2. Roll Call - See above.

SFPUC Staff present – Idil Bereket, Tyrone Jue, Karen Hurst, Arleen Navarret, Tommy Moala, Carolyn Chiu
Members of the public – Geoff Potter, Jen Kovecses, Joan Girardot

3. Minutes – October ‘07 Regular Meeting minutes have been approved.

4. Public Comment

No public comment has been made

5. Introduction of Acting Assistant General Manager for the Wastewater Enterprise - Tommy Moala touched upon the following items:
* The application for the position of Acting Assistant General Manager for the Wastewater Enterprise is still open. Tommy Moala will be Acting AGM for the time being.
* Tommy Moala shared the organizational chart (including photos) with the group, and mentioned that some of the senior staff would be retiring soon.
 
* Tommy Moala has been the Operations Manager for 18 years, and since 2007 ran the Operations for all three plants. Susan Leal assigned him to be the Acting AGM. Susan Leal is still the General Manager, but on leave for medical reasons. Tony Irons is the Acting General Manager during her absence.

Questions and Comments
The WWCAC members made the following comments:
* Looking at the Organizational Chart, asked whether Jon Loiacono was no longer part of the Master Plan.
ANSWER: Yes, Jon is still with the Master Plan. His division is Engineering.

Tommy Moala continued with his introduction as follows:
* The SFPUC didn’t get as much revenue as it had hoped. It had $3million left at the end of 2007 and didn’t have enough cushion for its programs.

Questions and Comments
The WWCAC members made the following comments:
* Asked about a written document on what is going to be cut.
ANSWER: We will provide that information to you by your next meeting.
* Commented that the SFPUC had a grant writer.
ANSWER: The grant writer has gone to the Water Enterprise.
* Commented that the Wastewater Enterprise could say that it didn’t have money and has to bring it from the outside and make use of the grant writer.

Tommy Moala continued with his introduction as follows:
* There are no layoffs anticipated.
* Asked if anyone talked about the Biofuel Program with the WWCAC and added that on January 22 the WWE will get the Commission’s blessing to move forward.

Questions and Comments
The WWCAC members made the following comments:
* Asked if the fact that the monetary issues the WWE is facing would have an impact on future projects, especially the construction of the new building on 525 Golden Gate Avenue.
ANSWER: Everything about the new building will move forward. It will be the greenest building in the country. Real Estate has been raising the funds. The construction of that building is a separate issue from the WWE.
* Asked if the fact that the Zoo is going to start to pay a bill would alleviate the financial issues.
ANSWER (from other members of the WWCAC): It’s water that is new. The Zoo had always had to pay for wastewater.
* Commented that the SFPUC should maintain the plan.
ANSWER:  We’re asked to hold 40 positions open.
* Commented that all of a sudden the rates went up, and that should bring in some money.
ANSWER: Because of the rate freeze, we are not that flush with money.
*Asked if the 5-Year CIP still going to hold its schedule.
ANSWER: The priorities are 1) Pay the MOU 2) Chemicals 3) Biosolids.
* Commented that the Budget should be on the agenda for the February meeting and/or a standing agenda item/staff report at the WWCAC meetings. In February, the same presentation done for the Commissioners could be done for the WWCAC, including information such as how many sewer lines the SFPUC will be able to work on, how much of the Stormwater Management projects would move forward, etc.  In February or March perhaps Finance could provide a spreadsheet.
* Asked if new sources of revenue have been identified.
ANSWER: There are various programs such as the Capacity Charge, Biofuel Program, Rainwater Harvesting. However, all of these programs also cost money.

Karen Hurst added that the SFPUC has a rate review every 5 years.

Questions and Comments
The WWCAC members made the following comments:
* Commented that they would like to see projects that wouldn’t be funded.

Joan Girardot commented that the Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods, a coalition of 48 neighborhood groups support the Capacity Charge. She added that she would also like to know from Finance how much money came in since the Capacity Charge has been in effect.

ANSWER: We can have those numbers when we go over the budget.

Joan Girardot asked if Finance could be clear on why the projections wouldn’t pan out. She commented that neighborhoods fought against Low Income Discount. Finally, she asked if there was a search committee for the hiring of the Assistant General Manager for the Wastewater Enterprise.

ANSWER: The Human Resources Director is the head of the research.

Tommy Moala continued with his introduction as follows with information on the Cosco Busan Oil Spill and the role of the WWE in the cleanup:
* The WWE was contacted by the Office of Emergency Services. The WWE is the only Department qualified to do it. The first day, staff trained 50 volunteers. The WWE worked on the cleanup for 7 days. There were about 15-30 people at the site from staff. Their job was to manage the volunteers. On a Saturday, they had to train and manage close to 325 people. The volunteers were dressed up in Tyvek, put on a bus, and trained.

Questions and Comments
The WWCAC members made the following comments:
* Asked if there is a review process of these efforts.
ANSWER: Yes, there are lessons learned. We realized the need of certain materials for any kind of emergency. The majority of the efforts took place at Ocean Beach.
* Commented that a group of people went to Heron's Head Park, where there was no oil spill.
* Commented that this was the first oil spill that used volunteers.

Tyrone Jue commented that there were 700 people at one point at Golden Gate Park. Most people put their names down on the volunteer list for future incidents.

The WWCAC members made the following comments:
* Commented that since staff put in a lot of effort, there should be a mention in the next bill insert.

Tommy Moala mentioned that during the big storm a couple of weeks earlier, there have been close to 372 calls.

Tyrone Jue commented that 311 received about 15,000 calls that day, about 500 trees were down, 605 catch basin clean-up, 65 sewer-related calls and about 375 customer complaints. He added that senior staff from different City Departments were gathered in one room at 311’s Call Center to disseminate information.

The WWCAC members made the following comments:
* Commented that what the staff did for the oil clean-up was commendable and the volunteer effort was tremendous. Asked if the public was asked to clear the leaves and get prepared for the storm?
ANSWER: The SFPUC sent a flood alert with a message noting the public to clear the catch basins or call the SFPUC/311 to clean. We are thinking to start up a new program like “Adopt-A-Catch Basin”.
* Commented that a flyer about what could be done before a rain event could be sent out along with the bill.
* Agreed on the flyer along with the bill insert. Added that the City tries to prepare for emergency events; but it’s not communicated to citizens as to what they could do before a storm.

No action was taken.

The Chair decided to combine agenda items 6 and 8, and discuss them before agenda item 7.

6 and 8.  Feedback on the SF Sewer System Master Plan Public Workshops and Public Outreach Update (WWE and/or SF Sewer System Master Plan)

Tyrone Jue gave the following public outreach update:
* We had the Master Plan workshops in November 2007. The turnout at Sunset and Downtown were low and high at the Bayview meeting. We had group discussions both at the Sunset & Downtown locations, which were effective. The comments are included on the Public Input Summaries.
* We launched the SFGreasecycle in November and December. We had partnership with Costco where we collected close to 1,000 gallons of grease during Thanksgiving and Christmas. We will continue to do a collection at most major holidays. So far, 150 restaurants signed up. This service is free of charge.

Questions and Comments
The WWCAC members made the following comments:
* Asked if it would help to notify the restaurants.
ANSWER: Yes. Especially the “Mom & Pop” style restaurants would benefit from this program.
* Commented that it would be cool to have links to the bill inserts through online billing.
ANSWER: We’re using a 3rd party vendor for online billing.
* Asked if the SFPUC is publicizing SFGreasecycle?
ANSWER: Not a lot because we do not have the capacity yet. We are about to get into a partnership with Google and collect their grease.

Carolyn Chiu gave the following update and feedback on the Master Plan:
* The milestone was November ’07.  The General Manager has directed us to look at cost through a third party. The later you do it, the longer you wait, the more expensive it’ll get. We are not starting the Environmental Impact Review yet. We are currently transitioning to a new General Manager. In the meantime, we’re looking at the plan in more details. CEQA will probably happen in April or May.

Questions and Comments
The WWCAC members made the following comments:
* Commented that it’s a fantastic idea to bring a 3rd party.

Carolyn Chiu continued with her update:
The Wastewater Enterprise hasn’t had an infrastructure program for a while. Even if we start today, it’ll take about 4-5 years to finish. All the issues have monetary and neighborhood impacts.

Questions and Comments
The WWCAC members made the following comments:
* Commented that the Mission Bay Drainage could use more attention and added that the SFPUC should look at that area for stormwater opportunities. Everyone is looking for parks. There isn’t enough treatment at Mission Bay and everything is going to the water.
* Commented that he liked the idea of a big picture goal and suggested to keep your position.
* Asked when they will see something in writing.
ANSWER: Not for another 3-4 months. We did a little document, Recommended Plan, that could be available in about a month, which is the first Capital Improvement Program before the big Master Plan.
* Commented that what the SFPUC needs to figure out is how to do it.
* Asked when the Draft Plan would be available, February, April or May?
* Commented on the SWALE goal and how the plan responded to their plans.
ANSWER: The Recommended Plan will give you an idea on what we have been working on.
* Commented that in October ’07 the WWCAC adopted certain goals.
* Commented that those were not adopted yet by the full CAC.
* Asked if there will be a document summarizing the 3-10 year period
ANSWER: There is no phasing. Projects will be 0-15 and then 15-30 years. The $3.2 billion would be for the first set of projects.
* Asked about the projects under the Master Plan, where the digester was on the list and where the big tickets items were.
ANSWER: The recommended plan will have the answers to those questions.
ANSWER: The document will be about 12 pages long.
* Asked if sewer replacement, LID, etc. were components?
* Asked if the SFPUC would be reviewing the goals and objectives.
ANSWER: The rules and objectives are not changing. They could be just refined.
* Asked when the TAC was going to see that document and when the next TAC meeting was.
ANSWER: There will be one more TAC meeting. We might ask George Tchobanoglous or David Jenkins to come to one of the Commission meetings.

Joan Girardot asked if $3.4 billion was for the 1st Capital Improvement Program.
ANSWER: Yes.

Joan Girardot asked how much the rest would be.
ANSWER: That has not been projected yet.

Karen Hurst added that Regulatory will be shaping the next 15 years.

7. Digester Rebuild Community Planning Process – following are excerpts from the information provided by both Carolyn Chiu and Tyrone Jue:
* The Bayview Digester is a major issue.
* The big hurdle is the location.
* A Joint Task Force was formed for the Oceanside Plant.
* That Task Force was comprised of members from the community, agencies and entities impacted by the plant.
* The task force will be an opportunity to share why we are doing what we are doing.
* The Port, Redevelopment Agency, local citizens, etc. would be included.
* We haven’t gotten the green light yet. We’ll present it to the new General Manager as we go through the transitional phase.
* Timeline would overlap with the Environmental Impact Review.
* Until it’s approved, we can’t move forward with this Task Force. It could move forward at the administration level, but it’s good to present it to the Commission.

Questions and Comments
The WWCAC members made the following comments:
* Asked why this issue should be dealt with a group outside this committee.
ANSWER: At this point, it is just an idea.
* Commented that the earliest we could start doing things would be 5 years from now.
* Asked why the SFPUC is not considering Brisbane as a site.
ANSWER: It is out of SFPUC’s jurisdiction. How we would have to pump the wastewater is also an issue.

Karen Hurst commented that Brisbane had a plan for that area too.

Questions and Comments
The WWCAC members made the following comments:
* Commented that $3.4 billion rolled some people’s eyes, but that only comes out to $0.83 per person per day. That is really cheap for sewage disposal.
* Mentioned that she’s concerned about the process. It’s all fill. Potential for liquefaction is big.
ANSWER: It’s more of a political issue.
* Asked if there has been a lot of support about this. Commented that this is expensive, and that there were a lot of the old-timers who want to see a fundamental change. Community Planning Change is a good thing. Stated that he doesn’t want people coming to the City on High Speed Rail and see the plant.
* Asked if there was a backup plan if the digester fails.
ANSWER: We have a contingency plan. If one digester fails, we will be OK.
* Asked what would happen in the event of an earthquake
ANSWER: The digesters were not affected by the Loma Prieta earthquake. We are not expecting that they would by a big earthquake.

No action taken.

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

NONE

10. Adjourned - 7:35 p.m.