code 54953e and mayor's supplement to february 25, 2020 emergency proclamation. all present and attending in person that all health and safety protocol and building rules must be adhered to. sanitize are stations and masks are available upon request. we welcome the public's participation during comment periods. for each item the commission will take 2 minutes first from those in external those in the meeting remote. members provide remote comment dialing 415-855-0001 access code: 24934770565 # #. press star 3 to raise your hand. lirment to the items discussed unless you are under yes or no public comment. do not stay on the topic and limit to the item. public comment be civil and address comments remarks to the commission not to individual commissioners or staff. on behalf of the commission i would like to thank sfgovtv staff for assistance. silence your electronic device. commissioner ajami arrived and consent 10a removed and will not be considered today. >> thank you. donasm before the first item of i like to say the san francisco sfpuc acknowledges stewards of the lands located within the historic territory of the muwekma ohlone tribe. the sfpuc recognizes that every city residing in the greater bay area has and continues to benefit from the use of the muwekma ohlone tribe lands since before and after the san francisco public utility's found nothing 1932. it is important we recognize the history of the tribal landsos which we reside but acknowledge and honor the fact the muwekma ohlone people have established a working partnership with the sfpuc and flourishing members in the san francisco communities today. call the next item. >> first is item 3 adopt renewed findings and legislation to a hybrid meeting during the covid-19 and agendaize a similar resolution went next 30 days. >> thank you. would you open for public comment. >> members who wish to make public comment on item 3, press star 3 to raise your hand to speak. do we have members present to provide comment on item 3? >> callers for number 3? >> we have one caller with their hand raised. >> caller this is item number three. >> caller you wish to speak to item 3? caller are you there? >> apologies i went top star for item 7. >> thank you. >> there are no callers. >> thank you. >> public comment on item 3 is closed. >> any discussion by commissioners? >> can i have a motion and second? >> i will second. >> motion and seconded roll call. >> president moran. >> aye. >> ajami. >> aye. >> maxwell. >> aye. >> paulson. aye. >> and that passes, item 4 approval of the minutes of july 12 of 22. >> thank you. public comment, please? >> members of public who wish to make 2 minutes of remote comment on item 4, approval of the minutes press star 3 to speak. do we have members who wish to provide public comment on item number 4? >> seeing none. are there hands raised. >> there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you public comment on item 4 is closed. >> discussion by the commission? >> motion and second, please. move to approve. >> second. moved and seconded. roll call. >> president moran. >> aye. >> vice president arc jamy >> aye. >> maxwell. >> aye. paulson. >> aye. >> and the minutes are approved. next item. item 5 is general public comment members of the public who wish to make 2 minutes of general public comment in the jurisdiction and not on today's agenda, press star 3 to speak. do we have members present who wish to provide general public comment? mr. moderator, are hands raised for item 5, general public comment? >> there are 4 callers. >> this is for general public comment, item no. 5. >> caller i opened your line. >> commissioners my name is francisco decosta. first and foremost, i would like to see the recent progress made with the digested and in general the site the -- [inaudible] located. i have not found that. was attending the ethic's committee meeting and i see that when it come to some contract, the sfpuc has failed, i repeat, failed. [inaudible] something that [inaudible] was involved with. and the present sfpuc leadersment to install a similar model and that is not right. our community benefits should go to the community. and not in the pocket of many of the people. nothing much as change said. and i got some information that the present san francisco da is working on something i don't want to reveal it. we are working on it so that we can mutts it in an investigative reporting. the san francisco sfpuc commission has learned nothing from the federal investigation. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comment. next caller this . is martin my comment is about the agenda. and i'm surprised to see that it does not include the water supply update. because the july 6 and august 9 meetings were cancelled the last update for conditions on july fifth. back then just over a million fee like a million 46 fee. enough to last [inaudible] 4 and a half years. given today's workshop is looking at the draught is justified or not the water supply update i was looking for and would have been expected. thank you. >> thank you for your comment. next caller you have 2 minutes. >> thank you, again. chair and members [inaudible] i will talk about the basics sfpuc. i'm not in the bay area now i hope to be back. and i feel that our first parody [inaudible] is to ensure the reliability and quality of water and sewer and power first and foremost for the citizens of the city and county of san francisco. here is why i say. because when i [inaudible] in city and county of san francisco, i expect anywhere i go will [inaudible] and the water will be rung. and the wastewater rung because there are basic things i do with electricity and water. i feel that clean power sf should have an engagement with the public. when i pull up the website it looks stateck. i'm not seeing much in the way of updates. and i'm not an expert on social media and not sure if i should tweet things several times a day. i think there should be [inaudible] the progress we are making. in order to advance the cause of clean power sf. moving toward 100% renewable energy. for san francisco. i feel also [inaudible] i want to take a stronger hundred in interfacing with other agencies for the power needs. when i hear we talk about pg and e. i would like to see sfpuc more involved you are the clean power provider. i think you do a good job at it. [inaudible]. thank you and i look forward to this meeting continuing on today. appreciate it. >> thank you. next caller you have 2 minutes. >> i'm john, once again like to thank the commissioners, i'm not commenting on number 7 now item 7 i have been around for the last year and a half under different workshops you doing. i'm disappointed today that the workshop i feel can pick up the whole meeting like you have done for other workshops. it is truncated. the other thing is the format you have where you have one group speak. this august fourth, the state water board held a workshop on the biological goals for phase one of the bay delta plan. what was great about that was they had different viewpoints to get the presentation and people were able to counter each other or discuss. bring out facts. and i think this is something that if you lacked. he said and she said and you go on instead of having a dialogue where you have facts and science presented. and can be rebutted. i hope going forward you can do that. the other thing is, i would ask you to with draw the lawsuit against the bay delta plan. you are stuck on the voluntary plan, which is not going to work and which i reminds you many people have told you in presentations that the science is faulty. [inaudible] and other science. once again. thank you for your time. please, make sure you don't have the dichotomy fish and humans instead of the whole ecosystem we can exist together. thank you. thank you for sharing your comments. >> there are no more callers. >> general public comment on item 5 is closed. >> thank you. next item. >> number 6 is communications. >> commissioners any questions or comments about communications provide? seeing none. public comment. >> members who wish to make 2 minutes of remote comment on item 6 press star 3 to speak. are there members who wish to provide comment on item 6, communication? >> do we have any speakers with hands raised for item 6? >> no, there is one caller in the queue. >> hello i opened your line you have 2 minutes. >> thank you again president moran. [inaudible] i talk about the communications. i'm interested in this integrated resource plan. however, when i go into this item, i pull up a 4 page pdf and go to the bottom it says clean power sf/resource the link is broken. there is a typo and i was able to figure it out. but -- i'm not prepared to comment on this because you have not prepared the link and did not check them. in the name of transparency i think we need to fix that. so anyway. moving on to that. it is important and able to do it 100% renewable. other mention of which i was able to access that document is the resolution confirming the improvement prosecutes of the electrical system on treasure island. . and i am one who [inaudible] have responsiblesed powerful failures. weather a brief 10 second outage or i dot 1977 blackout it lasted 24 hours. i remember it. i think i was in [inaudible] time. so everybody should be able to enjoy the live electric service especially with older systems that are showing age. this [inaudible] make of it would result in a concrete action investment to improve the system of to have a close to total liability if possible. thank you. >> thank you for your comment. 2 additional callers have joined the queue. caller i opened your line, you have 2 minutes. caller, are you there? >> yes. i'm mary a san francisco resident for over 30 years. 24 of those who are tune in the to the workshop understand that you have a very full agenda. we have drafted a statement i will read. >> mrs. this is on item 6 communications we are not on 7 yet. >> thank you. >> uh-huh. >> moderator, do we have other callers. >> next caller i opened your line, you have 2 minutes. >> thank you very much this is brett [inaudible] hetch hetchy this communication line providing the list of people who stayed at the power outage in the bunk house. and will ip just wondering something that only the special people can do or can the general public do it the general public will [inaudible] campground on the open leaving. does not arc pore they were official trips. i'm trying to understand what the policy is. thank you. >> thank you. there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you. public comment on item 6 is closed. >> commissioners any further discussion on item 6? commissioner ajami. i wanted to acknowledge the work done on studying the occurrence it was -- great and comprehensive reportful appreciate it to be able to read it and see all the work that is going in this. i would say i can't tell you how many people often ask me about the issues it come up in different outlets and people are more aware. it is good to have formation you can share with the public. i wonder, the i'm not sure if possible, great to have a short presentation attached this at some point and presented at one of the commission meetings. deupon pending on the timing and availability. >> thank you. any mr. >> deputy director we are happy top present we will come back next time to talk about the public health hearing if there are questions at this meeting we can and we are always available. >> thank you very much it was great. >> thank you. >> other comments from the commission. >> and go to the next which is 7 our hearing on the design drought. company comments as we get into this. this process of hearings relating to how we plan and allocate water supplies started almost 2 years ago. when commissioner herrington requested a series of hearings and started with 2 hearings on alternate plans from improving the fishery followed by water supply budget. a hearing on water demand forecasting and another hearing on alternate water supplies. and the last one this past october was on climate change impacts. this is the 7th. such hearing. and it is different than the others in at least one respect thap is that i think part of the impetus for the hearings was a concern by others that we were being too conservative in the way we managed our water supplies. and coupled to that a concern that they felt they were not having an opportunity to have their voices heard. and the hearings provided an opportunity for the discussion and also to make sure that various points of view were heard. general manager herrera restarted the meetings of the bay area water stewards consists of the usual sense plus folks from the downtown interests and others. and they have been engaged in discussion about water supply related issues. in that changes somewhat the purpose of the meeting. there is an on going and productive process went bay area water stewards for this discussion. we are now providing the only student for the issues to be aired. there will be others the primary purpose of this hearing is -- to bring the current status of the discussion about design droughts the commission and the public. because it has not been in that forum today. given that we are limited purpose, i asked the presenters the ngo's and staff to limit presentations to 15 minutes. and i have suggested although not require, that people who want to submit comments may do so dye by e mail. this is not an action item there is no time sensitivity to receiving your comments. the comments will be compiled and provided to the commission and can be made without limits on time or word count. for those who find that tractive that would help stream line our operations today and would be appreciated. and i said the -- normal procedure is still in affect for those who want to provide oral testimony. i think that's it and -- first upper the ngo's. i understand this peter will be making that presentation and you are hear in person. which is i don't know if you other first public testimony to take place in person. but, welcome. >> >> can i ask the tvfects to bring up my sliced. good afternoon president moran and commissioners and staff. noise to see you all in person for the first time in arc while. i'm peter, the policy director for the river trust. dave warn and chris shoots had trouble making to the city today. they will call in later. i'm going to jump right inform appreciate the opportunity. >> so a reminder why we are here. state adopted the bay delta plan update calling for 40% unimpaired flow february to june the goals to restore fresh water ecosystems and assure a reliable water supply. that should be our goal. the river is in bad shape. salmon population is less than 1%. toxicology blooms in the delta and problems go to the bay. the design drought you know but for people watching, combines 2 of the worst droughts the 6 year 87-92 drought and the driest 76-77. 8 and a half year drought. my understanding it was arbitrary the way it was create after the 87 and 92 drought. you see san francisco's design drought is more conservative. 5 years required by urban water management plans the governor encouraged an extra year and sfpuc the out liar. a lot has changed since the arabic 90's. headed to 92 drought dma monday was 290 million gallons per day. got an update this last fiscal under 190. so dropped a lot. and of course you have the water first policy. which favors water supply over hydro power generation, that made a big difference in the last couple of years we see more water and storage than we would have otherwise. we have the long-term vulner ability assessment or climate change study that looked at the historic data last 100 years plus 1100 years of tree ring data plus 75,000 model runs based on simulated data. >> i want to point out the storage based system of the sfpuc was designed at a twhiem demand was expected to be more than twice than it is today. the demand projections for up to 400 millions gallons a day. 450. and i -- oops. >> okay. over laid theful actuals here. demand is less than half what it was. we have a lot of storage and that could benefit the river by meeting the unimpaired flows. >> so. draught planning matters. if you have inflitted length of draught planning or demand of appear we need more water or rationing. we might over build alternative water supplies impacts rates. obviously, there has been an impact on the river because of the design drought 2012 and 206 unimpaired 312% and 2015, it was 79% terrible way to manage an ecosystem. a lot of the other policy decisions based on the design draught. >> we have the long-term vulnerability assessment i will present evidence from this today to suggest the design drought is conservative you am not hear it is prudent. we will see. we asked several questions because we thought you would have them. and these need to be answered to make an informed decision. we asked to produce model runs using current demand and including the bay delta plan and stroll flow what the return pedestrianed design drought is. and we -- asked sfpuc to confirm on numbers how early run off would benefit san francisco water entitlement, we did not get a response. i want to point the demands not guilty ltva are sick different numbers they are higher than current demand. i energid the cover. the baseline 227 is 16% higher. and then 269,000 acre feet. is this is a helpful sentence. says the bay delta fan unimpaired flow requirement is equal to a 15% increase in demand or a 15% precipitation. nice if we were given answers to questions we found the answers swapping things out. for example. here the demand of the 269,000 acre feet. you can imagine this graph also representing current upon demand with the bay delta plan flows in place. what this show system deficits during droughts. storage used. and right there in the early 90's you see a defy cyst 800,000 acre feet. here is the design drought. much more severe. this shows how much storage is needed for a drought as severe as we have seen. there you see -- looking at 1987 to 92 it was 800,00080 are feet. design drought would be 1300,000 acre feet. this shoes the simulations including tree ring dast at worse drought of a deficit of 1200 thbld acre feet. the design drought. 1300,000 acre feet. the return periods -- think of it like a flood occurrence. 100 year flood. 1 in 100 years you get it or the 1% flood the return period was determined to be 100 years. 87 to 92. 420. despite our requests we did not get an answer for the design drought there was a document from 2021 that did have a projection. we had to be creative. and this chart here again has demand of 240 million gallons a day. equal to the delta plan. horizontal is storage. and vertical access is the return period. and it is algorithmic. we have the known droughts and they match the numbers you saw. we can put in the design drought and go up to where it crosses the line of zero precipitation change. and see that it is 70,000 year return with a confidence interval ranging from 40,000 years to 150,000 years. and put in the design drought minus one year we are encouraging to you do and you have a 10,000 year return period with a confidence interval of 8,000 to 13,000. here is linear it is easier to see. the red dashed line is a thousand year return period. and 7 and a half years special design drought there might be a 1% chance of the drought and quarter percent chance. 1, 100th % chance of 7 and a half year design drought and 14, 1,000 of 1% of the design drought recurring. we know the projections the run off is earlier. and the season by about 3 weeks by 2070. this shows the sfpuc's water rights the black dashed line is the cut off with what belongs to irrigation district. and the sfpuc. and for most of the year the cut off is 24. 2, 400 cubic feet per second. moves water from the 4,000 cut off to the 2400 cut off the sfpuc picks up water. moves to the right of june, mid june, if it moves from 2400csf to 4,000 then the irrigation districts pick up water. imagine these 2 -- vertical lines in red. shifting over with everything else except for the black dashed linocaine red lines lineup with the cut off period mid april to june. you see during critical years the sfpuc 56 up water and lose none. and a dry year the sfpuc 56 up a bit of water and loses a little bit as that shifts to the irrigation district's time period. we looked at the data from the years of the design drought and found that oefrnt course of the 8 and a half years the sfpuc would gain 237,000 acre feet. and demand the time is 219. a year's worth of water. you seen this a bit. the column on the left represents the design drought. 8 and a half years at 265 gallons per day the obligation. and it is determined it would create a deficit of 122 million gallons per day that make made up with alternative water fly. and so -- on the right is the 8 and a half year draught at 236 million gallons per day demand. in your urban water management plan. acknowledged that is an upper boundary. if plan bay area is successful add a million jobs 2-1/2 million to the bay area that's what your demand might be. we think tell be lower. the demand's column. 8 and a half years 236 demand and the deficit of 84. you remove a year from the design drought that shaves 25mgd off of the deficit. you are down to 59. if you use 2mgd demand it shaves off 36 you are down to 23. and then if you include the pick up in water entitlements the rust earlier run off that adds 31 and now you have a negative deficit which is a positive. actually hurts housing. because when it is communities is trying to approve housing people will point to the water management plan and say, look we are already looking at 50% rationing can't afford to build new housing. you can make it through a repeat of the 87 to 92 dramatic 6 years at current demand with no rationing and developing no alternative water supplies we are in great shape. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. peter. we will be taking comments at the end of the second presentation. comments on both of those and have commission discussion at the same time. so mr. ritchie. good afternoon. i am going to talk about water planning for customer demands if the environment we take into account and the design drought. i will start with a little baptist water supply system for a quick review. water supply facts we rely on 12 new river and local surface water supplies the water rights plenty of water in wet years. >> we are storage based system the nature of our water rights. and some of our wholesale customers the alameda water district has groundwater and surface water splice but me and others do not have those alternative supplies. this is an example because there are other splice unreliable in a state like in draught when the water project cannot provide they return to more water than nay require from us. the blue in san francisco water you see it come down from the watersheds through 3 residence virus hetch hetchy. eleanor and places in hetch hetchy goes to the ploy in the bay area and other time its can add to water that guess in the pedro. where water from elnor and cherry g. the blue lines that then feed in daunte in the bottom. and of course what is important for us is the water bank. without going in detail in the water bank the 57080,000 storage developed as part of dan pedro for the benefit of san francisco. the lower is the green water. because our drinking water is pristine and agriculture water has more algae. modesto andtur look irrigation from their 3 watersheds. we have water that guess in daunte as part of the water bank you will see there all that water is green. the water that is in don pedro belongs to the irrigation districts it can help our water supply through the operation of the water bank we can't dictate what happens to the water that leaves don pedro the irrigation districts have control of that. this is like the very simplistic summary of our the plumbing works. . to turn now to the environmental obligations and commitments we have in our system. because we want to make sure it is clear we have those and fulfill those and that is part of our design drought congratulations we fulfill throughout a design. stipulations with federal agencies related releases from cherry, eleanor and dams in the sierra nevada and permanent for lower crystal and calaveras in the bay area. and we have voluntary commitment on pillar reservoir and the creek so all of our releases the reservoirs are done on behalf of the environment. part of different permit conscience in the case it is voluntary agreement. we do provide instream flows below our dams down stream of hetch hetchy committed to the upper 12 river ecosystem program with national park's service. you may recall this photograph of the valley where we were able to will modify our hydro graph to provide benefits to the environment through peek flow releases in the valley this past year. and then on al modea creek we founder of the fish easier work group lead to dam removals and instream objectives. we have environmental obligations again. below our facilities. upon then below don pedro dam the environmental obligations exist through the federal energy commission don pedro license. we have already signed memorandum of understanding with fish and wildlife to spends 4 million dollars on fishery improvements prior to issuance of the license the press we have been going through since 2009 on that, which is the district's left lanes but we are participating in that as result of the fourth agreement. there is also outstanding, you heard peter mention the water board amendments with flow obligation well is no >> reporter:s for nonflow measures we with the irrigation district have voluntary agreement with flow and nonflow measures negotiated with the state employee are in litigation there, one of the out come or something hybrid will happen. and we will be doing investment in habitat and the increased flows to the river in due time. and that could start sooner if we get in an agreement or later if we carry on litigation with the state. as we have in the again, that's largely under the control in terms of participation bite irrigation districts because of ownership. don pedro. that's a quick picture of our water supply system in terms of supply and benefits to the environment. now i want to turn to the design drought. so the purpose of the design drought is in the to be a prediction. it is a stress test on our system. it is purpose to examine how our system will perform under stress so water system managers can make informed decision including all obligationings water supply and environmental under difficult conditions. one thing is clear here, i think we recognize, the consequences of being wrong and running out of water for supply and environment are enormous. peter made mention of flood control. well. flood control there is acknowledgment. it is in the flood control. talks about flood risk management. floods will happen. and -- there are consequences and devastating floods but they also are tend to be transient problems where as running out of water supply is in the something you measure in that same way temperature is a severe wipe out alternative and that is where a much less probability is just as bad if not worse than a big flood if you run out of water. the intervals are descriptive but not predictive. one thing we talk about over time is how sometimes what is the chances of a coin flip turningum head's or tails if it turns up head's 100 times what is the probability the next time. it is 50/50. the past made no difference. that's what will happen until life. as a result, that are not useful for a water manager during a drought. when you get to dry conditions somebody says don't worry the odds of it being good next year are really good that does not give you comfort if it turns out bad have you to be cautious about approaching the following years. does in the pave to assume the next year will be wet. we must assume they will be dry and if they are wet we have a beneficial addition to storage and find a way to get forward. the trust was not chosen on likelihood of occurrence temperature is a stress test we appropriate for worse draughts and necessary for careful planning. and it really came out of the 1987-92 draught. where it was a worse drought than people had seen ask the consequences were severe. and again, as that drought developed, the modeling done about what are we going to do next? take into account that it very possibly could be dry if not dry that was okay. it was we needed to be prepared for that. history now shows this in extreme 2 year droughts could happen any time. we had 4-5, two year periods in the last 50 years there have been none in the prior 50 years we have seen short term draughts they happen any time. planning for the 6 year drought that did occur allows for operational decisions to prepare us for surviving the next 6 year drought and more. including the photograph here of hemp hemp in 91 with the island i never hope to see. that means the water elevation is so low it is dangerously low. >> other aspects of planning for a drought. no one will help san francisco in an extreme drought. don't worry the state will take care of and you peter showed that san francisco had a conservative drought than east bay. alameda, santa clara and los angeles department of water and power and metro district. they have one character in common customers of the state water or central valley project. we don't have somebody else that will take care of us. we are on our own. that is something that is important to keep in mind about our system. we can't upon expect others to help us. we can expect ourselves protect ourselves from a drought and provide benefits to the river. but thetur electric and modesto irrigation must be involved all of the water flows to don pedro and that is their reservoir. i want to emphasize that point the lower river really relies on what we can do but more importantly when we do with the irrigation districts they must be involved. they control don pedro. we maintain flows down stream in the best eastbounding lodgeal studies to support native species and the environment. because of all the uncertainties about what plan may be in affect and how much will occur and what will climate change bring us we can't assume the existing supplies will be sufficient we are planning for aisle water supplies in the water. keep expect to implement them prudently. the point made several times, you don't want to build things you don't need. we don't. our customers don't want us to. whp it come to building new water supplies that is something we will approach prudently and not over build for. now i will turn to some descriptions of operations. just to illustrate our system works and the things we worry about. this slide shows a blue hydro graph during 2011-17. you see the big e peeks that is a lot of water the low is not a lot of water at that time. the green line is how the water bank works during that period. it is our largest storage 570,000 acre feet and the first liven defense in the drought not something we access directly but protects the other supplies feeding the districts their water. so what i will really focus on is the period with the red box. that was the 2012-16 drought mentioned. and you see during that time, we had several dry years. you see how the water bank account drops for 3 year in a row and got down to a low of 60,000 acre feet there. at the beginning of 2015 of this was a bad period. one of these i remember how scarid was i had not experienced managing through this and did not feel comfortable. and got down low if we had another dry year after we would have had no water and start draining our residence virus hemp hemp tow provide waters. that is where it gets dangerous after this points. that came to a good conclusion. those other things we see when it is operating. next i show the same thing in the current period. 2020 on. you see there are blue lines at the start it was wet. but it has been dry since then. and if you look at the similar pattern you see water bank dropping off a couple years. flattened out this past year we got water. we forecasted at least a year ahead and see that it would get down again to the low level that we saw the end of the last draught that would be concerned about. >> peter mentioned the timing and vol uchlt river run off. and talked about how average conscience get us more water. climate change will change run off but known how. some years increase and some decrease tell be in timing and volume. increase e vaperation absorb more water reducing run off. 21 and 22 were an example they had similar snow packs. 2021 on a dry land day. we got 50,000 acre feet of water. 2022, it was very wet early in the year. a big october storm. we had a wet environment and got 200,000 acre feet. we are seeing changes now that are very unpredictable. what will happen in the year give it the run off and expect that to continue. and nought state in a report is warning of a 10 percent reduction by 2040. so if you accommodate 2 more slighteds. you are well beyond your time. why don't you zip to the last one and i have comments about the next. >> i can do that. >> i'm sorry. i can direct. >> i will go to the last one. which is in summary the reliability of our system relyos storage, not direct versions watt water inentitlements the future is uncertain it is prount to plan for the future the consequence of not doing so and being wrong are e normous hence the 8 and a half year design drought. regardless operationally we need to plan for the 2 year tos be dry. if we get a 6 year drought we are planning for the next twochlt 8 year drought we are planning the next 2 years to be dry we have to think that way. the existing design drought and planning approach we can fulfill responsibilities to customers and the environment and continue to plan for alternative water supplies and prepared implement them. >> thank you. >> commissioners. questions or comments for mr. ritchie or -- commissioner ajami. >> question for mr. ritchie, can you go back to slide 10 and i think 11 back-to-back. my question is that -- on slide 10, when we so based on what i see from 2012 we start losing the amount water that would go to the water bank, right. >> basically within 3 years we went from being in a situation to sort of critically concerning position. so it did in the matter we had the 8 year design drought reality because of the lack of precipitation and temperature increases we quickly reached that point. so -- i'm wondering can you talk about this, i think this figure is perfect example of upon why we do what we do. >> yea. this drought came out of more quickly than the 87-92 drought. so that is why it was more frightening in the sense it was was you see the drop off there in year 2047 in the middle is dropped dramatically in water bay. and then the next year, again it got down to 60,000 acre feet. so -- every sequence is different. that is the one thing we know that they will all be different and sometimes tell chrome up on you and sometimes it will just whiz by you. this was the whizzing by you. we got to that last point where we had -- about 3 years of water left. sounds like arc lots. we have 3 years of water left f. you node to do something 3 year system in the a long time to do something to make sure you don't run in the crisis at the end. so this was one that was quicker. and it became came out quicker with 2016 and 17. there was lessons learn friday that. i think what i see here is from this year. to what you are experiencing now you see similar situation. >> yea >> similarly we had what you see there in water year 2022, is water bank levelling off. >> 2 big storms. >> yea 2 big storms that contributed to that. and what that did was it is aim of water available to the city was about the amount water we delivered. it kinds of flattened out for that water year. but again. we look forward to possibilities of the extreme next year is00 autoextremely dry scenario the median scene back up closer to a comfortable position. we don't know what it will be like. >> thank you for going through that again. >> commissioner maxwell. >> thank you. what did we put in place after that? in case nalled happen again. do we have a plan in place in case 2014 were to happen again? >> the plans we have in place are to condition to drive -- water from irrigation and will accelerate our conversation throughout the system. and much more draconian a 10%, which 11%, and during the summer we achieved that. but if next year starts dry, we are going to have to move to mandatory or a greater percentage or both. because -- we can't ford to not take those stepped. also we will be looking at ways we can work with our partner agencies. you sfrn to see what we can dove the state water project and cent roll valley project are in difficult times. we are all going to have to you know, try to do more sharing among us. now to move more aggressively on water refers and move more on conversation. >> thank you. and commissioner? >> okay. >> no. >> i have no questions. >> okay. i have some comments on the slides we omitted the quote from me. i enjoy seeing those and read with trepidation to see how they with stood the test time. couple comments about that. it was part of testimony that was presented to fi r k when they involving a prior fish flow issue and how conservative were we and whether it was present this . is in the a new issue. the -- concern about any tension or trade off exists between reliability on the one upon hand and fish falls on the other is an old issue we thought about a lot. and very deeply. it is also not the only pressure that was placed on us. the city went through financial droughts as well. and there were times when we were asked to basically compromise our water first policy. so we could make birth bigger transfers to the general fund and we did not do it. the city accepted that and we preserved that policy. i mention that because the choice is not one that is made easily or with consequence only to the environment. it is a choice that has other impacts as well. one of those is our own ability to generate power when we adopted the water first policy. conciliation we made was of it cost the city about 10 million dollars a year. because we went to that policy. prior, we had routinely been on the odds in most years you will be able to refill your reservoirs and most years we did not get caught. obvious that was not an appropriate way to manage. we put in place the water first policy and at great cost to ourselves and the general fund. but it was important that we do that. combined, and -- you -- mentioned the take aways and intended mention that. i will previously restate them swon that it can always get worse. we had relied on the 9 to 34 drought as a guide until 76 and 77. and we used 76-77 until 83-93. and -- out of that come a humility about using history as a guide. for your water supply planning. and the need to be quite protective. there. the other thing i like to comment on you touchod it briefly, i would like to hammer it a bit. is that when we do our water supply planning, we are protective and perhaps most obviously protective of water supplies. that's the most direct accident we are in and think in those terms. we protect other things. -- the design drought and the planning process that surrounds it prevents us from over subscribing the river. special that's not like the rest of the state. in the rest of the state as we get in the periods of draught the water quality standard in the delta gets set aside. saying, it is inconvenient so we will not make that that's a decision not made by us that is a state level decision. in our case our planning shows maintaining our obligations throughout that critical period. and when we have modeled the affect of the voluntary agreement or the delta plan, the state is proposed, we have not assumed we would not make the flows during critical periods we assumed we will meet the obligations and take that very seriously. that is one of the reasons yet impact is what it it is. i think whatever we ends up with whatever version will be baked in our planning process and will be our planning process and our management process to be protective of all allocated water supplies for people, environment or recreation, that is built in. i think this is important. and peter invited me to correct am him on the question as to whether the design drought was arbitrary or not. that decision was hard earned. we did learn that nobody can hum. we had good cooperation from the state in trying to help us move and bank water. the problem there was not much water because of the draught and the other is our plumbing is limited. it was in the possible to get much help. we had a little help but not much. so -- we learned that we had to be on our own and learned that we had to be protective and i think we have found it in practice that we protect more than water supply in the process. and that's all i will say at the moment. we will have a run after public comment we can ask other questions. >> anything else from the commissioners? open public comment. >> members of the public who wish to make 2 minutes of remote comment on item 7, press star stloe to speak. or comment may be submitted in record in writing to commission @sfwater. org, is there anyone present who wish to comment on item 7. go ahead you have 2 minutes. >> good afternoon will thank you i'm adrian covert with the bay area council and member of the water stewards working group. i want to disagree with my colleague on the buzz working group characterization of shortning the design drought as good for housing development. this is not our perspective on shortening the design drought. when you look in the past year as far as new science, the long-term assess am has a range of plus or minus 40% impact on precipitation from climate change. air week ago governor says have you new science saying that the state's water supply could be reduced by 10% mid century and a few months before that early late last year lawrence beshg low labs has no science estimating that the sierra snow pack will be zero most years beginning in 2040's. that's 85% of the supply. i think given the extraordinary level of uncertainty with climate seasonals and the extraordinary impacts negative, social, economic and vipiral impacts of a severe prolonged drought or a day zero event the most responsible course of action is on the side of conservatism had managing our water supplies. i think a more productive analysis looking to the cost to the rate payers and the ability to absorb new costs of taking on supplies like recycling. desalination. let's see what the system can sustain in supplies and see if that can be left upstream in the waters. thank you. >> good afternoon mechanics i'm tom francis here on behalf of 26 member agency. boska pleaseed offer the following comment in responsibles to the commission's workshop on the drought. san francisco has an existing legal and contractual obligation to provide a reliable supply of water fair price to customers the sfpuc is also responsible for vipiral ecpenned tours related at this time operations on the river and bay area watersheds and the sfpuc has faithfully incorporated environmental stewardship element in the management of the water system. since 92 the design drought the backbone of effective system operations ensure the san francisco water system operates in a manner that provides a reliable water supply. defined length is a factor. influences long-term water supply planning and prescriptions when environmental documents such as the programming ir for the [inaudible] were appropriated or urban water management plans were craftd and continue to be the design drought was a key factor in their development. agency also incorporate the design drought in their planning effort it is. it is in the evidence to boska it changed the design drought is warrantied but boska will not o pose a review of the design drought if the process includes a robust, independent and documented analysis performed by expert in the field. the design drought is important planning tool used successful by the sfpuc for 30 year and part of long-term systeming and planning prescriptions. any component must be approached cautiously. >> more members present who wish to comment on this item? do we have callers with hands raised? >> there are 10 callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> hello you have 2 minutes. >> hello. i'm jan i'm from friends of the river. and thank you to the sfpuc for the opportunity to comment. so, the river and the delta watershed as we agree need cool, clean, flowing water to sustain the environment and ecosystem that all life including ours in the ecstasy depends on. so the sfpuc has a duty to balance both the needs for healthy watershed and the needs of the urban population. however, the current assumption that are included in the design drought make that balancing more difficult. so we just heard about the extraordinary uncertainty that is before us in the future. that's imperative to update those assumptions so we have the most productive exercise possible to really understand what will drive the outcome of the potentially really long drought. so, the impacts of climate change. predictive science is advancing daily. there is opportunity to update the impacts of in stroll flow requirements. adopted by the state water board and bay delta water quality control plan and many impacts on demands sensitivity. you know assumptions about future population growth. how people use water going in the future. conversation. storm water are all changing rapidly. we would like to request that the commission direct that to model with updated assumptions based on the comments. and and look at the outcome. thank you. . >> thank you for sharing your comments. next speaker, please. commissioners, had we have a workshop like this, it is much better to hear the public comment after each presenter. in this case we have 2 presenters. what will happen is [inaudible] involve the first people in the discussion. you really will not understand how to bring about holistic solutions. y'all is no clue about the trade winds. how they have drastically changed. y'all see the fires before your eyes and pay no attention. will in the future -- one or 2 people who spoke. the snow pack will diminish. and trade winds play an important role in giving -- what we have seen because -- rain. seen it on the east coast. we have models -- conservative and unreliable. we need to consult the first people. to the [inaudible] share wisdom. thank you very much. thank you for sharing your comments >> next speaker, please you have 2 minutes. >> good afternoon chris with california sport fishing protection. i was not able to attend today i like to call the attention of the sfpuc to 3 policy issues. one, i don't see consistent use of the design drought in planning decisions. i see use of design drought to support extreme risk arc version withfully and mess risk with new water supplies. decision not to create alternative water supplies including infrastructure is a policy choice. prioritize not spending money over the environment. >> 2. sfpuc staff characterizes the design drought as a stress test. in the a risk analysis. details of the design drought go to the potential consequences of worse case planning. you don't refuse to build because a building may fall down in earthquake you look at a stress test and make policy decision how much is acceptable. and the you design and build to that risk. contrary to staff policy choices need to consider the recurrence level. 3. the affects of the drought with demand it is more controllable and factor than precipitation or run off. the commission should analyze under levels of demand and make publicity results. thank you for the opportunity to comment. >> thank you for sharing your comments. next speaker, please you have 2 minutes. >> good afternoon will thank you. good oomph chair and members ever commission. i'm ed stevenson the general manager of alameda water district. i wanted add to the information the commission heard in mr. ritchie's presentation. a live case study for information and the public. atw is important to have several sources of supplies including local and imported and one of our key imported supply system from the sfpuc this makes up 20% of our over all water supply. all of our supplies have their own characterists and contranlts and different levels of resilience and he affected different low when stressed. dry conditions and drought are examples. and as an example you look at the last 20 years each time has been sustained dry conditions and drought the mix of our supplies shifts toward reliance on sfpuc in the portion of our over allful supply provided by sfpuc guess up. reduced the size of the over all water supply the sfpuc slooid slice of the pie gets larger moving from this 20% of our typical water supply to sometimes 30%. >> in the current drought another example the over all demands are downful 50% demands reductions and the over all use gone up. supply has been cut >> thank you your time is expired. >> thank you for sharing your comments. you have 2 minutes. >> thank you. it is [inaudible] from [inaudible] 3 quick points one is i think mr. ritchie was speaking for the commission and staff and commissioners as well as boska in that -- idea of rung out of water is the worse thing possible. [inaudible]. [inaudible] second, this is characterized a stress test. and i'm not guess to apply water comfortablive or not. explain hayou would do. how much dow jones cut back and when you go [inaudible] i know said 3 years [inaudible]. an emergency desalination or whatever. what you would do under those conscience. as much as the stress of test? the second thing you talked about don pedro and the rep with the districts. [inaudible] the bay area does and in my view, the fourth agreement that governors management of don pedro and water rights is an old document. i wonder whether you have reached out and tried to build a rep to mutual benefit things to help each other out. i wonder how many -- thank you, caller time is expired. >> next speaker, please the line is open you have 2 minutes. >> i'm sorry was not there today. thank you for having this hearing. i will save most comments for e mail i want to make 2 things i say i think the presentations on both sides are good. i think the public comments have been excellent i hope i can stand up to that standard. 2 things i want to correct or add data is for mr. ritchie's discussion built water bank. yes, we do have 3 year's supply at the low point inspect 2012-skwaen drought. in our drought planning we averaged pick up 100,000 acres feet a year. not only we have storage but [inaudible] and my second thing is i admire mr. coverts comments i disagree with some. clarify the lta is in the say precipitation could change from- 40 to + 40 that was the range of testing if i disagreed with the summary, it says the summary mentions a precipitation change + or- 5% by 2040 and + or minus 15% by 2070. thank you for this hearing. >> thank you for sharing your comments. next speaker, please you have 2 minutes. >> i'm coarc lagz for san francisco neighborhoods speaking on my behalf. in support of the river trust proposal, to modify the design drought from 8 and a half years to 7 and a half years. and in 2017, physicist steven hawking said he believed the earth would be uninhabable in 100 years. he got a bit right what would be the purpose of a once in 40,000 design drought. next speaker, please. the sideline open >> this was martin and i was just ahead of mary was going to read the letter that spoken with the 20 -- we are troubled bite poor eclogical of the state of the river in the delta. it is worse than any river manage other water districts represent the environmental values of san francisco and pay area and drop the application to the water quality control plan. does not presents good science and the heart of the against's poor environmental track record for decades the river has been starved of mainstream flow and population for fish and wildlife plummeted the river is at risk we learn in the 2005 once you kilt salmon the fish easier don't come back. am scientifically in design drought would include new information become available. you heard this information today you heard it in the past workshops. to support validity of the design drought in current form when thinking you must think about risks of the river and the bay delta ecosystem. the risk rung out of salmon is greater than the risk of rung out of water. and it is foreseeable under the management of the sfpuc modify the design drought to be valand i had drop your lawsuit against the bay delta plant and 24 of us collaborated over days. save you time here. still, thank you. >> i'm paul i live in edward city. 3 short point and it is second is the longer point of i grief agree with those who said we node to have independent deep are dive in this and urge you to complete your efforts to establish their current rate of the sdpien drought. i understand trying to run away from the current and a vapid tool of risk management it is essential of i would agree that there are different ways to manage the storage capacity that could provide benefits for different benefits. most important low, the lpda does make a test to establish had the recurrence is of the design drought. and i think the results were depressing they publish we had to get them through public record act requests x. they included looking back a thus around i don't remembers and there has not been a design drought or anything severe. and looking forward 500 times in 2500 year worth of modeling and never an 8 year drought as long as severe as the model drought when staff establish what the return rate was for the design drought for a duration 1.37 million years. and in this case, a drought of similar deficit was 25,000 years that was the rate of this drought. and staff decide the model was off. i understand how it is sdpifl redid it and then they were not able to replicate a drought as dry and long as the model drought. it simply out liar of everything. sthk your time is expired. there are 5 more callers to be heard. caller you have 2 minutes. >> [inaudible] my great grand mother is burr ed at mission delores i report and request respectful action on behalf of all creation not only humans occupying stolen the land. the rep with native people and surroundings spans 400 generations. 10,000 years. between the troibs and more. i imagine there were droughts. few are than 8 generations san francisco almost killed the river steeling lands posting a sign devastating habitat. killing animals almost wiping out salmon contributing to climate change and forest fires this was the initial stress test. [inaudible]. planted pine trees in the 70s they have grown when the fog covers the city rain drops fall beneath the trees. i ask for the respectful action reliability depends upon commune involvement rather then and there accel ritting climate change and steeling salmon sfpuc prioritize alternatives conversation issue street planting. desal and infrastructure to handle it, thank you. thank you for your comment. next caller your line is open you have 2 minutes. >> hello this is mark gonzalez. and as tee ritchie said it is a stress test. and -- as far as research, the bay delta water quality control plan had years of research and there is already a compromise to allow lower flows than deemed necessary for the best happen at that time for the river. the comp myself myself has been done. now time for san francisco to activate this plan. which will work the of the existing environment. >> thank you. >> thank you for sharing your comments. next speaker, please you have 2 minutes. >> thank you very much. mr. commissioner, i appreciate the time and effort you put in this afternoon. i really appreciated mr. ritchie's presentation. what they showed you. i want to quickly say, i support the prpt -- um -- proposal to look at this and perhaps remove a year from the design drought. i am00 eye want to say i support all the comments ms. doorman ready for friends of the river and california sport fishing protection alliance. mr. ritchie made a point of stressing that the drought design drought is a stress test and i feltment to say that from my perspective, we -- we don't see much of a difference and point of fact you make choices based on had you think will happen on the design drought it is important that drought is reasonable and rational. i'm commercial out fitters provide a valuable service. we and other boaters on the river and other utilizers are the economic engines for those local communities and also what is important this we provide spiritual and mental health in that process. again other thank you. i hope you sit down with the stake holders and do hard work on taking a look at this. thank you. bye. thank you for sharing your comments next speaker, please you have 2 minutes. >> thank you very much. . you mention third degree process has been going on for 2 years and i was around in the beginning and hastruck me i don't know if you remember, some scientists [inaudible] the agency said. and then [inaudible] said you know can you apply to that. they said, no. we will not reply. we have not done a [inaudible] and [inaudible] i seat arrogance here when peter and other people have asked for data they don't get it it is is not like the data [inaudible]. the data is there. there is an arrogance, we know our right way if we have other data that contradicts we are not [inaudible]. you know this was i forgot i'm sorry, commissioners talked about we may not have to do it we have this new group working together. you know and to me it it is like am no you need the meetings and the individual dialogues you will have a group that is run by people who are don't want to change. this data [inaudible]. we have this process now. you know and -- will be [inaudible]. thank you i hope you find the data. i don't think mr. trump has it. and i wish the people [backgrounds noise] thank you. thank you. next speaker, please you have 2 minutes. you have 2 minutes. good afternoon chair. commissioners. i'm doug. i'm an attorney with the natural resource defense council. thank you for today's workshop and to start it is very important to plan for droughts and the design drought is one policy that can help prepare for droughts. part of our frustration as the commission has in the past for years relied on the design drought for would cause rationing the commission has not acted with the same sort of intensity and priority in terms of investing in local and regional water supplies to adopt to a future where the plan is implemented. and i think the failure to use that in an even manner that raised the concerns amongst the environmental and fishing community we see the river runs and continue. i'm encouraged that attitude changes with the current commissioners encouraged by feasibility. the studies of the water recycling project of the treatment plant. but this it is a policy. it does take time to build the facilities as director ritchie said. we need to act with all intense quickly to start moving the alternatives so we can adopt to a future. we can make and should upon consider changes to the drought including changing the religioning. and my ask we make the commission find a policy not planning for shortages for the river but guiding investments and water recycling to local supplies. thank you for consideration of our comments. >> thank you for sharing your comments. there are no more callers in the queue. thank you public comment on item 7 is closed. >> thank you. back with the commission. any other comments or questions? for mr. ritchie or -- i have none. >> seeing none i have a couple closing comments. couple are technical i want to get into next steps. one of the questions raised by policy established 30 years ago are we smarter today? can we do better in some way? we have learned stuff in the last 30 years. we have learned more beg your pardon demand. i think this some of the testimony that is brought forward and the discussion we have talked about demand and how to tree that. that is productive. and i think that will see that going forward. we know climate is changing. and -- that's evidence by mr. ritchie said 100 year venture becoming common. we did have a the ltv assess am published in the middle of this. never designed to answer the questions we are asking. it does have information in it that impinks on our discussion. but it it is a long and complicated document. and we have to be careful how we use it. the basic impact of climate change -- were clear over all average of wet and dry years are the same. it said that the wet years will be wetter. and the dry years dryer. and dry periods longer and more vulnerable. and those dry periods what determine how we design system and operate the system to with stand drought the white year don't matter for this discussion. take a step back and view the conclusions in a whole and when we go in and say it said this and this page or other and other page. we run the risk of taking things out of context in ways that might be misleading. we got in a discussion about return period. and i have spent time on that issue. it does not help you figure out what to do next year. and -- whether you are in the first year or last year of a drought operators will look 2-1/2 years in the future to make sure weave make it to this time frame. the design drought was the worse way to experience plus knowing that just as in year one and 6 you will look into the future that is how you get up to 8 and a half. not a prediction. it is a stress test and includes a judgment about how you actually operate the system. we had discussions about the design drought i have always said is that it is a gentlemen. based on experience and how we operate the system. am lots of numbers but don't deliver on this ability to do better. you -- can't predict when will happen next year. state saying we near a 1200 year drought. no one should assume we'll be wet. it is irresponsible and in the supported. can't look at return periods and want to do this this way. what is appropriate? well, some of the material said you can do the 7 envelope year version of a drought that will give you 10,000 year return pardon. the [inaudible] is 8 to then. you know is it 10 or if you wanted to build a new development some place, could you hedge it down to 8 and be okay? it is still a judgment call. >> may be informed by a different way of looking at history. but it it is a judgment call to be made. and there is nothing in return to get you out of the necessity to make that judgment call. it has been helpful to talk about and appreciate steve's presentation that talked the elements of gentlemen applied here. so other than my 2 technical comments. i would like to thank everybody for putting together their presentations. and saying that within the 15 minutes, and the constructive nature of the comments we received. i would like to feel complement on 2 pieces of writing distributed with the calendar item. one is the memo that guess over that has key facts about the system. i think that is an excellent piece. you know for anybody who wants to refresh with the items. the other was a 2 pager planning for draught. which i thought was an outstanding presentation of the issues and some of the complexities i did in the see in the 2 pager. as far as next steps it is heard to draw conclusions where you go because the design drought is one part of the planning process. it is an important part but only one part. we had 7 hearings on various elements. of how we do our water supply planning. what i help we do is come back and wrap it together again. i would suggest a discussion based on the water supply budgeting worksheet we have. use that as a tool and keeping track of wheror thinking is at the moment and that will allow you to goat a different bottom line. upon given a couple of scenes what is the surplus or deficit. if there is a deficit, what size. what does this tell us about when we have to do? to mote that deficit? and if it it is a surflus, what do we do with it. the surplus indicates we will meet your reliability criteria more often than minimum standard. that is good. it says you can deal with issues. deal with fishery flows and allocate water to the environment. or allocate water to the questions like the customers. i think if we go wrap this back. will incorporate different versions of biological flows that we put out there. and how we want to look at demands short and long-term and the middle. when we think about the design drought. and do this in a way that will come to a bottom line that is useful and figure out where we go. i hope we can do this and i would hope we have the information we generated the past couple glorious a form we can do that quickly. yes. commissioner ajami. or commissioner paulson. >> thank you. there is probably not been a day since i have been a commissioner where your expertise and historical knowledge of this commission has not enlightened me in terms of the history and where the things fit in. and i had put requesting to peek and pull today off and i punch today become in and the reason i did that because after your another analysis of what happened today. twice you said, next step this is is a discussion item only. i have not seen any reason to talk about specifically next steps. i see that when we develop agendas and staff come up with stuff. so, i want to point that out. because well is so much that is going on. i don't next steps is every day is a next step in this organization. so i want to point that out this . it is a discussion only meeting if am stabbed correct federal i need be. >> thank you. >> thank you. the next step they was referring to was coming back around with the bring it all back together part of a water supply budgeting process. commissioner ajami. >> thank you that was a good discussion. 2 quick things. swon i think we have a lot of space to think about demand. we should do reand can revisit how we do demand planning. or forecasting and there is a lot of space to grow and learn more there. i think the second thing i say is none of this 19s we should not do alternative water supplies but think about a smart way of doing it. i had brought this up a few times during different discussion when is it come to reuse and recycling every scale. and also stone water capture and management especially because these as we know climate change will impact the amount snow we receive and the potentially we will receive more rain and intense. steve said something i appreciated which is, we in california, have to switch from planning for draught and planning for wet years and see what we do for every drop of water we receive. the whole storm water capture we should think about that especially because it it is not just a multidimensional thing we are dealing with more flooding but if you can capture and harness that water we can prevent flooding and reuse that water when we need it. what we have been doing in san francisco is honest low a provide for me to always say, how we are doing reuse every scale. which is we are talking the talk approximate walking the walk and i think -- that model needs to go beyond the border of our city and every other -- municipality water utility needs to consider this model. as a way of how the future will look like. solar panels on roofs. there are many ways that will impact our demand. our energy team know this is best. this is actually one way to think about demand not reducing by conserves and efficiency and other ways to have you take people partially off the grid and produce water and reuse it. i think just we -- you need to think more strategically than it come to how we plan for the future. and how to deal with climate change and resiliencey in the system. and i appreciate it coming joining this commission i joined in with all the workshops that are coming become to back and an opportunity to see how you think about different parts of it and -- really appreciate the different parts. one comment this came up here in the conversation was thinking about upon people at the center of the understanding the social need and historical context of our water system. all of that are important. we really do need to embrace that part of the planning press we need to make sure we protect of the environment and have reliability. i again, i appreciate it. steve point on you know -- droughts are very slow will building disasters that sometimes it is hard to predict where they go. and -- opposed to floods that come and go and happens and we deal with the consequence of it. it it is a slightly different. again. it is we are better for our because of our stake holder engage am. we are better because we have the dialogues. i appreciate different groups that are making the time. you know joining us and having creating this conversations. looking for different thinking. challenging the way we approach things that is valuable. that is part of public diawilling that we the sfpuc appreciate. i know we as commissioners appreciate. so with all that, i want to thank everybody to making the time coming and having helping you to have this dialogue joining us on00 autophone can on line or in person. >> thank you. any other comments? >> seeing none, thank you everybody. i think it was useful and productive. next item. >> item 8 report of the general manager. >> thank you, madam secretary. 8a audit and review report from blackwood. good afternoon. i'm sfpuc audit director here to share the fourth quarter updates for the audit bureau. >> all right. . um -- for the 21/22 fiscal, 40 audit in the sfpuc portfolio. 45 prgs were completed with 38% or 15 in progress. 17% or search audits are upcoming in the next period. since the last update 4 were issued the first clone power sf audit april 29 of 22. second the cyber security maturity may 27 of 22. thirdly the 21 green energy verification audit and the 21 single audit issued on june third by the controller's office. >> the agency is implementing recommendations from 2 audits. for the audit of social impact program december 9 of 21. total of 7 recommendations issued. the agency on track to fully implement all 7 of the recommendations. 3 were closed on august 8 of 22. for the revenue bonds's audit issued february 9 of 22. there are 2 open recommendations. agency is addressing the recommendations to ensure in compliance by december 21, 2022 this year. over view of the oddits on the horizon the inventory count for fiscal 22-twoochl wholesale revenue requirements changes and balancing for 21. the 2021 controller's office. public integrity assess am of the procure am. sue are system improvement program for contract 165 audit. and the network audit information technology operations technology. for upcoming over view of different audit in place is the 2022 california independent system prirt scheduling and coordinator self audit. and reliability standard compliance audit of hetch hetchy. that's an over view of the fourth quarter audit. let me know if you have questions. are there members of public had wish to comment on item 8a. do you have callers with hands raised? >> there are no callers in the queue. 8b is a quarterly status by laura bush. >> hello. this is laura bush sfpuc budget director i'm here to present the fourth quarter of fy21-22 budget variance report to you. >> so. pleased to say over all we are looking at better position at quarter 3. 3 months ago. projections better across the board the end of the year. important to note that this is a projection. the final year ends results published by the arc counseling team in due course. >> so, the end of the year we project positive operating results for clean power and operating short falls for the better then and there 3 months ago. the revenues down from budget due to first low the impact of water efforts which is off set boy a 5% draught. in clean power sf a lot going on the budget increased by 42 million dollars during the year. and we are projecting the year ends result to come in close to that revised budget. we are positive year ends results. iary in financial results projected meet or exceed targets for coverage and reserves and we will cover deficits through the use of our reserves. in operating result is negative 8.3 million. sources side total sources are down by 20.4 million. this is largely driven boy slow recovery from covid-19 with the drought conversation measures. the retail sales are similar to quarter 3 wholesale higher compared to the left quarter. in addition water year results include additional rental income and one time revenue relating to the sale and purchase of francisco reservoir and 6.75 restitution settlement relating to the lands slide we were reembursd. the 5% drought surcharge is assume in the revenues. on the east side we have 12 opinion 1 million dollars in savings this is learningly driven by salary and benefit savings. >> wastewater the net operating result is negative 47 penalty upon 7 million. 3 months ago we had 8.sick million dollars reduction to sun balance due to settlements do you to the 2014 storm. sources down by 20.3 million. water driven boy slower recovery and the draught conversation measures. however, good news, this quarter we did recognize 9 penalty 2 million dollars in state covid-19 utility debt forgiveness recognized in the final quarter now show nothing projections. on the use side 12.6 million in savings from salary and benefits. hempy net operating result positive. 35.9 million. on the source side, we have surplus or positive of 18 penalty 5 million. this is driven boy higher rates and lead to significant positive revenue variance in the wholesale power sales. on the use side 17.3 million savings. min low by one time savings the big of the reclassification of prior year [inaudible] calls this was recognized as a cost saving in the current year. and the close out prior year after increases in power purchase cost and higher transmission costs. >> lastly in clean power sf net operating positive 2.7 million. and however i mentioned the clone power budget was revised by 35 million dollars in quarter 2. to include the rate increase and increased cost of power purchases dliven boy higher market cost and further revises upon 7 million as a team concerned about not having adequate expenditure authority to complete power purchases for the year. total the budget increased by 42 million this year. become to the net operating result. source down boy 1 penalty 8 million. this is off set boy 4.5 million dollars of savings. the use side driven by savings with salary and benefits. >> last slide. all the ratios on target to meet sfpuc policies. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner paulson. >> a quick question all the saving in salaries and benefits is this about arctrician? >> yes. vacancy and slow hiring. any other questions. thank you. why thank you very much. >> thank you. public comments, please. >> members who wish to make publish comment on item 8b press star 3 to speak. do you have members present who wish to comment on this item? do do you have calmers with hands raised >> there are no callers. >> public comment on 8b is closed. >> item 8 c water capitol improve am quarter low report by katie miller. good afternoon commissioners i'm katie miller director of water capitol programs. today will update you on the status of projects in the water c ip as. end of the fourth quarter june 30, 2022. >> these charts show 36 projects in the program budget 2.upon 7 billion dollars. including 25 regional and 11 local projects. expend tours the close of reporting period were 946 million expended with 41 million expended during the left quarter. >> this table shows the summary of the program cost forecast by category for all active projects. all of the variances shown here are from previous quarters. most related to the rebase lining of the program to align with the fiscal 23-3210 year c ip approve in the february. there have been no new cost variances in the second quarter. since the second quarter. >> this chart shows the current approved budget for 25 regional projects in each phase of the program as of june 30 the number active in each phase. during the quarter 2 project it is move friday design to bid an award. now i will share the highlights of 4 projects. the water treatment plan oh zone project completed 35% design. am some refinements that were deemed necessary for the project are evaluated for cost and will be reported in the next quarter. the long-term improvement's project includes construction of the al modea creek watershed center, made significant progress. the primary building completed and details worning on inside and outside under way including the aquarium, kitchen, restrooms inside and outside exhibits. outside pond. path and land scaping. hopeful low you can see it soon. >> the sfpuc evaluating all dams urn the division of safety of dam jurisdiction for seismic and hydraulic performance. progress made on planning studies for the water system's dams. geotechnical investigations neighborhood at turn are dam and san andreas dam and peninsula the investigations continue through the ends of 2022. now i will shift to the local program in san francisco. this figure shows the total approved budget for 11 local projects in each phase of the program as of june 30. no new variances during the quarter for local projects. and just a couple highlights. the san francisco west side recycle water treatment at ocean side performed testingly of installed equipment delivered prescriptions to wastewater operations. interior work for the pump station and golden gate park. cross connection testing performed. so the connection to the irrigation systems in golden gate p. we are making good progress. the college hill reservoir was drain exclude shut down for construction this will continue the next year. 24 inch diameter quake resistant iron pipe was install and theed jacking pit for the steel reservoir oustlet pipe was completed and the jacking pit is shown in this photo. and with this i will be happy to answer questions. >> thank you. . commissioners? questions? thank you very much. public comment. members who wish to make 2 minutes of comment on 8c press story 3 to raise your hand. members present who wish to make comment on 8c? do you have callers are hands raised? >> no callers in the queue. >> thank you, public comment on 8c is closed. >> 8d water system improvement program quarterly report. >> okay. thank you again for your attention, commissioners. will if i could have the slides, please. now we will provide a brief update on the status of the water system improvement program indzing june 30. the charts show the program is 99% complete. during the quarter the watershed and environmental improve am program was completed. now there are only 3 projects remain nothing construction and one in close out. with 95 million remain nothing budget. 4 million spent by program during the quarter. in cost sum row shows the status of the 3 remaining active projects. there were no new cost variances during the quarter. during the quarter on april 26, you all approved the march 22 revised [inaudible] this revision includes a now completion date of february 1, 2027 with no change to program budget approved 8 billion dollars and includes project level changes to scope, schedule and bottomings for the remanipulating projects. and now a few highlights. . >> the alameda creek recapture product held second meetings. change field conditions i shared with you left quarter are being further examined for necessary design changes. as a result of significant e range of motion within and around the quarrel and he unexpected corrosion of the existing pipe line the facility will tie to. the end of the quarter, the team was evaluating changes and cost in schedule immacks. the costs impacts will be reported during the next quarter. and i believe you will see simultaneous requests for construction coming through in the next meeting or 2. >> groundwater storage and recovery project during the quarter. the you all the commission approved acquisition of easements to complete work for mission, well and treatment. the left remanipulating work in contract d. contract c received notice of proceed this valued 7 million dollars includes protection installation for the corrosion control and some well rehab is needed at most of the well cites. and this is the corrosion that i reported last year where we repaired 3 wells. now this contract will come through and repair the remaining wells. it is final contract d for work the south san francisco main well continues to negotiate permits and easements with pg and e and macing utility and property owners. and that's it for my report. today. i will be happy to answer questions. >> thank you. commissioners? thank you again. public comment. >> members of public had wish to make public comment on item 8d press story 3. anyone present when wish to provide comment on 8d? mr. moderator there are callers with hands raised. >> queue is empty. thank you. public comment is closed. >> madam secretary. looks like a caller jumped in the queue. >> sorry? caller just jumped in the queue. >> caller this is on item 8d. you have 2 minutes. i'm francisco decosta. i wonder why we don't mention how many of the clean water miles of pipes that we have within san francisco how many of them have been replaced? because there is a lot of leakage. we go to the big projects they fallen back under replace am of the clone water pipes. also back on the -- sewage pipes. thank you very much. there are no more callers. >> thank you public comment on 8d is close said. >> that concludes my report. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> it is next item is new commission business. any new business? seeing none. next item. >> next is item 10, consent and i want to reannounce 10a removed for from theical dar and not considered today. >> commissioners items you like remove friday consent calendar? public comment, please? members who wish to make 2 minutes of comment on item 10 the consent calendar press star 3 to speak. anyone present wishing to comment on item 10? do we have callers in the queue? there are no callers. >> thank you. public comment on item 10 is closed. >> thank you. and commissioners any comments or questions. motion and second, please. motion to approve. >> second. roll call. >> commissioner moran >> aye. >> vice president ajami. >> aye. >> commissioner maxwell >> aye >> commissioner paulson. >> aye >> 4 aye's. >> and the consent calendar with the exception of item e is adopted. next item. of item 11 authorize a general manager to execute on behalf of the city a join funding agreement with united states geological survey an amount by the sfpuc not to exceed 2 million, 837,000. [inaudible]. starting october 21 and ending september 30 of 20. >> >> good afternoon. quickly this is the regular agreement with collect the data we need for elevations and releases from the reservoirs and water in the reservoirs for 6 years. happy to answer questions. >> thank you. >> commissioners? no questions. public comment, please. members who wish to make 2 minutes of remote comment on item 11 press star 3. anyone present to make comment on item 11? do we have callers in the queue? there are in callers in the queue. thank you. public comment on item 11 is closed. >> thank you. a motion and second? >> i move. >> second. >> roll call. >> president moran. >> aye. >> vice president ajami. >> aye. >> commissioner maxwell >> aye >> commissioner paulson. >> aye. >> item 11 pass said. >> item 12 approve the general manager july 20, 22 under code section 6.23c3 that negotiations with the responsible bid are submitting the bid or other qualified contractor for db132 and authorize the general manager to negotiate an agreement with the responsible bid everybody or qualified contractor and if successful return to the commission for award of the contract. >> good afternoon, commissioners. senior project manager for [inaudible] agenda item in front of you to approve general manager determination of the findings and seeking prove to authorize general manager to negotiate the design/build contract new treasure island treatment plant project. i have a brief presentation for the scope. chronological leading to today's agenda item and describe evaluation and outcome and questions. our project engineer calvin is present here today. >> this graphics has a lot of details i will try to be brief to complain the rational and the matters. treasure island on going development occurring in 4 major phases build out. currently phase 2 is in progress. and further phases schedule depends on market continue. project provides new mixed use housing type retail, open space and on sight infrastructure. and the ends of phase 48,000 residential units. 500 hotel rooms. quarter million square feet of commercial retail and office space. our plan treatment plant design indicate said on the graphics here. are lower floors based on full build out up to phase 4. the design flow for new plan is 1.3 million gallons a day and peek weather flow of 3 opinion 9mgd. collaborating on the full build out recycle water demands and anticipated timing. we will be able to fulfill all of the demands for the title 22 quality recycle water up to demand of 1 million gallons per day. trend in the strep now is ewile zaz for intensingification. the project will use compact nutrient removal for sludge treatment and disinfection to produce title 2 recycle water. that only for development but our operator and maintenance use to hose out the processes and the process water needs at the plant. in terms of solids thickening of sludge and small volume tailgate to ocean side treatment plant for further processing of biosolid the. in the phase 4 build out [inaudible] we are living footprint for exploring in the future. fiment to spends a bit of time for procure am efforts for this design/build project. early on came to receive approval of design build and receive authorization. we conducted 2 step prosecute curement rfq and rfp. briefly primary reasons for selecting the design build deliver multifold. schedule acceleration. our existing if sillity built by navy over of 50 years ago. and it has been operating agenda everbeyond the useful life. the aging product and health and safety and risk of compliance. our operation and maintenance staff gets appreciation to keep it running to date for the residents of ti who are present. and design build provides an opportunity for design and construction and delivering the faster pits for wastewater. as an owner we want a single responsible party the builder had hires the designer to deliver for better coordination and collaboration to achieve oust come and performance. design build allows constructability because they can bring the new tech mology and prop approaches and on going constructability that reduces the risk to the project. and left but in the least cost [inaudible] sfpuc put out the prosecute curement a fixed budget design build that allows price early on. we carried out out reach and went through process in 2020. we received 2 response reviewed safety records and staff qualifications and short listed about this to go to the next step of rfp. in year 2021 we spent time in preparing documents, performance design and formula fixed price build out. the rfp let out december 2021. the rpf had collaboration with [inaudible] and combination of prittive when it came to equipment selection and familiarity when it came to performance it was more performance based for affluent criteria. this allowed an opportunity to develop cost effective solutions for us. we received proposals by both proposals we qualifyod may 24 this year. upon upon receipt of both proposals project team and pent 2 montes to evaluate and verify the proposals. from administrative code compliance with contract group and city attorney's office. you are familiar with process of condition tract modification about 10 percent during execution of construction phase the cost over 10% considered millionaire change and modification. second low based the [inaudible] fixed budget material low nonresponsive to this rfp. our contracts determine the web core submitted nun responsive bid and this left pc l the responsive bidder. >> in conclusion, the project recommends the general manager adoption of the findings and 6 commissioner approval to engage in negotiation for design build [inaudible] and any of the qualified contract inconsistent with code listed here. with this i'm happy to take questions you may have. >> thank you. commissioner paulson. >> the question was -- in your brief power point there was 110% over bid and minimum. it was that the substantial nonresponsive piece the main determiner or other things involved like was one person that 111 and another at 109 or -- what were the thing this is made it nonresponsive if you can give mow not in every detail butt idea. >> thank you. >> thank you. within 10% threshold is the 10% allowed by code for commission to approve. the proposal came in was 188% above our fixed budget limit that was the main reason to deem them diskwulified for the material change. i arc suit other contractor was less than 1 -- yes. the contractor is 7% above our fixed budget limit. >> thank you. >> commissioner ajami. thank you. question. is this a combined system you are building there. >> treasure island is a separate system unlike our san francisco system. >> built bite developer not puc we will operating and maintaining witness we take over the utilities there. >> okay. >> and then do we have a storm water capture now? i know we are talking about the wastewater treatment but i wonder i can't remember the details of the design for the rest of the system. >> part of the project around the process area will be putting a [inaudible] arnold the project site. the developer [inaudible] own system of green [inaudible] to development open space capturing. our discharge has a wet land part of the project that will receive some storm water as well. >> okay that is why you have the wet weather capacity surs us dry weather. wet weather factor is typical to your dry weather [inaudible] and this could include infiltration. coming from the collection system in the from the on site that much. >> how would you manage the amount of storm water they may redirect for you guys to process? storm water is newscast directed this is no collection system for storm water for the island. we carry the sewage from the household and other facilities. >> you said there was a wet weather like the developer would redirect some of the wet weather water to you. is that what you said >> no the wet weather treatment is 3.9 we will be able to take that as a preak during the wet weather it is in the a combined system you expect infiltration in the collection system that is a safety standard you design for peek wet weather. >> okay. so what are the developer going to do with extra storm water that they have. repurpose it in their own developed area, do you know the goal there? >> i'm not familiar with that developer grand scheme of the [inaudible]. but we can come back and let you know. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. other questions? thank you very much. public comment. please. >> members of public who wish to make 2 minutes of comment on item 12 press star 3 to speak. do we have members present who wish to comment on item 12? . mr. moderator are there callers? >> there is one caller. >> thank you. >> hi. i'm a local rate payer and i'm curious is all the responsive bids are over 100% did sd this mean the budget may be wrong and how are we with the bid already being over 100%, how can you ensure the negotiated rate alcohol be over budget is not run up further over? may be this should be rebid with 8 budget that has been you know redone. taking in account we only had bids over the 100% of it and have fair competition [inaudible]. thank you. thank you for sharing your comments. there are no more callers in the queue. public comment on item 12 is closed. >> thank you. other questions from commissioners? a motion and second? move to approve. seconded. >> roll call. president moran. >> aye >> vice president ajami. >> aye. >> commissioner maxwell >> aye >> commissioner paulson. >> aye. >> four aye's >> next item. >> item then approve terms and conscience of authorized general manager to execute a license agreements to distribute and screen the film entitled time has many voices for 5 years for nonprofit use only at no cost. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm kim stern, i'm the infrastructure division environmental construction compliance manager with our environmental management group. the film, time has many voices documents the work during the al modea creek watershed component of the improve am project. when we learned about the history of the ramaytush ohlone maedz by the planning the muwekma ohlone tribe and research associates and cinnabar video productions. the film fulfills our cultural mitigation >> reporter:s related the quality act and review document. the goals for the film is it be distributed to reach audiences throughout the bay area. i'm pleased say the film was selected by vision maker media and native american nonprofit that funded by p bs for broadcasting on p bs nationwide this fall. to do so requires us granting the film maker a license to distribute the film to p bs. i'm told this is an humanor to be selectd and all parties especially the muwekma ohlone tribe are excited. for the time we have today i will show a few screen shots of the film. before i move to that i want to let you know our communication team is appropriating a robust plan to roll out this film within the upcoming mont and wing closely with the tribe and others to do that. and of course, visitors to the new alameda creek center will view this film for many years to come. >> i will story by saying monica vice chair woman of the muwekma ohlone tribe was assigned the likely sdendzant by the native american commission. provided guidance on all the work we did at the site. through about 3 years of field work including an amount of careful, hand excavation, we instated the art analysis we exposed and identifiedan cest ral muwekma ohlone village occupied from 100 to sick00 years ago. the muwekma ohlone tribe have now named the village meaning accomplice of the water around house. you see where this work was occurring in religion to the temple. you see here the film is rich in original art and graphics. than i tell us about the muwekma ohlone and the san francisco bay area before europe an contact. about the lives of 3 individuals who lived at the village known through isotopic analysis and arrival of the spaniards mission and the history of erasure. and lastly of the muwekma ohlone resilience and perseverance. it includes ros and photos of the years of field work from muwekma ohlone tribe members and archaeologist working side by side. the other day senior archaeologist sally morgan of planning commented on how impressed she was with the information and the film the level of information but especially how it conveys the collaboration with scientists and muwekma ohlone. and the film also shows images. complex and beautifully crafted artifacts found at the site like you see here. the artifacts inform us about, for example. trade and the stature of member. some of nonart fact will be displayed at the watershed center and used for educational programs there. but most low the film is about the muwekma ohlone tribe. as told through personal and insightful interviews throughout the film with members of the tribe and experts. here you see a woman. a muwekma ohlone chair woman. about the mixture of the muck ma village and thriving successors. in closing, staff recommendsern nothing the agreements to allow the licensees to help the city bring this film to audiences broad and wide potentially on p bs as well as cultural events, film festivals. conference, educational websites and other nonprofit uses. thank you and i will be help to take questions. >> thank you. commissioner maxwell. >> thank you. were we going to have apping access to that on third street? >> i don't see why we could not i think this would be great. there is a 5 minute prosecute longer and the film is 45 minutes long and we are working with the film makers on a trailer there will be opportunity and in how to be used through graphic walls or more formal events. >> yes. and how about some of the pictures we saw of the artifacts would this be available for us to also have them at the now facility in some way? i think it is a way to show people they want to see more they can go to the for example. >> yea. >> yea. commissioner, we will investigate ways to make it as widely available as possible. both in [inaudible] and on third street as much as we can. we will make every effort to make as much material. >> i think it is an opportunity for us to say who we are and as they are. every opportunity we have especially at a new facility like that. i am sure we can make a big effort to do that. thank you. >> agree. >> great job. >> make every effort to make as much available as possible. >> yes. >> commissioner ajami. thank you. i want to congratulate the film makers. and putting this together and thank you to the staff who worked with the muwekma ohlone tribe and trying to sort of unearth some of the historical thing that happened here that obviously we don't knew but did in the have a lot of information about. i think this is a valuable thing. i'm hoping kids will see it and i hope a lot of different groups as my colleagues said, have access and able to use this as a model to do more collaborations with the tribe. in various settings. thank you for bring thanksgiving to us. >> thank you. i'm the presentser i was involve with the film but obviously many other staff from infrastructure and westerner were involved, brian, pm. carlos, sarah our kruck manager and jp the field manager. to acknowledge them. >> yea. >> thank them for us. >> thank you. other comments or questions. >> thank you very much. public comment. >> members who wish to make 2 millions of remote public on item then, press star 3 to speak. do we have members present who wish to comment on item 13? mr. moderator are there callers. >> there is one caller. you have 2 minutes. >> commissioners, i'm francisco decosta. and i represent the muwekma ohlone here in san francisco. i would like to thank the san puc, the present general manager but the past general manager for having supported this project. the mach mach mach recognized in with this film and the artifacts that are found, and the various [inaudible] that were will come about, we hope that the d. interior will fully acknowledge the muwekma ohlone as the original inhabitants of san francisco. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you, public comment on item 13 is close said. >> thank you. motion and second. i will move. >> second. >> roll call >> president moran. >> aye >> vice president ajami. >> aye. >> commissioner maxwell >> aye >> commissioner paulson. >> item 13 is adopted. next item. >> next is public comment on matter to be discussed during closed session. conference with legal council regarding litigation plaintiff petitioner in matter of orders imposing water right curtailment and reporting requirements in sacramento dela watershed on numbers f002635 -- 002636, 0 answer 26 threat and 002637, 014379, 015858, 1374 and 35. state water resource processing. san joaquin authority versus the control board. fresno county case number 21cecg02632. filed september 22 of 21. san francisco versus theical cal state water resource control board. county superior court case cv 63828 date may 14 of 21. . versus california say water resource control board. the case number cv 62094 filed january 10 of 19. state water board ordfiled may of 20 then in sacramento jushl council prosecute seeding 50 then. do we have members present to provide comment on closed session? do we have callers with hands raised? >> no callers in the queue. why public comment on closed session is closed. >> thank you. and the next item. please. >> next is 15. motion to arc cert the attorney/client privilege regarding the matter as conference with legal council. >> motion and second? move to s cert. >> roll call >> president moran. >> aye. >> vice president ajami. >> aye. >> commissioner maxwell >> aye. >> commissioner paulson. >> aye. thank you. we will go in closed >> okay. we are back in open session. there was noack taken during closed sechlgz may have i motion whether to disclose discussions that took place during closed session. move to not to disclose. >> seconded. >> roll call. >> president moran. >> aye. >> violent ajami. >> aye. >> commissioner maxwell >> aye. >> commissioner paulson. >> four aye's. no further business this meeting is, journaled. adjourned . adjourned adjourned >> small business commission meeting on august 22, 20 twoochl the meeting is called to order at 4:32 p.m. in person in city hall room 400 broadcast live on sfgovtv and available to view online or listen to by calling 415-855-0001 >> authorized by california code section twenty-four 953e and the mayor's supplement to the emergency proclamation it is possible some members of the small business commission may attends remote. those members will participate and vote by video. >> small business commission thanks modia services and sfgovtv

Related Keywords

Nevada , United States , Modesto , California , Central Valley , Sacramento , San Joaquin , Togo , South San Francisco , Spain , Fresno County , San Francisco , Alameda Creek , Spaniards , American , Hetch Hetchy Eleanor , Sally Morgan , Francisco Decosta , Ed Stevenson , Don Pedro , Santa Clara , Laura Bush , Mach ,