Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  December 13, 2019 8:00am-9:01am PST

8:00 am
and we're obligated to show that we have the supply or are going to get the supply to match up to those population and job projections. >> we submit to d.w.r.? >> they get all of the ones in the state and review them for -- actually this list of things here, which is we're suppose to cover our system and service area and our urban water management plan does cover our retail demands. the one that obligated water users to cut the demand by 20%. san francisco already complies with this. so that's a fairly easy thing for us top.
8:01 am
for climate change, things like that, that we have to take into account. as we deal with those things, we need to deal with those in updates what conservation programs do we have in place to make sure that we're efficiently using the supply. then theft lay, we have to have a water shortage timcy plan in there, which is our potential in times of a drought. that's an obligation of all water suppliers in california to demonstrate we thought ahead to drought conditions and have a contingency plan for that. and so our current water urban management plan has one of those. and it will be updated as part of the next update, which is in 2020. that's the basics of the urban water management planning act,
8:02 am
which ubiquitous throughout california. everyone has to do it, to demonstrate they're thinking ahead in concert with the local planning agency on how to deal with water supplies in the future. next, that's the guidance document that summarizes the conservation program that will take place over the next five years, when we do the plan. it's specific measures to be implemented. the estimated water savings costs and effects on demand. it explains factors that shapes the criteria used to evaluate measures. so, for example, in san francisco we emphasize fixture replacement. because that's what we found to be the most efficient thing to do to achieve water savings here, for many of our customers outside of san francisco, they would really focus on more water efficient irrigation, because that's the single biggest use out there, that is actually been reduced a lot of our time. i think as you saw from presentation that nicole made at
8:03 am
the last meeting, where they reduced their water demands over time substantially. and just here's a measure of the -- you've seen similar graphs before. we've had a steady decline in the per-person, per-day. we're now down to -- actually this is the blue bars are the gross level, which we're down to about 80 gallons per person per day. that's basically total system -- total demand in san francisco, divided by the population of san francisco. and then the lower, grayer bars that are shown there, those are the residential gallons per person, per day. so that you see the residential use is down right now. it's down to about 41 gallons per person per day among the lowest in the state. so we've had the steady decline, while population has increased. but we expect population to increase more and so we're probably getting to diminishing returns on how low people can go, while as we increase
8:04 am
population and jobs, overall water use is starting to tick up in our future projections. so what is the water supply assessment? this is also required by state law. and it documents retail supplies, demands and demands of the proposed project, because this is the project-based document. and references the most recent urban water management plan to cover what the setting is. if determines if water supply is proposed for the project. and that is the planning department. so the document that we prepare is included in the record and utilized by the planning department. emphasize for this commission an approval of the p.w.s.a. is not an approval of the proposed
8:05 am
project. it's essentially a legal requirement. we have to provide that information to the planning department, so that they can then make a decision on the project overall. so the project require a water supply assessment. i won't go into the details here. but basically relatively large residential developments, shopping centers, office buildings, hotels, motels, industrial facilities, 500 dwelling units. so it's basically it's a large project document. it's not looking at like a three-unit condo or something like that. we, of course, see many of those in san francisco, with a lot of the redevelopment going on. now we've had to make some changes. what we do in our water supply assessments, based on the bay delta water quality control plan, back in december of 2018. that's put us into a challenging situation, where there's
8:06 am
uncertainty about the future and we've got to deal with that. so we had to deal with that for projects in the last round. we analyzed three supply scenarios. one is the status quo, where basically it's out of the same analysis as before, just using the 2015 urban water management plan. second would be voluntary agreement. qualitative analysis about that, because as we talked about, we have a voluntary agreement that would require less water to be released to the river, that has a lesser impact on the water supply. we think would have better overall benefits. but that's still under review, as i mentioned earlier, that's got an uncertain future. then the last would be the bay delta plan amendment, which we have indicated would cause this to have to go to higher levels of rationing, up to 40%, 50% rationing in times of drought. so all of those are possible scenarios of the future. and we don't know which one actually will come to fruition.
8:07 am
so we have also assume the same total retail demand projection, as those in the 2015 urban water management plan for all of those scenarios. and we reference our level of service goal, which is no more than 20% systemwide rationing during dry years, at a given demand. and then we've also identified additional water supply proms in there, as we've talked about here. we're beginning planning for additional water supply projects, because regardless of which future we face, we do need to develop additional water supplies. so we need to be moving forward on that. we also for the large projects require use of our non-potable water calculator to estimate the proposed potable and non-potable demands. that's basically a formula on how to determine what the demands of the project are. we estimate the level of rationing to be imposed in the proposed project on the severe drought. and we reiterated that the proposed project does not cause the overall shortfall.
8:08 am
that that is a collective thing and that's where we are now. and we've talked about this at prior commission meetings, where the projects we're looking at now, have to reuse their wastewater in some ways. part of the non-potable ordinance. so their demands definitely are less, because they have that in combination with the most water efficient fixtures. these are the most low water-demanding folks in the city. so that's the overall, the legal requirements of what we have to do. we have to provide the urban water management plan, individual project water supply assessments to the planning department for dealing with the review of major projects. now i'm going to move on to how we actually plan for our water supply, because that enters into how the water supply assessment is developed. and i will start with 1991, when it was certainly deep into a drought at that point. and again our system is
8:09 am
storage-dependent. we don't have the first rights to the river. so how much water we can store is what's important to us. and our water supply is driven by drought conditions. there's plenty of water in normal years and wet years. but extended droughts are where we have a big challenge. so the level of service objective, that was adopted in 2008 for attar -- for water supply, basically making it a through an eight and a half year planning scenario, 1997 -- with no more than 20% rationing at a total system demand of 265 million gallons per day. that 265 million gallons per day is the 184 million gallons per day, that we are obligated to make available for our customers, and 81 million gallons per day for san francisco as an allocation. so this graph shows how the design drought works. in this case, the demand of
8:10 am
265 million gallons per day. i'll show one later that's about 223 million gallons per day. we've done this at different demand levels. basically what's on the left access is the total system storage, and on the bottom you see 86 through 87 fiscal year, all the way out to 92 and switches to 76, 77 and 77-78. what you see here, during that time that drought exists, you see, you know, declining levels of storage, as it continues over time. and this assumes that we go to 10% rationing at the end of the second year of the drought. and to 20% rationing at the end of the fourth year of the drought. and because we don't have enough water currently to meet the 265 demand, we also would have to go to 25% rationing in the six and a half years of the drought.
8:11 am
now this is a planning scenario. this is not an operating scenario. so we use these numbers as guidance. this is where you'd have to tick off these increasing levels of rationing. because what happens at the very end is we get to what's called dead pool. that means there's only water left, you can't get out of the reservoir. that basically zero. i know one person who wouldn't have a job if we got our levels to zero, that would be me. you might be -- [laughter] >> you'd be first. >> yeah. i'd be first. so what we show here is that probably about three years before the end, and really depends, we're always doing some water supply planning. but we would have to start to take some emergency action when we get to -- in sight of what we get to zero. because we can't get to zero and then just wish we had some water. you know, there needs to be something in place. whether it's a transfer or some additional storage or we hope for rain, but you can't just hope to rain.
8:12 am
we have to plan for it. that's why i had that notation there, that we would have to start some emergency action at that point in time, otherwise we run the risk of running out of water. >> wait. can i stop you there. >> sure. >> i think i'm finally understanding this a little bit. so this is the eight and a half year design drought scenario. >> yes. >> which we've seen, according some people, once in the last 1200 years, according to the tree rings, whatever it is. right. that's what this was based on was that one period of drought, that was pretty scary. >> yeah. >> that we were planning for. so i just want to be clear. that's why we have eight and a half. y , the '86 through '92 was the drought experienced when we decided to go this direction and this was developed actually during the last licensing process. this was a process in the 1994-1995 range that
8:13 am
commissioner moran participate indeed, we were talking about -- how do we plan for the future water supply, given we had the very stair scary experience. >> i understand. we used somewhat of the outlier experience, the extreme experience. the conservative model. >> right. >> i don't know. with climate change -- >> i know, i know. >> all of the outlier, -- >> i know. >> it is extreme. but that is the challenge we have is if we look back, we can say, oh, yeah it might happen once in a while. looking forward, potentially scary future. >> right. right. i get it. the other question is on the 265. because you're saying that we would have to go into water supply emergency action. but we -- we haven't come close to our 265 yet. >> oh, yes. >> and i know we have a responsibility, on obligation, contractual obligation to deliver. but we haven't come close to that number, right. >> that's correct. >> i don't quite understand why
8:14 am
we would have to go into water supply emergency action, it's not need-based. >> this is assuming we're at a demand of 265. this is all built around the presumption that you're at that demand, starting here, and these are the levels you have to get to to be able to survive. and if you get to that point and nothing has changed, then you better get on your horse at that point. the next slide actually will show a demand of 223 million gallons per day, which is much closer to where we are right now. >> right. okay. i just wanted to kind of really understand that. >> yeah. i think that -- i think you do understand that that way. this is a projected scenario. it's not our current scenario at all. >> okay. great. >> so here we're looking at -- and i put this slide together to kind of talk through some different thoughts on this. this is rationing through the design drought, if the bay delta plan is in effect.
8:15 am
so when n-our case, what we've looked at there is we have to actually start rationing more deeply earlier. so that you end up, after the first year, have for ration at a level of 40% and after the fourth year, you have to ration at a level of 50% to be able to survive, if it extends that full eight and a half years. and, of course, you know, i did that in here. you hit the emergency button. usually that's, you know, probably three, maybe four years before the end of a drought. but you better have something lined up, because you can't get to zero. now i use this for comparison with what the river trust has suggested, that we should just use the 86 or '92 drought and they've shown a chart on this. i wanted to show what they're basically projecting, which is, you know, they say you can make through '86 through '92 with 10% and 20% rationing two, four
8:16 am
years into the drought. the problem is their analysis ends with zero water at the end. again if the next year is dry, you know, you're up a dry creek with no paddle and no boat, no nothing. that's the strug we have in looking at how to plan for the future is how far to go out there and we've settled on this one design drought as something, because we're so storage-driven, it is protective for us. >> sorry. quick question. what is t.r.t. again? >> river trust. >> that's where they have put up -- basically a table that shows, see, you get to the end of this and a little bit of water level. i said let's look at the next line. and see what happens there. so at the same time we know we have to develop water supplies for a lot of different reasons.
8:17 am
will there be demand increases because of the planned bay area projections. knowing that all of these projects will take time to develop. we're really looking at a variety of projects in the tuolumne river area, doing things in conjunction with our partners there, the irrigation district, trying to develop additional supplies. also within the region we're looking at various recycled water projects and looking at potential reservoir expansion and again at cal riveras where we can store water from really wet years, but then would go and be stored there in dry years so rely on that water in dry years. we also are looking at local
8:18 am
water supply projects, purified water on the east side and satellite facility to serve dual-plumed office buildings there. again we plan for a future, we're concerned about the effects of the regulation on our water supply. so regardless of what future comes along, though, we've begun the process of planning for additional water supplies. and that's the sum and substance of what i'll be saying to the planning department and engaging in a dialogue with them. happy to answer any questions. >> i'm trying to think of my question. this presentation came about in large measure because of the rash of water supply assessments that we processed earlier this year. that being one part of our
8:19 am
reality. it is absent something on adopting that or replacing it as scheduled to go into effect over the next few years. i guess the message -- and i think your presentation covers it all. as far as the key takeaway messages, that i would hope are conveyed to the commission, is that, number one, the planning scenario that we use, we're accused of, is having a planning scenario which is arbitrary. that we just kind of pick a number out of there. and what we have responded to is saying -- not arbitrary, it is a judgment based on experience. and i think that that's -- you know, one message that should get through.
8:20 am
second is that we have water supply challenges with or without the state boards order. >> that's correct. >> and that is going to require us to pursue a variety of water supply projects that require our funding and planning commission approval, so they can expect, even under the most favorable circumstances to see us come forward with proposals for water supply projects. then the third is that the challenge presented by the state board's plan is significant. and that we haven't done anything predecisional in saying this is what we're going to do about it. but the discussion that this
8:21 am
commission has clearly been, we need to prevent the 50% curtailment is not okay. and that we are acutely aware of that. and that if we are not able to get the voluntary agreements approved and in place, that we will have -- that those water supply needs will be far more acute and pursuing aggressively with the planning commission's approval as well. i guess those are the big takeways. and the thing that is hardest i think to grapple with is what 265 means and what it represents. and i'm glad that you included the graph that showed today's demand levels. the 223 or so i think that's important. the 265 is something that we're not currently projecting to
8:22 am
reach, within i guess even by 2045. getting close. but i don't think we actually get there. but that that remains an obligation that we have for our wholesale customers and for our own city, as we provide for the long-term health and economic stability of the city. so that that number is real and is important. it's a little hard to talk about. >> yes. >> so practice. [laughter] but that's a point that needs to be made. >> yeah. and i'm not sure what planning department staff will be -- what comments they'll be making there. but i would hope that they would speak to the plan bay area, that they're plan on basically bringing forward a new version of that to the planning commission sometime in the next few months.
8:23 am
and all reports are the numbers are going to be bigger for population and jobs. and i think i mentioned previously that in the 2001 -- 2010 urban water management plan, we had, i called it head room, 10 million gallons per day of head room. by the 2015 plan, that head room had gone away because of population and job projections. and the next projections are suppose to be higher. so san francisco's demand, under the new plan, presumably will exceed 81 million gallons per day by some amount. >> not only have we seen population grow and demand go down, i mean, our numbers have decreased. and so the hope is that we continue to innovate, we continue to bring supply online. we continue to keep pace, if you will. >> well, that demand has come down that way because we have invested heavily our money in
8:24 am
conservation that will ultimately take place, as a result of the plumbing code. that line is starting to flatten out as plumbing code takes control and then we're talking about it. because there won't be new things to invest in, unless something gets really creative out there. >> one of your charts talked about kind of the change in how we do budget by assessments these days. and one of the elements of that was trying to estimate the effect of curtailment on a specific project. >> yes. >> what are you going to say about that? >> actually i will say that, as we've looked at that, we think that those projects, as i mentioned here previously, the ones we're talking about now are ones that will be the lowest water users in the city, because
8:25 am
of the fact they have to comply with the non-potable ordinance and we have all of the most modern plumbing fixtures, most efficient fixtures. so that they will be very close to the health and safety level that we need to maintain. and so the room for them to reduce any further is very, very small, because they've taken their reductions up front basically. so looking for them to ration more is not going to be a successful strategy. >> yeah. i think that's a valuable point. and part of how we deal with population growth, we have to build housing and that new housing has more efficient fixtures and all of that. i think the thing that we haven't really -- we haven't come up with a formula yet for how we determine and how we apply a health and safety minimum. >> that's correct.
8:26 am
>> i know there is one. and we have had some prior attempts to come up with that. that's where our recent policy, that we adopted, stopped short of doing that. >> yeah. >> and that's something that we still have on our agenda to grapple with as we go forward. >> and we have to deal with that within the next year, in dealing with the urban water management plan. because i think that's the place where that has to be there, as part of the shortage allocation plan. >> okay. thank you. >> i'm sorry. you might have said this. when is the urban water management plan update due? >> well, it's due, you know, theoretically due july 1st, 2020. each cycle the department of water resources has been late getting out guidance. so the 2015 plan actually came out in january 2016 or somewhere around there. so it could be as late as early 2021. we haven't gotten an exact date yet. but we're starting to gear up
8:27 am
for that effort now. >> is that a standard template for all urban centers? >> yeah. >> there might be a piece in there that's unique to our situation? >> well, every water supplier, that has more than 3,000 connections, has to do an urban water management plan. ours is actually a little unique because if you look at, you know, the bay delta water quality plan applied to the tributaries of the san joaquin river, nobody else has a pending requirement like that. so we have this unique situation that we have to deal with. i suppose the city of modesto would have to deal with it to some extent as well, as well as oakdale. and they're not facing the growth issues we're facing. they probably have a different take on it overall for various different reasons. >> the state wouldn't put
8:28 am
specific guidelines in the template? >> no. >> right. >> we have to make it up ourselves. >> thank you. commissioners, anything else? any public comment on this item? thank you very much. and good luck on thursday. i'll be eager to hear what the questions are and what the responses are. our next item, please, madam secretary. >> item 11 is new commission business. >> any commissioners, new business. i'm assuming no public comment. >> item 12 is a consent calendar. considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission. only acted upon by a sing vote of the commission. no separate discussion until the public so requests, in which event the matter will be removed from the calendar as considered
8:29 am
as a separate item. >> i'll move approval. >> second. >> all those in favor? >> sorry. public comment on the consent calendar? all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed? motion carries. >> item 3rd, approve the specifications and award contract number. in the amount of 27,577,000 with the duration of 690 consecutive calendar days to the responsible bidder submitting the lower bid. >> good afternoon, commissioners. dan wade. assistance general manager, allowed me the opportunity to come to speak to this item. i have accepted a position in the private sector to help
8:30 am
provide leadership for growing water resources practice here in the west and throughout the united states. the opportunity to work is the sfpucand working with the commission. ever since i came here from the private sector in may of 2007. in my new role, i'll continue to work on dams and levies and other water resources infrastructure. but i will always remember this as being the highlight of my career to date. it was a once in a lifetime opportunity to be involved in an amazing program, led by amazing people. and overseen by an amazing
8:31 am
commission. it's truly been an honor to work side-by-side with such dedicated officials. and to serve the public in that capacity. i'll miss being here. it's been hard to let go. but this is my last commission meeting. and i appreciate the opportunity to let you know and to thank you for your support over 30s last 12 1/2 years. >> oh, such big news. well, congratulations, first of all. and thank you on behalf of the commission for all of your work these past 12 1/2 years. it's really been remarkable to see you lead the program and how successful it's been and just want to express our deep, deep appreciation to you and our well
8:32 am
wishes in your next venture. so thank you. and commissioners, would you like to say anything? >> yeah. you're the second head of this program that's gone to private sector. julie being the first. you follow in julie's footsteps was a real challenge. the support you have is not given, it's earned. and part of earning that is basically earning our trust. and you have done that time and time again. you've been straight with us. you've told us when things have gone bad. you have always tried to tell us what to do about it. you've been very forthright and in addition to being an excellent engineer and manager. so that is well earned. your advancement is well earned. we do wish you the best.
8:33 am
we hate to see you go, but it's a good thing, that our project creates an environment where you can succeed and do better. we can take some pride in your advancement as well. >> thank you. thank you. and i hope that you'll express to commissioner kim for me my appreciation as well. i wish i could have told ler directly told. if you could pass that along. >> she would be sorry not to wish you well on her own. >> by the way, i don't see the opportunity is going to is better, just different. so i appreciate your kind words. and so with that, i'd like to request approval the plans and specifications and ten-year capital improvement program contract for the long-term improvements, alameda watershed center in the amount of
8:34 am
$27,577,000 with the duration of 690 consecutive calendar days, to s.j. amarosa. i'd be happy to answer any questions about the item. >> i think we're too shocked to say anything. [laughter] but, anyway, thank you. i haven't known you that long. i could say the same thing that the other commissioners have said, because in that short potrero, you've certainly given, that's what you give off. and that's how you approach your work. so again thank you. >> thank you. >> and move to approve. >> i think we already -- had a motion. >> a second? >> any public comment on this item? hearing none, all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed? motion carries. thank you. and congratulations again. >> thank you. next item, please. >> clerk: item 14, authorize the release of 391,392 construction funding for the green
8:35 am
infrastructure grant awarded to the san francisco unified school district, to construct features at lafayette elementary. >> commissioners, is there a motion on this item? moved. >> second. >> second. any public comment on this item? all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? motion carries. next item, please. >> item 15, adopt a resolution approving the 2020 update to the san francisco p.u.c.'s wildfire mitigation plan. >> commissioners, is there a motion? would you like to hear an update from -- >> i move. unless you'd like to hear. >> we heard her presentation. so unless you have an update from that. >> so there's a motion on the table. is there a second? >> second. >> any public comment? all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed the motion carries.
8:36 am
next item, please. >> clerk: item 16, approve the resolution modifying the on-site water reuse water rules. >> is there a motion? >> move to approve. >> there's a motion. is there a second. >> second. >> any public comment on this item? all in favor? >> aye. >> motion carries. and passes. next item, please. >> item 17. approve a resolution -- >> there's a motion from commissioner maxwell. is there a second? >> sure. >> second. commissioner moran. the public comment? all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries. next item, please. >> item 18, adopt a policy on tis continuation of of water
8:37 am
service for nonpayment. >> there's a motion. is there a second? second on this item? >> second. >> second. all -- public comment? would you like to speak? it looks like you're making your way. i'm pleased to see this on the agenda. we've talked about this before. maybe you could just come up for a moment. it's an important issue. i know, sorry. you thought you could get out. >> good afternoon. i'm the customer service operations manager. slide, please. just one second. >> take your time.
8:38 am
>> continuation of the national water service water paint. the policy is to comply with senate bill 998, the water protection act passed on september 2018. the act requires adoption of the policy, which is the purpose of this bill, of this recommended action. this slide highlights some of the requirements, that are already in compliance with.
8:39 am
the bill requires a minimum of 60 days delinquency before shut-off. we did not discontinue water service before 60 days. actually per our process, it's around 70 days. it's also to set the maximum dollars reconnection fees for low-income customers. the commission approved elimination of the shut-off and turn-on fees for all customers on alemany 2018. -- may 2018. also requires payment plans to customers and -- and in compliance with both requirements. the requirements are adopt a policy, which is in front of you. we need to publish it on our website. it should be available in english, spanish, chinese, vietnamese and other languages. the change to the process will be in how we notify our
8:40 am
customers, that they are at the risk of being shut off with water service. currently we post our customers by posting a door hanger at the property, the new change we'll be mailing a notice to customers. the notice will also be provided in the languages listed above. the other change is that we are required to report on the number of water service connections to the state board and to publish them on the website. thank you. >> thank you very much. so we have a motion. we have a second. any further public comment on this item? all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? motion carries. thank you for your presentation. our next item, please. >> clerk: item 19. improving and authorize the general manager to execute an agreement between the bay area water supply and conservation agency. and the san francisco p.u.c. regarding operation and allocation costs for the violet water transfer.
8:41 am
>> good afternoon, steve ritchie again. this is to approve and authorize and execution of the agreement between the bay area water supply and conservation agency and the san francisco p.u.c. and the agreement with the city of hayward, east bay municipal district, regarding a one-time use of the hayward for the pilot water transfer. this has been something that nicole i'm sure will make some comments on, because this has been in the works for six years to try to figure out what it would take to actually get a water transfer, it happens in this case to be through the hayward inner tide. taking water from east bay mud system and then passing it through the inner tide into our system, which really goes to the city of hayward. so they have been looking for a long time at, you know, what does it take to do it. and this has been long effort trying to actually put in line all of the institutional rates. that's the big issue of water transfers, more than plumbing
8:42 am
and more than availability of waters. really can you get governmental agencies to work together in some of these difficult challenging situations. and so bawsca to be commended for sticking with it, to actually do it and learn some lessons from it, on what it takes to accomplish a water transfer. >> great. thank you. so what is this going to accomplish? what's the overall goal? >> the overall goal here is to actually test out the system of executing a water transfer. the actual amount of water being moved in this transfer is actually quite small, it's water that's being purchased from the amador water agency in the watershed. their goal was to actually, you know, see if they could -- what it takes to actually make a transfer, so hopefully in the future when we get into dry years, when you really want to get a transfer of some kind, that you know the hurdles you have to get over and have learned lessons about how best
8:43 am
to get over those hurdles. >> gotcha. thank you. so how about we put a motion on the table, if there's anyone interested. a second and then we'll get public comment. >> second. >> so i have one public comment from nicole. and then we'll open it up. >> good afternoon, commissioner. nicole, bawsca c.e.o. i'll keep my remarks brief. but i do appreciate steve with this pilot. it is a significant effort that the agency and my agency has taken on the past six years to really prove, in fact, the ability to move water through the system. and understand what that takes. and our expectation is that when this is done, we will prepare a report and present the findings in that report to you. until that time, we're just kind of playing it low key, because you never know. it's still not done. it won't be done until that water move.
8:44 am
it's a fairly significant effort. it's taking five public agencies to get the water from its source to the customers. that's not insignificant. but i also wanted to take my time most importantly today to thank general manager kelly, a.g.m. steve ritchie, city attorney's office, the staff at the p.u.c., the list to get this agreement and the multiple agreements with hayward done is not -- has been significant. and i appreciate their efforts to make that happen. so i'd be pleased to answer any questions, certainly i'll come and give you a report when this is completed. >> well, i for one would be very interested in the findings. i think there's a lot of opportunity and potential with water transfers. when do you think -- >> it's going to occur in january. so when i can do is plan to give you a brief report in february, about how it went. and then the report will take several months to get out. >> that would be great. we would love to hear about it. >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? hearing none, all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed?
8:45 am
motion carries. thank you. next item, please. >> clerk: would you like for me to read the closed session items? >> yes, if you would. >> item 22, -- 23. exiting litigation. and item 25, city and county of san francisco versus pacific gas and electric federal energy regulatory commission complaint. >> thank you very much. any public comment on matters to be discussed? hearing none, i'll entertain a motion to assert -- >> a privilege? >> is there a second? >> second.
8:46 am
>> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? we will now move into closed session.
8:47 am
>> my biggest take away is that you can always find a way. most people who go into public
8:48 am
policies really want to make a difference and have a positive impact on the world, and that's what i love most about my job. i feel like every day at the sfpuc all of the policies that we're involved in have major impacts on people's lives both here in the city and across the state and the nation. in 2017, california senate bill 649 was released. it would have capped the fees that cities such as ourselves would be able to charge telecom companies for the right to use or poll for their cell equipments, and it also would have taken away city's abilities to negotiate what the equipment looks like, where they could be placed, and potentially we could even be in a position where we would not be able to stop them putting equipment especially on our light poles. my name is emily lamb and i am director of policy affairs for the sfpuc. i really am involved with a
8:49 am
team of people and building a strong coalition of a team of folks. we are working very closely to get this bill defeated and ultimately vetoed by governor brown. >> emily is one of those people who is a bright star with regards to her passion, her commitment, her tenacity and she's just a great, fun person. she's all of the things that you would want in an employee and an ambassador for our organization. >> my biggest take away is you can always find a way, especially when something is important and worth fighting for, if you put your heads together with people, and you collaborate, that usually you can find some solution to get to your goal. in this case, it was a bill that most people considered politically difficult to complete, and we didn't have a
8:50 am
chance of doing it, but with a lot of strattizing with a lot of different partners, we got it done. my name is emily lamb, and i am the director of policy and government affairs, and i've been with sfpuc for 2.5 years.
8:51 am
8:52 am
8:53 am
8:54 am
8:55 am
8:56 am
8:57 am
8:58 am
8:59 am
9:00 am