Transcripts For SFGTV SF Public Utilities Commission 20240712

We have a quorum. Thank you, commissioner secretary would you mind make the announcements please. Due to the covid19 Health Emergency and the department of Public Health and governor and mayor lifted restrictions on teleconferencing and being televised. For those watching theres a time lag. On behalf of the commission id like to extend our thanks to sfgov. Tv for their assistance. If you wish to make a Public Comment on an item dial 8882733658 code 3107452 and pound followed by found again. When Public Comment is given youll hear when it is your turn to speak and your twominute speaking time will begin. I will alert you when your time is expired. The instructions will be repeat. If you have not already done so, ill ask Commission Staff to mute their microphone to minimize background noise. Before i read the first item id like to let everybody know item 12 [reading item] has been pulled from the agenda. The first item of business is item 3 approval of minutes of june 9, 2020. Commissioner you have before you the minutes from june 9. Are there any discussions on recognizing the minutes . Hearing none, Commission Secretary would you go to Public Comment. Members of the public who wish to make Public Comment on item 3 approval of the minutes from june 9, 2020, dial 8882733658 and access code 3107452 and pound followed by pound again and press 1 then 0 to be added to the comment line. Do we have callers . Theres one call in the queue. Thank you. Hello, good afternoon go ahead. Caller hello . Go ahead. Caller my name is jackie yan. Hello. I just wanted to make a general comment. Clerk im sorry, this is the Public Comment for the minutes. General Public Comment will be the next item. Caller says, sorry. There was a tone and said to speak. I will hold until next item. Clerk thank you. Caller, be advised you will have to rejoin the queue following the instructions from the secretary. Do we have other callers . No more in the queue. Clerk thank you. Public comment portion is closed. Commissioner is there further discussion from the commissioners on the item . Hearing none is there a motion . Move to approve the minutes. Second. Commissioner allin favor clerk Vice President , i need to do a roll call vote. Commissioner thank you. [roll call] clerk four ayes. Commissioner the motion carries. Next item, please. Clerk item 4, Public Comment and you can dial 8882733658 access code 3107452 and pound followed by pound again. Dial 1 then 0 to be added to the speaker line. Clerk do we have callers . Thats multiple callers in the queue. Caller commissioners, my name is christopher acosta. Im asking two things. Number one, we the people from the bay view are not getting a clear picture whats happening with [indiscernible] and were not getting a very clear picture of all the benefits that are linked to the shore system improvement project. We keep donating 150,000 without any notice to the public. Taxpayers money. Thats not right. We have discussed the point in detail and we need to release as much water as we can, not foolishly but with reason so we can save the salmon. We come again and again and again to speak to power but some of you all condone the staff thats working behind the scenes to defy us. And i know a number of speakers will be speaking on this topic. So thats all ive got to say this time. Thank you. Thank you. Ill queue the next caller. Caller hi, my name is Jessica Silva power sf [indiscernible] [audio digitizing] is not something a Clean Power Program should be doing. Im understanding the program may not be considering adding this Nuclear Energy. But is it still an issue with the energy pg e is trying to offload because theres no market for it. Have to purchase the energy but it will be sold at the same price as fossil fuel energy so pretty much youre only getting the attribute of a carbonfree Energy Product and thats the only incentive but its not actually marketable and a Clean Power Program should being focussing on offering clean energy to their customers. I really hope that we can have some very honest dialogue about this because i think this is actually a detriment to our clean choice program. Thank you. Caller my commissioners. My name is jesse hahn and asking to consider a route between sawyer road. Its dangerous and vehicles driving 45 Miles Per Hour plus without shoulders or bike lanes and theres puc roads that could be made accessible to connect the two areas. Theres close calls nearly every day in this area. Folks are heading 92 over the hill and getting off on the freeway and think more people world ride bikes if there were safer [indiscernible] and this is a part of the peninsula and i think having part of this biking and exercise trail gives back to the community. We need healthy and safe ways to exercise and this is just one of the gems in San Francisco area and an encourage you to unlock those gates and make it safe for cyclists. Thank you so much. Caller thank you Vice President vietor. Ill leave a decree for the record use she and her and great to back and im still learning more about electricity in San Francisco and an appreciate the work that youre doing on the generation side to provide less Expensive Energy and the work must continue. Again, i continue to advocate for the formation of a municipal utility district for San Francisco. I ask you be active in the conversations about issues such as conservation to help people to manage their use of electricity and electrification and about the way of that electrirates are done in electric rates are done in california and the idea of baseline usage and tiers which is not under your control is concerning to me. On one hand i want people to conserve electricity but i dont want natural gas and oils and other fossil fuels to be used. I would fail on the baseline allocation because im averaging about 40 kilowatt hours per day and have an all electric home. Lets continually trying to clarify electric rate issues for people so they can be enpowered by electricity in the best way and i look forward to your work in adding more renewables to the mix. Thank you. Caller can you hear me okay . We can hear you, caller. Caller i represent the Green Committee at the San Francisco Universalist Church and interested in preserving our estuary in the bay and the tributaries are all intricately connected and as we saw during the drought of 2011 through 2017, the demand on water from the delta left us in shock how little attention was being paid by Public Utilities commission to the health of the delta. Future developments have to live with the reality of Climate Change and the owe kol gy of our ecology of our eco system. The delta plan say good plan that keeps the balance of our delta system intact while spreading water available to those who need it. The resource and control board spent a lot of time and effort in the issue and the bay delta plan is the right answer. Thank you. Clerk id like to remind callers this is item 4. If you want to speak to a specific item on the agenda. Please call back when that item is called. Thank you. Caller, can you hear us . Caller hello. Thank you for allowing public input im mr. Richardson and lived in district 2 a native of for instance for a number of years. Ive heard sf puc staff talk about the plans. Like any old designer suit, the designer drought has to go and ill tell you why. Until the most recent drought at the end of the summer 2016, sf puc had five years of water then we had the historic water year of 2017 and puc had enough water to last 12 years. Enough water to last a decade. We had so much water we had to reless release more of 80 . It makes a designer drought a story and it has to go. Whats this mean for people of california with boots on the ground . Instead of letting out an appropriate amount of water during the drought for fish, for recreation, People Living on the river or near the river, for down stream users, the s. Fpuc essentially put a choke hold on the tuolumne area. I know president caen isnt there but Vice President vietor is there and i appreciate your time. I was up in modesto for the meeting on the dam and was astounded by the disingenuous misinformation Staff Members shared with the committee. It was an embarrassment. You need to know what the staff is sharing with the feds. Im sorry, your twominute time allotment has expired. Caller hi there im nate holtzman from the bay area. I want to thank staff for pulling item 12. I had a conversation with staff yesterday about the item and i appreciate the action. This is about an allocation of Nuclear Energy from that project and were trying to get power without violating the policy of procuring the power for the customers and i get that and a get its a raw deal and were trying to reclaim a little bit of revenue but theres times you leave money on the table to make a point. I dont have time to go into an algy. I want to an analogy. And no one in the community had heard about this at all. Buyers lined up and it gets slowed and the community is involved and thats great but i want to highlight if you had found a buyer all this would have happen without Community Stakeholders knowing or lined up before commissioners should be involved. Thats not the way it should happen. Lastly the agenda item is written inaccurately. The point is not to reaffirm your antinuclear policy for no reason, its to change something and thats not reflected in the agenda item so im not technically sure its noted properly for today. Thank you so much and i hope for substitutive reasons we can go into at another time puc will not move forward on accepting the Nuclear Energy from them. Caller im steve rosenblom a puc customer in palo alto. Conserve water with replacing poi toilets and drought resi resistant plant and now with closing the tuolumne my support for your policies is draining. You need to support the many species, fish, birds and wildlife living in the bay delta region. Salmon are key stone pieces. Please drop your lawsuit. Conservation, reuse and purchase of water from agriculture can carry us through the next drought while preserving our environment. Thank you. Caller this is devora sitari and my daughter. Were calling because we want to reiterate the need for safe bike paths. We as a family appreciate all the beautiful riding and its so close to being safe but right now its unnecessarily dangerous for cyclist and its a treasure if you cab open existing can open existing roads it will provide a safe passage. Caller we ride on dangerous parts. Caller wed appreciate it if you can open some areas to create a safe passage for bikers. Thank you. Caller my name is gene mckenna id like to echo safe bicycle passage to connect two major cycling routes. Many are putting themselves in danger of mixing with fast dange traffic. Theres frequent accidents here including last month and many unreported. A mile can be altered by opening roads and one in san mateo connects the city to canada road and its not safe. Residents of my community do not allow our children to ride on the road which means they have no option to bike to school and other places in san mateo. The [indiscernible] i urge puc to allow Recreational Use of the existing roads to connect major bicycling corridors and improve the health of our community. Thank you. Caller my name is melissa w yu we are strongly opposed to the use of Nuclear Power in any way. We appreciate holding off on the item until more Stakeholder Input is glean. Though wed like to comment on the process in which it was introduced to the San Francisco Clean Energy Advocates one of the Many Organizations a part of this coalition was alongside the city so many years and wed appreciate the continued engagement for decisions as important as this. Regardless of whether or not the sfpuc sells regenerated power to clean power s. F. Customers theres significant environmental and safety problems inherent to the technology and though cost we understand may play a role in the consideration of receiving this allocation and power. Clean power s. F. Cannot compromise its values in accepting any proposal would cause problems and all would lose stakeholder and customer trust. Were grateful for your decisions at the commission to get more feedback and one last comment i wanted to make is that s. F. Gov tv is working but the videos not working. Thank you. Caller hello commissioners. This is hunter cutting. The club and others have spoken in the past urging the puc to stop stone walling action to save californias rivers and bay and wrote the puc to drop the opposition for the state water board plan for saving the rivers. Since then the puc continued business as usual. We know the puc staff has concerns about the states approach. We have a once in a Generation Opportunity to make progress and likely our last opportunity. In the context, if we say no in raising objections isnt good enough. If youre not part of the solution right now, you are part of the problem and the puc needs to start coming up with solutions. This is really problematic because the puc is wasting valuable time that should be spent in coming unwith up with the puc and we encourage you to step up to this moment. Thank you. Nwith up with the puc and we encourage you to step up to this moment. Thank you. With up with the puc and we encourage you to step up to this moment. Thank you. Th up with the puc and we encourage you to step up to this moment. Thank you. H up with the puc and we encourage you to step up to this moment. Thank you. Up with the puc and we encourage you to step up to this moment. Thank you. Up with the puc and we encourage you to step up to this moment. Thank you. Up with the puc and we encourage you to step up to this moment. Thank you. Up with the puc and we encourage you to step up to this moment. Thank you. Up with the puc and we encourage you to step up to this moment. Thank you. Up with the puc and we encourage you to step up to this moment. Thank you. Caller hello, commissioners. Im iris medfrye a professor at a university. Ive been a bay area resident over 20 years. Im very concerned about our ability to preserve the unique eco systems we have in california for future generations to enjoy. In that context im calling on you to urge you to drop your opposition to the lawsuit against the bay delta million. Youre aware the bay delta plan represents a compromise between human and eco system needs. The salmon are a key stone species and the delta is an ecological treasure. Both are at the brink of collapse as you are well aware of. These collapses are completely unnecessary. We as humans have the capacity to guarantee natural flow patterns and guarantee minimum flows while carrying human need through the next drought predicted under Climate Change. Im calling on you to represent the will of your customers and of the area voters who have strong environmental preferences. Thank you for your time, commissioners. Caller hello, commissioners. This is eric brooks i relative humidity californians for choice who has worked over a decade to get programs off the ground and a local grass roots organization. First i want to second what was said about the water law suit and agree with hunter and the other commenter. The main thing i want to speak to is what was going to be item 12 on nuclear. First of all and ill send you information about this. Nuclear is not carbonfree as was suggest in your packet. The main concern i have about what this agenda item though it was public policy, all your other action items in your agenda and all your agendas make it clear when theyre an action item voting on a resolution. This is the first time ive seen on an sfpuc agenda that was not clearly mark as an action item when it was one and which even worse, in the agenda that was just about reenforcing and confirming existing policy against Nuclear Power in San Francisco when the underlying action item was the opposite and about taking Nuclear Power from pg e and selling to other jurisdictions. Thats frankly an outrageous deception. Ive never in my 26 years of working on San Francisco city hall politics seen an action item like that so misrepresented. I think the commission needs to exercise discipline on staff to make sure this kind of thing never happens again. On nuclear itself, its clear why its bad and the idea of us sorry, caller. Your two minutes has expired. Caller im a little bit lost are we on Public Comment generally or particular item . Clerk general Public Comment item 4 for items not on the agenda. Caller im interested in item 10. Thank you. There are no more callers in the queue madame secretary. Commissioner thank you. Public comment on item number 4 are closed. Thank you to members of the public. Secretary can you please read the next item. Clerk the next order of minutes is 5, communications. Commissioner commissioners, do you have questions or comments on communications . Commissioner on page 54 and 55 that talks about the water availability to the city. Seems like we have a lot of water available to us these days and wanted clarification, mr. Richie, if you wouldnt mind on the two charts that seems to show we have quite a bit of water right now. I guess the end of the water year but if you could clarify. This is steve richie. The diagram showing the water available to the city are the amounts of water we can pick up in excess of what the irrigation districts have as their entitlement and we had water available to the city that has gone to primarily water bank storage. We need on the order of 300,000 acres of water available to the city to fill up our storage. We did not get enough water to completely fill our storage system. While it may seem like a lot, it was not a lot in the scheme of things because this was a fiveyear overall. Normally we have much more water available so the city and it wasnt available this year but wasnt as bad as it was in 2014 and 2515 when we had 20 acres of water available to the city. Commissioner okay. So the reason it seems to show such a significant number and peak, if you will, on the chart is why . Excuse me, i dont have the item actually in front of me. Are you talking about the chart with the brown line and blue and green lines on it . Commissioner i believe i am. What that shows, those peaks are the hydro graph of the river so when the peak goes above the brown line thats water available to us. Water available to the city that we could divert. So tiply to fill our system typically we need to fill our system two or three storms a year and this year we only had a couple big storms. We might have had a big storm but its not a lot of water by itself. Commissioner it ties in with the larger question around and still interested in how are we going meet our contractual obligations as well as provide enough water for the fish is the bigger question im struggling with. Anymore of those charts and clarifications you can provide for us to understand and continue to untangle and develop policy would be very helpful. Okay. Commissioner commissioners, any other questions on communications . Hearing none, commissioner secretary would you mind opening to Public Comment on communications . Clerk members of the public who wish to provide Public Comment on item 5, communications, dial 8882733658. Access code 3107452 and pound followed by pound again and dial 1 then 0 to be added to the speaker line. Commissioner mr. Moderator do we have callers . Madame secretary theres multiple callers in the queue. Commissioner thank you. Caller good afternoon, commissioners this is peter drakmeier i sent a letter on the stewardship policy report. I hope you had a chance to look at that. Were pleased with the efforts sfpuc is making in the bay area its a model of good stewardship but were disappointed in the lack of progress on the tuolumne especially the lower tuolumne. I did point out a few problems with had with the Tuolumne River agreement theres not biological goals. Theyre different from the bay plan the water board is developing goals by which to measure success and Adaptive Management are based on those results. The second thing is theres a lack of adequate adoptive management. Essentially, the four measures dont work theyll try [indiscernible] measures. We see that as problematic. Hopefully youve had a chance to look at my letter and i thank you for your time. Madame secretary, theres no more callers in the queue. Commissioner thank you. Public comment on item number 5 is now closed. Thank you, madame secretary, can you please read the next item. Clerk the next item is 6 reported by general manager report. City manager businesses have done hard work to seep us all safe and healthy. This means we can move forward with the next phase of reopening. Thats good news for our residents and our businesses and local businesses in the bay area. At the City Department well continue to support the citys overall response effort and provide staff with support to the Emergency Operation center and our other local locations over next few months. At this time, puc recovery plans for covid19 is beginning to take shape. Our workforce is well positioned to continue performing at a high level while maintaining a safe and healthy working environment during this time. As i mentioned before, half the puc employees are working remotely and will continue to do so until at least august 31. Its likely most the employees will work remotely the next 12 to 18 months in line with the direction were signify from the resources. This week, we will provide remote employees with new guidance, resources and equipment to make it easier for them to do their job from their home. The other half of the employees continue to report to a work site every day. Were finalizing signage, marking and at work sites to direct employees how to properly socially distance. From a financial theres no question we experienced revenue loss over the past four months. The good news is we planned for it and we worked quickly to close and project shortfalls to rebalance the current fiscal year budget. In fact, we expect to finish out this year in the black across all enterprises and bureaus. I want to thank staff for really moving on this to make it happen. And really, we were able to do it with little impact to our employees and our projects that were working on. Weve also gone back to the drawing board to look at our upcoming twoyear budget. Well bring a full presentation to the commission on july 14. We will cover the revised budget proposals and what changes we made since we presented the proposal earlier this year. Overall the puc is in a strong position to weather the economic challenges were already experiencing and those that may come at we continue to recover from this global pandemic. While we are continuing to push forward to meet the needs of our agency and employee and operations were continuing to focus on the needs of our customers. The latest numbers of our emergency Customer Assistance Program showed we received over 4,300 applications since launching in may. This effort automatically expands to provide criteria for new enrollees are experiencing Financial Difficulties due to covid19. Work is underway under the program for businesses and nonprofit customers. Were also doing our part to point customers to Financial Support programs available outside of the puc. For example, we recently ran a campaign in neighborhood newspapers including in chinese and spanish newspapers to promote local, state and fral federal plans to help customers pay a portion of their electricity bill. By continuing to work with City Partners and others, we will look to move forward during these tough times as a stronger, better and more responsive agency. Again, i want to thank staff and the commission for all these efforts and we have a long road ahead of us. Im hopeful for the future of the puc and the San Francisco bay area. That concludes my report. Commissioner thank you, mr. General manager. I have a request. I didnt know much about the Public Comments raised around the public bike trail and wondering if the next meeting during the general managers report if you wouldnt mind giving us a brief update to determine whether we need to take action or what we need do. City manager ill provide an update on that. I forgot to mention in your package, you received an email from an article that was placed there and though we responded and identified the themes were doing to make our work sites safe, we will engage with those employees at locations and see if theres anything else we can do to make folks feel even safer so were going to start that as soon as possible. Gre commissioner great. Thank you. Do you have comments or questions for the manager . Hearing none, madame secretary please open the Public Comment. Clerk those who wish to comment on the puc update on procedures during the covid19 Public Comment is closed please call 8882733658 access code 3107452 pound followed by pound and press 1 then 0 to be added to the speaker line. Mr. Moderator do we have speakers. Madame secretary, there is one caller in the queue. Caller hello. This is not entirely on your topic but theres at least two of us i can find out who tried to tune in to the s. F. Gov tv with an internal server error. I was told itd take seven days to be fixed. Can you ask the technical people to fix sfgov. Tv so we can get in your program. Im on the phone and other people are too. This is current right now. I hope someone can fix it. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Sfgtv is on the phone so theyll hear it. In reference to what the general manager was talking about it was received by strength in numbers, sfwd and said it was provided to the commission. See attached comment at the city Distribution Division of the San Francisco Water Department as previously stated sewer health and safety concerns stand and they provided a link to an s. F. Article title saying water workers seeking greater protection against coronavirus. Theres an additional caller in the queue. Clerk okay. Caller i would like to second with the previous Public Comment person said that is that trying to link from your agenda leads to some kind of an error and blank screen. Thats a disappointment but in any case i glad you have an alternate approach. Maybe not alternate approach but approach by telephone which seems more reliable but it would be nice to be able to follow it visually if one has a computer. Clerk im told the link is now fixed so try it again. If not go to the sfgov. Tv website and watch via the s. F. Gov website. Caller the live link is the board of supervisors. Clerk i have it on my tv at home. This is live on tv. Caller are you talking about television or cable tv or on a computer . Clerk i have it on tv. I have it on my tv and you can get it via your computer through sfgov. Org. Theyre on this call so i hear it. This for letting us know. If theres no other comment at this time, madame secretary would you mind asking the general manager to continue with the next item on his report. Clerk the next is the quarterly audit and Performance Review report. Good afternoon im here with the quarterly audit and Performance Review for the Third Quarter the period from january through march of this year. The report covers our audit and Performance Review updates during that time frame. I do have a few slides it share with you so i will share my screen. Commissioners at a high level, we have 25 audits and assessments on our work plan for this current year fiscal 20. As of the end of march we have completed a bit over half of those audits and assessments. We have five underway and another six that are pending at least commencing before the end of june which is the end of this month. In terms of the aud its audit and reports completed during the q3 period are noted here. The wholesale revenue requirement audit which is an annual audit for fiscal 2018 and june ending 2018. This is a function of our agreement and completed in january. This audit looks at how operating and capital costs are allocated between our retail and wholesale water customers. There were four audit adjustments and recommendations totalling just over 38,000 on this audit review. So in the big scheme of things a fairly small audit amount. The puc also had a confidential performancerelat performancerelat performancerelated i. T. S. Assessment. Our team is working on the recommendations that came from this penetration test. We also had the physical 2018 comprehensive annual report as well as the physical 18 popular Financial Report completed during the quarter as well. These annual reports are were provided to you during your Meeting Agenda of april 14 and these are our annual reports that summarize the Financial Statements and accounting activities for the fizz fiscal year ending june 30, 2018 and we have the political activity assessment also completed in february. This is a Controllers Office assessment of grant and contract funding which looked at nine different organizations and one individual to confirm that none of the monies of the city monies were provided to these organizations were spent on political activities. I wanted to add there were no findings in serm terms of this assessment that was done. In terms of the current quarter, this would be april through the end of this month, june. Just a note i wanted to pass on is many of the controllers city Service Audit team has been deployed to the citys Emergency Operation center which will impact the time line for when our audits will be complete. However, we arent aware audits will be canceled. Im letting you know we may see delays in wrapping up or work plan for this year. In terms of what we do now the Performance Review for our Human Resources hiring process will be completed this year. Thats well underway as well as the state sales and use tax audit will be wrapped up by the end of this month. Audits that have been started but where the completion time are less clear include the external affairs and fiscal 18 political assessment audit and many are continues they may just take longer to wrap up. Then the last piece i want to leave you with is just the summary of our outstanding audits. We have two audits that are currently open that have recommendations. As noted here we have five open recommendations and we are working diligently to wrap these up by the end of this month. We are targeting by the end of june to wrap up these five open recommendations. With that im happy to take your questions. Any questions im happy answer. Commissioner commissioners, any comments or questions for him. Madame secretary would you mind opening Public Comment. Clerk members of me public who wish to provide comments on the report dial 8882733658e p who wish to provide comments on the report dial 8882733658te who wish to provide comments on the report dial 8882733658he who wish to provide comments on the report dial 8882733658 then access code 3107452 dial 1 then 0 to be added to the speaker line. Mr. Moderator, do we have callers. Madame secretary, there are no callers in the queue. Public comment portion is closed. Commissioner please read the next item. Clerk item 7, Bay Area Water Supply Conservation Agency update presented by ms. Sandkulla. Thank you for having me. Im pleased to see you and have the opportunity to speak to you for the First Time Since our shelter in place and i want to express my appreciation on behalf of the water customers served by our member agencies for the excellent job done by the staff the puc and the leadership the commission has shown and shown by mr. Kelly make sure water or our communities we are rely upon during these challenges times. I want to express that appreciation. Ill brief you on two things. On water use and other data fo for the region you may find informative given the questions ive heard and information on conservation programs. This is a reminder, bawsca was chosen to represent the district of your wholesale customers in san mateo, santa clara andal me ta and they serve over 1. 8 million residents and countless community organizations. What binds them all is they rely on the water system. This is a list of the member agencies and those listed counties and coming to you from our office in san mateo halfway done the peninsula. So every year we prepare an annual survey going back to 1996. We perform many roles and the information we collect is documented in our annual survey every year including information about the demand by individual agency, what Water Supplies do all the agencies use, what is the consumption by customer class, population, per capita use, water bills, also not just current use but projected use. Its also where we document at least one of the most recent projections for everybody. We present this information on an individual agency basis for each member agencies as well as rolled up for the region. In the document as well towards the end youll see what we call our Member Agency profile in which theres two or three pages for each of the agencies to document their service area, what their Service Areas like and information like that. We think this information is critically important. It supports both local and regional planning. So in fiscal year 20182019, the bawsca agency continued to meet needs with a combination of supplies with cust mario purchases and customary purchases and the supplemental purchases which are those for participating in the regional ground water and Conjunctive Use Program and wall water south San Francisco. The idea being when there is more than normal Water Supplies off the Regional Water system they can purchase that water and bank the ground water for future dry years. We also have other sources that include imported supplies primarily through the belly Water District, state Water Project and one from our member agencies. This is a developing picture where were seeing an increased development of new supplies interestingly enough the recycled water supply. The region has been subject to several extended droughts. This graphic shows total demand over time from 1975 to 20182019. We see 25 less water use today period to 1987 despite a 32 population increase. This has been an interesting trend to continue to watch. As evident you can see the drought years the past years demand goes down and demand goes down but theres been rebounds but the last several years have been unique that our droughts are followed by other precipitating events that impact demand. It makes understanding the numbers and what they mean for our future projections that much more interesting and important to figure out. One of the other things we look at is per capita. This graphic shows per capita in comparison back to 1975, 76. The top line is what we call gross per capita which is all water use in the area divided by the population. It encompasses water use for commercial, nonresidential use and then residential per capita which is the orange line down divided as residential use divided by the service area. What we see is it decreased over the same period of time by 47 . You see the dash lines again showing that increase those lines during a drought year. And that is again been very interesting because one of the things thats always interesting in our service area specifically is growth has not stopped. So its about trying to distill the impact on the per capita basis and development and what does that mean overall. A different way to look at per capita and this is showing in fiscal year 1819 the average use was 16. 5 gallons per person per use across the entire region. If we look at i differently within jurisdictions it shows 89 of the residents in this service area actually use than 65 gallons of water per day. We have this flat tail towards the end. If you flip that around, conversely, 11 of the 1. 8 million residents served use more than 65 gallons of water per day. Which is a different indication where we want to target things and look at things when we are trying to change into the future. As i was putting this presentation together i was struck by all the changes by 2008. Its been 10 years and why it seems like the demand picture is such an interesting challenge we find ourselves in now and had so many things go on. Multiple drought years and the impact of Climate Change and that impacts not just hydrology but weather here locally and what goes on with use locally because of warm weather as you heard mr. Ritchie speak about several times when he sees the data on a weekly basis. Weve had Economic Impacts in the meantime as well as now the current pandemic and resulting Economic Impact and what does that mean. So to give you a couple numbers in comparing 08 to 20182019, important to remember we are in a dought drought recovery obviously total water use is done and purchases are done but population is up, which i thought was very interesting and recycled water use is up significantly. Were seeing an investment in alternative supplies and were seeing our residential per capita use go down. Again, all important pieces of this puzzle. So as we look back and look forward, the region has continued to make investments in its water use and community to impact water use. Those investments are things like investments in conservation, investments in outdoor irrigation investments and for turf and supporting plumbing codes and supporting building codes to make changes. All those are on the demand reduction side, if you will. Also investments in local supplies where you see the difference, for example, if you compare a 1986 on the left to what our current projections for fiscal year 2040 for recycled water we see a significant increase in that recycled water amount. That doesnt happen about itself. Thats a choice communities are making to make investments to firm up their water supply for their communities. So this the is the current picture but not the end and i told you before, we are updating our demands now through 2045 to support reports that are required to be sent to the state. Theyll be new total demand numbers, new conservation numbers and also a new understanding about alternate Water Supplies to be used by Member Agency to meet those demands. What will be the new projections for recycled water and projections for ground water. Were nearly done with that work and i plan to be able to present it to you by then of the summer. I look forward to that day. Im really looking forward to seeing that information and understanding it because i think its going to give us good insight to the direction for the planning work the puc is doing. So transitioning to my second topic, i do want to provide an update on the Water Conversation work bawsca did and we do our Water Conservation programs in two paths. One is our core program. These are programs implemented throughout the service area funded by bawsca through our operating budget and really the idea is the entire region benefits from them and so were going to make them available to everybody. And we have an exciting change this year as a result of the covid crisis. In fact it happened fairly quickly within the first couple days. We typically offer water landscape education classes. In the past these have been classes where we advertise and meet at a local Community Center or library or something and bring in an instructor on a specific topic and get from five to maybe 20 or 30 people per class. Theyre very well received and well liked. So we can continue to do them but we had a number of these scheduled as covid hit and so we shifted and put them online and offered them as webinars. The end result was incredibly successful. We had 14 webinars over the last couple months. We had a total of 1,389 people participating in those webinar. We had webinar have over 100 to 150 people signed up. It was very exciting to see around the feedback was excellent in that people that werent able to attend were able to view them and theyll now be part of our landscape Education Library that is very excite. we have two new programs starting in july the leak repair Training Program that came from our member agencies citing issues that theyre having when they have a customer that has a leak. A customer may need assistance in finding a leak and fixing the leak and who do we send them to and how do we know its a qualified person. This is a training and qualification type program offered for experts and then available for customers to access if they have a leak. We are also offering 14 subscription programs this coming fiscal year. The subscription programs are programs implemented through our office paid for by those agencies that choose to participate in them. The reason we do this is because within our group of agencies, we have eight agencies in Santa Clara County that participate in a lot of conservation programs with the santa clara Water District or others and this is a way to make a seamless and nice mesh of conservation programs to make it most cost effective. Again, we were able to move our School Assembly program and our School Education and audit kit two virtual programs as covid hit which was very exciting and we got great responses from that as well. An opportunity to help teachers during this difficult time and providing education on water and where water comes from and this year well offer a new irrigation hardware upgrade rebate. Its a rebate that would help customers turn over what is existing irrigation to waterefficient irrigation. Either water efficient spray heads or irrigation programs. Its a new exciting program. So our annual survey is available on our website. I often get questions about that. I wanted to make sure to mention it. You can access it on our front page at www. Bawsca. Org and not only the report itself as a document available but info graphics and different ways to show and look at the data and access the data. The one thing were proud of is that because our data is so well found and has a linear history of availability, we partner often with universities and different studies utilizing our data so were pleased it make it available for others. Our research and conservation programs are available online. Well be updating the information as of july 1 for the new program but this is information for current programs and some other ones. That concludes my comments but id be pleased to answer any questions you have. Commissioner thank you so much. That was a great report and always impressed by how organized you are and how well thought out your comments and presentations are. Im so pleased to see the projected numbers of 166 mgd dut it shows the great work the wholesale customers are doing to conserve and develop alternative Water Supplies. Its something we are aspiring to. I think it has implications for future planning. Know the supply guarantee theres a differential there still. I would hope we can keep that conversation alive around what to do with that differential. I understand the insurance policy and how important it is in times of dought but brought but im tracking did the drought and im tracking the situation as well and encourage you to keep looking at the numbers to comply. You guys are doing grate job with it. Great job with it. Thank you. Im pleased to be part of the conversation and think our new demand numbers will be helpful in discussing this. Ive spoken to you about the importance of the supply assurance and that is important but also the agencies have continued to support the investments in the Tuolumne River and the investments for the river and theres a commitment for investing in that resource as important. We have to be part of that conversation. Commissioner thank you. Commissioners, do you have any comments . Do you have any comments for ms. Sandkulla. Hearing none, madame secretary would you mind opening the Public Comment. Clerk for those wishing to comment, dial 8882733658 access code 3107452 and found pound followed by pound again. Dial one then zero to be add the to the speaker line. This is for item 7. If you wish to speak on an item later in the agenda please wait until that item is called to dial into Public Comment. Theres no callers in the queue. Clerk Public Comment is closed. Commissioner please read the next item. Clerk the next order of business is item 8, new commission business. Commissioner commissioners, is there any new business youd like to share at this time . Hearing none, therell be no Public Comment. Commissioner secretary would you mind reading the next item . Clerk yes, the next item is item 9, consent calendar. All under the consent calendar are considered to be routine by the San Francisco Public Utilities commission and acted upon by a vote of the commission. Theres be no separate discussion unless the request and it will be removed from the colorado considered as a separate item. Commissioner commissioners are there any items youd like to remove from the Consent Agenda . Please open the Public Comment. Clerk members of the public who wish to comment on item 9, consent calendar, dial 8882733658, access code 3107452 and pound followed by pound again. Dial one then zero to be added to the speaker line. This is for item number 9 consent calendar only. Mr. Moderator do we have callers . There is no one in the queue. Clerk thank you, Public Comment on item number 9 is closed. Commissioner thank you. Can you please read the next item. Clerk we need a motion and second and vote on the consent calendar. Commissioner is there a motion for the consent calendar. Move to approve. Second. Commissioner any further discussion. Can you please do a roll call, madame secretary . [roll call] clerk we have four ayes. Commissioner the motion carries. Please read the next item. Clerk the next item is item 10 adopt a finding le claring as surplus to its utility needs approximately 16 acres of property owned by the city and county of San Francisco under the jurisdiction and the San Francisco Public Utilities commission in San Francisco and california and balboa reservoir and sale of resale of the property for approximately 11,400,000 season a 11,400,000 promissory note and deed of trust and allow portion to be dedicated dedicated as rightofway for the planned extension of lee avenue and [indiscernible] use of approximately 44,431 square foot area south of the property and approve an mraend d an amended agreement with carlin city college. Im not going recuse myself from this particular discussion because ive been advised but for transparency i ask all developer to make sure all work they do on any construction project will be done with good wages and jobs and Training Programming that move forward. So i have actually had contact with the developer in question. I will make my decisions as we move forward just as fairly as i would with anything else as a commissioner, for the record. Commissioner thank you, commissioner paulson. Id now like to introduce Michael Carlin and rossana russell to introduce and discuss the item before you. Take it away. Im rossana the developer. The puc has been involved in the project for the citys plan for Public Housing program. Were asking the commission to ask for a portion of the reservoir surplus and approve ceqa funding and consent to the Development Agreement and approve a purchase and Sale Agreement and open space license ah promissory note, deed of trust and recognition agreement and declaration of restriction and easement and recommend approval of all the foregoing for the board of supervisors and mayor. The transaction is the land sale. We propose selling approximately 16. 4 acres of the balboa reservoir to Community Partners llc for 11. 4 million to develop the property for housing. The project will provide 50 Affordable Housing, significant Infrastructure Improvements and a number of other Important Community benefits much needed in our city. The project reflects a collaboration between several City Departments with the developer and community. Today, i will provide a short backgrou background regarding the property and then the Mayors Office of economic and Workforce Development and the project manager will present the project overview and the term of the Development Agreement. After the presentation i will present the proposed purchase and Sale Agreement, the basis for the Purchase Agreement and related documents for your consideration. I forgot to ask for the slides. Put them up, please. You see before you the balboa reservoir. It owns them under the pucs jurisdiction. The puc built a reservoir on the property but never used it for reservoir purposes. Currently the site is licensed to city college for parking. And sfmta. In 2016 the citys Real Estate Division noticed the state surplus land act on the pucs behalf. In 2017 you may recall this Commission Approved an exclusive negotiating agreement allowing the puc and the developer to pursue the purchase and Sale Transaction for the property. In this year a land act took effect. It falls into an exemption from the new investments because it is subject to the 2017 exclusive negotiating agreement and because the property will be conveyed by 2023. Lee, can you please present the project and the Development Agreement and then ill come back to discuss further. Thank you, commissioners. Im with the office of economic and Workforce Development. Thanks. The balboa reservoir site was among the first identified for redevelopment in housing through the public hands for Housing Project initiated by mayor lee in 2014. The Program Seeks to transform underutilized city parcels for housing with the program wide goal of 50 Affordable Housing for low and moderateincome households. The project site is located north of the ocean avenue commercial district and to the west of of the main campus. A number of existing residential neighborhoods surround the site and is well connected to transit with multiple muni bus and light rail lines nearby as well as balboa park station about half a mile away. To the project represents an opportunity to contribute to the citys supply of Affordable Housing and the overall Housing Stock in the city. The package of Community Benefi benefits namely the 50 Affordable Housing start with the Community Process and it was established by supervisor norman yee and has been a forum for Ongoing Community feedback. They created a Development Parameters document that was attached to the request for proposal and step twj spuds step session of the project creates new Apartment Buildings and town homes and public streets and utilities, Public Open Space, a 100seat Childcare Center and transportation investment and robust Workforce Development participation. These benefits are codified in the Development Agreement. Ill focus on two key areas later in the presentation. The new neighborhood will be focussed on families that supported amenities for large bedroom units and accommodating a range of family income. [please stand by]. This would be among the first approved or built in the city. The project will maintain students access to their education through investments in bike, pedestrian and transit improvements as well as up to 450 Public Parking spaces that will support college drivers. The new central open space will have direct Pedestrian Access from main campus. The proposed project has received unanimous approval from the Planning Commission and sfmta board. Assuming this Commission Approves todays action, the project will go before the board of supervisors later this summer. I will now turn it back to rosanna to describe the commissions actions and im available for questions. Could you go back to the first slide, please . Commissioners, in addition to asking you to consent to the Development Agreement, we ask the commission to approve the pch and Sale Agreement at the heart of this transaction. For purposes of this presentation, i will refer to purchase and Sale Agreement as the p. S. A. If the commission and the board of supervisors approves the p. S. A. The developer will purchase the property by december 2022. The 11. 4 million Purchase Price is supported by an appraisal daylighted june 2020 dated june 2020 from clifford visually, which finds that the fair market value of the property is 11. 4 million. I will discuss the appraisal in a bit. The p. S. A. Provides that on the purchase of the property may be extended for the duration of litigation, but in no event later than december of 2022. The developer will pay to the puc a nonrefundable initial deposit of 500,000 and subsequent annual 400,000 cash deposits prior to escrow. At the close of escrow, the developer will either pay the balance of the Purchase Price or will elect to have the city provide carryback financing, in which that case, the developer will pay to the puc annual post closing loan payments between close of escrow in december 2028, pursuant to a promissory note secured by a first lien deed of trust on the property. The developer will make a balloon payment in 2026. The developer will pay interest at 3 annual rate on the unpaid balance of the loan. And the developer will make a final balloon payment in december of 2028 of the unpaid balance of the loan. The developer may prepay the loan balance at any time. Its developers obligation to make preclosing deposits other than the 5,000 initial payment will be delayed on a daybyday basis during litigation during the project approval. The sales price of 11. 4 million was determined as follows. The puc is an Enterprise Agency and pursuant to law, the puc is obligated to obtain fair market value for the property. The puc relies on mai appraisals to determine the fair market value when purchasing or selling property. In this case, the puc hired an mai appraiser, don clifford of clifford advisory, llc, which determined that the fair market value of the property is 11. 4 million. The valuation is based upon the appraisers independent Market Research in the following key factors. Number one, the appraiser considers the complexity of the property which requires millions and millions of dollars of developer investment for significant horizontal Infrastructure Improvements and the project involving a variety of housing heights. The appraisers noted there are no other projects that fit the same level of cost and infrastructure improvement, such as waste water, drainage, gas and electricity, all of which are required for the site. The Infrastructure Improvements have a Significant Impact on the valuation of the site. A consultant model reviewed by the appraiser supported these costs. The appraiser considered the agreement to subsidize 33 of the 50 Affordable Housing through the pucs residual land value, meaning what the project is worth after you deduct that. The pucs agreement to subsidize the Affordable Housing is supported by proposition k, which San Francisco voters approved in 2015. Prop k encouraged Housing Developments on Public Surplus land to be 33 affordable. The pucs commitment to subsidize 30 of the projects Affordable Housing is also supported by the citys public land for housing framework. Significant Affordable Housing is part of any sale of public land is also contemplated by the state Surplus Property act and ordinance. As we mentioned, the projects remaining Affordable Housing units will be supported by other sources and will not affect the land value in order to ensure the puc will receive fair market value for the property. Number three. The appraiser considered the projects other public benefit. Particularly the four acres of open space. Number four, the appraiser also considered the high cost of construction which are at alltime high and the high cost of entitlement. These costs were reflected in a consultant Financial Model reviewed by the appraiser as well as the appraisers independent research. The report is not disclosed because the public records act recognizes the importance of the confidentiality of appraisals in real estate negotiations and only requires it if the resignation transaction has been completed. Im stopping here to answer questions or i can go into detail regarding the other transaction documents. President caen commissioners, any questions . Commissioner paulson i have a procedural question, besides having questions that the commissioners will, yes or no, talk about do we, after were done deliberating, then go to Public Comment and then whatever motions are taken care of after Public Comment . Is that the procedure . President caen correct. Ms. Russell, would you like to continue . Certainly. There are other components of this transaction as we pointed out in the agenda. As part of the transaction the city will retain 80foot oneacre parcel of land that we refer to as the retained fee. That is because the puc has surface, water and subsurface major water transmission line. The puc and the developer have negotiated 20year open space license for a portion of the retained fee. The developer will find the open space license prior to the start of the license term which shall be no later than 2024. This open space license is part of the citys commitment to the community to provide four acres of Public Open Space for the benefit of the project, residents and the general public. Because these improvements will not be completed until the last approximate phase of development, the use fee will commence in year 11 of the license term. The use fee will be either 32,380 per year, or the developer may make upfront lump sum payment of 112,000. In addition to the open space license, the parties have negotiated a recognition agreement which provides for the pucs recognition of performance, reassignment rights between the master Code Developers of the project which are avalon bay and bridge housing. In addition to facilitate planned street circulation for the project, the puc proposes recording a declaration of restrictions that will allow a portion of the retained fee to be used for a dedicated public rightofway. This is to facilitate the construction and subsequent use of the planned extension of lee avenue to where it crosses retained fee to ocean avenue. Finally, the puc is has agreed to renegotiate an amended access easement and deed that would facilitate the widening of the current Public Access way to the balboa reservoir and allow the construction of a street to be constructed to city standards on the widened area. This will be amended and will relieve city college of its current obligation to construct the access way to current city standards as required by the original easement. I conclude my presentation and am available for questions. President caen thank you for the presentation. Commissioners, do you at this time have any questions for ms. Russell . Any comments before we open it up to Public Comment . I may have comments after Public Comment. Thank you, commissioners, for your consideration. President caen thank you very much. So if there is no other questions or comments at this time from commissioners, madame secretary, can you please open the lines to Public Comment . Members of the public who wish to make Public Comment, dial the number on your screen, access code and pound followed by pound again. Dial 1, then 0, to be added to the speaker line. Again this is for item number 10. Do we have callers . Madame secretary, there are multiple callers in the queue. Thank you. You have five questions remaining. Hi, my name is rita evans and i want to comment on the valuation of the property. Its interesting, if the city is so comfortable that this was indeed a valuation process that was aboveboard and was done fairly, why would the valuation vary on page 1200 of a 2200 that was released just a short time before todays meeting rather than making this entire process a little bit more public . And i also want to make it clear that any indication that somehow the publics input process or the brcac or the representatives on it, that they were somehow involved in that, i want to make it clear that this was, no, this was a matter of city negotiation. I also want to say that im kind im very surprised that none of the commissioners are asking questions given the scale and size of this project and the amount of money involved and the transfer of this asset in the private hands. And as far as seeing a clear presentation the day of what is going on, i would note that several of the used today showing the project area slides used today, showing the project area and the open space that is there, it is very, very deceptive. It looks like there is a massive block of green space in the middle of the project and thats not the case at all. Four acres of the open space, in no way is there a place for a park [inaudible]. Trying to pull a fast one on that is similar to what is going on with this incredible price sorry, caller, your two minutes have expired. Can you hear me . Go ahead. Youre live. This is mike. Can you hear me . We can hear you, caller. Oh, thank you. I live in westwood park. 100 Affordable Housing is a key need for the city. Protecting the interests of city colleges another key need. Supporting more market rate housing is not a key need for the city. Many have suggested that the way to address the needs is to lease a portion of the 17 acres to a nonprofit developer for 100 not 50 , but 100 Affordable Housing and sell the other to city college to protect city college, that way we get 100 Affordable Housing and city college can use the other half of the property to protect its interest. City college is losing 980 to 750 parking spaces. When i appeared in november of 2017 before the puc, when i appeared at that time, it was stated by at least two commissioners that they recognize city college as a Commuter School and they expect the problems caused by the loss of parking due to the development would be resolved before they considered the Purchase Agreement. These problems are not resolved. Although negotiations have taken place, there is no memorandum of understanding. Theyre still talking about what should be in there. To protect the interests of city college, not only with respect to parking, which is crucial to this college, the commission should remember what theyve said in november of 2017 and not approve this project. In fact, the project that should be approved is the one i described. I thank you very much for your time and corporation. Mike aarons. You have eight questions remaining. Hi, thank you. Hello . Yes. Hi. Thank you for taking my comment. My name is and i live in district 7 across the street from this development. Im calling to ask the puc to i prove the sale and let the move forward. Its been in the pipeline for over a decade and years of Public Comment and participation. Im personally excited about the 50 Affordable Housing level. This is hundreds of units that you desperately need and we cant delay them any longer. The previous caller mentioned participating in the project since, i think it was 2014. In my view, the fact that were still talking about this and hundreds of affordable units not having been built is just a huge disappointment. So lets get this done. Make it happen. Im excited about the transportation improvements. There is going to be open space and carts for all income levels. Its great. Please do it. Approve. Thank you. Thank you, caller. Queue in next caller. You have seven questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im with bridge housing. Bridge is a San Franciscobased nonprofit that has been building Affordable Housing since 1983. We are part of the Master Development team along with avalon bay to rectify the city and the puc to implement the communitys visions for the reservoir. Were thrilled at the citys efforts initiated in may 2014 by mayor lee. The project makes it possible for 1100 families to live in San Francisco, includes 50 Affordable Housing, thats 550 units. Offers neighborhood for the Affordable Housing. Provides educator housing with preference for cpsf and San Francisco unified. Creates 100 new child care spaces. Offers 100 union labor through a pla. Establishes a city college paid Intern Program and creates open spaces for the neighborhood. Were pleased to utilize puc power as part of the project. Well reduce ocean avenue stewards by managing storm water with increased areas. We will expand the network with four new High Pressure hydrants. This is critical to the departments ability to fight fire. Thank you to this commission for dedicating staff time and attention to our project. We work with puc staff, technical staff and had the pleasure to be before the puc, cac. Thank you for your partnership in this endeavor to provide Community Benefits to the city and the neighborhood. We look forward to ongoing collaboration with the puc as we transition from planning to detailed designing and construction. We thank you for your time. Thank you, caller. Queueing next question. You have seven questions remaining. Good afternoon. My name is i sit on the sfpuc cac on the balboa reservoir. Im also a resident of district 7 and live near the proposed project location, but today, urge the commission to consent as you heard today, the balboa reservoir has been meeting since 2016. Through engagement, the community drafted principles and parameters. Many of the principles and parameters are included in this project. I also want to note in 2016 they adopted a resolution in support of the development of the balboa reservoir to provide affordable and Sustainable Housing to meet the citys housing goals. And although there are certainly concerns of transportation and congestion, the Developer Team and staff continues to collaborate with community to identify solutions to mitigate these impacts. By adopting and approving these items, they will be contributing to the housing goals and providing housing for all in a fiscal responsible way. Thank you for your time today. I urge the commission to adopt and approve these items. Thank you, caller. Queueing next caller. You have six questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioner. This is steve. Im a resident ingleside, live on ocean avenue across the street from the proposed development. Im calling in strong support of the project. I believe that the city has worked really closely with the community to develop an incredible project, 50 affordable, new parks and open space, a lot of neighborhood connection, child care. There is going to be a tremendous amount of benefit for the community for a project like this. And its a really great opportunity. Im really excited to see it. The puc has worked tightly with the Community Every step of the way. This project has been well thought out. I would say, you know, the price that is being paid for the value of the land is within the appraised value and is completely in line with what you expect, considering that the project is also providing a significant amount of funding for Affordable Housing. This would otherwise have to be paid for with city dollars if we were to develop 100 Affordable Housing on the parcel. So you have got to consider there ultimately would be a tradeoff of having to fund it as opposed to having the market rate. So i, as a community member, strongly support it. I hope you do, too. Thank you, goodbye. Thank you, caller. Queueing next speaker. You have five questions remaining. Hello. Im sorry. I wasnt ready. It would be nice to have warning. One sec. Let me get my comment. My name is wendy kaufmann. Im here at city college of San Francisco. Ive been there over three decades and i love the school. Id like to bring attention to the fact that the puc has an obligation to your ratepayers to leverage the actions for the benefit. It needs to be sold at market rate. The price of 11. 4 million is laughable. Its not only confounding but jaw dropping. It would be understandable if you were selling it to a Public Entity that would provide public benefits, or maybe higher education. Im sure that if San Francisco had the opportunity to buy the land for the 11. 4 million that youre selling it to the private developer for, they could provide much Greater Public benefit. City college is a Vital Institution in San Francisco. And it provides higher Educational Opportunities to lowincome and immigrant communities that changes lives. Thank you for your consideration. Im done. Thank you, caller. Queueing the next caller. You have four questions remaining. Yes, hello, this is Peter Warfield of the Group Equities for older students. And id like to echo some of the comments, many of the comments in opposition to this action. There are questions of valuation, there are questions also of notice. A lot of people who have been very concerned about this were surprised who have followed it, are surprised youre combining in one action the declaration as a surplus the whole 16 acres. And combining that immediately with consent to i prove a approve a Development Agreement with the developer and approving the sale to the developer. There is an issue whether it has been fairly offered to other city agencies for a fulltime public benefit. I certainly think and certainly have thought that housing is a serious issue in the city, but given particularly the circumstances were in today, we know for one thing that when there is a recession or economic downturn, enrollments rise and city colleges interested in using that property has been considerable at least in certain quarters. At the same time, were finding that there is a lot less urgency about housing with many, Many Companies allowing the workers, even on a longterm basis to work from home with people leaving the city and a whole range of uncertainties about housing availability, which needs to be greatly increasing at this time. I urge you not to do this action in what seems to be haste and not giving a fair chance to folks who want public lands. Sorry, caller, your time has expired. Queueing the next question. You have three questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. Cory smith on behalf of the San Francisco Housing Coalition speaking in strong support of the new homes at balboa reservoir. Ive personally been attending and participating in these Community Meetings for five years now. And im really excited to hit another checkpoint in the too long process. Based on the parameters, this project features a significant amount of Affordable Housing. And the people that are speaking against this project are speaking against 550 new dub sized affordable subsidized affordable homes. This is park and open space. There is connections with surrounding neighborhoods. There is an essential Child Care Services which are really important at this point in time for families of all income levels. The cac has provided an open line of communication for the community to comment and suggest and contribute to the goals of this project. And what you have in front of you today may not have unanimous support, but there is certainly consensus that this project should be moved forward. Also really enthused that this project will be built with 100 union labor as well. Opponents are going to argue that the site should be 100 Affordable Housing while completely ignoring the roughly 750 to 1 billion price tag associated with that project. And as a taxpayer in San Francisco, that is really unreasonable given the current economic climate. However, if people do want the Purchase Price of the land to be higher, we would advocate that you just increase the number of homes on the site and that would be a proposal that we would fully support. What you have in front of you today has been reasonably and deliberately planned. It creates a great value for the sfpuc and delivers on needed Affordable Housing which Everybody Needs thank you, caller, your time has expired. You have two questions remaining. Hello. Im theodore randall. I live one and a half miles from the site. And ive been going to the meetings about this project since i commute my office. And when my family moved into the excelsior when i was a kid, we lived in illegal housing because of the lack of housing in this section of the city. For even longer than we lived in the excelsior, there has been efforts to build on the balboa reservoir. I want this built as quickly as possible. This uses market rate housing to increase the amount of Affordable Housing that can be built here. The sfpuc isnt using the land anyway and theyre clogging the streets with traffic and causing challenges for our Public Transit. So selling this land for use as housing and gaining investments in Affordable Housing, public space and Public Transit is winwinwin for the neighborhood, win for the school, win for the city. So i urge the sfpuc to approve this today. Thank you, caller. Queueing next question. You have two questions remaining. Good afternoon. My name is jean barish. Im speaking to you today to urge you to please not approve these resolutions. Theyll permit an oversized development of market rate housing that will destroy city college and the surrounding neighborhoods. It will jeopardize the existence of city college by making access to the campus difficult if not impossible. This in a price that is shamefully discounted. This price is based on appraisal by the the appraisal is not available for public review. What are the city and the developer hiding . 11. 4 million for 16 acres of prime real estate in San Francisco is strange. The agreement just this low price by claiming the developer is providing benefits to the public, but theyre mandated by city law or policy. Theyre not an excuse. Sell it to a Public Entity, preferably city college who will put it to good use. The land should be used to build 100 Affordable Housing for everyones benefit. Selling the land to a private developer at such a deep discount is bank rolling a corporation with taxpayer dollars. Its corporate welfare at its worst and should not be permitted. Thank you. Thank you, caller. Queueing next caller. You have one question remaining. Hi. This is john winston. Im the chair of the balboa reservoir cac. This is a piece of land that is not like other pieces of land that are sold for real estate. An acre of real estate in the mission to be sold for an Apartment Building would cost a different amount of money. This is a chunk of land that is being sold to provide space for an entire neighborhood. As mentioned earlier, were talking about streets, sewers, park, and other open spaces. Walking and biking connections, Child Care Services, and also in addition to city college and for the public at large, up to 440 parking spaces. Also faculty housing. So there is a lot of amenities here that are being taken care of by this project. And its not the same as were not just building an Apartment Building or even several, were building a neighborhood. Those are the prices that are from the cost of the property. When you look at also when people are saying we should have 100 Affordable Housing, if city college had the resources to build 100 Affordable Housing, 550 units, would cost about 330 million. Thats not going to happen. Thats more money than the city has for housing. And it would suck up all the funds used for other Affordable Housing in the city. I would ask you to uproot this item and approve this item and lets move forward. Thank you. Thank you, caller. Madame secretary, we have no more callers in the queue. Thank you, commissioners, we received quite a bit of correspondence on this item that has been forwarded to you prior to the meeting. I have three letters that were submitted to me to be submitted into the record as Public Comment. So i will read these three letters within the two minute limit for each. The first is from star dust. I would like to submit the following comment to agenda item 10. Im appalled that the puc is considering approving sale of public land for a paltry sum to private developers. This privatization of public land is a tragedy and possibly a crime since the officials responsible for it clearly do not have the wellbeing of the city or its residents in mind. Thus, are neglecting the fiduciary duties inherent in their public service. I suggest that they make it available through a longterm lease for a project that is beneficial to the community. That should be housing that is affordable to residents in financial need, rather than to the majority of San Francisco residents and the project should be 100 truly Affordable Housing. Careful consideration should be given of how any project can benefit from the incredible resource of the Community College next door rather than trying to manipulate and undermine the college. Perhaps some nonprofit organizations could be invented invited to submit alternative plans to the great bill under consideration by the puc. Im certain we have the talent in San Francisco to come up with plans that would benefit the community than this corrupt and incompetent plan would. That is end of the first comment. Second letters is from rick bum to the puc commissioners. I have looked over your agenda for your june 23rd meeting and item on the agenda is contemplated sale of 11. 4 million to a private developer of the puc publicly owned section of the balboa reservoir property located next to City College Ocean campus. I read that the plan would be used to use the revenue from the sale to benefit ratepayers. I just did a quick Google Search that indicates San Francisco has 359,000 households. If the money was passed on the household, the average unit receives 35. A paltry sum of money. Clearly the little of San Francisco will receive little from the sale. Theyve been using this land for decades as enrolled as stutsdz. How will City College Students benefit from this development . Wont they be harmed by the likely increased congestion during and after this time if the Housing Project is built . And additionally be harmed by the noise and dirt generated while trying to get an education. Most of the students are people of color. By approving this, this will be forcing them to likely endure harm to their restricted Educational Opportunity. This will reinforce the that they live in a racist society that do you want to be seen as a party that reinforces institutional racism . Do the right thing and turn this property over to an institution that has widespread support from voters, or at least give the College Trustees the opportunity to purchase the property for the price offered. I understand requirement of the law is must first offer to transfer or sell from what you perceive this property to institution before offering it for sale to a private entity. Thank you. Rick balm. And the final letter. Its from madeleine miller. Dear puc commissioners, if we are able as in previous times to attend your meetings in person i would have brought with me handout materials for each of you. That is not possible, so i will send them to your secretary who i hope will pass them on to you. Which i have done. One of those handouts is a resolution to require the balboa reservoir property for city college of San Francisco recommended by the city college alliance, a group of students, staff, alumni, faculty and Community Members who have met for many years organize support for the continued success of all students. The resolution is proceeded preceded by many, supported by data and research materials. In the resolution, the ddca urges the board of trustees to initiate organizations to acquire the property for the city college so the college would have the ability to join other Community Colleges in legally developing facilities open spaces, employee and Student Housing and staterequired parking for staff and students. All critical elements for students success. In addition to this resolution now currently under discussion with the trustees, i would like to make public acknowledgment of the filing of an appeal against the Planning Commission, final environmental report for the balboa project. The appeal heard by the befored [singing in french] s board of supervisors, contains Extensive Research on the project you are considering. Im including just a few statements. The description of the project area and existing conditions is incomplete and inaccurate. The project does not mention the Current College plans for buildings on what is called Upper Reservoir and what has been temporary parking up until the buildings were funded, now approved and going forward. Excuse me, madame secretary, that is two minutes. Thank you, that concludes the comments that were submitted to be read into the record. Any additional callers . Yes, madame secretary. There are multiple callers in the queue. Thank you. You have four questions remaining. Yes, good afternoon. My name is harry bernstein. Im a faculty member at city college. I have several points. First, ms. Russell stated that the obligations of the state surplus land act were met back in february 2016. But it said that the you have to have the land declared surplus before there can be a development. Who knew that would be the case in 2016 . Ive contacted the board of trustees asking them if theyre aware of any offer to the college and i have yet to receive a response from them saying that there was an offer. One of the other people mentioned the parking. The developer mentioned 220 spaces. And that was improperly figured. There should be at least 700 to 900 spaces on an average day. And could reach as much as 2000. So there is a big discrepancy between what the developer is allowing and what is really needed. Also, the developer refused to veto the idea of a shuttle. Said there were not sufficient benefits, but that is a way to resolve the last mile problem and to get traffic off of ocean avenue. So they must refigure that. There is the ceqa appeal that ms. Mueller just mentioned. I also want to say 100 affordable project would lessen the problems of traffic and transit. President yee said that without solving the parking and transit and traffic problems, they could not go ahead. And im counting on him being relying thank you, caller, your two minutes has expired. Queueing next caller. You have four questions remaining. Hello. Im jennifer. Im concerned that the decisions are being made without adequate information. Up cant evaluate the value of this project which moves our public land to private ownership. According to a. J. s analysis which he send you, 87 of the 91. 5 million costs through the develop areas 363 affordable units will actually be coming from the public. And if the public is paying for most of the Affordable Housing units, it makes more sense to build a balboa reservoir as 100 Affordable Housing. Why would you approve a development that competes with city colleges trying to put noise, air quality and transportation impacts during construction of Simultaneous Development will exacerbate the negative impacts to noise, air quality and transportation. That were identified in the balboa reservoir eir from the San Francisco Planning Department. Constructing the development will cause significant adverse impact to noise, transportation and possibly air quality as well, even after incorporating all mitigation measures. This is not a public benefit. Another adverse impact is to Educational Opportunity for working students or parents who need to drive to or from the ocean campus, which will lose a significant number of parking places. Despite the sfmta board approval, it wont be available until the end of 2020 after all these approvals have been given. This is putting the cart before the horse. The cost to taxpayers is even greater if you consider that any delay in the return of the mural would cause it to sit in expensive storage if the replacement theater construction time frame is delayed. Thank you, caller, your two minutes have expired. You have three questions remaining. Hello, can you hear me . I can hear you, caller. Go ahead. Queueing next caller. Hello, can you hear me . We can hear you now. Go ahead. Hello, my name is vic trustee and im here to express that im incredibly disappointed that this project is moving forward even though weve repeatedly brought to this commission that theyve not been offered to purchase this land. We are the current tenants. Were the current users of this land. I think its outrageous to say that [inaudible] using the land havent been included in the conversation. This [inaudible] and while the voters themselves have [inaudible] anything demands that so we can [inaudible] more than ever we can [inaudible] its going to hurt City College Students. I really do have to say that this is not against 540 Affordable Housing units. Its against seeing 550 market rate units. Right . Because so much 17 of it is already city. What were against is the privatization of this land. Why not put in for public use . And give it to our students . So when we build art centers were not going to have that space anymore. Were going to need access. All of our students have been [inaudible] forced out of the city and thats why we have to in. Our instructors, most of them dont live in the city because its not affordable. Im sorry were clogging up your thats how were going to visit there, but, please thank you, caller. Your two minutes have expired. Moving to the next caller. You have one question remaining. Hi. This is lawyery and given laura. Ive given so much Public Comment over the now years that we have been discussing it. And weve already lost 500 units. You know, were down to 1100 units which i know for many people seems likes a lot. But i cant help but thinking when we finally get this through the years of process, there is going to be 500 families that could have been housed that werent. I hope that we can move this through faster. Every day we delay and redebate and scale this project down, we are telling more families they will not be housed in San Francisco. We have such an Incredible Opportunity here. Beautiful parks and outdoor facilities and this and that. What we really need to focus on is how incredibly valuable the housing is. And thats both the market rate and the subsidized affordable. And its the extra subsidized affordable that were getting by building the market rate housing. Were going to have a community where people at different income levels are going to be living side by side and we say thats what we want in San Francisco. We say that we want communities where we have diversity. This is us living up to that vision. Its transit oriented. Its got everything we could possibly want and i hope we can say yes to an amazing project like this one. Thank you, caller. Madame secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. Thank you, mr. Moderator. Go ahead, donna. Public comment on item 10 is now closed. Thank you to the public for all of your thank you to the public for all of your comments. Now we will go back to our commissioners with questions and comments on item number 10. Commissioner paulson. Commissioner paulson yes, i know that my colleague, commissioner maxwell, has comments to make and im sure we all will. But to move the process forward, i want to make a motion that we move the findings declaring the Surplus Property and complete the agreement to move this thing forward and send it to the board of supervisors and Everything Else that is in measure 10, just to motivate the conversation as we go. So that is my motion. Chair. President caen thank you. There is a motion on the table. Commissioner maxwell, would you like to speak now or we can why dont we hear from commissioner maxwell and then well entertain a second . Thank you. So i dont have to speak to the motion. Then i have a question. Is the 150 units of teacher housing, does that come in addition to the 550 units of Affordable Housing . Commissioner, its a portion of the 550 of Affordable Housing. So we subtract the teacher housing. Correct, but its affordable teacher housing. Which means what . Lee, could you jump in here. Because i didnt negotiate the Development Agreement. Lee did. Commissioner maxwell thank you. If lee is not available, perhaps betsy could speak. Hi, commissioners. Im so sorry. I just as commissioner maxwell started speaking my computer crashed, so im very sorry. I did not hear the question. Im available now. Commissioner maxwell my question was, when we talk about affordable teacher housing, what does that mean . Rates commissioner maxwell i say forum teacher housing as opposed to what level of affordability are we talking about when we say 30 to whatever . Sure. Yes, so the site in general will have a range of affordability from all the way down to 30 of ami all the way up to 120 of ami, which is considered moderate income. The affordable educator building so the 150 units will be contained in a single multifamily building. Those will be at the higher of the ami levels. The target average will be 100 of ami for the educator building. That has been determined based on analysis of fulltime faculty and staff, city college salaries, looking at salaries so that is really right in the middle of educator salaries. So thats why that building targets those higher amis. Commissioner maxwell is there anything targeted for Student Housing . The project does not include Student Housing. It includes regular sort of lowincome housing, tax credit Affordable Housing, specific building for educators, as well as a whole number of types of market rate housing. I do know anecdotally that the college has considered potentially building Student Housing on their own property, but it is not included in this project. A number of people have mentioned city college. So the city college have an opportunity to bid or ask for this property or be a part of the agreement at all . Thank you. Commissioner maxwell, we gave notice to all public agencies in 2016. And city college sat on the request, the panel request for qualifications and the request for proposals and also was observed to vote when we awarded this development. So city college had full notice of this project and the opportunity to bid. Commissioner maxwell when you mentioned that the city, that they are considering Student Housing on their property, am i correct in that . Did you mention did you say that . Yes . Yes. Commissioner maxwell then where would that be . Where on city College Property . I believe that through their own Facilities Master Plan process, they identified a number of locations potentially for Student Housing on the Upper Reservoir adjacent to this property near their mub building. That said, i believe the project they funded through their recent bonds did not include Student Housing, so i i dont want to speak for the college, but that is what i can tell you anecdotally. So im sure theyre still interested in pursuing Student Housing as one of their potential future projects. Commissioner maxwell and so in our in this project, we did not i guess give any consideration to any kind of housing for students unless they meet the lowincome, 30 . Absolutely. A student could certainly apply to live in any of the housing utilities of units based units based on their income qualifications in the project. Commissioner maxwell i understand that, so the 30 then the 30 , how exactly can you give me that in numbers . Im one of those people, like, is it 50,000 a year . Is it 30,000 a year . What is 30 of ami . 30 of ami is considered at the low end of the lowincome spectrum. And i dont know if brad commissioner maxwell what is lowincome spectrum . The i dont i could pull up the Mayors Office of housing income qualification table for this year. Lowincome is considered an average of 55 of ami which means that the household that qualifies earns about half of the areas Median Income. Now, San Francisco has an area Median Income that is defined by a larger geographical area than just San Francisco, but working with the Mayors Office of housing, this developer has agreed to use San Franciscospecific income for the project to make sure were targeting local residents. So the slide that brad pulled up gives an example. This slide is probably the income you see on the pictures on the slide are probably about a year old. So likely the current number will be updated. [please stand by] [please stand by] the goal is affordability targeted at families. Thanks, brad for that. I hope that answers your question, commissioner. Somewhat. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner maxwell, no other questions or comments, commissioner moran. I am good. Thank you. Commissioner maxwell. I will wait for commissioner moran. I have spoken once so i will wait. I just had a couple questions. One is for probably for michael. That is whether the utility agreements that are part of this package, if they addquately protect our assets and access to assets for maintenance and repair. Yes, the retained fee area, yes, they do. For the City Attorney, two questions. One, there are a lot of statements made purporting to reflect the law. In your opinion does this proposal, number one, meet allstate law requirements for a transaction of this type. Number two, does it meet the charter requirements that we obtain for market value for the asset being released . I am sorry. I missed the question. Could you please repeat it. We all hit the wrong button from time to time. Two questions. One there is a lot of representation of what the stated of the law is. What i am asking you for in the opinion of the City Attorney, number one, does this transaction meet allstate law that applies to this transaction . Number two does it meet the requirements of the charter that we obtain fair market value . Yes, the answer is we are confident it meets allstate and local legal requirements. And that we have fair market value for this property. Thank you. One comment. We talked how long this has been in negotiation. This property has been at issue for many decades, and we have not been able to find appropriate use of the property for any of a variety of purposes proposed. As this appears to meet our utility and legal requirements, i am delighted to have a project that has finally cleared that this can be a serious consideration for the productive use of this land. Is that a second . Yes. Commissioner maxwell, did you have any questions . I agree this has been going on for a long time. I certainly commend the city for coming finding a way to do 50 Affordable Housing. You know, it is not everything we would all want, but i appreciate the effort. I think it is very commendable. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, members of the public. We have a motion and second. Madam president , i have been instructed that the motion is to adopt item 10 balboa reservoir as written. That is my motion. That is my second as well. We have a motion and second. Madam secretary would you mind doing a roll call vote. Vice president vietor. Aye. Commissioner moran. Aye. Commissioner maxwell. Aye. Commissioner paulson. Aye. Thank you. There are four ayes. If than you very much. The motion carries. The next item. Thank you, commissioners. Next item. Item 11. Approve amendment number 3 to cs204 fish passage facilities within the Alameda Creek watershed, increasing by 400,000 and extending the duration by 9 months not to exceed 5164580 total agreement and duration of nine years and four months. I move. Second on the item . We are here to answer questions if anyone has them. I have a question. Is everything are the fish is everything working . It seems like this has been going on for seven years. I am assuming that all of the things that happened in phase one and two that were supposed to happen are happening. The ladder is built, the fish are jumping over it and everything is going well. That is my understanding as well, commissioner. This amendment will allow for continued engineering support through the construction, postconstruction phase including startup of the facility. You are right, it is a long project. My understanding is that they are at this point things are in motion and they are coming through construction. Okay. Thank you. I second. There is a motion and second. Madam secretary would you mind opening this up for Public Comment. Members of the public who wish to comment on item 11 dial 888 2733658 access code 3107452 and pound, pound. Dial 1 and 0 to be added to the speaker line. Do we have any callers . There are no callers in the queue. Public comment on item 11 is closed. Thank you, madam secretary. Would you mind taking a roll call vote. Vice president vietor. Aye. Commissioner moran. Aye. Commissioner maxwell. Aye. Commissioner paulson. Aye. We have four ayes. Thank you. The motion carries. Item 12 has been removed from the calendar. Madam secretary would you read the next item. Item 13 approve the terms ands of and authorize general manager to seek approval to execute the First Amendment to the deed dated april 6, 1907 original deed between the Koret Foundation and the city. This is Michael Carlin. This is selfexplanatory. Approving terms and conditions of the deed with us instead of the Water Company and the Koret Foundation for housing they have on the add jays sept property. We seek your approval. Should we before we take the motion, we have been trying on these calls to take Public Comment first. Madam secretary, open Public Comment before we get a motion and second. Members of the public who wish to comment on item 13. 888 2733658. Access 3107452 and pound followed by pound. Dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the speaker line. Do we have any callers . There are no callers in the queue at this time. Public comment on item 13 is closed. Is there a motion to adopt item 13 . Move to adopt. Second. Please take roll call vote. Vice president veytor. Aye. Commissioner moran. Aye. Paulson. Aye. Maxwell. Aye. Four ayes. Thank you, the motion carries. Please read the next item. Before i do that i would like to ask the moderator our at t bridge line has a five hour duration. Otherwise we need to reset it. Do we need to take a reset to reset or how long do we have on the line. We have five minutes remaining on the conference line. May we take a brief recess to have the Public Comment line reset . Yes. Before we reset i need two minutes. I have to get off the call. I would like to make comments to the next item before i hand over the gavel to commissioner moran. I apologize for that. I had a prescheduled presentation. I have a few more minutes if we can reset now, i will try to come back on and introduce the item and hand over the gavel to commissioner moran. Is that okay . How long will it take to reset . It will take three minutes. We dont need to adjourn you can do that . You dont need to adjourn. We dont have to relog in or anything . Stay put and he will do it behindthescenes. Brad, let us know when you are ready for us. We have four minutes remaining in the call. Is now appropriate time . Yes, please. Thank you. Go ahead, Vice President veytor. Thank you very much. Can you please read the next item, madam secretary. Then i will make my comments. Next item is 14. Discussion and possible action to adopt a resolution directing the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Staff to work with the modesto irrigation district and turlock irrigation district on an agreement for early implementation of the proposed Tuolumne River voluntary agreement. We passed the resolution and two of the resolutions were not on board in march 2019. My real goal for that, which the commission agreed with and we passed that resolution were four main points in the spirit of doing whatever we can to help the fish that are in quite severe decline. Just to recap, those four critical pieces that i still feel are vitally important to this effort are establishing outcomes and goals for what success looks like. A healthy ecosystem what does it look like and what do those fish numbers and survival of fish look like . Outcomes and goals. Second, early implementation. We know that time is ticking. It has been over a year since we passed the resolution. We are already running against the clock at that time. Early implementation. How to get on the river as quickly as possible to implement be the measures we have been pushing for. Third is Adaptive Management. What is the plan if it doesnt work . How do we adapt . What are the specifics. Then the final one was this analysis. Peer review alternatives. Those are the four pieces we have been talking about now for the last number of years, i believe. This resolution, i believe, takes those four items and moves them a step further, but the real emphasis of this resolution as far as i understand it is to get the state focus back on to this process. They have a lot on their plate and the negotiations of the va overall for the watershed has come to a stall. We as the p. U. C. , i believe it iitis incumbent upon us as the s meeting the water supply obligations need to try to get to an agreement as quickly as possible with the state on what that looks like. My understanding this resolution is a request to the state to quickly as possible look at the proposed va that the sfpuc put together the Tuolumne River and do an analysis to get feedback on what they feel like apwhat their review process will show is going to potentially work and what isnt. We know the project has to start to get data, but we want to present them with at least the modeling that our staff has put together for them to analyze and provide input, feedback and to open up a more public process for response. That is what you have before you for the most part. There are a couple of amendments. I dont know if they made it in there. One in particular that a lot of Public Comments about. It was to make sure that the water that does come off the river is going to really be for the fish and that it stays in the water for the fish and does not get taken by downstream water users. Michael carlin can speak to that. I do see in here there is language about the ad adaptive plan, for early implementation. I would request that somehow we come up with stronger outcome and goal language. Commissioner moran and i talked about this extensively and in december 2018 the importance of that so we know what success looks like. One final amendment here. There is a resolution in here that says if this resolution supersedes the one before, and i am not sure that i agree with that because i had requested there be what i was calling across walk between the march 2019 resolution and this one to make sure whatever was in there that was relevant and important made it to this resolution as well, and i am not sure if that was the case. I do not want it to supersede until we have done that exercise. I will now hand it over. I hate to do it because it is complex and there is a sense of urgency because we have been wanting to get the states eyes back on this process. We feel like this is a step in that direction. I hope we can pass some version of this today so that we will be able to keep this process alive and in the spirit of helping the fish. They are in decline and also meeting our contractual obligations. With that, commissioner moran. Dont go away quite yet. Have you language for amendments you would like us to consider . I do. Michael carlin and i submitted it to him. I believe he has the language for an additional resolve. I dont know if you want me to read it or if michael can submit it to the record. We have to read all amendments into the record as collective. I have those in front of me. Even revised on monday we posted. There are additions i would like to read into the record so that they are there. I have a question. Commissioner moran said there was an extra amendment. Michael carlin has said there are other amendments. What is the parameter that we are going to be discussing right now . This is prior to mr. Carlin talking about what it is. We have an amendment. Resolution in front of us preempted or not, then there is some amendments. What is the what are we talking about . I believe the resolution that we have in front of us, and correct me if im wrong, is the one circulated by email at the beginning of this week. That is the resolution that is in front of us. What i am hearing there are also amendments that mr. Carlin has in front of him that would beloe proposed for our action as well. Did i get that right . Thats correct. I have one additional amendment to the june 19, 2020 revised resolution circulated on monday. Then a commissioner is adding other amendments . I want to get the parameter what we are talking about. Two minor amendments. Then there would be three amendments and i believe you could act on those three amendments and then the entire resolution. Thank you. I just wanted to know how we are moving forward. Thank you very much. Michael do you have all three of those . No, i dont. He has one. Lets call michaels number one. Then i have another one on the last page on the resolved to add two words. It reads this commission directs staff to work with mid, tid on development of longterm agreement to allow three party to collectively plan, fund, implement all measures included in the agreement at a minimum. That is the baseline of the measures that they should implement. It would be great if they could go above and beyond. Three words at a minimum. Then the other is the one i mentioned. I would like to strike the resolved that says further resolved this resolution does not superride resolution number 0057 provided if any terms in this resolution conflicts, this shall prevail. I would like to strike that. You can noodle on that and michael can make the case. I dont want to lose any of that good hard work we did to date where we got to march 2019 and we had several conversations what did not carryover from 2019 to the 2020 version. We have a resolution and three amendments to talk about. Mr. Carlin. Thank you. Goodbye. Good luck. To go to commissioner paulsons question. We did put out the june 15th draft and circulated amendments on june 19th. For clarity i would like to read those into the record as collective including the ones that commissioner vietor just made. If you have the june 19th open look on page 3 between the clause multiple lawsuits whereas starts sfpuc rate committed. Whereas resolution 190057 focused on the river and delwatershed agreement due to the interruption of negotiation for watershed agreement the commission wishes to provide staff direction on moving forward with the Tuolumne River voluntary agreement at this time. On page 4 new clauses to be added. Further resolved this commission understands the state voluntary agreement inclusive of all delta watersheds has been interrupted willing to continue in the process if it recommences and is productive. If that continues to be delayed they wish to move forward with the stand alone agreement. Further resolved this resolution did not supervides 190057. Provided if any terms in this resolution conflict with the terms in 190057, this resolution shall prevail. This is new. Further resolved this Commission Urges the state water board t t ensure any required contributions to delta outflow from the Tuolumne River beef used for protection of the fisheries not to offset obligations by other in the Tuolumne River. Funding for such implementation add two new resolve clauses in the june 19 version. Further resolved this commission directed staff to continue to coordinate with the direct impact of the phase one amendment and the voluntary agreement may have on the wholesale customers. Further resolved we direct staff to work with stakeholders are the voluntary agreement process and be it including environmental. Then there was an additional at minimum to be added to what commissioner vietor read as well. Can you clarify where that last amendment goes . In the second further resolved on page 5 and it is in the second to last sentence and it is right after agreement and if negotiations are successful all measures included in the voluntary agreement at minimum, and if. You got that madam secretary . I am sorry. Page 5. Which further resolved . The second further resolved. This commission directs staff. To also work with mid and tid on development of longterm agreement to allow the three parties to collectively funds, plan implement in the agreement at a minimum. Those three words would be added after that. Who is chairing this . This is tim paulson. I have a couple of comments. One, and i am going to start with this. I want to make sure that we are in our vast expanse of responsibility throughout Northern California are going to take care of what we need to do, and in particular be diligent about fish streams. I want to support our vice chair on the diligence she has done, and i want to do it in whatever ways i can. Therefore, i was going to make the motion to move this resolution today, but now, i am listening to extra amendments and what i do for a day job, i want it on the record. What i do is work off documents that we amend or we renegotiate, but they are always there is most of the time a firm basis for where this stuff started from. I know i am talking about a resolution that is somewhat binding with this commission or is binding. Now, i have all of these resolutions. I want to go, yes, but i think of it is only one word. Then i think of ways there are words. It is like thousand shall not steal. Somebody says i want to take out the word not. Then it is thousand shall steal. I am not trying to be there but being diligent to make sure this is not going to jeopardize us as commissioners in getting the stuff done makes me feel uncomfortable. I want to vote for the move we are doing right now, and i wish our commissioner hadnt had to leave. I am sitting in my office and i have family wondering what the hell i am doing, that being said i want to move forward but i am not comfortable pushing this. Even though i thought i was going to be a yes vote based on the diligence of the commissioners. I am be laboring this but at the same time that is not the way we are supposed to engage in business. Especially with all of the cra craziness that p. U. C. Has to have to manage so many different agencies and policies and whether or not that is local or state. I dont know what else to say to that. I am not signaling a vote. I am looking for advice. It sounds like it is a bigger wagon of things than what was on the agenda. Thank you, commissioner paulson. I appreciate your comments. Michael, i know commissioner vietor is very close to this issue for a long time and worked with you and staff to make sure it captured the meaning and intent that she brought to it. There are the amendments that are in what you distributed highlighted. Those amendments were the product of discussion with among other people, commissioner vietor, is that right . Commissioner maxwell was in attendance as well and could speak to the meeting we had with stakeholders as part of the mayors water committee. Let me ask another question. Very specifically, commissioner vietor expressed an about to do two things beyond what was distributed to us. One, remove the superseeding and the other was to add that at least language on the resolution. Do you or would staff have any objection to accepting those changes . I dont have objection to the at minimum. I dont think the superseding language is a little interesting. We are trying to avoid if we brought something forward from the previous resolution and changed it we want to make sure that is the controlling language not going back to the old one. Commissioner paulsons comments we dont want to keep going back and forth between documents. The other resolution is in place. We are not repeeling it. I found that, frankly, very difficult resolution to figure out what the devil itmeant. It wont replace but supersede. If was just neatness and we remove it to get rid of that issue, thenway would have a then we would have the amendments already reviewed and signed off on by staff, City Attorney and commissioner vietor. Yes. If i may speak to this. This is nicholas, deputy City Attorney. When you have two resolutions with conflicting terms, there is going to have to be a super seeding. If you dont have a written you cant have the commission going in two different directions. This does add clarity to say this in the resolution, you want to know which action the puc is going to be taking. There is any confusion on that, it may just end up down the ro road, not sending staff on trails that they dont want to go down. It is usually the last in time will control, which would be the new resolution. If it doesnt change the legal result, sometimes it is having the clarity would be better. Keeping in the supersede language in the new resolution. Question for attorney. Is it even one possible to take that out . Secondly, and i dont want to be a roadblocker, i want to move forward, is this just not clear enough for us to move it forward based on everything that has been added on . I want to vote for it, but if we have add this and take out that and supersedes this, that is not exactly the way we should be proceeding. I would be attempted to say lets continue this. May we allow them to finish, mr. Paulson, do you mind if we do the rest of what they have to say . Of course. Why wouldnt i . This is franchesca from the City Attorneys office. I understood there was some concern expressed this resolution was superseding the 2019 resolution. So the intent of this clause was to make clear this does not supersede the 2019 resolution. Rather than trying to cut and paste and duplicates all of that resolution into this one it is more efficient to say this does not superside 2019 and the only thing that would supersede it is if there were direct conflicts between the two. That is just sort of standard protective clause to make clear that what nicholas is saying is right. The more later in time resolution would prevail if there were a conflict. The two resolutions have different subject matter. This is focused on the tuolumne only the 2019 was watershed wide and did not address the issue of early implementation. Do we know if there was a specific issue that commissioner vietor was concerned might be presented differently in the two resolutions . I dont recall one. As City Attorney just explained. What this particular resolved was meant to do was to avoid the conflict issue. Let me suggest this. It sounds like we are in a position where the amendments that you have put forward are generally in agreement. This is the one where there is a question. Let me suggest that you make the presentation about the item as a whole so that we can consider that and we will come back for the action that is before us first to amend or not and then to adopt or not the time resolution. That will give us time to think about it. I have one question. Are you saying then that she put this into clarify, to make it more clear . Is that what it is . Thats correct. The she in this case is commissioner vietor expressing concern about supersedeing, is that right . Who is the she that added it is my question . Was that the City Attorney or commissioner vietor . City attorneys office. They wanted to clarify and commissioner vietor was concerned that it was a problem . Just to be clear i proposed that language only in response to concerns that have been raised. I believe by commissioner vietor that this was to supersedes the 2019 resolution. This was meant to address her concerns that this resolution does not supersede the 2019. This was based on our conversation with the Community Groups who held last thursday they were confused does this supersede, not supersede . I think this clause is basically doesnt supersede unless there is a conflict. Then it does. Does anybody have any problems with what our council just said . I mean both as commissioners and as michael as policy guys and legal. Is there any problem with that piece . I dont have one. Clarification. It is a clarification. As commissioner maxwell said. Anyway, are we going through a whole presentation or talk about the amendments . I thought we talked about what we had already. We dont need another presentation, do we . No this is to the amendments from the discussion last thursday with the larger group. Commissioner maxwell was present and we were addressing peoples concerns, questions, clarifications that led us to the revisions after we had published the agenda. That is what is before you. We are perfectly fine with what is in the resolution at this point in time and adding in that additional sentence about protecting the water as it goes down we are fine with that as well. Commissioner maxwell are you okay . This is tim. I want to make sure we are doing our diligence . Yes. Where are we at, mr. Chair . Where we are at we will go to open up Public Comment on this item. Okay. Members of the public who wish to make Public Comment on item 14, dial 888 2733658 access code 3107452 and pound followed by pound. Dial 1 then 0 to be added to the speaker line. There are multiple callers in the queue. Thank you. You have three questions remaining. Caller good afternoon, comm, chief executive officer. I appreciate the discussion about this important issue. I want to let you know the proposed resolution with the amendments on the table today. Discussions on this topic facilitated by may or breeds office have been appreciated. The recent participation by commissioners vietor and maxwell are very beneficial and resulted in the proposed resolution you have before you. On june 2, i wrote a letter to Governor Newsom asks for his leadership to move this forward to review by the state water board. This is what the p. U. C. Is asking for as part of this resolution. Also to support early resolution of the agreement once submitted for analysis and evaluation. I urge and support the commission to adopt the resolution as proposed and amended. Thank you. You have two questions remaining. Caller i am dave warner. I would like to address my letter to this resolution. This is a example. The supersedes language deals with Adaptive Management language in the 2019 resolution i think says it is to be part of the t r. V. A initially proposed. The language in the current resolution is not clear on that. I think the way to solve this if you want to do what commissioner v ietor says. The whole meeting is an example how you are pulled on so many directions in these meetings. It is inconsiderate not to provide context when this is presented. Please consider asking staff to substantially improve to present this and future resolutions. Please consider delaying actions until a better presentation can be made in the issues that can be clearly resolved. Thanks a lot. You have one question remai remaining. Caller this is peter with the Tuolumne River trust. We appreciated meeting with stakeholders last week. That was a good example of collab boration. I believe you received a letter from the state Salmon Association and the trust with our recommendations. I am glad to hear there is universal support that water released make it all the way to the bay as delta outflow. We are pleased to see that letter from the bay area council. It is probably unreasonable to ask the state water board to do full seequa review for the tuolumne agreement. It is a stress test we ask the board to look at see if the t r. V. A is ready for the full review. You might want to be prepared. They could commission their own peer review. That is important. Really, i see the main purpose of this resolution is to see if the t r. V. A has merit to proceed forward. It is really hard for any of you to say if you fully stand behind the t r. V. A. You have not read it. It is not publicly available that i know of. You are not biologists and experts. You count on other people. It should be other people besides staff and the irrigation districts. I will also add that dave warner did a nice assessment of franchesoriginal thank you, caller. You exceeded your two minutes. Madam second there are no more callers in the queue. Is thank you. Commissioners similar to item 10 we have received substantial correspondence on this item. All of that has been previously provided to you. I do have three letters to read into Public Comment. The first is from mr. Steve lawrence. On one day notice the resolution 14 substantially changed. I object. It makes no sense to enter the agreement. It is unforeseeable for lack of consideration. If they want to proceed with improving the fisheries but demonstrate success go ahead. Why do you need an agreement with yourself . That will make the state sit back down at the table. Second is from nancy waffle. I request the commission seablite read into the record my Public Comment for june 23, 2020 about the revised june 192020 draft resolution. The clause states in response to that direction staff developed an alternative water fl supply program to assess feasibility to commence quarter reporting on the progress on october 22, 2019. And there was no item on octobeo provide a progress sport on alternate water supply. I am requesting the 12th clause be revised to include underline to add new project as additional source of alternative water. Further resolved this commission directs staff to complete development of an alternative water supply plan that includes use of saltwater and locally available sources of water to augment water needed to fight fires and to implement a collection of projects including these sources to achieve a water supply goal established through the alternative water supply Planning Program including offsetting environmental commitments and commence review of such plan no later than july 1, 2023. Be it the justification for including saltwater and non portable sources as alternative is that San Francisco is the only city in the United States with an auxiliary water supply system to be redone cant to domestic Water Supplies for fighting fires. To be compromised dedicated pipeline to use saltwater and non potable water. That is two minutes. Than thank thank you. We received a form email Public Comment that was submitted for item 14. I received 71 of these emails submitted for Public Comment. I have been instructed by the City Attorney that i read the 71 names into the record after i read the correspondence. Dear Public Utilities commission. I care about the environment and encourage you to restore the river and in delta. A few months ago the commissioner asked for the resolution in support of the trump admins hetrations opinion for the sacramento. I encourage you to followthrough on this proposal. The delta is on the brink of total collapse. Pumping more water as proposed would only exacerbate the crisis. The original opinion determined increased pumping with harm the endangered species. The Trump Administration replaced them with a team that concluded the opposite. With the help of the delta in consideration it should be based on science and sustainable search for water. Please do the right thing and support the state lawsuit. We care about the environment. We are depending on you. This was submitted by. Reading names. [reading names] do we have callers, mr. Maddemr. Moderator . The queue is empty. Is that closes Public Comment on item 14. We have before us a resolution. We also have some amendments to that resolution. In the normal course it would be appropriate to move and second the resolution itself then to also move and second the amendments then deal with them in reverse order. What is your pleasure . That is fine. Is that a motion . I am sorry. I move. Can you clarify your motion please . With respect to the regulationresolution as distrib. I move the resolution. Second. For clarification we are talking about the red lined resolution posted on the Commission Website yesterday june 19th . Yes. Then i need clarification. I need to be clear when we discuss the amendments what those amendments are. The one posted included a bunch of amendments. I think what the chair is asking. The verbal amendment we are referencing that i talked about are those included in there or not and list what those are so we know what the hell we are voting on. This is nicholas, deputy City Attorney. The june 19, 2020 resolution did have red lines. That was posted publicly on the p. U. C. Website yesterday. The only other revision is the one suggested by commissioner vietor, which is to add at a minimum on page 5 of the resolution and further resolved on the development of longterm agreement. What was distributed on the 19th has achieved properly notice so it is properly before us . Yes, it is what michael read into the record when the item was first called he read the new edits into the record. Commissioner maxwell is that what your motion was in. Yes. Commissioner paulson your second . Second based on everything people are talking about. Do we need a motion to amend to include that or better language or anything not in what was distributed we need to amend in . If you are inclined to accept commissioner vietors edit at minimum the motion is to adopt the red lined version dated junf adding at a minimum to the resolve clause. I am going to ask the Commission Secretary on page 5. Yes, page 5. Can you read that clause again for where at minimum goes. Page 5. Second further resolve this commission directs staff to work on longterm agreement to allow the three parties to plan, fund, implement all measures in the voluntary agreement then add at a minimum and if negotiations are successful bring to this commission for consideration and possible approval. So through the chair since everybody seems happy with that and legal with that i will make that a motion to amend. I will second. On the motion to amend do we need to do separate Public Comment on the motion to amend . City attorney . No. On the motion to amend adding comments from the commissioners . All those in favor. We need to poll. Commissioner moran. Aye. Commissioner paulson. Aye. Commissioner maxwell. Aye. You have three ayes. On the motion as amended. I want to make sure i am clear to one thing. There was another new resolve i read into the record with the resolve this Commission Urges the state water board to ensure any required sfpuc to delta outflow we used for recovery of delta fisheries not on augment south of the delta or offset obligation by others. That was not in the june 19 red line strikeout version distributed. That is the only other one to read in the record. The two i just read and the three words at minimum should be one motion. Let me ask one more question. Michael, you are saying that is not part of what was in the red line, am i hearing you correct correctly. That is correct, commissioner. You said there was no downside to this in terms of our ability to conduct business, is that correct . That is correct. So do we have to make franchesca another amendment to add that puppy in there . Yes. You dont have to do it all. You could now entertain a single motion to adopt the june 19th draft as amended by the two oral amendments. The amendment is really fast. For the amendment to have the water pass to the benefit of the fish and not to be further diverted. Do i have a motion on that . Yes, i move. I second. Moved seconded further discussion by the commission . Madam secretary call the roll. Commissioner moran. Aye. Commissioner paulson. Aye. Commissioner maxwell. Aye. Three ayes. Just to the chair if i could ask a question. On item 14. How many votes did we take, three . Two. Because we amended the amendment, right . We made two amendments. Enough said. On the item as amended. Well it is moved and seconded. Madam secretary, please call the roll. Commissioner moran. Aye. Commissioner paulson. Aye. Commissioner maxwell. Aye. You have three ayes. The item as amended passes. Thank you all. Thank you for bringing that back. That was very important. Thank you. The last amendment. Madam secretary if you would call the next item. 15. Approve the water supply assessment for the proposed 900 seventh Street Project. Mr. Ritchie. Sis tent general manager for water. This is a water supplysment similar to others considered. This is the 9,007th Street Project which is a mixed use development. This is necessary for the Planning Department to proceed with their analysis. One thing to note here. There had been discussion about the past water supply assessment about not having a more definitive plan for Water Supplies. One of the things inserted in the last resolution the Commission Just adopted was a commitment to have a water supply plan ready to go for Environmental Review july 1, 2023. We put a harder date on that than we have had before. Hopefully with that action that will help the commission see the way to take a positive action on this water supply assessment. Commissioners. I moved. We need Public Comment. Why dont we get a second on that. I thought we decided we would commissioner is right we will listen to Public Comment before we make motions. I withdraw my motion. Madam secretary. Members of the public who wish to comment on ite on eye tm call the number on the screen. Do we have callers . There are no callers in the queue at this time. Thank you. Public comment on item 15 is closed. Further discussion by commissioners . Seeing none, do i have a motion . I move that w we i move im 15. I secon south second it. Further discussion . Commissioner maxwell started it. Yes. Is there any discussion on the motion . Hearing none. Madam secretary, call the roll. Commissioner moran. Aye. Commissioner maxwell. Aye. Commissioner paulson. Aye. Three ayes. And the item passes. Thank you all. This meeting is adjourned