Transcripts For SFGTV Public Utilities Commission 20220921

Instructions for providing remote Public Comment are below Public Comment callin 1 415 6550001 meeting id 2495 057 6064 thank you, before i start, i would like to recognize the lands before the Public Utilities Commission Findings and recognize the tribal land and the tribe, have established a working partnership with sf puc and within the many greater San Francisco area today. Please call the first item. Clerk 3. Adopt renewed findings under state urgency legislation to allow hybrid inperson meetings during the covid19 emergency and direct the Commission Secretary to agendize a similar resolution at a Commission Meeting within the next 30 days. Thank you. Will you please open Public Comments . Are there any public members to provide Public Comment . We have one public caller. That is line 3. Public caller, i have opened your line. Do you wish to provide Public Comment to item no. 3 . No response. Thank you. Item no. 3 Public Comment is closed. We have a motion and second. All in favor say, aye. Aye. Any opposed . We have 3 ayes. The 2e78 passes. Next item. 4. Approval of the minutes of august 23, 2022 commissioners, any comments . I have one comment during the design drought discussion. What was reported, i said the design drought was not determinate we have comments by email and they have been distributed to the commission. Did you open Public Comment . Members of the public who wish to make two minutes of remote Public Comment on item no. 4, approval of the minutes, please press star 6 to raise your hand to speak. Do we have any members of the public wishing to provide Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, do you have any callers to provide Public Comment for item no. 4 . Madam clerk, there is one person in the queue. You have two minutes to comment on item no. 4. Public speaker not just a user, water user. David i wasnt planning to speak but an item that i saw on the top of page 6 that read comment should read Public Comment. Thats all i have on this item. Thank you very much. Thanks for your comment. Madam secretary, there are no other Public Comments on the queue. Thank you. Public comment for item 4 is closed. May i have a motion and second . We have a motion and second. Roll call, please. [roll call] you have 3 ayes. The minutes are adopted. Next item 5. 5. General Public Comment members of the public may address the commission on matters that are within the commissions jurisdiction and are not on todays agenda do you have any Public Commenters . There are 11 persons on the call. Public speaker eileen, this time speaking on San Francisco neighborhoods. On the state land Commission Meeting august 3rd, we spoke on general Public Comment. The state Land Commission has three members, betty yu and the state governor. At the june 23rd meeting, i commented on the pump station for the water system. In a recent multiagency report titled californias water supply strategy, adapting for a drier future, reached out multiple times and a possible demonstration project off San Franciscos ocean beach and study on electricity. The permitting process for an open water pump station could take 1020 years. Encouraging the slc to confirm the accuracy. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next caller, i have opened your line. You have two minutes. Public speaker thank you. My name is phil martin, the sierra Club Representative for the bay area water stewards. Im also a San Francisco resident and a customer of the sf puc. I attended the august 23rd hearing of the design drought. At the commission hearing, there was an on going dialogue. I appreciate that statement. On going dialogue fails to address the key issues along the river. Steve ritchie made the point that the water problem is enormous and behind the current design. Please note, there is nothing scientific about this. There is an historic selection to the drought and to the numerous scientific studies showing how the california rivers have reduced available fish and wildlife habitat. These studies further show that existing habitat is efficient for existing wildlife population if only sufficient water flows were available. The design drought essentially ignores the signs. There is no scientific basis of its own and stands on the following designs we do have. Further notices the trends and demands and sf puc staff have continually ignored the following demand of the last two decades. Not once have sf puc water design staff, and now its time for a complete design tool. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. You have two minutes. Public speaker hi, this is judy irving, a San Francisco resident and have been swimming in the bay since 1984. I have heard about floaters, turds in the bay. That was before you had treatment plants, we did have problems with floaters, but now we dont. But the two Sewage Treatment plants in San Francisco that we do have now release far too much nitrogen and phosphorous into San Francisco bay. Those are the men u items that release sludge and lots of sunlight produce this horrible algae bloom that i happened to swim in before i heard about it in the news. It wasnt fun. The water was yellow brownish, not as it usually is. It felt bad on my skin and itchy. I had to remove it. If you do this on the site that is water recycling like others have done, you can reduce this and reduce the overall water use and we can take less water from the river. In ten years, lets have a healthy river and lets have a healthy bay. You decide. Thank you very much. Next caller, please. Please state your name. You have one minute to comment. Public speaker hi, im a resident of the bay area. I use the water through the palo alto utility. I appreciate the pristine water im able to use. I also want there to be enough to keep the river healthy. Im 74 and over my lifetime i have gone from using this resource. The trust said it best in the recent article in the news and the same is view the for people of palo alto. People of San Francisco conserve water during drought thinking they are helping the environment but they are not because the water is just staying in the reservoir. Its no longer acceptable to use the most conservative method on water usage and justifying the hoarding water its when not useful. San francisco was forced to dump water because the reservoirs are already so full. So instead of benefitting the river consistently for years, there was one good year followed by many very low flow years. Tuolumne river caretakers have found a way to produce this water and have found enough water for their reservoir to meet the flow and the bay area water control plan while causing no impact to San Francisco and palo alto. Thank you for your testimony. Your time is expired. Next caller, please. Please state your name. You have one minute to comment. You have two minutes. Public speaker my name is jeff brown. I live in the San Francisco peninsula. I want to comment on the design work drought. I have a comment and one is on the singular focus particularly sf puc on storage as a means for dealing with drought. The other is the fact that the sf puc has not responded through repeated requests by the ngos who are acting in good faith and asking for modeling based on assumptions other than the design drought as it stands now. I want to point out as a matter of background, i spent several years as a Research Engineer at nasa engineer center and analysis on the dangerous test facilities. And Steve Ritchie in dealing with hazard analysis, you look at how to reduce the risks of various hazards that could arise. I think with Steve Ritchie in the august 23rd meeting that the likelihood of the design drought by the ngo and the benefits of the Design Change are not effective tools and i agree with that. The customer demands is not only preventative, but its controllable. Hazard risks reduction. The concept of control versus mitigation is crucial. Thank you for your testimony. Im sorry, your time is expired. Madam secretary, commissioners, there are nine additional callers in the queue. Caller, i have opened the line, you have two minutes. Public speaker hello, my name is carol ruth from stanton, california. The drought proposed is time for the protection of the rivers and according to the Department National fish and Wildlife Service, these numbers have plummeted since the 50s and 25,000 by the 70s, less than 2,000 fish. In the past 15 years, fewer than 1,000 have turned up. Last year, scientists counted 186 in the Tuolumne River. The water flow of the river if a design drought policy to protect this against a one in 70,000 year drought. The parameters of the eight 1 2 years design drought will not bode well for todays remaining famine. Are we willing to sacrifice famine . How can we continue to thrive when we are destroying this echo system. I implore you to make this a priority. With california and generations to come and the eco system in the water. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comment. Next caller, your line is open. You have two minutes. Hello, my name is steven, a resident of palo alto. And sf puc user. As a person concerned about the environment, i have curtailed my water use installing low flow toilets for water and landscaping to protect the environment. I looked at the sf puc workshops including agreements and have understood for myself that from the habitat, there is no substitute for yearround flows of curtailed water. The water board has demanded flows on the river using expert Scientific Evidence to draw its conclusion. The sf puc on the other hand has ignored signs and persisted in its assumption on the historic demand on the design drought for eight 1 2 years to justify its position that some habitat advancement can substitute for minimum flows. Please end your lawsuit and follow the unanimous resolution of the palo alto Civic Council to protect the flows on the river and save the tuolumne endangered fish. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Next caller, i have opened your line and you have two minutes. Good afternoon, my name is paul. Over the past two years, you held workshops and i thought they were productive and i had the opportunity to attend several of them, but nothing has changed. You keep kicking the can down the road. The Tuolumne River, the fish are literally dying. And will not have the opportunity to learn from the workshop. What i heard at the last workshop was very discouraging and its not going to make a change. We have heard your report and its not encouraging. After spending 300,000 on the assessment, the report is ignored. Your staff essentially said that running out of water would be bad. We all know this which is why risk analysis is so important. They told us that there is very little risk of running out of water. At the workshop, there seemed to be consensus that the sf puc demand projections are inflated but based on the past, nothing is going to change. Im extremely frustrated with the commission. Factor reason has fallen on deaf ears. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Next caller, your line is open. You have two minutes. Public speaker thank you. Im from the San Francisco conservation i cannot express a profound disappointment with sf puc. We have attended numerous workshops where ngos have prepared Scientific Evidence. We want sf puc to design a drought that is based on actual science. We want you to stop wasting money and taxpayers dollars and address multiple problems we face including algae bloom and the dying fish on the river in tuolumne. Thank you. Thanks for your comment. Hi, my name is jessie radar and also disappointed with the comments at the workshops. After the workshops, it is clear you have no intention of modifying the design drought. I am as concerned about anyone about the impacts of Climate Change but im concerned about the present Climate Change that the river is hurting now and we cant have this ridiculous insurance policy of the design drought that is this conservative design policy that is not supported by evidence and concerns the policy is having right now. Your seats at the commissioner seats were elected. You would have to listen to your constituents and voters do not share your lack of concern for the environment. We want to see you responding to those constituents of San Francisco a little bit more. Im frustrated because if its not an elected position and i am. And im concerned about the voluntary agreement after the last attempt was discredited ten years ago. I worked on voluntary agreements on the ng side and at the time it was best to make it elective and put something through that was going to be terrible for the river. I hope you will drop the lawsuit and do what the people of San Francisco want and that is protecting the river. Thank you for your comment. Next caller, your line is open. You have two minutes. Public speaker good afternoon, commissioners, my name is nate rangel, the california protector of outdoors. I have attended the drought Design Workshop and i want to say that i agree with everything thats been said to you so far during this Comment Period and in particular, i strongly urge you to listen carefully to peter. I also want to say this. For 22 years i have worked for my constituents, my colleagues, representing them in licensing on rivers in california including the last two closer ones which would have been americans. I can assure you that smut and pg e and California Water are just as concerned about running out of water and yet they were able to come to recognize real evidence and being equitable and reasonable in the agreements and the mitigations that they agreed to. Im going to say that i really hope that you will sit back and reassess the choices you made because the choices that you are making now, i dont believe are reasonable or equitable and rational. I would like you to take a look at the real evidence and not accept what your staff is giving you. Thank you. Bye. Thanks for your comment. Next caller. I have opened your line. You have two minutes. Public speaker hi, commissioners. My name is john. I have attended all the workshops during the last two years. Im extremely disappointed with where we are now. I feel you are totally stuck in the past. I feel the commissioners dont have the capacity to change, dont have the capacity to move forward. Dont have the capacity when science is presented to you, you interpret it. You only accept the science that justifies what you want, and what you want isnt to have a healthy river. Im really appalled that you are running out of water with the meyer analysis of the five year drought. Better being able to just totally disappointed. We had 25,000 and down to 86. You talk about how you care about the health of the river, but you dont. And then i hate to say it. It reminds me of the old that couldnt change and things went to hell. So sorry about that. And my language. Thats it. Thank you for your comment. Madam second and commissioners, there are five callers left in the queue. Next caller, your line is open and you have two minutes. Public speaker hello, my name is Shannon Mcentee and i live in San Francisco county. I spoke during your Public Comment time and im so disappointed with your meeting today. Your design on the drought is conservative. The sf puc cant risk the loss of fish habitat by ignoring legitimate data. Your agreement would be a catastrophe. There is nothing to support your voluntary agreement. Why is the sf puc not responded to the peer review, but instead embrace the deception and wishful thinking. This is insane. You must drop the voluntary agreement and face the plan. You must protect our fish and wildlife and keep the dealt free from toxic algae bloom as we have just experienced. Thank you for your comments. Public speaker david again. If you can give me a 30 second warning, that would be totally helpful. I only had one item for general Public Comment and i will try to do this without getting emotional. I just wanted to note that commissioner moran has not been reappointed and depending on what happens with the board of supervisors in the next month, his term would end by operational law by november 30th and ending his Long Association with the puc as a staff person and head of finance and head of hetch hetchy agency general manager and commissioner moran has long served the city and interest of ratepayers and protected water rights in over seeing all kinds of things as well see later in the agenda. Anyway, i just wanted to express publically my sadness that he may not be on the commission much longer. I will not be able to attend the september 27th meeting because its the second day of the jewish new year. I appreciate his long tenure and i just wanted to say that publicly. Thank you, andy. Thank you for your comments. Next caller. Your line is open and you have two minutes. Caller, your line is open. You have two minutes. Public speaker this is john mcmanus with the association to represent those sport and commercial salmon fishing interest including the commercial salmon fisherman that work out of Fishermans Wharf in San Francisco. I think san franciscans would be agast to know that this puc has a lawsuit basically and is circumventing and undermining the clean water act. If you look at your correspondence log, you will see quite a bit of correspondence of Northern California people that care about the environment. The law suit needs to be rescinded now. Also want to comment on the involuntary agreement that the sf puc is poised to sign onto and i would call it involuntary because key communities were excluded from this socalled agreement as well as those from the salmon industry. All of us were left out of the room. One last comment echoing the last caller, im sad to see commissioner moran going, and understand that he was not appointed after supporting the workshop that recently was held in august against the wishes of some higher ups in the city. I will stop there. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Next caller. You have two minutes. Public speaker the california ban you are responsible to the voters even if your positions are not directly elected. You have to go with your conscience. Actions speak louder than word. When i offer land acknowledgment to receive the land itself, is this how you steward . Why are you not focused on alternative water supplies, develop water infrastructure. When you say control, you mean killing animals who want to live like i do. Animals with families, new brothers and sisters. You do this without regard to the impact that occurs as a result of your decisions. Is this how you steward . You set aside evidence. Is this how you steward . Why would you again proceed with flawed science and flawed protocols and go against the voters. Is this how you steward . Do you brag to your friends that you are personally hastening the death of this population and this entire species. Is this how you steward . You are fighting the mountains Environmental Water and failing to provide the oxygen that we all require. Fish cannot survive with this water. They need more. When the mountains are dead because we stole their water, thank yourselves for your priority. This is your stewardship. Thank you for your comment. Next caller, your line is open and you have two minutes. Public speaker hi, my name is margaret, im in the unincorporated san mateo county. This water has played a special role in the county and supply for the indigenous population and that is salmon, lots of it. This is a mere shadow and can no longer support the indigenous people. Salmon shows that 40 of normal flow rate is nearly unsufficient for salmon survival. Currently the flow rate is half that that. The salmon population cannot survive another summer. We are headed for another ecological disaster from hetch hetchy bay. Why . I recognize your concern that San Francisco and Central Valley is running out of this water. And your design drought water story is nothing more than a secure insurance policy. I have been following the reservoir that support the chronicle. It is mind boggling with the percentage compared to last year and we are 23 months away from the next spring. I believe there is flooding this winter as the rains will continue drought. You should be concerned about your role and potential flooding downstream. Please do the right thing for our beautiful river and protect the habitat by releasing more water now before its too late. Thank you. Thank you caller for your comment. Next caller, the line is open. You have two minutes. Public speaker hi, commissioners, this is karen of the Water Committee of the chapter of the sierra club. Our chapter covers communities. Im simply asking you to carry out the charge and recognize the involuntary agreement is under your effort. You have to ask questions of the involuntary agreement at a workshop. Those are very good questions but they revealed that staff did not provide answers to the commission. And was told at the meeting and be sure that the agency carries out full informed actions and you are accountable. This will distract you instead of focusing and you have to stay away from these distractions. Thank you. Thank you, caller, for your comments. Madam secretary, there are no month callers in the queue. Thank you, general Public Comment is closed. Thank you, commissioners. Next item is communications. Any comments or questions about the communication provided to you . Seeing none, please open Public Comment. Any members wishing to provide Public Comment on item 6 . I would like to note that there is a 30 second chime that you will hear before your time runs out. Do we have a caller remotely who wishes to speak. Madam secretary, there are four callers in the queue. Next caller, you have two minutes to comment on item no. 6. Communication. Public speaker hi. Its john again. I just wanted to comment as far as communication. I felt the board last time on the 23rd meeting asking conservationist to shorten the time limit asking people to basically sign the letter. Whats unfair, it was deceptive and allowed peoples voices not to be heard that should be heard. That was before the public. Fortunately, i feel that through this commission and sf puc has the last few years sort of disdain and contempt for information that people are trying to convey. And i hope this thank you. Thank you for your comments. Public speaker david two items on 6 c. The correspondence log. I want to praise the commissioner donna about my last suggestion the year before that included all the emails and correspondence received and summarized it whether its an individual or form letter, it all here and all here for the public to review. I appreciate her work at every meeting putting back together which is not a five minute exercise, im sure. On item 6h. I have no issue with the recommendations from the puc citizens advisory committee. I have just one caution on page 6 of 8, the final result that the second resolution should be forwarded among others to the clerk of lafco. I believe that the pucs jurisdiction exist only to the extent of making recommendations to the general manager, his commission, the mayor and the board of supervisors, and i think it is slightly inappropriate to communicate otherwise including to the clerk of lafco. Although the resolution definitely expresses the views of the committee. I think all of those views should be expressed primarily to you and as i said to the general manager, the mayor and the board and they can deal with those recommendations as they see fit. Thats my thoughts on item 6. Thanks for listening. Thank you for your comment. Next caller, i have opened your line to comment on item no. 6. Public speaker thank you. I wanted to comment on 6d, the Water Supply Program Quarterly Report showing water need through obligation which is the design drought and demand which is supposedly the Water Management plan, demand projection, and the design drought, eight 1 2 years. The projection in the stormWater Management plan are not projected in the report in july 2021. There is an outside envelope. On july 12th, you have a report dated july 5th, that responded to the request to compare finance bureau and water enterprise demand projections and compared to actual. I heard no discussion about that report for six months and what it clearly states is the stormWater Management plan projections to materialize and finance possible. Both finance and water enterprise have over projected the water enterprise dramatically and finance much closer. There is no financing projected for the next ten years and water sales to remain flat. As we described at the design drought work shot, you are using the demand and the demand has been under 200. Why does that number keep going up . Now it 94 when it was 84 because there was the presumption that california was going to need to buy more water. I feel that sf puc staff are attempting to inflate numbers. Thank you. Madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. Thank you. Public comment on item 6 is closed. Thank you. Are there any questions . Seeing none, next item. Vicepresident ajami arrived at 2 15 p. M. Next item. Drought condition updates. Thank you, good afternoon commissioners, Steve Ritchie. Well review the drought update. There are a number of slides and i will skip through some of these because they are not changing at all and its not worth dwelling on those. Here is the no. 6 storage levels as noted by a caller. The hetch hetchy is at 83 capacity, a little less than normal at this time which is 86 because this has been a decent year, a less than average year but better than the two prior years for water. Again, the key figure here is the water bank at 40 capacity. We are keeping a close eye on that as we move into the fall. Once again, we are seeing the reservoirs around the state and once again shasta and orville are very low at 35 each as opposed to don pedro at 54 . Its a little bit better than the state but nothing to write home about. The drought monitor, this hasnt changed very much at all. In fact there was one that came last thursday and looks the same as this and the state is within a drought, there is no doubt about that. And the slides havent changed at all. We have very low precipitation in the summer and was what it was from our three months early in the year in the bay area and hetch hetchy and the snowpack for the year is completely gone. The water available to the city came in at 200,000 near peak this year which is better than it has been but well below than it would take for the system. The precipitation forecast is a little bit interesting and you can see what happened last week with the hurricane that crept up in california. Based on the experience from both hetch hetchy during the weekend and my deputy, they both said it reached up there as well and there was some precipitation, not enough to take care of the drought but better than it has been and it was very windy as well. But then again the second week from the 14th through the 22nd, we are looking at a completely dry california. This is a slide that really counts out of todays presentation. This is the level we have been seeing. I have emphasized so far that the very positive thing about this is that the green line in the middle basically has shown that we have flattened off demand during the summer. People that have responded very well to reducing outdoor irrigation. I think thats a very positive sign there and certainly well below 2019 and 2020. That orange line below where we are now is where we got to in 2015 during the last drought. Actually a different version of the slide that is not here is showing 2020 and basically right at the top of the charge. We are doing better than we were in 2013. This shows 210 mgd a few weeks ago and this last week it went up and interesting week because of the holiday because it had decreased demand and the heat spell which had an increased demand and there is a little bit of an up tick but given the temperature still where we should be. The down side is its pretty clear we are not going to reach the 11 reduction target that we have set. Despite the fact that customers have responded quite well. We are getting to the level where we are seeing demand more. If you ask, they will deliver it. This time we are asking and they are not quite delivering as much. I think there are many reasons about that which we will be looking into. Again, we are not going to make what we were hoping for about 11 reduction and will be around 9 reduction for the year, Something Like that. Well be evaluating what we should do next on the things we might want to do about the demand reduction going into next year if it persists in being dry. The last slide here shows the hard numbers on the demand reduction for the period july 1, 21 through june 21st we have reduced overall for San Francisco. July 1st through september 1st of 2022, about 5 . Again, not quite what we wanted. The lower box is basically the summertime period which is about 10 across the board again taking into accounts the below per capita in San Francisco and 65 gallons per person per day, far below with the rest of the state. Good performance, but we need to rethink how we move forward in the next year and how we can do better in someway and for different tools that we can use to reduce this demand. I will be happy to answer any questions. Any comments or questions . Commissioner ajami. You stated this percentage per day, im wondering what it is across the peninsula . This is the peninsula and santa clara and alameda county. I cant remember if nicole has ever shown this slide, but we looked at data with them that really show that there are four wholesale customers that are really the peak demand areas, and the bulk of the customers are at a level of about the same, a little bit less than that 66. The four wholesale customers are wood side, adding ton burrows dale. The bulk of the customers are closer to the 60 gallon per person demand with some even below that. In palo alto and daly city are always really good with saving customers. On that same slide that you have with the graphic, it makes me wonder when you are looking at the 210 number for last week. If you look back at the end of sort of springtime or early before this summer that started, the numbers are significantly lower. I wonder if there needs to be some form of study done to figure out where obviously a lot is driven by outdoor water use and focusing on how we can bring those customers along to be a little bit more conscious for how much they will use water because next year is going to be dry. We need to figure out how to bring those numbers down and if san franciscans can save that much water, the peninsula should do better too. I will make two comments on that. One for San Franciscos Water Service again, we are seeing continuing to see a lower demand as a result of a less robust economy in San Francisco. Its not all about conservation but has to do with Economic Conditions as well. In terms of the per capita demand in Going Forward this next year, thats where we want to take a hard look at. If it persists with dry conditions in the winter, i think our message needs to be very aggressive early on about dont think this is going to end anytime soon. We need to limit irrigation more and we need to continue to work with customers on thinking about wholesale, extreme limitations with the exception of parks and schools that there be limitations for all in terms of days per week, hours per day and maybe some areas complete ban on outdoor irrigation for nonparks and schools. Those are the things that come to mind to make the next wave of progress if it looks like its going to be bad Going Forward. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions . Commissioner maxwell . Even if it rains now, we know that climate is changing Going Forward and we need to do something even if we have one wet winter. Maybe there should be a program where we keep the squeeze on the ball and not let it go. I agree with that. I think that there is a renewed energy statewide to basically buyback lawns. Its the people that have talked about the largest crops of california because it is, but its a little bit of a luxury in this climate. So moving away from those more and more, and its generally a little bit of an investment and that helps people get the idea. So that means we are going to continue regardless. Regardless of whether or not there is a drought or not. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments . Questions . Public comment, please. Members of the public who wish to comment on item 7 a, please raise your hand to speak. Seeing none, mr. Moderator. Do you have any callers with their hands raised . We have one caller in the queue. Caller, i have opened your line. You have two minutes to comment on item 7 a. Public speaker thank you. Peter what i would like to know is why there wasnt a drought update on your agenda several weeks ago. Is that because staff doesnt want people to see that you are sitting on water at the same time where you are making the same argument that we can run out of water . I also want to point out that water available in the city is just Tuolumne River water about 2,000 acres. In the bay area, the water available was 45,000 acre feet. Its more than 240,000 acre feet last year. So drought year, you were able to capture more water than demand. And i sent you a letter about these issues, and deferens the graph that staff made available at the workshop and it was very hard to read. I recommended a graph that was appealing. I urged staff to produce those graphs. What they will show you is that we wouldnt have run out of water historically even with this plan in place with the current demand. Thats the kind of information that the public needs to see and you need to see. I encourage you to follow this graph. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Madam secretary, another caller has joined the queue. Caller, i have opened your line. You have two minutes. Public speaker you all know you had a good workshop. But that workshop was not transparent. So people have stated very clearly, and i hope you understand that peter has a lot of experience, and you commissioners you are set on lies. You dont know the real act. The water coming to San Francisco much before the other counties but note San Francisco and san franciscans know how to conserve water. So you commissioners have to focus on San Francisco for the future, and this analogy of that doesnt jive with the discussion we have today. It doesnt. Some of you commissioners are not even trying to Climate Change. We have been in Climate Change for more than 40 years. We have a good thank you for your comment. Your time has expired. There are no more callers in the queue. Thank you. Public comment for item 7 a is closed. The next item is 7b. Cleanpowersf. Good afternoon commissioners, my name is cheryl taylor, Operations Manager for cleanpowersf. Im here to provide an update for staff progress on the 2022 Resource Plan and present initial modeling results. We were here to brief you on the integrated Resource Plan. Its an Energy Planning tool or process used to support achieving policy goals and meeting regulatory requirements. Our planning process is focused on identifying a portfolio of electricity resources to meet the customers demand at the lowest cost while also meeting policy goals and state regulatory requirements. We are required to submit this plan to the california Public Utilities commission by november 1st, and the plan we submit will identify a portfolio of electricity resources to meet our customers demand through 2035. I have included key terms that we use sort of throughout our plan and its just for reference. I will skip over that. The c puc allows electric providers to provide multiple portfolios in there plan and follows two categories, a performing portfolio and alternative portfolios. The conforming portfolios will provide an assumption to the puc and the demand forecast cannot be changed for local goals and targets. With the alternative portfolios, those provide the flexibility for specific requests and assumptions and will include the electricity demand increases from local electrification and decarbonization goals. We will come back to you in october and ask you to approve a conforming portfolio as cleanpowersf proposed portfolio for december 1st to inform cleanpowersf power supply procurement needs. So i would like to talk to you about Community Engagement. The team has designed a two phase engagement strategy with a goal of increasing Community Awareness about the process and providing opportunities to learn about the plan and provide feedback. Early in the summer we implemented one outreach plan which included contacting more than 600 Community Based organizations and surveys and workshops and work dedicated space for the plan. We heard a number of comments on priorities which is rate affordability, clean Energy Accessibility for lowincome san franciscans, a priority for achieving 100 renewable electricity by 2025 and more local supply to enhance reliability. So coming up for Community Engagement well focus on soliciting Community Feedback on the modeling results to help inform staff recommended support portillo and this phase will continue through october. Well seek that feedback through web base online comment form to propose model updates and two Community Listening sessions with staff on hand to answer questions, clarify any of the information. Since we were here in june, we consolidated and simplified our Energy Resource portfolios to four scenarios down to maybe about seven. There are two each in the conforming and the alternative bucket. In the conforming bucket there is the case base which meets the energy goal and the time coincidence case that emphasizes matching Renewable Energy to produce customer electricity usage in real time by 2030. We have the case in which the mayors electric vehicle and electrification targets that is the increase load from 2040 and includes emissions trips in the city and lastly local resource Procurement Case that supplies 50 of cleanpowersf load with local resources. Our consultant is working very hard to finalize the results in both portfolios and modeling the alternative and as soon as we validated the results will post from our website and that includes any refinements. I just want to also say the conforming and alternative portfolios include the baseline and Renewable Resources with the 800 megawatt capacity including specific projects that cleanpowersf has in current project and various projects in planning and development. Recognizing that local investment is a goal for cleanpowersf, our project team required that all portfolios include over 285 megawatts of local resources and capacity including 50 megawatts of geo thermal, almost 90 megawatts of solar and 150 megawatts of battery storage. Here is a preview of our initial modeling results of our base case portfolio, and i would just like to say as a disclaimer, the initial modeling results present an illustrious view of the parameters and we continue to validate our impacts from our consultants and this includes 100 Renewable Energy and Greenhouse Gas targets by 2025. The base case modeling calls for nearly 2,000 megawatts in total resource capacity online by 2035, and that would include procurement of 300 megawatts of new solar, 60 megawatts of new geo thermal and 100 megawatts of Energy Storage by 2035. We will update the cleanpowersf integrated resource website with modeling results as they are finalized and will return to you in your first october meeting with the balance of the modeling results. Super quickly on this side, this slideshows the initial results of the case base portfolio cost compared to the cleanpowersf ten year Financial Plan supply cost estimates from 2023 to 2032. On average, this initial case base portfolio is 20 higher than what we estimated in that ten year Financial Plan on a dollars per megawatt hour basis. I would like to stress that these are estimates based on initial model results and not yet final. So rounding the corner towards the end, we are working with the consultant to perform portfolio modeling using electric Industry Standard techniques and software. Well evaluate each of the portfolios, develop a set of metrics adopted by cleanpowersf for affordable and Reliable Services and electricity alternative services and process and jobs and longterm rates and financial stability. So whats next . We are currently modeling plan portillos through this week and will start to plan results by next week and will solicit comments for the plan analysis as resources become available. After we completed the modeling exercises for our portfolios and well return in october, your second meeting, to present our recommended preferred portfolio and seek your approval prior to submitting to the c puc by november 1st. This concludes my presentation. Im available for questions. Thank you. Commissioner maxwell . Thank you for your presentation. Where would roof solar fall and how are we looking at centralizing our power. Meaning if i have solar, thats my little power plant. How are we looking at that and how does that fall . Thats a great question. Let me take a little stab at it. That would be a distributed Energy Resource that is behind the meter. Its sort of embedded. The solar that serve individuals produced from their roof tops is embedded in our load assumptions for what San Francisco produces that we will not need to procure on the market if that makes any sense. Do you want to add anything . Good afternoon commissioners, mike hines, deputy gm. I agree with everything that cheryl just said. The one thing i would like to add is, so she mentioned that rooftop solar is addressed on the demand side of the picture and we account for that in our demand projections. For this exercise we are using sort of historical trends in the growth of the behind the meter of the rooftop solar. And this is sort of a sensitivity that we have been looking at and something we have been working also with the state around is refining these kinds of assumptions in this process. But, one other point i want to make is that the rooftop investments also sort of depend on an action by the customer and what this exercise is very much focused on is sort of whats in our direct control which is a procurement of wholesale power supply. So the local rooftop can very much supplement this, but its a little bit less in our direct control whats being done on customer roof tops. Yes, i understand that. It just seems that is it something that would make, if we had more of it, would make a bigger impact or could make a bigger impact on procurement on cost. Or does it factor in . I think itted could and for what the graph has in it. The solar is driving up the cost. We can couple rooftop solar with storage. Its not perfect but would be one way to help our customers to move the electrons from the middle of the day into the evening to help with our cost. It would reduce our procurement needs, but it may increase our average cost. If we are looking at cost, but i was wondering if it would be worth for having a Bigger Program to centralize our power and procurement. I know we cant always judge everything by cost. Cost is important but we have to also look at environmental costs and other things. Yeah, i think the answer is yes, and its something that we are talking about doing more research on especially as it provides reliability benefits within this city. There has been talk of micro grid. I think this also connects to our discussion with the Distribution System and what the future is in the city there because cleanpowersfs core responsibility is to run on the grid and not the Distribution System. So thats kind of sort of where things meet, right . Its where the local grid. I know australia was doing a huge program on decentralizing. Im glad we are looking into it and it seems it should be something that could help over, and also makes people more aware what they are using when they are using, and centralizing power. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner ajami . On the same topic, we read each others mind. But maybe i pivot a little. You asked this question and i got the point there. But where are we on sort of leasing peoples roofs, for example, solar panels, and maybe not just individual homes but we have commercial buildings. It made me think, we have all of this issue with using assets that dont belong to us, and i wonder if we lease some of these building roofs and put solar panels on them that we own, right . Or schools, all of these public buildings, then it sort of breaks us apart from using those assets and becomes our asset and our management. I understand its behind the meter, but still if its ours, they are counted with those electrons. Basically my question was if you had considered that and individual solar in your modeling and i wonder if you have thought about this. I think there was a program, i cant remember the actual name but had something to do with leasing the roofs for solar top. I would say its part of our local resource procurement. We have a small but, i hope growing portion of solar that we are working with our water enterprise, putting on top of reservoirs. Thats not like a next year think, i dont think, but its in development. Thats contemplated as part of our integrated Resource Plan. Mark hines, just to speak to the roofs and the models. We have looked into that. We have not looked deeply into the models of putting our own assets on third party roofs. It is something we can look more into but is very complex and there is the potential for a lot of risks there as well as far as navigating the roof conditions of a third party and placing our infrastructure that we then need to maintain on private roof tops. The model in between that we have been working on is to invite third parties, private businesses, even potentially Public Institutions to develop their own rooftop projects and sell that power to us. So, we dont have to get in the business of running of operating and maintaining an asset on a third party property, and instead we can purchase what we are looking for which is the electron. So thats a model that we are working on. And quite frankly, i dont think these things are mutually exclusive either. We can potentially explore all of them and the third one which is with a we are really pushing forward is to continue to develop solar on our own property which we have quite a bit of including our water reservoirs within this city. Thats something that power and water have been collaborating on and we are hoping to be able to pursue more on water reservoirs. I understand that you mentioned, but i also wonder in a way of taking that risk potentially there might be somewhere in between that you might pay for that infrastructure, we can pay for that infrastructure, but they own sort of we own but they operate and maintain a different kind of Business Model that we can explore partly because okay, if its on our roof, or if its on the reservoir, we still need to use other peoples assets to move electrons around, but if its on the building, then you are not we basically would be creating the individual sort of self maintained building that can generate and obviously we can put batteries and that way we are pursuing electrons but not dealing with the whole cost of dealing with putting electrons on someone elses assets and the drama around that, right . I understand its complex. I wonder if now that you are going to this modeling exercise, why wouldnt we try those kind of things too, and there are so many public roofs, not just the ones that we own, but i think you mention schools and you are also talking about other buildings. I really think malls are a great example of that because so much is going on there and you can actually use electricity to run that system. I like the idea of microgrid that is in the neighborhood and independent. I think maybe trying those kind of models as a mental exercise and then eventually prepared for the changes that can come around, right . And if it can be part of that change rather than being the consumer that comes around the pipeline, right . I would really love to see some of that. One other thing i would say is i have seen this individual wind turbine on peoples roofs that are fascinating and the morning sun and afternoon and maybe the wind would make that electricity generation. So that also, i wonder where that fits into this whole Portfolio Development exercise. Those are all great considerations that i would definitely take back. Also i want to mention too, that its going beyond this cycle, and i definitely hear you on anticipating the future and how that might change our way of conducting business. Right. Thank you. Commissioner maxwell. Speaking about infinite and cable, they use other peoples assets. They put their stuff on other peoples homes and other peoples towers and everything else. There is that model. That we can use. Thank you. Commissioner paulson. My speaker hasnt worked. But going back in the slides, i had a couple of information questions. One, i think i noticed you said there has been 65 meetings so far in terms of outreach to the community. I have three questions. I would be curious, the second one is what that list is. Just for information, not to log jam anything. And then you mentioned a little bit more towards the end there will be public input or feedback at the end. I wonder if you can very quickly explain what that reach is in terms of setting up this program. I know part of this has already taken place. Okay. I would like to invite the Power Communications manager, peter, to elaborate but i will say we have had two Community Workshops in phase one and two Community Based organizations and we plan on having two more Community Workshops i believe later this month, early next month. I will invite peter to give more of that detail. My question is you elaborated and listed a few of the folks and i wonder what that total outreach was in terms of setting that up. Okay. Thanks. Good afternoon commissioners, peter, Communications Manager for power for sf puc. We out reached to over 600 Community Based organizations back in june to inform them about the irp development process. Those organizations really represent a Cross Section of San Francisco ratio and economic groups, climate and environmental groups, unions and labor organizations as well. We have a list and through the commissioner secretary we are share with you the contacts that we reached out to. And we have the information that we shared with communities that will be coming up later this month and early october. Great. I assume you have a list who came and who responded . We have a list for that workshop and im happy to provide that to you as well. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. One thing that occurs to me, in the ultimate water supply plan that we heard earlier there was a new program added to deal with cutting edge programs to do some pilots and one was like harvesting from fog and all of that. It may be helpful in this context as well that there are a lot of good ideas but maybe arent right for primetime, but to acknowledge that they are receiving attention that we are following with those technologies would be helpful. When we come back in june, we can include that in our presentation. Thank you. Any other comment . Seeing none, Public Comment, please. Members of the public wishing to make Public Comment on item 7b, please press star or raise your hand to comment. Mr. Moderator, do you have any callers with their hands raised . Madam secretary, there is one caller. Caller, i have opened your line. You have two minutes. Public speaker great. David, very briefly on this item. Thanks to barbara hill, michael hines, cheryl and peter, i feel like my input on this issue has been heard and im sure it will be responded to and incorporated. I hope to have more input on this round on public involvement. I really appreciate the work that cheryl, peter and the team have been doing on the integrated Resource Plan. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Item 7c. Hetch hetchy Capital Improvement Program Quarterly report by katy miller. Good afternoon commissioners. Im katy miller. Today i will cover highlights of the hetch hetchy Capital Improvement programs for the 4th quarter of last fiscal year from april 1st to june 30, 2022. These pie charts show the Program Status with nine projects in construction, seven projects in construction or multiple phases. 175 million has been spent to date for about 29 completion overall. 23 million was spent during the quarter to represent Construction Activity over several projects. This table shows is summary of project expenditures and cost forecast by Group Funding sources by water and power. All projects have the same costs forecast representing the funding levels and the updated budgets will be reported in the next quarter since this will be the next quarter of the new fiscal year. Next some projects and construction. The Improvement Team worked with the contractor to move critical material in preparation for activities needed for next years shutdown when the new flow control facility will be tied into the existing tunnel. The flow control facility shaft is now complete at 150 feet deep and the bypass tunnels were almost completed at the end of the 4th quarter and will continue at all locations. The mock son powerhouse and transformer project also made significant progress in design and construction. The new transformer installed last year was partially utilized by hetch hetchy water and power staff and the new one is being tested at the factory. The generators rewind project and notice to proceed for construction was issued this current quarter. This further shows a generator bar tested at the factory. This made significant progress on four Major Construction contracts during the quarter. Phase 1a contract for improvements to san joaquin pipeline no. 2 received notice to proceed. Phase 1b contract for similar pipelines no. 3 and 4 advertised last quarter was awarded in august. Phase 3 reached 95 design completion for the new surge tower at tesla portal which is pictured here. Finally the last contract for the phase 2 improvements started the design phase. For the transmission line 7a upgrade project for improved transmission towers, the construction contract was awarded during the quarter and notice to proceed was anticipated in october. I would be happy to answer any questions. Any questions or comments . Comments from the public, please. Members from the public wishing to make comment, please press star or no. 6. Seeing none, mr. Moderator, are there any members with their hands raised . Madam secretary, there are no callers in the queue. Public comment for 7b is closed. Just one quick comment. I know its been a while since all of us commissioners have taken a tour out in the field and i know we were in the south east plant before it was in full blaze. If you might think of something that was really eye opening or critical in terms of the staff importance in whatever else, it might be nice if we wander out again sometime. Keep that in mind. Not as a hard request so that we are looking at our calendar every week, but still look at someplace where you think it might be important for us to go out to take a look. This perked up in my brain. Thanks. I know we are already planning a mountain tunnel tour in the last week of february. I know that we can only take two of you at a time. If we can look at how we might arrange this. We are already planning our summer tours for next summer and we can look what we want to set up between now and next summer. We would love to show you now that these projects are really in full construction. Thank you. Thank you. Public comment, please. We have closed Public Comment. Okay. Next item. Item 7 d. D wastewater enterprise Quarterly Report including Southeast Area Major Projects 1 biosolids, 2 headworks, and 3 1550 southeast Evans Community center good afternoon commissioners. Steve robinson. This is the report while we look to backfill my former position of the capital Wastewater Program and report from march through june. We have combined some more current updates for the three Major Projects in the southeast community. I would like to start off with some construction updates and construction Improvement Projects. Construction is expected to be completed by october of this year. For this quarter, the pump station fencing and landscape and architecture, those are the final touches to the project. The staging area on the boulevard is also being removed and the Construction Team is steadily working through a punch list of items to complete the final work to turn the pump station over to the station. And there is some installation of signage. This shows the exterior portion of the pump station before the installation of signage which went up last week. The second is the middle side of the facility project and construction anticipation june of 2023. The Boiler Service was returned and the former boiler removed from the site. These are three vertical stainless steel tanks which absorb the gas to help with the treatment process. The third on the right is the Stormwater Improvement project, construction expected to end march 2024. The next image shows the movement of the micro tunnelling machine. That is exciting for the major tunnelling work. The last quarter closing at 49 , this quarter closing at 52. We are celebrating that we are crossing the half way mark on the first major wave of the projects in the program. The slide on the top shows the seven projects and the bus Rapid Transit sewer third phase project. In green we have 12 projects and 17 last quarter because five of those advanced to the closed phase. This now shows 51 projects, making stead progress. We have the Quarter Report showing the summary costs ruling out both phase 1 and other projects that we initiated after phase 1. Column summarizing expenditures in the budget and forecast cost at the variance on the right hand column. The red total 905 million which is reporting the same and then the Cost Reduction on the Green Infrastructure project. Trending in the right directional beat a albeit a small decrease. This is decreased by a quarter of a million since last quarter which is also good, the last column on the right direction and showing the project increases with one larger decrease of 1 million of the consolidation project. Two milestones along the way, we have initiated security updates which are Major Updates at the pump station and the channel pump station along with a few others. The second bullet we completed the second report that marks the end of the planning phase and for the primary treatment of the health and safety improvements. The third bullet on the right we achieved 9 5 on the right that is known as the channel inter tie. The image is the northshore pump station with the weather Improvement Project to be completed may of 23678 you can see the contractors installing new bar screens. Well pivot now to more current updates on the Southeast Area projects. For biosolids reporting out first and we did acknowledge this initial cost increase back in january at the beginning of the year. No change at this point and also captured in the Capital Planning budget process with no change. The dewatering shoring and installation of tiles over the last year. So thats now done which is really good. Construction of the vessels is underway and the foundation and now you can see those tanks rising above ground. The bid procurement for this contract for remaining construction work is on going through the end of this yearend of 2023. For the new facility project for the southeast plant is on project on schedule with no change. Continued civil and structural work in the various areas. There are now 604 of 649 drills complete. We are getting very close. And moved to electrical, fire protection, mechanical installation and we are putting that electrical and mechanical equipment in and its ready for installation. As we get closer to completing this project, we need to look at how to tie in this project to the start and then turn it over. Lastly, the Community Center at 50 50 evans. No change to the budget forecast we showed last quarter. Im pleased to report the new howard metal sculpture called promissory note. You can see in the Center Taking center stage in front of the new facility. This takes a piece of art of western african wearing new jewelry. The permanent power was received in april. If you recall there were some delays and concerns working with pg e but now its been resolved. Back in may, we approved an additional budget increase to help with the contingency and last remaining items. No further changes needed at this time. That completes the end of the presentation. Making steady progress. Im happy to take any questions. Thank you. Commissioner maxwell . Thank you. Great job. I really appreciate it. I was wondering, where in all of this could we if we were going to do a project say dealing with the algae blooms, is it at the starter phase. We are spending several billion dollars and we are not quite finished and when we need to do something, we add a little bit here or there from what could we do if we were going to do a demonstration project. I think the problem is big enough. Our mission is to do no harm and we are failing. Where could we start a project like this . There are concerns. Let me say its difficult because people are swimming in it and weve known about the problem for a long time. With scientist working in the bay area and its been around for a long time. With where we put this in the process financially, the biosolids is at the back end dealing with the solid past of the waste. The concerns are how we discharge our effluent in the bay that can affect the algae bloom. Thats from the wet affluence and those are two receiving and in this case the bay is the concern. We look at how we look at additional treatment process and the liquid is how we handle that and there is the electrical space for how we do that and the water we are trying to work with and the financial constrain of how we do it and working with regulatoring and looking at the team and we will work with our other partners around the bay area because its a collective team effort to look after the Water Quality in the bay. I will ask for something later, but i think whats the cost of our environment and Public Comment when people are swimming in it. Whats the cost and when we look at space, i think its a big enough situation that will only get worse and you mention just the bay, but its also happening on the ocean, on the other side. Yes. So its both. Yes. Thank you. I have a question on the cost, on the slide that you have. Are those cumulative over time, the red ones, where we have gone over budget versus the ones that are finished on budget. Are those cumulative or over the past, for example . Very good. Yeah, we changed the reporting format a few cycles ago to help with more clarity around this because there are variances that happened over each quarter and can get lost as we look at the cumulative over time and shows what the cost variance is since the last time we have gone through the budgeting process. Those are the larger numbers from the second columns to the right. To draw attention where there is a highlight and trend or shift where this slide is supported, thats where we have the last column on the right. Its the total and the variance that has changed for this last project. The reason i was asking was and maybe we went through this in the budget process, and im sorry that im asking. I cant remember off the top. Can you remind me how much is related to change in cost and inflation and the cost of construction that has gone up and how much is related to other things. I was wondering if at least for our own knowledge if you can acknowledge how much this is changing over time. You have asked or communication before about a way of tracking and seeing this. I think that is part of this exercise that we are looking at. We reported on a number of biosolids which is one of the larger variance of what we had budgeted and looked at the deep dive and the changes and conditions and the Market Conditions that drive the change and we tried to explain at that time what some of that was and later in the program, a similar exercise on the larger project and came up with a similar theme and understanding. I think seeing trends like this and looking across water and wastewater and power and what we do on our infrastructure sector, we are looking at those and how that fits in and the Market Conditions driving it or perhaps more within our control. Okay, thank you. Im hoping that that, i know that you were trying to put together that data set. Im hoping thats happening. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Other comments or questions . Seeing none, Public Comment, please. Im sorry. Commissioner maxwell . It seems that san jose, they have more affluent but using less nitrogen and seems they are using their current infrastructure, they were able to use some of their infrastructure they already have. I was wondering, maybe there might be a different way of looking at it so that maybe we could do something. I mean you guys are so creative and you come up with ways of doing things. Yes, its the scientist and engineers looking at the science and the process and every supply source and discharge condition is different with less title flushing action is very different from what we have. But yes, there may be parts of that plan to have that ability if its tweaked in someway to help cope with those for example but thats for the team now to look hard on and already looked at all the options as we look at the infrastructure and as we protect this water. Im sure you do and there is no doubt in my mind but this is a critical time right now. You can study it and while we are doing that, the cost of human health and Animal Health and the planet is something thats real. So while we are doing that, we can look at how thats happened. Yes. There was a piece that may have come in than what was budgeted in the southeast an a while ago, and we raised that flag and i was very impressed because this is an on going question in the infrastructure and construction from the beginning of time. Its like what do you want to do and the cost and what is going to happen. The field conditions and the different technologies and the inflation and the costs and the time factor on the calendar. I was very impressed at that time by the way you and your team took on that particular issue that has been reflected now for various months in here. Its exactly what has to be done when the public wants to know why there was a spike or why was there a decrease or whatever it may be. This commissioner is very pleased with the way you took on what was at that time a shock. I think we all said, what the hell . And thats exactly i way an agency should be looking at stuff. I want to thank you on that. Thank you. Commissioner ajami . I want to emphasize what commissioner maxwell said, and i wanted to mention the algae bloom and i didnt want to repeat what you said last time and i decided to not bring it up, but i think that the san jose case is interesting because of what you said, but also in the southern end of the bay there have been a lot of efforts of putting horizontal levees and trying to manage some of the effluent on that. I know san jose doesnt have it but i know there is some further north. Obviously it really depends on how much land do we have and how much capacity we have to put these on and what needs to be happening. I agree with commissioner maxwell if there are things that we can do that can actually from an agency perspective, to protect us from failing in the future and ending up in the wrong side of the issue if things go bad, we should actually now that we have time address that right now and deal with it. I just wanted to reemphasize that. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else . Seeing none, Public Comment, please. Are there members wishing to make Public Comment, please press star 3 to speak. Do we have any public members present to provide Public Comment on item 7 d . Seeing none, mr. Moderator, do you have anyone with their hands raised . Madam secretary, there are no callers at this time. Item 7 d is closed. E report on the memorandum of understanding advancing a term sheet for the voluntary agreements to update and implement the baydelta Water Quality control plan commissioners i dont have much to report here other than that you have been aware of the on going dialogue that we have had with the state along with our partners from tid and mid, and at this point, there have been a series of discussions that you have been made aware of. Those negotiations have continued and over the course of the last several weeks, we feel like we have made a great deal of progress with the state but we have yet to receive from the state a document that can memorialize exactly where we are in the process. My hope had been and i think the hope of our team had been that by the time we arrived here today that we would have a document memorializing what where things were, but for a variety of reasons, i believe the state has not yet come forth with a document that we can memorialize exactly with the conversation. I am anticipating that will happen shortly and anticipating what tim and midwill receive but im hoping that will be rectified shortly. Thank you. Any comments . Steve, is there anything that you would like to add to that . Public comment, please. Members of the public wishing to make Public Comment on item 7 e, please press star 3 to raise your hand to speak. Do we have any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, mr. Moderator do we have any hands raised . There is one caller in the queue. I have opened your line. You have two minutes. Public speaker thank you, this is peter, you may recall when the va first popped up but the argument was that it was to prevent delays and encourage immediate action to restore the bay and the other rivers. We first started meeting with the sf puc and irrigation district eight years ago to talk about the voluntary agreement, and the more official one started about five years ago, and here we are. We have delays and that might be the sf puc intention. But if you recall that Service Commission of peer review which would save it and we asked the sf puc to comment and respond to the peer review and we never got that. Science does not support these involuntary agreements. Its likely to be stated by the governor to stall this after the election and not anger anyone too much and not to have the environmental and give up on it and we have given up. A couple years ago there was a report and responded with a 15 page letter explaining the problem and bob could not respond to it and forwarded to staff for a response and we never got a response. So the whole idea here is to layout the plan if successful is to restore the voluntary agreement. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next caller. Public speaker hello, good afternoon commissioners. My name is molly, speaking on behalf of sierra california, and more than 500,000 californians statewide and it was mentioned that the irrigation district reentered negotiations with the state over a voluntary agreement for the Tuolumne River. In light of this announcement, i wanted to state some significant concerns. Va was unenforceable and nonbinding agreement that failed to protect endangered species. Voluntary agreements are made behind closed doors with officials and neglect voices and tribes and environmental groups, fishing groups and other affected communities. The vas are not a substitute for these standards, such would be implemented and the state water board for the Water Quality control plan update. The va were not effective measures to implement Water Quality low standards or health requirements. I urge the sf puc to stay away and draw participation in all agreements. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. Thank you, Public Comment on item 7 e is closed. Commissioner ajami . One comment on this matter. I wonder whatever agreement we have in place if its a regulatory process or voluntary agreement it has to have enough stop gaps monitoring in place to be sure its reaching the goal and objectives we are putting in there and that would make us as a city and utility to be comfortable with whatever goes in place, and i think that would also help our constituents feel comfortable with whatever we end up agreeing on. So as you are having these conversations, i think the emphasis is on what kind of Monitoring Systems are going in place, what stopgap measures we have with having to check the quality of these agreements and if its reaching the objectives and goals you have, i think those are going to be super important and key. So i just wanted to raise that issue. Thank you, commissioner ajami, i think there is universal agreement from our team as well as the state and others. So i fully agree with your sentiments. Any other comments or questions . Mr. Herrera . That concludes my report. Thank you, next item. Item 8. New Commission Business . Commissioner maxwell . I wanted to have maybe an update or report on the status on some of the solutions that you are looking for as far as the algae blooms. You mentioned you had scientists working on it. I would like to see a report about what they are working on, not what you found necessarily, but to some of the issues that you are going to be working on. You are going in front of the board of supervisors soon. I would like to know, as well as im sure they want to know and i think its important that we have something on the books that we are thinking about working on, and looking forward to the same. I dont want this to go on forever. October, you dont have to have something concrete, but just what we have, what you are thinking about in terms of what you can use something that at least is making some effort going toward that in that direction. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner. Any other members of the commission . Public comment, please . Any Public Comment, members from the public wishing to provide Public Comment on item 8 . Seeing none, mr. Moderator, are there any callers . There are no callers in the queue. Public comment for item 8 is closed. Next item is 9, consent calendar. Commissioners, would you like to have anything removed from the consent calendar . Seeing none, Public Comment, please. Members of the public wishing to make Public Comment on item 9, consent calendar, press star 3. Seeing none, mr. Moderator, do we have any callers with their hands raised . Madam secretary, there are two callers on the queue. Public speaker david, on the consent calendar, just a couple of quick comments on items 9e, f, g. E and f have maps for those appreciate that very much. 9 e page 4 and 9 f page 4 have maps where appropriate. 9 g however, an incredible minor easement in relationship to the project did not have a map or photo, so it appears to me that items coming out of infrastructure now have absent photos as a routine thing which is fantastic but perhaps hasnt yet been extended to real estate items and thats probably something that could happen again where appropriate. I think that staff is going through the trouble of adding that page with matching photos were appropriate. Thanks again for listening. Thank you for your comments. Next caller. I have opened your line. You have two minutes. Public speaker thank you. Comment on 9c. This is a contract related to study that are in the managers plan for the dam, and i wanted to say that we have been involved in the tuolumne echo System Program and in the watershed and you have done a good job. The science has been good and very different than whats going on in the lower tuolumne. I wanted to mention that and when the sf puc is doing this improvement. My concern is that you are increasing the duration for the contract by four years. This goes back to the 1980s from the time when sf puc requested to add a turbine to the powerhouse which was allowed additional on a study of the biological resources below hetch hetchy and possibly a change in the flow regime. The Wildlife Service completed a draft in 1992, the sf puc challenged it and everything went dormant when the paper trail was followed in 2000 and sf puc launched this process. We were told and i quote from a letter in 2008, the sf puc agreement made their best efforts to complete the asset Management Plan by december 2009. Here we are 13 years later. I hope you can see why im so frustrated that a lot of reaction on sf puc. Thank you for your comments. There are no other callers for Public Comment on item 9. Public comment is closed. May i have a motion and second. Its been moved and seconded. Roll call, please. Clerk [roll call] the consent calendar is adopted. Next item, please. Clerk regular calendar 10. Authorize the general manager to take the following actions for covid19 relief, extend for a fourth time, through june 30, 2023 1 the temporary suspension of the discontinuation or shutoff of Water Service for residential retail customers for nonpayment of water and or sewer bills, 2 the temporary suspension of discontinuation or shutoff of Power Service for residential hetch hetchy power customers in San Francisco for nonpayment of power bills, and 3 the temporary suspension of the return of delinquent residential cleanpowersf customers to pg e Generation Service for failure to pay cleanpowersf charges; and grant discretion to the general manager to approve collections and liens to multifamily account holders with unpaid bills exceeding 25,000 which are 90 days or more past due. hom 11. Public hearing on the 2022 Public Health goal report for the San Francisco water system to address any Public Comments received; and direct im the project manager for internal affairs and i need your permission to cutoff utilities and including staff and i want to thank my colleagues and the Team Presented here and others for working really hard to make sure the puc is supporting our lowest income and most vulnerable customers the best way we can. As you will recall sf puc has not disconnected from properties for the bills since the emergency covid period and we have completed the process for commercial since july 1st and those will be for power customers this fall. While that is resuming, this resolution will extend the moratorium for residential water, wastewater, hetch hetchy power and clean sf customers through june and will allow the general manager discussion to resume those collections processes for multifamily residential customers carrying 25,000 in past due bills or more than 90 days or more past due. There are only about 10 accounts that fall into that category but account for 40 of the residential a rear an arearages outstanding. Another funding has been approved for the program and we expect to receive that money this coming winter and will come with a program not to exceed 90 days from that and the new Water Program was launched in august and we want to give customers time to apply for that program and take advantage of the funding there. So giving you opportunities to take advantage of outside funding, we dont want to be disconnecting customers before we are contexting them with those Assistance Programs. Additionally the extension will allow time for staff to develop and implement programs and strategies to help customers who will continue to have an arrears after and also time to communicate with customers in a really effective way and get them to engage in these programs after the moratorium approaches. I would like to give a brief overview of the scale of the residential water and wastewater arearages excluding the customers where the general manager can implement next july 1st that would account for 4 million for next year and then will be 6. 3 million. If that continues to grow, it would grow about 4. 5 million for a total under 11 million next july, and although it may i continue to grow in that time, we will be implementing new strategies and importantly the outside Funding Sources will offset that growth as well. For example the lowincome Household Water Assistance Program i mentioned has allocated 2 million in federal funds to San Francisco accounts and more allocated in the california state budget that will be available once the federal money has been used and well take a role in the program to be sure that is being taken advantage of the program offered. And we have proposals for your consideration to further help our lowincome and vulnerable customers. Those proposals will fall into three areas of assistance and arearage management and the first to help customers with arrears to help with outstanding bills to avoid shutoffs and liens and the second area is helping customers to keep one their bills moving forward and third area to be sure we are working and engaging with customers and to collect on past and future bills. Finally, the very simple timeline of the proposed extension the intervening time and now will be able to develop the strategies in the areas we are discussing Going Forward. That is the end of my presentation. Im happy to take any questions. Thank you for your time. Any comments . Seeing none, thank you. Public comment, please. Members of the public wishing to make two minutes of remote Public Comment for item no. 10, please make your comment now, please. Seeing none, mr. Moderator, are there any callers with their hands raised . Madam secretary, we have one caller. Public speaker david again, three items here in connection with this action, i hope the Commission Staff will eventually return to regular hours of 85 monday through friday for in Person Customer Service activities. I believe that is still restricted to 102 which makes it difficult for customers to pay or have interaction with customer service. I dont know what the timeline is for restoring the full hours. Secondly, it would be great if there was a way to get a receipt online for making online payments. This is why i still come in person because we have not found a way for making receipts for payments made online. Its just kind of a trust us. I hope there is a weigh to way to resolve that. There were two minor things i think that you can fix on page 3 of the resolution. The second resolve clause, the big paragraph there that the commission extend through june 30, 2023. The temporary suspension, etc, which is consistent with the prior paragraph, and from the following page, the certification line is missing a word. I would have agreed and i hereby certify the forgoing resolution adopted by the Public Utilities commission. I think those are two nonsubstantive changes that you can ask for on the fly. Thats all on this item. Thank you for listening. Thank you for your comment. Madam second, there are no further Public Comments on the queue. Thank you. Public comment is closed. Any other questions . May i have a motion and second. We have a motion and second. Roll call, please. Clerk four ayes. This item 10 passes. Next item. Clerk 11. Public hearing on the 2022 Public Health goal report for the San Francisco water system to address any Public Comments received; and direct the Water Quality Division Director to submit a letter to the state Water Resources control board documenting that such a hearing has been held. ritchie good afternoon, commissioners. This is for the 2020 goal. We have prepared the last three years in compliance data with Public Health goals. If there is no california version, we have to use the federal version. We have to identify the risks, the best Available Technology which is treatment and estimated costs to deal with that. And the phgs and mclgs are ideal levels set about Public Health. For example cancer is a one in a million sf risk. If you have one million in a lifetime to that level. We compare the regular levels in the report. If people want to see the comparison about the regulatory levels, that would be the report to look at. We also use aqua guidance, and we do that because there is no state guidance, acwa is a professional version for following guidance basically looking at the regulatory limit and technique and comparing that. And what is set for and lead. We use the same compliance. If we average compliance we average when we look at the phg, and use federal maximum contaminant level goal. And when the state is reporting this level is considered to be zero. This is a diagram that looks at mclgs, for example mr. Chairman mcls can be set and phgs are ideal. The good news is that none of our contaminants exceeded the limits. We have first contaminant that exceeded the phg limit and the first was 2 but most of the time we are down at 1. Lead, that is the 90th percentile, the action level is 15, and the final point is chlorform and we have sample boxes and we collect samples from the sample boxes for that determination. Brom ate, brom ate, is also strangely permitted as a food additive. Even though we are trying to control it, you never know where these contaminants can be used in other places. This includes ozone treatment and our best practice includes protecting the watershed and we dont want anymore in the soil and to be released in water and we are also doing water monitoring. And the mcl was changed in the midcycle and we are no longer having coliform. And the phg is 0. We are pretty good. No e e. Coli infection. We noticed there were some problems with pipes and we saw some rats. So we are putting caps to the pipes in the storage yard. The next one is lead. Again, this is an actionable level and no health level. We provided treatment to make sure that you are at 90th percentile and you are at the highest one from the top is below 15. Our latest monitoring done august 2021. Lead basically comes from the Service Lines from the main as well as customer plumbing. We believe that the customer plumbing is by far the biggest place where this is coming from. Risk to cancer, so lead is basically bad. We are trying to have a program to get lead out. Our optimized control is we operate around nine so we are well above that minimum. Our strategies were established by regulatory agencies. We have a comprehensive lead sampling program and have been in a reduced monitoring to level four and we are below that. We have a proud history of removing lead from our system. Sf puc removed in the 1980s before any regulations were considered and continuousing lead meter joints since 1983 and we started a lead free Meter Replacement Program in 2008 and almost done with that. Weve been very active dealing with the public and dealing with education. We started working with the School District in 1980 to do some monitoring. It was not easy for them to provide laboratories and we kept that at a nominal charge for our customers. We have been working with education and we have a lot information on our website. We work with the Child Program for lead program and for children and providing free testing for those programs. We also work to provide lead free fixtures and programs and they were 100 plus dollars and were for people who wanted to have lead free faucet and programs between 2018 and 2019. We are doing lead monitoring every five years and working with the unified School District and hope to get that completed by the end of this year and also working with them to come up with a recurring lead Monitoring Program in all the schools. There is also a program coming from the state to identify any pipes that have any lead in them. We did an initial inventory in july of 2018. Out of 176,000 services there were 11,000 unknowns and 1500 potential galvanized lines. Galvanized pipes are a very rich material. It was fairly common to have two pieces of lead to the pipeline in the street. Thats our concern to get those out of the system and we have an on Going Program to do that. We finalized our lead use of replacement plan in 2020. There was an estimated of 13 hundred, and we hope to lower that and monitoring of the Service Inspection and we hope it will be lower. The revisions has to look at the customer side. Before we had to just look on what was on our side. We have done about 6500 and the good news is there was no new lead. The galvanized is important because if there was lead and the galvanized pipe replacement. Until some funding gets done, thats an issue and something the commission may need to weigh in on this sometime in the future. Basically well continue to do our control of Monitoring Programs and we have a bunch of lead reducing activities. Well complete our service line inventory, the Replacement Program is up and running and we have a contract out there to help cdd do some of the excavation work and once that is in place, in the next six months well speed up the replacement and replace the meters and continue working with the School Districts. Thats my presentation. Thank you. Commissioner ajami . Thank you. I have a question, those programs you mentioned with those samples and you are testing it are all those on going or have any of them been sort of none on the Monitoring Programs have stopped. It continues and we believe the School Monitoring is going to expand. The partnership with the Health Department is on going. I had a conversation with them this morning and talked about the program and we dont have a lot of involvement there. They acknowledge that their posters were probably not as good as they should be and they will take a look at those posters and look at Something Better for their customers. For the federal money coming down on replacing deadlines, i cant remember exactly, but can you remind me, can that money be used for behind meter le placement or is mostly focused on thats what we are hoping for. We spent a lot of time working with them and we are hoping that will be a pot of money. If that ends up being the money that people can use behind meter, do we have a sense of who are going to be the people and make sure they can do this . We have to complete our inventory and identify all of those services by october 2024. Hopefully its not a big number, but given the fact that we had 7,000 or more lead service line, thats a big unknown. We have to figure out how big our small that population is. One slide i presented represents 7,000, so there might be 700 of those remaining out there. One of the things that is important and clearly specified is lowincome and disadvantaged communities and important to look at whats going on. Well have to come back and figure out what kind of problem it is and we feel we can take care of it with our own resources. From the people who send you samples, do we have peoples addresses. Do we have a map of who is asking for this . Im just wondering if there are places that people dont even know or they are not using this service or they would like to use . Yeah, thats a good question. We put it in our consumer report. We put it out there. We get about 400500 requests a year. I dont think there is any place that is not covered. But again, it doesnt hurt for us to advertise and put them out there that we are open, willing and there to help. This is a mapping that would be very helpful too. I know i have seen it a few times. Mr. Ritchie has presented or in some of the reports that we have seen and we have some maps on the lead lines and how much have been replaced or not, but on individual basis, it will be really valuable to be able to see where are they concentrated. We have a map on the website talking about the Service Lines but not the lead dates. If these behind meter lead lines needs to be replaced, how invasive that is . How easy . When you are disturbing i guess private property thats very interesting, there is going to be a lot of communication with the people there, that may cause a delay. If we have 700 and half of them dont want to disturb their yards, we are somehow involved, we would be involved in terms of encouraging them but not doing the work. Again its going to be an interesting pushover anticipating decades to get all of these people to voluntarily basically replace their Service Lines. Unless there is some sort of regulation with a property transfer whether there be some other tool for us to use to get that input that we want to get to. Then last question on the samples that you get from people, i wonder if there was an up tick when this michigan thing started. I didnt even know we have this program and i thought, oh, my god im going to let everybody know. I think there was this desire to do this testing and some people were very concerned and they wanted everything in their house and bath tubs was not part of this standard. We warn them that this is not a good thing to be testing but some were very interested. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner paulson. Slide 14 had to do with the piping and the materials. I guess it was under plastic when there was a total of 9. What did that cover again and where is that located . Thats just the service line material from our meter into the building. So the vast majority is copper, some galvanized and few plastic pipes up there. Our meters into their . Into the property, into the building. Is this a trend to put more plastic than copper . I like copper. To me thats the best and surprised its not higher than that. There is also a concern about plastic. The puc would have plastic and people would dump into the pipes. This is what we install . No. Thank you. I want to know your timetable for the schools. You mentioned that i think it was from 2017, 2019, that you werent finished with the schools and you are working on the other schools. So whats your timeline for finishing all the schools . We finished all the schools that were willing to work with us. We are going to start another round and will go back to all the other schools, the ones that tested and ones that didnt test. There is a lot of schools in the unified School District and a lot of private ones. In San Francisco, there is kind of a buildings grounds and some to work with and others are very small. Even though we are offering to help. Not the Public Schools . Definitely the Public Schools. We work very closely with the unified School District. We did almost all of this. I cant say for sure there were some not out there. We learned that schools open and closed and you assume they are open all the time. They get taken out for repairs. So that list changes. Do you have a goal in mind. Would you like to be finished by 2023 . We are so busy with the lead and copper roles and we are trying to get that started. We are working with the child care centers. We want to again, once they are ready for us to ramp up that program again. With the child care centers, do you have time for that . With the School Districts, we hope to get that done by 2 the end of the year. Thank you. With the Public Schools there is lots of infrastructure going on and just doing general upgrades and whatever. Do you coordinate with them when all of a sudden funding depicts a particular school is done, and thats the time you swoop in to do the final other stuff . No. We let them do their thing and we do the monitoring and its up to them with their buildings and grounds. There are contracts when they do work in buildings for electrical or whatever it is. Thats not coordinated with that type of infrastructure . No, the good news is the state changed the requirement for lead free in 2010. After 2010, all the stuff is lead free. If they are doing a remodel, they should be taking out the bad stuff and putting in the good stuff. Commissioner ajami . I suppose as they are doing remodeling, are they required to replace all of their pipes . No, what goes on on the other side of the meter. Its like another opportunity to see how we can make sure that if people are having, if they are remodeling to consider. I understand they are not, nobody is selling those lead pipes, but making sure everything is replaced is going to be key. To be sure with these pipes and sometimes old fixtures and replacing the kitchen faucet, that sometimes solves the problem. We are not involved to inform the customers to consider that because when they are remodeling . No, if there was any group that might do the plumbing permits, that would be probably the most logical place because its where the action and plan is being done. We can certainly share that with people if they have a high lead level. You go back to them and tell them something they may want to consider, but its more of an add on, not necessarily what we typically do. Of im probably going too far into the weeds, but there is no additional coordination with dbi. They go in to make sure its okay. Thats their stuff, not our stuff. Other than what you described . We work with dbi quite a bit but they look at the plumbing. If they were to suggest to people but we dont deal with building code. Thank you. Any other comments or questions . Seeing none, thank you. Public comment, please. Members of the public wishing to provide Public Comment, please press no. 3. Seeing none, mr. Moderator, do we have any callers with their hands raised . Madam secretary, we have one caller in the queue. Public speaker commission, i want you to Pay Attention to what im saying and the flowery language of the gentleman who made the present, he doesnt know what he is talking about. We have doctors now doing biomonitoring. Im going to ask the doctors to provide the two gentlemen at the sf puc to get the results of their work from the blood and the urine by the monitoring. They fought for the Community Benefit so our children are not compromised. No, the Community Benefits were controlled by two crooks dwayne jones and dallas. People outside have 300,000 grants. The responsibility for lead size in the homes. Are we going to let all of these people die . Or are we going to say how can we assist them. You have no moral compass and you commissioners, need to think outside the box. Shame on this guy who gave this presentation. When stating the data and showing. Im ashamed of you and the director of the Environmental Justice advocacy. One of the commissioners who live in the districts and she doesnt know diddly. Thank you for your comments. Madam secretary, there are no more Public Commenters in the queue. Thank you. Public comment is now closed. Any other further comments or requests . Seeing none, a motion and second, please. I will move. Second. Its been moved and seconded roll call, please. Clerk [roll call] four ayes. Item 11 passes. Next item. 12. Adopt a declaration of Surplus Property and exempt Surplus Property pursuant to the charter and the california surplus land act; recommend to the board of supervisors the sale of approximately 17,832 square feet of unimproved land in fee and approximately 17,733 square feet of easement areas located in the city of fremont and in unincorporated areas of alameda county; and authorize the general manager to execute, upon approval from the board of supervisors and mayor, an agreement for sale of real estate, temporary construction easement and utility easement. flynn thank you. Good afternoon commissioners, tony variedo, puc real estate. On the puc Agricultural Land along state route 84 known as canyon road in fremont designated as parcel 57 and sf puc parcel 65. Both of these parcels are in alameda county. The department of transportation, cal trans proposed to construct safety improvements along the canyon road and paloma way and focused on upgrading the county road through the standards. The first was the widening project at the state route 84 interchange approved by the body and the board of supervisors last year. Then the Alameda Creek bridge replacement project on mills canyon road in july. Flow the safety Improvement Project. As a component of this project, cal trans seeks to acquire 62,000 square feet in Real Property and construction easement area and roughly 1600 electric utility easement for pacific gas and electric to accommodate the relocation of certain facilities that were displaced by this project. Cal trans made a government code offer for this Real Property and fair market price of 11970. The lecter of this property included this appraisal. With that said, it was determined that a bid is impractical and not in the best interest of the public. Recommend to the board of supervisors the approval of the agreement for sale of real estate temporary construction easement and electric utility easement. Authorize the general manager of the puc to execute the Sale Agreement upon approval by the board of supervisors and finally, affirm the Planning Departments determination under the ceqa and requirements by the ceqa guidelines adopted by cal trans. Any questions . Thank you. Commissioners, any questions . Seeing none, Public Comment, please. Public comments on item 12, please raise your hand to speak. Anyone wishing to comment on this item . Seeing none, mr. Moderator, are there any callers with their hands raised . Madam secretary, there are no callers for Public Comment on this item. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. We have a motion and second. Roll call, please. Clerk [roll call] four ayes. Item 12 passes. Next item, please. Clerk 13. Approve the terms and conditions of and authorize the general manager to execute a soil fill agreement allowing google llc to perform work within an easement granted to the city, through the San Francisco Public Utilities commission, within property acquired by google and located at 14001450 bayhill drive in san bruno, california, in return for a 190,000 payment by google llc; and approve the terms and conditions of and authorize the general manager to execute an easement amendment allowing google to perform additional work in the easement area. flynn good afternoon commissioners, real estate director. I have a presentation prepared. I realize this has been a long meeting. Would you like a presentation or propose questions . You would like the presentation . Okay. Google owns the former youtube property in san bruno. The puc has a 45 foot wide easement with two properties that run two pipelines that run through two properties, the san andreas 2 and 3 and google has a campus on two utility buildings and crossings and outdoor space for google staff. Google seeks to use our easement. On our easement it seeks to install nonpermanent improvements such as ada railings, low voltage lighting, eucalyptus logs for seating and google staff. This is not allowed by the easement. We ask you to approve an easement amendment to allow these amenities for google. More importantly, google seeks to add several feet of fill to our rightofway of our easement. The soils fill agreement will allow google to do so. Raising the ground means this puc will also make it a little bit more difficult to access its pipelines in the future because open cut excavation will no longer be allowed. To compensate the puc for having to install shoring to access the pipelines in the future, google has agreed to pay for the cost of shoring installation over the pipeline now. This amount was calculated with our water supply in Treatment Division engineers, not real estate staff. The alternative would be to establish an escrow account but thats administratively burdensome for both parties. So we both agree that the upfront payment is more efficient. There are several puc pipelines a pertinances that need to be made. We respectfully request for the approval of the general manager to execute this soil agreement for the payment of 190,000 from google and to allow the director of Real Property to execute the easement amendment. Im available for any questions. Thank you. Commissioner maxwell . Yes, is the 190 in addition to the cost for shoring up . Yes, i believe it represents the cost of shoring over the life of the pipeline. The 190 . Yes. Why do we have to have this easement . Why wasnt it allowed . Why was not allowed . Im sorry. You said you have to give this easement because it was not allowed . The noneasement improvement. The easement amendment is to allow the utility crossings, the seating and the low voltage lighting. So why wasnt that allowed before . Because the ancient deed to the puc did not allow it. We are the original purchasers. You computed that its going to be 190 . Im not a utility expert. This was in a long time discussion. I expect that they came up with a fair amount. You hear google and 190,000. I want to follow up. In order for google to purchase the property to do what they want to do, they are going to pay us 190,000 which your team, but the team that you are reporting aforesaid 190,000 and we can do whatever we want to do with our pipes. Correct. Even though you said it was difficult to get to. So they are paying 190,000 for the access to the pipes forever which is kind of small. Is that what you are summarizing . We are not going to be disadvantaged in any particular way . The 190,000 represents the shoring because the puc cannot use the open cut excavation method to access the pipeline. Which is what we normally would have access to. Yes. So does this make it more difficult for us . It does, but the 190,000 compensates the puc to access its pipelines. Im not pencilling anything else here other than the 190,000 to access this stuff. Im not an expert but google wants something and they are going to give us a little bit of change, but its still going to be more of an inconvenience if we need to have access to those pipes. It just sounds, something just sounds goofy. May i point out two things . Our easement states we have access to our pipelines. Its just one method typically used by our engineers that is not available. Secondly, we have an easement. We are not a Real Property owner, we cant say no, you cant do this. We have to, when the puc holds pipelines in easements, its really a negotiation. We as staff work our best to protect the access and use of the pipelines by puc staff. I will say that the water supply treatment, the right away staff and my staff, we are fierce advocates to protecting access to the pipelines. I again, this is not advocacy. All i can say that this sum resulted from a multiweek negotiation between google project managers, puc project managers with the very able assistance of our city attorneys office. Okay, im going to follow up on that. What if we said no and this is going to be a pain in the butt to us. What will get us to the table. What if we said no, what would happen . I would hate to speculate in open session. I would not want the puc to be at risk legally. Got it. I understand that part. It just sounds like, maybe well thank you. Commissioner ajami. On the same line of questions. I wonder if tomorrow we have a broken pipe or something, this is not even if its google. I dont care who is on the other side. I wonder how much it would cost for us to fix that problem if today this happened . What would be the cost of fixing that . Im not saying obviously they are not paying for the lifetime, but im just thinking, this lack of access or more limited access is that increasing the cost of the process, by a significant amount or not, and if that significant amount adds up to 190,000, and what im trying to get at is 30 years from now, when google is not google anymore, probably somebody elses, the giants in the future ideas and they dont have a lot of Resources Available to them to do what they are doing, or maybe they will, im just speculating this. I want to make sure if something happens to this pipeline, we are not on the hook to deal with unintended consequences. Lets think about 3040 years from now and how does this process is going to play out if things are not going look as it looks right now. We have a process. As to your question, the top water engineer from water supply and treatment is here. Good afternoon, commissioners. Angela chung, Division Manager for water supply and treatment. Let me see if i can try to help answer this question. Normally when someone wants to add 24 feet of fill over a pipeline and you realize that you are going to incur a bit more cost to get access to the pipeline, you would actually put this requirement into the easement amendment itself, but the full staff would have to administer this cost when the cost is incurred to go after whoever the Property Owner is to get the cost. Our staff did a conservative estimate over the life of these two pipelines, how many times will we need to do shoring in order to get access to the pipeline. They did a conservative estimate and pushed 200,000 across google and ended up with 190. I think we did a nice job at negotiating the outcome. But so that conservatively, if we need to access the pipeline, even when we need to inspect the pipeline, we dont need to do shoring or dig up the dirt, we access and inspect the pipeline that way and we do think it is conservative. Can you explain what shoring means . What do you mean by shoring . Okay, shoring, the pipeline, the two pipelines, one is five feet in diameter, one is four 1 2 feet in diameter. Before google added grade, it was four feet below grade. Just under ten feet, we would basically come in, open cut to get to the pipeline. Once its more than 10 feet deep, we bring in shore in boxes in and pull the soil out so the workers are protected inside the excavation. I hope that answers the engineering part of the question. Shoring, yes. Thank you. My question for you is you mentioned for the design life of these pipelines. What if they last longer than the pipelines, a lot of our infrastructure is lasting longer than expected. How would that play out in this scenario . So we dont typically excavate in every stretch of the pipeline frequently. In fact it is fairly in frequent. Staff did point a fairly conservative estimate on this which would be 20 times each. You think that would include the changes in cost and service, all of that which you think is incorporated. Again, for all of us, i want to be sure we are thinking about 30 years from now. Not right now, 30 years from now. Somebody else sitting here. Before i was on the puc board and there were decisions made and we wonder why those decisions were made. So making sure we are protecting the city, the public, from the potential cost of this and the fact we dont know whoever the party is, google or anybody else. We dont know at that time where they would be in their sort of life of the business and how easy would that be. If they sold the land, we dont know. The other question, would this stress out the pipe because you are adding more soil . Because of the activities that they are planning for that area, would that potentially impact the infrastructure in anyway . The design of these pipelines are conservative enough to accommodate additional fill on the pipeline. And they are not going to build anything on it. That is protec protected, right . Right, the easement only allows them to build so much. The cost is based on todays value. Its equal in value. Okay. So you mean that you calculated future cost . No, we are doing present work costs because dollars are coming in are also todays dollars. The check thats made for 190,000 is todays dollars. Okay. I will say that over the repair, you had asked a question before if we have a pipe break, pipe leak, the bulk of the cost is not the shoring. There is a fair amount of cost that goes into repairing the pipeline. The only thing we consider is the difference of the additional fill that we calculate it for google to reimburse us upfront. We actually really push for this. It was staff that pushed for this because oftentimes when its embedded in an agreement, somebody has to know that its embedded in the agreement and Administration Costs later on and time and burden. We were actually happy that google was receptive to this. They own the land . They own the land. Any other questions . Mr. Ritchie . I was going to add two points. To clarify, 190,000 is now. We get the money now and why we are not calculating future costs because that money is for us theoretically. Secondly, at the end of 50 years, if there is no need to access that part of the building in particular, its ours. Then the 50 Year Agreement is done and we have to be into a new agreement. So the money doesnt, we keep the money. So those are two points. That money is attached to that project, and if the 50 years goes by, and they never have to touch the pipeline, we are 190,000 better off. In 50 years when it expires, we have to look to see where we are then. Okay, thank you. Public comment, please. Members of the public who wish to make two minutes Public Comment on item 13, please press star 3 . Seeing none, mr. Moderator, are there any callers with their hands raised . Madam secretary, there are two callers in the queue. Thank you. Hello, caller, you have two minutes. Public speaker david. This is my last time today. On this one, i think staff got it right all the way around. There are two minor fixes that i suggested earlier in conversation with ms. Russel which i believe was communicated. I think google should cover all the costs here not just the 190,000 for the difference between the current surface access and the different access that would be required for the life of the pipelines underneath. Thats estimated to be 190,000, but there is additional staff costs going into this estimation and the real estate and city attorney, blah blah blah. I would figure out what that bill is and send another bill to google for all of that because frankly, google, this is not a problem for google right now i think. Bottom line is this going back to the 1928 mills deed incorporated which was a subdivider at the time with the Water Company and the original 1928 deed and the actions that google seems to be contemplating here. Actually what they were allowed to do under the 1928 deed which is what requires this amendment agreement. Anyway, i cant find the two minor fixes. Im sure its there. I wont be able to participate because of the jewish holiday. Thank you very much to commissioner moran for all the work over the years. Thank you for listening. Thank you for your comments. Next caller, i have opened your line. You have two minutes. Public speaker about this pipeline. Anyway you look at it, sf puc is more interested in the money. I will give you an example with google. The first name of the creek compromising the first name would cost you over 100,000, that means after listing into the park that was there, compromising it. I didnt say anything. No compensation whatsoever. Its funny how you folks are, you know. And going back to the Community Benefits with our children dying. You dont give a damn about money, legal chasing with google. What about human beings. No empathy, no compassion, no nothing. Thank you for your comments. Madam secretary, there are no other Public Comments in the queue. Thank you. Public comment is closed. May i have a motion and second. Its been moved and seconded. Roll call, please. Clerk [roll call] four ayes. Item 13 passes. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. Next item is 14. Approve amendment no. 6 to contract no. Cs879. C, engineering project Design Services, with Kennedy Jenks consultants, extending the contract duration by four years and two months, to continue Engineering Design and Engineering Services during construction and closeout for both the regional groundwater storage and Recovery Project and the San Francisco groundwater supply project, for a total contract duration of 19 years and two months, with no change to the contract amount and authorize the general manager to execute amendment no. 6. robinson good afternoon commissioners, my name is tracy, project manager. In 2007, please show my presentation, please. Great, thank you. In 2007, this commission awarded contract no. Cs 879 c with project and Design Services to consultants to provide services for 9 million for eight years to complete the water system Improvement Project including the harry tracy Water Treatment plant longterm improvement and the San Francisco groundwater supply project. Since 2007, there have been five amendments. These amendments were required to support emerging changes in scope for Design Services for the three original projects and other projects under the water system improvement program. Next slide, please. The current proposed amendment needed to support Design Construction for two remaining projects that are currently in construction. Which are the regional and local groundWater Projects. The map that shows on the screen is the size map of the regional groundwater storage and recovery which provides dry year water supply Regional Water supply and groundwater pump by sf puc, daly city, san bruno and cal water. The projects are located in daly city, San Francisco, colima and millbrae. And schedule provisions for the original Water Project were necessary since the project inception as more information became available about the groundwater basin, well construction and groundWater Treatment requirement. Most recently in april 2022, this Commission Approved an expansion of this project and the program to a revised completion date of february 2027 in order to complete construction on the final well facility in San Francisco. Start of construction of this well has been delayed until 2024, due to the long lead times necessary for permitting and its coordination. The other project that this contract supports is the San Francisco groundwater support project. This is the map that shows the six wells within the project. This project has constructed six wells phases 1 and 2. Phase 1 included construction of four wells completed in 2021, the remaining two wells are in phase 2 which are still in the final stage of construction. Additional time is required for the contractor to complete items and compile close out documents. Due to the two projects extended schedules, additional Engineering Services are required to support the design, construction, close out and operations of the regional and San Francisco groundwater wells. Phase 1 sub project cleared final completion a week ago, phase 2 project is in the start of construction. The consultant will drop and update maintenance and Operations Plans and standard operating procedures, and provide Engineering Services during construction. For the phase 2b contract for plans to Start Construction in 2024, the consultants will provide design and Engineering Support Services throughout the duration of the project including administrative support for close out of the project. It is critical that the same Engineering Firm perform this work since they have the historical understanding of the project from planning through construction. This consultant has demonstrated their expertise in groundwater design and support services to address the many emerging challenges this project has experienced. In the item before you, we seek approval of amendment no. 6 to extend the contract duration by four years two months to continue the Engineering Design and services during construction and close outs for both the regional groundwater storage and Recovery Project as well as the San Francisco groundwater supply with no change to the contract amount. And authorize the general manager to execute the amendment. Im happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Commissioner maxwell . I want to thank you for your presentation. It was well done, thank you. Thank you. Any Public Comments . Members of the public wishing to provide Public Comment on this item, please press star 3. Seeing none, are there any callers with their hands raised madam secretary, there are no callers in the queue. Public comment is closed. May i have a motion . We have a motion and second. Roll call, please. Clerk [roll call] four ayes. That item passes. Next item. 15. Rescind resolution no. 220039 and approve the general managers determination to terminate for the citys convenience professional Design Services agreement no. Pro. 0232, new cdd campus at 2000 marin, with Mark Cavagnero associates. robinson good afternoon, project manager. So, im here today with the item before you which is related to the 2000 marin new city distribution campus at 2000 marin. In march of 2021, we advertised for Design Services for the project and we readvertised in september of 2021, and then i came to you to request the award of the Design Services agreement to mark c avagnero associates and we received one proposal deemed responsive due to the overhead and profit schedule worksheet. Then after the award of the agreement it came to our attention there was a conflict of interest with one everytime lead consultants. They were a principal of the Firm Consultant and of the Design Review committee and opined on the project when we took the project to the civic Design Review. So the cumulative impact of those issues led to our determination to readvertise for that overhead of the project schedule so that is not a hindrance for responsiveness for future proposals and conduct a robust outreach to increase the number of proposals. So we are requesting your approval to rescind resolution no. 20200039 for award and Design Services and any comments . Seeing none, Public Comment, please. Members of the public wishing to speak on this item, press star 3. Seeing none, mr. Moderator, do we have any callers with their hands raised . Madam secretary, there are no callers to speak on this item. Thank you. Public comment for this item is closed. May i have a motion. Its been moved and seconded. Roll call, please. Clerk [roll call] four ayes. Thank you, item 15 passes. Next item, please. Clerk 16. Approve the plans and specifications, and award contract no. Ww543,southeast Water Pollution control plant hvac and mechanical upgrades, in the amount of 12,947,014, and with a duration of 990 consecutive calendar days approximately two years and nine months , to the responsible bidder that submitted the lowest responsive bid, cal state constructors, inc. To rehabilitate and upgrade the aging heating, ventilation, and airconditioning and mechanical equipment throughout buildings at the southeast Water Pollution control plant. This action constitutes the approval action for the project for the purposes of the California Environmental quality act ceqa pursuant to section 31. 04 h of the San Francisco administrative code. The Planning Department has determined that this action is exempt from the ceqa. If the item is approved, the commission will rely on that determination to make its decision. robinson good afternoon commissioners, daniel, project manager with the puc. We are here to present this award a pretty Standard Construction award for this plant. This project is part of the Treatment Facilities renewal Replacement Program which often includes a standard replacement of items within the plan at the end of their useful life. It helps to facilitate safety repairs for staff, processed areas and the like. So typical scope of work included for this project includes replacement of air supply units, fans, roof repair, a lot of standard things that will extend the useful life for the next 1015 years. If you have any comments or questions, im here to answer. Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions . Seeing none, Public Comment, please. Members of the public wishing to make two minutes of Public Comment, please raise your hand to speak. Do we have any members of the public to provide Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, are there any Public Commenters on the call . There are no hands raised. May i have a motion . We have a motion and second. Roll call, please. Clerk [roll call] item 16 passes. Next item. 17. Public comment on the matter to be addressed during closed session. Closed session 19. Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation government code 54956. 9, administrative code 67. 10 d 1 john lasalle v. City and county of San Francisco, et al. San Francisco Superior Court no. Cgc21589176 date filed january 21, 2021 proposed settlement of a personal injury claim in the amount of 489,000. Action to approve settlement subject to final approval by the board of supervisors. 20. Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation government code 54956. 9, administrative code 67. 10 d 1 onjanette hudson and city and city and county of San Francisco San Francisco Public Utilities commission eeo complaint of discrimination government claim 2200905 date filed december 22, 2021 proposed settlement of a eeo complaint of discrimination claim in the amount of 275,000. Action to approve settlement subject to final approval by the board of supervisors. Following closed session, the commission will reconvene in open session 21. Announcement following closed session. 22. Motion regarding whether to disclose the discussions during closed session pursuant to San Francisco administrative code section 67. 12 a . Do we have any Public Commenters . There are no Public Comments. Public comment is closed. Do we have a motion to assert Public Comment privilege . We have a motion and second. Roll call, please. You have fou we are back from closed session. May i have a motion to not disclose. Move to not disclose. Roll call, please. Clerk [roll call] four ayes. The item passes. There being no other business before this commission. Hello. Did you report out . Yes. There being no other business, this meeting is adjourned. Without further adieu i would like to bring doctor matt wayne the upon superintendent. Thank you. Appreciate the staff that helped make this happen. You know we were not sure if there would be space but we are okay. If it is okayil talk down here to talk to you all and im excited be here for my first town hall with the sfusd community. Im coming in to listen and learn. I will do an introct