knowledgeable about clean energy and as dedicated to it as the general manager harrington. also, we note that seats on the commission are up for reappointment, and one more of those seats may be in jeopardy. because of the seriousness of the climate crisis, we need this team to stay in place, all of you need to discuss with the mayor the needs to keep this commission intact so that this program does not get lost in the shuffle. we all know the political dynamic around this. i will not bring them up, but we know they are there. [bell rings] we need you to fight to keep your commission in tact so we can be successful and lead the world towards solving this. thank you.

>> ok, thank you. other public comment? >> commissioners, i want to give you some history. in the year 2000 when we were debating to close down our two power plants, we managed to close down the hunters point, but pg&e delayed that closure by buying credits from another power plant and doing all sorts of things. then we managed to close it. then, pg&e sold to the other plant that it operated, which most people for good. the one near potrero. and some mitigation moneys were given to the city. and because of that, we had our department of energy.

our department of energy comes from those moneys. at that time, $1.5 million was given to the conciliatory that has nothing to do with the bayview. i am pointing this out to you, about the injustices done. but also because of that money, much before sfpuc was in at the lead, 58 homes had solar in the bay view. much before sfpuc got involved in contributing money is for solar. today, we talk about the carbon footprint could i am the director of environmental justice advocacy, but i am also a representative at the i am into the carbon footprint. but you, commissioners, should get some history about the huge area from 4th and king all the

way to the other pg&e site, jefferson site, which is our landfill. and i have said this before, but nobody pays attention, and you should pay attention -- 1 ton of methane gas equals 22 tons of carbon dioxide. if you multiply that by the thousands and thousands of tons of methane gas, you can figure out -- let's take 150,000. [bell rings] you can figure out the adverse impacts. so we need clean energy. fp, for sure, but we also need to address the adverse impacts. it just so happens that sfpuc is

one of those entities that can do something about them, and it helps that the commissioners know the history. thank you very much. >> that concludes our report, commissioners. commissioner moran: thank you. moving on to the report from bawsca. >> thank you, commissioners. i am from bawsca. a brief report today. i wanted to say a few things about our board meeting last week. it was an interesting one. we were pleased to have both ed and president moran there. and this is -- this was the last bawsca meeting before ed's retirement. >> they made every other month. >> really? >> just a new standard to consider. [laughter] >> anyway, i did not want to

jump the gun, but i do appreciate his great service and enjoyed working with him. every day we can squeeze out of him, the better. i wanted to report that the board took some actions on an investigation of issuing bonds. $360 million in bonds to save people money. they approved the second phase of the contract in the bond counsel. and the approved the appointment of bond underwriters. we will come back to the board in september with a specific report, a plan of action, and ei expect a request to continue on. i also want to talk about how are our -- how our agencies can continue to work together constructively. i appreciate both your comments and ed's comments, and i enjoy working with you both. thank you. commissioner moran: let's move

on to the consent calendar. madam secretary. >> item 9, consent calendar. a, award wastewater enterprise agreement number cs-27 -- ocean beach master plan phase 2 coastal management agreement, to san francisco planning and urban research, for planning, design, engineering and outreach services, and authorize the general manager to negotiate and execute a professional services agreement for an amount not-to- exceed $750,000, and with a duration of two years. b, accept work performed by precision engineering for wastewater enterprise, contract number ww-434, baker/blake/cook/ broderick/washington/francisco streets sewer replacement, approve modification number 1, to account for actual labor and materials required to complete the work under bid item allowances, decreasing the contract by $277 for a total contract amount of $1,447,943 and with a time extension of 51 consecutive calendar days for a total contract duration of 4 consecutive calendar days and authorize final payment to the contractor. c, approve the plans and

specifications, and award wastewater enterprise contract ww-442, mason and powell street sewer system improvement and pavement renovation, in the amount of $4,920,357, of which $504,223 is funded by wwe/cip, $3,570,114 is funded by wwe/r&r and $846,020 is funded by dpw, to the lowest, qualified, responsible and responsive bidder, shaw pipeline, to replace or rehabilitate existing sewers and construct associated appurtenances and perform pavement renovation on mason, powell and bay streets. d, approve the plans and specifications, and award wastewater enterprise contract number ww-490, oceanside water pollution control plant digesters and facility improvements, in the amount of $15,373,000, to the lowest, qualified, responsible and responsive bidder, shimmick construction company inc., to repair corroded digester infrastructure and perform necessary improvements to the existing digestion process to achieve class a biosolids at the oceanside plant. e, approve the plans and specifications, and award wastewater enterprise contract ww-535r, wastewater enterprise facility security improvement contract number 1, in the amount of $6,378,218, to the lowest, qualified, responsible and responsive bidder, azul works, inc., to install security features at three critical wastewater operating facilities. f, authorize the general manager, on behalf of the city of san francisco, to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the city of daly city for an amount not to exceed $205,500, and with a duration of 24 months. sfpuc funding will be used by daly city to hire consultants to complete pre-

project planning, design and environmental review work for the vista grande drainage basin improvement project. the proposed project would be designed to alleviate flooding on sfpuc owned lands within the lake merced tract by routing a portion of storm water currently flowing to the pacific ocean into lake merced, thereby providing a sustainable supply of water for the augmentation and management of lake merced water levels. g, approve modification number 1 to joc-34, general engineering, san francisco/peninsula/east bay, with power engineering construction company, to accomplish general engineering construction work for all sfpuc enterprise operations and bureaus, increasing the contract by $2,500,000 for a total contract amount of $7,500,000, and with a time extension of two years for a total contract duration of five years. h, approve the terms and conditions and authorize the general manager to execute a lease with communications & control, inc., for use of land located on mt. allison, on a portion of alameda county assessor's parcel number 96-090- 5-7, for a sfpuc radio communications services facility and for other general telecommunications uses, for a term of approximately two years and two months, at an initial annual rental rate of $10,382.40, with four percent annual increases.

i, authorize the general manager to approve an agreement for the sale of an interest in real property to tenth and market, llc, for an amount not to exceed $77,000, subject to approval by the board of supervisors pursuant to charter section 9.118, the sfpuc intends to sell its interest in the public service easement across this real property, located at 1407-1435 market street -- lot 041 in assessor's block 3507, in the city and county of san francisco, and vacate the surplus sewer on this site. commissioner moran: thank you. i have a request to remove items d, e, and i. any other items? for the remainder of the consent calendar, can i have a motion? >> so moved. >> the second. commissioner moran: all those in favor? opposed? the consent calendar, absent d, e, and i is approved. there is a question on item d.

>> good afternoon. on items d and e, if i can comment on those together. item d appears to be a state of good repair project. and also significantly would upgrade biosolids as class a. that is significant. class a was something we talked about for southeast two weeks ago. not the oceanside part. but this is a significant accomplishment. i look forward to this project being completed. hopefully we can talk about the use of that cass a biosolids because it will have additional opportunities for use. without the same restrictions as

a class b, perhaps we can compost that and use it in the city. it is great stuff. on both d and e, i have not seen the environmental clearance of documents. if the bureau of environmental management can arrange to get me those clearance documents, i would be interested in that. on e, although it is a minor league security improvement contract, i just know that the facility's security is somewhat boring but necessary and actually important given the facilities that we have throughout the service area. so i wanted to call attention to both d and e and support both items. commissioner moran: while you're there, do you want to talk about i? >> sure, the couple of minor things. i have no quarrel with the easement.

i just noted on the resolution, i believe the date was wrong. yes, the date on the bottom is still july 10 for some reason. and there was also information in the binder here about -- and maybe this was an item that got pulled from the calendar, about an item 11 at hetch hetchy authorizing a system impact mitigation agreement. was that an earlier draft of the agenda? some documents that do not come forward for today's meeting? ok. >> let's get through these one at a time. first, item d, you're supporting that, but you have a question about clearance. >> it exists. i am sure someone can get it to me. commissioner moran: if i can have assurance that the ceqa requirements have been met on that? >> i believe they have. >> i believe he wants a copy. commissioner moran: on d, and i

have a motion? moved and seconded. those in favor? opposed? the item carries. on e, i have additional questions. i would like to continue that to the call of the chair. on i, he pointed out some questions on the resolution. >> just the date on the bottom. >> the date on the bottom still says a july 10 because it was originally scheduled for that meeting. we can change it to july 4. commissioner moran: ok. moved and seconded. those in favor? opposed? thank you. that carries. >> and i assume the other information here was an item we will hear about at a future meeting? there is some documentation in the binder that was dated for today, agenda item 11, hetch hetchy authorized system impact mitigation agreement. but it is not on the calendar.

commissioner moran: ok, i am getting nods that you'll be hearing about that in the future. >> ok, we look forward to the future. commissioner moran: regular business. madam secretary? >> item 10, approve an increase in the construction contract cost contingency for water enterprise contract wd-2607, pulgas balancing reservoir, modifications of existing dechloramination facility in the amount of $186,444 and with a potential increase in the contract duration of up to 360 consecutive calendar days. a total revised contract duration of up to 765 consecutive calendar days. >> i would be happy to answer any questions you may have on the item. commissioner moran:

commissioners? no questions. is there public comment? seeing none, to have a motion? moved and seconded. all those in favor? opposed? motion carries. item 11. >> commissioners, did you vote on 9-i? commissioner moran: there is a good question. i do not think we did. can i have a motion on item 9-i? moved incident. those in favor? opposed? thank you. item 11. >> item 11, authorize the general manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with the bay area clean water agencies for the purpose of disbursing state grant funds to the sfpuc for implementation of the harding park recycled water projects in an amount not to exceed $2,114,000.

>> i am available for questions. it is a routine item about a grant. commissioner moran: ok. any questions or comments? moved and seconded. those in favor? opposed? item 11 carries. item 12. >> item 12, authorized the general manager to negotiate and execute a memorandum of understanding with solano county water agency for the administration and disbursement of state grant funds of up to $863,000 to be used for sfpuc high-efficiency toilet incentive programs. >> this is money from the same grant for our conservation program. a routine part of our program. commissioner moran: we like that. commission? public comment? a motion. moved and seconded. all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries.

item 13. >> item 13, informational hearing and possible adoption of an sfpuc technology policy. >> good afternoon again. i have before you today a technology policy that we have reviewed with the general manager's office and other staff of the puc. earlier this year as part of budget deliberations, you went through extensive review the various policies that you have adopted as a commission. those were rate policy, budget policy, debt policy, reserve's policy, community benefit policy, environmental justice policy. at that time, the idea of a technology policy was also brought up as a possible date in some document that the commission might consider. what is before you today is a draft of that policy for your consideration. if i may quickly walked through three or four key slides. if i can have sfgtv bring up

the -- thank you. the draft policy before you is ally and similarly to the major categories of the triple bottom line which you deliberate it and discussed before when discussing capital programs. this draft policy also mirrors that and would allow and direction and guidance document that is to be adopted by you that staff would use for both presentations of budget ideas as well as programmatic ideas to you in the commission. some of the key principles included in the draft policy would be that timely adoption of both proven technologies, as well as those which are demonstration technologies, that would meet our levels of service that you have endorsed or adopted. demonstration projects would be encouraged and considered. those would specifically be considered before a large scale investments of rate-payer

dollars. looking at new technologies as well as assessing technologies and operating capital investments, both in terms of total lifecycle costs and what this means to the rate-payers and to the enterprise. as well as looking at funding options and strategic criteria and partnerships. environmental key principles considered as part of the draft document would be that technology is also taken into consideration and the sustainability and stewardship of our key natural resources at the puc. what the environmental impacts would become a climate change and limited resources would also be considered in how this might help mitigate climate change affects. regulatory compliance, public health, and environmental impacts would also be considered. any idea of an investment, whether of verdi -- operating budget our capital budget, the project managers and myself and other general managers would

have to go through these checklists before we would come to you for consideration. the other criteria, there are two more categories as part of our trouble bottom-line consideration. the next big one would be a social principle that would work for the development category. that would be how, with the new technology investment, would impact and with our community benefits policy, what it would mean for local jobs. how does this help us ensure our environmental justice policy is also met? and what can we do as far as joint demonstration projects, and how could this helping with staff development to ensure we're both developing our own staff as well as the communities and benefiting the communities we work in? the overarching category, and i would call it a catch-all of everything else but does not fit nicely and neatly in the other categories, would be that leadership and transparency.

the transparency criteria would include identifying the technologies, publicly vetting them, allowing for public feedback in the public comment process. documenting pilot study findings, costs and benefits, and monitoring emerging technologies to make sure we are considering those. these are all very overarching criteria, but i think something that is very relevant to you today because later you'll be talking about what could be upwards of a $6 billion to $7,000,000,000.19-year investment. the best we can do is assess what we know for existing technologies today. but some of the decisions you're making will affect a multi-year period. these would be some of the criteria we would look at. you can ask questions. we would have the responsibility to report back to you if you were to adopt such irresponsibility.

commissioner moran: thank you. this has been cooking for some time. i think it started a few years ago when the presentation was made about the maturity of technology and when we just to implement a given technology. and there is a real tension in this role. on the one hand, we want to be leaders and what to push the envelope and encourage the use of intelligence advances in technology. on the other hand, if we were to adopt an amateur technology prematurely that was not appropriate, we can make huge and costly mistakes. the size of our system is such that we need to be very careful about that. so what todd and others have been working on is a policy that tries to bring that tension into some rational relationship. and i think this is a good shot at it. one of the things -- a couple things i was very pleased to see

in here. one is recognizing that we should be looking at some version of either total costing or lifecycle costing and not just looking at investments that are the cheapest thing we could do right now. within the leadership and transparency area, i have high hopes. it talks about a technology update being provided to the commission. what i have envisioned for that is that there would be a public document that would represent our current thinking on the status of various technologies, and that would be for use by staff but also for use by this commission and by any member of the public that if you were curious about what we were doing about something, you have a place to go and there would be a brief summary that was written in excess language. it would say this is what the status is and this is what other

people are doing. these are the benchmarks that we're looking for as far as the applicability to our system. these are pilot projects that we're involved in, that sort of thing. to have to be a public resource, if somebody has a different point of view, they have seven to start from -- if they have a different technology they think we should be looking at, they can propose that and we can inform ourselves. i thought that was a very helpful inclusion, and i appreciate your having done that. the other thing is it does focus on pilot projects, which i think is pretty rational. there's a lot of technologies that have been in general but they may or may not apply in particular. if you do not know until you try. you can try that on a small scale. i think that is an intelligent way forward. with that as introduction, commissioner vietor? commissioner vietor: thank you for doing this. i think it is very exciting and important.

we have been talking about this for some time. i have a couple of suggested changes or additions. first on the environmental principles and criteria, i would love to see language that says c technologies that optimize not only the sustainability but also the conservation of natural resources. second, under the second environmental principle, it would include the mitigation and mitigation of and adaptation to. it would be great to have that in there. also, on the use of -- you say limited resources. i would like to scratch ltd. and just say resources. we are really trying to conserve all resources, whether they are limited or not. and then the fourth comment i had was around the community

benefits from the second section on social principles. to say something like a further contribution, to scratch to the promotion of, and just say evaluate alternatives for their contribution to our community benefits policy. not as much the promotion as much of the implementation, right? it is the first one under social principle. and it would read something like, evaluate technology alternatives for their contribution to our community benefits policy, so scratched to the promotion of. lastly, under the leadership piece, which i think is interesting and great to have that, because it is in the interest of transparency. i do not know how the language would read, but i would love some bullet to run what selection criteria would be. it should say isn't like develop selection criteria for identifying and piloting innovative technology based on at the triple bottom line.

it does not say anything expressly about how these projects get selected. i think this would make it very transparent that there would be a set of criteria developed to select these that would be based on the above three pockets. that makes sense? commissioner moran: you did your homework. commissioner vietor: i was working on the sly here. thank you. commissioner moran: commissioners, other thoughts or comments? ok. as far as those changes go, i think they are all very constructive and useful, and when we get to moving things, i suggest we move that as an amendment. any public comments? >> [inaudible] commissioner moran: mr. da costa first.

>> commissioners, have announced to you several times in the past, i am the director of the environmental justice advocacy. what does that mean? that means that all the principles, many of which have been encompassed in mr. todd engstrom's presentation, affect us in the southeast sector. a huge area. it affects us. so, basically, simply put, it is quality of life issues. quality of life issues. so we can do it two ways. we can go to the grass roots and ask them what is happening, and

if it is the good, the bed, or the ugly, and if it is bad or the ugly, we can fix it from the grass roots. or we can do it the way you do it, top-down. so you just dictate and the people kind of go with the flow. now, when you put out the bid for the outreach, in all some $300 million, you are creating a task force. and they actually asked for 10% of the $6 billion or so. but you settled for 5%, so $300 million. and half of that $300 million or however we divided it, you all did it before. so those people already have their money. and they are going to listen to whatever is being presented here and they are going to give you some records.