depending on what guidance we receive, we will be moving forward with vision in, we will determine how we will go forward with this. lastly coming back to the commission possibly in august to bring the final report and the secret options. we are looking at how quickly conditions are getting serious. we're looking at monitoring how these modern and -- how these

are working. we're also are looking into the gates. we are participating in the climate changed talks. what about two weeks ago we had waves break into this sea waves. we want to make sure no salt water comes in. we want waste water power --

if there are other groups you would like us to meet with a were other things you would like us to look at, please just let us know. >> commissioners. public comment.

>> this is what i came here for so i'm very happy to have stayed around here for it. this is one of my major -- this is kind of like my major area of focus. i really appreciate the work that the waste water enterprise has done. you have a very long way to go. when i walked in, the conversation that commissioner moran was making are similar to those that we have had in the letter. we passed a resolution, one of the first expressed our concerns that the trend towards agreeing and low impact to the element was used and we did not want to

make investments without having a specific benefit. one of the members of the technical advisory committee, which is now defunct, which is from seattle public utilities. they have a cost benefit model that they have been using for more than a decade. i don't think that the task force is really the model that you are looking for. this is really a watershed council that you need. he will start with the council that has representatives on the local property owners and environmentalists and schools

and stakeholders and then you get to talk about what the needs are. i really hope that in the next few months we can do a broader public ought reach month. there are more non-governmental groups listed on this order that will limit -- that were interviewed for this process. i could kick in a dozen more signatures from this letter if you could give me a couple more days. that is an important step that you have to figure out a way to integrate the public. this is not successful unless you figure out a way to deal with private property since 75%

of the city land is privately owned. we should start thinking about low hanging fruit by changing the policies so that they actually collect storm water. thank you. >> obviously, we are wanting to

mitigate flooding but we want to be improving the environment and the quality of life for multiple species and want to be saving dollars for the public utilities commission and the rate-payers by using the local ground water in place for irrigation or for increased daylighting. there are multiple opportunities for saving money. climbing change, thoughts climate change, urban forestry. -- climate change, urban

forestry. this is not in my opinion just about mitigating flooding. the opportunities also in terms of the community engagement is also mapping the stakeholders. the stakeholders include multiple city agencies as well as residents and to the various ngo's. what we really need is a city- wide vision for the watershed and using it as a device, a framing device so that multiple decisions -- when we talk about the seven-foot by that is going in, what that pike has done is it is predicated a planning effort for the western sections of chavez such that we have a

low drought tolerance landscaped going on on top of a flood plain. that does not compute. there is this function in that we are not actually speaking to the various entities, the various city agencies within this number frame of this particular watershed. i think that this planning framework needs to be a really robust. i think that the robust matrix that can be created needs a very transparent software so that we can track simultaneously the modeling, the technical information, the input, multiple elements. i think that we are moving

towards that and i want to be working with staff because i think that we are missing some opportunities here. this is major. this is really major work. this has a lot to do with climate change, for example. and there are many more things to say to the commissioners and i would like more time to go into detail and to some of these issues. >> is there any other public comment? one of the things that i responded to was how we can really set up the public process that does encourage input and comments from the public. we have our energies towards a group, we have our bay area waters towards.

we are setting up a group of stakeholders that maybe there are some men of representatives that intend to continue to get some kind of valuable input. i would urge the staff to create a form for the public input and the public process beyond this commissioned and even beyond the digester task force. >> that was the top outcome of all of these discussions was public engagement >> that is the most important thing to make this meaningful. >> it is great to be kept apprised of where we are at and to get updates on the planning framework.

>> there's a lot more work to be done with people. >> i guess i -- of a level of services, i know we have adopted those and everything, but it seems like there is a lower level of a goal of keeping storm water and rain water out of the system. and this is about loading. that seems like something the regulatory agencies are asking for. i think you put it in here as one of your goals. we are trying to keep additional storm water out of the system. it also saves on treatment and

financials that we saved. >> that is a great comment. reqs requires us to maximize available capacity before storm water collection. it also forces us to mitigate what is in our collection systems. that is one of our issues to make sure that we have the right source -- size and the right capacity. >> we will be learning a lot as we go through. in some cases, they are not as explicit as we would like. this many hours after an earthquake, we have to have a different level of water provided.

we will have to work on these and those kind of comments will help us track and as you actually start to adopt, the more detailed -- and i assume this will be more explicit too. and >> this should allow us to decide whether this goes forward. they need to be more specific so that we can incorporate those kinds of ideas. >> but we need to be considering a new level of service language which would be helpful. >> thank you. >> thank you. next item, please. >> item 10, the action to approve the plans and specifications to award the waste water enterprise project, the cesar chavez sewer

system improvement in the amount of $15,327,000 to replace the existing stores on cesar chavez street, harrison st., valencia street, fair avenue, and coleridge street. >> what you have before you, we have been discussing this project for a long time. it has been delayed over the archeological planning reasons. it was estimated to be at $18 million. i am here to answer any questions you may have about the project itself. for the record, this project is -- the first phase will take about nine months.

a big part of that has already been mentioned. it has mitigated flooding. however, the primary reason for this type is to convey sewage. 365 days a year, 24/7. this is also large enough to handle storm water. that is if first phase. the second phase will be the lid components. that is the second contract which is done by dpw. we will answer any questions that you have. >> i have one comment on this. i and stand this is a 500-day

duration for this contract which is about a year-and-a-half. -- i understand this is a 500- day duration for this contract. if anything comes on line, we might be able to gain perspective to keep storm water at level of service we were talking about and to keep additional storm water and rain water out of that type. i think that would be great. some of the ideas that members of the public might have, there are things that are being piloted that could be going on at the same time for that to be continued at the standard consideration. >> yes, we will be taking all of those things into consideration. this is something that we are aware of once these things are designed the change orders and those sorts of things. we are better -- we are open to the better plans.

there is a separation in these particular projects. this might be an issue. putting in two types, this has to end up going someplace. if it does not go to the treatment plant, does it go all the way down into the bay? >> we are open. we will be looking at the suggestions. >> anything else? is there a motion to approve? >> i think we have public comment. >> yes, let me get a motion. >> this a pipe as i mentioned a few moments ago has predicated the design for the western

portion of chavez. a has some lid components. the cause of the major flooding and valencia is because this comes on 26 st.. there is a planning effort going on to the eastern portion which includes the one on one interchange. there is a lot of natural water right in this place. there's a lot of interest in this community about the eastern portions in bringing the water

forward. there is a concern if there is creek water, ground water that is being mixed with sewage upstream, then the question is how will we use it downstream where we want to use it? this is a real concern and i have been talking with staff about this and i think that these are questions that i am still not 100% clear about and i would urge you to look at this also. not only that, but this comes down 26 street and this is the most northernmost portion of the watershed which is the largest in san francisco. not only is this the drainage base but there is ground water. this is also the creek water. the new goal is old.

this is fresh water. i think that we need to be more protective and respectful of this and also understand the multiple committees that are connected by this watershed. this is a very complex issue. the seven-foot pipe that you are about to vote on is the old paradigm. this is the old way of solving the mitigating flooding. we are embarking on the new paradigm of looking at watershed management. i just want you to beware of the implication of this pipe. this sounds very benign but there are a lot of implications with this type and i apologize to the waste water team because i know their heart is in the right place but i really

question this. bernanke. >> this is the old way of doing things. something that we want to do is rest use some of those. if you want to separate the system and say what do we do with the water, we put it in a creek. the question is, maybe this is something that we can work on while the clock is ticking. are there any changes that need to be made to the design or construction said that we will be able to create this once we figure it out. my concern is that the program here has no hydrological goals. it will be capturing storm water, we don't know what we

wanted to do. this is phase two of the flooding project. there is no measure of what this is supposed to handle. this is an investment without a purpose. we have an understanding of what we are spending money on and why we are spending it. maybe this will be great and we will find out it does a lot but right now what it is is window dressing. this is not what we should be spending our money on. it will not look good when we say how much water we have diverted. >> thank you.

>> this was reviewed substantially. is that correct? >> i am the project manager. >> we have received these projects. this did it -- this did go through the day - declaration. >> all of those steps were taken. >> did they agree with the supposition? >> because this is the declaration, no response is required from city planning. they did receive it and they did not have any recomments that we.

>> and they did not raise this to a higher level towards us. >> the city did go ahead and approve the project. >> it begs the question, that is this right thing to do? >> my version would be if we were doing this project 10 years from now, it would be 8 different project. we would be learning a whole lot as we go through this whole planning process. i think it would be different in 10 years. the issue is can we wait and -- in the meantime. what are the tradeoffs. if we made this a smaller pie, for example, how much would we

say if we put that money into avoidance and would we get much out of that? what i found as we would save a little bit of money and we still need a pipe because there was still be sewage. a pipe has to go in. the real issue is how much can you avoid if you thought you could do something else with storm water. the issue is to do something different with storm water. it can take quite a bit of money. this watershed in your budget is 120 million or more because you are talking about the largest watershed in san francisco and multiple creeks and fault, multiple levels. this will start at the top. we have to go upstream into a whole lot of things. over time, it might mean that some of the capacity of this pipe will not be used, hopefully.

if we can make those changes, maybe we will only use a portion of this. i don't know. certainly, we don't believe you should wait to figure that out when they are also going through a planning process and this is the underpinning of that process. all this means is that the city would have to go ahead and wait and let it fly 45 for 10 years and hope for the best. >> $15 million if you made the pipes smaller. no where near the 100 million that it takes to change the entire watershed habitat. >> this would be a solid type, not like the one that was used -- >> what about putting this off 1-2 years? >> at one point, this was a multi agency project.

everyone else was in there. everyone else is waiting for us to improve this to make this happen because if this does not happen, they cannot do the rest of the investment. >> i just have two questions. can you tell me how many jobs we are talking about with respect to the construction? is there an estimation on how many hours there are and how that will go into the higher ordinance? >> deconstruction duration is

500 days. -- in order to have the construction completed in 24 months. we expect the contract to have two crews of people. one will be doing excavation, trenching, basically laying down the pipes. typically, that would be a crew of at least three laborers, one or two operators, a truck driver. you have about 10 people including operators and laborers working in the area at any one time