Skip to main content

tv   Public Utilities Commission 62816  SFGTV  July 2, 2016 5:00am-6:06am PDT

5:00 am
5:01 am
. >> good afternoon, i'd like to welcome you to the meeting ftd san francisco public utilities commission. we will be calling the meeting to order. commission secretary, can you read the -- call the roll, please. >> president vietor, here. vice president moran, here. commissioner caen, here. commissioner courtney, here. commissioner kwon is excused and we have a quorum. >> thank you, next item. >> next item is approval of the minutes of june 14, 2016.
5:02 am
>> you have before you the minutes of june 14. may i have a motion to approve? >> so moved. >> any questions or comments? all those in favor. >> minutes are approved. >> next item is general public comments. members of the public may address the commission on members that are not on the agenda. >> commissioners, you have the packet of communications before you. are there any questions or comments? >> we're on item 4. >> i'm sorry, general public comments. are there any general public comments at this time? mr. decosta, good afternoon. >> good afternoon. i'm going to address 3 issues. one issue brought up before about lead in our pipes and i am referencing
5:03 am
the lead pipes in public housing. and i heard something in janver but i would like some empirical data because i work with college students and sometimes they are very savvy, you know, they will ask me to address something before the san francisco public utilities commission and then they will ask me if i have any answers that are precise, not weight. i know the wish of the general manager is that some testing be done and he is nodding his head so i know i'm going to get some answers so that i can provide it to the college students, which is good. the second issue i have is
5:04 am
about our water. so i've been away but, you know, sometimes when you are away you can listen to the deliberations because we have in this digital world, you know, all these meetings recorded. so we have too many skyscrapers. we have too much of development. and i represent and the general manager has all the documentation, the first people of this area, the malok malone i am interested in seeing how our city departments understand how resources are going to be shared in our city. so it's a shame that even in the year 2016 in san francisco with all
5:05 am
the skyscrapers coming up they are going to be flushing their toilets with clean water, hetch hetchy that we brag about. we have to pay more money. and be somehow we have to address this by having gray water to flush our toilets. you don't need to be a rocket scientist. i have 20 seconds. i think we should reflect what happened in great britain and how we have invested our money and i know this is an enterprise department so i don't know if this is possible but i suppose you put it on the agenda further down the line how your investments are doing, the investments that we have invested in great britain for our information. thank you very much. >> thank you. other general public comments at this time? next item,
5:06 am
please. >> item 5 is communications. >> so now you have before you communications. commissioners, any questions or comments on the communications? any public comment on the communications? hearing none, next item, please. >> item 6 is other commission business. >> any other commission business? public comment? next item. >> item 7 is report of the general manager. >> good afternoon, commissioners, first item is another retirement. so it is my great honor and pleasure to call up john -- come up, john. john gregson is a supervising senior chemist on our staff. he's been working here for the city for 37 years. is that right, 37 years? so he's been
5:07 am
an important part of our team and in fact he worked for two bureaus, water quality and water pollution control. as well you've been working on our collection system division as well. we want to thank you for your commitment with the puc and you worked dpw back in the day. i'm not far behind you. but just want you to come and say a few words. >> thank you very much, arlan when i started, i started in 1979 at the old southeast sewage treatment plant and for those of us who remember in those days there was no erosion side is, there was no southeast secondary site, no channel pump station. in fact, southeast was a primary plant, we used to use chlorine gas, anyone who was there remembers that smell taz comes out from the sed tanks but also i remember something else. but also i remember something
5:08 am
else. i remember every week we would hear the loudspeakers saying all hands on deck. scott drill will begin in 10 minutes. this was our superintendent named les spes messer and we would go into our drills to protect against chlorine, but why was that significant? because the men who i worked with were all coming back from world war ii. they all served in mostly the pacific theater, some in the european theater, but many were ex-navy men. they were built after world war ii. they were built, this is the point, by dpw it was not built by private contract. the plans were reviewed by the private engineering firm but the plant was built by our own people and that is something i've always felt very proud about, something i have cherished,
5:09 am
which is self-confidence and self-sufficiency and something that we will never give up, it's in our -- it's who we are. many of us have had parents, fathers, mothers, who worked for the city and we came through the system and it's part of us. this is the city i was born and raised in, i still live here, and i have too many people to thank but i do want to thank especially mr. steve midberry, i want to end by thanks my wife, irene sirochivoch, she will be retiring in two days, we live in the outer sunset. i always like to tell me, you look so happy, i say yes, i am. i met my wife at the sewer plant 20
5:10 am
years ago and we've been happily married ever since. thank you, everybody, it's been a pleasure. (applause). >> yes, on behalf of the commission we really want to thank you for your many years of service and congratulate you and your wife on your retirement and please if you wouldn't mind coming up so we can present you with a certificate.
5:11 am
great, thank you very much. next item on the general manager's report. >> the next item is a drought update. the new and improved steve ritchie, please come up. >> agm ritchie is at the alameda county board of supervisors wading through a very extensive agenda so he couldn't be here. so first just looking at the reservoir storage levels, what you will see here, and you probably have been seeing since the last report as well, is that hetch hetchy is above 100 percent. we still have the
5:12 am
spill gates in and we are still gaining in water bank, which is always very wonderful. we've gone up about 4,000 acre feet since the last you saw this report. here is a field visit that mr. ritchie was on and this shows you hetch hetchy spilling. this actually is a video that we weren't able to get the technology to work on but there's lots of noise and it's very exciting and he got quite a bit of spray. we're happy to see hetch hetchy spilling, been a long time since we have. our primary drought message, though, despite we've have a wetter season, water bank is only about 74 percent. we need to continue with a 10 percent system-wide demand reduction from 2013 demands. we formally notified our whole sale
5:13 am
customers of this on june 26. (inaudible) directed us to do at 3 years of repeat hydroology of 2013 through 2015 using an average demand of 2013-2014 use and we had to demonstrate that through that repeat hydroology we would meet that average 2013-14 demand. we were able to meet that dpapbd through our modeling without imposing any rationing. however, because we have not filled the system we requested that the customers maintain a 10 percent voluntary reduction on their 2013 use. i know there's been a lot of interesting articles in the chronicle and i just want to make it very clear that while we met the state board's requirements, that isn't a planning process that we're comfortable with saying that we can move forward with 100 percent delivery in we're looking at a system that isn't
5:14 am
entirely full. so hopefully we'll get that message straightened out in the next couple of days through the press. looking at our total deliveries, what you're seeing is we have seen some rebound in demand. what i want to note on this slide is two things: first the typed dashed line is where the state water resources control board reduction target was. that's what we have been following all of last year. now that we're in a self-certification period e showing the more separated dashed black line what our 10 percent voluntary reduction target is. while you have seen that demand has rebounded, demand is at about 218mgd and where we're showing ourselves to be on that target line is somewhere around 230. so we're still doing quite a bit better than we even asked our customer within that 10 percent reduction. i should also note here that
5:15 am
that 218 mgd does show additional deliveries to the participating pumpers in the ground water storage and recovery program. we have the in lieu portion of the program turned on so there is about 4 mgd within that 418 that's being used to meet that in lieu recharge of the ground water basin. what you are going to hear later if the ayen today, there's two items that further our drought actions. one item will be additional water waste prohibitions to our regulations and also revising our drought program to include the new information on water supply to meet the required levels of pars4 drought conservation . >> commissioner. >> just a couple comments. first of all, thank you for
5:16 am
bringing up the confusion that was in the press about what our plans are and i think it's important to get that distinction very clear. the good news is we passed the stress test but a stress test isn't a plan and the plan is we will continue with rationing. i think reinforcing that is to build all our budget projections on that. you are probably planning this anyway, but we've been getting this as kind of a periodic update for the drut situation as we proceed. i think it's important we keep getting these. i don't know if we have to keep getting them in exactly the same format but i want to make sure we keep track of our how we're doing against our goal of 10 percent voluntary. i think it's important to keep our eye on the ball and that will help us do that. thank you. >> thank you. anything else?
5:17 am
public comments on the drought update? next item. >> so the next item is clean power sf update. atm barbara hale >> good afternoon, commissioners, barbara hale, assistant general manager for power. i have 4 items to give you a quick update on for our clean power procurement, our overall planning and the sydney plan we talked about and our efforts of collaboration with other cooperating cca's. enrollment, our program continues to successfully serve and receive bill payments from our customers. we have over 7900 customer locations apblds are serving over 7400 active locations. our total opt out percentage is now 1.3 percent,
5:18 am
i reported 1.2 at the last meeting, so it's gone up a small tick. we have a steady 3 percent participation in our super green offering. commissioner caen at the last meeting you requested some information on why people are opting out of our program. customers have, we do survey routinely survey our customers and i will be providing a written memo for you, but by way of preview the two main reasons that customers indicate they are opting out is the fact that the program is government run and secondly that they dislike automatic enrollment, the automatic enrollment feature of the program, which is part of the statutory requirements. so stay tuned, i will provide a written memo so you can see greater detail but those are the top two reasons. we continue to serve customers from our third party supply and from the hetch hetchy project while we have available generation.
5:19 am
we also are seeing some additional sign up activity in advance of our august 1 deadline for enrollment. we have 471 pre-enrollments. 379 of those are for super green so more than 70 percent of the customers who have preenrolled have said they are committed to super green. we are continue to go do some work so we have the supply necessary for those august enrollees. this is for service in november. the market for the premium renewable product like we are using for our program right now is pretty tight. we conducted a and are evaluating our options, we followed the product content policy that you adopted in december and requested only product content category 1, the bundled california renewables and are getting a pretty soft response to that. so we're looking at our options. we'll
5:20 am
continue, we'll come to you july 26 with an action item if we find affordable supply is available. and that would allow us, that action item would allow us to exceed the 50 megawatt average demand that we currently have authority for, as we discussed at the last meeting, and to procure the necessary supply. as i mentioned, supply is tight right now because it's the end of a compliance period for all of the load serving entities so it's a tight market and we're looking at what our options are. and as we look at our options we're guided by the phasing policy that you adopted in december. and i think the main points from the -- there were 6 criteria in the phasing policy. i think the main points that are relevant for us for this small incremental addition would be that the program rates are sufficient to cover the cost and that the program supply commitments are
5:21 am
sufficient to meet the projected customer demand at the levels of renewable that we've committed to, which for this first phase is 35 percent for our green and 100 percent for our super green products. so then the next item is our overall program planning. we are putting together a program growth road map that will help us implement our phasing policy and we're preparing an integrated resource plan. we've heard a number of times about the sydney plan so i wanted to give you a quick rundown on my take on that document. it's really quite a comprehensive review of energy use in sydney and the greater sydney area of australia, both electricity and gas usage is covered in that plan. the focus is really on green house gas reductions. currently almost 90 percent of the electricity used in sydney's local government area comes
5:22 am
from coal-fired power plants. so the focus is really on getting at that problem. they are targeting 100 percent electricity demand being met by local generation by 2030 and in their plan, they are describing that 100 percent electricity demand being 30 percent renewable, 18 percent of that being inside the city of sydney as a target. so that's 30 percent renewable so that compares with our clean power sf program at 35 percent. the state school at 50, just to give you some context, and then 70 percent, the other -- to get to the balance of 100, 70 percent from what they call trigeneration, which would initially be natural gas cogen with the intent to convert that gas from natural gas to municipal solid waste gas, sewer system gas, and livestock
5:23 am
manure. so their focus is to become more independent and free from the current coal-fired resources that they are reliant upon. it also relies on fuel shifting within the plan replacing today's electric heating and cooling with waste heat from the gas-fired generation. so that's the basis for their shift away from coal. and within the 30 percent renewables effort that's described in the plan, they cite a number of practices from around the globe which were informative, some of which we're already undertaking, specifically solar incentives, generation from sewer system gasses, solar on municipal roofs. they are dedicated about $2 million a year it says in the plan toward municipal roof top solar, and building integrated wind.
5:24 am
they also are studying offshore wind, tidal and wave power options are things that we've looked at as well. and then the final item i wanted to report on was our efforts at collaboration. we are working to formalize our legislative and regulatory collaboration with other operating community choice programs, in particular we are incorporating as an association with the operating cca's and we're working on drafting by laws so we'll be hosting the next effort, next meeting on that in the next couple weeks and trying to become a more formal organization to help bolster our advocacy in both sacramento venues and at the california puc on issues like pcia and such that we have a common interest in. those were my 4 items for you today. i'm happy to take any
5:25 am
questions if you have them. thank you. >> thank you. questions? thank you for your report. general comment? mr. brooks. >> good afternoon, commissioners, eric brooks, san francisco clean energy advocates and all the other ones i always mention. i'll keep that part of it brief. so just to speak to that report, it's once again 1.3 percent is the best opt out rate that any community choice program has ever had in the country and there are thousands, there's over a thousand community choice programs. so that's spectacular, your staff is doing a good job. on the sydney report i want to specifically point out that the reason i keep hyping that report and talking about it and sending it to people is not because it's perfect, but because it's a city-wide plan. it is a carefully considered city pf wide plan with financing with how to build a
5:26 am
renewable energy infrastructure throughout the entire city and that is what i feel i and the other advocates feel is the one piece we don't have in place yet, is a plan for that city-wide and for the jobs. thankfully there is going to be a meeting this week with the mayor's office and sf puc staff and department of environment and other staff to start hammering that out, to look at sydney and look at our situation and what we can build here. i should point out there is a big flaw in the sydney concept which is the idea that switching from coal even to biogas is going to really save a lot of carbon emissions. gas has been proven by studies at cornell and colorado university in denver, i think, that it's actually not any better than coal if you look at the fugitive emissions that come from it. so we have to be very
5:27 am
careful, even though i'm hyping this sydney thing, we don't want to use sydney as the model of what the actual resources are, we need to lean on things like battery storage instead of gas. finally i will say the fact the renewable energy market is tight is exactly the reason why we need to finally get started with what advocates have been pushing for for the last 12 years, which is that city-wide renewable energy and efficiency master plan to build it before the 2020 timeline staff has put forward because the sooner we have hundreds of megawatts of our own local generation and resources in efficiency, the less we will have to rely on those tight renewable energy markets and we've got a situation right now, community choice is going gang-busters in california and there are over 80 cities and counties, almost
5:28 am
the entire west coast of california is switching to community choice. and most of them are not doing local buildout plans. so what that's going it create is a situation where there's so much dmrapbld for renewables that the renewables won't be there or they will be too expensive and we won't be able to move fast enough. so now is the time to get started on the local buildout plan. >> hello, mr. freed, good afternoon. >> jason freed, executive officer for lafco i want to thank your staff for the excellent work to move this forward. the opt-out rate is an extremely low amount and something we should hang our hats on. while i expect it to go up a little bit while the final month takes place for the auptding out, you are seeing a very good participation rate and i agree we need to look toward the future, what does that look like. one thing i always want to say
5:29 am
is a cautionary tale. we want to be sure we're not locking ourselves up too much for long-term because the energy market, things you can build are changing so dramatically over the last -- when you look at when we first started talking about creating a cca just two or three years ago, building a cca plan, some of that stuff is outdated. we need to figure out a way to balance both long-term planning with the reality you can create something that's for a 10 year plan. reality is year 2 or 3 you are probably going to be having to throw that plan out in some ways and change it or at least modify it to comply with how the market is in 2 or 3 years. we need to figure out how to strike that right balance with creating a long-term plan with the fact the market will change. i've
5:30 am
asked a few folk, they don't think coming up with a long-term plan is necessarily the best thing for longevity for the program. we need to figure out how to figure out something that gives you where you want to be, consider it a living document, every year you are annually renewing and changing. while the sydney plan is a good one and we have some of that information already, some of the bureau and staff reports, the black and beach report, some of that stuff is already out there, you already have it, tes a matter of how do we start building that program, how do we start financing it in a way that's good for the program. i will be pushing it as well as you how do we balance that all out together to figure out a good plan forward for build out, a good plan forward for future launches that are launching in good quick succession that's responsible to the current rate payers in the program. i am looking forward to the
5:31 am
meeting later this week and will report back as needed. thank you. >> thank you. any other comments on clean power sf and the report? next item on the general manager's report. >> so last night was the proposed state lodge ac a-1 1. >> yes, barbara hale, assistant general manager for power. ac a-1 1 addresses california puc reform. the california constitution gives the california puc certain powers over certain entities subject to the control of the legislature. the puc act set forth the structure, funding and responsibilities of the cpuc. over the years there have been a number of initiatives to modify the
5:32 am
cpuc's scope of authority and internal practices associated with exercising that authority. one of the latest attempts is ac a-1 1, proposed by assembly member mike gotto, who is a democrat from glendale. the bill would authorize the legislature to reassign all or some of the functions of the puc to other departments, boards or entities. as a constitutional amendment it would have needed 2/3 approval in both the assembly and the senate to be placed on the ballot where it would then need a majority approval of the voters of the state of california. the bill was scheduled to be heard yesterday in the senate but it was pulled from committee. you may have seen in your newspaper or social media today that other actions proposed by the governor seem to have displaced
5:33 am
the aca 11 effort. it was pulled because the governor's office worked with assembly member gotto, assembly members jerry hill and mark leno and nnounced the package of reforms stated today. the intent is to bolster governance, transparency and yofr sight of the california puc. the major changes to the california puc would transfer of some of the cpuc's transportation responsibilities to departments within the california transportation agency, the dmv, the california highway patrol. we're looking into whether that transfer of authority is going to affect the regulation of light rail here in the city. right now safety incidents that occur on an overall safety enforcement on the light rail system in the state of california is overseen
5:34 am
by the california public utilities commission and that includes the sfmta facilities. it also is seeking assessment of the california public utilities commission's governance of telecommunications and it directs an assessment of that authority to be provided by january 1 of 2018. the california puc would maintain their existing rate setting and regulatory authority over electricity matters. so, for example, we expect to continue to participate there on rates that are paid for by san francisco residents and businesses by the pcia charges and our street light rates, all of those activities we expect to continue at the california puc under this reform. the reforms would allow any
5:35 am
california agency to participate in the california puc proceedings without official party status. we're looking into whether that would apply to local agencies like ours. it's similar to the legislature, the reforms would require representatives of organizations that lobby the puc to register so you'd have to be a registered lobbyist there under this reform and we're looking into what that means for entities like ourselves who do participate there but we're local government, we're not sure that that registration as lobbyists would be required of us. the reform package does not include the aca 11 content and it's our understanding that the author gotto does not intend to go forward with that proposal. so we've been closely monitoring these sorts of reforms as they come up over the years and will continue to
5:36 am
monitor how the governor's announced reforms play out and then we'll update you as we learn more. happy to take any questions. >> were there any conversations in connection with compliance or waiver under the contracts code? >> not to my knowledge, but i can look into that. >> if you wouldn't mind. >> anything else, commissioners? public comment. >> good afternoon again, commissioners, eric brooks, californians for energy choice. thanks to staff for getting on top of this and keeping us up to speed. the thing we have to remember about this new deal, basically how we got to this point is senator leno, senator hill and some others last year proposed an entire raft of changes to the public utilities commission to reform it and the mayor
5:37 am
vetoed all of them -- i mean the governor vetoed all of them. it's important for folks to remember that jerry brown, you know, he does some good things but two of his top staff people are former pg&e executives, including nancy mcfadden so he has his interest in this and his staff has their interest in this. senator mike gotto has interests to free up communication utilities from proper regulation so that's a dynamic there, then you've got this other dynamic that the senate especially is very angry that the governor keeps vetoing their efforts to try and actually reform this agency. so we've got to be mindful that what with the governor stepping in it's good that they are not just giving the, throwing out the baby with the bathwater and not giving the legislature the power to just
5:38 am
completely get rid of the cpuc, which is what was in aca 11, but at the same time we have to be mindful that the governor's office is probably not going to be aggressive enough. and i think that's really shown by the fact they are barring former utility executives from being on the cpuc for two years. that's pretty sent weak. and consumer watchdog has said in the paper these reforms are not very strong. so we have to remain vigilant. that's one reason i was glad to hear in the previous item staff talk about the fact they are going to form a community choice consortium of community choice agencies to form a consortium because that can help us push hard against some of the problems we've had with the puc that's making it difficult for us to get clean power sf and the other programs
5:39 am
off the ground. so we need to be vigilant on this. the governor because he stepped in is not necessarily the best word or the last word and we need as local communities to really be strong on making ourselves the last word on how our community choice programs and our utilities are managed. thanks. >> thank you. any other comments on this item? that it for the general manager's report? >> yes, that concludes my report. >> thank you, next item, please. >> item 8 is the bawsca update. >>. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i wanted to speak about two things. first, thank you for your helpful discussion, questions and (inaudible) related to the water management plan that this commission discussed at your last meeting two weeks ago,
5:40 am
several issues extremely important to bawsca's agencies and their customers. i was pleased (inaudible) permanent customer status and more water for san jose and santa clara. i am aware palo alto is working with you and believe some briefing from san jose would also be helpful to you. equally, commissioner moran, your comments about the challenges is very helpful. bawsca looks forward to working with your staff on this and developing these critical elements to inform the commission on the water map process. i wanted to touch on the
5:41 am
progress to fix the water map tunnel. i discussed with you puc's approach addressing the challenges to this important issue. since that time the commission has adopted a plan to address this and subsfapx progress has been made on 3 major components of the effort. the capital projects to improve the tunnel in preparation for the repairs and evaluation of the condition, emergency restoration plan to restore service in the event of a tunnel failure before the work is completed, and an emergency response plan to identify alternative water supplies and demand management action in the event of a major failure. your action today in fact to approve the nearly 5 million dollar contract for the mountain tunnel and the repair contract is further evidence. in addition the puc and
5:42 am
recently committed to a higher level of preparedness associated with the potential use of the (inaudible) ready tie to continue to meet wholesale and retail customers alike in the case of a planned or unplanned outage of mountain tunnel. bawsca understands a similar increased commitment with the east bay utility district is the hayward intertie is also being continued. through emergency mutual aid agreements that will protect the water customers from unnecessary risks as mountain tunnel progresses. from bawsca and its member agencies and the water customers they serve ensuring our ability to supply water during emergency outage during mountain tunnel failure is critically important and we will continue to pursue this matter. and i appreciate your time very much. >> thank you very much.
5:43 am
>> what is the, what's happening with the report back on the water management plan agencies and the recommendations? did we set a timeline for that? >> with east palo alto. >> so from my understanding is we're trying to help facilitate with east palo alto and maybe hayward -- not hayward, mountain view. we were talking about hayward. so we're trying to facilitate trying to do things that the contract allows us under the terms of the contract. that's what we're trying to work -- are you talking about --. >> yeah, that and san jose and santa clara, too, just get a sense when we'll be checked back in with and when decision point might be. >> that one is a harder one.
5:44 am
i think we haven't set a date. that one is harder to list. >> my recollection was the process laid out the materials, last meeting, the last meeting was providing input to the staff so that they could come back and basically put out a plan for proceeding. not answers on all those issues but basically how we are going to address them and what our priorities were and i thought that was tentatively scheduled fairly soon. >> it would be good to understand when we'll be hearing back on what the plan is so that we can continue the conversation because i know that we're continuing to get some communications and letters around these issues. >> okay. >> thank you. any public comment on the bawsca update? hearing none, we will go to the
5:45 am
consent calendar. can you please read the items. >> consent calendar, all matters hereunder constitute a consent calendar, are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission and will be acted upon by a single vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission or the public so requests. ?iepb a, approve the plans and specifications and award contract no. hh-986, 2017 mountain tunnel interim repairs in the amount of $4,960,260 to the lowest qualified responsible and responsive bidder, sierra mountain construction. b, approve the plans and specifications and award contract no. wd-2760, 12 ifrpk and 8 inch ductile iron water
5:46 am
main replacement, in the amount of $4,822,740 to the lowest qualified responsible and responsive bidder, m herpb dez construction. county of alameda community develop. agency with an initial term of 3 years and not to exceed 75,000. >> thank you. i would like to remove item 9e from the consent calendar if there is no objection. hearing none we will take that item up after we get a motion on the consent calendar. is there a motion to move the consent calendar? >> so moved. >> second. >> any comments on the remaining items 9a through d, the consent calendar? all those in favor, aye. opposed?
5:47 am
the consent calendar moves forward. now we will take up 9e, which is the issue of the -- i had asked last week to have continued and it's the issue of the memorandum of understanding between the city of san francisco and the county of alameda. and you have an amended resolution before you. there are two whereas clauses that have been added to this resolution and i'm wondering if commission secretary wouldn't mind reading those two whereases into the record. >> we're adding a new, it would be the 6th whereas clause. whereas exhibit a to the mou provided by alameda county is included for purposes of setting bills rates only and
5:48 am
does not constitute a recommended list of materials or resources to be used under this mou and another new whereas clause, whereas consistent with the city and county of san francisco's integrated pest management ordinance, under this mou no pesticide products will be used that are not listed on the most current list from the san francisco department of the environment. >> thank you, mr. ramirez is here, would you like to speak to these. >> i'll be happy to briefly. since your last meeting -- tim ramirez -- i know at your last meeting two weeks ago there was some questions about this agreement and as a consequence since then and up to now we have worked with the department of the environment staff to develop these proposed additions to the resolution to ensure and to ensure all of you that we in fact are following and always follow the ordinance
5:49 am
that governs our use of these materials on the land that we own in fee. we had phone calls with the staff and chris striver had to leave to go to a meeting. i want to also assure commissioners that our staff in the field are very familiar with these rules and responsibilities and hopefully this additional language provides greater transparency for folks tracking our work in the general public in particular because we work very closely with their staff throughout the year on our work. we were very involved this year as part of the annual process to amend their efforts and put additional restrictions on all departments so we're very mindful of the current stat stus of things. i'd be happy to answer specific questions if you have
5:50 am
any. >> thank you very much. is there a motion to move forward these amendments? >> so moved. >> second. >> questions or comments on the amendments? all those in favor, aye. opposed? the amendments move forward. now is there a motion on the overall resolution as amended? >> move it. >> second. >> questions or comments? all those in favor, aye. general comment. i want to thank you, mr. ramirez, for your work on this and i appreciate the updates you have done. mr. brooks. >> good afternoon one more time, commissioners, eric brooks. i'm sustainability chair for the san francisco green party. and i was very glad that this got segregated out last week and this week and that this new language does
5:51 am
appear to be much improved. i mean it really focuses on the fact that we need agencies in the east bay to follow our directions on how we khaifrb the use of pesticides and herbicides in san francisco. with that said, the key thing that we were asking last week, not just green party but other advocates on pesticide issues and that we're asking you to do this week is take the lead on saying, and i think some of you got language that we sent to you, saying that the sfpuc wants especially tier 1 herbicides used on plants to be minimized as much as possible. the reason we're asking for that is recently the san francisco department of environment did change its policies that was partly because of a lot of pressure from the public, the community, saying we are using too many of these chemicals and we need to cut back on them.
5:52 am
the community was asking that tier 1 chemicals not be used at all. that was not what we got to. however, there was an agreement that what the standards are currently would be used until november, at which time we will reassess. and quite possibly and if we the public do our job well, we will have more, stronger restrictions on these and be heading in the direction of geting rid of tier 1 pesticides and herbicides in our public place sz and our watersheds and our natural areas. so the language that i sent to you is important because we -- and none of it is binding, it just says that the sf puc, i don't have it right in front of me because i couldn't get the password while i was trying to speak at the same time, but it just says that the sf puc's objective is to minimize as much as possible and where possible end the use of tier 1
5:53 am
herbicides and direct the general manager to pursue that under this mou agreement. the one other comment i would have, and it applies directly to the amendments you have done, so please if you would add some language to that effect based on what we sent you. the one other comment i have from some other colleagues in the language you have added right here we want to make sure that oakland can't hire private contractors that can then break these rules. so we might want to ask the city attorney what the status of that is and if language needs to be indicated in here for independent contractors as well, so if you can bring up the language i emailed and possibly add some of that we'd really appreciate it. thanks. >> so my understanding is the puc is involved in collaborating with the
5:54 am
department of the environment on an analysis of the pesticides scheduled to be completed before the end of the year. >> right, that language applies to all departments, i got a chance to look at it and it's lifted directly from the language that's part of their adoption package from march and we are working with them to prepare for november and it applies to all city departments. part of the reason our amendments a little more general because this is a multiple year agreement and their recommendations may change in november. we didn't want it to be restricted based on the current language because we want to be sure we always follow the requirements whatever they are and we want to be sure we follow the umbrella and the kurpbtd restriction package in march, but anything that changes in the future would also necessarily be covered still the way this is written because this is a 3 year agreement and we didn't want it to be outdated and use language that was only part of this year's
5:55 am
adoption package. >> that sounds right. i would like if possible toward the end of the year, maybe november, december, whenever the analysis is done, to get a report on what the findings are and what the recommendations end up being if we could just to make sure we keep track of that. >> we will be happy to share the information and we can only do what we are allowed to do under city and county ordinance. what they do on other property we have no say, but if they are on our property, they have to follow city/county law. >> appreciate that. other public comment on the amended resolution? hearing none, all those in favor, aye. opposed? and the motion carries. thank you.
5:56 am
next item, please ?oo ?a item 10, approve amendment no. 10 to agreement no. cs-954b with a time extension of six months. >> is there a motion to approve? >> so moved. >> second. >> public dmepbts, item no. 10? all those in favor, aye. opposed? motion carries. next item please, no. 11. >> item 11, public hearing, discussion and possible action to adopt changes to the 2015-2016 drought program to ease mandatory reductions on outdoor irrigation with potable water. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon, commissioners, paula keyhoe, manager of water resources. the item before you today is to adopt changes to the 2015-2016 drought program. the changes include to kees the current 25 percent mandatory reduction in
5:57 am
use by dedicated irrigation customers and corresponding xus use charges, to reduce the current mandatory reduction in water use by interruptable customers from 30 percent to a 10 percent mandatory reduction, subject to excess use charges and to revert the reduced wait wauft err flow factors that have been adjusted to reflect a 25 percent reduction in irrigation usage back too their pre-adjusted redice the values. i'd like to note the item also continues to call for a 10 percent voluntary reduction in water use by all of our customers system wide. we have had tremendous response from our customers over the past few years. in 2014 and 2015 we sked our customers to cut back by 10 percent. they exceeded that target both years and as wie maintain our call for 10
5:58 am
percent voluntary system-wide reduction in water use we will continue to implement our comprehensive retail conservation program here in san francisco. i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> question. do you have an estimate of how much water is involved in these 3 items? >> how much water is involved? i can tell you how much water we have saved in our sectors from last year. >> okay. >> in terms of irrigation customers last wreer in 2015 we saved 21.7 percent. and in the single family multi family we have saved over 24 percent in those two sectors. >> so if the irrigation, do you know how much they use in a year? i would expect -- a whole lot. >> irrigation customers, we
5:59 am
have about 1600 irrigation customers and we have approximately 800 interruptable customers. >> these are our interruptable customers as opposed to the interruptable customers who are wholesale. >> yes, i'm averaging retail accounts only. >> so the expectation would be the retail customers could relax from 25 percent --. >> remaining on the voluntary call for 10 percent or the interruptable going from 30 percent to 10 percent mandatory, subject to excess use charges. >> thank you. >> okay, is there a motion? we're in a drought, right? it seems like we're enter ago 50-year drought so i think we proceed cautiously here. we don't really know what the magic number is, probably. we're hoping people will
6:00 am
continue to conserve. we're going to continue to be aggressive with our conservation measures, continue to ask people to volunteer. hopefully people will stay at the 20 percent plus level but our reservoirs are not full. >> correct. >> we're going to proceed cautiously. correct? >> i think it's appropriate, we had such incredible response from a voluntary request for reduction. in years prior we have struggled to get that degree of cooperation with mandatory programs and i think that that's a very important, you know, difference in the way this drought was handled. i think as the situation eases up a little bit it makes sense to ease up on some of the most severe parts of that plan, keeping in mind that we are still looking for the 10 percent reduction, we expect that san franciscoans will continue to honor that and probably exceed it
6:01 am
significantly. but lifting some of the mandatory elements i think makes a lot of sense just in sense of keeping faith with people. >> and we expect to see continued savings and obviously to continue to implement our comprehensive retail program with our rebates and audits and our grant programs to our customers. >> we keep getting those drought reports, we will keep our eye on it. >> so, motion? >> i will move the item. >> second. >> any public comments on this item? all those in favor, aye. opposed? and the motion carries forward. thank you. next item, please. >> the next item would be public comment on matters in closed session. >> is there any public comment on matters to be discussed? >> would you like me to read the items? item 14 is
6:02 am
conference with real property negotiator property at 38240 canyon heights drive, fremont, california, under discussion payment and price. 16 is litigation, allied insurance company versus city and county of san francisco, item 17, unlitigated claim, raymond kruse and ashly kruse versus precision engineering. 21, existing litigation, pacific gas and electric, 22, existing litigation, pacific gas and electric and item 23, existing litigation, pacific gas and electric and 24 will not be
6:03 am
heard today. >> any public comments on any of these items? hearing none, is there a motion to assert attorney-client privilege? >> make a motion to assert the >> make a motion to assert the attorney-client privilege . >> comments on that? we will now move into closed session. (closed session).
6:04 am
6:05 am
>> we love our parks, but we love... >> and the community who is really the core of it all, came together and said what we need is a place for our teenager to play, not just play grounds for the kids and soccer fields but we need a skate park that will keep the kids home in the neighborhood so they can play where they live. >> the children in the neighborhood and it will be a major boone. and we have geti