MINUTES Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:30 A.M. City Hall, Room 400 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place COMMISSIONERS The Honorable Richard Sklar, President The Honorable Ryan L. Brooks, Vice President The Honorable E. Dennis Normandy The Honorable Ann Moller Caen The Honorable Adam Werbach

DEPARTMENTS AND ENTERPRISES Water Enterprise Wastewater Enterprise Power Enterprise Infrastructure Business Services External Affairs Gavin Newsom MAYOR   Susan Leal GENERAL MANAGER Michael Housh SECRETARY

ORDER OF BUSINESS:

1. Call to Order: 11:35 A.M.

2. Roll Call: Present – President Richard Sklar, Commissioner Ann Moller Caen, and Commissioner Adam Werbach

Excused: Commissioner E. Dennis Normandy

8. Report of the General Manager

a) Resolution for Retirement Lydia Monce

President Sklar called this item first to honor Ms. Monce’s 30 years of exemplary, dedicated, and outstanding public service to the Public Utilities Commission and the people of the City and County of San Francisco. Ms. Monce thanked the Commissioners for their recognition of her service. Moved by Commissioner Werbach, seconded by Commissioner Caen, to adopt the following resolution; passed (3-0) unanimously.

General Manager Susan Leal prefaced the Master Plan Report with an update on the previous evening’s incident at Ocean Beach, noting that it was the result of aging infrastructure. Responding to this information, President Sklar requested reports on two items: a) odor problems reported along the Embarcadero, and b) continuing efforts to capture storm water before it gets into our system. Assistant General Manager of Wastewater, Tom Franza, reported further details concerning the release of sewage water at Ocean Beach. Ms. Leal stated that a report would be forwarded to the Commissioners.

Commissioner Brooks arrived at 11:45 P.M.

President Sklar requested that Public Comment be discussed at the end of Jon Loiacono’s presentation and invited Don Beard to offer comments at any time.

SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:

Sewer System Master Plan Workshop

3. Presentation and discussion of the Sewer System Master Plan.

Mr. Loiacono presented the 4th iteration of the Master Plan – summer 2007 update. He thanked his staff and PUC colleagues: Technical Advisory Committee member Professor David Jenkins, the members of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee Alex Lantsberg, and Jennifer Clary, Clean Water Action, for their assistance and input into the plan. Mr. Loiacono noted that this was a key element in making the City greener while fulfilling our principle mission of protecting public health and safety. Mr. Loiacono noted that there were many complex elements involvement in making the necessary improvements while minimizing neighborhood impact, dealing with discharge issues, and looking to the future changes in regulation that will require additional treatment. In response to a query by President Sklar concerning discharges into the Bay and the ocean, Mr. Loiacono noted ongoing improvements plans and described in detail how the system was being improved and aging infrastructure repaired, replaced, and upgraded to address problems such as the failure rate over the next 30 years. In response to a question by President Sklar about the inspection programs Mr. Loiacono briefly outlined ongoing inspection activities.

Commissioner Brooks asked Mr. Franza how staff addressed potential sewer breaks or actual breaks when notified and if there was available technology, such as sensors, available to detect crack or leaks without having to physically locate and identify a potential failure. Mr. Franza noted that the 5-year CIP plan would have a second component providing for a better inspection program and in response to Commissioner Brooks’ query noted that he would investigate existence of new technologies to address potential failures. Commissioner Caen asked and was informed that there were remaining brick sewers and while brick sewers were very stout structures they not replaced in brick anymore. General Manager Leal agreed to follow-up with staff and bring a report back to the Commissioners about new technologies.

Mr. Loiacono then described existing distribution among the various treatment facilities and outlined the several alternative approaches and possible options under consideration. Commissioner Brooks asked and was informed that it would be possible to enclose the entire southeast plant. Following discussion of the various proposed shifts of flow among the various facilities, Commissioner Caen asked about and was informed this did not involve use of the cross city tunnel. President Sklar inquired about continued discharge to the Bay from North Point, and Mr. Loiacono indicated that the plan was to shift material out of the neighborhood to a more remote location. Mr. Loiacono said that plans called for an upgraded North Point Plant to maximize that facility’s use, as it was a much better location. Mr. Loiacono then described the planned increased flow through treatment distributed among the Southeast, North Point and Ocean facilities. Mr. Loiacono then discussed the various ways staff proposed to incorporate neighborhood improvements and enhancements in planned system upgrades. Mr. Loiacono then discussed how use of solar and digesters would be used to offset energy needs of the system. President Sklar called attention to a potentially magnificent solar field in Golden Gate Park despite some fog issues that might produce sufficient power to facilitate greater energy self-sufficiency. Mr. Loiacono then outlined proposed Bayside improvements. Next he discussed disposition of biosolids and noted that technologies in this area were constantly evolving. Mr. Loiacono then briefly addressed flooding issues, calling particular attention to issues in the South of Market. President Sklar noted that the Planning Commission/permitting departments should notify people about this area and make people aware that somebody has built in a flood plain. General Manager Leal pointed out that in this area it made sense to make mandatory code changes. General Manager Leal noted that sometimes these messages get through to builders and sometimes they do not.

General Manger Leal then indicated that they would look for Commission direction as to next steps. General Manager Leal expressed her preference to come back with a fully vetted review sooner than later.

Commission Werbach expressed concern that there was no indication of changes that the Commissioner had requested such as beautification and storm water reduction or any steps to negate the need of building another facility. Commissioner Werbach noted that this information had been asked for six months ago and asked where were the low impact calculations. He noted that people keep calling him asking to see low impact alternatives. Commissioner Werbach suggested that there appeared to be no plans to address the issues in both wet and dry weather situations. Commissioner Werbach noted that Sydney, Australia had interesting low impact systems in place. General Manager Leal pointed out that there had been a lot of work done by the Technical Advisory Committee and the Citizens Advisory Committee in the preparation of the report. President Sklar agreed with Commissioner Werbach’s point that the ideas needed to be brought to the Commission so that the Commissioners and the public could see what alternatives had been considered. Commissioner Werbach asked where are the best and brightest ideas and where are the dreams? He did not find them represented in this report. Commissioner Werbach also had concerns with how the four alternatives would be prioritized suggesting that it appeared that the projects were driving the priorities rather than the other way around. Commissioner Werbach noted that it did not appear that low impact was a core focus of what was planned. President Sklar asked that the details of the alternatives considered be brought forward so that everyone can know what was considered. Commissioner Werbach noted that the public would be a more stern judge of these efforts than the Commissioners if these issues were not seriously considered. President Sklar noted that there was a need to bring forward the options looked at, whether practicable or not, so that everything would be on the table. In response to Commissioner Caen’s question the history of the various master plans were outlined and how this plan differed from the previous master plans. In response to a question by President Sklar, Don Beard discussed aspects of the proposed plan. Mr. Beard then discussed new situations that have appeared since he created the plans of the 1970’s such as how to put into place permit processes to control creation of increased runoff.

Public Comment:

Ms. Jennifer Clary, Clean Water Action, thanked staff for their responsive helpful hard work on this in a very short amount of time and commented that the Technical Advisory Committee had also worked very hard on this. Ms. Clary noted that she shared Commissioner Werbach’s concern and expressed disappointment than the alternatives being considered were more costly that creation of low impact alternatives. Ms. Clary urged that the plans be evaluated in relation to the objectives identified. Ms. Clary observed that at this point the ball was in the Commission’s court. Mr. Francisco Da Costa, commented that the plan should be the best possible plan, one that looked at global warming issues, used empirical data, and showed the impact of rain runoff such as from Presidio. Mr. Da Costa noted there was no discussion of the impact of the flow from neighboring counties, to take into account pollution of the Bay, and that there was a failure to address the need to protect Mother Earth. Mr. Alex Lantsberg noted that Ms. Clary had covered most of his points but decried the lack of discussion of issues of environmental justice and noted that fundamentally this plan had to address past injustices and propose leadership to correct them. Mr. Lantsberg called for action to remedy the longstanding issues with the Southeast Treatment Plant. He urged thinking outside of box, seeking public involvement, keeping this plan on a fast track, and giving due consideration to the existence of the marine sanctuary when discussing ocean discharges. Ms. Judy West, South of Market Advisory Group and Madrina Group, called the Commissioners attention to potential under-utilized city owned sites for storm water collection/treatment in the Mission Creek System. Ms. West noted that as the area was in flux and that therefore timing was ideal to act to address these needs. Ms. Ruth Gravanis, called attention to the effort that members of the community had contributed toward making these plans responsive to community needs and urged the Commissioners to seriously consider their input.

The Commission took a recess at 1:20 P.M.

The Commission reconvened at 1:35 P.M.

The President requested that Agenda item 14 be taken out of order.

Ms. Leal introduced City Attorney Dennis Herrera to give a brief overview of Agenda item 14. Mr. Herrera spoke on AB123 and gave a general overview of the request for additional staffing at a cost of $1.4 million. Additionally, Ms. Leal proposed to reprioritize some of the attorney’s budget processes. President Sklar observed that everything Commission does should now relate as cost to a program and a budget and asked for a detailed breakout of the $1.4 million request. In response to his concerns about critical importance of maintaining the integrity of the program budgeting process and questions raised by President Sklar about the actual needs for hiring additional deputy city attorney’s; General Manager Leal confirmed that there was a real need, that these would be new hires, and that they would work specifically and where appropriate on an hourly basis on PUC projects. Following some further discussion, Commissioner Werbach and Commissioner Caen agreed that they would also like to see more budget details to support this staff recommendation. It was the consensus of the Commission that the General Manager provide project budget detail supporting the hiring of the additional attorneys and bring this item back to the Commission for approval.

General Manager Leal then requested that Agenda item 8b be taken out of order because of the speakers. President Sklar as a courtesy to the members of the Public attending and wishing to offer comments took up Agenda Item 8b Chloramine Report.

8b. Chloramine Report

General Manager Leal presented a brief overview and background related to issues of public interest concerning the use of Chloramines as a disinfectant in the water system. President Sklar noted that this presentation was in response to anecdotal questions and concerns raised by members of the public resulting in the Commissioner’s request to staff 10 weeks previously that an expert response be presented to address these issues and concerns. The experts offering responses were identified as Mr. Bruce McGurk from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Ms. Catherine Ma and Mr. David Spath from the California Department of Health Services; Mr. Dean Peterson of the San Mateo Department of Public Health and Ms. June Weintraub from the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

The presentation began with information on disinfection. It was reported that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approves disinfections and there are two types, the first to kill pathogens and chlorine is used at all of our facilities. Additionally ozone is used at one treatment plant and there are plans to use UV light at Hetch Hetchy. The available disinfectant choices were identified as chlorine and Chloramine. It was reported that the SFPUC in February 2004, converted to use of chloramines. It was noted that the challenge with disinfection was to provide adequate pathogen kill while minimizing disinfection byproducts. It was reported that chloramines have been around for 90 years and were first used in 1917. Chlorine it was noted has been used since 1908. It was estimated at 29% of community water systems use chloramine and that its use was expected to go up dramatically as a result of new byproduct legislation. A table was presented demonstrating that a lot of utilities in outside of the United States use chloramine - citing Ottawa, Canada, Sydney, Australia, and in Finland. Other American cities using it were identified as Portland, Boston, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, the Metropolitan Water District, and in the Bay Area, Contra Costa. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) was the last in the Bay Area in 2004 to change to the use of chloramines.

It was noted in preparation for this presentation that many resources and health and regulatory authorities were studied as well as the National Library of Medicine's database which includes thousands of journals and extensive EPA material, the California Department of the Health Services, Health Canada, Environment Canada, the World Health Organization, (WHO) and American Water Works Society and its journal and conference database as well as reports of the International Water Association. Staff reported discussions with the American Water Works research staff and reported that they had peer reviewed what staff had prepared on this topic and agreed that the information reported made sense. Additionally, it was noted that staff spoke with 17 other utilities throughout the country providing a broad cross-section of users such as Philadelphia, Water Resources, of Greater Boston and the Washington Aqueduct in D.C., Tampa, Denver, and several other Bay Area users. It was reported that staff had contacted health and water quality experts, preformed internet searches, reviewed the Department’s own records and did chloramine loss and removal tests in our laboratory. In preparation for this presentation it was estimated the PUC spent about six months of staff time, $100,000 doing this comprehensive review of chloramine science. In addition staff met with interested stakeholders on October 31, 2006, and had what was believed to be a helpful and productive meeting. The results of this information based upon our data showed that, chloramine is more effective for disinfection in distribution systems. In response to Commissioner’s questions it was noted disinfection in the distribution system is required. It was reported that use of liquid chlorine presents a hazard if released and therefore liquid chlorine was phased out in the late 1990's and the distribution system has continued to see excellent results after conversion to chloromines.

Ms. June Weintraub, an epidemiologist representing the San Francisco Department of Public Health, then discussed some of the health concerns that were raised at previous meetings and described why the balance of evidence showed that there was not any reason to be concerned about chloramines use related public health issues at this time. She noted in summary, that there was no evidence in the medical literature linking chloramine to drinking and bathing water to the health concerns raised. She observed that there was always the possibility that individuals have specific sensitivity to chemicals in the environment, but there is no evidence that these health affects are occurring on the population level. Ms. Weintraub noted that the Department of Public Health recommended that people with individual health concerns discuss these with their doctors. She further noted that conditions that people have described can be caused by any number of underlying conditions and even environmental exposures and it was important for people not to focus on one particular explanation for their health problems, as they could something really important. She reported that local physicians have a mechanism to contact the public health agencies if a physician sees something unusual in their practice, then they can discuss it with public health agencies, and any necessary action can be taken.

Commissioner Werbach applauded the presentation, observing that he had learned a lot and noted that the Commissioners were concerned because of the bad history that led to the passage of the precautionary principle in San Francisco. Commissioner Werbach recalled the Romans saying that lead was okay and a farmer telling their workers DDT was harmless. In response to Commissioner Werbach’s question about how does this reconcile with the concept of the precautionary principle, the answer was made that it absolutely reconciled and that as the precautionary principle states you have to make decisions on what to do be based on the best available evidence and the availability of alternatives. The number one fact was noted that we have to disinfect in the distribution system, because otherwise, you get cholera, typhoid, and number two there is very strong evidence that chlorine causes disinfection byproducts, which lead to cancer therefore we have an alternative, the alternative is chloramine. It was noted that at this point staff cannot make decisions today on the absence of evidence and based on what is known, chloramine is the right thing. It was noted again that regarding individual health concerns, staff supports any needed additional studies, and should further study show there was a public health issue, action would be taken. The basic point was made that based upon the known physiology and about how chloramine behaves in the environment and how it's dealt with physiologically, there did not seem to be a plausible reason to support preemptive action.

President Sklar asked if there had been any attempt by any member of Commission or by the General Manager to influence the scientific and engineering conclusions in the staff’s report and was informed the results reported been completely independent. President Sklar thanked the presenters and the General Manager, finding this presentation to be one of the most intellectually complete presented to the Commission on such a difficult topic.

Public Comment:

Ms. Claudette Main distributed a letter to the Commission on chloramines. She urged consideration of alternatives that can be filtered out, questioned chloramines effectiveness, noted additional sensitivities of persons with compromised immune systems, and commented that she has had to purchase spring water for her domestic uses.

Ms. Nancy Gilbertson commented that an argument is being made to do good for the greater amount of people, but in her view the problem is that we choose chloramine because there is approximately 500,000 miles of pickup line that is rotten and corroded and should be replaced so we're using chloramine as a band aid. Ms. Gilbertson noted the recently passed proposition 84 and suggested that voters supported it because they thought we would have safe and clean water; asking how much of that money is going to be allocated to repair the pipes?

Ms. Jan Frederiksen, a native San Franciscan, raised her concerns noting that there has not been any testing on humans, nor was there any study of skin irritations and nor about inhalation and there are no filtration systems guaranteed to remove the chloramine because they don't work well enough. Ms Frederiksen observed that a whole house filtration system is needed for the people to be able to shower and take a bath and cook and drink water and commented the worst part was when heated the steam makes the problems worse.

Mr. Gregg Jackson, a resident of San Francisco working as a biomedical engineer in the field of medical devices and pharmaceuticals, expressed disappointment to hear that chloramine is still being used in our water suggesting that it is the cause of respiratory issues and skin issues that have not been studied. He found what was being brought forward as proof of the scientific evidence did not show whether or not this is safe and effective to use. Mr. Jackson urged not using chloramine in the water until true studies showing it safe and effective saying that absence of evidence does not mean that evidence is absent. He agreed with Commissioner Werbach’s comment about the Romans being told lead is okay, suddenly the Romans are dying, and soldiers told radiation is okay, and so on the we're in the same situation and I wish our public officials and people at waterworks would step outside of the box and take a look.

Ms. Peggy Meadows, from Pacifica and long time California resident, noted that she used to think the water was better in Northern California but since fall of 2004 she has noticed symptoms that a lot of people have reported, mostly respiratory in her case rather than the skin. Ms. Meadows noted everybody is different and everybody tolerates things differently and some chemicals will give you cancer and you can get cancer from almost anything Ms Meadows posed two questions: have any major health providers been questioned by increased respiratory or skin complaints since 2004; and secondly, without more thorough testing how do we know the chloramine is not aggravating our symptoms? She said people with already compromised immune systems have the most trouble and that was something that needed to be investigated.

Mr. Ken Rosso, calling attention to his 25+years in the construction industry and work as a consultant-project manager, brought two pipes from a water heater showing the intake and what is came out after boiling in the water heater. He called attention to the difference and to the residue coming out, saying he had observed this for about 18 months. Mr. Rosso Suggested that chloramine has an effect on lead soldier in older pipes and the effects of this system wide should be investigated.

President Sklar responded to Mr. Rosso’s comments by asking are there any studies or anyone has done studies on the impact of chloramine on lead solder? The Commission President asked that staff find if there have been any such studies and report back what the results were.

Marlin, a resident of San Mateo for over 60 years, observed these statistics do not reflect human studies noting that after chloramine was introduced in 2004, ten days later he had a reaction. He stated that he had not changed anything in his lifestyle and decided to do his own human study and began using only distilled water, bathing in it and using it for my water needs He reported recovering from symptoms but noted if he goes back to using system water, they come back.

Ms. Marilyn Raubitsek observed that we have had some of the best water in the world, but people no longer trust it because of the added chemicals and have resorted to bottled water. She noted that it was the SFPUC and BAWSCA's responsibility to verify the safety of chloramine and as the public learns more, they will expect accountability.

Mr. Bruce Dronek, a San Jose resident, distributed his presentation regarding “Congestive Chloramine Concerns” and discussed his symptoms noting that he got around them by using well water until he was sent to his company’s office in Philadelphia and experienced the same symptoms. After he returned home, he contacted the Philadelphia Water District and discovered that they were also using chloramine, 3.0 parts were billion, approximately, same as here. As an engineer, who is responsible for the safety of all the devices he designs, he thought the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission should be responsible for the safety of the water users.

Ms. Rita Solk, a 22-year resident in Menlo Park, reported that a reason more people may not have voiced their complaints is that they do not know chloramines had been added to their water.

Ms. Darlene Nappi commented concerning her serious digestive tract problem that she said caused having part of her colon removed and was not being experienced until early 2004 and 2005, and had a lot of problems. After she switched from tap to bottled water, her pain went away; her energy came back. However, she noted that her problems return every time she was been exposed to chloraminated water. Ms. Nappi said that the existence of health effects on people and what people experience from chloramination really warranted serious investigation and that this was an issue of great concern to many people.

Ms. Beth Wilson commented that she had recently moved from Boulder, Colorado back to the Bay area after being absent from here for six years and within 24 hours started having serious respiratory problems, digestive problems, nausea, pain in any joints and a number of horrible symptoms that have compromised the quality of my life. Ms. Wilson reported that she had spoken with her doctor in Colorado, and said that her doctor suggested there was a relationship between her symptoms and chloramine.

Mr. Kory Trebbin from San Jose who discussed his experiences working in the Silicon Valley and with acids, sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide and chemical toxicity Mr. Trebbin remarked that he felt that he was not fighting the facts, but fighting an educated opinion. Mr. Trebbin commented that there may be a lot of sludge besides everything else in the water system and chloramine might be actually aggravating that point.

Ms. Linda Corwin, Vice President of Citizens Concerned about Chloramine of Pacifica, expressed disappointment at not receiving response to the letters and emails that were sent to the Commissioners. She additionally challenged the idea that there were not reports of health problems related to chloramines, citing reports from Scotland, Vermont. Washington, as well as several areas in California outside the Hetch Hetchy system, including Los Angeles and San Diego. She further reported that prestigious universities and scientists are studying this and seeing adverse effects from chloramine and referred the Commissioners to a website www.chloramine.org that mentioned several of these groups.

Ms. Jackie Kehl requested being allowed additional time due to a speech impediment and discussed symptoms she felt were caused by chloramine reporting that she had to stop taking showers everyday to just taking two a week, because I was having respiratory problems and stopped eating certain foods because they had water in them and the water caused her to have digestive problems. Ms. Kehl asked why staff was so concerned about disinfectant byproducts that chlorine produces, while adding chloramine when you know nothing about it? Ms. Kehl suggested that chloramine could produce cancer, and cited a study she knew about identifying related problems in the stomach.

Mr. Robert Helwing distributed his “Notes on Chloramine in Drinking Water System” and remarked that as a chemist had concerns about chloramine, citing in particular that certain equilibrium reactions take place in all chemical reports and make the point that irritants increase as one goes up in the amount of chlorine. Mr. Helwing further observed that the EPA Report section of 6.5 discussed increased formation of cryogen. that also comes from inhaling from a shower as it aerosolized and the EPA also mentions in its limited studies that the control of ph can shift within the distribution system and result in unwanted disinfection byproducts, including the section 6.7.3.6, discussing the formulation of trichloramine in a distribution system, which implies uncontrolled formation of this type of byproduct. The last point he wished to make was that the EPA made additional mention of the further disadvantage of the chloramine in 6.8.1 and in summary discussed use free chlorine in the water distribution systems for dealing with biofilm formation.

President Sklar asked if Mr. Helwing could get a copy of the report to Mr. DeGraca for his review.

Commissioner Werbach thanked everyone who took the day off to share information, observing that was ironic that people who bear the burden of problems are forced to give up time to resolve them. The Commissioner acknowledged the members of the community who had worked with PUC staff on this issue and noted a couple of issues that he wanted to make sure were followed up, the question of the lead solder risks, and if health providers in this area were seeing any increase in these kinds of health issues? Commissioner Werbach agreed with President Sklar’s call as a next step to the comments asking for a study of studies. Commissioner Werbach observed that we had probably exhausted the resources at local level and staff should go into greater detail and study this more. Commissioner Werbach found that the real issue was not what chloramine and chloramination does, but what our next step in disinfectant should be. He noted the major questions might be about research and development and identifying the next generation of disinfectant, and encouraging other agencies to be involved with the search as well. The Commissioner remarked that if the SFPUC was to be instrumental in pushing the science ahead and we should continue working with these agencies to push forward towards the next solution is the most important thing. Commissioner Werbach reported we would be jumping ahead in terms of use of UV lights and had plans in our capital program for Hetch Hetchy. Commissioner Werbach noted that the concerns would not just away and that the Commissioners were hearing from the leading edge of public concerns and this could become a bigger topic in the country.

President Sklar responded generally to the comments offered by saying the Commission would not be having a dialogue back and forth on this topic as that was not its role. The Commission President related that years ago one of his children was having trouble making decisions and that my wife reminded him of a book with axioms and that one he recalled was that one has to have all the information to make a decision and lastly one must live with the consequences of making a decision and that was the circumstance that the Commissioners faced. President Sklar noted while there were a number of people having symptoms, something that the Commissioners and the PUC staff wished they did not have and that some customers believe is due to chloramine, however, the Commission does not have any scientific evidence that it is due to chloramine. President Sklar noted the information staff researched is the best available knowledge from serious people who are with all good intent and objectivity reaching a conclusion based on the evidence they have - that the problems people have does not come from chloramine. He noted that experts could be right or wrong, but beyond that, it was their recommendation and sincere belief for the greater good that chloramine is the best choice disinfectant we have now. The Commission President’s conclusion was to agree with the findings made by staff, with the understanding that the Commission and the PUC staff would diligently continue to look for another material that might be better and continually search out any other scientific evidence that would cause us to change our minds. The Commission President stated given what he had heard, the conclusion he came to was that the staff's recommendation is one that he could support.

Commissioner Werbach followed up by observing what had occurred was San Francisco and the staff of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission being a leader in following and tracking this issue and recognizing the serious concerns customers bring and following up on them.

President Sklar hoped in this and other areas that the SFPUC would remain a leader President Sklar informed those attending the meeting that they had an you have an open line to the General Manager Leal and Mr. DeGraca and observed that he did not see any reason why the SFPUC should follow any practice other than the ones staff was now following. President Sklar thanked all those participating, observing that on both sides, there were people of good faith with problems and expressing opinions based upon their best information and best beliefs and that is all one can ask for in trying to reach conclusions.

4. Approval of Minutes

Moved by Commissioner Werbach, seconded by Commissioner Caen, to adopt the Minutes of the October 24, 2006, Regular Meeting; passed AYE (4-0) unanimously.

5. Public Comments

Members of the public may address the Commission on matters that are within the Commission’s jurisdiction and are not on today’s agenda.

6. Communications

President Sklar suggested two rules with regard to people that did not pay their bills within ten days for use of the O’Shaughnessy facility: one that in the following year they are not allowed to make reservations for more than two weeks more than the time they intend to use it; and secondly they pay in advance of the visit an amount equal to the amount they are likely to owe. The Commission President found the idea of someone outside of the agency, using this facility with the largest group there, running up the biggest bill and then not paying for five months abhorrent. President Sklar asked about a matter involving disqualifiquation of a contractor involved with installation of some electrical equipment reporting that he had one side of it, but would like General Manager Leal and Mr. Irons to take a look that the matter and see where it stands

7. Other Commission Business

8. Report of the General Manager

c) Stewardship Policy (Ramirez) Continued to November 28, 2006, Regular Meeting

d) Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) (Irons)

President Sklar stated he would read the information and send any questions he may have to staff.

9. SFPUC Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) Chair’s Report

a) Environmental Justice Resolution

b) Sustainability Plan Resolution

Mr. Alex Lantsberg reported that the Citizens' Advisory Committee wanted to update the Commissioners concerning the resolutions that they had recently passed and address some of the things on the agenda over the next coming months. It was reported that last month the full Citizens' Advisory Committee urged the Commission to adopt policies that Prop. E and City Charter changes mandated that SFPUC look at that as part of its mission. Mr. Lantsberg noted that it had been sometime since Prop E passed and nothing in the way of policy has be taken up, especially considering that the sewer master plan was actively under development. Additionally, the CAC requested information sharing and reporting on Water System Improvement Projects (WSIP). Mr. Lantsberg report that this month, the CAC would be taking a look at emergency response and emergency preparedness and hoping to have discussion among the members, as well as having discussions about how to make the CAC more effective and responsive. He further noted that in January, the CAC would review the SFPUC Budge and in February we'll look at contracting and ways that the PUC is going about trying to improve the contracting process.

10. Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) General Manager’s Report

There was no report.

CONSENT CALENDAR

11. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and will be acted upon by a single vote of the Commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission or the public so requests, in which event the matter will be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item.

Moved by Commissioner Werbach, seconded by Commissioner Caen, to adopt items (a-f) listed under the Consent Calendar; passed (4-0) unanimously.

a) Resolution No. 06-0194: Accept work performed for Wastewater Enterprise, Repair and Replacement (R&R) Program-funded Contract No. CW-343 Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant Primary Switch, by U. S. Electric Technologies, Inc., for a total contract amount of $245,000; approve Modification No. 1 (Final) for a time extension of 370 consecutive calendar days for a total contract duration of 535 consecutive calendar days; and authorize final payment, in the amount of $24,500 to the contractor.

b) Resolution No. 06-0195: Accept work performed for Wastewater Enterprise, Repair and Replacement (R&R) Program-funded Contract No. WW-365 18th/Texas/Mississippi Streets Sewer Replacement, by D’Arcy & Harty Construction, for a total contract amount of $857,160.44; and authorize final payment, in the amount of $73,961.09, to the contractor, D’Arcy & Harty Construction.

c) Resolution No. 06-0196: Accept work performed for Wastewater Enterprise, Repair and Replacement (R&R) Program-funded Contract No. CW-385, LaSalle Ave/Racine Lane/Quint St/Goettingen St Sewer Replacement, Rehabilitation and Pavement Renovation, by Shaw Pipelines, for a total contract amount of $695,225.47, and authorize final payment, in the amount of $51,861.27, to the contractor.

d) Resolution No. 06-0197: Accept work performed for Wastewater Enterprise Repair and Replacement (R&R) Program-funded Contract No. CW-392, Bayshore Blvd./Bryant Street Sewer Replacement, by Harty Pipelines, approve Modification No. 1 (Final) increasing the contract by $12,117.54, for a total contract amount of $562,797.54, and with a time extension of 78 consecutive calendar days for a total contract duration of 176 consecutive calendar days; and authorize final payment, in the amount of $42,389.86, to the contractor.

e) Resolution No. 06-0198: Accept work performed for Contract No. WD-2478, Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant (HTWTP) Filter Upgrade Project - Full-Scale Demonstration Filters, for a total contract amount of $1,633,984.19 and a duration of 147 consecutive calendar days; and authorize final payment, in the amount of $53,462.12 (including retention), to the contractor, NTK Construction, Inc.

f) Resolution No 06-0199: Approve Phase 2 of Agreement No. CS-764, Environmental Analysis Services, Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvement, to provide specialized environmental analysis.

REGULAR BUSINESS

12. Discussion and possible action related to adopt policies concerning Commission attendance, defining excused absence, and requiring attendance records to be reported to the Mayor. Moved by Commissioner Werbach, seconded by Commissioner Caen, not to disclose the discussions during Closed Session; passed (3-0) unanimously. Resolution No. 06-0200: Adopt policies concerning Commission attendance, defining excused absence, and requiring attendance records to be reported to the Mayor, in furtherance of San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Rules of Order, Rule 13, which requires Commissioner attendance, unless excused.

13. Discussion and possible action related to authorize the General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to request permission from the Board of Supervisors to accept and expend grant funds totaling $202,500 from the State Water Resources Control Board for the Pilarcitos Creek Watershed. Moved by Commissioner Werbach, seconded by Commissioner Caen, not to disclose the discussions during Closed Session; passed (3-0) unanimously. Resolution No. 06-0191: Authorize the General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to request permission from the Board of Supervisors to accept and expend grant funds totaling $202,500 from the State Water Resources Control Board’s 2005-2006 Consolidated Grants Program for the development of an Integrated Watershed Management Plan for the Pilarcitos Creek Watershed, with required matching funds of $67,500 from Project No. CUW257 – Watershed Management; and to execute all required agreements.

CLOSED SESSION

15. Public comments on matters to be discussed in Closed Session. There were no public comments.

16. Motion on whether to assert the attorney-client privilege regarding the matters listed below as Conference with Legal Counsel. Moved by Commissioner Werbach, seconded by Commissioner Caen, to assert the attorney-client privilege; passed (3-0) unanimously. The Commission went into Closed Session at 3:29 P.M.

17. Threat to Public Services or Facilities – Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957 and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10(a). (Ambrose) Present were President Sklar, Commissioner Caen, Commissioner Werbach, Deputy General Manager Tony Irons, Assistant General Manager Power Barbara Hale, Scott Macdonald, Finance Director Joseph Yew, Manager Energy Generation Projects John Doyle, Utility Specialist Manuel Ramirez, and Executive Secretary Lorelei Patricio Consultation with: Agency Chief of Security concerning security of SFPUC Water and Power Systems. There was no action.

18. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(a) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10(d)(1). (Mueller) Present were President Sklar, Commissioner Caen, Commissioner Werbach, Deputy General Manager Tony Irons, Assistant General Manager Power Barbara Hale, Scott Macdonald, Finance Director Joseph Yew, Manager Energy Generation Projects John Doyle, Utility Specialist Manuel Ramirez, and Executive Secretary Lorelei Patricio Existing Litigation: Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. City and County of San Francisco; U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 01-30923-DM; Filed June, 2004. There was no action.

19. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(a) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10(d)(1). (Mueller) Present were President Sklar, Commissioner Caen, Commissioner Werbach, Deputy General Manager Tony Irons, Assistant General Manager Power Barbara Hale, Scott Macdonald, Finance Director Joseph Yew, Manager Energy Generation Projects John Doyle, Utility Specialist Manuel Ramirez, and Executive Secretary Lorelei Patricio Existing Litigation: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket No. ER05-1190-000; Filed July 1, 2005. There was no action.

20. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(a) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10(d)(1). (Mueller) Present were President Sklar, Commissioner Caen, Commissioner Werbach, Deputy General Manager Tony Irons, Assistant General Manager Power Barbara Hale, Scott Macdonald, Finance Director Joseph Yew, Manager Energy Generation Projects John Doyle, Utility Specialist Manuel Ramirez, and Executive Secretary Lorelei Patricio. Existing Litigation: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket No. ER00-565-018, et al.; Filed November 1999. There was no action.

21. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(a) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10(d)(1). (Mueller) Present were President Sklar, Commissioner Caen, Commissioner Werbach, Deputy General Manager Tony Irons, Assistant General Manager Power Barbara Hale, Scott Macdonald, Finance Director Joseph Yew, Manager Energy Generation Projects, John Doyle, Utility Specialist Manuel Ramirez and Executive Secretary Lorelei Patricio Existing Litigation: Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. City and County of San Francisco; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket No. EL05-133-000; Filed June 29, 2005. There was no action.

22. Conference with legal counsel, existing litigation (Govt. Code Section 54956.9, S.F. Admin. Code Section 67.8(a)(3)) Present were President Sklar, Commissioner Caen, Commissioner Werbach, Deputy General Manager Tony Irons, Assistant General Manager Power Barbara Hale, Scott Macdonald, Finance Director Joseph Yew, Manager Energy Generation Projects John Doyle, Utility Specialist Manuel Ramirez and Executive Secretary Lorelei Patricio Resolution No. 06-0201: Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. City and County of San Francisco; (San Francisco Superior Court No.CGC 05-440982.) City Attorney File No. 051656, Filed May 4, 2005.

23. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (c) (Mueller) Present were President Sklar, Commissioner Caen, Commissioner Werbach, Deputy General Manager Tony Irons, Assistant General Manager Power Barbara Hale, Scott Macdonald, Finance Director Joseph Yew, Manager Energy Generation Projects John Doyle, Utility Specialist Manuel Ramirez, and Executive Secretary Lorelei Patricio Anticipated Litigation: As Plaintiff Position: There was no action. The Commission reconvened from Closed Session at 4:03 P.M.

25. Announcement following Closed Session. President Sklar then announced that during Closed Session there was no action of items 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 23. President Sklar reported that Item 22 had been settled.

26. Motion regarding whether to disclose the discussions during Closed Session. Moved by Commissioner Werbach, seconded by Commissioner Caen, not to disclose the discussions during Closed Session; passed (3-0) unanimously.

There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 P.M.

Lorelei Patricio
Secretary