3.  Minutes – Special October minutes have been approved.

4.  Public Comment

No public comment has been made

The Subcommittee chair announced change in order of the meeting items: Item #5 on the agenda was discussed at the end of the meeting, after agenda item #8.  The minutes follow the original order of the meeting agenda.

5.  Biofuel Program – Karri Ving gave an update on the program and its launch:
* We’re pushing the residents to buy into the program with education and campaign which is pulling grease from restaurants and that the service is free
* The Port (for site) didn’t work out.
* There will be a press release sent out for the launch on Friday, October 26, at 11am at Puccini & Pinetti, a restaurant who is participating in the program.
* There is a site development plan on Quint Street.
* We are trying to make sure that the Biodiesel Program is above board.
* MUNI buses, fire trucks and City vehicles will run on biodiesel.
* We will stay with B20 for a while. There are two vehicles to run on B100, and we will work with SF Petroleum on 17th & Illinois, which is the only place to buy biodiesel for the City.
* We are using steam from the digesters. We hired two drivers collecting waste vegetable oil from restaurants.

Lewis Harrison introduced Karri Ving and commented that the Biofuel Coordinator just hired is the only one in the state of California: Karri Ving is with the Biodiesel Access Task Force and Marin Subcommittee. She started to work in biodiesel in a small town in OHIO, in exactly the same way as the program we’re about to launch.

Questions and Comments on the Biofuel Program
The WWCAC members made the following comments:
* Did a lot of restaurants sign up for the program?
ANSWER: 40-50 signed up already. We’re asking them to call us instead of pouring the oil down the drain. It’s a financial burden for restaurants when they have to ask someone to haul the oil out. There is a lot of grease sitting in restaurants’ basements.
* Asked how the SFPUC will be able to handle all the restaurants in San Francisco?
ANSWER: There are 2600 grease-producing establishments in San Francisco. We’re focusing mostly on the “mom & pop” type of places. The big restaurants already have something established.
* Asked if there was an incentive for restaurants to sign up.
ANSWER: Our program is free, compared to paying $1/gallon. Only 45-50% have grease traps, and half of those don’t maintain. We will be doing a lot of education. The restaurant managers have to have a change of perception. We want to keep this waste as local as possible.
ADDITIONAL COMMENT BY LEWIS HARRISON: There is an ordinance about using automatic devices or interceptors.
* Commented that the Biofuel Program team should come back to talk about the ordinance.
* Asked for a reminder about the press event on October 26.
* Asked about staff under the program.
ANSWER: There is a hiring program that will look into hiring more staff as the program develops and grows.
* Commented that the SFPUC should invite the Council of District Merchants Association.
ANSWER: We’re now having a soft launch.
* Commented that this makes use proud to be a San Franciscan. It is a fabulous model as template for a lot of the things for the SFPUC

Peter O’Donnel asked how many gallons the program intends to collect.
ANSWER: Initially 5,000 gallons monthly, in 2008 50,000 gallons/month and in 2009 100,000 gallons/month.

Peter O’Donnel commented that there were parallel programs in the East Bay.
ANSWER: Yes, there are similar programs up & down the coast.

A Member of the WWCAC commented that there was a similar program by East Bay MUD.

No action was taken.

6.  Master Plan presentation (an overview of the presentation points) – Jon Loiacono did an overview of the Master Plan presentation items in front of the Commission. Excerpts are as follows:
* We are connecting objectives and goals and how alternatives will fit in.
* We will talk about the “Integrated Watershed Management” approach.
* We will discuss the recommended alternatives
* The Southeast Digester is the major project; we will also talk about alternative site selection for digesters.

The WWCAC members made the following comments:
* Asked about the kind of process
ANSWER: There will be an Environmental Review
* Asked what the message of the presentation would be
ANSWER:  Keeping the costs down and moving the digesters.
* Asked how that would be done.
ANSWER: Through public outreach. Relocation is not something that the stakeholders want in the community.
* Asked who did the SFPUC met with.
ANSWER: The SFPUC met with 15 people already and is trying to schedule for more meetings. The purpose of the meetings is to get the stakeholders be interested and it allows us to hear from them.

Jon Loiacono continued with his presentation overview as follows:
* We will talk about Bayside water reclamation issues.
* We will have a policy recommendation.
* We will talk about issues of flooding.
* We will talk about the side sewers: We really don’t have a program on the side sewers.

The WWCAC members made the following comments:
* Asked if the side sewers were under the SFPUC’s responsibility.
ANSWER: It’s the owner’s responsibility, however it’s a mixed bag.
* Asked if the SFPUC knew what policy recommendation they would make.
ANSWER: No.  It’s easy to ask commercial buildings to replace their side sewers. We have a program with the Planning Department asking them to inform us of any new development in certain areas.
* Asked if there would be any other policy recommendation.
ANSWER: LID
* Commented that it’s not a policy to say, “the overflows would be reduced by such and such amount/percentage”.
* Asked how the issue of combined sewer overflows would be addressed.
ANSWER: It will be in the Master Plan.

Jon Loiacono continued with his presentation overview as follows:
* Water policy on water saving devices and potable water offsets.
* We will then talk about the phasing approach –of the Capital Improvement Program.
* The advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives.
* The cost and next steps.

The WWCAC members made the following comments:
* Asked about the meeting on October 23 with Tony Irons.
ANSWER: It might be an update from his side
* Asked if the digesters were a real issue
ANSWER: No. They were built in the ‘50’s, and they are not as sophisticated as they used to be. We built a building to completely contain the odors. One neighbor complaining about odors never complained about the digester odors.  The liquid side emits more odors –and we’re working on this issue.
* Commented that money is a real concern and asked if people prioritize money over digesters.
ANSWER: The rates are of big concern.
* Asked if the SFPUC can use the moving of the digesters as an incentive to the community and make it a benefit.
ANSWER: The benefit we offer is a potential for employment.
* Commented that cisterns are a power tool and that the Channel Pump Station is not getting what it deserves. Unoccupied land doesn’t get the attention it needs. We’re missing an opportunity.
* Commented that there should be more stormwater detention basin.
* Commented that the SFPUC was not going to ask the Commission to do something.
ANSWER: This is not an update. We are going to ask for their feedback.
* Asked who else is going to be there from staff.  Commented that everyone should be acknowledged including the WWCAC.
* Commented that looking at the SWALE goals, the plan contained environmental benefits.
ANSWER: We only have 30 minutes and can’t get into a lot of details.
* Commented on: Reducing flow into Bay and Ocean, and that the plan doesn’t look at tertiary treatment; Climate Change, backflow prevention –added that a more holistic view was going to be taken.
* Asked whether we will talk about levels of service.
ANSWER: No.
* Commented that the team should be ready to answer questions about levels of service by the Commissioners.
ANSWER: We don’t know where we are now. Any suggestions?
* Commented that the team should be talking about programs taking about asset management and maintenance.
* Commented that the WSIP had something similar.
* Asked how the projects would be prioritized.
ANSWER: You go and look for what needs to be done.
* Asked if they will be talking about how public involvement is shaping this process.
ANSWER: Yes.
 
* Asked about details on the digesters at the presentation.
ANSWER: We will recommend that we will have to make sure that we have the money and someone to carry it through January Environmental Review to sort this through this and community input.
* Commented on the future of garbage use, and that there is an overlap between garbage, food and grease.

Peter O’Donnell asked if the digesters produced energy.
ANSWER: Yes, methane gas use for heating and power at the plants.

Elizabeth Dubuque commented that she lived on 3rd Street by the plant and that the odors were atrocious. As for public outreach, commented on SFPUC’s information that people were concerned about rates. Asked where the public outreach took place and how many people were reached.
ANSWER: We did a citywide mailing, surveys focusing specifically on the 94124 zip code.

Elizabeth Dubuque commented that she was interested on the results and that the majority of people in that neighborhood don’t like to mix with the government. Asked about the percentage of people in the Bayview District who responded.

Bill McLaughlin asked whether there was a combined sewer overflow on Friday, October 12; commented that he didn’t see the beach posting until the next day.

A WWCAC member asked for the charts for the beach posting.

ANSWER: If the event occurs later in the day, then it is posted the next day.

Bill McLaughlin asked if this procedure could be reviewed.

Emeric Kalman commented that there were big developments downtown and asked if the SFPUC worked with those new developments.
ANSWER: We have been and are still working with these new developments.
ANSWER: We met with Department of Building Inspection (DBI).

No action was taken.

7. Southeast Neighborhood Mitigation – Jon Loiacono provided brief information on the issue:
* We came up with the things that we can do. We have to do more specific planning and during that period we’ll come up with more mitigation.

Questions and Comments on the Southeast Neighborhood Mitigation
The WWCAC members made the following comments
* Commented that the Southeast Community Facility is good at complaining with no solutions.
ANSWER: We’re looking at true mitigation. No odors is one of the goals
* Asked how SFPUC can commit to something that it can’t do.
ANSWER: As an engineer, we will never commit to 100%. The idea would be to commit to reduce odor to “Zero odor” behind the fence line.
ANSWER: Why set the bar low?
* Commented on the design elements and construction for odor improvements.
* Suggested trading off pollution. Suggested to talk about how the SFPUC mitigates both short & long-term. Commented to think about what the SFPUC needs to do for the neighborhood in the near-term and suggested to divide the discussion about interim and future measures.
* Commented that we shouldn’t think about mitigation in terms of the Master Plan, but as being neighborly.
ANSWER: We are doing mitigation. Odor control, etc. We want to build a seismic code.

Elizabeth Dubuque asked if the fence could be raised or covered?
ANSWER: If we stay there, there is one proposal of staying low.

The WWCAC members made the following comments
* Commented that the drawing of the façade on the presentation on the website be provided to Elizabeth Dubuque.
* Commented that the sewage treatment facility is a Bayview Landmark

No action taken.

8. Discussion and Review of the Master Plan Program and potential action in support of specific program elements

The following resolution on the “Draft Wastewater Enterprise Master Plan Elements” was passed unanimously by all of the WWCAC members:

Support
* Integrated Urban Watershed Management Plan - and opportunity to provide environmental enhancement, augment water supplies, reduce overflows.  Urge consideration of wetlands, stream day-lighting as part of planning effort
* Increased use of recycled water to offset potable water needs, particularly for non-irrigation uses that increase the drought reliability of the system 
* The development of a proactive program to renew our aging collection system.
* Prioritization of new biosolids handling facility.

Urge
* Additional development of site opportunities for stormwater detention in low-lying areas, for example in the Channel Basin;
* Public review of options for rebuilding SETP that brings a broad range of stakeholders together.
* Development of a “Good Neighbor Policy” that involves local community in both short and long-term efforts to reduce negative impacts of the plant.
* Greater consideration of decentralized options, for instance secondary treatment at Northpoint – to reduce impact on southeast neighborhood, improve flexibility of system, and address climate change impacts on system

Oppose –
* Blanket efforts to rebuild the SETP at current location solely based on limited economic forecasts that fail to incorporate a full life-cycle cost/benefit analysis.

9. Comments, suggestions and requests for future agenda items by members of the Wastewater Subcommittee, staff and general public.

The next meeting of the WWCAC on Thursday, November 15 has been cancelled.

10. Adjourned- 7:45 p.m.