1.  Call to order - 5:40 p.m.

2.  Roll Call- See above.

SFPUC Staff present – Jon Loiacono, Tyrone Jue and Idil Bereket

Members of the public – Jack Lendvay, Richard Hansen, Emeric Kalman and Bill McLaughlin

City Attorney- Absent

3.  Minutes - May and June minutes have been approved. January Special Meeting and April Meeting minutes will be approved in August.

4.  Public Comment – No public comment has been made.

5.  Wastewater Enterprise Update: Presentation of the Wastewater Video - Tyrone Jue with SFPUC Communications presented the draft wastewater video, and made an introduction as follows: This is a wastewater video produced for a target audience ranging from school children to members of the public and possibly the media. The video provides information on SFPUC’s wastewater enterprise, as well as programs within the enterprise and also touches upon the San Francisco Sewer System Master Plan.

Questions and Comments on the Wastewater Video
The WWCAC members made the following comments:
* Asked if this was the final version.
ANSWER: This is the almost-final version. The script was developed to appeal to a general audience including the children
* Commented that the music sounded old-fashioned.
* Pointed out that on the video, the North point Facility is mentioned to be built in the 1950’s, but that that was not correct.
ANSWER: The North point Facility was indeed built in the 1950’s.
* Asked why Susan Leal was filmed in front of the Crissy Field especially when our position is not to want to treat Crissy Field’s stormwater.
ANSWER: We wanted an outdoor location and it was the only area where we didn’t need to pay for filming.
* Commented that only seagulls are pictured, and perhaps other types of birds could have been featured instead.

No action was taken.

Question by a WWCAC member before moving onto Agenda Item 6:
* Asked about flooding in Cayuga and how much flooding happens in the area.
ANSWER: When it floods, it is really dramatic.

6.  SF Sewer System Master Plan – TAC/Draft Commission Workshop Presentation and Recap of the July 16th Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – The points presented included Integrated Watershed Management, description of alternatives, comparison of the alternatives, the recommended alternative, other Sewer System Master Plan elements and the next steps along with a schedule.

Selected topics from the presentation are as follows:
* Alternative 1: Improve the existing system
* Alternative 2: Decentralize treatment
* Alternative 3: Treat dry weather flows at Oceanside Treatment Plant
* Alternative 4: New Bayside Treatment Plant
* Master Plan Project Phasing which is made of three sequential 10-year Capital Improvement Programs:
 --- Phase 1: Seismic Reliability Improvements
 --- Phase 2: System Performance Reliability Improvements
 --- Phase 3: System Maintenance
  The projects are prioritized into phases based on criticality, benefit and the infrastructures’ remaining useful life. Phase 1 (Years 0-10) and Phase 2 (Years 11-20) are identical in each of the Alternatives. The preferred alternative will be implemented in Phase 3 (Years 21-30).
* Recommended Alternative is Alternative 1 with elements of Alternative 2.
* The Rationale for the Recommended Alternative are - Replacement of liquid treatment facility occurs at end of 30 year period - Uncertain regulatory requirements - Upgrade/ relocation of centralized biosolids treatment center to occur in Phase 1 - Alternative 1 maintains flexibility to implement any of the alternative locations for liquid treatment in future.
* The presentation continued with the alternative comparison and power consumption at build-out.
* The common elements of the Sewer System Master Plan are Energy Management Program, Low Impact Development Program, Water Reuse and Bayside Biosolids Center.
* LID implementation will involve - Code changes for New Developments - Coordination/ Partnerships with City agencies such as Park & Rec, DPW, non-profits, private entities and neighborhood communities.
* The types of low impact design considered are installing cisterns, disconnecting roof drains, converting roofs to Ecoroofs, planting street trees, replace pavement with permeable surfaces, building bioretention areas and daylight streams.
* Some of the Bayside Water Reuse Facilities thought of are the McLaren Park Project and Flynn Pump Station Project
* A new Bayside Biosolids Center is also under evaluation under the Master Plan. Some of the sites considered are: –Southeast Plant (existing) + CalTrans; –CalTrans with Parcel A & B; –Pier 94
* The presentation ended with the next steps and schedule:
July: RFP for EIR consultant
July 16: TAC meeting
August 14: Update to Commission - recommended alternative, LID program
September: Public meetings
October: Draft Master Plan report
Oct/Nov: Update to Commission approval to proceed to EIR process

Questions and Comments on SF Sewer System Master Plan – Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)/Draft Commission Workshop Presentation and Recap of the July 16th TAC Meeting
The WWCAC members made the following comments:
* Asked what the process was about the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and would anything else have to wait. Concerned that nothing will be done in Mission Creek.
ANSWER: Project will reduce flooding. Jon Loiacono said that he would have to get back later to provide information on the question. He added that the Programmatic EIR looks at categorical exemptions. We may do project-specific EIR for other projects such as Cayuga and increasing the outfall capacity at the Southeast Plant –which definitely need an EIR.
* Suggested an “underground train” to tunnel through wastewater and pump to Southeast Plant.
* Asked to give a little recap of the TAC Meeting.
ANSWER: The TAC is in general agreement with the direction the SFPUC is going. They provided suggestions on how to present it and communicate.
* Commented that the drawing for the Integrated Watershed Management in the presentation was really good.
ANSWER: Cisterns are a new way of looking at things in the collection system.
* Commented that the SFPUC should help develop the code.
ANSWER: Jon Loiacono agreed that without a code there would be no way of implementing certain things.
* Commented that it’s good that the SFPUC has code changes in mind.
ANSWER: Jon Loiacono said that there would be an appendix to the SWALE response.
* Said that the SF Port was confused about land use.
People don’t like to see digesters built around their area.
* Commented that doing the presentations is not working out and that the neighborhood process should be separate from the public meetings.
* Commented that Wednesday, July 25th the Southeast Community Commission is asking the SFPUC to speak. Added that the SFPUC should hold a public focus meeting about the sites in that community.
* Commented that there should be more in-depth communication with the community.
* Commented that this is something that should be done before the EIR.
* Commented that it would be appropriate to include a cost/benefit analysis in the presentation just like Darla Inglis’.
* Asked to use the term “lifecycle” on the slide about “Power Analysis”.

Richard Hansen commented that if someone relies on public comments and public input intensively, we will end up doing things the wrong way. He asked what the role of the TAC was. He added that he hasn’t seen such friendly and agreeing group and that the Commissioners aren’t technical and that he’d hate to see the SFPUC go into another Chinatown Subway situation. He also asked if the TAC was a public relations advisory group or a technical advisory group?
ANSWER: The TAC has commented in writing early on, since the beginning. At this phase, we’re passed on the technical side.

* WWCAC member asked staff to provide Richard Hansen with a “consensus statement” from the TAC.

Richard Hansen asked if food waste would include everything that came from the green barrels.
Restaurants would need to separate liquids from solids.

Richard Hansen asked that he’d like to see some calculation/cost to buy a one-square buffer zone when considering sites.

* WWCAC member commented that this shouldn’t be pushed, as it’ll ruin everything that has been done so far.

Richard Hansen asked that he would like to see some numbers and is curious about what other countries do such as China.

Jack Lendvay commented that the collection system is a major issue.
ANSWER: The collection system is 1,000 miles long. The cost is $2.5 million per mile. We will be doing some asset management to see what are the sewers that are most likely to fail. We will determine those first, then fix them. There are some sewers we can go in right now, and some that could wait.

Jack Lendvay commented that we should work with the Parks on reclaimed water: encourage use of reclaimed water and force them to implement water conservation. He also added that groundwater is another issue.
ANSWER: The SFPUC is currently working on these.

Jack Lendvay asked about the sea-level (saltwater) rise and if there was a way to put an artificial barrier and infiltrate.
ANSWER: This is something we can take up. Greg Bartow from the SFPUC is the person who’ll have the information on this issue.

Emeric Kalman commented that the presentation was very explicit. He added that colored copies of the presentation provides better information than on black and white copy.

Items 7 through 8 – were postponed. One tentative agenda item for August is a presentation by Greg Braswell. WWCAC members will provide the Chair with possible agenda items and resolutions. The chair will then communicate the proposed items & resolutions to the SFPUC WWCAC liaison.

No action taken.

9. Adjourned- 7:46 p.m