if you are upon experiencing an emergencior worry body machine's safety on the street call 911 >> nonemergencies use 311. you can learn more about the street or could we have a roll call please here. >> vice president i say here commissioner jammed are here commissioner level running here you have a quorum. >> thank you. before calling the first item i'd like to announce that the san francisco public utilities commission acknowledges that it owns and are stewards of the

unceded lands located within the ethno historic territory of the mckenna aloni tribe and other familiar descendants of the historic federally recognize mission san jose verona band of alameda county. the puc also recognizes that every citizen residing within the greater bay area has and continues to benefit from the use and occupation of the work. maloney tribes aboriginal lands since before and after the san francisco public utilities founding in 1932. it is vitally important that we not only recognize the history of the tribal lands on which we reside but also that we acknowledge and honor the fact that the work maloney people have established a working relationship with the sfp ce and our productive and flourishing members within the many greater san francisco bay area communities today.

please call the first item item three approval of the minutes of january 14th, 2025 commissioners any comments corrections on the minutes no. >> could we take public comment please? remote callers please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item three do we have any members of the public present who wish to comment? >> seeing none. moderator do we have any members with their hand raised? miss lenora there are no callers with the hands raised. >> thank you. >> okay, thanks. could i have a motion in a second to approve the minutes please? >> so moved second. thank you. roll call. president stacey i. vice president rc high commissioner jim da. high commissioner lev aroney the item passes.

>> thank you. please read the next item. >> item four general public comment. >> members of the public may address the commission on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda. the commission values civic engagement and encourages respectful communication at the public meeting. we ask that all public comment be made in a civil and courteous manner and that you refrain from the use of profanity. >> thank you. remote callers please raise your hand if you wish to provide general public comment . if we have members of the public present who wish to provide public comment, please approach the podium and i have a request from mr. de costa commissioners. >> as a result of the fire in southern california i made some general statements the last time i don't see anything on

the agenda. >> i've been digging very deep into our assistance hydrants, our reservoirs and in 1989 when we had the earthquake. i participated in a big way. the city was not even organized. it had nothing regarding emergency service as the army played an important role. and what i see today for example, we have about 200 cisterns. i want to tell and they can contain 75,000 gallons of water. i wanted to know when were they last inspected and if they were not inspected.

who is in charge of them? i know there's abuses in charge of them. >> i also cannot find a document as to like who maintains what. i know there are some relationships between you see and the department of public works. so it is not for us the layperson to and tell you all what you do as commissioners that's your responsibility. because tomorrow when there's a fire it's going to be worse than southern california, especially on the west where most of the homes are just built without a good foundation and won't send. thank you very much. >> do we have any other members present who wish to provide comment? seeing none. moderator do we have any

college with their hand raised? ms. linear there is one color with their hands raised. >> thank you. >> caller your line has been unmuted. you have two minutes. >> thank you. i'm dave warner. thank you for your service. when asked if staff presents to you they sometimes present biased information or incomplete information. i personally can only speak to what enterprise and not the other divisions. mr. jack myers letter to yesterday provided examples of bias to me areas of bias include demand and supply projections, drought planning and financial planning and rates and affordability. you five commissioners are a regulatory body. in the case of water enterprise you represent 2.7 million users. or to put it another way. you were the buyer representing 2.7 million of us and another meeting. a speaker use the term caveat emptor or let the buyer beware . you have a due diligence responsibility that what the

ftc is providing is in your constituents best interest. this is hard when you get biased information on demand and supply projections throughout planning and financial planning and rates and affordability. one solution is to ask questions looking for bias. another is to bring in outside experts. for example, you have a highly regarded water scientist on the commission. she does not buy into the idea of demand hardening a phrase i certainly heard over the last eight years. another solution is to have more workshops engage with the ngos to get their views providing more information for your decision making. >> public comments are very constrained. the speaker only gets two minutes and if it's a general comment you can't ask questions. my main point is please think of the phrase caveat emptor and that you are the buyer for 2.7 million of us. please find ways to increase your due diligence beyond what the staff tells you. >> thank you. thank you caller for your comments. >> ms. leonard there are no more callers who wish to be recognized. thank you.

>> please call the next item. >> item five report of the general manager. thank you, mrs. linear. madam president, as i mentioned over the next several months we're going to schedule a different items to sort of educate some of the new commissioners on how we do things. and today i was originally going to schedule this for february but i decided today would be a good day to have it and it's san francisco water supply planning. how we go about that and it's from steve ritchie. >> thank you. and before we start, if it's okay with the other commissioners, i'd like to give the public three minutes to speak on this item five on water supply if that if nobody has any objections to that. okay, miss linear, when we start public comment will you set the clock for three minutes? >> thank you. >> excuse me. good afternoon, commissioners. steve ritchie, assistant general manager for water.

if i can have the slides please. i'm here to give an overview of our water supply planning to set the stage for future discussions as well. >> there's lots of details that flow behind these things but this is trying to give you a good overview of where we're at in the world of water supply planning. certainly as background one of the things that that we that drives our planning is that we have to provide service in perpetuity. we're a 24 seven operation with no end date. so we are basically you know, in this for the long haul short term thinking cannot be part of our water supply planning because every day 2.7 million people as dave warner pointed out, are relying on us for their water supply and it's really not just for drinking water for public health, fire protection in all aspects of their daily lives. 85% of the supply comes from the 20 river. the remaining 15% comes from

our local reservoirs here in our watersheds in the bay area. >> our daily operations emphasize high water quality and long term water supply reliability. what that means is we have to think very long term here because our water rights on the new river are junior to the irrigation districts and they actually use much more of the water than we do off of the 12 new river they use about 48% of the natural flow of the 12 new river and we use about 14%. so they use some dramatically more than us but in dry years they have the rights to the water in the river and so we get very little water off the river which relates to water bank and i won't get into the details of water bank in this presentation but we've structured our system that really is designed around long term storage as the key to our water supply. we try to make sure that we're using water wisely both in san

francisco and through. our wholesale customer reports that regional efforts are always underway to promote conservation in the wise use of water. we currently average about 41 gallons of residential per capita use which is about the lowest in the state for an urban area and our wholesale customers average about 55 gallons per person per day which is a dramatic increase from the decrease from the past. so they also are among the lowest users in the state even though they have larger lots but they've been doing a great job of conservation. >> and one of the things about our planning is that we are required by law to go through what's called the urban water management plan exercise. that means every five years we and all other water agencies are required to demonstrate that we have enough supply to accommodate anticipated growth over the ensuing 22 to 25 years which means we don't talk about what the plan is. the planning department tells us this is what we can expect

as growth in the future and then we have to do work to say assuming that growth happens here is we're going to have to provide the supply our our planning is really all about smart operations and it's guided by three things water first experience and risk management. >> water first is a policy that we've had in place for a long time where water supply is a top priority with hydropower generation as a secondary consideration on the warm the river. this comes out of experience we had in the 1976 77 drought as well as the 87 to 92 drought. >> our experience is that there's plenty of water in normal years but that 87 through 92 drought and the recent droughts that we've seen are very real and then they can be repeated or worse. >> our fundamental planning premise is that there will always be a worst drought some

day just as there will always be a bigger flood someday. those are both the realities of managing water in in the world these days and risk management. >> how bad can conditions get? one of the things that we have to plan for i have to plan for i'll take this personally at the at the at the end of a drought we can't be at zero storage because the next year might be a dry year. we always have to think that the next year might be a dry year and that is the challenge. so we we can't get to zero. >> so that is one way we have to manage our storage is thinking, you know, very pessimistically frankly about the following year because it doesn't pay off to think otherwise. >> this is just to you know, make sure that people understand the situation that was faced back in the early 90s. this is a photo of hetch hetchy reservoir in 1991 which is now

dark knight fell and that was that you know, we didn't want to look at the reservoir anymore. >> no, that island there i've never seen that. i hope never to see that island there. >> but there's another photo that i haven't showed of the commission before. this is from the other side of the dam. this is on the upstream side of the dam looking at the dam and where there are various outlet structures that can take water and move it to different places and you can see all of the outlet structures are above the water line. the one on the lower left there still has some water and that was the water that could get to san francisco so we couldn't make releases from the dam into the stream or any other place so it got to be an extremely low period at that time and again if we can have the flow there we go. so based on those conditions what we developed was a level of service objective for water

supply which was included in the with the programmatic air the water supply improvement program to manage a specific eight and a half year drought planning scenario 1987 through 92 followed by another drought 1976 77 with no more than 20% rationing from a total system demand of 265 million gallons per day. that's that's what we used as a planningis. it doesn't mean that we're, you know, predicting that's going to happen but that gives us a tool to evaluate different alternatives as we move forward. >> and the whole concept of 87 through 92 followed by two dry years is really what came out of the 1987 through 92 drought because as they got deeper and deeper into that drought the question was well what should we plan for next year? and people concluded the thing to plan for next year is another dry year. and so that's where the concept of adding a dry year on to the

historic drought was really the most prudent way to plan within our system. this is a favorite quote of mine. this came out of litigation between san francisco and the irrigation districts back in 1994. the quote is from and there goes the slides again the the quote is from anson moran who the general manager of hetch hetchy water and power at that time he became the general manager of the puc and it was actually a former commissioner of the puc as well. when considering all the factors associated with the city's entitlements to water its physical system and the dire consequences of just being wrong in the forecasting of the length of drought that may hit the city. i cannot agree with any comment that the city the c's operation rule is overly conservative. >> this was where the districts were attacking our drought planning and we had a vigorous defense for that because we had been through a really bad experience and know thatt can

get worse. >> that's that's the approach we we believe is the most prudent one by far. so we do have some challenges ahead. the 2008 adopted bay delta plan that we've talked about in different settings over time of may require up to 93 million gallons per day of impact to regional water systems applies. we have an alternative healthy rivers and landscapes that we've been proposing to the state and they are actively considering those alternatives right now. the healthy rivers and landscapes alternative has additional habitat restoration coupled with flow releases so we have to have additional flow into the river. even under the alternative we proposed but it's just not as much flow as the as the straight unimpaired flow paradigm that the state water board first adopted. other ste actions have occurred through what we call curtailments. the state board, the state

water board, the regulatory agency having to deal with water has engaged in curtailing or basically cutting off water supplies for junior water rights holders in certain cases. that is something that has been very controversial in terms of how much authority they have to do that and they have been pushing on making that more of a routine kind of tool that they can use as opposed to an emergency conditions. these could have a potential impact on our water rights as well as some proposed legislation that we have been dealing with population growth is going to continue to be an issue. population will continue to grow. i think everybody is aware of the state housing element that all cities are dealing with in california. san francisco is supposed to have 82,000 new units in the next ten years so there's there's a lot of housing that is yet to come under state plans and climate change studies indicate shifts to more

precipitation as rain and snow and more extreme droughts. it's or floods. it's hard to tell where that's going to end up but all of these things are uncertainties that we're dealing with going into the future that we need to be prepared for when we're already in a frankly from a water rights point of view. we're in a precarious position because we're the junior water rights holder. we have looked at alternative water supplies. we had developed a plan that was requested by both the commission and the basket board of directors not as an adopted plan but it's a plan and it's not a plan to construct any particular project or projects . it's a living document for us to look at what are the kinds of things we might do which is where we're talking about purified water which is converting wastewater to drinking water and other sources to actually look at what we might do in the future our existing potential obligations. we owe our wholesale customers the supply assurance which is

184 million gallons per day. >> they're not at that yet but this is the obligation that exists in the settlement agreement from 1984 and it's not changing. >> so we always have to keep that in mind as an obligation not necessarily a demand but something that we need to be thinking about. supply allocation of 81 mgd for san francisco, san jose and santa clara we'd like to become permanent customers. they're looking at 9 million gallons per day. so the combined total of these things is 274 million gallons per day. that is sort of the the envelope of obligions tal regional water system demand in the 2020 urban water management plan were 244 million gallons per day but we will be using one or more additional sets of demand projections as we move forward to make sure that we do not just what's legally required under the urban water management plan but are also looking at at lower levels of demand because we may very well

be experiencing those and we might want to build projects that can accommodate lesser demands. so those projects that are sitting out there are pure water. >> peninsula and south bay purified water again converting wastewater to drinking water and further developing slide supplies under our control. the regional groundwater storage and recovery project the alameda creek recapture project, the san francisco groundwater project, pure water in san francisco and potential projects with the turlock and modesto irrigation districts. so that is a real quick once over of water supply planning and that's a discussion that could probably go on for hours if we really wanted to delve into all the details. but that's that's given you a flavor of what it takes to plan for our water supply. happy to answer any questions? >> thank you, mr. richie commissioners comments or questions? just a couple of questions maybe. sure. mike on this one maybe to the

left about this one. >> yeah, that one work well learning here difference between if you had an eight and a half year drought scenario versus say a s and a half year drought scenario does that change the numbers drastically that we're looking at? >> well, it changes the numbers somewhat but again, these are planning scenarios so if we were to say let's not plan for eight and a half years, you know which the eight and a half it didn't show the slide that says that takes it to zero we can't go to zero. so really seven and a half years would mean we're probably targeting having a reservoir or volume of about 200,000 acre feet left. so you know, it would basically be the same curve. it's just your endpoint would be different but either way it's used as a guide to you know, here's where the alarm bell is going off that you need

to get something going otherwise you're going to run out of water. >> okay. and then the difference i think the snowpack has a lot of impact on as opposed to rain. maybe just talk a little bit about that analogy. rain and versus snow. so if we get enough rain because a lot of people look and see how that ring we got this year x but you know occasionally then you'll see on the news the snowpack is this is not looking good. >> yeah for san francisco system our storage is built and operated around a snowpack and we you know in the quality river watershed we have some of the best snowpack around from year to year. it's it's a lot of snow. what we expect long term is probably more precipitation as rain and snow but probably about the same total amount of precipitation. what that would mean for us is changing how we operate to

something that's getting water on a continuous basis as opposed to something that has water stored up upcountry. >> so it will really change our operating scenarios a bit. the total amount of water is something that we think and this is you know, again projecting out that we could manage and be able to still provide pretty much the same supply whether it's rain or snow. but it means operating the reservoirs differently right now for example, when it snows we have to keep our reservoirs very low because we're waiting for that snow melt to come in if it's coming as rain we won't keep it quite as low. we will have just more water coming through continuously. so it's just a different a different scenario about how you operate. but the total volume of water it's always you can can accommodate that. >> that's what counts and last question is the 12 me provides

85% of our water. >> yes, but we're only using to get the 85 we're using 14% yeah it's 85% of our supply for our customers of it's 14% on an average year of the stream flow in the water in the river is about what we take off that you know it ranges from 12 to 15 somewhere in that range but about 14% but and then when you've got big years there there's water just flowing out out and and dry year you know everything gets less that's where the that's where the real discussions are at what happens in dryers. thank you very much commissioner janda thank you president stacey. i have a couple of questions. first is that the average consumption per capita consumption seems to have gone

down dramatically over the years. is that already calibrated in the estimation of overall demand of the 274 million gallons per day? >> is that a reduced projection already or. >> yeah the the the the upper limit that we see on the one we use and the quote level of service is 184 million gallons per day. that is that is not correlated at all with you know the per capita use that is something that the san francisco agreed to with the wholesale customers in 1984 that that was the supply assurance that we would provide to the wholesale customers for san francisco. we said that we would you know ,reserve 81 million gallons per day for san franciscans right now our demands in san francisco are much lower than that partly because we haven't recovered from covid yet but it's more in the 60 million gallon per day range.

but those numbers over time systemwide have come down. >> you know, there has been a definite decrease in overall demand because both for san francisco and for our wholesale customers, the per capita use has decreased. you know, somebody mentioned the demand hardening before and yes, we all see that we're getting to a point where people have conserved and conserved and conserved and not sure how much more they can conserve. and so when you have an observable population growth, that's where you have to deal with the fact that you know that those number the total demand numbers will begin creeping back up again. >> got it. and then just to touch on the wildfire scenario, does this account for a catastrophe like that? so this projection would presumably be enough water to help us in a fire or not? >> yeah. here we're talking about, you

know, total system storage our large scale reservoirs which we expect if there was a if there was a fire in san francisco, water would continue to come down from the sierras. but the real water that can be applied is here in san francisco and that's what's part of the emergency firefighting water system. and i think in february or march was scheduled to give a detailed presentation on that to the commission about how that works. but basically we have an alternative network of major pipelines and fire hydrants in san francisco to deliver water on a segregated system that is set to do nothing but fight fires. there were also systems that the prior speaker mentioned. those are actually the last line of defense. they're 70,000 gallon tanks that are set in strategic places around the city. those are kept for and but they've actually never been used because they're they're

intended as literally the last line of defense when you can get that water for a little neighborhood fire. we also have intakes off of the bay that can bring water in that way and put it into that pipe system as well as a large fire boat that can actuly pump water from the bay and deliver it directly to fire. so there's there are a lot of resources available here. i was com i was communicating with my peer down in los angeles the last couple of days and i used a phrase that i've started to use a little more of they're pacific palisades for us was the 1906 fire and earthquake because in 1909 is when san francisco started developing that alternative system. and a lot of people have said over time, well, you're building a whole duplicate system. >> who needs that? >> well, it might come in real handy someday. >> okay.

commissioner rc thanks president stacy and thanks jim ritchey for the presentation and general manager herrera thanks for for getting started on such an important topic and it's it's really thorough. >> i think it's it's really concise the way you've laid stuff out the thing i'm kind of thinking about as i as i listen to your presentation and the briefings you've provided us as we've joined the commission and reading through the slides is kind of where what the trade offs are in terms of when we do our our planning it's in order to hit our targets in terms of where we want to be, in terms of whether it's design drought or whether it's around just thinking through worst case scenario as you said, we can't ever let it get to zero. obviously the tradeoffs are things like how much water remains in the river versus how

much is diverted. right. and then it's how much storage capacity we need in our reservoirs whether we need additional or not. >> what are some of the other tradeoffs? >> i suppose there's probably an environmental argument associated with diversion maybe or what what are some other tradeoffs we can be thinking about? well, one of the one of the things that i'd like to make clear is that, you know, with the state regulations someday we're going to come to a conclusion and it will be the b delta plan as they adopted or it will be you know, the proposal that we've made or will be something else whenever that settles down that w be thes water available for that demand when you add it up with all the other things. so it would be if we have to take additional water, leave it in the rivert mea we have to find a way to have additional supplies to cover

whatever demands are left that might be shortchanged by that. so it's it's just one more demand in terms of you know, where we're at some of those projects and would include additional storage. one of the things that we have had some potential discussions with the irrigation districts is you know, is there a way that we can store excess water from really wet years in the groundwater basin that they control and manage that jointly for mutual benefit? very, very early days and those discussions you know, the districts have been, you know, off putting for a long time but because of what's called the state groundwater management act the excuse me the sustainable groundwater management act, people are having to manage their groundwater basins differently now than they ever have before and so they're looking at new and creative ideas on how to get water into the ground store

it, keep it there and then pull it out at a strategically important time. so that kind of storage is there. i mentioned purified water. it is someday everybody will be drinking purified water to some extent. i will say that for sure. everybody in california we're not there yet but actually in some places in california you know in southern california a lot of what goes down the california aqueduct has already been treated by somebody and is going there is drinking water and that's when i say purified water that's that's probably the single best source that we can have control of and can actually produce a high quality product that can be used so that's you know, a thing that's out there and then you know some groundwater resources we have but but we're different geographically than other areas. we have a nice groundwater

basin but southern california has huge groundwater basins. the central valley has huge groundwater basins. we have much smaller groundwater basins. so if if we're going to do anything big in groundwater, it's really going to be in those areas of the state i guess then kind of along the lines of some dimension to it apart from thinking through the the ability to store in order to to use the kind of the natural environment to to be a storage mechanism. one of the other things as far as i hate to say trade off because when it comes to disaster preparedness you don't want to think about the world trade off. it's just we got to be ready. but that's obviously something we think about to the and the last thing i wanted and obviously is very important especially with the reminder of the tragic events unfolded in southern california. the thing that i'm thinking about got a lot of respect for for andy moran and his his work with the agency

and commissioner and i think he's it's a very powerful statement to say there's no amount of of planning that's too conservative when it comes to our water supply. i guess the thing i'm trying to think on the kind of the the flip you know the other end of the spectrum of thinking about it is also the notion of take only what you need because there's also there's those other tradeoffs and i think about being the rate payer advocate on this body the need for additional capital investment potentially fueling more direct costs and debt service and some of the other things where we see some of these curves that we've got our affordabyget that we always want to be long range below and continue to lead as an agency like we do nationally when it comes to affordable bility along with those environmental and other kind of considerations. just appreciate being on this journey with you to to find out what is what is that what is that right place to be but yeah i agree that that is the real

big challenge for all of us. i would say that the the urban water management plan guidelines the state puts out about how you should plan for that expected growth. they used to say you have to plan for three years of drought then a couple of years ago they changed that to plan for five years of drought. i'm just waiting to when they come along and say you need to plan for eight years of drought. right. and they will say see that's what we've been talking about. >> i mean california is a real challenging place to be in all these situations. >> admittedly we can't get it wrong. i guess at the end of the day that's somewhere in between those. yeah two kind of notions and an axiom we can't get it wrong. that's right. we can't get it wrong. >> thanks, president stacy thank you commissioners. i'm maybe going to echo some of the questions that the commissioners have already asked. >> i went back and looked at the september 2022 hearing that

the commission had on the design drought. it was before ias on the commission but it's a really interesting sort of in-depth look at the design drought and the idea that the design drought is not it it's it's both a it's it's a planning tool and an anticipation that a66 and a half year drought can surely get worse in the future given the climate change and what we're facing but that it's also a stress test as you pointed out today and in that during that hearing in 2022 and i appreciate commissioner asks questions about what are the tradeoffs there are certainly tradeoffs in how much water we divert from the river and what goes down the river. it is a complicated calculation because of the lack of or because we san francisco can't

take water or can't take much water off the river into dry years because our water rights are subordinate to modesto and turlock. it's also i think important to think about the design drought when we look at alternative water supply planning which you've also mentioned today that what are we planning for and what are we anticipating to need? and then the third thing that you've also mentioned today is the the unknown in the future what's going to come from the state, what requirements might come from the federal government and how state water planning is sort of in that in the state of change and it may affect what san francisco can and cannot do. so i appreciate this conservative approach if you can even call it conservative on the design drought that we've we've planned for a

drought that we've already experienced plus this two year additional window for the very dry years that could follow. so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that we have an eight and a half year design drought. but i know we've we've had lots of testimony and lots of input from members of the public about that design drought. i also was interested in projects that you mentioned in the powerpoint with modesto and turlock and you mentioned potential groundwater storage with modesto and turlock and that is just you're very much in the preliminary stages. are there other projects that you're in discussions with with modesto and turlock? i know we've worked together

already on some restoration projects in that on the water me river yeah. habitat restoration projects are something that have become front and center for for us collectively and i think as we presented to the commission last fall there was a very nice albeit limited scope a habitat restoration project on the 20 river replacing more gravel and introducing some more sinuous ity to the 12 ne river which already seems to be paying off in terms of you know, benefits for for migratory fish those kinds of projects you know will increase in the future. those are those are good things that we can do and and healthy rivers and landscapes program our goal is to make sure that those kind of projects are coupled with flows that are of strategic will be utilized to make sure that we get the maximum benefit out of that habitat restoration because we

have we have majorly modified our rivers in california so thinking well just flawed but a whole lot more water down there ,you know, would be a nice thing to do if we had that luxury. we don't have that luxury and so we have to figure out you know, what we can do that is the best thing we can do with the resources we have available to us. and so coupling those two together in the strategically best way is we think a great path. but yes, in terms of actual water supply projects, groundwater basins are the are the assethat ty have that are their their best opportunity for us to do something jointly in the central valley. >> thank you. and commissioner john dyer mentioned this as well that with all of the sort of on site conservation measures and the reduction in water use that we've seen among consu that even as population grows that

the water useoe't that doesn't grow at the same rate as population. and when we look at these water supply assessments like the one that's on our calendar today, you can see that the that water demand or water use water consumption per capita continues to go down. mm hmm. i, i wonder and i appreciate that you're looking at different demand studies and different demand scenarios. i wonder if that is going to affect what we think we can do during a drought right now we we are trying to plan for no more than 20% rationing during a drought. but if consumption has already gone down significantly, i wonder how how we achieve that 20%. >> i will give a nonscientific response to that. in the last drought we called for 11% reduction systemwide

which meant for our wholesale customers they had to reduce about 16% >> it was dicey as to whether we were going to make that on a sustained basis. so i've already started to make sure we're asking the question of is a 20% reduction realistic going forward? certainly for some customers it is. we've got a handful of wholesale customers that have very, very high water use and they will be able to reduce. but those that are all down now in the you know, 55 and below nge because their their environments are different than san francisco's. so asking them to do more is, you know, going to be a taller order than it always than it has been in the past. so i i i'm starting to question a little bit can we actually achieve that 20% in the out years of a drought and it's hard to say yeah and i appreciate in the water supply assessments the department

generally notes that if there are buildings that have all these conservation measures in place and the consumption is already low that there will be an attempt to sort of incrementally ask for reductions, go for the high consumers uh target the high consumers first and then and yeah but it's got to be high high percent on a per capita basis you know it's that that's where we need to look. >> okay. >> the one other question i had is about adding san jose and santa clara supply assurance. it seems now that you know the numbers that you show us it seems doable where it seems more problematic is when we have a dry year and we've added this 9 million gallon supply assurance could could you comment on that a little bit yeah in in normal years adding

that demand to our demand we've been we've been serving san francisco or san jose and san this quarter ever since the early 70s and then you know normal years plenty of water and in fact during the drought everybody has said yeah we can accommodate them but they still don't have a guaranteed supply from san francisco. and so we've been in discussion with them about making sure that we can identify dry year supplies because that's where it counts. and so those discussions have been going on for a while and will continue for a while because it's there isn't a low hanging fruit out there by any means at this point the south bay purified water project would be a purified water project that would be in the south bay driven by san jose and sa c and the santa clara valley water district. and so that might be the ideal project to serve as the basis to say yes we can serve them

this much more water because they're producing it w4xith this recycled water project. >> yep. thank you commissioners. any other questions at this point could we take public comment please? and we're we're allowing the public three minutes to comment bring this item please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item five a we received a card from mr. thomas michael. >> good afternoon. tom smiggle ceo of bosco bosco appreciates the presentation by mr. ritchie and the details the spices approach to water supply planning. >> i want to highlight that the level of service goal that he mentioned is also part of the agreement the water sup reement between bosco and the spc and it's very important to the wholesale customers that

that are represented by bosco. we also recently began the preparation of an updated regional water demand and conservation study which will be completed by december of 2025 and that will tie in with the water and water supply urban water management plans both that our wholesale agencies in san francisco will be doing for the whole system. and so we work together with your team to successfully manage our plans for growth for our customer demands and customer conservation. we agree that there are challenges ahead aligned with the list that was shared by mr. ritchie. we appreciate your efforts and the commitment of the spc as it plans the means and methods to continue to meet the water supply reliability of its wholesale customers. thank you commissioners. i've always looked at this

situation in a different way. first and foremost your commissioners should read directly act after you read the rico act find out about our needs assessment to this city first what we have here is somewhere along the line you are diverted trying to make a lot of money. you must always realize that the water belongs to the indigenous people. water is life that's how we have to look at it. we don't take water to make more money. >> so when you had the first drought, whenever y'all had the first drought maybe 1906 or even even eight in the 80s you ve to go back then and find out what were the conditions.

so right now san franciscans do not use water. they use less water. guess what they have to pay more and then guess what we find out that you charge them more and when you are going to pay them back. now. but why was the charity dam created for home? >> find out in a regular act. >> find out like all ibm and all these people getting water just because they give you a lot of money as long as you drive anything with your greed it will come to bite you in the. now not once have y'all invited the indigenous people here and asked them how do they feel that the sacred water that we

stole from them is used to flush out toilets in the year 2025? i mean, you know, it's ridiculous and we say we are human beings. you know we want to live here. >> if your main objective is to sell the water and make a lot of money you will fail. >> thank you very much. thank you. do we have any other members of the public present who wish to provide comment? if so, please approach the podium seeing none. >> moderator do you have any callers with their hand raised ? >> this one there there are three callers with their hands raised. thank you. >> caller your line has been unmuted. >> you have three minutes. i think you.

my name is jason foster. i'm calling him from the of richmond. >> i'd like to say thank you to mr. ritchie and general manager herrera for summarizing the planning priorities and considerations clearly this is a public service. >> there are several excuse me there's a bit of an echo that there are several commendable priorities for high water quality, high reliability, accommodating growth and mitigating the risks of curtailments, climate change, etc.. >> however, what is completely missing from the planning priorities it's not included in the smart operations is managing costs. >> managing cost is a priority for those who rely on the water today.

so have utilities manage to matter to the general public to wholesale customers, to others that are referenced in the planning overview? i ask the puc mandate to actions associated with planning and managing costs to planning priorities and require consensus from stakeholder views on planning assumptions and the impact of planning options on rates targets for cost management offset biases that can lead that that can lead to an overbloated system that can't be managed and ultimately may implode. so you know, i really do lieve maning costs and getting consensus from the water users on the planning assuons based on the impact on rates it would be very healthy for all of us. >> thank you.

>> thank you, caller for your comment caller. your line has been muted. you have three minutes. thank you. this is peter drucker, our policy director in 12 new river trust. first of all, i'd like to thank president stacey for the extra minute this presentation session was disappointing for me because there was really nothing nothing new in it i've seen it so many times and you know if it was the first of many to bring people up to speed i understand that but what you really need to do is have a workshop where you can hear different perspectives. i would love the purchase speed in that and i hope we can do that and i did appreciate the questions asked by the commissioners. it was great to see that. you know it's very clear to me that your staff is living in the past, you know, quote from 30 years ago drought design dropped from 30 years ago. i encourage you to ask them to respond to my letter

and there's a section there about here are four things have changed you could just ask them is this true? if not, you know, correct him but we need to have dialog. we used to get responses to our comment we don't anymore. here's an interesting figure you know the design drive just adds two years but you need to look at how severe those two years were according to the long term vulnerability assessment in 1990 to that drought require the drop it ended in 92 six years required 707,000 acre feet out of storage. the 7677 drought 510,000. >> so it's not just i mean this was a terrible, terrible drought, two year drought. so that design drop is 72% more severe than the worst drought on record. you can ask your staff to model what would happen if the drought of record repeated current demand show us that they probably have it at their fingertips but they need to be asked. they won't volunteer it.

the urban water management plan well once coming up and we need to get on top of this in 2020 staff tried to claim that current demand at the time was 265 it was 198 but they crunched all their numbers using 265 we caught them. they had to change that. the wholesale customers appreciated that because it reduced the rationing dramatic the 244 that was mentioned that's not in the urban water management plan table 6-1 i'll cite everything shows that was 236 projection by 2045 they added the eight mgd later in the late teens we kept saying hey you know you're putting out information that's not accurate and they would say what it was in our 2015 urban water management plan we got to stick with it. but now a reversal they're saying okay, we've changed it in our minds. so really critical alternative water supply plan is really a terrible way to move forward.

it only looks at the most extreme example you really need a range. there's so much room for improvement. thank you for getting started and thank you for the extra minute i could use many more. thank you caller for your comment color your line has been muted. you have three minutes. >> hi this is dave werner again. i thank you for your three minutes. i'd first start by i just want to say i really admire mr. rickey and i think mr. richie also has a wonderful depth of talent and resources behind him. some of the things he said were very, very good. some of the things of course i think are biased. if there was one key overall point i'd make it's the importance of data and if you look at anson moran's comments from 1994, the data didn't exist back then that we didn't know what was the likelihood of an eight and a half year drought. today we have 11 years 1100 years of treatment data. we have the long term

vulnerability assessment that provided 25,000 years of stochastic data and we found in some of the data we found was the ltv said that the 8792 drought was a once in a 420 year event and if climate change occurs which they projected it would it becomes a once in a 495 year to 675 year event. so climate change actually helps us. and i guess my real point here is when trying to assess you know, is the design drought the right length you really need data because an extra year as some of you have said really cost us a lot and so we should understand the risk and then we should make a judgment decision based on that risk. for example, one more piece of data and i'd ask you know, i might get this wrong but i believe the drought of record the 8792 drought our water supply on the river is still pretty robust. during that six year drought we

averaged 100 million gallons per day of supply during the drought. that's a lot. and so if our demand today was 184 you can sort of get a sense of okay, maybe we you know, zero doesn't mean zero zero just means we're going to have less. so i guess the last thing i would say is i guess i'm just going through my notes here. you know, you haven't gone through the healthy rivers and landscapes comparison to the bay delta plan and i think if you did you'd find, you know, quite amazing number of shocking differences and it seems like as part of your doing due diligence that's another exercise to be worthwhile doing. so anyway i thank you for the extra time. thank you for this excellent topic. i hope you'll get more data as it's so important for making cost benefit tradeoffs. >> thank you. >> thank you. caller for your comment. >> this one there there are no more callers who wish to be recognized.

>> thank you. thank you. commissioners any follow up thoughts or comments or questions? you know next next item general manager. >> thank you, madam president. item five b is something that we always like to celebrate. that's the the terms of service of some of our longest employees who do a great job on behalf of the puc. so today we're recognizing the incredible service and dedication of our recent retirees with over 25 years of service to the san francisco public utilities commission commission. and today we're going to be celebrating two individuals who have demonstrated the highest form of commitment and pride in public service. first, we'd like to recognize michael lacey in the water wastewater enterprise for his 25 years of service. whereas michael lacey exemplifies tireless leadership and dedication to advancing opportunities and improving the lives of san francisco residents.

and. whereas, michael lacey has passionately work to improve the lives of the citizens in san francisco through his dedication to his paig trade whether it be painting over offensive graffiti to shield the public or just painting walls, mr. lacey always provided elite service. and whereas michael lacey was a participant and leader within the wastewater combine space rescue team and collaborated with the staff to improve operations at all treatment plants and pump stations. and. whereas, michael lacey was instrumental in keeping the wastewater enterprise staff safe and healthy during covid supervising the staff that took employee temperatures and cleared them for work each day. so the treatment plans can keep operating. and. whereas, michael lacey has been an active supporter of local workforce development and apprentice training programs to create economic opportunities for young people and workers in san francisco. and. whereas, on october 11th, 2024, after 25 years of employment at the san francisco public utilities commission, michael lacey celebrated his retirement

and a lifetime of service to san francisco. now therefore be it resolved that this commission hereby offers its highest commendations to michael lacey on the celebration of his retirement and honors his accomplishments. >> thank you. >> and i think we have steve jones and maybe joel. joel, you here to say a few words? joel prather, assistant general manager for wastewater. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. so prior to my appointment as the assistant general manager i was actually the maintenance manager for the way switching facilities and mike lacey ran our paint shop one of the maintenance crews. >> you may be thinking what does a paint shop do with wastewater treatment? but i will tell you that mike's crews were critical in keeping our facilities up to date and painted protected outside the facilities inside of the facilities like painting the pipes for identification. and then, you know, when we pull a sump pump out that's been living in sewage for 20 years and we rebuild it there,

the crew that would strip down that old paint, repaint it, get it all prepped live and be submerged again in sewage for another 20 years. critical work that needed to be done day in and day out and mike was the leader in that crew. also, you know, you see the fine finishes in this room and mike was truly a cftsman. mike and his crew were truly craftsmen and in finishing out brooms and other things within the facilities that we had. and then finally as as as dennis had mentioned, you know, during the early days of covid 19, citywide painters were deemed as nonessential for staff. but mike and his team volunteered right away to be our health screeners and so they came in, they screened all of our staff and ensure that we could have our continuous 24 seven operations, our wastewater training facility so on behalf of wastewater praise on behalf of the city, i want to congratulate mike. >> thank you for your dedicated service and i wish you all the best. >> mike would you like to come up and say a few words of sure.

i'm not used to being on tv. i was in the military when i was very young, joined the navy and did my service for the navy and worked for d.o.d. department of defense afterwards which they told me i would have a career for life but that didn't happen so i had to start over with city county of san francisco. by the way, thank you. >> started working for actually dpw and i transferred over p. c. well they're a very reliable service and they keep their employees and i've worked hand in hand with joel and steve jones and many others. >> they've always given me support. they're very good men. the pieces lucky to have them actually. but appreciated my career and have always tried to do the

best i could. and i thank you. >> i thank you for my retirement. before before we take a photo. >> commissioners if you'd like to say anything. >> i just want to say thank you for the many years of service. we were lucky to have you and i also wish you the best in your retirement. it's a great time. thank you. >> thank you also for your service to the country as well as to san francisco here. it's very admirable. thank you very much. >> okay. >> before i invite mike up to have this resolution have a photo. we have another individual who's not here with us today. so i'm going to go through that resolution as well. we'd like to recognize frank mcpartland who served for 26

years in the finance team. frank's not able to be with us here in person today. would like to read it first. lucian have we have the finance team here today to say a few words whereas frank mcpartland has served the city and county of san francisco with distinction for over three decades with 26 of those years dedicated as the san francisco public utilities. these commissions capital budget manager and. whereas, frank mcpartland demonstrated unparalleled expertise and institutional knowledge in public finance and steadfast dedication to public service. and. whereas, under frank mcpartland@ strategic leadership the puc's capital budgeting process involved significant lee leading to the implementation of comprehensive ten year capital improvement programs that have grown from millions to billions of dollars in essential infrastructure investments. and. whereas, frank mcpartland's legendary reputation as the spokes resident cheerfully cantankerous budget guardian

was matched only by his deep institutional knowledge and unwavering commitment to fiscal responsility earning him both the respect and affection from colleagues across the organization. and. whereas, throughout his tenure, frank mcparland has mentored countless public finance professionals and always had his dr ope to the budget team where he shared his encyclopédie knowledge ofnicipas and the intricacies of san francisco's public finances. whereas frank mcpartland's masterful stewardship of the sfp c's capital budget has positioned the agency for continued success in deliverin critical infrastructure improvements that will benefit san francisco residents for generations to come. now therefore, be it resolved that this commission hereby extends its deepest gratitude to frank mcpartland for his exemplary service. recognizes his lasting contributions to the city's infrastructure legacy anng retirement.

>> and we have our deputy assistant general manager. >> hello. hi commissioners. my name is laura bush, depy cfo. frank worked for me the wle time i've been at p c which is five years. but he had been here 21 years before i showed up so i had a lot to learn from him. >> frank couldn't be here today. i certainly hope he's watching though, so. hi frank. >> he's not the type of man who wants a fuss to be made about him. in fact, he told me multiple times, laura, if you throw me a retirement party i will not come. but we felt me on the team who is all here today? we felt it was important to give frank a good send off and recognize his long career and contributions. the cpc. >> so as dennis mentioned, frank served as capital budget

manager for 26 years. previously he was at the human services department. >> and under his leadership, as dennis mentioned, the cip grew from millions of dollars to billions of dollars which frank often rolled his eyes a■. >> he demonstrated unparalleled expertise and insight, institutional knowledge. >> and he was the type of person who could always answer the question why are we doing it this way or what is this way? >> the thing i just came across. he's usually break out an anecdote from 10 or 20 years ago. many times i would come up with a great idea for a process improvement and he'd say oh yeah we tried that in the 90s. >> and he didn't alws do his job cheerfully. in fact he had a well deserved reputation for being a bit of a curmudgeon as he tried to defend fiscal responsible, glitzy and budget transparency. he had everyone's respect and affection and everyone usted his judgment especially me. >> he really cared about his

staff and he mentored many, many public finance professionals, some of whom are here today. >> i really want to express my deepest gratitude to frank for his service. we really miss you, frank. i want to recognize your lasting contributions to sfp c's capital infrastructure and give you a huge congratulations on your well well-deserved retirement. >> thanks frank. >> thank you and thank you to frank for your many years of service and i hope you're having a good time wherever you are. congratulations on your retirement. >> okay, mike, why don't you come on up and we'll take a photo. we have the resolution. >> correct commendation. come on up. you guys have done this you come up by the way.

oh, yeah. you're just coming here and i know that this here to see you . we just took a couple more

. >> okay. public comment. should take public comment on the commendations. >> remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on this item. do we have any members of the public present who wish to provide comment? if so, please approach the podium seeing none. >> moderator do we have any

cards with their hand raised? >> this one there there are no collars with their hands raised. thank you, madam president. that concludes my report. thank you. >> please read the next item. >> item six bay area water supply and conservation agency report. >> good afternoon president stacy and commissioners. again, i'm tom smigel. i'm the ceo of oscar and just started there in december and i think i met all of you in november just before i took the position. >> i just wanted to talk a little bit today about the assurance of capital project work and so read the following statement in 2002 bosco was created by the california legislature to represent the interests of 1.8 million residents, over 40,000 businesses and hundreds of community groups in alameda, san mateo and santa clara

counties served by the hetch hetchy regional water system which is operated by the spca san francisco as a perpetual obligation to these wholesale customers to provide up to 184 million gallons of water per day and we also pay about two thirds of the cost of this the regional water system. >> for this reason we have the authority under the water supply agreement to review and comment on capital budgets, capital plans, the capital improvement program and we also take an active oversight role with respect to capital projects. >> these rules have worked very well to provide assurance to the wholesale customers and the residents and businesses that they serve that the capital planning and construction for the regional water system meets our shared commitment to water supply that is reliable high quality water at a fair price. a recent december 20th, 2024 performance audit of the spc

completed by the san francisco budget and legislative analyst was critical of spc's management of change orders for construction contracts. bousquet bousquet is aware of the supportive written response of the spc as well as comments made this month by general manager herrera that the recommendations of the audit had begun to be implemented. i'm also aware that the audit covered a period largely prior to the currency spc administration bosca and its 26 member agencies as well as members of the public are interested in a report from the general manager once the recommendations have been implemented. it will be valuable for public and customer confidence for the spc to provide assurance that its capital budget and project contracting processes conform to best practices and the highest standards. thank you. >> that ends my comments. thank you mr. smi and and

welcome. thanks. nice to see you today. >> commissioners, any comments or questions? >> we hear public comment please. >> remote college please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item six. do we have any members of the public present who wish to provide comment on this item? if so, please approach the podium seeing none. moderator are there any callers with their hand raised? the signature there is one caller with their heads raised. >> thank you. >> caller your line has been muted >> you have tin thank you. this is peter greg marshall on the river trust. i appreciated mr. siegel comments regarding the recent audit and it also raises the question of why wasn't boss aware of these issues. and of course this happened for ■hs tim like w cmenting about the san francisco issue being prior to mr. various time

. but i encourage mr. sinegal to treat the alternative water supply plan in the same way really dig into it, meet with us. let's talk about it and maybe take a position to make that a better plan. that's a problem we can avoid if we get on top of it now. thank you >> thank you caller for your comment. it's linear. >> there are no more callers with their hands raised. thank you. >> okay. thank you. please read the next item. >> item seven is the consent calendar. >> this is the shortest consent calendar i've ever seen. commissioners, any comments or questions? >> should we take public comment? >> remote callers please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on the consent calendar. are there any members of the

public presenthoish to provide comment? if so, please approach the podium seeing none. moderator moolenaar there are no callers with their hands raised. thank you. could i have a motion and a second to approve the consent calendar? >> so moved second. thank you. roll call. >> president stacy i. vice president r.c.. high commissioner jantar. high commissioner level rony i. the item pass. >> thank you. please read the next item. the next item is agenda item number eight. approve the first amended joint powers agreement of the san joaquin tributaries authority. >> good afternoon commissis. manager for water.tant gener this is an item to approve the first amended joint powers agreement of the san joaquin authity was created in 2012.

it's a gaap among basically the senior water rights holders on the east side tributaries of the san joaquin river. it originally included the oakdale irrigation district, the south san joaquin irrigation district on the stennis lost riverrlock and modn district in san francisco. on t2 new river and more said irrigation district on the river said river over time. it is really it was originally formed to protect defended and hence the respective water rights of the member agencies who are all pre 1914 water rights holders. the two of the members have dropped out oakdale irrigation district and are said irrigation district for their own reasons leaving south san joaquin and the 12 new river parties as the remaining members. and over the last couple of years the members have looked at redoing the bylaws to basically expand the the issues

that they want to deal with and really try to move into a little bit more modern times in terms of including environmental protection and balancing beneficial uses of water and also made clear provision for adding new members. i think they're tg collectively come together in a way that says we can be a positive force in the water world and we need to work harder at doing that and these changes to the bylaws are basically a major first step for that. so i would recommend approval and be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you mr. ritchie. >> commissioners comments or questions. >> madam president, just to add i think that mr. ritchie's some things up very well but just in addition as more evidence of how we're trying to institutionalize the organization we to ee that

it has a focal point of where we can work together to pursue our common good. we've recently hired an executive director who came on board which we did not have evioly. that was after a year long recruitment process and we have a new executive director so that goes in conjunction with with what mr. ritchie is talking about putting us on a i think a very solid path to really doing some constructive work as opposed to just being say a legal advocacy organization. >> thank you. really want to emphasize my interest in sort of moving beyond the litigation and the legal issues and really look hard at different ways that we can collaborate. it seems absolutely essential to work together and work more expansively if we can reach out to oakdale and ms. said and maybe get them to join the group, work with other water districts.

that would be just great. i am about to attend my first meeting in february so i'll be interested to meet the other members but also really look at moving and expanding what sga can do in the future in a collaborative way. so thank you for these changes. i think they're really important and i'm really pleased that we're moving in that direction. thank you. okay. let's take public comment. >> remote college please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item number eight. do we have any members of the public present who wish to provide comment? seeing none. moderator. >> this one there there are no callers with their hands raised. thank you. >> commissioners could i have a motion in a second to approve these amendments to the agreement? >>otion to approve second.

>> thank you. a roll call vote. president stacey i. vice president r.c.. hi, commissioner jantar. hi, commissioner love aroney. i am passes. >> thank you. please read the next item. agenda item number nine approve the water supply assessment for the proposed 447 battery street and 530 sansom street project. >> good afternoon again commissioners steve ritchie. this is a water supply assessment which is a legally required action by the public utilities commission to contribute information to the secret process that is being carried out by the san francisco planning department in terms of an environmental document or whether it's in the air or mitigated negative declaration whatever under state law. the water agency in this case the puc is required to develop an assessment of the water

supply availability relative to the demands of the new development. provide that information to the to the planning department. this is a companion document to the urban water management plan that we've talked about before where we have to show that we've been thinking about ananning for all of these developments. so this is a the project level specific document. it's not approval of the project by any means. it's just approval of the water supply assessment that concludes that there's a number of possible outcomes on the bay delta plan and other things. but despite all those uncertainties thishi will not cn short of water ultimately. >> the planning department takes this does their air and then the project goes forward for whatever approvals are needed after that. but this is simply a legally required step that we need to go through.

>> thank you. commissioners comments or esons? oh commissioner say i had one. >> i had one and thanks. hey jim richie the the two properties are proposals in question seem see interesting one is a relatively smaller maybe four story hotel and then the other it'bo a 19 story got some hotel maybe some residential maybe some office and then the at the bottom looks like a fire station. i was just curious if for us if that does anything different in terms of the the water needs assessment that kind of connectivity to a fire station there in this case the project is unique and we've been working very closely with the city attorney on this to try to make sure we understand what obligations they have given the advice we're getting from the city attorney's office. it appears that the way the review is set up that the fire

station needs to be included as part of the the program. it doesn't affect the water supply assessment. what it does affect is application of the non-potable ordinance which would require recy water use within a facility. so we're in covers sation with the mayor's office of economic and workforce development to try to make sure that you know, we've got a good path forward and i won't fault san francisco for this but ordinances are written a certain way and you get a legal interpretation of this is this is the way the square peg fs int the round hole and does it does it the right thing and so we're trying to figure out is there a way to make sure that we do the right thing by this development in terms of how it complies with the non-potable ordinance and i'm sure we can come to a solution that that can work but

it's it's just presented a little bit of a challenge that thanks. >> thank you. should we take public comment? >> remote callers please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item ten a pardon me item nine. >> are there any membersm nine? >> seeing none. moderator molinari there is one caller who wishes to be recognized. >> thank you. caller your line has been muted. you have two minutes. >> thank you. this is peter drunk marked while me river trust for the last time today. so this project include 372,000 to 417,000ft2 of office space and 127,000 to 188,000ft2 of hotel use. how many jobs is this going to

create? the report doesn't say now i don't see any residential in thisla adding a whole bunch of jobs no housing. what's that going to do to the jobs housing balance? what's going to do to san francisco's requirements to build housing? which came up earlier. you know we need the water for housing is that water need for housing included in the water supply assessment? no. should it be? yes. now i understand that, you know the puc is just supposed to produce a document saying, you know, maybe we have too much water, maybe we don't. and the planning commission has to make the determination about moving forward. i think it'dent session with the planning commission to talk about this divide because what they see is oh, you know all these water supply assessments get approved. we must have plenty of water. and they don't take that into consideration.

there was a meeting when two commissioners voted no on a water supply assessment and they said why do we always find water for development but not for the environment? great question. you can you can do that. you can vote no, i don't think you're going to do that. but i think you should take time. you should not vote on this today and you should formulate a letter to the planning department saying hey, there are a number of issues here that we need to address together. let's have a joint meeting. >> thank you. >> thank you, paula, for your comments. the sooner there are no more callers who wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> thank you. could i have a motion in a second to approve this water supply assessment? >> president stacy i. i'll make the motion a moment, but but i just wanted to clarify in with respect to the the comment from mr. direk

meyer i was the one that said residential and i just double checked the the report that i was reading from 2021 on the on the 19 story tower at least so 530 sansom is the proposed 19 story tower there's reference granted this is from 2021 but there's reference to just about half of the square footage for hotel use and then about a quarter for commercial retail and another quarter for offices on levels t seven and eight. so i misspoke but i did i was thinking where do i where i come up with a dense residential where that come from? in this report there is at least reference to a potential variant concept to add residential including 256 apartments and split between 191 studios 3891 studios or one bedrooms, 38 two bedrooms and 27 three bedrooms. obviously where the public

utilities commission and not the planning commission but i do want to just say i really hope they build that residential housing component as much housing as we can build downtown is good on lots of different reasons in terms of the city's economic recovery and our public transportation system particularly bart really needs folks to be back downtown again. so just a little bit of dicta there just to throw into the converse ation and i would like to move that we approve the assessment there a second second thank you for your comments commissioner or say a roll call vote please president stacy there is a caller with their hand raised. oh okay. >> take that call. yes please. thank you. >> moderator hey mike. hi. yeah, can you hear me? yes. yes. okay, great. >> this is nick roosevelt land use council for the project sponsor and i just wanted to

address what sounds like a little bit of confusion about the about the project before the commission. this project does have some back history and that there was a prior version that did have the residential variance mentioned earlier in the discussion and i just wanted to clarify that there is a revised project that is the subject of this water supply assessment that is proposing two distinct buildings not an integrated facility but a standalone fire station that at the full facilities that are in site and the mixed use tower that would consist of hotel and office uses at the at the 530 sansom site. so it's sort of two discrete buildings that are being built as a as a part of a development agreement proposed with the city that to build the city of new fire station that at the port for some better site in conjunction with the development of the high rise tower. >> i just want to make that clarification. thank you.

thank you color for your comments. ms. leonard there are no more colors with the hands raised. thank you. all right. so we take a roll call vote. president stacy i. >> vice president rc high commissioner xander da by commissioner level aroney i the item passes. agenda item ten thank you. >> a word contract number d-2900 break campus improvements to clark construction group california you may i have the slides please? thank you.

>> okay. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is tracy keough, project manager for the sfp. you see, i'm here today to request your approval to award the construction management general contract for pre-construction and construction services to clark construction for a total contract amount of 269 million including 5.1 million for pre-construction services. pre-construction services would involve collaboration with the design team to provide input reality related to construct to build cost estimating, facing and sequencing of work and other services to optimize cost schedule and quality of the project. this collaboration will enhance the project's design and reduce the risk of cost and schedule changes during construction.

to the left of this screen is the existing mill bridge campus which is located at 1000 el camino real in millbrae, california. the campus includes one of the corporate yards of the water enterprise and its main water quality laboratory due to space constraints within the existing buildings there staff from water quality and natural resources report to a separate location in burlingame to the right of the screen is the new middlebury campus when it's completed which will accommodate approximately 400 staff. >> the current laboratory requires a heating and ventilation improvements and modernization to meet water quality regulatory testing requirements. the sfp uc also seeks to expand the building space at the middlebury campus to merge and house the water enterprise staff and functions from their

role in the road facility and some laboratory functions from the southeast wastewater treatment plant. this project will alleviate current shortage of program space, increase operational efficiency, modernize its equipment and facilities, improve employee working environment and health and safety and enhance site and building security. improvements for the campus will be implemented in three phases which will be performed under a single construction contract. phase one includes renovation of some of the existing buildings into industrial shop and storage buildings. >> phase two includes construction of a new store, two storey combined laboratory and office building and a wellness pavilion and face three includes renovation of the existing administration building middlebury campus must

remain operational following a major earthquake and to do so must be renovated to meet essential facility requirements . minimal disruption is expected during construction. this is the way facing of the design and construction is vital. >> six firms responded to the request for qualifications to the cmg contract. >> one withdrew their response the remaining five firms met the minimum qualifications for the requests for proposals. three firms submitted bid which are clark construction trubek and turner. >> this slide shows the evaluation scores of the three firms clark received the highest score. i also would like to mention that the contracting monitoring division established 20% l.b. subcontract requirements for

both preconstruction and construction phases for this contract we request your approval to award the cmg contract to clark construction for a contract amount not to exceed 269 million. >> authorize proceeding only with pre-construction services in not to exceed amount of 5.1 million and we plan to issue a.p. in march of 2025 in a couple of months and forecast to start construction is in october 2020 646 in half year the schedule will be refined as we progress with the environmental review process, staff will return to the commission for approval to authorize the c mgc to proceed with construction services after the environmental review is complete. >> i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you ms. cale. commissioner's comments or

questions commissioner lebaron on your definition of not to exceed what are we looking at that as as i get into the project as they get into the design and all of that that the dollar amount that we see here it will not be any higher than that. >> that's the that's the purpose of the not to exceed yes okay commissioners change orders or things like that if they get into them. >> we're not looking at in 26 to be looking at possible yeah so if there are major change orders that are anticipated we do not anticipate that's the reason why we would like to have the cmg see on board during pre-construction our engineering design team will be working with them very closely to identify risks and possible changes. we will then possibly perform some value engineering and make some alternate moves and other

solutions to stay within the budget. >> thank you. thank you. ms. cale i it looks design has already begun on this project. is that right? that's correct. >> and is it being designed by the bureau of architecture? yes, it's a combination of architecture and also a specialized consulting from other consultants. thank you. >> commissioner janda, do you have a question? just curious this is part of the plant and your capital budget. >> yes it is. >> thank you. should we take public comment ah

their hand raised this line there there is one caller with their hands raised.

>> thank you color everyone has been unmuted. you have two minutes. >> hi this is jason foster, proxy curmudgeon and very appreciative of being involved in this process and everything that's been honored here today on this topic. there's a lot of good material on the project that's been presented but there's not much on because as has been alluded to change orders is this 150% of the bid not to exceed number. are there any indemnification performance? you know, it's just not much of what is in the contract that addresses some of the items in the performance audit that we discussed last time. so i i appreciate color you're

still there. thank you for your comments. >> listener there are no more callers with their hands raised. thank you commissioners could i have a motion in a second to award this contract motion to approve a second. >> thank you. a roll call vote please. president stacy i. vice president rc high commissioner jambs are high commissioner level i the item passes thank you. >> please read the next item item 11 approve an increase of 300 calendar days to the duration contingency for contract number wd2878a

regional groundwater storage and recovery phase two a with marinship development interest llc. >> good afternoon commissioners tracey cale again a project manager for the sfp. you see i'm here to request your approval to increase 300 calendar days to the duration contingency for contract number w d 2878 the regional groundwater storage and recovery phase to a project for a revised duration limit of up to 1250 calendar days with no change to contract amount. >> the request for increase is due to additional time needed to properly install the vertical turbin line shafts with the approved operation and maintenance manuals. i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you commissioners.

any questions or comments? ms. cale could i ask you to expand a little bit on why this phase two has been delayed? when i look at both the staff modifications and your request today it's almost double the time frame and is the work more complicated or are we doing something different there that we didn't anticipate? >> so the when the contractors submitted their submittals for the installation of the line shafts it did not meet the recommended installation through the the owner manuals. therefore they're going back and forth and going back and forth at the end of the day we coordinated with the manufacturer itself and we were able to get the work done based

on the auto own manuals, instructions. >> so that took a long time. so the con so the contractor didn't follow the manufacturer's instructions at the beginning? >> yes. okay. okay. all right. thank you commissioner. >> leave aroney just a clarification. >> i think in looking at this document that i have in the contract is there was an increase of the contract amount i might be misinterpreting this of 606,008 52 at one point if i'm looking at the right and the original contract was 6,000,008 50 and i just don't understand just my maybe ignorance i don't understand the relation if those numbers i'm sorry which one are you

looking at? >> so i was looking at the contract that said funding of costs on the bottom of the page and said original contract amount 6,850,000. >> yes. and i go up above and it says modification to the contract modification numbers 127 issued modifications increasing the contract amount by 606,008 50 to 44 and i was just wondering the correlation between those two amounts. >> so the original contract as you mentioned is 6,000,006 yeah, 6,850,000 and there were change orders modifications 1 to 7 that accounted for the 606,850. >> thank you. i just got it now. >> thank you very much so so

now that the total contract limit is seven million five 35 thank you. thank you. >> a public comment. >> remote callers please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item number 11. are there any members present who wish to provide comment on this item? >> if so please approach the podium seeing none. moderator do we have any callers with their hand raised this one there there are no callers with their hands raised. thank you. thank you. commissioners, could i have a motion in a second to approve item 11? >> motion to approve. seconded. thank you. >> roll call. vote please. president stacy i. vice president r.c.. high commissioner gender high commissioner level i the item passes. >> thank you. please read the next item.

>> item 12 approve an increase of 350,000 to the cost contingency and an increase of 140 calendar days to the duration contingency for contract number ww dash 7198. folsom area stormwater improvements with mitchell engineering. >> good afternoon commissioners my name is derek adams. i'm the project manager for the folsom area stormwater improvements project. i'm here to request a increase in the cost contingency of $350,000 and the duration contingency of 140 calendar days for contract w w dash 719a soma and mission districts sewer replacement. this contract is the first of four contracts being implemented to construct the folsom area stormwater improvement project while installing a six inch diameter sewer pipe on 11th street in soma. our contractor ran into a number of unexpected issues which caused delays and additional costs and this

time and costs. contingency increase will allow the contractor to complete the last remaining scope of work and close out the contract prior to the start of our subsequent contracts and i will be back to the commission later this year to seek award of the next folsom contract which is ww-719c. happy to answer any questions at this time. >> thank you commissioners questions comments no i. >> i had a question. i noticed that there was damage to the money that the contractor caused some damage to the overhead muni lines. >> correct. who who absorbs that cost? >> the contractor absorbs that cost. >> yeah. okay. thank you. >> please call for public comment remote callers please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item 12 are there any members present who wish to provide comment on this

item? >> if so please approach the podium seeing none. moderator do you have any members with their hand raised? ms. lynn neary there are no callers with the hands raised. >> thank you. thank you, commissioners. >> could i have a motion in a second? i moved to approve second. thank you. roll call please. president stacy i vice president r c high commissioner gender high commissioner level ronnie i the item passes thank you. please read the next item agenda item 13 communications. commissioners any comments or questions on the communications ? no thank you. i just wanted to say i always appreciate looking at the reports and i had some questions about clean power srf

mostly about how many customers we have and staff answered those questions but i think general manager will have a presentation about clean power srf later this year, is that right? absolutely right. >> thank you. do we should we take public comment on the communique ations? no. okay. thank you. please read the next item items initiated by commissioners item 14 commissioners any items to initiate or comment on commissioner r c. >> i was just going to report back that i had an opportunity to go to the passive citizens advisory committee last week and it was really really good hard working group good good conversation and i just went at tiffany had a great idea which would be to give a little bit

more advance notice to come back for a more kind of iterative dialog with with commissioner but still taking advantage opportunity to go say hi you know and thank them for their hard work they were there late and staff was there late everybody working late so but it was great to see them in action and i'm planning to go back next month as well. >> great. thank you. i should we take public comment on commissioner matters is that of ms. linear would you mind allowing calling for public comment? >> remote callers please raise your hand if you wish provide comment on item 14 are there any members present who wish to provide comment? >> if so please approach the podium seeing none. moderator do we have any calls

with their hand raised this linear there are no callers with their hands raised. thank you. >> thank you. ms. lanier could you read the matters to be heard during closed session and open public comment on that please? >> item 15 public comment on the matter to be addressed during closed session conference with legal counsel ralph power versus city and county of san francisco. thank you. do we have any public comment on this item? >> seeing none. moderator are there any callers with their hand raised? >> ms. lynn neary there are no callers with their hands raised. >> thank you, commissioners. may i have a motion on whether to assert the attorney client privilege regarding the closed session matter on item 16, a motion to assert the attorney client privilege regarding the matters item 16.

>> seconded. thank you. roll call please. resident stacy i vice president rc high commissioner jantar by commissioner leave aroney i the item passes we're back in open session thank you. >> i wanted to announce that the commission voted in closed session to recommend settlement of the item referenced in. agenda item number 16 please read the next item motion

regarding whether to disclose the discussion during closed session pursuant to san francisco administrative code section 67.1 two commissioners could i have a motion in a second whether to disclose our discussions in closed session? >> i move that we do not disclose our discussions. second thank you roll call vote please president stacy i vice president rc high commissioner enter high commissioner level ronnie i the item passes thank you and the meeting is adjourned

aculous way. i'm living proof that treatment works. >> every day i use was a form of suicide. i just didn't die. the methadone program saved my life. i love my life. my recovery is the best thing that ever happened to me. if you want your life back, methadone works. you are to let it work. i'm living proof.

>> we have been without a major seismic event for over 20 years now. will happen at a moment's notice [♪♪♪] >> today we are practising the activation of our department emergency operations center. >> this is really an exercise for us to train, and we are using fleet week and the entire -- the italian heritage festival as the exercise. we have four different sections that are working today. there is operations, and operations basically is our contact with people out in the fields. they are finding out how things are going, and if there are problems, they are letting us know and we can identify through our action plan what what resources are needed and dispatch those resources. they will fill out reports and then the report gets to planning you will identify if additional resources need to be happening over a long-term timeframe and then they will provide for that

by talking with our logistics staff. the logistic staff logistics staff is the one that will order labor, materials, they will do that, first of all, looking within our own organization, then if we don't have that within our own organization, they will contact the p.o.c. and then they will look at getting resources to us. and then last but importantly as our finance staff. and they are here to make sure that we first of all fill out all the paperwork so in an actual event, when the federal government will be reimbursing s., then we are following the proper protocol, and they are also making sure the money is there in place. >> today in the field we have the environmental service is following the parade, and doing the final cleanup of the parade. and an emergency situation, they would likely be doing something similar to this, only with debris. also in the field is the inspectors from the mapping. they are doing some live

streaming. >> there is an intersection of beach making sure that everything is safe for our public, our visitors, and everyone participating in the event. >> there will be so many different departments working during a seismic event or any other kind of emergency. they will all have a separate action plan, and we are here making sure that for public works the action plan for that emergency event is actually followed through. >> engineers will likely be doing damage assessment of roads , bridges, overhead passes, architects and engineers as well would be doing damage assessment of facilities and buildings. building repair it would probably be doing some immediate repairs to make facilities operational, especially things like shelters, street and sewer repair, as the urban forestry

crew also has big equipment that can help clear the roadways. [♪♪♪] >> we have been without a major seismic event for over 20 years now, so it is important that we are ready, we know the roles that we need to play, and we are able to act quickly because it will happen at a moment's notice so that is one of the reasons why we do this, and again, the more comfortable we feel in our roles, then the better we can respond quickly to emergencies. >> for an emergency planning communication is very important, and so i can't stress enough the importance of figuring out a communication plan for your family, and for the department. that is why we are practising today how we communicate and interact with each other, how we share information, and how we use that information, and then for the city as a whole, so that the city as a halt knows what is going on as well.

welcome to the civic design committee the time is 11. . 04. new year. different time of and i'm calling this meeting to order. and --il ask our commission program associate to call the

roll >> commissioner snare. >>