what has the sfpuc done for them?nd now you are will stoling the water that belongs to those troib and making millions of dollars and nowhere in your agreement you have mitigation measures for the tribes were impacted. adverse low impacted and the [inaudible] that is per of this culture part of their rituals have been 10 away. here you are wheel and dealing. this and that agreement. the segment of the population that is wicked. wicked. and [inaudible] that we have a sign for us to mitigate meditate -- think about our evil deeds. and that's all i will say. thank you very much. >> thank you for sharing your comments. next caller you have 2 minutes. petertuolumne river trust i have been a supporter of the transfer and around that time i brought together lected officials from palo alto and we facilitated half mgt transfer for fro it it is an issue i care b. i encourage to you think about is unintended consequences. the like low buyer of these isg's is [inaudible] the brisbane project. which is a lot of commercial developm

the mou was considered by the sfpuc at the january 14 meeting i believe it was. a few commissioners had questions and so they asked for more information and didn't take action on it then. since then, had meetings with staff, i believe chair chan had discussions directly with general manager herrera, and i think there are a few amendments we have been considering around the scope of work and i think whether or not lafco oversight of clean power sf should be part of the mou and reimbursement by the puc or just to funding the studies that are imagined in the mou and then, some technical amendments around what commissioner williams was referencing around the language around carry-over of unused funds from fiscal year to next fiscal year and what-trying to find a balance point between the certainty lafco is looking for to know the funds will be with us barring some financial crisis so we have certainty for multi-year budgeting and planning for these studies and the puc wanting flexibility in case of dire financial straights so they are not locked into the money being

the mou was considered by the sfpuc at the january 14 meeting i believe it was.ommissioners had questions and so they asked for more information and didn't take action on it then. since then, had meetings with staff, i believe chair chan had discussions directly with general manager herrera, and i think there are a few amendments we have been considering around the scope of work and i think whether or not lafco oversight of clean power sf should be part of the mou and reimbursement by the puc or just to funding the studies that are imagined in the mou and then, some technical amendments around what commissioner williams was referencing around the language around carry-over of unused funds from fiscal year to next fiscal year and what-trying to find a balance point between the certainty lafco is looking for to know the funds will be with us barring some financial crisis so we have certainty for multi-year budgeting and planning for these studies and the puc wanting flexibility in case of dire financial straights so they are not locked into the money being lafco in

richie gave a half answer basically the sfpuc would be at more risk. the flip side of risk is reward and so the question is how would removing a year from design drought effect water supply needs and thus investments in expensive alternative water supplies? we presented you with a answer and that hasn't. it is nice to ask specifically how much less alternative water supply would we need to produce if we shorten design drought by a year? they way you can assess the cost of benefit analysis. and what are the risks removing a year. you can ask are the odds 1 in 70 thousand? and by removing one year, does that reduce the or increase the risk to 1 in 10 thousand as suggested by the (indiscernible) ? is that the risk that we are looking at 1 in 10 thousand? how would using finance bureau sales projections water enterprise inflated projections impact water needs? staff has not (indiscernible) flip side is risking running out of the salmon base eco system is investing in expensive water supplies so encourage you to ask these questions. thank you. >> thank you

pass-throughiment pas makes on behalf of sfpuc. january 2023sfpu crurks executed amendment 1 to the contract increasing the not to exceed amount by $125 million for not to exceed of $259 million. maept 1 did not require board approval because the delegated authority approved to the sfpu crurks under code section.43. the proposed amendment 2 increase not to exceed amount of the apx contract by $636 million as shown in exhibit 2 page 18 of the report. the entire increase is pay for additional pass-through charges related to cost of leck electricity. contract expenditures are shown page 3. the projected expenditure of $896 million includes approximately $4.2 million in payments to apx for services provided. the remaining $892 million are pass-through payments. according to puc energy scheduling settlement manager, high charges and are energy market volatility will contribute to power rate increases. sfpuc10 year financial plan anticipates 14 percent increase to hetch hetchy retail power rates and 15 percent to clean power sf generatio

it's not, the sfpuc is not representing the environmental values of the constituents. they're supporting something called the river agreement which was concocted by the service, they commissioned pure review of their fish models upon which the da is based. they found major flaws and yet the sfpuc is so eager to say that they will produce more fish with less water. i ask that you have a workshop where you hear from the sfpuc and ngos and you learn about the issues. what you'll find is they've been spreading a lot of disinformation. and the policies have lead to a collapse in the ecosystem, you probably heard that the commercial fishery is closed this season. those in fisherman's wharf already out of. my email is peter @--if anyone wants to kkt me. thank you for the opportunity to comment. >> thank you for your comment. we have an additional caller on the queue. >> caller: there is a lot of background noi, i'm not sure where it's coming from. perhaps in the meeting room, somebody is near a microphone. so picking up where pete per meyer left off. historically have been a

pass-throughiment pas makes on behalf of sfpuc. january 2023sfpu crurks executed amendment 1 to the contract increasing the not to exceed amount by $125 million for not to exceed of $259 million. maept 1 did not require board approval because the delegated authority approved to the sfpu crurks under code section.43. the proposed amendment 2 increase not to exceed amount of the apx contract by $636 million as shown in exhibit 2 page 18 of the report. the entire increase is pay for additional pass-through charges related to cost of leck electricity. contract expenditures are shown page 3. the projected expenditure of $896 million includes approximately $4.2 million in payments to apx for services provided. the remaining $892 million are pass-through payments. according to puc energy scheduling settlement manager, high charges and are energy market volatility will contribute to power rate increases. sfpuc10 year financial plan anticipates 14 percent increase to hetch hetchy retail power rates and 15 percent to clean power sf generatio

an adit of the landfill agreement the city has with recology and the other is on our assessment of sfpuc and public utility commission procurement process. that basically is our update. happy to answer any questions. >> okay. maybe we'll move to the second line. we can take this off the agenda or keep as a note if committee members are thinking of wanting to do another type of public perception survey. if anybody is interested they can let me know to figure if this should be a reoccurring item or not. any questions or comments? on c, the csa division-yes? >> i do have a question. what was the cost on the survey? >> i will have to look up as we are talking, it was not insignificant. but i have to get back to you on that one. >> i are think we should consider a survey in the future but definitely the cost, we don't want to spend money frivolously. >> that is helpful. i think survey methodology is changing all the time actually, so it shouldn't be as expensive as we want it to be unless it is worth it effort. i will get back to you with the cost for that one. for c, csa division, i will go

an adit of the landfill agreement the city has with recology and the other is on our assessment of sfpuc and public utility commission procurement process. that basically is our update. happy to answer any questions. >> okay. maybe we'll move to the second line. we can take this off the agenda or keep as a note if committee members are thinking of wanting to do another type of public perception survey. if anybody is interested they can let me know to figure if this should be a reoccurring item or not. any questions or comments? on c, the csa division-yes? >> i do have a question. what was the cost on the survey? >> i will have to look up as we are talking, it was not insignificant. but i have to get back to you on that one. >> i are think we should consider a survey in the future but definitely the cost, we don't want to spend money frivolously. >> that is helpful. i think survey methodology is changing all the time actually, so it shouldn't be as expensive as we want it to be unless it is worth it effort. i will get back to you with the cost for that one. for c, csa division, i will go

after completing its review under the california environmental quality act; and delegating to the sfpuc.118, to approve all necessary contracts that are $10,000,000 or more and/or in excess of ten years. (public utilities commission) 12/27/22; received from department. 1/10/23; assigned under 30 day rule to the budget and finance committee. >> members of the public wishing to provide public comment, please call the line. public comment call in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # (press *3 to enter the speaker line) >> we have representatives available to present this item. >> thank you. the technology is available but we would like to use the deliver cost-efficient way. >> good morning supervisors. i'm presenting the information for the project. it is located at the south east treatment plant and will be built within the boundaries of the biosolid digester facilities project. it must be operational and ready to accept the biogas from the new digesters. it is showing a beneficial use of the buy product of the processing facility. it injects into a pipeline into the plant. it

i have a question bob and that is, i'm glad to see the sfpuc has given the notice to proceed for the construction of the new wastewater treatment plant. who was the team that was selected by the puc? i don't recall that we had is informational item on this recently. >> yeah, we haven't had a update recently. i believe the design side of the design build team is (inaudible) engineering but i am not certain who the general contractor side of the team is. >> i think this is a item that we would like to have more information on, so can you have it either in front of the infrastructure transportation committee to just report on this item? i like to know what is happening with the landscaping and the art component of that project. i don't think-i think we had commented on it some time back, but if this item can come forward so that we can understand the whole process and what they are planning to do, that would be helpful. >> i can ask them toprint present on it again. >> thank you. alright. so-i'm not able to see everybody's hands, so you might use your-i think on this system there is no

in fact, you should know we are paying sfpuc a lot of money to represent us and so the dilemma for us and can't go into all the details however staff is making a note on that and we are back to city hall and it will be great. we will have all these officials and stakeholders to come in and also on the island to explain what they are explaining to us. rest assured. also convey to the director we are under construction. that island and so the transportation impact is going to be significant at some point, but having the proper route and labeling and will be extremely very helpful. my question to the one treasure island, thank you for again spearheading the training. we need to-every time i had the opportunity to speak our training is one of the best, probably not the best in the city in the region. what we are doing here is not only building treasure island, we are also making sure we are training youth, providing the funds and then having them to participate in the construction and hopefully they will be treasure island residents and this is what we need to convey every time so people

we included 2 agency letters of support from the office of resilience and capital planning and the sfpuc. so, for today's recommended action, just wanted to ground ourselves again that with this action we are refreshing the front door of the general plan, the introduction and also adding this ej framework that incorporate policies to address the unique compounded health risk in environmental justice communities. i'll pass to share more about the introduction. >> good afternoon commissioners. planning staff. just a quick recap on what is in the introduction. starts with the land acknowledgment, which is similar to the way we start each hearing. it updates the historical and physical context and now presented in a more inclusive way. it puts equity front and center by highlighting the commission's resolution on equity. and it incorporates the ej framework into the general plan. it presents a vision that is based on community input from many planning efforts and that includes the ej framework, the housing element and connect sf and finally removes the duplication of the planning code priori