my name is -- i am here to present results of the 2010 report. california law requires that we triannual report. if there is not a california health care of all, we are required to use the federal. ú)íd9whr-- health-care bowl. healbvth0wiñc]- -- health caree are required to use the federal. we're required to submit a port by june 30 and to the response of public comment on this report, which is why we are here right now. ?'this diagram to a relationship

-- give you a relationship. generally speaking, if we had a rather mature a limit of 100, we want to make sure we do not violate it. the public health goal is generally much lower than the regulatory. we will talk about arsenic. roughly about 1/10,000. i also want to note that out of the 95 contaminants' that we have to monitor -- contaminants that we have to monitor, we wanted to be conservative. we did not have a problem technically with arsenic. arsenic is a naturally occurring

element from a number of potential sources, including runoff, industrial sources, treated wood, and you can also see it in some chemicals. the potential health risk is a carcinogen and also does adverse environmental effects. -- has adverse environmental effects. you can see that we cannot even measure it. it is such an incredibly small number that you would not be able to see that it was there or not. we have done some special studies, pimm and we saw one at

a high level of 2.6. in terms of our mitigation, we have a chemical quality control system, and we will do analysis of this treatment chemicals, so if we get chlorine or something else, -- we also have a watershed management program. where arsenic could potentially get into a water system. one contaminant that i mentioned, this is a diagram of customers. the blue part is ours. we have taken a number of actions.

this was to remove thousands of them, so we are well out. this was accelerated by the meter reading program. the federal government allows a 8% leg. in california, is 0.25%, and that was january of this year. we have also been involved in other programs. this is also to take a look at the pilot program, finding faucet's that did not have lived in them. that program from the commission goes on and continues to this day. some of the health effects, the

regulatory limit is 15. we did not detect it in any of the source waters before, as i mentioned. the main issue is up to-control, and to use lead free prices were possible. california law is going to be the lead free version. this will be improving. this is the law that mandated that the level go down, so we

were to to get that, and the current legislation right now, instead of this california but a national standard, this is not something at 8%. we also have testing for a nominal fee. we will provide testing for free. so, in summary, we are in compliance with all of the regulatory standards. we believe that this is trying to figure out what the sources are, and arson and, again, this is something we wanted to report to you. a recommendation is that you

send a letter to the state department. thank you. danica speaking, you just use regulatory compliance. we have seen arsenic but at very, very low levels. we said we found in a very, very few samples. it is extremely rare, and we are not concerned about it. we have reported in the past, and that is another reason. president crowley: commissioners? commissioner vietor: i do

not know if you need a resolution, but i would like to talk about the letter. to write a letter supporting the legislation, either at the state currently or with compliance. >> there is the letter that the general manager submitted, so we are -- commissioner vietor: a resolution of some such, i think it would be good. do we need a motion on this? uh-huh. president crowley: i think we should move item 10.

do we need a resolution on that? clerk: we do not need to have that in order for the puc. president crowley: then i would just move the resolution. before we close this debate -- clerk: we have no speaker cards. president crowley: seeing that there is no public comment, all of those in favor, say aye. next item, please. clerk: by a number 11, a discussion and possible action to approve a san francisco operations and maintenance plan for the san francisco sewer water system to address sanitary sewer overflows, which applies only to be approximately 1 mile of sanitary sewage-only surprise

in san francisco. -- pipes in san francisco. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with waste water. this is an operations and maintenance plan. we have to have this as part of our permit. i have my collection system manager with me, mr. harris, and he has a wonderful map showing where these areas are, and he can answer any questions. so this operations plan is required by the state and

specifically applies to areas delineated by the map compaq about 5000 linear together. -- delineated by the map, about 5000 linear altogether. >> can you point out what that might be? >> that is the point. it covers 5000 linear feet of sewer. we will have more sanitary systems in the future, but we are required by the state, since we do have some, and the whole plan is of these on the map. >> 5000 linear feet, a couple in the presidio, lake merced. >> that is correct.

the registry is i actually on the border -- is actually on the border. you're exactly right, those are the areas. >> f.a.q, tom. he highlighted it. all right. -- president crowley: colleagues, anything on item 11? ok, any public comment? clerk: we have no speaker comments. president crowley: seeing none, and will entertain a motion. all in favor, say aye. clerk: mr. president, item 12, a discussion and possible action to authorize the general manager of san francisco public utilities commission to execute on behalf of the city and county of san francisco a memorandum

of agreement with the united states department of the interior, national park service, in yosemite national park, for an amount not to exceed $30 million in with a duration of five years to provide for watershed protection, collaborative environment and stewardship studies, and security for the yosemite national park watersheds that supply water to the san francisco regional water system. >> there are a couple of things that are different about this agreement. this was reconstructed around the filtration. this time, there are actually more things that we do. it is still absolutely essential. there is also the environmental stewardship component, so it is threefold. when the original agreement was signed, that was about $2.75

million per year, which was about $3.50 billion over the last several years, plus special studies. the security agreement, there was the first one from 2007- 20008. and then we have come to vot-- 5 million has grown to about $5.20 million per year, so the $30 million per year over the next five years, which assumes inflation and growth in those programs over the next five years, so that is when we get to the cumulative $30 million, and there is a relationship with these other areas. president crowley: ok,

colleagues? second. before we vote on this, any public comment? >> just one comment, commissioners. at times, we are criticized >> $30,000. a lot of things happen there, including the environment and stewardship, and that is more like $5 million per year, and that is not categorized as rent, it is categorized as mou. >> i have participated in an annual meeting with park staff,

and there was a roomful of people, about 30 parks of, and about 30 puc -- about 30 parks staff. >> i was at yosemite a few weeks ago, and i had dinner. the park superintendent for the last 15 years was in charge of a seashore, and before that, he was a deputy, so he knows a lot about the city and is very comfortable in the interaction that seems foreign to some people, but he is comfortable . president crawly: colleagues, that has been moved and seconded. all of those in favor, please signify by saying aye. opposed?

clerk: mr. president, item 13, a discussion and possible action to approve the amendment number two to watch the enterprise, water system improvement program funded agreement no. cs-8578, for a total amount of 160 dozen dollars with a time extension of two years, nine months, for a total duration of five years, three months. president crowley: colleagues, anything on 13? ok, any public comment? hearing none and seeing none, i will take a demotion. all in favor, please signify by saying aye. no. 14. clerk: a discussion of possible action to approve the amendment number one to waste water and

apprises cip funding agreementcs cs-860, tunnel engineering services for the sunnyvaldale a soleil-sur proje, with jacobs associates. president crowley: but colleagues, anything on 14? ok, any public comment? hearing in seeing none, i will entertain a motion. so moved. and seconded. those in favor of item 14, please signify by saying aye. opposed? clerk: mr. president, item 15, a discussion and possible action to approve the plans and

specifications and award wastewater enterprises the amount of $37 million plus to the lowest qualified responsible and responsive bidder for installation of approximately 4,000 feet of 8 feet by 11 feet interior diameter secret tunnel -- sewer tunnel. president crowley: colleagues, and, it? any public comment? harry and seeing none, i will entertain a motion. moved and seconded korea all of those in favor, please signify by saying aye. -- moved and seconded. all of those in favor, please signify by saying aye. item 16. clerk: mr. president, item 16, a discussion and possible action

to approve the plans and specifications and a warm water and apprises water system improvement program funded contract number2607 for modifications of existing chlorination facilityd -- echloraminagtiotion facility. president crowley: commissioners, any questions? clerk: we have no speaker cards. president crowley: any public comment? hearing and seeing none, a will entertain a motion. moved and seconded. clerk: mr. president, the next item on the closed session items, and would you like to call for public comment on any

item in closed session? president crowley: any public comment on any item in closed session? hearing and seeing none, it has been moved to assert attorney- client privilege. moved and seconded. all of those in favor, please signify by saying aye. clerk: mr. president, if you allow me to read the items. a consultation. we will now move into closed session. >> we are back. commissioner crowley: ok, commissioners, we are back in session. item 19, there was no action.

item 20, there was no action. so with that, i will make -- i will entertain a motion regarding whether to disclose discussion during closed session. it has been moved and seconded not to disclose. all those in favor? opposed? ayes have it. any public comment? ok, item 23. i really commissioner moran -- i believe commissioner moran has something to say. and then with edgerton with a moment of silence for ann schneider. -- we adjourn with a moment of silence.

that will conclude our moment of silence. colleagues, any other new business before us today? >> yes, i think we should wish mike a happy birthday. commissioner crowley: our secretary, michael house's birthday? 21? happy birthday, michael. >> thank you. commissioner crowley: we do have a notice of canceled meeting. do you want to read that into the record, or do we need to? >> that is true. the regular meeting of tuesday august 24 has been canceled,u the notice has been posted since july 23, so there is an awareness, so our next regular meeting will be the regular meeting of september 14. commissioner crowley: thank you. >> as was mentioned a couple times earlier, we have a lot of environmental review for the

planning commission this fall. we may end up under the special sessions. but we do not know the dates yet. you. adjourn. ok, we have moved and seconded. all those in favor to adjourn? >> aye. >> aye. commissioner crowley: thank you.

>> we thought we wouldd< take ts weekly video out on the road. we are here at recology at the recycling center. if you ever wondered where your recyclables go, and this new mandate for composting, the new challenges and mandates around recycling, what we are trying to achieve -- it all starts right here. we just marked an important milestone in our city. i would argue important this nationn francisco has now achieved a 77% diversion rate, the highest in america. no big city can lay claim to diverting that much of their waste, and that is why that composting requirement was so important. this is why our efforts to

consumption and distribution and the like of plastic water bottles is so important. it is because we want to reduce that waste going into the landfill. we want to reduce the burden on our environment. we want to create jobs. the folks on the line behind me and above me, those are folks that have employment because of these programs. we have added over 118 people in the last couple of years to the roles of the employed in these green collar jobs because of the recycling and composting programs. we actually created economic stimulus by building facilities like this and putting people to work to do that job. ball the folks out here in the hard hats are also supported by people in the office is doing the processing, doing accounting, doing the bookkeeping, so there is a multiple in terms of jobs that are created because of programs like we have established. it was

error, we were less than 50%. when i first w6urw@8yyixorwakñwe were roughly 35% effective, which was pretty impressive. it was higher than almost any other big city in this country, but we had an= reaching 50%, and they said it could not be done. we said we would reach 70%, and i was so proud when we broke 72%, and here we are with a goal of 75% by 2010, and not only did we achieve that. as i just region, we are at 77%. on our way -- ahead of schedule in fact, to be at 0 waste by 2020. there is no city that i know of anywhere in the world that could ever even imagine within the next number of years to be at zero ways. this is achievable because think about this -- even though we are at 77%, the remaining trash that

comes here that ends up in a landfill -- already, we have identified 2/3 of it that could easily be diverted if folks would do more composting at home and do more recycling at home and use these bins you see behind me. i do not want this to become a psa for our recycling efforts, although that is always good, and remember, it is the kids teaching the adults, which is always good. but this is good for the environment, good for the economy, and a san francisco can do this, cities across california and cities across america can do this. i will remind you of the great line by michelangelo, who said that the biggest risk is not that we aim to hawaii and miss but that we aim to low and --. it would have been easy for us to have a goal of 50% recycling rate by 2020. a lot of states, a lot of cities across the state, that will be tow%8x4ç:vw1qs8mna ++%uq

when you do that, you get people to organize that quality of imagination, where people in the private sector and public sector, using the entrepreneurial and innovative spirit coming up with new ideas and attitudes that may seem untoward or a little controversial or extreme at first, but suddenly, when you peel it back and look back two or three years, you go, "my gosh, that makes so much since." if you make a few mistakes in the process, but ultimately, you create a goal that is accomplished that becomes an example for other people and other cities to achieve with similar goals and accomplish similar efforts. we are really proud of our collective effort in san francisco and the people in a city that have stepped up.