 Good afternoon. I'd like to call the meeting of the Board of Public Utilities for the City of Santa Rosa to order We may have a roll call, please Chairman Galvin here by Sharon Oni here board member bad and for it here board member banister here board member Dowd Board member Grable here board member Watts here Any statements of abstention by board members? I don't know if it'll come to motion, but I was not here for the September 19th Board meeting so it's not be participating in it if there is Along with the board member Watson board member bad and for it Any other statements of abstention? Great, we have no study session the minutes for September 19th and October 3rd will be Approved and entered. We have no staff briefings. We have one consent item item 6.1 regarding the chillers and climate control upgrades at the treatment plant. I'll move the consent calendar I'll second Motion by vice chair Arnone seconded by board member Watts to approve item 6.1 all in favor say aye Any opposed great. Thank you very much We'll move on now to item number 7.1, which is a report item Regarding the agreement by in between the Sonoma County water agency in the city for the nutrient offset credits director Burke Thank you, so we'll have deputy director Sean McNeill Deputy director of environmental services Sean McNeill talking about the nutrient offset program our permit and the agreement before you Thank You chair Galvin members of the board I'm here to talk to you today about the agreement by in between Sonoma County water Agency in the city of Santa Rosa for nutrient offset credits In my talk today, I'll be going through a brief history of the nutrient offset requirements Just remind the board of where these regulations can't come from and what we've done so far and then I'll go into the agreement with Sonoma water and the next steps So the phosphorus regulatory requirements really go back for our discharge permit, which is our waste water treatments ability to discharge Recycled water that has gone through our tertiary treatment process into local receiving waters This is a permit that allows us to do that even though our goal is not to do that discharge But we need to maintain those permits to do that. So in 2006 We were given a zero net loading for both nitrogen and phosphorus from this discharge It's important to note that that recycled water even as it goes through the treatment process There is some residual nitrogen and phosphorus left in that water So we had to come up with a way to get to zero net loading meaning no additional nitrogen and phosphorus in the watershed We got a settlement with the regional board to get a nutrient offset program Established in 2008 which allowed us to go out and develop projects that would pull nitrogen and our phosphorus out of the water Source of pollution So that we could continue to do our discharge and start an accounting process to make sure that we're in compliance with that zero net loading So since 2009 to present the city has been developing nutrient offset projects to cover our uh discharges and then in 2013 The We got a new permit every about five years. It tends to take six or seven years But every five years we get a new permit and in the new permit They struck out the nitrogen provision of zero net loading and left us only with phosphorus. So from here on out We've just been tracking phosphorus and then in 2018 in anticipation of our The re-adoption of a new permit the regional board adopted a new framework called the water quality trading framework and that process would allow other Entities that discharge into local waterways to participate in a trading framework The nutrient offset program was unique to the city of sanarosa. So the water quality trading framework took some parts of that And turned it into this regional water quality trading framework, which would Include the town of winzer. So now it would be us in the town of winzer This is currently not in our permit. It is a part of a future Uh permit potential So the city's phosphorus compliance strategy really is to first maximize our reuse We really see this recycled water that we produce and put a lot of energy into making a high quality product We want to get that used in the most beneficial way possible And that minimizes our discharges also, we are looking towards Making changes to our treatment process to see if there's ways that we could reduce the amount of phosphorus in that recycled water So even in the case if we have to discharge That there would be less phosphorus credits needed And then Last resort if we do discharge we want to offset those discharges via nutrient offset projects So that's really been our phosphorus compliance strategy today Our recycled water program about 67 percent of our recycled water goes to geysers The benefit of this system is we can send that to the geysers all year round So in the winter time our flows to our plant may double or triple And being able to send water to the geysers really helps to maintain our storage below Uh topping and then preventing us from having to discharge 33 of our recycled water goes to irrigation Primarily agriculture, but we also have an urban system in san rosa and in roner park And it's important to note that these are only available During the growing season. We can't irrigate fields that are are wet and that's part of our permit So to date the city has developed three separate nutrient offset projects We did beretta dairy, which was a manure and pasture management program And a pepperwood nature preserve, which is a road and drainage improvements And i'll go into each of these a little bit more. So i'm just kind of rushing them through right now The ocean view dairy was a manure removal and land application So the beretta dairy what we did here is we we recon toward the land We created a manure stacking pad Which allowed the farmer to pull out manure and let it dewater and flow back into a pond that they have and Keep that from getting into a local waterway which flows through this particular farm is rosaline creek And then we created an alleyway for the cows as they leave the milking barn out to their pasture That kept the cows in a much smaller area So and that also drained away from The creek and back into the pond and here's An example of the before and after the before if you don't have a screen in front of you is just a big open field of trodden bare dirt with cow manure and the stacking And then afterwards we have a very clear alleyway that's delineated the cows can walk out there And there's grass buffering it so that any nutrients coming off of that would be captured before getting into a local waterway At pepperwood preserve We did some road and drainage improvements on that property up there They have a lot of dirt roads and what happens is when dirt dirt carries Quite a bit amount of Phosphorus in it and when that gets into a local waterway Pepperwood drains into or this part of pepperwood drains into mark west creek Which is a part of the laguna watershed so that If we could control that sediment on site from getting into the creek That would be phosphorus credits and so we got a good amount of credits from that project And they're we're continuing to get credits from that project And then our last project that we've done is the ocean view dairy and this was a An abandoned pond left over from Left over from a farming operation And these ponds were left and so the city came in hired a contractor to take all that manure out In spread it in agricultural fields preventing that Pond from overflowing and topping into a local waterway, which in this case was mark west creek so these three different projects had About similar costs, but they generated different amounts of credits We were all around five hundred thousand dollars each The breaded dairy project developed about seventy six hundred credits And that came out to about sixty seven dollars per credit. These credits are long-lasting. We'll be getting credits for the next I think it's about ten years on this project The pepperwood project we got a a total of ten thousand nine hundred credits And once again those credits have been divvied out over a 20 year life span And they came out to about forty seven dollars per credit And then the ocean view dairy these credits were really short lived. They only lasted three years And but they generated twenty three thousand three hundred and forty five credits And that came in at a bargain basement of twenty dollars per credit It's our anticipation at looking at other projects in the watershed that we're going to be probably paying closer To the sixty seven dollar per credit for these types of nutrient offset projects Then we would the twenty dollar And today we'll be talking about The sonoma water project a little bit So just want to kind of say Explain how the nutrient offset program works starting at the top box The city would identify projects that could potentially Remove phosphorus from the watershed Then we'd begin negotiations with the landowner allowing us to do that practice on their property From that agreement and get a scope of what that work might look like we would go and calculate The credits from that project then we take that to to this board for approval If if you approve then we would bring that to the regulators for them to approve And if they approve usually with some kind of modifications We would then build and verify that project and then that would generate a report And then we'd get our credits Any step along the way Projects could get caught up and we have a whole bunch of permitting And what we found is it's taken three to five years from an idea of a project to getting it Permitted and built under this program. It's been very challenging In addition our permit language around this is very difficult to interpret and The compliance target is not quite clear and i'll go into this the ambiguous language in the permit There's a calculation word problem. That's difficult to Know if we're in compliance or not And that when you get down to it and i'll get into some of the data We need to be generating a balance of credits each year because these credits are rolling in of compliance and rolling out their expiration dates are are relatively short And why that's a problem in other areas that discharge all the time It's easy to to do a balance and and maintain a certain amount of credits What i'm showing you here is a graph of our rainfall and our discharge combined together So on the left axis, I have volume and millions of gallons represented by the red line That's discharged each year And the blue bars represent the amount of precipitation and that axis is on the on the right there And annual rainfall in inches and in 2004 we Got the geysers project online and our discharge dropped quite a bit Then we restructured that agreement so that we could deliver more water to geysers in the winter time in our and it dropped even further to the point where we We'd rarely discharge the amount of discharge We have has dropped so dramatically that oftentimes it's zero under a water quality trading program it's hard to anticipate how many credits we're going to need each year to stay in compliance especially knowing that they Evaporate after three years, you know, how much money do we want to spend on ensuring compliance becomes a challenge And and as we were discussing earlier These droughts tend to travel together drought years travel together as do wet years and that's what we find ourselves in This past year is we had two really wet years in the last three years Leading us to having a bit of a deficit So here's our data here. I wanted to show you our accounting of our phosphorus data Starting back in 2013 14 year We generated a walk through maybe I'll start with walking through the each column I have the year on the far left the number of phosphorus credits that we generated in that year Then the third column over is the number of phosphorus That we actually discharged that we calculated through our discharge And then I have the the fourth column over is the third three year cumulative Which is a combination of all the phosphorus that we've controlled Uh, those are our credits And then we're going to compare that to the three year cumulative of the phosphorus Discharged and then all the way on the right is the balance. So if it's positive We were in compliance if it's negative. We were not in compliance So skipping down really to the uh bottom line here Uh 2018-19 you can see uh on the right hand side In most years we have quite a few excess credits But in this last year using this calculation We discharged 7,000 pounds of phosphorus We only controlled 740 pounds in that year And so when you add those up for the last three years the cumulative was 13,661 pounds Compare that to our discharged Which was over the last three years 22,324 pounds We're at minus 8,664 pounds So the math is a little funny last year we ended with 3,882 credits more This year we discharged only 7,000 credits yet we're 8,600 credits in the whole So what I want to do is just kind of explain how this phosphorus Not just the math component of it, but really how it's being manifest in the watershed So when we look at the phosphorus balance over that same time period And we look at the phosphorus control. This is a much simpler analysis Where the phosphorus controlled is on the left and the amount discharged is on the right And just the bottom line there is we've controlled over 28,500 pounds of phosphorus and discharged about 22,566 So overall to the environment it's seen a net gain through this nutrient offset program And that's I think really important to understand that we're really It's a gamble trying to figure out how many credits and this is this is millions of dollars Of project work to get to these numbers And so it was a bit disappointing to find through the calculation and math problem in our permit that we're Out of compliance even though we've gone above and beyond with our With that So in moving forward We're looking towards getting another project So this would be our fourth project and that's what's before you today And this is a Laguna restoration project and what we're excited about this project Is that it has multiple benefits. It's really not just focused on the phosphorus, but it's looking at a number of different factors One it does reduce phosphorus. That's really important to our program since it's why we're doing it But it's also increasing flood capacity And a big component of this project is it's changing the Hydraulics of the Laguna in such a way to prevent And the spread of this invasive plant, Ludwigia also known as water primrose Which can choke up waterways and that's what you see that green in that picture there Is the water column the the low green and it's just covered with this Ludwigia The project location is on the main stem of the Laguna just upstream and downstream of Of stony point road right where ronert park expressway comes into stony point road a chronic flooding location And the summary of the credits that we'd get from this and that are identified in here So the estimate is this project would would generate probably about 9 000 credits So we did some soil sampling before and we just need to see how many truck loads How many pounds of fossil of soil gets taken out But we are estimating about 9 000 credits of phosphorus just from that direct removal But I just want to note the the agreement before you gives us an opportunity to purchase up to 20 000 credits Should this project through our calculation and verification Create that much credit These credits come from both the direct removal of the sediment but also on a much smaller amount By restoring this watershed it increases the ability of that watershed to Uptake phosphorus from the water column and so we're looking at that at about another 100 pounds per year The calculation of the credits will just be the total amount of sediment removed once we have that number We have the estimates of the amount of phosphorus per Pound of soil removed. We'll just do a simple math multiplication And then we'll be getting up to 100 credits per year for 10 years What would happen next is that the city once the project's complete the city would Verify the amount of credits with the regional board We'd get an acceptance from them and then we would get an invoice from the water agency For whatever credits are accepted by the regional board At about $50 at $50 per credit not about exactly $50 per credit and this kind of project is important in that It'll provide additional credits for our discharge needs into the future And be added to our existing projects But it also is a different kind of project than the kind that we've done in the past So it's recommended by senorosa water department that the board by motion approve the agreement by and between Sonoma county water agency and the city of senorosa for nutrient offset credits Phosphorus for the laguna restoration reaches one and two project And with that i'll take any questions Thank you deputy director mcneil before I open it up for board questions and comments. I have one speaker card Brenda Edelman That's fine sure I have a new knee so I don't move as fast as I used to Um Basically on the whole I I think this is a very good idea. This is an area that I've been Photographing and watching for a very long time. I was part of the committee um, or I was involved attending meetings In 2005 six and seven when there was some of you may recall there was a big project to remove the Ludwigia so that um The issues around mosquito abatement could be addressed And that was the main concern at that time and um Things went very well for 2005 and 2006 2007 happened to be a drought year and It got Much of the the Ludwigia that had been taken out started coming back again at the end of the season And by the next year or the year after It was way worse than it had ever been so one of the key issues is to um After the Ludwigia is taken out and and after you dig out the channel there needs to be concern about Replacement of riparian vegetation so the water will cool down and the Ludwigia would not be as likely to come back Or at least not to the extent it did Very interestingly whenever I was there there was Ludwigia everywhere. It was totally solid mat of plant material But under the bridge there was no Ludwigia at all because the sun wasn't hitting the water under the bridge So basically My major concern with all this is that while there's going to be some work on riparian vegetation I would encourage you to um if you move forward with this to um If the water agency isn't consulting with experts that There'd be some further look into whether or not The riparian they plan on doing is going to be adequate to cool the water And slow the uh regrowth of the Ludwigia because it seems like that not to do that would defeat the purposes of this project So thank you very much Thank you for your comments. I believe the report on the project does take into consideration What they're going to do to try and prevent the Ludwigia from coming back, but I'll let deputy director McNeil maybe address that please Yeah, so um Ludwigia is a big problem And the amount of shade that a bridge deck provides is enough shade to prevent Ludwigia from growing It's much harder to do with the canopy, especially in that area. The creek is about 120 feet or so wide there So that's a pretty tall tree to cast very deep shade So what we're looking at is actually changing the hydrology in a way that it's deep water Ludwigia doesn't do well in deep water. So the low flow channel has been dug deeper. It'll be a more Um By having that deep water column throughout the year. It'll one keep the water cooler as Brenda hinted The vegetation will be more trees closer to the channel Uh, I I don't know that it would be deep enough shade to prevent Ludwigia growth But really they're looking at the physical characteristics of the water to prevent the Ludwigia regrowth And this is a pilot for them to see if this works here They're going to expand this in other areas of the lagoona where the Ludwigia problem is really bad And Brenda's right. It's been a a horrific problem for a long time Thank you board member comments or questions Board member banister Thank you chairman and thank you Brenda for expressing that concern Um Dr. McNeil there was a very similar project Unimmediately downstream by the water agency some five years ago if i'm not mistaken Same low-flow channel design same everything So they're I mean saying that the water agency is looking at this as a pilot I mean as far as I can tell there was already a pilot And I don't know if there's any studies about The rip I know they replanted riparian vegetation there I don't know if five years later we can conclude whether they planted enough or not Do you know of any studies about that project? I don't know any studies about the project. I have seen the project relatively recently. There is a A great diversity of plantings. I don't think in the five years. We've increased the Canopy to an extent where it's shade But there is a lot less there there's no lead wiggy there I don't know if there was lead wiggy in that stretch before there was So, uh, so apparently it's worked. That's yeah, that's great. Um Do you know why I mean one of the big problems with the whole formula that you put up there is the Evaporation of these credits after three years. Um, I'm obviously that's the water boards Directive, but do you know what the logic for that is? It the guidance they get from epa is in place in kind and in time Meaning that the credits need to match about the same time that the discharges are happening now. This is I don't think it's normal that we have a wastewater treatment plant like ours that has many years. We discharge nothing And so this guideline this guidance from the epa is national and so it's really built on Many plants that discharge every day, right, you know, and so if you're discharging every day It's a lot easier to see in forecast And also many parts of the country. We forget this Mediterranean climate we live in where rain is non-existent for a big period of time And occurs in the winter and a lot of the places they get a lot of rain throughout the summer months. Uh, and so Then again, they are also looking at how they Track that but overall because they get so much rain They don't have this period of wet and dry extremes that we have coming into our treatment for us, but not in most places Right. Why did they drop nitrogen from the requirements? I don't know that um, particularly maybe that might come up and So you're taxing my memory a bit, but from what I recall based on the studies and data we showed We were able to Show to the regional board that we could have a limit for nitrogen and didn't need the no-net load So it was part of our permit negotiations for the the last permit Thank you. Thank you And the other board member questions or comments Board member grable Yeah, thank you Most of my questions were answered as well, but I did have Just a question related to that, you know the update about this, you know the expiration of credits and The idea that especially in our situation we we should be able to bank, uh Or, you know Have longer periods of time with, you know, maybe a higher level of investment and impact in Certain projects and specific projects that they're dealing with similar issues in cts right now and a number of A number of issues where you just you know You only have this limited amount of time a little amount of funds Can you really can you really make an impact? Is it is it Meaningful to the threshold that that is desired and the intent that all this was created from So I guess my question is are are we moving forward with some sort of a You know a strategy What's the status of that and with north coast regional water board and and all that in terms of being able to have Um You know more volume and impact in in the credit banking or you know, whatever it's called Well, I could say that uh, we are in negotiations with regional board staff over What our future permit will look like and it'll be our next permit. Uh, we anticipate sometime in spring Um, so we're in that process of negotiating that okay. It's just still ongoing. Okay. Yeah, I hear bits about it You know once in a while, but I didn't know if there was a there was any kind of a status there. Okay. My other question was just related to You know climate change and the rise of high high flow Flood events, you know, I know that that's having an impact in other areas where they're doing habitat Restorations where they put a lot of time and energy and resources into a restoration and then an unprecedented event wipes it all out And it's kind of like oh great. Uh Is there is there some, um You know concern for that or or planning for that I would say Yeah, so the way the credits work those ongoing credits are going to be dependent on the success of that restoration that occurs and so if plants are lost through that Flooding or fire or other entity issue We would have to and under the agreement though the water agency would have to Replace those plants if not we would not be able to validate those credits For that so each year that we have this project. We have to go out and re eval reevaluate and validate that those credits are done And we do that through the Resource conservation district. We have them to do that former banster Another thought since I am familiar with the downstream project that looks a lot like this project That one was done by the water agency as part of their stream maintenance program And explained as more of a flood control project than anything I saw I was there both during the before after of the project And before after enduring and they were really To to Brenda's point. They were really brutal about the amount of vegetation that was removed to me It looked like overkill, but because it was a flood control project They wanted to get everything out and then replant I wonder since we're now the buying the credits. Do we get any say over the amount of Vegetation that's removed as part as part of their project or do do we not get any Influence on that We did not have any influence on that here. Um, they are Doing this work under their, you know auspices of their flood control mission Um, I will say that there is a large stand of red willows that they did maintain That canopy cover throughout this area and that they target Mostly a royal willow, which I think might have been down there Um, and that's part of the permitting requirements even though it is a native species It is singled out even by department of fish and wildlife Um to remove a royal willow Uh from the riparian zone even though in these kind of Ecosystems, they're actually A pretty powerful plant, uh, but they're not very good for flood control because the multiple stems increases the Channel roughness uh slows the water down in a way and flood waters that Causes problems. So it's not anything that they have. Um allowed us to Have a way in on It doesn't mean we couldn't in the future. Should we bring more of these projects together if that's direction from the board? Thank you Board member doubt I want to point out to the Board that the recommendation here Is that the santa rosa water department and the board by motion approve agreement By and between Sonoma county water agency in the city of santa rosa and The rest of the text that's there It's important to recognize that this is the first step. We we have to locate and find credits available And buy them at what seems to be a competitive price in the marketplace for such things So that we can plan moving forward for each winter season that occurs out in front, but My comments really are around the fact that this is the first step in getting the credits in our Suitcase and then we will start The negotiations for water water quality trading framework as to how they will be used And how we will receive credit for them So this is just the initial step and all of the answers aren't there yet before us, but Staff and consultants are working on it Any other board member comments or questions? Thank you for your presentation. I'm going to be supporting The approval of this agreement. I think it's an important first step in us continuing to Do what we need to do to be in compliance with the water quality control board and with that I will entertain a motion I I move to Support the recommendation before us second Motion by board member dowd seconded by board member grable to approve The agreement between the city and the county water agency for the nutrient offset Credits all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Great passes unanimously. Thank you deputy director Thank you all Next item on the agenda is public comments. I have two cards. The first one is pat michel You can either come down or there's microphones up top All right, then we'll call greg eiker first Welcome Thanks So I wanted to make a comment on a statement in the brochure Promoting the composting facility It says in here the project is to be built quote In a manner that respects The local community unquote I would say that the city and county Have disrespected the local community By proposing a dirty noisy polluting industrial operation Be placed in their laps I would say that the city and county have Disrespected the local community By considering them dispensable collateral damage The city and county know these operations emit a toxic haze SCWMA went on record In the 2013 final environmental impact report for this same facility At that time proposed several different alternative sites By acknowledging the health risks to nearby residents of airborne carcinogens emitted by composting operations And in a final statement in that response Considered these risks to be quote A serious concern unquote In that EIR I read with interest that the nearest residents to preferred site 5a was 3600 feet away Let's put that into perspective relative to the laguna site Overlay a polygon On a satellite image with boundaries that are 3600 feet From the property lines of the laguna site And you will encircle 56 primary dwellings Many of these residences have accessory dwelling units on site And the distance from the nearest residents to the laguna site 200 feet conservatively We can say there are two to 300 residents that live within a distance from the laguna site That was previously determined to be of serious concern For resultant health risks to residents nearby To composting operations Why are we here then? Given what we know Why has the county and city chosen a location in an area populated with so many residents? Our government agencies were seriously concerned before This agency should be a lot more concerned now The city and county must do better You must find an appropriate location for this facility In a non-populated area. Thank you Thank you, mr. Iker Pat Mitchell Hello, I came here today asking for your help For our community I have on you've been hopefully distributed something here About you know tree cutting trees, but i'm not going to talk to you about that today But I would appreciate if you read it And take it into consideration what I do want to present and talk about today Is this letter? This is a letter that I sent to the press democrat A letter to the editor and i'll read it to you. It's brief editor Regarding the newly proposed site for the compost facility on lona road Susan goreng's comment It's farther away from the neighbors makes me either want to laugh or cry Maybe a little bit of both The remark is so disingenuous Dictionary definition lacking in candor Giving a false appearance of simple frankness Calculating They have divided the meadow lane Lona road lot subtracting about a third of it So it would be a few hundred feet from a budding walker avenue This is hardly an improvement And the city of santa rosa is keeping this deleted meadow lane section in reserve They will use it later as the compost facility expands Additionally the plan to extend the proposed facility farther along lona road Just across on the west side Will increase the traffic congestion on lona road making this plan worse for our lona road neighbors This location is just unacceptable And zero waste management and the santa rosa city council need to do better They need to find a location that does not impact residential neighborhoods And affect the health and safety of residents Including our precious children And i'm hoping that the board of public utilities Becomes very aware of what is going on how destructive this is to our neighborhood on so many levels Destructive to the environment destructive to the water Quality in the area I can't urge you enough to to change this location. Thank you Thank you both for your comments any other public comments on non-agenda matters Hearing none. We have no written communications subcommittee reports We're member dowd I will report on the contract review subcommittees meeting which we had this past tuesday uh The item was uh regarding the strategic action plan Being prepared As we move forward on The cip programs that we have within our system And uh a consultant has been identified the negotiations are going on with that consultant to make the Strategic action plan broad and cover all the issues that we have as a as a utility so The committee which is made up of chairman galvin myself and board member battenford Agreed with the recommendation put forth by the staff and as we move forward The board will be reviewing More details in that action Thank you any other subcommittee reports Any board member reports directors report Thank you. I have a couple things to update the board on first, uh, we wanted to introduce two new uh staff to our Cip engineering team as these folks will be coming in front of the board in The future so first we have adam roush who comes to the city with almost 20 years experience in engineering and research He's a background in experimental physics and has worked at ibm stampard and lockheed martin He'll the bs in engineering physics and ms in civil and environmental engineering and a phd from uc berkeley And then second we have a new assistant engineer Sarah mathews who's uh born and raised in santa rosa and she spent the last seven years in southern california Going to school and working for the la county public works in the storm water and trapping engineering section And she's very happy to be back home and working for santa rosa. So we want to welcome both these folks Who are in the audience uh this afternoon? Uh second I wanted to update the board on the public safety power shutdown As you all I think are probably aware and may have been affected PG&E indicated the possibility of a potential public safety power shutdown Early last week. Actually. I think it was on sunday october 6th In preparation the city activated our emergency operations center on the afternoon of monday october the 7th And then uh shortly after midnight on october the 9th. PG&E did implement a ps ps Which affected portions of sonoma county in santa rosa? In preparation and in response Water staff activated our department operation center or doc The night of tuesday october 8th We did anticipate losing power to a number of our facilities as it turned out we lost less than we were anticipating But we did lose power to nine of our water pump stations Five of our sewer lift stations and 12 of our water tanks All of these facilities have backup generators and we're running on backup power We had no interruption to water or sewer service The psps did not affect the regional water reuse system specifically But due to the forecasted conditions and in connection with the psps calpine did shut down the geysers The geysers was reactivated On friday the 11th in addition power was restored to all water facilities by 3 p.m. On friday the 11th as well So while this was a very difficult situation for us to navigate In terms of The effects to our facilities it was a really great learning experience We are well prepared for these types of events and we were able to continue to keep All of our systems running Even in the event of the power shutdown so We'll be continuing to debrief and Lessons learned from this event, but it really was A great job by the water department staff Working long hours overnight to keep all the systems running So I I really do want to thank the department for all of their work. We couldn't have gotten through it without them Also wanted to let the board know that last week on monday the 7th the water advisory committee Um, unanimously approved a resolution regarding the potter valley project as the board We've been updating you over time p genie earlier this year decided not to pursue relicensing of the potter valley project And instead the sonoma county water agency has gotten together with a couple of other different entities Including the county of sonoma cal trout Now the round valley in round valley indian tribe As well as humboldt county did I I'm missing someone Are working together on Sorry, thank you. Mendocino county water inland and power commission Um, they and county of humboldt is also part of it as well They've all gotten together to submit a feasibility study In consideration of continued operations of the potter valley project Through the water advisory committee as well as the technical advisory committee We've been following this very closely And on monday the 7th the water advisory committee did adopt a resolution Just really reinforcing the interests of the water contractors In ensuring that the potter valley project process and feasibility study process Is in line with our interests So we want it to be consistent with the restructured agreement between us and the water agency We want to ensure regular communications, especially pursuant to our common interest agreement We want to have input on the feasibility study In particular on the formation of the regional entity On any capital modifications and o and m modifications needed for continued operation of the project On the development of the long-term financial plan And also reminding the water agency that any costs should be proportionate to the benefit received And then last just reinforcing our interest on having input on the final draft documents and the final draft of the feasibility study Um, so We're continuing to follow that process closely But that was an action that was taken by the WAC And then last I just wanted to remind the board as we're getting closer to the holiday season If you do have any holiday plans that will take you away from our board meetings If you could please let jeena know We want to ensure that we have quorums for those upcoming meetings and or plan Accordingly to council cancel those meetings around the holidays if needed And that's my report Thank you any questions for the director Hearing none i'll turn it over to assistant city attorney mclean For item 14.1 Thank you chair galvin members of the board. We are going to go into closed session now The the stated case is appending Petition that has been filed by the city in the matter of san aroza To review of action and failure to act by the california regional water quality control board In the cases as identified in the agenda. We'll be doing that in the mayor's conference room Thank you. We will adjourn to the mayor's conference room