[3:47] It's five minutes after 11. We will call the board meeting of February 13 to order a roll call, please.

[4:00] Director Vell. Director Eisenberg. Director Estimera.

[4:08] Director Tegan.

[4:11] Director Santos.

[4:13] Chair Swayer.

[4:15] Here.

[4:17] We have a quorum present.

[4:20] Thank you.

[4:21] Before the board goes into co-session, there are two sentos that has an announcement.

[4:29] Thank you.

[4:30] Thank you.

[4:31] I appreciate it very much.

[4:34] I met the young lady, one of our employees about a year ago.

[4:38] So we're going to farm your meetings and do a different things.

[4:42] And we started talking.

[4:43] And of course, we honor all our veterans here.

[4:45] We do a great job in the district on a yearly basis.

[4:47] and our employment with our veterans is very appreciative.

[4:52] Anyway, her name is Nadia Webster.

[4:54] We started talking and she said, you know, I'm going to...

[4:57] Oh, I won't be here.

[4:59] I'll blah, blah, blah, blah.

[5:00] I've been being called up. I have a critical MOS. I'm a staff sergeant in the Air Force. I'm not going to be called Iraq. So I thought it was going to be for six months and time goes by. Go back to the farm bureau. She walks in. I said, no idea how you're doing. She just surprised me. So what's the permission of the chair and a film of board members. I like to take the time.

[5:22] Do the pledges and then honor. Welcome back after you're in Iraq. I'm going to say any more because she has a curfell MOS and she can only say limit to things she's back safely. So I think they introduced our employee or for staff sergeant, not a weapon.

[5:37] I'm very happy we have the time.

[5:41] We have a party of all ecosystem and so you work so please stay and enjoy me.

[5:48] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and then to the Republic for which his fans.

[5:55] What nation.

[5:57] I'm the god and invisible.

[5:59] With liberty justice for all.

[6:02] You're not yet, so that I'm my chair.

[6:03] Oh, feel free.

[6:04] And thank you.

[6:05] Have a few words.

[6:06] We appreciate your service, Georgia.

[6:07] Thank you.

[6:09] Thank you, Director Santos and the board and Valley Water for your continue with support.

[6:14] It was a really long seven months overseas.

[6:18] I was on orders for almost a year for a good part of last year, but I always felt the continuous support of everybody here.

[6:26] And that meant the world to me. It's really good to be back whenever I wanted to people and the building everyone's welcoming back and it feels really good.

[6:34] So thank you.

[6:35] Welcome back.

[6:35] Thank you.

[6:36] Thank you. Thank you for your strength. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[6:44] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

[6:50] Okay.

[6:51] Now the board will go into our closed session that schedule for 11 a.m.

[6:57] We will be back at 1 p.m. this afternoon.

[7:02] Madam chair.

[7:03] Yeah. I just want to further record say that there are no requests from public comment on item 2.1.

[7:11] Thank you.

[7:26] District Council report on close session and today we'll have our work of the board.

[7:33] Ms. King to report on the close session. Thank you Madam Chair. The board met in close session to take

[7:42] item 2.1 with all members present, less director Verella, and the board has weighed the attorney

[7:49] client close session privileges as to the information contained in the executive summary

[7:55] of the investigation into allegations made by Rick calendar, Carlos Arlana, and other employees

[8:02] contained in pages 32 to 40 of the executive summary of the investigation, and the January

[8:08] 2020's 2023 email referenced in the investigation.

[8:12] This waiver is for the limited purpose

[8:14] of allowing release of the information

[8:16] in the executive summary and email

[8:19] and does not extend to other information disclosed

[8:22] in closed session or subject to the attorney client

[8:25] privilege on this or any other matter.

[8:28] The executive summary will be included in the agenda packet

[8:31] for the February 22nd, 2024 board meeting.

[8:35] Thank you, Ms. King. And moving on to item 3.2.

[8:42] Item 3.1 is pledge of allegiance.

[8:45] The board did a pledge of allegiance before one into the co-session.

[8:50] So go directly to item 3.2, which is orders of the day.

[8:55] Are there any changes by board members about orders of items on today's agenda?

[9:02] Okay, hearing none. Item three.

[9:10] Director As for Mera.

[9:14] It is a different way.

[9:15] Thank you.

[9:16] What a request that we re-agenda is 5.5.1.

[9:27] Since all the board members in our present today.

[9:33] I'll do it at the next board meeting.

[9:36] Okay, this is a 5.1 board review of 2024 board committee and board advisory committee.

[9:46] So if we continue this to the next board meeting then the assignment to serve on these committees will come after that meeting.

[9:56] That will be sometime in March.

[10:00] I said, that's, I'll see. Are there any objections? Are there any objections? No, no. Okay. Yeah. I think it was a good

[10:12] body. Yeah.

[10:17] Okay.

[10:21] Is it great? Okay. Good. Got it. Thank you, Chair. I guess I just say that I would like us to begin

[10:27] able to begin our work. There's so many things that we're excited to do at least about the

[10:32] committee's I'm on. And I hate for additional delay, but of course I see to the majority of

[10:37] the board if they want to delay further. What we don't need. What we don't need to turn you those in.

[10:47] That's that's correct. Yeah, that's correct. Yeah, that's that that's that that's correct statement.

[10:52] Yeah, so in the meantime that if we don't make any changes the existing structure just continues

[10:58] Yeah existing assignment just continues. So I did not hear any

[11:05] Okay, so so we we were talking about the

[11:10] Recommendation the chair vice chair recognition guarding yeah

[11:13] Consolidation yeah, yeah, so that's on the five point that's all five point one. Yes, yeah, okay. Thank okay

[11:20] Director Eisenberg, do you have the second one?

[11:24] Okay.

[11:25] Okay.

[11:29] Because at least all of my most of my committee meetings were canceled for this month,

[11:35] pending a resolution on the re-constitution and the

[11:41] Conventional, I guess they actual combination of committees.

[11:46] And I'm just a little confused if this, you know.

[11:49] Okay, just I don't believe there's any direction or anything from the board to cancel all

[11:56] common meeting for this month. If there's nothing to put on the agenda, then the committee does not

[12:02] meet. So I think I just want to be clear about that. If there are things to be discussed

[12:09] beyond the agenda as a common member, you can always ask for the attitude to have the meeting.

[12:14] Okay, because I was pretty sure that the communications sense said that the meetings were being taken off calendar pending the resolution.

[12:22] Okay, then we have to clarify. We'll have to clarify.

[12:25] Okay, and the meantime. Yeah, that's the things continue. So thank you. Okay.

[12:30] Well, that's item,

[12:39] we were on item 3.2, okay. Now item 3.3, time open for public comment or any

[12:48] item that's not on today's agenda. I do have a request from Mr. Herman Garcia to speak under

[12:57] Item 3.3.

[13:09] Hey, is I am the founding president of Cheer Coastal Habitat Education and Environmental Restoration.

[13:19] And we've been existence for about 22 years and we're an ad hoc committee for about 30 years before that.

[13:27] But as cheer as an organization, this past year we took out almost 500,000 pounds of garbage out of our watersheds, we cover over 2,000 square miles of watersheds and over 2,000 miles of streams.

[13:48] And a lot of the garbage we took out of the coyote creek and water loop and river jungles this year this past year, but also, in the 22 years of our existence, we have taken out 62 vehicles out of our waterways, over 10,000 tires.

[14:18] eight boats, one airplane, one motorcycle, and seven bodies. So we keep busy. We're all volunteer, we're out there every day, and over the decades that we've been working with different boards, and 76 years old. So I've been around a long time working with the various boards here at the water district.

[14:46] And I'm always complaining, complaining, complaining, complaining, but today I'm here because I want everybody in this room to give the board a hand.

[15:00] For the U.S. Creek Balsa Road Fish Ladder, it was just completed and you guys did an amazing job. I don't think we're going to have to maintenance it three or four times every winter this year, because it was done the right way. And fish are already using it. They started the adult fish, started coming in.

[15:30] last week. So, to you guys, thank you, thank you. The existing fish ladder has always been

[15:41] a problem and now it's remedy. So, thank you to all of you. Thank you, Ms. Ankel Mr. Garcia.

[15:54] And

[15:55] I trust in hard coming through and spot committee following them up.

[16:00] Great job, great job.

[16:03] And also, then, Mr. Garcia, thank you for your service all these years.

[16:07] We've always supported of what you did, particularly with the youngsters.

[16:12] Yeah, thank you.

[16:15] Okay.

[16:17] Item 3.4.

[16:20] conduct a public hearing to determine the necessity for the Board of Directors to be

[16:27] compensated for up to 15 days per calendar months and to consider meeting compensation amount

[16:35] for calendar year 2024. So this is a public hearing and the sport will open the public hearing

[16:47] that allows for the board to determine the necessity of the board of directors to be compensated

[16:53] for up to 15 days per calendar months and to consider compensation amount for calendar year 2024.

[17:02] If you would like to provide comments to the board on this item, please use the race hand

[17:09] to in the Zoom program, or present a speaker card to the clerk if you're in our board room attending this meeting.

[17:21] In accordance with California Wada Code Section 20202, and in compliance with Board Governance Policy, GP 10.6 and District Act Section 33C, the board is holding this public hearing

[17:37] to receive public comment on the Board of Directors meeting compensation for up to 15 days per calendar months and to consider compensation amount for calendar year 2024 and I will call speakers in the order of requests received and each speaker will have three minutes to adjust to the board.

[18:01] So, is that, do we have any requests or to make comment to this board related to forward this topic?

[18:14] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[18:15] I have no request at this time.

[18:18] Would the board like me to give out a little report on the information pertaining to this item?

[18:25] So, without our staff, our staff has a short,

[18:33] presentation about this item. So, Ms. King, please go ahead.

[18:37] Thank you, Madam Chair. So, as you stated, this is the board's public hearing

[18:40] to determine an necessity for the board of directors to be compensated

[18:44] for up to 15 days per calendar month and to consider meeting

[18:46] compensation amount per calendar year 2024. So, on the January 29, 2024,

[18:53] board meeting the board set the public hearing for today to determine

[18:56] an necessity for directors to be compensated for up to 15 days per calendar month

[19:00] and consider director's compensation for the county or 2024.

[19:04] And notice the public hearing is published in newspaper

[19:06] a general circulation as well in community newspapers

[19:09] throughout Santa Clara County,

[19:11] notifying the public of the opportunity

[19:12] to provide comment in public hearing if they so choose.

[19:16] As you stated, the hearing is held pursuant

[19:19] to Santa Clara Valley Water District Act, section 33C,

[19:23] government code section 532321,

[19:26] and California Water Code sections 2200

[19:29] through 2002-07. A little background on setting the monthly meeting limit, AB 1889 by Cabalero

[19:38] enacted by the Governor on September 5, 2018, and taking effect on January 1, 2019, amended

[19:44] the District Act by adding Section 33C, authorizing the Board to annually adopt a written policy

[19:50] describing based on findings supported by substantial evidence, why more than 10 meetings per month,

[19:55] but not more than 15 meetings per month are necessary for the effective operation.

[20:01] AB-939 Pellerin enacted by the Governor on September 9, 2023 extends the aforementioned previous provisions, excuse me, identified. The determination of whether a director's activities on any specific day are compensable shall be made pursuant to section 5, 3, 2, 3, 0.1 of the government code. So, in accordance with the Board of Policy, GP-10.6.1, a finding could be made based on substantial evidence, including but not limited to the bill.

[20:30] following. Many of the water's responsibilities such as water supply,

[20:34] fire protection, and environmental stewardship are in other jurisdiction of jurisdictions

[20:39] spread across separate governmental entities. These functions require numerous meetings

[20:43] since that courses of action based on input from the community and other stakeholders.

[20:48] The number and scope of board and committee meetings, public hearings, committee meetings,

[20:52] and other meetings, directors must attend to accomplish value water's business are extensive.

[20:58] the board has 21 internal and or joint policy committee working groups and the director serve

[21:04] on a total of 19 external board and committees for other intergovernmental, regional or public policy entities.

[21:11] Valley water is the only water agency in California that is both a state and federal water

[21:16] contractor to the state water project and the central valley project.

[21:19] Putting valley water at the heart of complex water policy debates in both Sacramento and Washington.

[21:24] This is greatly expands the number of meetings necessary to ensure reliable water supplies for

[21:29] Santa Clara County as compared to other regions.

[21:32] In 2023, the maximum meeting days for a month of directors could be compensated with 15 per

[21:37] Ordinance 2301.

[21:39] Dear 2023, the Valley Water Board of Directors reported 970 meeting days that were paid

[21:44] and 74 that were unpaid because they have seated the maximum number of meeting days

[21:49] allowed for the state in month.

[21:51] The table was, could the data that was attached to the agenda memo is attachment three.

[21:57] So the board could consider the following monthly meeting limits.

[22:01] Make a binding based on substantial evidence that there is an operational need to compensate

[22:07] directors for up to 15 days per calendar month and set the meeting limit accordingly.

[22:11] Effective April 14th, 2024, for calendar year, 2024, or determined there is no operational

[22:19] need to compensate directors for more than the current 10 days per county or per California water code.

[22:26] The second part of your item is meeting compensation, and California water code section 20202

[22:31] authorizes the board to annually consider through public hearing and ordinance adoption process

[22:36] compensation increases at a rate not to exceed an amount equal to 5 percent annually. Any board

[22:42] approved changes in the director's number of compensate and meetings per month and meeting

[22:46] compensation rate will be effective beginning 60 days after date of ordinance adoption,

[22:51] pursuant to California Water Coast Section 20204. The board's last compensation adjustment

[22:57] was an April of 2023 in accordance with the regulatory process. The board held the public

[23:02] caring on February 14, 2023 for public comment on the Director's compensation amount.

[23:08] And at that board meeting, the board adopted ordinance 2301, enacting a compensation increase

[23:13] of 5% effective April 14th, 2023.

[23:18] The board could consider the following monthly compensation options.

[23:22] Keep the directors compensation at the current amount of 365, 87 per day of to 10 or 15 days

[23:28] per month, as previously determined, reduce the director's compensation to a specific amount

[23:34] below the current 365, 87 per month, excuse me, per day of to 10 or 15 days per calendar

[23:40] month, or approve an increase of up to 5% in Berkshire's compensation in accordance with

[23:45] California water code, 2000 through 20707 for up to 10 or 15 days for Calamans as determined

[23:51] by the board to be effective April 14th, 2024. And with that, I turned over to the board for

[23:58] discussion and any action. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Kate. Just check one more time that we do not have any

[24:06] request to comment to that's four. Thank you madam chair that is correct at this time I have no

[24:11] request to speak. Okay then this public hearing is closed. Now it's time for the board members to

[24:22] discuss these this item and so if the board has any discussion please go ahead.

[24:37] Are there any comments from board member or any discussions from the board?

[24:45] If not, can I entertain the motion?

[24:50] Okay.

[24:51] Is there a second director?

[25:01] Just a second, yeah, I have the district council on the wants to speak to us. Did I do anything wrong? No, thank you for having shared. Just as a matter of process, any motion would need to include the appropriate findings for the motion to be.

[25:15] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, thank you. And Director Astramarra.

[25:20] Thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to make a point that there's a finding of substantial evidence that

[25:29] more than 10 really per month, but not more than 15 mean per month.

[25:35] I necessary for the effective operation at this rate.

[25:38] So I second that motion.

[25:40] Okay. So this motion is only for the number of days per month.

[25:48] Yeah, should we do another motion for the motion?

[25:53] I thought that the motion included 5% above current compensation.

[25:59] I didn't say thank you don't okay. So and I consider that's a second, right? So you made the motion that's a second. Okay.

[26:08] And I think the motion is complete and it's a roll call vote. Can we have a roll call vote?

[26:18] Director Bel, Director Eisenberg,

[26:24] Director Estimera, Director Keegan, Vice Chair Santas,

[26:29] Chair Shua. Yes.

[26:33] Okay. Motion carries unanimously with Director

[26:42] Now we're moving on to consent calendar, this is consent calendar 4.1, 2, 4.4.

[26:54] Is the motion to approve?

[26:57] Okay.

[26:58] I think we need to have a roll call on consent calendar also.

[27:05] Director Bell, Director Eisenberg, Director Estimera, Director Keegan, Vice Chair Santas, Chair Shua.

[27:15] Okay.

[27:16] Thank you, everyone.

[27:18] And then we're moving on.

[27:21] 5.1 as we discussed earlier, the board,

[27:25] well, the board agrees to continue item 5.1 to the following board meeting.

[27:33] And then now we're on item 5.2 board committee reports.

[27:38] We have two reports on one from the Recycle Water Committee and one from the board of the committee.

[27:46] Are there any questions from board member related to those two summary reports?

[27:51] Okay, hearing none.

[27:53] Thank you for the two committees preparing this summary for the board's information.

[27:58] Now, we're on item 5.3, consider the recommendation of the board ethics and conduct

[28:07] at how committee to set a public hearing within 30 days on whether to censure

[28:15] director Rebecca Eisenberg based on alleged misconduct occurring on January 29th.

[28:23] So I ask for a public comment and also a board comment. I just want to be very clear that this item is for the board to decide whether to have the public hearing or not.

[28:42] if the board decides to have the probability hearing, then the board supports preference to

[28:48] have it on the regular board meeting or a special board meeting and more schedule in meeting accordingly.

[28:56] So it's not intended to discuss how the issue itself, but then only to set whether to set

[29:02] public hearing related to this issue.

[29:06] So, and I think the agenda item and with the attachment

[29:11] have pretty detailed information related to this

[29:16] I like alleged misconduct, I want to ask the

[29:22] ethics and conduct at how committee members

[29:25] are there anything any comment that the committee member

[29:29] wants to provide.

[29:33] Okay, Director Keegan.

[29:36] I have nothing additional to add, but I wanted to thank you chair for making very clear

[29:41] what it is we're supposed to be doing today, so I appreciate that.

[29:45] Okay, thank you.

[29:47] Okay, any other board member?

[29:53] I'm not going to do work.

[29:56] I'm going to do work.

[29:57] I'm going to do work.

[30:14] Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on behalf of the committee, I chair as not present today. I just wanted to mention that the

[30:25] The recommendation from the committee is based on the attachments, the memorandums that are attached.

[30:36] And as you mentioned, the one question for us is whether we should have said as public hearing.

[30:45] I would move that we have this public hearing.

[30:48] Okay. Okay. Okay. We do have a public requesting to speak on this item. And also that I have director Eisenberg, as the next one to request to speak, director Eisenberg come to you first.

[31:10] Does it work? Okay.

[31:13] Yeah, I just want to point out that I do not believe that this Ethics Committee met in compliance with the Brown Act.

[31:23] The meeting wasn't noticed and that Ethics Committee is not actually revealed on the website or anywhere else.

[31:31] I also believe that in making the decision to lodge this, the investigation against me, that also violated the Brown Act.

[31:39] As similarly, the Ethics Committee meeting was not noticed, and the committee members were not

[31:46] have not been and still are not publicly disclosed, and maybe in some documents that have since been released, but not in the regular way.

[31:54] But more importantly, I want to point out that the Ethics Committee made a decision about, you know, and did refer this issue to the police who called me.

[32:08] and they sent an individual who was apparently a private detective dressed as a valley water employee

[32:15] who was pretending to be a processor to my house late at night and that was really disruptive to my

[32:22] family and woke up my kids and my daughter is autistic as my colleagues know so that actually

[32:30] caused a lot of distress for my family members. You don't mostly because the private detective

[32:36] of dressed as a valley water employee who was pretending to be a process server would not stop

[32:43] ringing the doorbell for 10 minutes. If anyone knows about autism, these types of noises,

[32:48] especially accompanied by two dogs barking, can be not just emotionally, you know, distressful,

[32:56] but physically painful. I, I, I, I, to this day, I have no idea why these types of why the district

[33:04] keeps doing this type of thing to me. Anyway, what I want to say about that

[33:09] investigation, which I first saw when it was delivered to my door, by this

[33:15] pretend process server, because again, a server of processes delivering things

[33:20] that are that compelling person to appear and court and a process server needs to be

[33:24] independent, not wearing the clothing of a, I guess, a party and it's kind of scary

[33:30] When someone shows up saying I'm serving you with documents, dressed as, you know, an agency that you work for and it's your job that oversee and they're saying that here are the documents I'm serving you with that in every way signals that

[33:43] Valleywater was suing me.

[33:47] I'm sorry. I guess I said that this item in front of you consider to remain or not it's not relevant to me. Please allow me to speak chair and I want that this is for the board to decide whether to write and then everything you just said it's more appropriate

[34:09] the public hearing. So either board decides, so we have a public hearing the board to have a public hearing.

[34:16] I mentioned many times that my own, my own neurological difference ADHD, as I've said many times, means that when I'm interrupted, it actually sets me far back, interrupting me, because my neurology, my neurological difference, which is considered to be an 88.

[34:38] disability makes it much harder on me to interrupt me.

[35:00] I don't to me. So, hearing to discuss whether or not, as I'm saying,

[35:08] please don't interrupt your chair. It's inappropriate.

[35:10] As I'm saying, I hearing to discuss whether or not I did something that I never denied based on an investigation of me that did not include me.

[35:21] This 20 pages of investigation that the ethics committee relied on.

[35:24] interview all sorts of people right there. I am not there. That's in

[35:29] verb. And I let me say it one more time. We are not here today to talk

[35:34] about how that you let University University report. We're here to discuss the

[35:41] board ethics and how to conduct a committee recommendation to the full board to

[35:48] set up public hearing. So you don't understand the point I'm getting to. I don't

[35:53] me and I'm not getting to it. I understand, but also I have a meeting to conduct. So please

[35:59] please, that's and also we have a, I mean, I mean, honestly, God, please, that is big.

[36:06] So we have it, we, we, we, we, we, we, anything that's on the agenda needs to be discussed. Anything

[36:13] that's not on the agenda, we should provide the appropriate timing and information so everybody can

[36:20] have that discussed. Okay, right now, this board gives you some rise. What do you want to say? Yes,

[36:27] but can you promise not to interrupt me? I promise not to interrupt you, but can you give me a

[36:32] time about three minutes? Four minutes. Four minutes. Michelle, can you start checking the time?

[36:41] I am saying that this decision and choice to have a hearing about me impacts me and it impacts my family.

[36:50] Having a hearing dedicated to whether or not I did something that I never denied doing is unnecessary.

[36:58] Facing that decision on an investigation where the investigator talked to 20 people, but didn't talk to me, is highly unusual, unprofessional, and arguably corrupt.

[37:08] have the investigator spoken to me. I would have admitted, taking the pages because I'm entitled to them.

[37:17] Any confidentiality they have is confidentiality that belongs to me. Every single page is about me.

[37:26] I, you know, I brought it home, which I never denied, and I put it in a locked secure place.

[37:33] I learned for the first time that the district found this to be believed that this was theft because I need to repeat I did not take the digital file.

[37:42] I took home a printout. I had asked the clerk to print a copy for me. She denied. She said, I don't have time.

[37:52] So, fine, she can do it later. But I took all the printouts that I'm entitled to. I never denied it. I left through the front door. No one ever asked me about it.

[38:01] And no one asked me for it back.

[38:03] The first time I learned that anyone had a problem with it

[38:06] was when I read about it in a blog post

[38:09] for the Sanders A spotlight,

[38:11] which is an organization that the CEO used to sit on the board of

[38:15] and that he has given in the past at least $10,000

[38:19] of district funds to as a charitable donation.

[38:22] That is not really a credible source,

[38:24] but that is the first time I heard

[38:26] that the district's thought I did anything wrong.

[38:29] It estranged me that no one called me up and asked me for them back.

[38:36] The defense, the response, the district response to this, is that on Friday, after they already

[38:41] alerted the police and the press that I had stolen, what is the word they use, something

[38:48] like items of national security, documents, after they alerted the press, then their lawyer

[38:58] contacted my lawyer. Now, I am significantly in debt, you know, to my lawyer and expecting

[39:04] me to have a paid interaction with my lawyer in order to know that I've supposed to bring

[39:11] these documents back is irrational. I was even at the district on Wednesday night and it

[39:16] interrupted with lots of people including the CEO and no one told me that they thought he

[39:20] should have taken the print out and they wanted it back. This district had so many entities since

[39:26] someone to my house, to not take fast for the print out back, but to send me a bunch of documents

[39:33] and to scare the living of Jesus out of me and my daughter who's autistic and my dogs

[39:39] and my tuna kittens. I mean, there is no reason to do then when this valley water dressed person

[39:47] without my house giving me something like could have emailed, that was a time they could have asked me

[39:51] back and they didn't. This has been very odd. It's I have never denied taking that

[40:00] I have not shared it with anyone. I will never share it with anyone. I haven't even shared it with my lawyer, even though I'm entitled to.

[40:08] I haven't looked at it myself because I'm too anxious about it. It's because I'm too afraid. I pray that if I look at it, the police is going to show up and arrest me. I mean, this is a lot of anxiety that is being caused to me.

[40:23] So having this hearing about whether or not it did something I don't deny doing is unnecessary.

[40:31] It's it's it's cruel.

[40:32] It'll do our part of the family.

[40:33] I got eight seconds.

[40:35] So now we have another two.

[40:37] No, no.

[40:38] Go.

[40:38] It is and I have another four.

[40:41] Having a hearing and something I don't deny is unnecessary arbitrary and cruel.

[40:47] And I urge my colleagues to not do it since I don't deny taking this print out.

[40:53] Thank you.

[40:57] Director Estomeran.

[41:00] Thank you, Mayor chair.

[41:02] Mayor chair, all of each one of the directors here receive a memo from you.

[41:13] Expressing exactly what process we're going to use.

[41:19] informing us that this was a privilege, confidential process, that each one of us would

[41:26] require, were allowed to review the report, under the auspices of the clerk. The clerk

[41:36] was to allow us to read the reports, but not take them with us and return them to the clerk.

[41:46] In fact, the clerk, each one of us, receive from the clerk the full report, including attachments.

[41:57] We were put in a room, a lot of companies room.

[42:00] We were allowed to review the reports, and then they were returned to the clerk.

[42:07] Consistent with her instructions, each and every single one of us did that, except for that recognize her.

[42:17] who removed the reports,

[42:23] knowing that she was told not to remove them.

[42:28] That actually came out after.

[42:29] And in fact, in fact,

[42:35] they're not exactly like we usually do where her car was parked.

[42:39] I did it. It was closest to the car.

[42:42] I didn't interrupt you.

[42:44] That means interrupt.

[42:46] That means interrupt both of you.

[42:50] Yeah, I give Director Eisenberg the same caution that we're talking about, whether to have the public hearing or not.

[43:01] And then, I will give.

[43:03] Yes, ma'am, I was responding to issues that were raised.

[43:07] Secondly, I would like council to explain whether or not the ethics committee appropriately met consistent with the Brown Act.

[43:17] Okay. That's a good. That's a good. Yeah. Go ahead. That's not your main to whether or not we should have a hearing. I have no, it's still not your main. I was told that this is not related. So I think that if it was not your main for me. Sure. I don't understand. It's essentially the district council is the person who filed against me. You're not in your own fire. I. I also have another director wants to speak.

[43:46] I think that's all Haqq take a step back and then focus on why we're here on what this item.

[43:56] Director Bell, what you're going to say is related to that, whether to have a public hearing or not have a public hearing.

[44:10] We adopted a rules of order of Rosenberg to understand.

[44:13] Yes. And I have to turn this in everybody, a copy of the Rosenberg's Rules of Order. I believe the League of

[44:21] Cities publishes a copy that we can get. The Rules of Order described decorum at the meetings in

[44:29] erupting with Christ. I don't believe we adopted the Rosenberg. I believe our discussion was that

[44:42] It's the our existing board policy is very consistent with that and as far as we follow our existing policy. So definitely I do not believe we did yeah, I do not believe we did yeah, but then we did

[45:00] So I decided at the next time and then the board, the board can use it as we move forward. So, and then, I, I just, I'm more time, we're here to talk about whether to have a,

[45:16] I'm sure.

[45:17] Public hearing or not, which we'll call her.

[45:20] Uh-huh.

[45:21] Uh-huh.

[45:22] Did you just call me?

[45:24] Did you?

[45:25] Yes, Madam Chair.

[45:27] We, as a public comment, then please call for the question.

[45:31] We have a motion.

[45:32] Time to call for a motion.

[45:34] We listen very carefully.

[45:36] We have the information in front of me.

[45:37] Let's go to work.

[45:38] Thank you.

[45:42] Uh-huh.

[45:43] So, uh,

[45:44] that's, I have a public comment, and a great question.

[45:49] Yeah. Is that related to whether to have a public hearing or not?

[45:53] Can you, can you limit your question or comments to a minute?

[45:59] Yes. So even though no one else gets a time in it.

[46:02] So I see that there is information redacted from my statement.

[46:07] And as you know, California's Public Record Act requires that each

[46:12] reduction requires a statement of privilege that applies to each reduction, and

[46:18] overwhelm umbrella explanation doesn't constitute reason to redact information, this

[46:24] much information pages of my statement from the public purview. Also, I note that this

[46:33] board just voted to lift the closed session privilege and the attorney's client privilege

[46:39] as to these matters, so that means there is not privilege as to many of these things.

[46:44] And finally, as still kind of in in 18 seconds, 17 seconds.

[46:49] But finally, to the extent that a lot of these items are confidential,

[46:52] I own the confidentiality, and I have the right to wave my own confidential information,

[46:59] which I did when I published this. So for this reason, these redactions are inappropriate.

[47:05] that they're not in compliance with California law.

[47:09] They don't, which requires that each redaction has

[47:12] a specific explanation.

[47:15] It sites personnel records, which I think

[47:18] apply in a very less redaction to personal records

[47:21] of the CEO, which are certainly not considered privileged

[47:27] according to state law.

[47:30] So to the extent to any of this personnel record

[47:33] have been deleted from the applied to the CEO that was inappropriate to redact it.

[47:40] So I think that the public is entitled to read my statement, and I think that these redactions

[47:46] are inappropriate.

[47:48] Thank you, Director Eisenberg, and I just want to make a clear to the public, or whoever

[47:56] is listening to the board discussion in this agenda item, they're say legislative paths,

[48:02] text, there's attachment one, attachment two and attachment three. None of these attachment has any redempted

[48:13] one in those in those of in those attachments. That's because you didn't include my statements

[48:19] in the attachments. So like I asked you to, so the fact that you didn't include my attachment is

[48:25] even more evidence that you are not giving me the right to speak that I'm entitled to under state law.

[48:31] So maybe federal law too. Thank you. And then the public deserves. Okay. Mr. Mark Wise.

[48:40] Do you want to make a comment to this board related to either 5.03. Yes, please go there.

[48:47] And as stage your name and address,

[48:52] are you talking? Good afternoon, board members. Thank you

[48:57] for your service. My name is Mark Wise. I'm a high school basketball coach in Palau at the California

[49:02] I drove 26 miles to get here today because I'm very concerned about what's going on here.

[49:11] Actually, if you permit me with my two minutes and 44 seconds, a bit of a digression.

[49:16] I'm holding up a collectible.

[50:00] He was the Heisman Trophy winner, which is the award for the greatest football player in the nation. He played for Stanford University, which is near Palo Alto and near my home.

[50:11] But he also has relevance here in the South Bay because he went to James-Lick High School.

[50:18] And Mr. Mr. Bell might also be the alumnus of Parenthood.

[50:23] Well, God bless you, sir.

[50:25] And I'm a football fan, what I'm trying to get to indirectly, if you permit me is that Mr.

[50:35] Plunkett was both a football hero and a wrestling champion.

[50:40] And by the time he was a senior high school, he's a very famous person.

[50:45] And he was sort of pride for the whole county in the whole Bay Area.

[50:49] And eventually, naturally, he won a Super Bowl.

[50:54] And because I've become involved, I'm an assistant volunteer JV coach for gun high school

[51:01] the Titans.

[51:02] I've played there years and years ago as well.

[51:06] I've been following sports, and according to a fairly reputable website, Max Preps,

[51:12] James Lyck, compared to the days of Jim Plunkett is not doing as well.

[51:16] I don't mean to be shaming James Lyck, but the lowest rate football team, the lowest

[51:22] basketball team in the entire county. And what I'm getting at is, you know, we really appreciate

[51:29] all the hard work Valley Water does over the years, but you have to, you know, we have to,

[51:35] we the citizens, we the people have to engage and keep track of what goes on here and make sure

[51:40] our water is pure and our floods are, our creeks are safe. And I do call on my fellow citizens

[51:46] the tune in here and, you know, cheer on our elected leaders and our paid staff, but also, you know,

[51:54] hold them accountable. And what I'm saying here is, I think this is an extreme waste of time,

[51:59] Rebecca Eisenberg, and a personally, I voted for when Samantha City Council in Palo Alto. I voted

[52:03] for her and worked on her campaign, I think, when she ran for this seat. I knew Gary, he was my neighbor.

[52:09] I knew Greg's Lotnick, who was both an old old friend, elected to that seat,

[52:13] I've served in that seat for a few months as well.

[52:17] I really think we should just move on and do things that are a benefit for the taxpayers like myself and the voters like myself

[52:24] do not waste any more of our time of money.

[52:26] $600,000, that's disgraceful with due respect.

[52:30] Thank you for your comment, Mr. Weiss.

[52:36] And I think your point is right on that we should move forward and then our job is to manage

[52:45] water for Santa Clara County and we should really focus on what our job is.

[52:51] So we have a motion and are there any other public comment?

[52:59] Yes.

[52:59] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[53:00] We have a couple of hands raised in online.

[53:03] the first one, I apologize if I mispronounce your name, Dan Steading.

[53:12] The Mr. Dan, please go ahead.

[53:24] You're still muted, I think.

[53:32] Through the chair.

[53:34] His audio is not coming through.

[53:37] Audio is not coming through.

[53:39] From his mic, yes.

[53:40] Okay, then maybe we'll go to the next one and then come back to Dan.

[53:45] Dan, I don't know if that's a first name or last name.

[53:49] Okay, the next hand I have raised is Deborah Goldie.

[53:53] Ms. Goldie, please go ahead.

[53:57] Hi, the board of Goldie. I'm Paula with the California.

[54:01] I'm retired. I have been reading for years,

[54:05] editorials in the Mercury News.

[54:08] I'm, you know, just a very critical of Santa Clara Valley Water District

[54:14] and how they operate, and it is on my to-do list and retirement to keep a closer eye on y'all.

[54:20] And I don't know whether there should be a public hearing on this or not, but if there is

[54:28] going to be public hearing on it, I am going to be there, I am going to speak, I am going to speak

[54:32] in favor of Rebecca Eisenberg, and hopefully I'm going to bring the press with me. Thank you.

[54:38] Thank you.

[54:42] Let's go back to Dan.

[55:00] Chair, he unmuted, we still cannot hear him through his mic.

[55:04] Okay,

[55:12] if we cannot hear you, that's maybe if you don't mind stay on the Zoom and then trying to figure out what's the problem and we can come back at the end and ask for your feedback.

[55:31] Yeah, there's a good suggestion that you can call us, right?

[55:39] And then we can hear you.

[55:45] To see the number to call.

[55:49] Thank you, Manachari.

[55:50] It's listed on the agenda, the call number that means.

[55:53] So can you please try to do that?

[55:57] And when you're through, then we will call you immediately.

[56:01] Okay.

[56:12] We cannot move forward to vote until we hear this public comment.

[56:27] Then through

[56:40] the chair I asked twice to unmute through the zoom option.

[56:45] It's you are on you are unmuted from our end.

[56:53] Is that is that down so we can hear him right? No, that's not him.

[56:59] Um, no, through the chair, uh, this is, uh, Walter from, I see department.

[57:05] We have him unmuted. He is, we're not getting any audio from his site.

[57:10] Okay.

[57:22] Good chair. Would you like me to, um, call out to Mr.

[57:25] Stegink about the phone number. He could try calling me a video.

[57:29] Yeah, because, uh, OAS were stuck in the middle off the side and we, uh, we cannot move forward.

[57:34] You can use the call-in number that's listed on the agenda at 1, 6, 6, 9, 9, 0, 0, 9, 1, 2, 8, and the ID number you want to put in is 8, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 1, 5, 5, 9, 7, 5, 5, 5, 5, 9, 7, 5.

[58:13] Do the chair. I think he is actively trying because I just call them at the number I know him to have.

[58:19] and I heard basically this meeting in the background.

[58:25] So I'm not sure what's happening,

[58:27] but I think he's trying.

[58:35] Okay.

[58:35] He probably, and he's trying to speak this way,

[58:40] or is, I don't know, I don't think so.

[58:43] Yeah, because we cannot,

[58:45] they're asking him for ID.

[58:51] Oh, then you have to.

[58:53] Oh, he's providing ID and they can explain

[58:56] what's the technical problem.

[58:57] I'm on mute it. I've used zoom in the last 24 hours. I'm used to probably $100 in

[59:05] the last year. When I click on that link, I'm happy to have it.

[59:13] If I hand this to that

[59:16] IT department, can I can they do it that way? I don't understand what legal prohibition there

[59:21] is on having somebody who's going to speak on my behalf, speak to this because he couldn't

[59:27] get through. I'm saying. Okay, if I can, that's, that's, that's, maybe the IT can

[59:36] figure it out, but in the meantime, I don't think, I don't think it's a good idea for

[59:42] all of us to sit here and then waiting until this technical difficulty is resolved.

[59:48] So my proposal is that we will hold this and then hold the item 5.3 and then now I'm moving on to item 7

[1:00:00] necessary, because it's related to the Ragnar Creek Erosion Repair Project, a resulting from the flooding emergency,

[1:00:09] and that project is complete. The board is approved under the consent calendar, so we don't need to

[1:00:16] continue this emergency declaration. So that's item 7.1. Okay. I will ask one more time that

[1:00:27] Can we can we can we get Mr.

[1:00:33] Dent

[1:00:33] Sue can can I T or the clerk or someone call him he said he

[1:00:42] No, there's a rule and can can I can then can you please work it out how we saw our staff and in a meantime

[1:00:53] I can't work it out with IT because he doesn't have a reach IT

[1:00:59] Oh, do you have any advice for us?

[1:01:02] Through the chair, I'll explain what the legal requirements are.

[1:01:04] The Brown Act requires that it means be available for public comment for people who are in person.

[1:01:09] We have added about the board has showed them to add a Zoom option as a courtesy to those who are not able to attend.

[1:01:15] No legal requirement to allow anybody to speak via Zoom or through any other format.

[1:01:20] So it's a discretion board whether to allow an alternative further alternative means.

[1:01:26] I would note that for equity purposes, if it's off,

[1:01:29] I'll turn if domains is provided for one person that you should be made available to

[1:01:32] an entire fellow.

[1:01:33] It's great.

[1:01:34] That it made available to everyone.

[1:01:36] Why not?

[1:01:37] More comments, to better.

[1:01:39] Is that the, say we have a.

[1:01:44] Do you know related to them?

[1:01:44] I don't understand what I think is.

[1:01:45] They're eyes in bird.

[1:01:46] Please, okay, you are not hearing.

[1:01:49] You're.

[1:01:49] Well, I don't understand the, that are equal.

[1:01:51] Okay.

[1:01:51] I shouldn't allow people to speak or not what anonymous march is.

[1:01:56] And as a person who's threatening possibly to sue me and nobody is saying that not allowing people to speak, but we have to allowing people to speak to consistent with the ground at requirement.

[1:02:11] So if we can take a time and work through that fair down here, I want to add to 8.1 and just say I guess

[1:02:25] a warning to our public speaker that either 4.1, he says he's on.

[1:02:35] Lancy like leak to be a lancy. So that's okay. Okay, so not point of order. Okay, that's so he is can we hear you. Can you say something? Can we hear you?

[1:02:51] Can we hear him?

[1:02:54] Through the chair. I have unmuted him again twice. Okay, and then and we have nothing. He now unmuted himself, but we still here no audio from him. Okay, then I

[1:03:06] Mr. Dan, we really need this thing to be worked out.

[1:03:10] In the meantime, I will move on to either 8.1.

[1:03:13] So, as I said earlier, this can take some time.

[1:03:18] It's a lengthy bail-ancy discussion by the board for either 8.1.

[1:03:23] So, thank you for your patience and I want to thank our board members for your patience as we're going through this.

[1:03:30] Item 8.1, receive and update on the particular reservoir expansion project, project number 9195402.

[1:03:41] And this, the recommendations to receive the information update on the operations and benefits of particular reservoir expansion project.

[1:03:51] And before I ask staff for presentation,

[1:03:56] then the purpose of this item is this is the first one

[1:04:02] of a slew of topic related to this project

[1:04:08] that the board actually approved several months ago

[1:04:12] to come back to the board for the board to have in-depth discussion

[1:04:18] the understanding of these complex topic and also for opportunity for the public to get engaged

[1:04:30] through these individual topic, because it's helping all of us to reaching to the decision-making

[1:04:38] process. So again today, we are not deciding whether to move forward or not move forward on this

[1:04:45] project. We are starting this topic number one for particular as well project and expecting

[1:04:53] further discussions on different topics in the next several months.

[1:05:00] So, with that introduction, Ryan, please go ahead.

[1:05:06] Yes, thank you. Good afternoon, chair and directors and appreciate the introduction from the chair there.

[1:05:11] It's exactly what we're doing is providing a presentation here.

[1:05:15] It's a multi-presentation format, so this is the first in a series.

[1:05:20] And we did come to the board in November of last year presented our different topics that we'd be presenting during the series.

[1:05:27] And this is the first of that, and we presented this to the water storage explorer committee in December, and planned to bring this to the board in January, however, there's changes in the agenda. So here we are on February 13, not January 23, it's shown there. So I'll go on with the presentation on the operations and benefits of the project. So we've seen this slide many times before in many different ways. And what this really does is summarize the needs that this project can address.

[1:05:55] And this is also sort of a breakdown of what this presentation will go through and I will be starting off with the emergency water supply benefit and how the project addresses that need.

[1:06:08] And then I will pause and we can take questions on that portion of it.

[1:06:11] That's the full of it going through the operations and that's slide nine.

[1:06:14] I think it will be my last slide and then I'll hand the mic over to the engineering unit manager Julianne O'Brien to go through the other four needs there and go into a little bit more detail

[1:06:24] and we can take questions at the end on those as well.

[1:06:28] So these five needs here, the number one is our emergency water supply.

[1:06:33] And that's what we're addressing in the water supply master plan,

[1:06:36] but the very critical part of this project is something

[1:06:38] that value water needs the most out of these and the others are secondary needs,

[1:06:42] but also very important, and it makes this a nice opportunity for a multi-benefit project.

[1:06:50] So this is going through how the operations work kind of at the grand scale.

[1:06:54] So really the way to sum up how the expanded the Chaco reservoir works is there's two inputs of water and two outputs of water.

[1:07:03] Really the easiest way to sum it up.

[1:07:05] So we received water through a board of water supply from the Delta down through the state water project and CVD aqueducts.

[1:07:12] And it comes into the O'Neill 4 bag.

[1:07:14] It's pumped up into San Luis Reservoir and stored and then we take it for our use through the Chaco pumping plant that exists right there at the west side of San Luis Reservoir.

[1:07:22] And it comes down the hill through the gray line there,

[1:07:26] splits off into the Santa Clara conduit and the Hollister conduit,

[1:07:29] which go to Santa Clara County in San Benito County,

[1:07:32] respectively.

[1:07:34] That's all existing infrastructure.

[1:07:35] That's how we receive our water now.

[1:07:38] So what the Pacheco expansion would include is a new tie-in

[1:07:42] to this pipeline that you can see there in the kind of light blue line

[1:07:46] showing up and down there.

[1:07:48] And we would tie into that existing conduit into the expanded reservoir,

[1:07:51] so that we could put water into the reservoir and wet years and take water out of the reservoir

[1:07:57] and dry years into our pipeline system that we currently have and bring that board of water supply

[1:08:01] into our county and the San Manido could do a very similar thing on a smaller scale based on their

[1:08:08] size and supply needs. The other operation that happens here is the other input, which is the natural

[1:08:15] watershed and with the Pateco Creek, gets from the watershed around it in the rain and collecting

[1:08:20] water into the expanded reservoir. The existing dam that is there now is much smaller and fills

[1:08:28] and spills in moderate wet years, not even in the extreme wet years. So we'd be able to capture

[1:08:34] a lot more water than currently is able to be captured. And then we would use that water in our

[1:08:39] other output way, which is releasing water in the Chaco Creek, which would both recharge ground water

[1:08:45] in the area and the Chaco pass water district to currently owns the dam in their service area,

[1:08:49] which is shown there in the darker green.

[1:08:52] And then also improving the steel head habitat

[1:08:55] and other aquatic species along the Chico Creek,

[1:08:57] which does go dry in most years.

[1:08:58] So it's a very flashy system currently,

[1:09:01] very wet, some winters and very dry to the point

[1:09:04] where the creek goes completely dry

[1:09:06] in portions throughout the summer and early fall.

[1:09:11] And then also shown on this graphic here

[1:09:13] is the yellow lines on the right side.

[1:09:15] That's kind of going through what our refuge deliveries look like.

[1:10:00] So that happens north of sandless reservoir. So that water doesn't ever actually make its way to us. It's more our portion of our contract water that we use to exchange.

[1:10:12] Okay, so this slide was added after we did the water storage exploratory committee presentation and it's really going through the all the numerical modeling. How we looked at all these different operations.

[1:10:22] And this is a pretty complex flow chart, but I thought it was good just to see the complexity of it and show how much is really going into all the numbers that we're driving through and the planning of this project and looking at how the operations work.

[1:10:37] And there's eight main numerical tools that we use in here and these are the best available tools are used statewide and the same systems that we use for our own value water analysis and planning for our water supply.

[1:10:48] And we also got days worth of federal and state resource agency feedback through workshops and meetings with the resource agencies.

[1:10:56] On this approach and how we're looking at these different numbers and models and assumptions that we're putting through.

[1:11:02] So just to sum it up, essentially what we do is we look at the statewide system and look at the hydrology in the state and the important water deliveries that come year after year in the state.

[1:11:12] And then we bring that down into the valley water

[1:11:14] at Santa Clara County level and how that would feed into us.

[1:11:18] And then break the down even further into the Pachico Creek

[1:11:20] watershed and the Pachico Creek releases that will happen there

[1:11:24] through the Pachico Creek habitat suitability model,

[1:11:26] which was developed prior to this project,

[1:11:28] but it's being used and updated as we work through all the details.

[1:11:33] So lots of great outputs here on hydrology, water temperature,

[1:11:37] how much power will take to operate the pump station

[1:11:39] to move water in and out of the expanded reservoir.

[1:11:42] This is really the basis of how we came up with all these numbers

[1:11:45] that we've been using throughout the project there

[1:11:48] in our draft EIR and our water storage investment program,

[1:11:52] feasibility documentation that was submitted in 2021,

[1:11:55] and really having really quantify the benefits

[1:11:57] that the operations bring for this project.

[1:12:02] This is just one output that we get from the modeling,

[1:12:06] and I think it's useful to show what the reservoir volume

[1:12:09] would look like over kind of a virtual period.

[1:12:14] So what we do is we take the year of storms

[1:12:17] from the years of storms from 1922 to 2003,

[1:12:20] and look at how those would affect the Pacheco Resort

[1:12:24] it was in place in our system with all the data

[1:12:26] from the state and all of our value water data

[1:12:29] that we have now.

[1:12:30] And just using that virtual kind of rainfall

[1:12:32] and situational data to look at what the output would be.

[1:12:37] So you can see in the 30s,

[1:12:39] we had a major drought. So that's kind of simulated what a future long extended drought would

[1:12:44] look like for the reservoir as well is the late 80s early 90s drought. So kind of shows what

[1:12:49] the reservoir would do. And the black line is the total storage. And of course, I'm capping out

[1:12:55] at the 140,000 acre beats. So you can see it's full at a lot of times throughout that period.

[1:13:00] But also drops down in these extended droughts. And another really good example to point out is the

[1:13:05] in 1978, we had almost completely dry year.

[1:13:09] So the Chaco Reservoir booths in place

[1:13:11] would have been called down.

[1:13:12] But that's using today's demands,

[1:13:15] but using the water data from that 83-year period.

[1:13:20] The other thing to note on this graphic,

[1:13:22] which is important is those two inputs that I was talking about.

[1:13:26] The import water supplies are shown there on top

[1:13:28] and the light grayish blue, and on the bottom

[1:13:31] is what the natural inflow would bring into the reservoir.

[1:13:33] So, combining those two water sources and how much of each of those water sources would take up the volume of the water and the reservoir.

[1:13:45] Okay, so get into the emergency water supply, need and the benefit of this project brings, I think I mentioned earlier, but there's 45% of our water is imported from the Delta, so that's a major piece of our water supply each and every year.

[1:13:59] And there is a 72% chance of a 6.7 or greater magnitude occurring in the Bay Area by 2043.

[1:14:06] So that's a lot of scientists have been studying this and talking about this.

[1:14:10] And that doesn't include the Delta and Levy system.

[1:14:13] That's that includes the Bay Area.

[1:14:15] And what could happen if there was a Levy failure or any other kind of pipeline

[1:14:19] outage long that import water system before it gets to Santa Clara County,

[1:14:23] where we would be able to receive maybe zero water in any given year.

[1:14:27] So, that would, the Jacob would really provide a emergency water supply for Valley Water in that kind of event.

[1:14:34] And just going through the bullets here with the levee failure, but also in the past 25 years or so,

[1:14:41] the other large water agencies around the state, including Metropolitan Water District and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission,

[1:14:47] have made huge investments into emergency water supply because they have the same concerns.

[1:14:51] They rely heavily on their different,

[1:14:55] the respective imported water systems

[1:14:57] and in an earthquake or other.

[1:15:00] The chances are we would have somewhere around this average. I'm just over 100,000 acre feet available, if value

[1:15:07] water had full control over the water. This is not considering partners, but two partners as well.

[1:15:12] They were part of this, they would have a share of that emergency water supply as well.

[1:15:17] And you can see we've modeled Santa Nito County Water District's storage at 10% as the purple color shaded there up on top.

[1:15:24] So that kind of shows what they would be using during that same time period.

[1:15:32] So, just to put a cap on that emergency water supply, there's a major risk of Delta export

[1:15:38] outages, and this reservoir increases our local surface storage capacity by 90 percent.

[1:15:44] So, almost doubles what we could have in a given year.

[1:15:47] So, obviously, a pretty major benefit, and we're looking at it through our water supply,

[1:15:52] master plan, pretty carefully, is a, our main water storage option that controlled by

[1:15:57] water.

[1:16:00] So the project will also enhance water supply through water storage. So this isn't new water supply.

[1:16:07] We're not counting on new water from the watershed that we'll be taking and using, although that is an option,

[1:16:14] depending on how the rain falls out of the sky, the future that could happen. But we're not counting on that when we analyze these benefits.

[1:16:21] We're really trying to keep it separate between what we store from our excess imported water supplies and wet ears and using dry ears is our our water supply function.

[1:16:31] But without this additional storage that additional water supply wouldn't be there.

[1:16:36] And the way we're modeling it is the Chaco is kind of the last call for water in our we model and how the water supply looks at it. So it doesn't really play into the demand.

[1:16:47] there's more than is demanded in our water supply and that's why it doesn't model out like a good

[1:16:52] new water supply as it could. So there could be up to 24,000 acre feet available in some years

[1:17:00] for water supply to come in, but we think the demands are only around up to 8,000 acre feet for

[1:17:06] Pacheco and just a regular annual supply and demand type year. This is not talking about emergencies

[1:17:11] vaccinated droughts. This is just in a typical year. So having that additional water supply

[1:17:18] available definitely helps us in all of our our goals and booting contribute into our

[1:17:23] groundwater management goals and preventing subsidence and overdrafting of our groundwater system.

[1:17:31] And now we'll pass it over to Juliano Bryant to do the rest of the presentation. Unless there's

[1:17:36] Okay, we have Director Eisenberg has a question.

[1:17:42] I'd like to request board members that if you can limit your question to three minutes

[1:17:50] and I don't, it's not the intent for you not to ask question.

[1:17:56] I just want to make sure that every board member can rotate through

[1:18:00] And then, if I'll finish the question, we'll just continue in that sequence so that everybody

[1:18:06] has the opportunity to ask their questions.

[1:18:11] So, Chair, if I might interject, I would like to suggest that we leave the questions until the

[1:18:17] end of the presentation.

[1:18:19] I think I can.

[1:18:19] My question, I'd directly to Ryan, so in direct response to what you're saying.

[1:18:24] Ryan, we'll be here throughout the whole item.

[1:18:27] So the reason for it is, I think that my questions will be going across the different things, and I would like to make sure that we focus on getting the questions that we need answered answered.

[1:18:44] I'm like my colleague.

[1:18:46] That's a, that's a, that's a, that's a, that's a, that's a, that was my personal statement.

[1:18:49] I mean the same in such a, you should that my question may be explained later.

[1:18:54] So my question will not be explained later, because it is directly related to what Ryan said can I go ahead and ask you a question.

[1:19:01] It is a question. So.

[1:19:04] So by the way, as you know, according to our governance rules, the chair does not have the right to limit the speaking.

[1:19:09] I mean, I went out with my report.

[1:19:13] It's a little bit like we're best to you.

[1:19:15] Yeah, if it doesn't work, if it doesn't work,

[1:19:18] I'll ask for the, but then at this point,

[1:19:21] it's my request and I hope you please give me back these

[1:19:24] with 20, 20 seconds.

[1:19:26] This is a little bit nutty and you don't do this to anyone else.

[1:19:29] So here's one one question.

[1:19:30] Can you go back to the slide where you talked about how this damn

[1:19:35] wood this reservoir would actually provide protection from earthquakes.

[1:19:41] So, it's pretty well known

[1:19:43] that the the best biggest risk in earthquakes is to imported water. So, what water fills this reservoir

[1:19:52] is it imported water? Yes, imported water and water from the watershed. Okay. So,

[1:19:58] words.

[1:19:59] Yeah.

[1:20:00] So, imported water will be impacted by an earthquake. So, that means that this reservoir won't

[1:20:08] is very likely not to receive imported water from an earthquake. So, that is why the met and other

[1:20:14] water districts, pretty much universally, have decided that local water sources are actually the only way

[1:20:21] to earthquake proof. And that is why the met and other water districts are actually investing in water recycling.

[1:20:29] and stormwater capture and other technologies.

[1:20:33] So given that, first quick resilience wasn't one of the stated purposes of this dam

[1:20:39] and reservoir, and that it's actually a stretch to say that this would provide any earthquake

[1:20:45] perfection.

[1:20:47] Maybe could you consider revising this, this, your statement?

[1:20:51] Well, I don't have time actually.

[1:20:53] It was because they're going to cut me up.

[1:20:54] So another question is that, in this, you say that 8,000 acre feet is pretty much what this

[1:21:02] that's written out would provide a year. So that is that inclusive of the 35 percent

[1:21:10] acre feet that would go to theoretical partners or that offer us. Because the price as a reminder,

[1:21:18] the cost figure that we give is only 65% of the actual cost to account for 35% contribution

[1:21:25] by partners that don't exist. So with that same calculation in mind, is that 8,000 in next

[1:21:34] number, what we would get or a gross number, whatever one would get.

[1:21:39] Got to the chair. I can answer both of those questions frequently.

[1:21:44] Okay, yes, so yeah. Okay. Okay. So the back to the earthquake, we do consider having the

[1:21:50] Pacheco Reservoir expansion would be a local water supply that we could call on in that type

[1:21:56] of emergency. But you're right, we wouldn't be able to get water there after an earthquake, but the

[1:22:00] idea is that we'd get it there before an emergency. And it's there. Yeah, similar to what MWD did

[1:22:07] with diamond valley.

[1:22:08] So we're talking about 8,000 acre feet.

[1:22:10] I don't know, up to up to 24,000.

[1:22:14] No, that in an emergency, there's much more

[1:22:16] than we'd be needed, right?

[1:22:18] So that 8,000 is based on our demand.

[1:22:21] So what would the maximum amount be?

[1:22:24] That's up to 100,000 acre feet if we had.

[1:22:27] And so is that for all the participants?

[1:22:29] Yes, that's for all that's a gross number.

[1:22:31] So given that we give that 65% I'm still asking my question,

[1:22:35] given that we give a 65% number as to the cost.

[1:22:38] What is, so are you actually saying

[1:22:40] that it'd be more like 65,000?

[1:22:42] We're not offering a 65% value on the cost.

[1:22:45] The full amount of citizens.

[1:22:46] The CFO has the state of here, and he can respond

[1:22:49] that in the board voted to add that 2.78 is actually

[1:22:53] net of 35% contribution.

[1:22:56] Are you saying that that's no longer the case?

[1:22:58] I believe that's the financing model, not the total project

[1:23:01] costs.

[1:23:02] OK, so the total project costs

[1:23:05] advertising the CIP is actually lower than 2.78. So again, I'm going to point out the inconsistency

[1:23:11] in claiming a cost of 65%, but claiming a benefit of 100%. That is a huge inconsistency.

[1:23:20] I disagree that there's an inconsistency. Okay, I recognize that you disagree.

[1:23:25] Okay. Okay, that's, that's, that's, let's move on. Okay. And I think Director Kiegas,

[1:23:41] suggestion earlier, make sense for all more members that we will finish the presentation

[1:23:48] and then not take turn to ask questions. And my request to everybody is to give other more

[1:23:54] a chance to ask questions.

[1:23:57] Q&A.

[1:23:58] Go ahead.

[1:23:59] Good afternoon.

[1:24:00] Ms. Ryan mentioned earlier.

[1:24:01] I'm Juliano Bryant, the engineering unit manager overseeing the

[1:24:04] Particle Project.

[1:24:05] And I'm taking over on the San Luis Reservoir low-point

[1:24:10] water quality issues.

[1:24:12] So the need here is the fact that the upper intakes,

[1:24:18] which are the intakes that value water uses to remove water from

[1:24:21] stimulus reservoir are much higher than the other

[1:25:00] Or the water receives beyond that level. Or the algae blue is in that area in the screen, here impacting the taste and quality of the water.

[1:25:11] odor and taste, if the water that we take from the reservoir, excuse me, and provide to our

[1:25:22] resellers. And so what we will, how to take a walk with that is personally,

[1:25:35] And so how we will use Pacheco to help with that issue is during the cooler months before the algae bloom occurs, or when the reservoir levels are higher, we will move water from San Luis into Pacheco to have in Pacheco to then use during the warmer months when there's the issues with San Luis.

[1:26:01] or to blend with that water in San Luis to combat those concerns.

[1:26:09] And so this would prevent 63

[1:26:11] months of impaired water quality deliveries based on the analysis period that we looked at,

[1:26:17] which was a 97% reduction by delivering the supplies earlier in season and capturing the water

[1:26:28] source and kind of for perspective going back to this slide, that's this one. They intake

[1:26:41] level elevation is 376 feet and the current reservoir levels today are 482 feet. So you can see

[1:26:48] in February, the reservoir levels are much higher than the intake levels but later in the year they

[1:26:56] changes.

[1:27:05] And then while the Chaco itself may still have,

[1:27:11] it may end up having some of the same concerns with algae levels in the reservoir,

[1:27:16] the design of the reservoir is such that the intake levels will be much lower

[1:27:23] and so well below whatever algae may grow in the Chaco,

[1:27:27] as well as the shape of the reservoir itself is much deeper.

[1:27:32] And so the water will stay cooler,

[1:27:34] which will benefit the fish with you talk about later,

[1:27:37] as well as make it less conducive for algae to grow.

[1:27:43] So, bring us to the fish, the steelhead.

[1:27:47] So, this picture is native in non-native feed,

[1:27:50] fish, and you're one at Avenue.

[1:27:53] And the need is there was a 90% decline

[1:27:55] of steel head in Paharao from between the 1960s to the 1980s, partially has

[1:28:02] but shape of creek dries out during the summer months. There's insufficient flow. And then when

[1:28:06] there is water, it is much elevated in temperatures, which is not conducive for the fish.

[1:28:16] And so the red line here shows the typical releases on a monthly basis throughout a year of

[1:28:27] go without a project. As things are, if the current reservoir was not restricted in flow right now,

[1:28:36] the valve is continuing to open, they're all allowed to store water there. And the blue line

[1:28:43] shows what the proposed releases would be with the project. As you can see, there's in much higher

[1:28:52] I love it, excuse me, releases throughout the year and it's much more consistent throughout the year than currently.

[1:29:04] And so, the project will support the federal release right into your head recovery by making, by improving the habitat and making it more conducive for the fish to survive in the, in the creek.

[1:29:23] And the flow regime that we developed was through a series of workshops including

[1:29:30] NIMS, CDFW and other regulatory and project partners.

[1:29:33] And the models and results that we came up with were reviewed by the California Work Commission and CDFW

[1:29:39] Ryan had showed the flow chart on a lot of that earlier.

[1:29:44] And providing you around flow into measure benefits, make the creek.

[1:29:48] We'll make the creek more conducive to

[1:29:50] We have a, we work in this habitat for recovery and we, the cohorts for will be increased between.

[1:30:00] And so, as part of the water storage infrastructure, there's a requirement to help collectively reduce this issue.

[1:30:15] And so, a take-a would contribute to that by diverting up to 2008 for wetlands in below normal water years.

[1:30:27] And so this combined with similar contributions from other projects would help increase

[1:30:34] what food supply from migrating Pacific, lie away waterfall, foul and other species

[1:30:48] that are in the wetlands.

[1:30:51] And then for an idea of the impact between 2012 and 2022, there were three below normal

[1:30:57] years that would have received a total of 6,000 acre feet from the Chaco if it's part of

[1:31:03] a minute place. And so this would be done via exchanges as Ryan mentioned earlier, so the water

[1:31:09] would from our CBP water would divert to this before we would get to the Chaco.

[1:31:17] And then the communities downstream of the reservoir have received extensive flooding, even for

[1:31:28] frequent small events last year, there was some significant flooding in January, and then also in 2017,

[1:31:36] there was some significant flooding as well. And while this project is not planned to be operated

[1:31:42] for flood control, it will provide some incidental flood control just by by existing and being a much

[1:31:49] larger reservoir that will reduce the peak flows by having a much larger space for the

[1:31:58] water to get both who before it, get downstream and based on our modeling, we expect that we can reduce

[1:32:07] the peak flows by up to 46% in the Chaco Creek. That's only one portion of it, but it would still

[1:32:14] be a incidental benefit to the people downstream.

[1:32:21] I

[1:32:25] think that's all of the

[1:32:29] Thank you, Julian.

[1:32:31] And then I'll award questions.

[1:32:33] Who will start with the Director Kegan?

[1:32:38] Thank you, Churchway.

[1:32:40] And thank you, staff, for the presentation.

[1:32:43] So I think I want to start out with sort of more

[1:32:46] global questions and comments.

[1:32:49] And I think Mr. McCartor is going to have

[1:32:51] to answer some of these questions.

[1:32:55] I'll just start out by saying, I kind of feel a little bit

[1:32:58] deja vu with Anderson. I think it's an organization. We tend to have, we tend to identify

[1:33:09] what's the project we want to do and not necessarily look into deviating from that or

[1:33:19] or seriously considering other options. I realize that's just a philosophical comment so I don't

[1:33:25] respect staff to respond to that, but it does concern me because I think I look at Anderson

[1:33:33] and I think, yes, we face the challenging regulatory environment, but there's things that

[1:33:38] could have been done with poor sight like, for example, having it not be a, having decoupled

[1:33:47] from Burke many years ago when we were first planning to do the project. So one of the issues

[1:33:55] that I have with this is I feel like there's a lack of specificity, Rita Norton, who was formerly

[1:34:01] the head of Environmental Services for the City of San Jose.

[1:34:05] She has the first comment that was submitted today and she suggested that this looks more

[1:34:20] Like an advocacy kind of report for the project rather than perhaps a more realistic one that may be identifying some of the concerns and some of the issues and some of the challenges that we need facing and I have a tendency to agree with her.

[1:34:40] I also think the serial club brought up a number of good points.

[1:34:45] My first question is going to be, and I realize staff will probably not be able to identify

[1:34:53] this, um, absolutely, but I want to know how much money are we-

[1:35:00] We're going to be expanding on a monthly basis on fake shakeout. Like for example, in the upcoming year,

[1:35:05] how much money do we anticipate spending? Because I think it's a lot.

[1:35:11] Yeah, I don't have that number off the top of my head. I do know that in previous presentation,

[1:35:15] where we had the timeline, we did have that marked out.

[1:35:20] and maybe we will offer.

[1:35:23] Yeah, if I had to take a guess, I think it's around 20 million

[1:35:27] on average per year in planning and design

[1:35:30] environmental pervading efforts.

[1:35:35] So between one and a half and two million a month to move forward with this.

[1:35:41] Okay, thank you for that answer.

[1:35:43] Um, we have got, um, with the alums, uh, for Patreco. Um, did we disclose the fact that we're

[1:35:53] going to have an impact on a park as part of this project in our low in application?

[1:35:59] Did we, did we disclose the excuse to repeat the question?

[1:36:03] We're going to be impacting a state park, correct?

[1:36:06] As part of the project?

[1:36:07] Correct.

[1:36:07] Did we disclose that on our WIFI applications?

[1:36:11] I'm not sure if it was explicitly in the application, but as an attachment, the draft EIR and all the different components in the impacts were included for the review and there was actually a NEPA review associated with the with the alums.

[1:36:26] So that was disclosed.

[1:36:28] I don't know if it was the environmental document. There's a lot of things in environmental document. I mean, how many pages did that run to?

[1:36:36] of 2000 or so. So sometimes it's hard to separate the week from the shaft. The reason that I'm sensitive to that and I know we're dealing with a different situation, but certainly the federal highway administration and the requirements of section for where they're quite tough on effects on Parklands and I have to think that we should be aware of the fact that people that don't like this project are going to be looking for any opportunity.

[1:37:06] to raise those kinds of issues.

[1:37:12] I think at this point, I would like to go through the slides.

[1:37:20] Sorry, I'm having to pull up various things here.

[1:37:28] Okay, so if we,

[1:37:35] if we go to the emergency water supply slide,

[1:37:41] We talk about the chance of an earthquake in the Delta and that's something that I've been

[1:37:49] concerned about for a long time. That's why I felt it was appropriate for this agency to be looking

[1:37:58] at participation in the Delta Finance project given the significant impacts that we would see

[1:38:05] with an earthquake. So one of my questions here is how long would our water supply

[1:38:17] in Patreco Dam last and what I've heard is optimistically it would take about two years to recover

[1:38:27] from a seismic event in the Delta. So have we done any sort of analysis in terms of if it

[1:38:35] was low water in the dam versus sort of the average in the dam.

[1:38:42] How long would that water supply last since?

[1:38:46] So when we monetize the emergency water supply benefit,

[1:38:50] as part of the WCIP documentation,

[1:38:52] we didn't look at different scenarios

[1:38:54] and what an average of the bike and how long.

[1:38:56] And it all really depends on when that emergency

[1:39:00] or situation happened right now

[1:39:02] much water was in the reservoir.

[1:39:05] On average, we think that in most circumstances, we can cover an emergency like that for a 12 to 18 month average.

[1:39:14] And that's if the reservoir was that capacity.

[1:39:18] Yeah, we're above average.

[1:39:21] Okay.

[1:39:21] What about if it was one of those significant valleys in terms of, as you're showing up?

[1:39:30] extended route, if there was emergency,

[1:39:32] there wouldn't be a lot of emergency supply available.

[1:39:35] So that would be a pretty unfortunate timing.

[1:39:38] So if it was an earthquake,

[1:39:40] and it route simultaneously,

[1:40:00] Relates to long-term storage of the expanded reservoir. And it kind of fits in with what you are already saying. But I think it's simplistic to say that we can count on the average storage.

[1:40:19] I mean, I think maybe we need to do some sort of simulation to be able to see under varying conditions

[1:40:24] how much water capacity we would actually have because that helps us figure out what's the real benefit, right?

[1:40:32] And that's something I think that we're looking at.

[1:40:40] The project enhances water supply. That's fine.

[1:40:44] If we look at slide 9, the project will enhance water supply, the next one, the next one, the next one, nine, yes.

[1:40:58] Okay,

[1:41:00] so it says that it will reduce drought risk to M&I and agricultural water users.

[1:41:08] You know, as I represent probably the most urbanized because it's the smallest district of all the districts in the county and and we pay a lot more for water than South County does.

[1:41:22] And so what I see here is that there's a benefit to agricultural water users, but who's going to be paying the biggest proportion of this project and and you may not have an answer to that right now.

[1:41:34] But I'd like to see something so I could respond to my constituents,

[1:41:38] because they're going to be asking me that question.

[1:41:40] I think there's a breakdown in the agenda memo.

[1:41:43] If not, this one, some of the others that shows each water zone

[1:41:47] and what the percentage applied to the project is.

[1:41:49] I think we need to be more explicit about that because if we're saying it's

[1:41:54] going to enhance water supply and it's providing a greater benefit to one

[1:41:59] part of the county than another, and yet they're painless, I think we need not just that

[1:42:05] we're listing how the cost gets split, but I think we need to really showcase that.

[1:42:11] I think, you know, the benefit really is kind of overall across the whole groundwater management

[1:42:18] zone because the main thing it can do is recharge groundwater and then supplement other supply

[1:42:24] or a treatment plan. So it kind of spreads across all zones. You know, you're right,

[1:42:29] I'm probably not equally, but you know, it's multi-basseted. Well, one of the things that I've seen

[1:42:35] and I've had some, I don't want to say arguments with Mr. Taylor, our budget director, but

[1:42:42] had some discussions is that I feel like North County pays for buffers to the system, that

[1:42:51] that the whole county. And I get that that's something that's difficult to quantify, but I think

[1:42:55] we should at least be making an attempt at that.

[1:43:02] So some of the other issues, I think that the

[1:43:10] San Luis water point, I won't, I won't repeat the comments that the Sierra Club have made,

[1:43:17] but I think they bring up good points

[1:43:19] and I would like to see staff identify those answers,

[1:43:24] same thing with 15.

[1:43:33] So, the steel head,

[1:43:38] that's something where, again, we hear from the Sierra Club

[1:43:42] that they think that we are overstating that benefit

[1:43:47] and who's verified that 147% increases in cohorts for.

[1:43:55] So again, you may not have a specific answer to it, but I right now, but I think that we need to flesh that out a little bit more and reducing flooding and downstream communities would bring up the issue of that there's been so many floods in prior years.

[1:44:18] You know, the old Anderson dam that we just removed, that provided incidental flood benefits, and we still have flooding, so I think I would like to see quantified.

[1:44:33] If we look at the past and if we look at what would that flooding look like if this dam was in place, I think we're going to claim there's some sort of benefit we should be able to quantify it and that should not be.

[1:45:01] And then lastly, getting back

[1:45:08] to looking at things in a more global way, you know, I'm not sure I'm ready to accept this report, because I feel like there are a lot of unanswered questions.

[1:45:20] And I think in particular, this is sort of painting a glowing picture of the project, which, you know, that's okay.

[1:45:29] We all want to advocate for projects that we think are important.

[1:45:33] I think at the same time, we need to identify what are some of the challenges.

[1:45:39] And I woulder some of the areas where we could run into issues,

[1:45:47] like the potential on this project for litigation when we have people that

[1:45:53] have stated opposition to the project,

[1:45:56] And also have the financial wherewithal to take us to court.

[1:46:03] And then there's just challenges in terms of the regulatory environment.

[1:46:07] There's challenges in terms of the fact that we may be,

[1:46:11] we will be impacting Parklands and what kind of response will we get to that.

[1:46:17] So I just always like to anticipate the worst and then make sure that we have a response

[1:46:23] that would would be able to to deal with that.

[1:46:28] So those so I feel like I need answers to the questions that I've raised,

[1:46:35] that the Sierra Club is raised, that the other commenters have raised.

[1:46:39] Before I'm willing to say, you know, put a stamp on this.

[1:46:44] So I do not think that I want to accept the report at this time.

[1:46:49] If it comes back with some specific answers to the issues that I brought up and others have that could be a different consideration.

[1:46:58] So thank you very much.

[1:46:59] I appreciate it.

[1:47:01] Okay.

[1:47:01] Thank you.

[1:47:02] If you're actually keen for your question.

[1:47:04] One thing I want to clarify is that I don't think the intent of the item is for the board to accept this report.

[1:47:12] Again, we have planned out a member of 607 specific issues related to this complicated project to support the board in reaching a decision or actually helping the board in its decision making process.

[1:47:41] So, it's not like this is the thing, actually, the question that you just asked, that's in their perfect.

[1:47:48] It's the intent of this, the decision.

[1:47:51] So, that staff can take our question and also the public's questions and engagement.

[1:47:59] So, that's how they can come back.

[1:48:02] So, I see this as a, I can force her process.

[1:48:06] Again, it's to help the board so that we don't see one report and say,

[1:48:10] Okay, let's do this or that's not do that.

[1:48:13] So thank you for your comment.

[1:48:19] I have a director, I think Burke, I'll next,

[1:48:22] but since you already asked your question,

[1:48:24] I think I'll ask my question first,

[1:48:26] and then I'll call on you.

[1:48:28] My question is related to the environmental benefit

[1:48:35] that so this requirement from the

[1:48:40] taking a grand money from a prop one to release water to refuge

[1:48:51] in your dryer year up to 2000 acre feet. So that's the water that's our water

[1:49:02] on the contract water for CBP water. It's that water before it reaches several

[1:49:09] rest of all, it will be released to the. So to so basically we're losing 2,000 acre feet on

[1:49:17] that specific year we're losing 2,000 acre feet. Is that am I reading this correctly? Yes,

[1:49:24] that's correct. Yeah, so it's already a dryer year but then because of the dryer we're losing another

[1:49:31] 2,000 acre feet. Yeah, the concept is that we would have 2,000 acre feet stored from previous

[1:49:38] what year that we would otherwise just bring in as if it was our normal contract delivery

[1:49:42] through our normal import water. Supplies that makes sense. So we kind of trade what we had in

[1:49:47] the check-up for what we give. So yeah, I understand how to do this. The concept is that

[1:49:55] So the Pachinko Reservoir was served as this...

[1:50:00] Or contract water, or our CVP water, to the refuge. Is that good, we're looking at, yeah, I just, I just need to understand these, how dynamics, because it, there's, there's numbers every, every word and I understand that each number represents a, in your agenda memo and Sierra Club raised a question, but each number has a specific scenario attached to as I just want to understand that.

[1:50:28] So, and then it's related to that question, and then in that year, which is the dry year in theory, it should be a dry year.

[1:50:36] And as our understanding at this point, it's still required that we release water to particular creek for the fishery.

[1:50:48] Yeah, okay. So, and so those needs of environmental water is actually more, more needed, in the dry year compared to in the, uh, not, not, not, not trying to hear that is like, is that a way to look at it. Yeah. So, okay.

[1:51:12] Okay, I think that's that's my question.

[1:51:17] I want to say just now that I want to single out, single out, meaning I could weigh that

[1:51:28] Sierra Club's common letter. I appreciate reading the letter that I think you actually

[1:51:37] putting a lot of effort and hours in putting together this common letter because it's very specific

[1:51:45] you as the question, and then we, it's our job to provide the answer or explanation. So I really

[1:51:55] appreciate Sierra Club putting effort to do that. It's not the very high level general advice

[1:52:03] comment that you should be doing recycled water. So I'm doing this back in a comment. So thank you

[1:52:08] much, and I do want to make a request to staff. I think Sierra Clubs was there for a page

[1:52:18] of comment. They deserve a person out in face to face meeting with our staff to discuss

[1:52:26] some of the, the sometimes that I write two sentences in there. It's still not as good as

[1:52:34] and I see somebody in person in a half or two-way dialogue.

[1:52:39] So I'm not trying to add workload to all of you,

[1:52:42] but I think it will be helpful in this overall process.

[1:52:46] That's what we're trying to do.

[1:52:48] We're not making any decision,

[1:52:49] but then hopefully these steps will help us

[1:52:52] all make decisions together.

[1:52:54] So would that be a request?

[1:52:57] Okay, now we have director Santos.

[1:53:03] Thank you. Madam Chair, Ryan, Young Lady, excellent presentation.

[1:53:10] I understand the updates

[1:53:11] of so on. Let's go and do want to make a comment when Director Kagan asked on many of those

[1:53:17] questions. I think they are important because it helps me to be more educated and what I'm

[1:53:22] looking at and so on. So I appreciate those comments. And it helps us down the road, whatever

[1:53:27] challenges we have, the more information we get, the better we can overcome, whatever those

[1:53:31] challenge as are. The other issue I have in just a small one, but I think it's it's a major

[1:53:36] contributor right on on Highway 152. That along with the so-called recreation is I remember

[1:53:44] the director of relis, not here today, but I remember the meeting he had with Senator

[1:53:49] Caballero and before that assembly woman. And she talks about the enhancements of recreation

[1:53:54] with this project. So I want to make sure that we touch upon that. Maybe John could bring

[1:53:59] some more information on my just conversations, because that was a plus with speculation.

[1:54:05] The other issue of 152, if that's led to you talking about all kinds of transportation

[1:54:10] issues, the economy, not just to give away both science, the travel, whatever, so I think

[1:54:15] there's more to do in that area of the benefits I believe.

[1:54:19] The other issue is, I was always questioning, why was it built in 1939, and must have been

[1:54:24] for many of the reasons that we're looking at now?

[1:54:25] And I don't know if we ever done the research.

[1:54:29] I understand the depression, but all that water was coming down.

[1:54:32] I must have been flooding that area.

[1:54:34] When FDR said, let's enhance this storage.

[1:54:38] So there's got to be some more history there,

[1:54:41] why it was built in the first place.

[1:54:42] I realize it's below that whole area at the time.

[1:54:46] So there's probably other things we can take a look at.

[1:54:50] Okay.

[1:54:53] Director Esmerdo, do you have a question for staff?

[1:54:57] I don't want to just want to encourage step to it.

[1:55:00] Responding as you mentioned, I think it's important for us to also look at the opportunities that we're going to miss. If we don't build this facility. For instance, when we talked about the question of a huge earthquake in the Delta, you know, what would happen if we have it, what would happen if we didn't have it. I think we've got to look at those things. I always say it's not good enough to look at.

[1:55:30] what happens if we do something, what we need to look at is also what happens if we don't do something.

[1:55:37] I think it's important to look at both sides of the equation.

[1:55:41] Thank you. Director Bell, do you have question for Steph?

[1:55:49] I have one.

[1:55:52] Can you tell me the names of the organizations or entities that have expressed interest in

[1:55:58] participating in the financing of this facility?

[1:56:04] So, PPWD and San Bernardino County Water District, we have an MOU with San Bernardo, and we have an agreement with PPWD as well.

[1:56:15] We have talked to several other agencies and have had a lot of meetings, especially within the last six months, kind of progressing those partnerships, but they have not yet submitted.

[1:56:29] And who are those people?

[1:56:32] Well, because they haven't yet submitted an MLU,

[1:56:35] we don't have any agreements with them.

[1:56:37] I'm not going to, we're not going to need them at this point.

[1:56:40] But we have had a lot of additional conversations

[1:56:45] and including some follow-up ones

[1:56:48] with some of these agencies.

[1:56:50] So you don't want to give us a list of those?

[1:56:54] And director, about that topic is one of the topics

[1:56:58] that the board approved to come back and following a future discussions on Pacheco.

[1:57:07] So I'm sure at that time that if staff has information, they can share with us, they will.

[1:57:14] But there's also an opportunity for us to talk about is it realistic for where we're assumed

[1:57:20] 35% is it's not realistic? If it's not realistic, how do we do that? That was in the plan.

[1:57:28] and how for the board to actually go into detail

[1:57:30] of that insight, correct that.

[1:57:33] And then it's in the next few months,

[1:57:38] a welcome back.

[1:57:39] Yeah, I'm asking for the communications

[1:57:43] that have transpired between the staff,

[1:57:46] board members, other people, expressing interest

[1:57:50] in this particular project and participating

[1:57:53] in the financing of it.

[1:57:56] Yeah.

[1:57:56] Yeah, I have not got an answer, yeah, after asking, I asked this previously so I asked

[1:58:04] it again.

[1:58:06] So you're not giving me the answer, thank you.

[1:58:09] And keep asking this the same question, and that's what has, when Stavis already did, it's

[1:58:18] on the list to come back.

[1:58:20] So I, I just second, I have director giga director, I some book on the loose and director giga

[1:58:28] giga giga in a wait after director, I said book because, very quick follow up, okay.

[1:58:34] So my question.

[1:58:39] Your, how much money has actually been not just MOUs or not just maybe will deal with you

[1:58:47] Has anyone come up with any money is anyone offering to help us out with this almost $2 million a month that we're expanding.

[1:58:59] Just the just the water commission C to be see with the really funding agreement from the recipient.

[1:59:05] Thank you.

[1:59:06] Okay.

[1:59:08] Okay.

[1:59:11] Okay.

[1:59:12] Director Eisenberg and then Director Santos.

[1:59:14] What's taking turn?

[1:59:15] Okay.

[1:59:17] Is it my turn?

[1:59:18] Great.

[1:59:19] Thank you.

[1:59:20] So.

[1:59:24] So what is the deadline for when we're finally going to stop, you know, stop, keep trying to get financial partners, because this has been an open ended thing for how many years seven.

[1:59:40] And we still at per your admission don't have any signed commitments to share, to actually provide material financial contributions.

[1:59:52] What's the deadline after which we are no longer going to keep trying?

[1:59:57] I don't know that we have a specific deadline on the trying.

[2:00:00] We do have a timeline for the various steps in the partnership process. We can go through that in more

[2:00:07] depth and we do the partnership presentation. But there's several steps in that process. And we anticipate

[2:00:13] having the process completed in 27 when we go to advertise and award the project. So I think anyone would agree

[2:00:25] with the fact that people are less likely to financially contribute when the price is $1.5 billion,

[2:00:34] which is the price right now. That is the, so backing up as the CFO has multiple times

[2:00:42] clicks, you know, explained that $2.78 billion figure is net as the board voted and decided to

[2:00:51] is net of the 35 percent. Yes, that is what has been represented at time and time again.

[2:00:58] Didn't the CFO show a chart? So can you maybe explain what that chart was? You showed a number that

[2:01:06] was 2.78 and then you provided a number without financial contribution and what was that number?

[2:01:14] Sure, thank you for the question. The total project cost without financing is 2.78 billion.

[2:01:20] without, without, without partnerships. Now, without financing, which is loans, but without the 35%

[2:01:31] partnership. That's the total project cost without financing, 2.78 billion.

[2:01:36] Okay. No partnership consideration at all, total project costs 2.78 billion. So, when you

[2:01:42] had that chart showing 2.78 billion, and then 4.5 billion, what did you mean by that?

[2:01:48] But the chart, I think that you're referring to that I showed back in March of 2023 showed

[2:01:54] a total project cost of 2.78 billion when you add financing costs onto that.

[2:02:00] You would have a total cost net of 1 grant of 5.5 billion if we were to achieve a 35% partnership.

[2:02:10] That net cost would be 3.3 billion.

[2:02:13] 3.3 billion with partners, 5.5 billion without partners, including financing.

[2:02:21] So you're saying that financing charges how big?

[2:02:25] The financing cost is 3.2 billion.

[2:02:31] And that is based on how big of a loan?

[2:02:38] That's based on total debt proceeds of about $1.6 billion.

[2:02:43] So you're saying that $1.6 billion would result in a finance charge of how much?

[2:02:51] 3.2 billion.

[2:02:53] So you're saying that finance charges will be twice the cost of borrowed capital.

[2:02:59] So in the last year, I believe it was October 31st.

[2:03:04] I remember correctly, the CO signed a loan that the release I was never notified about in the board didn't approve it was based on a earlier general resolution that CO signed a loan agreement to about approximately 93 million dollars.

[2:03:25] And according to your statements, the repayment obligation was approximately 290 million, is that correct?

[2:03:32] Yeah, you're talking about the planning and design loan for WIFIA, which is the board of

[2:03:36] permission.

[2:03:36] I'm going to take that.

[2:03:38] In a six to one vote on December 13th, you voted, no, rest of the board members voted

[2:03:44] yes.

[2:03:45] And it's a 92 million dollar loan.

[2:03:47] Currently projected at a $285 million payback, including principle.

[2:03:52] Okay.

[2:03:53] So, again, I don't recall voting on that particular loan.

[2:03:57] I'm getting no no.

[2:04:01] Are you talking about what's in the agenda?

[2:04:13] There is no, your question.

[2:04:17] We don't have that information.

[2:04:19] We're just hearing these numbers.

[2:05:00] And then, as I said earlier, that that's a major topic that's going to come back to the sport for more detailed discussion, when staff has the information.

[2:05:11] We can, at the time, we can tell our staff that your assumption is not feasible, your 35% is not because it's not going to come in.

[2:05:20] I mean, don't think of anything else here.

[2:05:21] I don't have the right to tell me this is a domain.

[2:05:24] My constituents are here about the cost.

[2:05:26] And then I share your constituents' concern.

[2:05:29] My constituents have the same concern.

[2:05:31] I go to the City Council meetings.

[2:05:33] Everybody's asking me the same question.

[2:05:35] Is it too expensive?

[2:05:36] However, we need to have the pretty information in our agenda

[2:05:42] member, and so that we can all discuss

[2:05:45] based on the same information.

[2:05:46] That is.

[2:05:47] So with that, with that, I'm going to try and

[2:05:56] I'm not successful. I'm not successful. You.

[2:06:00] I'm not successful. You. But I'm.

[2:06:01] I'm trying to give that way.

[2:06:04] I finish and I will show you how it's on topic interrupting me and claiming what I'm saying is not on topic.

[2:06:11] Does not enable me to demonstrate you how it's on topic.

[2:06:14] I resent that you don't do that to anybody else.

[2:06:16] It is unfair. It's unprofessional and a violation.

[2:06:18] There's no budget here to what you just did.

[2:06:21] I'm not even answering questions.

[2:06:24] I'm trying to keep this moving forward without my

[2:06:29] contribution.

[2:06:29] I understand.

[2:06:31] So the point I am making, can you have one minute?

[2:06:34] No, no one else had a time limit.

[2:06:36] I don't, I reject.

[2:06:37] But then you're not talking about what you're not.

[2:06:39] And that we get to what's on the agenda.

[2:06:41] Let's take five.

[2:06:42] This is ridiculous.

[2:06:43] No.

[2:06:44] Okay.

[2:06:46] Yeah.

[2:06:48] I don't understand why I'm not allowed to do that. I'm going to, I'm going to, I'm going to, I'm going to, I'm going to, I'm going to get to my other questions that the public, I'm going to, I'm going to take a vote to take a vote that we limit the discussion to what's on the topic. I think I need to, you are not allowed to explain how this is on the topic and I will explain how it's on the topic.

[2:07:20] But you are assuming that it's not on the top of without letting me make my-

[2:07:24] I haven't heard anything that's not on the top of the top of the top of the top.

[2:07:26] I understand that you don't understand how this is on the topic.

[2:07:29] That has been heard. That doesn't mean it's not on the topic.

[2:07:33] So, I get it. But how much time do you need?

[2:07:36] Five minutes.

[2:07:38] No, that's too long.

[2:07:40] I have other questions.

[2:07:42] Okay, fine.

[2:07:43] I think the public has heard that.

[2:07:45] Okay. So, I believe that, well,

[2:07:50] let me change course because I think the public heard how right now,

[2:07:55] finance classes are running three to one, not two to one,

[2:07:58] but getting back to these benefits that are claimed.

[2:08:03] Have you, have you attached cost figures to any of these benefits?

[2:08:10] For the purpose of this presentation, we have not.

[2:08:12] We have analyzed these benefits in their costs and what their monetized values are.

[2:08:18] in other documentation, which we will present later.

[2:08:22] Oh, so I'd like to make a board director request for later.

[2:08:25] The first request I want to make is,

[2:08:28] I recognize that staff did not have an accurate,

[2:08:32] you know, didn't have available to them and accurate.

[2:08:34] It's bigger about how much money this district has been spending on Pacheco.

[2:08:38] I would like an accounting of exactly how much money this district has been spending on Pacheco.

[2:08:45] I asked for it in legible, easy to understand form.

[2:08:50] I asked for it with reference to what the source of the funds is

[2:08:56] and what the money is being spent on.

[2:09:00] And by that, you can be provided on a monthly basis.

[2:09:04] Since I think the public is not aware of what is currently spent

[2:09:09] And given that we did, was a $93 million loan with a $290 million payback application, this is serious money we're talking about, serious money. And that is going to be, and you can provide that later.

[2:09:24] And, and that was in direct response to something you said.

[2:09:29] I also quickly want to follow up on, you know,

[2:09:35] it's my earlier comment that so much of this is based on the assumption

[2:09:40] that we're going to have 35% funding partners,

[2:09:43] but we have had no success in obtaining any funding partners.

[2:09:50] And for seven years, as the price tag has gone up,

[2:09:53] so I request that I request this at every meeting

[2:09:56] that there be a deadline set.

[2:10:00] I propose that that date is June 30th of this year, because this has been going on for too long.

[2:10:06] If it's going to be a different date, I'm happy to consider a different date, but this open undetended golden spigot spending.

[2:10:13] On a project that is unlikely to ever happen because we're not going to get the 35% and we are not able to do it without the 35% under our own resolution.

[2:10:27] and that happened before I joined, it is irresponsible to continue to spending money on this, especially

[2:10:34] when money costs were trying to get before 3 to 1 at a 5% interest rate. And interest rates are now

[2:10:41] 7%, which translates more to like a 4 to 1 or 5 to 1 ratio, meaning every million dollars we spend

[2:10:48] now. Yes. Yes. Okay. This is, I, you know, okay, I want to point out, yes, summary, I want to point out that my colleague think that the cost of this is irrelevant, this cost is around.

[2:11:03] I think right, I need to turn off the, I need to turn off the speak to the speaker. Yeah, and you made, you made your request staff got your request.

[2:11:12] When staff comes back, please include those requests as part of the agenda memorandum so that all of us can discuss this and I'm sure you've already considered any of these things, but it's not part of today's agenda.

[2:11:27] So with that, I don't see any, any, but any other board members. Yeah, we still have public comment. Okay. And Mr. David Duper wrote, I

[2:11:42] sorry if I missed pronounce your last name, you said 8.1 and 8.2. Do you want to make two separate

[2:11:50] public comment or just one?

[2:11:58] Thank you. Thank you, Chair David Duper wrote. I would like to make a comment

[2:12:02] I point one and I'll reserve one at a point.

[2:12:05] Yeah, I'll go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead.

[2:12:07] Yeah, thank you.

[2:12:08] Thank you.

[2:12:09] Thank you.

[2:12:10] Yes, I'm David DuPoreal.

[2:12:11] I've been a homeowner and a right pair of voter, a citizen taxpayer.

[2:12:17] I am a customer of Valley Waters since 1987.

[2:12:21] I hope to actually continue in each of those roles for a few more years anyway.

[2:12:26] And I want to thank the staff and the board for paying attention to this important issue,

[2:12:35] but also for all the other good things, the projects that have been done over the years,

[2:12:39] because we have good quality water and scouting.

[2:12:42] I think we've done a good job in investing in infrastructure in smart ways.

[2:12:48] But so far, based on what I've seen and read, I don't think this project qualifies as a good

[2:12:55] investment in our infrastructure. I mean, director, S. Remy, you've said, think about what

[2:13:02] happens if we don't invest in it. You're right. There's costs and there's disadvantages

[2:13:08] not to build this project, absolutely. But what about what about the what we could do with that

[2:13:15] five and a half billion dollars if we didn't invest in this project? We could accomplish many of

[2:13:21] goals and benefits of this project much more efficiently, much more cost effectively than on this

[2:13:28] one project. And I would like, I think that to the points that have been made by some of the

[2:13:35] the directors, let's think about that. What's the opportunity cost of that five and a half billion

[2:13:41] dollars? We could do so much on other projects that would accomplish these different things that this

[2:13:47] One giant out-of-control project are meant or at least predicted to accomplish.

[2:14:04] So, personally, I worked on a lot of big projects in my career.

[2:14:11] I get invested in some of my projects.

[2:14:13] You know, you work on something for months and years.

[2:14:15] You put your heart into it and you want to see it through and you want to see it work.

[2:14:20] you want to see it be successful. You want to persuade everyone that it's right and you want to get it done and you want to

[2:14:26] deliver the benefits that is supposed to deliver it. But also in my career I've had to stop. I've been

[2:14:33] I've had clients to say stop, we're done, you know, and I've been taken off projects that I was in

[2:15:00] Invested so much in it. I get it. The board members and staff have put a lot of hard blood sweat and tears and money and their heart and soul into this project.

[2:15:10] But at some point, we need to step back and say, is this really the best use of five and a half billion dollars? Is this really what we want our staff spending all their time on? Is this really what we want the public to view our agency? All about it's negative. It's not positive.

[2:15:29] Let's focus on something that's positive.

[2:15:32] Thank you for your comment.

[2:15:34] Actually, that's exactly why we're doing what we're doing today

[2:15:37] and then in the near future.

[2:15:39] So I hope you continue to engage with us on this future topic.

[2:15:46] I'm going to call on, I think I have a sequence kind of a sequence

[2:15:52] you might hit on the zoom miss voting first and then miss Irvin and then come back to

[2:16:07] Mr. Mark Wise and then go that's always those three first. Miss voting first.

[2:16:14] Hi, the board of Goldine again from Palo Alto. Oh, am I yeah, here we go.

[2:16:20] I read this here at Club Report also and what is I find a little unsettling about this presentation is that the water district has been allowed to take what I don't know 20 minutes of time to give a very thorough detail presentation and the counter to this which is just as thorough and just as detailed and brings up a lot of very serious, very important issues is not been given.

[2:16:48] I haven't been given any time.

[2:16:50] So if you want confidence from the public,

[2:16:52] I think you need to let the CR club come in also

[2:16:55] and say their piece, it sure seems to me like the dam

[2:17:01] is, you know, we have a state attitude towards water

[2:17:06] and water management seems to be, you know,

[2:17:08] we have a hammer, so every problem looks like a nail.

[2:17:11] And, you know, dam building is their solution.

[2:17:13] And it's not the solution, it's just going to cause more problems.

[2:17:20] I, as far as this proposal goes, I think it's very one sided and I would, I don't

[2:17:28] think it's valid for that point because the other side has not been considered.

[2:17:33] Thank you.

[2:17:34] Thank you for your comment.

[2:17:35] I hope you heard my earlier comment about the R.A. clubs and how led or to us that it's

[2:17:43] really seriously appreciate their effort in writing as the letter and staff is going to have a

[2:17:51] sit-on meeting with them to have detailed discussion. So, next one is Ms. Urban.

[2:18:06] Good afternoon, Chair Shua. Members of the board, can you hear me? Yes.

[2:18:12] This is Katia Urban with the Sierra Club Lama Prieta chapter.

[2:18:16] Thank you, Chair Shoe, for asking staff to reach out to the Sierra Club for a meeting.

[2:18:22] We also want to ask the Board to request a written response to our comments with additional information about

[2:18:30] take a reservoir benefits and operations.

[2:18:33] Then everyone can learn more about these topics, rather than having just a closed or meeting with the Sierra Club.

[2:18:41] It's disappointing that this update provides so little new information.

[2:18:47] What we learned about benefits is that a flow-release schedule was developed and will result

[2:18:51] in a 147% increase in the projected steel-head cohort score.

[2:18:58] However, there's no information about what that cohort score means for the Paja Ro watershed

[2:19:05] overall. And what we learned about operations is the protected monthly storage in the reservoir,

[2:19:14] monthly deliveries to and from the reservoir, and the protected mean monthly releases from the

[2:19:20] reservoir, but what we need is what we need to know is how operational decisions will be made.

[2:19:29] We are looking forward to the five upcoming updates about other topics related to

[2:19:34] check a reservoir and we hope they will be

[2:19:36] mediaer than this one.

[2:19:39] It would be very helpful to have a

[2:19:40] proposed schedule for those presentations

[2:19:42] of the board and the public

[2:19:44] know what to expect.

[2:19:46] Thank you for your consideration.

[2:19:49] Okay, thank you for your

[2:19:50] comment.

[2:19:52] Mr. Mark Weiss.

[2:20:00] Good afternoon, directors and staff. Thank you for your leadership. Thank you for your service. My name is Mark Wise. I live in Palo Alto. Actually, I spoke earlier at the meeting and that I was very concerned about the fact that the woman I voted for, as my elected Rebecca Eisenberg, in the time that she's been on this board, that you keep throwing obstacles at her sending detectives to her house to ring her doorbell the midnight, accusing her of being meaned.

[2:20:29] men on the staff, all these outrageous obstacles and accusations and harassment, and I've been

[2:20:36] sitting here for three hours before I finally dawned on me that the item that you're discussing

[2:20:41] with Chicago Dam is exactly the thing that distinguished the incumbent Gary Kremens, who was my

[2:20:47] neighbor, and I know Gary fairly well. And Rebecca, and at the time, of course, Gary is for the

[2:20:52] Now Rebecca was against the dam, but at the time they said Gary was supporting the $500 million

[2:20:57] dam.

[2:20:59] So the same dam has tripled in cost in the time that she's been the thorn in your paw.

[2:21:04] And by the time this meeting is over, it's going to double again, come on, let's move on.

[2:21:08] Let's do things that actually helps citizens and not classic or projects, or she said

[2:21:14] the Golden Spigget.

[2:21:15] This is ridiculous.

[2:21:17] Thank you.

[2:21:18] Okay.

[2:21:19] Now, we're going back to the Zoom, Mr. Jim Cole.

[2:21:42] Jim, can you please click the button to unmute your mic?

[2:21:47] Yeah.

[2:21:51] What can I hear you now? Please go ahead.

[2:21:56] Okay, can you hear me now?

[2:21:58] Yes, yes.

[2:21:59] Okay, I'm sorry.

[2:22:00] It's a little confusing.

[2:22:03] I will go back to a theme that I mentioned earlier in the last board meeting on Parttico.

[2:22:11] First of all, as I understand the presentation, they're talking about 8,000 acre-feet

[2:22:20] per year provided during drought years as the beneficial result of having the Chaco reservoir

[2:22:28] expansion.

[2:22:29] If you consider alternatives as such, as the osmosis-priceless process or waste water recovery and desalmization for this 5.6 or 5.3 billion dollars,

[2:22:53] You could have a hundred percent guarantee of the water available.

[2:22:58] You wouldn't have to worry about algae blooms.

[2:23:02] You wouldn't have to worry about earthquakes in the Delta.

[2:23:07] So my message is, you should, I encourage the staff there.

[2:23:13] I know they have a lot of vested interest seven years

[2:23:16] in the Pacheco Reservoir expansion,

[2:23:19] But the consider viable options that would be more cost-of-the-than-a-taco-expansion.

[2:23:29] Thank you.

[2:23:31] Thank you.

[2:23:33] Ms. Molly Cotin?

[2:23:41] Hi, can you hear me?

[2:23:42] Yes.

[2:23:43] Hi, board directors. This is Molly Cotin with Sierra Club California.

[2:23:47] I don't have much to do to say on this, but I wanted to thank Director Keegan and Director Eisenberg.

[2:23:51] For asking these critical questions about this project,

[2:23:55] especially regarding seismic risk and cost,

[2:23:57] these are important questions,

[2:23:59] especially considering that the cost of the seismic retrofit of Anderson Dam

[2:24:02] is tripled from two years ago, as well as costly decisions.

[2:24:06] I thank the Valley Water staff for presenting these updates

[2:24:08] at regular board meetings, and Sierra Club looks forward to continuing

[2:24:11] to engage and provide input on these updates. Thank you.

[2:24:15] Yeah. Thank you. And then we look forward to your continuity engagement

[2:24:20] and these major projects.

[2:24:23] Okay, next one is

[2:24:29] Ms. Dan, Mr.

[2:24:33] Thank you, Chair. Can you hear me?

[2:24:35] Now we can hear you.

[2:24:37] Excellent.

[2:24:38] I'd just like to read it on 8.1, the comments that

[2:24:43] Sarah Cubs Irvin made that the forward-looking schedule

[2:24:47] in some advance for updates would be extremely useful.

[2:24:50] I'd like to thank all the commissioners who asked detailed questions about this.

[2:24:55] I'm like this.

[2:24:55] Thanks, Sierra Club for being there and also director and former senator.

[2:25:00] In the video board directors questions are followed up, so I will do my best to ensure that. Thank you. And that's all the public comment I have. Any further board questions, director? Santos?

[2:25:17] Yeah, thank you, Chair. There's a couple of other things that doesn't mean it's the only thing you just trouble things to consider.

[2:25:23] When I go by 152 on a muslim basis, I see millions of gallons of soap lake, so there's a better way of recapturing it.

[2:25:31] I think that one way is, you save it before it gets there, because we're losing water all the time that contributes to the flooding in the Sahara.

[2:25:38] The other issue is that when Director of Rhello was here, him and I took a ride with CDF, but he'll be caught here and looked at all those fire potential hazards for the future.

[2:25:51] and a check-up can be a very good source for all those mountains and I can go on and on

[2:25:56] property and forest and those things and that's being considered continually. I think

[2:26:01] Mr. Drupal, that's the right name, you consider other alternatives and I have continually,

[2:26:07] and if we could probably put recycling plants all over the place, unless it costs, that might

[2:26:12] be the result. I think we also, it's totally recommended, but we've always talked about the future.

[2:26:18] You know, we got ours, but your great grandkids need water and this is one way I believe that can have a better future and pay less than damage control.

[2:26:28] The other is she was about 20 something years ago.

[2:26:31] CEO Rick calendar and I was in San Francisco with Jim Coleman.

[2:26:38] And we had a meeting's up there with San Francisco and all the different talk talk about water sources and very boats and rescue people during earthquakes.

[2:26:47] and I remember it was sitting there and we're talking about all the opportunities and how it's

[2:26:52] real serious. And at that time, that was quoted with 62% and next 20 years of having earthquake.

[2:26:59] Now it's 72. So folks, first courts are happy. All the time we're in a earthquake area.

[2:27:06] I don't care where you build what you do. It's there and we need to really take all those horses we can

[2:27:12] because there's a serious issue and losing water

[2:27:15] in the future, Silicon Valley.

[2:27:17] The public, the biggest issue is jobs in the economy boost.

[2:27:21] There's so many things that we need to explore

[2:27:23] and I believe it could be helpful.

[2:27:24] Thank you.

[2:27:25] Okay, let's thank you.

[2:27:27] Thank you.

[2:27:28] Any further comments from board?

[2:27:31] Okay, hearing none.

[2:27:32] We don't have any public requests to speak, any.

[2:27:37] With that, now that we are able to solve the technical problem, I want to go back to item 5.1.

[2:27:48] We already had a motion and then a second, Mr. Dan, can you now provide your public comment on item 5.1?

[2:28:00] Excuse me, Mr. Chair, Madam Chair, I think it was 5.3.

[2:28:03] I'm sorry, 5.3.

[2:28:20] Thank you.

[2:28:20] Can you hear me?

[2:28:21] Yes.

[2:28:23] Excellent.

[2:28:24] I appreciate Director Santos efforts to preserve public comment.

[2:28:31] I'm not regular waterboard follower and we bit of a due process fan.

[2:28:40] And we're some of you have some illustrious legal backgrounds.

[2:28:43] And I don't want to be that guy telling you, I want you to room full of lawyers what the Constitution means, but I'm going to draw attention here to the, the presumption of innocence and the due process right out of the Fifth Amendment.

[2:29:00] And I'm also going to call attention to the confrontation cause of the Six Amendment that provides all criminal prosecutions.

[2:29:08] you're accused, shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.

[2:29:13] And we'll include here in there for this reason.

[2:29:17] I first found about this issue through the San Jose Spotlight, which is a pay-to-play

[2:30:00] The groundwork laid for them. I would suggest that the physical agenda here is out of order, in addition to the amount of harm that cannot be clawed back on here. The ultimate goal of the board, I'm assuming with a approval of this motion, would be to convict one of the directors of a crime.

[2:30:27] crime that the the DA is not charged anyone with has not commented on I would suggest that

[2:30:34] all this get postponed until after the DA has made a recommendation on this case you really

[2:30:42] have put the cart before the horse and I'll use both possible meanings of the word out of order

[2:30:48] here. Every one of your directors, everyone has a right to confront the accused, they have a right

[2:30:55] all the information against them.

[2:31:01] And also, you know, the due process clause of innocence until

[2:31:04] proven guilt. However, this was dumped on the San Jose spotlight was not a normal journalistic

[2:31:12] endeavor. They've had 4,500 donors in the last five years. They were there. Most of them

[2:31:17] guessing under $10. It's paid to play. You donate $5,000 to run a story for you. You donate $10,000

[2:31:24] still run a poll for you.

[2:31:28] Petty squabbles, disagreements between staff and commissioners should be handled handled

[2:31:37] on an inside basis.

[2:31:39] They don't need to be, they're not the public's business.

[2:31:42] The public and yourselves, there's no benefit on their horizon for any of you guys by pursuing

[2:31:48] this.

[2:31:49] But the DEI handle it, and let the chips fall where they may thank you very much.

[2:31:54] Thank you.

[2:32:00] So we are not heard all the public comments related to five three. We already have a motion in the second.

[2:32:09] And so this motion second is to have a public here to set the public hearing and then if the board

[2:32:20] approved that then we'll talk about the dates.

[2:32:24] Director Keegan.

[2:32:26] Thank you. I'm Chair Shway. I just want to get back to our original comments and what you laid out.

[2:32:33] This is just to have a hearing. This is just to answer questions.

[2:32:38] This is not any decision at this point on the part of anyone on the board as to what the conclusion of this will

[2:32:49] or should be.

[2:32:52] Thank you for that clarification and also that it is following our own policy.

[2:32:59] So it is an internal internal activities. So okay.

[2:33:09] Do you have a question?

[2:33:11] Okay. Okay. Go ahead. So I'm a little confused that it's just to ask questions because

[2:33:18] The decision to put this on the agenda was made without my ability to speak to it.

[2:33:25] The investigation of me occurred without my inclusion.

[2:33:32] So, looking at the board policies, it's fairly clear that that violated board policies.

[2:33:38] season. If I may come in since, you know, when the police detective called me last week and told

[2:33:47] me that you all had reported me for a crime, I asked him what crime, and he thought for a little

[2:33:52] bit, and he said, petty theft. I said, what did I steal? And apparently I stole a printout. I said,

[2:34:00] you know, I will offer to pay for it using my district funds, discretionary funds. I mean,

[2:34:06] So anyway, so what I'm saying here's that all of this was done without my involvement, it doesn't make sense to have a hearing about me, that doesn't include me and to have the decision about whether you're going to have a hearing about me without me, none of the materials on which you made your decision to put this on the agenda.

[2:34:34] included my input, and that violates human decency, in addition to common sense, in addition

[2:34:44] to all standard rules. In fact, I asked the detective. I said, I'm just curious, in your

[2:34:51] experience, when you do an investigation of someone about whether or not they committed

[2:34:57] fine. Do you in

[2:35:00] Do you involve the accused person? And he said, of course, I said, could you imagine an investigation into

[2:35:13] weather of person committed a crime without the inclusion of interviewing that accused person? And he said, I cannot imagine that.

[2:35:25] I said, well, the investigation they did at me, it must have taken a lot of time and money.

[2:35:33] They interviewed a lot of people, they looked at video footage, wow, there are a lot of cameras

[2:35:38] watching us all go and, but they did not ask me.

[2:35:44] So I think that it is premature and inappropriate to decide whether to have a hearing about

[2:35:53] whether or not I should be censured,

[2:35:56] I hear you that will cause irreparable damage to me.

[2:36:00] And my reputation, and likely my family,

[2:36:03] who are already receiving harassment based on this.

[2:36:07] As I need to tell you, I have a kid still in high school

[2:36:11] at a public school who is hearing about this

[2:36:15] and is not friendly.

[2:36:18] So to extent, you think that having a hearing

[2:36:22] about whether or not I should be censured is harmless to me.

[2:36:28] I don't think that is supported by any common sense, any integrity or any lived reality.

[2:36:37] I truly believe that this is premature.

[2:36:41] I believe it should be sent back to the Ethics Committee in a brown act approved, you know,

[2:36:48] In a way that includes an interview of me, where these questions can be asked of me rather than on everyone else and their sister and mother without me.

[2:37:04] So if you choose to hold this, think if you choose to hold this investigation anyway.

[2:37:09] You are doing so in violation of all past practice, all common sense, and stated common rules of investigations.

[2:37:20] As reported by this detective and any detective you'll possibly talk to, it is unheard of to investigate something without talking to the accused.

[2:37:30] And as one of the colors said, it may even be unconstitutional, especially because you felt criminal charges against me or you tried to.

[2:37:36] So I can't control what this board does and Lord knows I can't predict it, but please know that

[2:37:43] if you do put this year and on, you will be causing harm, irreparable harm to me and to my family,

[2:37:50] including my two children. Thank you. Okay. We. Yeah. So if there's no other comment that's take

[2:37:58] vote, I think that's do a real call vote. So this is to consider the recommendation of the board

[2:38:07] asks in conduct at our committee to set a public hearing. We think 30 days on whether true

[2:38:14] national director Rebecca Isham verb based on a last misconduct occurring January 29, 2024. So so

[2:38:23] will be sometime 30 days from today, if the board

[2:38:28] approves this recommendation. So is that that's take a vote?

[2:38:33] Director Bell. Director Eisenberg.

[2:38:39] Oh. Director Estimera. Director Keegan. Vice chair Santos.

[2:38:45] Chair Schwit. Yes. Motion passes. Okay. So then

[2:38:50] But with that approval from majority of the board,

[2:38:56] my question to the board, what's your preference in a special meeting,

[2:39:01] or a part of a regular board meeting, special meeting?

[2:39:05] OK, then we will schedule a special meeting about 30 days from today.

[2:39:11] OK, thank you very much.

[2:39:13] I'll move on to item 8.2.

[2:39:16] OK, OK.

[2:39:18] Approved amendment number 1 to agreement number A4215A with AECOM technical services ink for planning design and environmental documentation and permitting support for the particular reservoir extension project project number 9195402

[2:39:38] or two, modifying retention, requirements, and extending the agreement term.

[2:39:46] Mr. Churr, MacArthur.

[2:39:48] Yes, good afternoon. Again, Ryan MacArthur, Deputy Operating Officer of the Dam Safety and

[2:39:52] Capital of Delivery Division. So this item here has a little bit of history as laid out in the

[2:40:00] Some flexibility for releases of retention at points throughout the project. That hasn't transpired as we planned, based on the schedule of the project and activities being completed.

[2:40:10] So what we've done is made a lot more flexible language that would allow us to release retention with approval. So we would go through a reasonable discussion with the consultant, you know, if they had a good case, we would release the amount of retention that they claim. So that would be done through a staff approval process.

[2:40:27] So that's what the essence of this all all is and what it means it's at this point, it's about a $400,000

[2:40:35] total of retention to be released mainly for self-contractors, actually all for self-contractors.

[2:40:41] To date we just checked today we've paid a comm just under $50 million as part of this contract and we've retained 5 million.

[2:40:49] So this is less than 10% of the 10%.

[2:40:52] So that's kind of just some perspective on the magnitude of all this and just what it means.

[2:40:58] And this work this retention was for work that's already completed.

[2:41:04] Yes, that have already checked the work and then it's all to standard and also that majority of these subcontractor are small contractors.

[2:41:13] That's correct.

[2:41:15] Questions from board members.

[2:41:20] Okay, I do have a potential public comment, Mr.

[2:41:27] David, to perform.

[2:41:30] Do you want to make a comment on 8.2 also?

[2:41:37] No, thank you, Chair.

[2:41:39] Okay. Thank you. Now, we have a motion and second.

[2:41:43] Oh, okay. Sorry.

[2:41:46] There are tricky. Can you have a question?

[2:41:48] I just have a comment.

[2:41:49] It concerns me to vote, yes, on anything associated with Pacheco given that I feel we're spending a lot of money in advance of unanswered questions on this project.

[2:42:04] However, given the fact that small businesses are being hurt at this point, I am reluctantly going to go along and book this.

[2:42:14] Okay. Then we'll take a vote on favor say I. I. Okay. Opposed? No. Okay. We have five

[2:42:24] years and one, no motion carries.

[2:42:31] Okay. Item 8.3. Authorised execution of an option to

[2:42:37] purchase for real property interest from Rolando Bellemini and Aida Bellemini, trustees

[2:42:48] of the Bellemini family trust for the benefit of Rolando Bellemini and Aida Bellemini.

[2:42:57] APM number A9A 35006, real estate file number 9155-11.

[2:43:08] Is there a staff explanation on this?

[2:43:10] No.

[2:43:11] Second.

[2:43:13] Do we have questions?

[2:43:14] Okay.

[2:43:15] We have Director Keegan.

[2:43:17] Thank you.

[2:43:19] I'm sorry.

[2:43:19] You may have answered this in the staff report,

[2:43:22] but I wasn't able to see it.

[2:43:24] So, as I read it, we're entering into a four-year option agreement for the sum of 500,000.

[2:43:35] So, we will be expanding that.

[2:43:39] And then, with a 3.5 purchase price.

[2:43:44] So, is that price locked in?

[2:43:48] Yes, that was what is currently on the open market for sale at,

[2:43:53] That was the price that, right?

[2:43:55] But they couldn't, like, in three years, say, well, properties were a lot more here.

[2:43:59] And so it is locked in.

[2:44:01] Okay.

[2:44:02] Thank you.

[2:44:03] Yeah.

[2:44:03] Okay.

[2:44:04] Director Eisenberg.

[2:44:06] What project is this related to?

[2:44:09] So this would, the intent would be that this would be mitigation property for

[2:44:15] Pacheco.

[2:44:16] But it has mitigation value for potentially other projects as well beyond just that project.

[2:44:22] So we cannot fully purchase it until the SQL document is complete.

[2:44:26] But if another project were to have a completed SQL document

[2:44:30] that could be used at this mitigation,

[2:44:31] it could be purchased for that property as well or project as well.

[2:44:34] What's the proposed source of funds?

[2:44:38] The project funds?

[2:44:40] Which project funds?

[2:44:41] Pachicle.

[2:44:43] So what's the source of those project funds?

[2:44:46] In terms of the, is it prop one funds?

[2:44:48] Is it the wiffy alone?

[2:44:50] No.

[2:44:51] What is the sort of,

[2:44:54] But what are you to leave on?

[2:44:57] And what if utility funds are funded by...

[2:45:07] Okay. Good afternoon. Water quality. Fund is funded primarily by water rates.

[2:45:12] I water rates. So the question is, should rate pay half a million dollars, which is less than they paid

[2:45:18] on the investigation against me. That was 600,000. Should they pay 500,000 dollars for the acquisition

[2:45:23] of this property that may or may not be related to Pacheco?

[2:45:30] Yes. Okay. Thank you.

[2:45:34] Okay, and you further questions.

[2:45:40] We have any public comment on this item.

[2:45:44] Thank you, Manager.

[2:45:44] I have no requests at this time.

[2:45:47] We have for motion as second, which I go vote on favor say aye.

[2:45:55] Opposed?

[2:45:56] No.

[2:45:56] I think great payers are more than enough.

[2:45:59] No.

[2:46:03] So we have four years.

[2:46:07] and two knows. And I collect. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Motion carries.

[2:46:18] Hey,

[2:46:22] there's nothing

[2:46:22] under external affairs. Are there any? No. Chief Executive offers officer report 10.1.

[2:46:33] Yes, good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Board. We're calendar CO today. We will only have

[2:46:38] one quick report and I'll turn it over to acting in COO, Jennifer Codian.

[2:46:51] Sorry about that. Acting COO, Jennifer Codian, here to give the storm report. So our

[2:46:58] precipitation levels are above average and all watersheds for the year. And the reservoir levels

[2:47:04] are at 38%, but over 70% on average for this time of the year. Beyond that, this last storm event,

[2:47:12] we had crews operating and removing debris throughout the county. And we kept up on a

[2:47:18] sandbag, sandbag's county wide tube. And that's really all I have to report.

[2:47:24] Okay, thank you. That's the same. Let's just questions that would in the CEO's report,

[2:47:30] Churchill. Okay. Questions? Okay, no. Okay, nothing under 11, nothing under 12. And then 13.1,

[2:47:41] reviewed the fiscal year 2023, 2024 board policy planning calendar. As I said, at the last

[2:47:49] board meeting, I like to make it a regular thing that we looked at what's coming up on our agenda.

[2:48:00] And so, if you open up the attachment for the board policy planning calendar for

[2:48:08] February, we moved this particular resource extension part of the Census report from January 2,

[2:48:15] February, that's what we did today. And I heard a public comment about trying our best to

[2:48:24] schedule those upcoming topics related to Pacheco Festival. I will take that and work with the

[2:48:33] the UN staff to do all of that as to schedule, to schedule it.

[2:48:38] And then, there's another important item

[2:48:42] that Delta Convenience Project.

[2:48:44] It was planned to have a board for boards briefing

[2:48:50] in February with some cost information

[2:48:54] that's currently being studied by a state of California,

[2:48:58] the WR.

[2:48:59] So step is waiting until we find out more about that study and then helping the status of Delta

[2:49:08] comments project to the food board for briefing.

[2:49:11] So those are the important items that's for the rest of the February and that's it for

[2:49:22] item. Any comments from board? Anything you want to add to our

[2:49:28] trying to cannot calendar?

[2:49:36] Okay. Okay. And item 14 board member reports

[2:49:43] announcement maybe that just focus on board member reports that earlier in

[2:49:49] Our votes on our number of meeting dates and then the permitting compensation, we were reminded that high.

[2:50:00] In our own policy, it is required us to report on the meetings that we intend to submit for

[2:50:10] reimbursement per our policy. So it is required that we report on the meetings that we attended.

[2:50:20] So, is that how I will start with Director Keden, what would we, that our party says the following meeting, we can change our policy, but at this point that's what the policy said.

[2:50:37] Okay, but today please, I know it's a long meeting, so let's just do it.

[2:50:43] will fast. We just need to report the kind of the meetings that you

[2:50:47] are trying to understand it. I don't need to get it to the detail.

[2:50:53] Thank you, Director Shway. I may include some meetings that are

[2:50:58] interested in the community, but that I don't necessarily plan on asking for money

[2:51:02] from. I was the alternate to the DCA board meeting, Director

[2:51:06] as the representative. I attended the 2024 state of the county address where a new chair, Susan

[2:51:18] Ellenberg was picked, attended a special water conservation and demand management meeting,

[2:51:27] also attended a stream planning and operations committee meeting,

[2:51:33] board audit committee prep meeting, the volunteer recognition event where which was great

[2:51:40] and it was wonderful to meet so many volunteers that don't dedicate their time to valley water.

[2:51:47] It's much appreciated kind of meeting with the Sierra Club.

[2:51:55] Board ethics and ad hoc meeting, meeting on board audit committee self assessment.

[2:52:04] I'm meeting with District Council and Valley Water Town Hall meeting and I represented Valley

[2:52:16] Water at the Lunar New Year Day Celebration, the TEP Festival with the Raising of the

[2:52:22] Vietnamese Flag, which was a wonderful event and it was a privilege to represent the district

[2:52:28] there and that's it.

[2:52:31] Thank you.

[2:52:32] Director Asfina. Yes, Madam Chair.

[2:52:36] Thended the spark committee meeting,

[2:52:38] recycled committee meeting.

[2:52:39] Met with the DCA CEO. Also that board meeting,

[2:52:44] appropriate meeting there. The town hall meeting.

[2:52:48] Met with the CEO or the general council.

[2:52:51] Okay. My report since our last report, I attended the

[2:52:58] Special Water Conservation and Management Committee meeting.

[2:53:01] that was special outside council and then Agenda Weekly Agenda Review meeting was the

[2:53:13] CACO and the vice chair landscape committee meeting and and then independent monitoring

[2:53:26] committee meeting director Santos.

[2:53:32] Thank you, Madam Chair, numerous meetings, but I'll just mention a few that the last

[2:53:36] gap in meeting with Chair Shua, Audit Committee, Paris, the Citizen Advisory Committee

[2:53:43] last night.

[2:53:45] We have the in-house in Sunnyvale, our important meetings, and Farm Bureau, and on February 29th,

[2:53:52] I think it's going to be our ninth year as a landscape in summer, so if you get a chance,

[2:53:56] come here at 9 o'clock and learn a lot about what to reuse and what are conservation and

[2:54:00] all the good things, thank you.

[2:54:02] Thank you, Dr. Arsonberg.

[2:54:04] Most of my meetings, somehow, were cancels.

[2:54:07] So I used the time to attend everybody else's meetings

[2:54:10] and they've already described those.

[2:54:12] The one thing that I, which is always interesting

[2:54:15] to attend other people's meetings,

[2:54:16] I learned so much and it's so bunch.

[2:54:19] One, one event that was different from that

[2:54:22] is that I had a delightful time speaking to a universal church.

[2:54:27] Great, that's a good unit tier.

[2:54:29] You know, somebody tell me this word, unit, terrian.

[2:54:32] You know what I'm talking about.

[2:55:00] And it was lovely. And we had a wonderful time singing, you know, none denomminational hymns and talking about nature and the group was phenomenal. And I so enjoy speaking with the community. So, and I think that the presentation given by one of our engineers, one of our experts in.

[2:55:21] I might forget this name right now. I'm so sorry. I thought you were amazing. I thought that the presentation that he did was phenomenal and the Q&A afterwards is wonderful. So I love those events. Thanks.

[2:55:33] To talk to Bill.

[2:55:36] Thank you.

[2:55:38] A lot of me. I drove him to a couple to go to the California Transportation Commission meeting.

[2:55:43] And I talked to the commissioners, chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee, and Director, Tony Tobaras, I had a discussion about our Bayland's project with him and how if the court engineers approached the looking at it would turn highway 101 into a lake and whether or not he would

[2:56:14] converted to a boating freeway due to the core of engineers approach and asked for his

[2:56:25] support in our attempts to get core priority for the valence projects. And I also talked

[2:56:35] to many of the commissioners about the same thing. They were very interested in that and I also

[2:56:41] talked to him about the cis dam raise and realignment of Highway 152 and also the Delta

[2:56:55] Mendoza Canal upgrades and in fact that we needed his support for stay highway crossings

[2:57:05] really can now. Of course we all realize if the state transportation department is designing

[2:57:16] their own facilities and they choose to design them at their pace then we have to follow

[2:57:23] their schedule in building those facilities which may not be the timeline that we want to

[2:57:31] get our projects going. I talked to Gene Cohen, my former staff member who's out now at the head

[2:57:43] of the Labor Council and Gene was very supportive of the Valley Water and all their projects.

[2:57:51] We had a constituent meetings on Ross Creek issues, especially during the flooding. There was a

[2:58:00] concerned about Ross Creek overflowing. It didn't happen this time, but people are concerned about it.

[2:58:13] I had coffee with Carvardino later and talked about the same projects. I talked to Tony Rivera.

[2:58:23] Carvard was in Modesto and I met him there, but he wanted to have a special coffee,

[2:58:29] So I met with him.

[2:58:31] I met with my former district director,

[2:58:34] who's now the district director

[2:58:38] for a semi-monosh callerum, Sles Walker.

[2:58:42] And we talked about the implementation

[2:58:46] of AB 1469, and how thankful we were

[2:58:53] for all the hard work you did last year on getting that bill passed.

[2:58:58] I attended a laugh come meeting and it's a very short meeting and lastly I attended a meeting in Sacramento where the new speaker was sworn in and I got a chance to meet the Governor Brown again, yeah, it's very kind of hard to see Governor Brown but he's been in retirement but he came down, we talked and Governor knew some had a nice discussion with the Attorney General

[2:59:27] Rob Bonta and all my former colleagues, it was nice to be up there talking to all my colleagues.

[2:59:34] They let me sit on the floor with them next to the governor.

[3:00:00] Being a couch potato at home, they were happy that was actually doing some stuff. Mike McGuire is going to be a great leader.

[3:00:10] We're so happy that David Cortesi was appointed chair of the Senate Transportation Committee.

[3:00:15] And Scott Weiner is now a budget committee chair, so we were very pleased that our local

[3:00:25] people are going to be in a position of authority in Sacramento, so those are the meetings

[3:00:32] I attended.

[3:00:33] Thank you.

[3:00:35] Thank you everybody.

[3:00:36] Click Review and Carplication.

Closed Session and Regular Meeting - Feb 13th, 2024

Agenda

Transcript