1. Call to order - 5:37 p.m.

2. Roll Call - See above.

SFPUC Staff present – Idil Bereket, Tyrone Jue, Arleen Navarret, Karri Ving, Jon Loiacono, Karen Hurst, Kenya Briggs
Members of the public – Steven Smith, Geoff Potter, Amy Chastain

3. Minutes – February ‘08 Regular Meeting minutes have been approved as per the following amendments:
* Page 2: Change Sonoma County to Solano County
* Page 3: Change graywater to rainwater
* Page 3 (end of page): Change “plumbing/technician groups” to “roof & plumbing repair groups”.

4. Public Comment

None

5. Update on the Biofuel Program and Discussion of a parallel Brown-Grease-to-Biofuel Program – Karri Ving.

Biofuel Program
* Biofuel Program is for diverting the organic energy to City fleets, fuel extender, or methane production for our plants.
* Collection of grease from restaurants: On March 19, we collected 140 gallons of cooking oil from one single restaurant.
* We harvest this energy and bring it to the City through our Master Fueling Contract to run our City vehicles, fire trucks and everything else that run on diesel now.
* Since our last update, the City has gone 100% in vehicles that used to run on biodiesel to B20: 20% biodiesel and 80% diesel.
* 250 restaurants signed up in the first three months.
* Our two collection trucks run on 100% biodiesel made from cooking oil.

Questions and Comments
* Asked what the Master Fueling Contract was.
ANSWER: The city purchases its diesel and gasoline under one contract “Opus Index” through a company called SF Petroleum. It supplies to various central shops. We can dictate an entity like SF Petroleum to buy biodiesel.
* What are the stats?
ANSWER: 67% reduction in particulate matter, significant net carbon reduction.
* Asked about the difference of engine performance between B100 and B20
ANSWER: It’s too early to say.
* Geoff Potter asked about feedback on odor
ANSWER: No. Central Shops said they liked the smell.
* Asked to get a list of the restaurants and give them incentives.
ANSWER: We are offering them stickers, but more importantly we are listing the restaurants on our website, www.SFGreasecycle.org,. The program will also be featured on “The G Word” a program on Discovery Channel.
* Geoff Potter asked how San Francisco stands in relation to other cities.
ANSWER: We were inspired by Texas’s oil collection. Portland has a great program with biodiesel access point throughout the entire city. There is no comprehensive program in the nation as much as this one in San Francisco.

Fats, Oil and Grease (FOG) Ordinance
* Automatic Grease Removal Device to capture grease before it goes into the sewers. We will give them to restaurants. Restaurants in the City don’t have any type of grease removing device.

Questions and Comments
* Asked if the restaurants would be required to use the device.
ANSWER: It’s more expensive but it would automatically help in separating/skimming the oil from food waste. They have a strainer. We guarantee that it’ll bring a rate reduction in their wastewater bill. We’re reaching out to leasing agencies that lease their equipment to restaurants. We’ll have rebate programs. California Energy Commission is interested.
* Asked about the timeline.
ANSWER: It will be introduced this Spring, and will go into effect in the next 3-5 years to work with restaurants and install the devices. We are formulating a stakeholder group in the restaurant community, restaurant suppliers, grease haulers.
* Asked if this would put the grease haulers out of business.
ANSWER: No. Every other city requires having a grease trap serviced. We don’t have that yet. What we will do is increase the market for grease hauler four times more. We collect waste cooking oil, which is different than what grease haulers do.
* Asked to have the draft shared with the CAC
ANSWER: Yes, we will. That is the intent and the Ordinance is community-driven.
* Asked if it would be possible to offset the capital outlay from businesses and subsidize them by purchasing bulk amounts of these devices and pass the savings on to them.
ANSWER: Yes. We call them “collective purchases”.

California Energy Commission (CEC) Grant
We were awarded a grant by CEC. It passed through the Board of Supervisors Subcommittee and will go to the Board of Supervisors next week, at which point the Mayor signs to give authorization to our General Manager to go into effect. We will have a modular, robust plant (initially about the size of a trailer) where brown grease, which is the grease scrapings & stuff that get washed down the drain is collected in these grease removing devices, will turn/be concentrated into a pasty material that would then be converted into biodiesel.  There is nothing like it in the country.  The benefits are: SF restaurants currently pay a lot to get it hauled; it’s an environmental justice issue –going outside our community to be disposed in landfills. There is an organic component to it, and we want to use it. We want to keep it right here in the community. It’s not a Research & Development project anymore. It’s a proven science –we know that it works. The California Energy Commission is interested in us developing a commercial pathway for them to be able to back us in replicating this, possibly with legislation.

Questions and Comments
* Asked if it would make more sense to process it this way, instead of putting in the digester.
ANSWER: Yes. As we are moving towards biofuels, California is struggling with coming up with biofuel: we don’t grow soybeans. The only grease we get is coming from restaurants.  The idea is that the waste stays in the City and it’s used beneficially.
* Asked what the timeline was, and how long the grant was.
ANSWER: By the end of Fall, we anticipate having the components together. We have the teamplayers committed to donate equipment for 3 years. It’s a three-tier project. Initially, we would be focusing on creating the project, then there will be six months for creating the putty, and another six months for making biodiesel out of that putty. Main deliverables with the grant is to run a steady operation. It’s a three-year grant. First year would be putting everything together, second year test pilot and the third year would be running a viable plant and during that time, that’s when we get to do our research and develop a commercial pathway.
* Commented that it would be interesting for the community to get a copy of the grant application.
ANSWER: It’s dynamic.
* Commented that it would be good to do occasional reporting.
* Commented that both would be good in order to provide feedback.
ANSWER: The final product will have the scope of work, budget and schedule which lays out our target date and deliverables.
* Asked about the challenges with the Board of Supervisors.
ANSWER: So far everything is going smoothly. Everyone is on the same page. The Mayor’s office knows about it, the General Manager is on board with it.
* Asked if SFPUC involved the SF Unified School District, hospitals, etc.
ANSWER: We have been moving with a nice and steady pace. We have been operating with one truck, and just got our second truck recently. That will change everything. We are almost at capacity. We are moving with a slow pace. We will get there. Word of mouth has been overwhelming.
* Asked what the cash flow was. Are you getting money back for it?
ANSWER: Yes we are. We are figuring out how those types of contracts work. We know all the biodiesel manufacturers, and sell to them in rotation. Stated by the EPA that about half of biodiesel manufacturers will not be in business in two years.

No action was taken.

6. Digester Rebuild Planning – Overview and Action Item

* Tyrone Jue opened up the issue for discussion by stating that one of the largest issues for the MP is what to do with the digesters. Rather than wait for the Environmental Impact Report, we thought to start a transparent public process where community can give their input on the design issue. We have to wait for our Commission to move forward. It is not something we can do on our own. The task force is a great idea. We want to involve the public on every aspect of the process.

Questions and Comments
* Commented that staff thinks they need an OK from the Commissioners, but the Wastewater CAC thinks that staff doesn’t need that.
ANSWER: We need further direction from the Commission. I don’t think we have enough authority to move forward with the Task Force.
ANSWER: We have done this for Oceanside too. It is very important for the Commission to buy into it. If they don’t buy into it, then the Task Force will have no meaning. We really need an action from the Commission.
ANSWER: On April 22, we will go in front of the Commission to answer some questions from one of the Commissioners, and also ask to have workshops in May with Master Plan project descriptions. We describe more on a programmatic level than EIR. It’s a controversial issue. During EIR you can review more than you review now. The EIR team might determine additional sites.
* Asked if it was a two-part process where there will be something in writing with a project description for submittal to MEA to publicly vet in May.
ANSWER: No, on April 22, we will have a project description for the Commission.
* Asked when they will see the summary report and commented that they saw the Summary of the CIP in July ’07 and PowerPoint in November ‘07.
ANSWER: Summary of the CIP will be updated to include the full programs and policies and would be available in May.
* Asked what the Commission would vote on April 22.
ANSWER: It’s a separate issue. The Commissioners tasked staff with identifying odor control projects at the SEP.
* Asked if the SFPUC didn’t already have an odor control program part of the 5-Year CIP.
ANSWER: Yes, and this is a great thing, because Jon will go and list all the projects we have as part of the CIP, saying to give us the money to do that.
ANSWER: There were two items that one of the Commissioners wanted to hear about: replacing the digesters and covering the clarifiers. One of the Commissioners suggested covering the clarifiers and putting a tent over the existing digesters.
* Commented that there are now three things at the April 22 Commission meeting: odor control, asking Commission for permission to go to the public with workshops in May.
ANSWER: We will ask the Commissioners to meet with them in May (to have workshops with them in May) to go through project descriptions so we can get their approval so that we can go to EIR.
* Asked if that was when staff will ask about the Task Force to address the digesters.
ANSWER: Yes.
* Commented about the Task Force having sweeping authority.
ANSWER: When we did the Oceanside, we met with Task Force, we’d already layed out the details, and went into the details on what it would look like, and they informed us on how things looked, how the layout was, whatever comments they had and we took the information and developed a project at that point with them.
* Asked how staff would help the SFPUC recognize the importance of these recommendations of this task force. The Commission does not always listen to what staff recommends.
ANSWER: That’s also why we want to go in front of the Commission and get their buy-in.
* Commented that it’s vital that they get their buy-in.
* Suggested that all the presentations, summaries be shared. Commented that he thought there would be another round public outreach before the Commission adapts a plan and goes to MEA. Asked if that was not going to be the case.
ANSWER: The public outreach is going to be centered around the Commission Workshop. We are thinking possibly of doing a webcast.
* Asked that there be two different meetings where at one there will be a discussion (presentation) and another where the plan would be adopted.
ANSWER: Everything cannot be covered in one Commission meeting.
* Showed concern that there might be too little time between the time it’s presented and the time it would be adopted and goes to MEA.
* Commented that the MP went from a 3-phase project to a no phase project.
* Commented that about two years ago when the workshop component was presented, one of the Commissioners mentioned that he didn’t need those workshops and asked staff to tell them what to do. The concern is that one of the most influential Commissioners does not care about public process.
* Mentioned that the case (for the resolution) is a need to have a process to figure out what to do with the digesters. 
ANSWER: Present a case by saying that the task force worked out fine for the Oceanside Plant.
ANSWER: The commissioner’s comment was “why go to the public for engineering issues.”
ANSWER: Commissioners acknowledged community involvement and public process.
* Suggested that the SFPUC host a live workshop as well, in addition to a webcast event.
* Talked about timing and other calendar items that could affect the MP process. Showed concern about uncertainty.
ANSWER: We need certainty regardless of what’s going on. We want to move forward. We do not want to wait any longer.
* Asked about the new General Manager and this issue.
ANSWER: We have heard that the General Manager would come to the SFPUC sometime in April.
* Commented that she attended the Port Planning meeting, and it seems like the Port doesn’t know how the backlands look like. Suggested for the SFPUC to be in the pipeline.
* Geoff Potter commented that the digester location should take into consideration the west wind.
* Mentioned that he thought the digester rebuild community planning process (project EIR) and Master Plan (program EIR) would go simultaneously.
ANSWER: Yes, they would.

Resolution on the “Digester Rebuild Community Planning Process” was brought forward by Laurie Schoeman and passed by unanimous vote of the WWCAC members present.

Text of said resolution is as below:

WWCAC Digester Planning Process Resolution
March 20, 2008

WHEREAS the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has approved the development of a comprehensive Master Plan for rebuilding San Francisco sewage and stormwater collection and treatment system, and has allocated significant staff resources towards that end

WHEREAS the rebuild of the Southeast Treatment Plant sewage digesters was understood to be a fundamental aspect of the Master Plan at the time of the PUC's approval

WHEREAS the development of the Master Plan has been predicated upon extensive public participation throughout the planning process

WHEREAS Staff have identified strong preferences for alternative locations for rebuilding the digesters

WHEREAS Staff have proposed commencing a targeted community planning process to help plan the digester facility

RESOLVED, that the PUC Citizens’ Advisory Committee urges the PUC to begin the digester planning process without delay;

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the PUC Citizens’ Advisory Committee urges the Commission, General Manager, and staff to institute a stakeholder-driven public process that addresses the location and design of the new digesters.

7. Staff Updates: SF Sewer System Master Plan, Wastewater Enterprise

Tyrone Jue introduced Kenya Briggs, the newest addition to the Wastewater Team in Communications. Other updates have been covered on items 5 and 6.

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

David Pilpel suggested the following potential agenda items:
* Pharmaceuticals/emerging pollutants and educational campaign on these matters
* Green Building Ordinance (already on the agenda)
* FOG Ordinance (copy or report)
* Status of sludge haulers between Norcal and SES when/if there is a resolution.
* Sludge Tour

Amy Chastain asked to see more of the Draft Master Plan and when it would be available and wanted to know what the timeframe for the CIP was.
ANSWER: There won’t be a draft master plan until the EIR. The timeframe for the CIP is 10-15 years.

11. Adjourned - 7:27 p.m.