Instructions for providing remote Public Comment are below Public Comment callin 1 415 6550001 meeting id 2495 057 6064 thank you, before i start, i would like to recognize the lands before the Public UtilitiesCommission Findings and recognize the tribal land and the tribe, have established a working partnership with sf puc and within the many greater San Francisco area today. Please call the first item. Clerk 3. Adopt renewed findings under state urgency legislation to allow hybrid inperson meetings during the covid19 emergency and direct the Commission Secretary to agendize a similar resolution at a Commission Meeting within the next 30 days. Thank you. Will you please open Public Comments . Are there any public members to provide Public Comment . We have one public caller. That is line 3. Public caller, i have opened your line. Do you wish to provide Public Comment to item no. 3 . No response. Thank you. Item no. 3 Public Comment is closed. We have a motion and second. All in favor say, aye. Aye. Any opposed . We have 3 ayes. The 2e78 passes. Next item. 4. Approval of the minutes of august 23, 2022 commissioners, any comments . I have one comment during the design drought discussion. What was reported, i said the design drought was not determinate we have comments by email and they have been distributed to the commission. Did you open Public Comment . Members of the public who wish to make two minutes of remote Public Comment on item no. 4, approval of the minutes, please press star 6 to raise your hand to speak. Do we have any members of the public wishing to provide Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, do you have any callers to provide Public Comment for item no. 4 . Madam clerk, there is one person in the queue. You have two minutes to comment on item no. 4. Public speaker not just a user, water user. David i wasnt planning to speak but an item that i saw on the top of page 6 that read comment should read Public Comment. Thats all i have on this item. Thank you very much. Thanks for your comment. Madam secretary, there are no other Public Comments on the queue. Thank you. Public comment for item 4 is closed. May i have a motion and second . We have a motion and second. Roll call, please. [roll call] you have 3 ayes. The minutes are adopted. Next item 5. 5. General Public Comment members of the public may address the commission on matters that are within the commissions jurisdiction and are not on todays agenda do you have any Public Commenters . There are 11 persons on the call. Public speaker eileen, this time speaking on San Francisco neighborhoods. On the state land Commission Meeting august 3rd, we spoke on general Public Comment. The state Land Commission has three members, betty yu and the state governor. At the june 23rd meeting, i commented on the pump station for the water system. In a recent multiagency report titled californias water supply strategy, adapting for a drier future, reached out multiple times and a possible demonstration project off San Franciscos ocean beach and study on electricity. The permitting process for an open water pump station could take 1020 years. Encouraging the slc to confirm the accuracy. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next caller, i have opened your line. You have two minutes. Public speaker thank you. My name is phil martin, the sierra Club Representative for the bay area water stewards. Im also a San Francisco resident and a customer of the sf puc. I attended the august 23rd hearing of the design drought. At the commission hearing, there was an on going dialogue. I appreciate that statement. On going dialogue fails to address the key issues along the river. Steve ritchie made the point that the water problem is enormous and behind the current design. Please note, there is nothing scientific about this. There is an historic selection to the drought and to the numerous scientific studies showing how the california rivers have reduced available fish and wildlife habitat. These studies further show that existing habitat is efficient for existing wildlife population if only sufficient water flows were available. The design drought essentially ignores the signs. There is no scientific basis of its own and stands on the following designs we do have. Further notices the trends and demands and sf puc staff have continually ignored the following demand of the last two decades. Not once have sf puc water design staff, and now its time for a complete design tool. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. You have two minutes. Public speaker hi, this is judy irving, a San Francisco resident and have been swimming in the bay since 1984. I have heard about floaters, turds in the bay. That was before you had treatment plants, we did have problems with floaters, but now we dont. But the two Sewage Treatment plants in San Francisco that we do have now release far too much nitrogen and phosphorous into San Francisco bay. Those are the men u items that release sludge and lots of sunlight produce this horrible algae bloom that i happened to swim in before i heard about it in the news. It wasnt fun. The water was yellow brownish, not as it usually is. It felt bad on my skin and itchy. I had to remove it. If you do this on the site that is water recycling like others have done, you can reduce this and reduce the overall water use and we can take less water from the river. In ten years, lets have a healthy river and lets have a healthy bay. You decide. Thank you very much. Next caller, please. Please state your name. You have one minute to comment. Public speaker hi, im a resident of the bay area. I use the water through the palo alto utility. I appreciate the pristine water im able to use. I also want there to be enough to keep the river healthy. Im 74 and over my lifetime i have gone from using this resource. The trust said it best in the recent article in the news and the same is view the for people of palo alto. People of San Francisco conserve water during drought thinking they are helping the environment but they are not because the water is just staying in the reservoir. Its no longer acceptable to use the most conservative method on water usage and justifying the hoarding water its when not useful. San francisco was forced to dump water because the reservoirs are already so full. So instead of benefitting the river consistently for years, there was one good year followed by many very low flow years. Tuolumne river caretakers have found a way to produce this water and have found enough water for their reservoir to meet the flow and the bay area water control plan while causing no impact to San Francisco and palo alto. Thank you for your testimony. Your time is expired. Next caller, please. Please state your name. You have one minute to comment. You have two minutes. Public speaker my name is jeff brown. I live in the San Francisco peninsula. I want to comment on the design work drought. I have a comment and one is on the singular focus particularly sf puc on storage as a means for dealing with drought. The other is the fact that the sf puc has not responded through repeated requests by the ngos who are acting in good faith and asking for modeling based on assumptions other than the design drought as it stands now. I want to point out as a matter of background, i spent several years as a Research Engineer at nasa engineer center and analysis on the dangerous test facilities. And Steve Ritchie in dealing with hazard analysis, you look at how to reduce the risks of various hazards that could arise. I think with Steve Ritchie in the august 23rd meeting that the likelihood of the design drought by the ngo and the benefits of the Design Change are not effective tools and i agree with that. The customer demands is not only preventative, but its controllable. Hazard risks reduction. The concept of control versus mitigation is crucial. Thank you for your testimony. Im sorry, your time is expired. Madam secretary, commissioners, there are nine additional callers in the queue. Caller, i have opened the line, you have two minutes. Public speaker hello, my name is carol ruth from stanton, california. The drought proposed is time for the protection of the rivers and according to the Department National fish and Wildlife Service, these numbers have plummeted since the 50s and 25,000 by the 70s, less than 2,000 fish. In the past 15 years, fewer than 1,000 have turned up. Last year, scientists counted 186 in the Tuolumne River. The water flow of the river if a design drought policy to protect this against a one in 70,000 year drought. The parameters of the eight 1 2 years design drought will not bode well for todays remaining famine. Are we willing to sacrifice famine . How can we continue to thrive when we are destroying this echo system. I implore you to make this a priority. With california and generations to come and the eco system in the water. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comment. Next caller, your line is open. You have two minutes. Hello, my name is steven, a resident of palo alto. And sf puc user. As a person concerned about the environment, i have curtailed my water use installing low flow toilets for water and landscaping to protect the environment. I looked at the sf puc workshops including agreements and have understood for myself that from the habitat, there is no substitute for yearround flows of curtailed water. The water board has demanded flows on the river using expert Scientific Evidence to draw its conclusion. The sf puc on the other hand has ignored signs and persisted in its assumption on the historic demand on the design drought for eight 1 2 years to justify its position that some habitat advancement can substitute for minimum flows. Please end your lawsuit and follow the unanimous resolution of the palo alto Civic Council to protect the flows on the river and save the tuolumne endangered fish. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Next caller, i have opened your line and you have two minutes. Good afternoon, my name is paul. Over the past two years, you held workshops and i thought they were productive and i had the opportunity to attend several of them, but nothing has changed. You keep kicking the can down the road. The Tuolumne River, the fish are literally dying. And will not have the opportunity to learn from the workshop. What i heard at the last workshop was very discouraging and its not going to make a change. We have heard your report and its not encouraging. After spending 300,000 on the assessment, the report is ignored. Your staff essentially said that running out of water would be bad. We all know this which is why risk analysis is so important. They told us that there is very little risk of running out of water. At the workshop, there seemed to be consensus that the sf puc demand projections are inflated but based on the past, nothing is going to change. Im extremely frustrated with the commission. Factor reason has fallen on deaf ears. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Next caller, your line is open. You have two minutes. Public speaker thank you. Im from the San Francisco conservation i cannot express a profound disappointment with sf puc. We have attended numerous workshops where ngos have prepared Scientific Evidence. We want sf puc to design a drought that is based on actual science. We want you to stop wasting money and taxpayers dollars and address multiple problems we face including algae bloom and the dying fish on the river in tuolumne. Thank you. Thanks for your comment. Hi, my name is jessie radar and also disappointed with the comments at the workshops. After the workshops, it is clear you have no intention of modifying the design drought. I am as concerned about anyone about the impacts of Climate Change but im concerned about the present Climate Change that the river is hurting now and we cant have this ridiculous insurance policy of the design drought that is this conservative design policy that is not supported by evidence and concerns the policy is having right now. Your seats at the commissioner seats were elected. You would have to listen to your constituents and voters do not share your lack of concern for the environment. We want to see you responding to those constituents of San Francisco a little bit more. Im frustrated because if its not an elected position and i am. And im concerned about the voluntary agreement after the last attempt was discredited ten years ago. I worked on voluntary agreements on the ng side and at the time it was best to make it elective and put something through that was going to be terrible for the river. I hope you will drop the lawsuit and do what the people of San Francisco want and that is protecting the river. Thank you for your comment. Next caller, your line is open. You have two minutes. Public speaker good afternoon, commissioners, my name is nate rangel, the california protector of outdoors. I have attended the drought Design Workshop and i want to say that i agree with everything thats been said to you so far during this Comment Period and in particular, i strongly urge you to listen carefully to peter. I also want to say this. For 22 years i have worked for my constituents, my colleagues, representing them in licensing on rivers in california including the last two closer ones which would have been americans. I can assure you that smut and pg e and California Water are just as concerned about running out of water and yet they were able to come to recognize real evidence and being equitable and reasonable in the agreements and the mitigations that they agreed to. Im going to say that i really hope that you will sit back and reassess the choices you made because the choices that you are making now, i dont believe are reasonable or equitable and rational. I would like you to take a look at the real evidence and not accept what your staff is giving you. Thank you. Bye. Thanks for your comment. Next caller. I have opened your line. You have two minutes. Public speaker hi, commissioners. My name is john. I have attended all the workshops during the last two years. Im extremely disappointed with where we are now. I feel you are totally stuck in the past. I feel the commissioners dont have the capacity to change, dont have the capacity to move forward. Dont have the capacity when science is presented to you, you interpret it. You only accept the science that justifies what you want, and what you want isnt to have a healthy river. Im really appalled that you are running out of water with the meyer analysis of the five year drought. Better being able to just totally disappointed. We had 25,000 and down to 86. You talk about how you care about the health of the river, but you dont. And then i hate to say it. It reminds me of the old that couldnt change and things went to hell. So sorry about that. And my language. Thats it. Thank you for your comment. Madam second and commissioners, there are five callers left in the queue. Next caller, your line is open and you have two minutes. Public speaker hello, my name is Shannon Mcentee and i live in San Francisco county. I spoke during your Public Comment time and im so disappointed with your meeting today. Your design on the drought is conservative. The sf puc cant risk the loss of fish habitat by ignoring legitimate data. Your agreement would be a catastrophe. There is nothing to support your voluntary agreement. Why is the sf puc not responded to the peer review, but instead embrace the deception and wishful thinking. This is insane. You must drop the voluntary agreement and face the plan. You must protect our fish and wildlife and keep the dealt free from toxic algae bloom as we have just experienced. Thank you for your comments. Public speaker david again. If you can give me a 30 second warning, that would be totally helpful. I only had one item for general Public Comment and i will try to do this without getting emotional. I just wanted to note that commissioner moran has not been reappointed and depending on what happens with the board of supervisors in the next month, his term would end by operational law by november 30th and ending his Long Association with the puc as a staff person and head of finance and head of hetch hetchy agency general manager and commissioner moran has long served the city and interest of ratepayers and protected water rights in over seeing all kinds of things as well see later in the agenda. Anyway, i just wanted to express publically my sadness that he may not be on the commission much longer. I will not be able to attend the september 27th meeting because its the second day of the jewish new year. I app