy has become known as best practice when having to resolve disputes between residents and residents, shelters and residents, and so on. and over the past 30 years, you know, the providers have utilized this policy and to great effectiveness. and during the pandemic, the grievance policy was suspended and was replaced by a shifting short of sand of various appeals processes and so on,

and it hasn't made resolving these disputes any more effective. in fact, i would say it's become less effective, less cost effective, and no good, and so i am asking that you approve or send this to the full board for a vote because i think it's important that we protect the rights of people who live in shelters and let them know that their due process is not conditional. i want to also just say that living in shelter is an incredibly hard and complicated thing. there's lots of different sites and lots of different rules, and being a provider in a shelter is an incredibly hard job, and this policy gives them a tool to use to guide their

actions when they are dealing with difficult situations, so thank you, and i appreciate your time. >> hello. my name is uvaldo espinoza, and i am also a shelter advocate. i came on board during the pandemic, because as my colleague said here, it was very difficult for me to understand why the shelter appeals process was on pause. it was there, but it was on pause during the pandemic, which was confusing. the process used to be under

the human services commission, but it ended up going into the new department. the policy must be written into administrative code to protect it, so i'm just here to urge be -- urge you all to vote yes on this legislation. thank you. >> hello. good morning. good morning, everyone. my name is tyler, long time resident of san francisco. i wanted to thank president walton for sponsoring this legislation, all the cosponsors of this legislation. i think it's incredibly important, and i would urge you to adopt this ordinance. you know, we're not reinventing the wheel here. this has been the policy for 30 years. it is tried and true. the outcomes that we see in the shelter system when the shelter grievance policy is applied is

that more people remain in the shelter. this is a policy that was developed through the shelter grievance policy group and others. yes, it is a policy that exists under h.s.h., but an individual doesn't really have rights if it's unilaterally revokable, so due process, the right of an

individual to be treated with dignity cannot be revoked if it is to have actual real meaning, right? so due process is a process that enables someone to be treated with dignity. that's what we're talking about, human beings being treated with dignity, and i think it's incredibly important that it be put into the administrative code so that we can recognize the humanity of everybody in our city. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. seeing the end of the in-person speakings, we are now checking to see if we have any remote attendees who would like to speak. if you have not already done so, please press star, three, and wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. it looks like we have approximately 11 people on the line for remote public comment. can we have our first remote public commenter, please.

can we have our first public commenter via remote? [speaking spanish language]

>> my name is marcella, and i am asking that you give this to people as a fundamental right in shelters. as a mother of three, i have been in homes and homes where it has been inadequate to stay with my children. so i am asking that you allow this to stay and have this.

when this was under the human rights, it was better, because now we're having problems with it, so i would like you to keep this. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we hear from the next caller, please? >> good morning. my name is jordan davis. my pronouns are she and her, and i support the shelter grievance policy being codified into law. i am formerly homeless myself. i have been a big, like, fan of supportive housing. i support what the previous speaker said, that shelters are not a solution, and i'm not a fan of shelters, but the fact is shelters are here, and until we get rid of all the shelters, we need to have a fair

grievance policy. this is a fair grievance policy. it's been around 30 years, and we need to codify it. lastly, i don't want to see any fucking amendments fucking in there. pass a clean bill, don't fuck around with the process or else you'll be hearing from the people soon. thank you, and i yield my time. >> clerk: thank you. can we hear from the next caller, please. >> good morning, supervisors preston, chan, and mandelman, my name is terry bora, and i am the chair of the shelter grievance advisory committee. i urge you to pass this legislation. for over 30 years, we have had

a fair transparent process to address denial of service from shelters, and as you have heard, it is now necessary to codify this process. thousands of unhoused people are affected by this legislation. we must protect and respect the rights of people in shelters. thank you, president walton and supervisors. please vote yes. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we hear from the next caller, please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is eliana [indiscernible], and i am the policy director for g.l.i.d.e. prior to the pandemic, shelter residents were able to be heard in a fair and transparent process if they were issued a denial of service. during the pandemic, this right

was revoked. this has directly led to the distressing reality that many shelter in place hotel guests, some of the most vulnerable people, lost their only shelter. to make matters worse, they found themselves on the street with no way to easily access shelter because the city ended the shelter appeal process when the pandemic started.

please support the codification of shelter rights and support this policy. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> hi. my name is [indiscernible] our mission is to provide affordable housing and help our residents achieve self-sufficiency. our community in the tenderloin bears the name sake of the incredible community leader who originally pushed for appeals in shelter housing years ago.

shelter accountability means recognizing the rights of adult decision making and the dignity of being treated respectfully and we strongly urge you to support this and codify this legislation. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please? >> good morning, everyone. my name is alejandro luna, and i am with the [indiscernible] i worked with the shelter system and homeless population for almost 13 years now, and i will urge the committee to vote yes

on this legislation. i can tell you that this improves safety tremendously, as well, and it opens up mediation and support around resources that our clients might need. i can tell you when these rights were taken away in the midst of the covid-19 pandemic, we saw a high number of safety concerns. there was chaos, frustration, there was anger among the homeless population, and a big reason is because they didn't have a fair process to hear their side or to save their side when they were being put out on the street for a policy violation. as it was stated earlier, i do agree that this is the best practice, and it will ensure we

are working together collaboratively not only with client advocates but our guests, as well. this is not only the way to go about it but to earn respect. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next speaker, please. >> hi. this is kristen evans with the coalition on homeless. the ordinance was removed at the time when it was needed most. we've seen new providers, providers struggling with new facilities, and the culture of creating systems and processes for a stable, warm, and

supportive environment were just totally absent. it was total chaos. we had examples of people who ended up having basic needs, like access to milk, denied if they didn't, you know, comply with some arbitrary rules that one staffer made up. the deed for these rules for the due process is so, so very necessary, so clear, especially when people are being placed in these shelters for extended periods of time. i hope the senior citizen who was not eligible for the s.i.p. hotel who was not eligible for a navigation center, she got covid, and she had constant challenges communicating with a rotating cast of staff members.

it was absolutely heartbreaking, so we need this legislation. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next speaker, please. [speaking spanish language]

>> clerk: thank you. miss villemar, would you like to provide translation on that comment? >> interpreter: good morning. i am urging everyone to vote yes on this. my name is elizabeth, and i have been twice in a shelter. shelter personnel break rules, as well, and how can we speak up? we have no resources to speak up and say how we have been

treated. we don't need families on the streets anymore. these shelters should be a safe place for families and people to be. we must have more compassion, we must have more empathy for our fellow citizens. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> good morning, supervisors. hi, my name is leatine collins, and everybody calls me miss tina, and i'm calling on everybody to vote yes on the shelter grievance process. [please stand by]

>> -- or people returning to me and i return to the homeless coalition. so i urge the committee to vote yes. thank you. >> clerk: thank you.

can we have the next caller. >> caller: hello, how you doing? my name is rose johnson. and i was homeless for 10 years prior to becoming a shelter client advocate. i just kind of want to chime in, you know, that the board of supervisors vote yes on this critical legislation. i have experienced firsthand living in shelter and historically we just don't hold that much power in shelter. but, you know, having the grievance policy in effect, you know, i do believe that it's creating a power balance. and the shelter policy, it has due process, right, and we do see more positive outcomes to the lives of shelter guests and to shelter staff alike. i just want to kind of say in the three decade long policy was mobilized like really on in the pandemic, we had to turn around

so many houseless residents away. and not because we wanted to, but because the city took away such a valuable resource, you know, from under our noses and left these people with absolutely nothing. you know, they were forced to have to revisit the streets without being able to access, you know, a resource they have been able to use, again, for three decades. so, yeah, i just really urge that the board of supervisors vote yes on this, because this is a protection that like we can't lose again. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: hello, good morning. my name is megan fallon and i'm calling on behalf of five key schools and programs and i'm calling on the committee to vote yes on the legislation. i have worked in navigation centers and shelters in san

francisco for the last six years. folk comes into shelter with all different needs, struggles and barriers to getting them in care and ultimately housing. the shelter grievance policy is critical to provide due process for shelters to follow, to make sure that our unhoused neighbors are treated fairly and humanely their stories and experiences deserve to be heard. there are numerous reasons why denials of service happen, mostly for safety reasons. however, the guests need a space to be able to challenge the decision made by the shelter and to have people to advocate for them. i have worked closely with the advocate program and i can't express how vital this is for our shelters. all systems need checks and balances. i have experienced many second chances in my life, which i imagine that most of us have here as well, and folks living in shelter deserve that same kindness. thanks. >> clerk: thank you. can we have our next caller, please.

>> caller: hi, everyone, i am with the community services. i'm here calling to support the shelter grievance policy. as a shelter provider it has provided us with the ability to have good conversations with clients and practice justice, and also to be able to build community with clients and the staff, with the shelter advocates. i think that it has worked for a long time and it's really disheartening seeing the situation that is currently occurring, and where folks are not able to advocate for themselves or even knowing how to advocate for themselves. so, again, i'm for this, and i have mentioned that he is resting in power and he's ruling from his grave right now for all of the things that have happened. thank you for your kindness.

>> clerk: thank you. i'd just let the audience know that we're down to our last few callers and you if have you not done so, press star, 3, to be added to the queue to speak. can we have our next caller, please. >> caller: good morning. my name is samania, and i am voting to vote yes on the legislation. the shelter grievance policy is a critical piece of protecting the rights of people staying in our city shelters and for resolution of disputes between shelters and residents and shelter providers. i myself have experienced homelessness since i was about 17. it wasn't until about 10 years ago that i was able to have permanent housing. so i do ask that you guys please vote yes on the policy.

the shelter grievance policy has been in effect for about 30 years. and it is a procedure that says that the public's interest to ensure that all sides are heard, that people's rights are respected, and to reduce the number of people living in the streets. we don't want anymore families being homeless. please vote yes. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have our next caller. >> caller: hello, my name is mary mckeever and i'm a public interest attorney who served as the interim managing attorney for the eviction defense collaborative shelter -- shelter advocacy project. and i was serving as the managing attorney during the time that the shelter grievance policy was essentially pushed to the side. it was shocking to see that

happen. it was shocking to see that the city that believes in fairness and due process decided to no longer institute those rules. and for that reason i think that it is imperative that you please vote in favor of the shelter grievance policy. it provides due process, it provides fairness, it ensures that homeless folks are treated fairly. and it exemplifies what we all believe in in san francisco and what we expect our city to do in terms of working with people in great need. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. that was the last caller in the queue. mr. chair, that completes both queues of public commenters. >> thank you, mr. clerk and seeing no other members to comment on this item, public comment is now closed. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, chair preston, and thank you president walton, for your

work on this legislation. i am not prepared to vote for this today. it is clearly well intentioned and i appreciate the spirit behind it. i am not sure that it makes sense to codify this policy. and i'm not sure that it makes sense to codify this policy by ordinance in the way that this -- that this proposal does as i understand it, and many folks have spoken to this today, our shelter grievance policy is a long-standing policy in our shelters going back to 1992. i have heard that it goes far beyond what any other communities do with their shelter system, and there are some who say -- and i don't know if this is true -- that it exemplifies san francisco's ability to overrepresent, and to have exorbitant costs and

inefficient results. many folks have pointed to the pandemic as evidence for the need for this policy. i guess that my question is -- and i don't know if it's a question -- i would imagine that in future emergencies this policy might need to be suspended again. and i think that it is noteworthy that the city was able to stand up so much shelters so quickly, and i think that it's worth looking at how the city did that as we try to figure out how to do a better job of meeting the shelter needs of our unhoused, unsheltered residents. from my perspective, it is catastrophic for an individual to lose a spot in a shelter, but it is catastrophic for hundreds, maybe thousands, of folks who remain on our sidewalks in our public spaces right now that we don't have shelter to offer them in the first place.

and so my priority is as i have made clear in lots of ways is to get anyone currently living outdoors on our streets into something safer if they're willing and able to come. we know that those experiencing unsheltered homelessness suffer three times the mortality rate of those living in our shelters. and many of them have to wait years and years, getting sicker and sicker, before they finally get the permanent supportive housing that we have been talking about for decades. and while i agree that consistent grievance procedures make sense, i fear that this legislation is unnecessary and redundant, or worse, that it actually could make it harder to stand up the new shelter placements that we would need to stand up if we were going to move those hundreds or perhaps thousands of folks indoors.

so those are my -- those are my concerns. i think -- i'm not saying that the current shelter grievance policy is a bad thing and it may be a very, very good thing, but i'm not ready to codify it into law and i'm not ready as i said to do it with the changes proposed here. >> supervisor preston: thank you, supervisor mandelman. chair walton. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor mandelman. it's puzzling how we could violate someone's due process at any given time. and that's exactly what is happening during the pandemic. there should never be a gap in due process. never. and speaking as a supervisor with three navigation centers and a vehicle triage center, a safe sleeping site, r.v. site,

who is doing everything that he can to make sure that folks are not having to live on the streets, working very hard to build the maximum amount of affordable housing possible on every project, i just don't understand how anyone could be against this common sense policy. the data that was discussed in terms of even how many people ended up on the streets during the pandemic as a result of something as well intended and most certainly necessary as our shelter-in-place hotels, that should be something that also gets people to understand the importance of the due process. and i'm not saying those 500 people were kicked out of shelter issue but i am saying that we need to do everything that we can to make sure that folks' rights are not violated, particularly our most vulnerable population. so i just want to say to my colleagues and most definitely to the public that it is never

okay to violate anyone's right to due process. it is always appropriate. and most certainly this policy does not slow down our ability to create emergency shelters, slow down our ability to keep people sheltered, and to make anyone's life harder. what it does do is guarantee that we provide an opportunity for someone who may be in a position where they may end up on the street to have their day in court, just like all of us in any situation. and so, again, colleagues, i hope that this is something that you support. we have a wide range of support from shelter providers who are experts, from folks in the field and advocates who are experts, from everyone who understands how devastating being homeless can be, and, most certainly i 100% agree that we need to do everything to get people off of our streets.

and this does nothing but help us to make sure that we avoid folks being on our streets. so, thank you so much, chair preston and thank to all of the advocates and i appreciate your support on this. >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton. vice-chair chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, chair preston and i want to also thank president walton's leadership on this legislation and i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of this piece of legislation. i think that the legislation itself, i actually agree with chair preston, that it wasn't codified long ago. it should have been all this time. and, frankly, during a time of need, during a pandemic, especially under a present public health crisis, to think of suspending the policy just doesn't actually make any sense in fact, i think that the legislation is well written and it is really spelling out a

process for accountability, transparency, that prevent abuse. of any kind. and it is allowing both the people that are serving homeless individuals, as well as the individuals themselves having an understanding and having a process that they can agree on that is the set process that there's no confusion, and allowing a conversation. i think that far too long of what is happening in our shelter, oftentimes has not been transparent. we cannot get the data that we needed and to set up a good public policies to make sure that we really help problem solve. i think that for one it's always good to have transparency and accountability and it is actually our job to set policies and codify and to make sure that we hold everyone involved accountable. and i say this not just in this

setting but literally all settings as to why we're elected, it's a job that we must do. so i'm proud to support it today and it will again, in the event that this made it out of the committee and to the full board thank you. >> supervisor preston: thank you vice-chair chan. i want to echo some comments from my colleagues, in particular vice-chair chan, your comments about the oversight, the need to have these rules in place and to have transparency around them, we are the government audit and oversight committee and i think we should be welcoming this codification of these rules and the accountability. i do want to say in response to some of the comments that have been made, i bristle at what creeps into so many of these dialogues with somehow an assumption that some level of

government regulation and/or oversight is an impediment to us actually providing a good service. i really reject that argument. it sounds to me unfortunately -- and i know that it's not intended in this way -- it sounds to me very similar to the arguments that we hear from business when they say they can't unionize their workforce because they wouldn't be able to open, sounds to me like every argument that we hear against accountability oversight and due process for whether it's for workers or for folks that are by government programs. personally, i think that deregulation is done a lot more to cause the homelessness crisis than to solve it, and i think that in this situation where we have a set of rules that i think that it is not a dispute that the even-handed enforcement of

these rules prevents homelessness. and that's really the bottom line that there are people who are made homeless if these rules are not applied, and these -- and the recourse for appeals not provided. and we need to make sure that we're extending those kinds of protections in a uniform way across the board to folks who are in any types of shelter in san francisco. i also want to note that i very much appreciate all of the folks who spoke up in public comment. folks who are advocates for people who are unhoused. folks who themselves have been unhoused. folks who are both formerly homeless and now advocates and taken the time to be here. and i also note who we did not hear from. so in sharp contrast to some of the other situations i described, like when you are talking about unionizing a workforce and using union labor,

and usually you hear the business folks come in and say we can't do that -- we can't afford this project if we use this labor and argue that. what i didn't hear was a single provider come before this body and say somehow that we cannot open this additional shelter. we cannot do this if we have the sechelt grievance policy in place. that was not part of the public comment at all. so i think that it's really speculative to suggest that this would interfere with some of the efforts that i know that my colleague is working on to broaden the number of folks who have access to shelter. and i think that if any way that proves to be the case, we certainly can come back and, you know, and look at whether -- and some time in the future -- i don't know that it would happen -- but if some provider said that this was somehow a barrier to them providing shelter, i would question that claim even then because i don't see any way that providing this

basic level of due process and codifying that would interfere with providing shelter. and i think that if it does, that says more about problems with the service being provided than it does about these rules. so i'm proud to support this, and i appreciate your leadership on it, president walton. and we'll conclude my remarks. and i look forward to hopefully sending this to the full board. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: not to take us off into a big -- i actually think that it is unquestionable that additional regulations slows the production of the thing that is being regulated. i think that -- i agree that you and i often agree that that is well worth doing, particularly in cases where a private actor is making money on something and the regulation that we are adding is protecting vulnerable people. i think -- i do look at these

questions a little bit differently when we are talking about things that are being provided by government through public workers or through non-profits and i think that there too, whether it is requiring that we only buy products from certain states, o, adding additional due process rights, the folks that otherwise would not have, or creating appeal rights for neighborhoods around whether shelter should be located in their neighborhoods, there are arguments for each of these regulations, but as we add them and layer them on to the delivery of public goods, we make less of those public goods, in my view. >> supervisor preston: thank you, supervisor mandelman. we will agree to disagree as to how that applies to this ordinance. it will not be the first nor last time that we will respectfully disagree or agree on a policy matter. but i would like to go ahead and to move this item, unless there are further comments and not

seeing any on the roster. i would like to move this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: yes, on the motion to recommend the matter [roll call vote] the motion passes with supervisor mandelman dissenting in committee. >> supervisor preston: thank you, mr. clerk, the motion passes and thank you, president walton. mr. clerk, call item 2. >> clerk: yes, item 2, signing of petitions for city parcels for formation of the proposed excellsier community benefit additional, with respect to certain parcels of real property owned by the city that would be subject to assessment in said district. members of the public, who wish to provide public comment on this item may line up to speak

when we do call for public comment at a later time. and those joining us remotely, please call the contact comment number 1-(415)-655-0001 and i.d. 2488 337 7338 and a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand and wait until we take public comment on this item and when the system indicates that you are un-muted that is your cue to begin your comments. >> supervisor preston: thank you, mr. clerk. and this item is sponsored by supervisor safai and i believe that we have -- i see bill barnes from supervisor safai's office, and also chris corgis who are both here to speak on this item. >> thank you, chair preston and

the members of the committee. bill barnes, chief of staff in supervisor safai's office. we have been working to establish a community benefit district in the excelsior as folks know that community benefit districts allow property owners to assess themselves to improve the local community and in the excelsior there's three city owned properties and there's one in the 4400 block of mission and another on anadaga that will soon be occupied by a health clinic and an arts business. and as you know that 30% of the property owners must elect to form the district and then there's an election if that threshold is met and we have and the city has a commitment to be part of this. and the estimated cost to the city is about $7,000 across the three properties and so we

respectfully request your approval of this resolution and this would authorize the mayor to cast a ballot for the formation. in addition, we'll come back later once the election is being conducted to ask for a vote on the -- on the election itself, and then chris corgas is here to answer any technical questions that you may have about how the process works. thank you, members. >> supervisor preston: thank you, mr. barnes. and mr. corgas, do you have a presentation or just available for questions. indicating just available for questions. >> just available for questions, president. >> supervisor preston: colleagues, any questions on this item? vice chair chan. >> commissioner chiu: mr. corgas, because i see that the parcels that include city parcels like the library and dph, so just education for me --

trying to learn about this -- and so how would that work for the city itself to try to collect tax, i guess, or, you know, survey itself, so to speak. >> so in this case, supervisor chan, the city properties are considered like any other property -- same with the state, and the same with the federal government. if they have properties in there, i believe that the federal government does have properties in there and they typically don't respond. depending on the state entity, if there were state properties in there and they may or may not respond. for the city properties, if this assessment was put on via special election, special assessment bills would be sent to the director of the real estate division under the city administrator's office and sent for appropriate payment. >> supervisor preston: thank you, vice chair chan. and seeing no other questions let's move to public comment on this item. mr. clerk. >> clerk: yes, there do not appear to be any members of the public in the room for public

comment. we are -- members of the public who wish -- for those listening remotely please call 1-(415)-655-0001. and enter the meeting i.d. of 2488 337 7338, and then press pound and pound again. once connected you will need to press star 3 to enter the speaker line. for those already in the queue, please continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been un-muted and that will be your cue to begin your comment. at this time we have four listeners but nobody in line to speak. >> supervisor preston: thank you, mr. clerk. seeing no public comment on this item, the public comment is closed. and can i have a motion to send the item to the full board with positive recommendation? moved by supervisor mandelman. mr. clerk, please call the role >> clerk: on the motion to recommend the matter moved by supervisor mandelman. [roll call vote]

the motion passes without objection. >> supervisor preston: and thank you again mr. barnes and mr. corgas. mr. clerk, any further business before the committee? >> clerk: that completes the agenda for today. >> supervisor preston: we are adjourned. thank you.

>> we are providing breakfast, lunch, and supper for the kids. >> say hi. hi. what's your favorite? the carrots. >> the pizza? >> i'm not going to eat the pizza. >> you like the pizza? >> they will eat anything. >> yeah, well, okay. >> sfusd's meal program right now is passing out five days worth of meals for monday through friday. the program came about when the shelter in place order came about for san francisco. we have a lot of students that

depend on school lunches to meet their daily nutritional requirement. we have families that can't take a hit like that because they have to make three meals instead of one meal. >> for the lunch, we have turkey sandwiches. right now, we have spaghetti and meat balls, we have chicken enchiladas, and then, we have cereals and fruits and crackers, and then we have the milk. >> we heard about the school

districts, that they didn't know if they were going to be able to provide it, so we've been successful in going to the stores and providing some things. they've been helpful, pointing out making sure everybody is wearing masks, making sure they're staying distant, and everybody is doing their jobs, so that's a great thing when you're working with many kid does. >> the feedback has been really good. everybody seems really appreciative. they do request a little bit more variety, which has been hard, trying to find different types of food, but for the most part, everyone seems appreciative. growing up, i depended on them, as well, so it reminds me of myself growing up.

>> i have kids at home. i have six kids. i'm a mother first, so i'm just so glad to be here. it's so great to be able to help them in such a way because some families have lost their job, some families don't have access to this food, and we're just really glad to be

dev mission's goal is aiming to train young adults, youth so we can be a wealth and disparity in underserved communities like where we are today. my name is leo sosa. i'm the founder and executive director for devmission. we're sitting inside a computer lab where residents come and get support when they give help about how to set up an e-mail account. how to order prescriptions online. create a résumé. we are also now paying attention to provide tech support. we have collaborated with the

san francisco mayor's office and the department of technology to implement a broad band network for the residents here so they can have free internet access. we have partnered with community technology networks to provide computer classes to the seniors and the residents. so this computer lab becomes a hub for the community to learn how to use technology, but that's the parents and the adults. we have been able to identify what we call a stem date. the acronym is science technology engineering and math. kids should be exposed no matter what type of background or ethnicity or income status. that's where we actually create magic. >> something that the kids are really excited about is science and so the way that we execute that is through making slime. and as fun as it is, it's still a chemical reaction and you start to understand that with

the materials that you need to make the slime. >> they love adding their little twists to everything. it's just a place for them to experiment and that's really what we want. >> i see. >> really what the excitement behind that is that you're making something. >> logs, legos, sumo box, art, drawing, computers, mine craft, and really it's just awaking opportunity. >> keeping their attention is like one of the biggest challenges that we do have because, you know, they're kids. they always want to be doing something, be helping with something. so we just let them be themselves. we have our set of rules in place that we have that we want them to follow and live up to. and we also have our set of expectations that we want them to achieve. this is like my first year officially working with kids. and definitely i've had moments where they're not getting something. they don't really understand it and you're trying to just talk

to them in a way that they can make it work teaching them in different ways how they can get the light bulb to go off and i've seen it first-hand and it makes me so happy when it does go off because it's like, wow, i helped them understand this concept. >> i love playing games and i love having fun with my friends playing dodge ball and a lot of things that i like. it's really cool. >> they don't give you a lot of cheese to put on there, do they? you've got like a little bit left. >> we learn programming to make them work. we do computers and programming. at the bottom here, we talk to

them and we press these buttons to make it go. and this is to turn it off. and this is to make it control on its own. if you press this twice, it can do any type of tricks. like you can move it like this and it moves. it actually can go like this. >> like, wow, they're just absorbing everything. so it definitely is a wholehearted moment that i love experiencing. >> the realities right now, 5.3 latinos working in tech and about 6.7 african americans working in tech. and, of course, those tech companies are funders. so i continue to work really hard with them to close that gap and work with the san

francisco unified school district so juniors and seniors come to our program, so kids come to our stem hub and be exposed to all those things. it's a big challenge. >> we have a couple of other providers here on site, but we've all just been trying to work together and let the kids move around from each department. some kids are comfortable with their admission, but if they want to jump in with city of dreams or hunter's point, we just try to collaborate to provide the best opportunity in the community. >> devmission has provided services on westbrook. they teach you how to code. how to build their own mini robot to providing access for the youth to partnerships with adobe and sony and google and twitter. and so devmission has definitely brought access for

our families to resources that our residents may or may not have been able to access in the past. >> the san francisco house and development corporation gave us the grant to implement this program. it hasn't been easy, but we have been able to see now some of the success stories of some of those kids that have been able to take the opportunity and continue to grow within their education and eventually become a very successful citizen. >> so the computer lab, they're doing the backpacks. i don't know if you're going to be able to do the class. you still want to try? . yeah. go for it. >> we have a young man by the name of ivan mello. he came here two and a half years ago to be part of our digital arts music lab. graduating with natural, fruity

loops, rhymes. all of our music lyrics are clean. he came as an intern, and now he's running the program. that just tells you, we are only creating opportunities and there's a young man by the name of eduardo ramirez. he tells the barber, what's that flyer? and he says it's a program that teaches you computers and art. and i still remember the day he walked in there with a baseball cap, full of tattoos. nice clean hair cut. i want to learn how to use computers. graduated from the program and he wanted to work in i.t.. well, eduardo is a dreamer. right. so trying to find him a job in the tech industry was very challenging, but that didn't stop him. through the effort of the office of economic work force and the grant i reached out to

a few folks i know. post mates decided to bring him on board regardless of his legal status. he ended his internship at post mates and now is at hudacity. that is the power of what technology does for young people that want to become part of the tech industry. what we've been doing, it's very innovative. helping kids k-12, transitional age youth, families, parents, communities, understand and to be exposed to stem subjects. imagine if that mission one day can be in every affordable housing community. the opportunities that we would create and that's what i'm trying to do with this

>> we worked very hard with the san francisco venue coalition, the independent venue alliance to advocate for venues. put this issue on the radar of the supervisors and obviously mayor breed. the entertainment commission and the office of small business and we went to meetings and showed up and did public comment and it was a concerted effort between 50 venues in the city and they are kind of traditional like live performance venues and we all made a concerted effort to get out there and sound the alarm and to her credit, maybe breed really stepped up, worked with matt haney, who is a supeis