league security improvement contract, i just know that the facility's security is somewhat boring but necessary and actually important given the facilities that we have throughout the service area. so i wanted to call attention to both d and e and support both items. commissioner moran: while you're there, do you want to talk about i? >> sure, the couple of minor things. i have no quarrel with the easement. i just noted on the resolution, i believe the date was wrong. yes, the date on the bottom is still july 10 for some reason. and there was also information in the binder here about -- and maybe this was an item that got pulled from the calendar, about an item 11 at hetch hetchy authorizing a system impact mitigation agreement. was that an earlier draft of the agenda? some documents that do not come forward for today's meeting? ok. >> let's get through these one at a time. first, item d, you're supporting that, but you have a question about clearance. >> it exists. i am sure someone can get it to me. commissioner moran: if i can have assurance that the ceqa requirements have been met on that? >> i believe they have. >> i believe he wants a copy. commissioner moran: on d, and i have a motion? moved and seconded. those in favor? opposed? the item carries. on e, i have additional questions. i would like to continue that to the call of the chair. on i, he pointed out some questions on the resolution. >> just the date on the bottom. >> the date on the bottom still says a july 10 because it was originally scheduled for that meeting. we can change it to july 4. commissioner moran: ok. moved and seconded. those in favor? opposed? thank you. that carries. >> and i assume the other information here was an item we will hear about at a future meeting? there is some documentation in the binder that was dated for today, agenda item 11, hetch hetchy authorized system impact mitigation agreement. but it is not on the calendar. commissioner moran: ok, i am getting nods that you'll be hearing about that in the future. >> ok, we look forward to the future. commissioner moran: regular business. madam secretary? >> item 10, approve an increase in the construction contract cost contingency for water enterprise contract wd-2607, pulgas balancing reservoir, modifications of existing dechloramination facility in the amount of $186,444 and with a potential increase in the contract duration of up to 360 consecutive calendar days. a total revised contract duration of up to 765 consecutive calendar days. >> i would be happy to answer any questions you may have on the item. commissioner moran: commissioners? no questions. is there public comment? seeing none, to have a motion? moved and seconded. all those in favor? opposed? motion carries. item 11. >> commissioners, did you vote on 9-i? commissioner moran: there is a good question. i do not think we did. can i have a motion on item 9-i? moved incident. those in favor? opposed? thank you. item 11. >> item 11, authorize the general manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with the bay area clean water agencies for the purpose of disbursing state grant funds to the sfpuc for implementation of the harding park recycled water projects in an amount not to exceed $2,114,000. >> i am available for questions. it is a routine item about a grant. commissioner moran: ok. any questions or comments? moved and seconded. those in favor? opposed? item 11 carries. item 12. >> item 12, authorized the general manager to negotiate and execute a memorandum of understanding with solano county water agency for the administration and disbursement of state grant funds of up to $863,000 to be used for sfpuc high-efficiency toilet incentive programs. >> this is money from the same grant for our conservation program. a routine part of our program. commissioner moran: we like that. commission? public comment? a motion. moved and seconded. all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. item 13. >> item 13, informational hearing and possible adoption of an sfpuc technology policy. >> good afternoon again. i have before you today a technology policy that we have reviewed with the general manager's office and other staff of the puc. earlier this year as part of budget deliberations, you went through extensive review the various policies that you have adopted as a commission. those were rate policy, budget policy, debt policy, reserve's policy, community benefit policy, environmental justice policy. at that time, the idea of a technology policy was also brought up as a possible date in some document that the commission might consider. what is before you today is a draft of that policy for your consideration. if i may quickly walked through three or four key slides. if i can have sfgtv bring up the -- thank you. the draft policy before you is ally and similarly to the major categories of the triple bottom line which you deliberate it and discussed before when discussing capital programs. this draft policy also mirrors that and would allow and direction and guidance document that is to be adopted by you that staff would use for both presentations of budget ideas as well as programmatic ideas to you in the commission. some of the key principles included in the draft policy would be that timely adoption of both proven technologies, as well as those which are demonstration technologies, that would meet our levels of service that you have endorsed or adopted. demonstration projects would be encouraged and considered. those would specifically be considered before a large scale investments of rate-payer dollars. looking at new technologies as well as assessing technologies and operating capital investments, both in terms of total lifecycle costs and what this means to the rate-payers and to the enterprise. as well as looking at funding options and strategic criteria and partnerships. environmental key principles considered as part of the draft document would be that technology is also taken into consideration and the sustainability and stewardship of our key natural resources at the puc. what the environmental impacts would become a climate change and limited resources would also be considered in how this might help mitigate climate change affects. regulatory compliance, public health, and environmental impacts would also be considered. any idea of an investment, whether of verdi -- operating budget our capital budget, the project managers and myself and other general managers would have to go through these checklists before we would come to you for consideration. the other criteria, there are two more categories as part of our trouble bottom-line consideration. the next big one would be a social principle that would work for the development category. that would be how, with the new technology investment, would impact and with our community benefits policy, what it would mean for local jobs. how does this help us ensure our environmental justice policy is also met? and what can we do as far as joint demonstration projects, and how could this helping with staff development to ensure we're both developing our own staff as well as the communities and benefiting the communities we work in? the overarching category, and i would call it a catch-all of everything else but does not fit nicely and neatly in the other categories, would be that leadership and transparency. the transparency criteria would include identifying the technologies, publicly vetting them, allowing for public feedback in the public comment process. documenting pilot study findings, costs and benefits, and monitoring emerging technologies to make sure we are considering those. these are all very overarching criteria, but i think something that is very relevant to you today because later you'll be talking about what could be upwards of a $6 billion to $7,000,000,000.19-year investment. the best we can do is assess what we know for existing technologies today. but some of the decisions you're making will affect a multi-year period. these would be some of the criteria we would look at. you can ask questions. we would have the responsibility to report back to you if you were to adopt such irresponsibility. commissioner moran: thank you. this has been cooking for some time. i think it started a few years ago when the presentation was made about the maturity of technology and when we just to implement a given technology. and there is a real tension in this role. on the one hand, we want to be leaders and what to push the envelope and encourage the use of intelligence advances in technology. on the other hand, if we were to adopt an amateur technology prematurely that was not appropriate, we can make huge and costly mistakes. the size of our system is such that we need to be very careful about that. so what todd and others have been working on is a policy that tries to bring that tension into some rational relationship. and i think this is a good shot at it. one of the things -- a couple things i was very pleased to see in here. one is recognizing that we should be looking at some version of either total costing or lifecycle costing and not just looking at investments that are the cheapest thing we could do right now. within the leadership and transparency area, i have high hopes. it talks about a technology update being provided to the commission. what i have envisioned for that is that there would be a public document that would represent our current thinking on the status of various technologies, and that would be for use by staff but also for use by this commission and by any member of the public that if you were curious about what we were doing about something, you have a place to go and there would be a brief summary that was written in excess language. it would say this is what the status is and this is what other people are doing. these are the benchmarks that we're looking for as far as the applicability to our system. these are pilot projects that we're involved in, that sort of thing. to have to be a public resource, if somebody has a different point of view, they have seven to start from -- if they have a different technology they think we should be looking at, they can propose that and we can inform ourselves. i thought that was a very helpful inclusion, and i appreciate your having done that. the other thing is it does focus on pilot projects, which i think is pretty rational. there's a lot of technologies that have been in general but they may or may not apply in particular. if you do not know until you try. you can try that on a small scale. i think that is an intelligent way forward. with that as introduction, commissioner vietor? commissioner vietor: thank you for doing this. i think it is very exciting and important. we have been talking about this for some time. i have a couple of suggested changes or additions. first on the environmental principles and criteria, i would love to see language that says c technologies that optimize not only the sustainability but also the conservation of natural resources. second, under the second environmental principle, it would include the mitigation and mitigation of and adaptation to. it would be great to have that in there. also, on the use of -- you say limited resources. i would like to scratch ltd. and just say resources. we are really trying to conserve all resources, whether they are limited or not. and then the fourth comment i had was around the community benefits from the second section on social principles. to say something like a further contribution, to scratch to the promotion of, and just say evaluate alternatives for their contribution to our community benefits policy. not as much the promotion as much of the implementation, right? it is the first one under social principle. and it would read something like, evaluate technology alternatives for their contribution to our community benefits policy, so scratched to the promotion of. lastly, under the leadership piece, which i think is interesting and great to have that, because it is in the interest of transparency. i do not know how the language would read, but i would love some bullet to run what selection criteria would be. it should say isn't like develop selection criteria for identifying and piloting innovative technology based on at the triple bottom line. it does not say anything expressly about how these projects get selected. i think this would make it very transparent that there would be a set of criteria developed to select these that would be based on the above three pockets. that makes sense? commissioner moran: you did your homework. commissioner vietor: i was working on the sly here. thank you. commissioner moran: commissioners, other thoughts or comments? ok. as far as those changes go, i think they are all very constructive and useful, and when we get to moving things, i suggest we move that as an amendment. any public comments? >> [inaudible] commissioner moran: mr. da costa first. >> commissioners, have announced to you several times in the past, i am the director of the environmental justice advocacy. what does that mean? that means that all the principles, many of which have been encompassed in mr. todd engstrom's presentation, affect us in the southeast sector. a huge area. it affects us. so, basically, simply put, it is quality of life issues. quality of life issues. so we can do it two ways. we can go to the grass roots and ask them what is happening, and if it is the good, the bed, or the ugly, and if it is bad or the ugly, we can fix it from the grass roots. or we can do it the way you do it, top-down. so you just dictate and the people kind of go with the flow. now, when you put out the bid for the outreach, in all some $300 million, you are creating a task force. and they actually asked for 10% of the $6 billion or so. but you settled for 5%, so $300 million. and half of that $300 million or however we divided it, you all did it before. so those people already have their money. and they are going to listen to whatever is being presented here and they are going to give you some records. oh, we did this outreach. we did that outreach. we can talk to groups of three, four, five, 200 times and give you some statistics. no way to check it out, and all of the you all would agree. let me tell you, commissioners, our area, the bayview-hunters point, we, on every level linked with environmental justice issues, we have been on the forefront. not the department of the environment, not some bogus so- called experts who say this, that, and the other. we pay the price. we know that our people have suffered. our seniors have suffered. our children are dying slowly. we have been on the forefront of environmental justice is used -- issues. and guess what -- we have not been canceled. ask yourselves, commissioners, if you have had one forum, one workshop with young people. ask yourself. we have to revisit that issue of going back to the community and having people on the table so that there is a meaningful dialogue. [bell rings] thank you very much. commissioner moran: thank you. mr. pell. >> thank you. first of all, i want to alltodd for the good work in writing this. i checked the advanced calendar. this has been pending for two years. thank you to todd for this and thank you to commissioner vietor for taking a good policy and making it better. i would ask that you could refer this to the cac for its review prior to your adoption so that the cac can look at it and maybe see if there are any further tweaks. i think this is something we should do for agency wide policies, ascended to the cac for comments. i do not think that will create unnecessary delay. i think we're already doing things that this policy suggests. i know there is a roomful of people here that want to talk about the sewer. so thank you very much. commissioner moran: all right, commissioners. >> i would support it going to the cca -- cac. commissioner moran: the other one. before we get to that, why don't we move toyour amendments? commissioner vietor: ok. of like to make a motion to amend the current policy stated. >> second. commissioner moran: and it is from the public? all those in favor? opposed? ok, without objection, then we will continue this until -- when does the cac meet again? >> i believe it is next month, but we will get a date certain because there are two items. the technology policy and the rate-payer assurance that you talked about earlier this year. so those two items would be going next to the cac. we have them for august and september forbes the rate fairness board, cac, and the bond oversight committee. commissioner moran: ok. it they could schedule that for their next meeting. >> the meeting today will be the same time next month, too. the same day as our commission. commissioner moran: o we will wait anxiously for their action and bring it back when it is ready. i would like to point out, when we get into the next discussion, we have kind of a test of how we think about those principles. so thank you. before i go to the next item, i think we're going to be there for a while, so why don't we take a five-minute break? and we will reconvene at roughly 20-of. commissioner moran: all right, we're back in session. >> item 14, sewer system improvement program, validation workshop number two. >> [inaudible] >> microphone. >> director of the sewer system improvement program. very happy to be here today to have our second workshop on validation. today's session will be a little bit different than how we talked about the treatment plant projects. those were very well-defined. some of the projects we're discussing today are more conceptual, and we will be returning to the commission at distant points, like when we finished the watershed assessment and as we define different alternatives. some of what you will hear today are best concept for projects. before i begin, i want to acknowledge the very hard work that staff have put in. the waste water enterprise infrastructure as well as the department of public works. several of our folks are in the audience today. they have put in it really countless hours and a lot of very long nights. i also want to thank our general manager, the deputy general manager, and everyone who participated in putting this together. they have coached us. they have kicked us. they have guided us. i think we have a pretty good body of material here today. if you recall, at the last presentation, july 10, we focused on treatment to. today, a collection system all the way, talking about watershed frameworks. the slides, please. thank you. today's workshop will focus on collection system. it will be the same type of format. we will have points where we can slow down and discuss, but feel free to have a discussion throughout each. we have a bevy of experts here to help dr. perry much of anything. the final workshop is august 28. at that time, we will be incorporating the input from workshop one and a workshop two and bringing a full ssip program to you. the duration, the costs. we will have another discussion about the raid. we will likely be talking at that time about our public information program and how we are going to roll this out to the public and get the word out to the general population. at that time, the final workshop, the commission will be able to make adjustments. we will still be able to have something fluid, but we're hoping that we can get an endorsement of the program so that we can be able to move forward and have district planning for implementation. >> sorry to interrupt. i do not think my microphone is working. the 28th -- that will be at our regular time, just to confirm, a 1:30 p.m. meeting, correct? commissioner moran: we have not really discussed that, but that would be my assumption. >> ok, because that is our next meeting after this one. we do not have one again in august. commissioner moran: yes, we do. we have two. >> so we can confirm it the next august meeting. commissioner moran: we will. how much is on the advanced calendar for august 28? >> very little. this is supposed to be the more important item of that day. commissioner moran: that being the case, the regular time should be fine. >> ok, thank you. >> by the end of the three workshops, these are the questions that were presented at the first workshop. we're looking to be able to answer these. and then we can get our full ssip. during today's workshop, this is the detailed agenda. we will be talking about the levels of service. strategies. focusing in on the strategies. we talked about goals and the levels of service before, but today, it is important that we are all on the same page with strategies. i will present that. i will be followed by the program manager who will be talking about program validation. then we will have one of our waste water enterprise staff presenting on green infrastructure and the options we're recommending there. then a program manager will return to talk about collection system options. once again, during the course of the workshop, we will have time so we can be able to talk and you can ask for additional details. there is opportunity for discussion. with that -- i did skip one to by the end of workshop two today, we want to be about the answer these questions. we will have a modification for one of the goals. this was a request for us to take a look at something from commissioner vietor. we will be looking at -- do you agree with our approach for implementing green and gray? do you agree with the projects we are requesting to move forward? and do you agree with the regulatory approach? with that, we can begin the content of the workshop. one thing i think is important to remember is the ssip is going to help the puc to achieve its vision. we're looking at reliability, providing public health benefits, as well as providing public benefits. we heard today from some of the earlier the earlierodors. we want this program to be a positive in terms of reduction of odors and improvements in terms of visual, but the base is to have a reliable system. we have to look at things that are going to be coming our way that we see already. changes to the regulatory climate. climate change. we have to weigh that with affordability.