soil or laoom, -- loam, so we look at the gaps, in korea identify what we need to develop. we are also -- and we identify what we need to develop. we will screen the alternatives. the ground floor is that we want alternatives that are going to fix the flooding problem. this is all wonderful, but when we get back to our core mission, which is reducing flooding and managing stormwater, we want to look at projects and to evaluate them, compare them on a social, economic, environmental factor, and i have an example a little bit further in the presentation, but i felt you were almost giving a presentation when the meeting started, because we want to note -- giving my presentation when the meeting started because we want to look

at the dollar's -- dollars. we have to have metrics, and they have to be meaningful, benefits that outweigh the costs, and, ultimately, for each basin, we will end up with an implementation plan. the 10-year cip plan that was moved through the commission, there is the watershed assessment for each of the basin's -- basins, but this is a very public process. you are talking about a lot that are in people's neighborhoods, so just to give you an idea, before development, now, really are buildings, our streets, the plan, 10 years ago, we were not thinking so much about a low- impact plan. it was out there, but we were not really thinking about that.

and opportunities to make use and see stormwater as a benefit and not so much as a nuisance. commissioner torres: the present building? >> this is an imaginary location. commissioner torres: ok. >> bioretention basins. the cesar chavez. it will take awhile to chip away. we have completed one it -- one project that was completed in the southeast part of the city. it has pavement, planters. basically, we did monitoring before the project, and we will be doing monitoring to see how it does in different types of storms. but now, i get to my fun part about the triple bottom line.

this is a big one, because we are being asked to look at this differently than we have ever compared alternatives before, where we actually place values on different types of improvements, including environmental, which, still, hitting the market in terms of flooding -- with, still, hitting the market in terms of flooding. we are working with our hydraulics to define what level of performance that will have to be, and it will have to be a technical one to be able to make sure our storm at. have enough capacity to be able to take -- our storm areas will have enough capacity to be able to take it. social, economic, environmental. it looked at things like esthetics, jobs, recreational benefits, social, economic, being the ability -- life cycle

costs, how difficult is the asset going to be to maintain? because it becomes an asset. impact to rates. on the environmental side, we would look at use and something like the greenhouse gas reduction based on each project. scoring would have to be done, but this is where the public would be so critical in weighing in. in one neighborhood, parking spaces may be a life or death thing. and other spaces, it might be that we want more greenspace is. this is a similar process to what we did with the digester. we would be pulling a team together, asking them to make a commitment to work with us to develop this for each space and for each neighborhood. i think what is important to highlight again is that each of these factors would be quantified. we have to have metrics that are meaningful. vice president moran: before you

focus on that, the slide talked about triple bottom line plus, and it seemed to be big trouble bottom line plus assessment, technical, functional -- it seemed to be the triple bottom line plus assessment. >> it will reliably perform, and we have to have that. vice president moran: it does not go to the next? >> we have to have a level of performance to deal with the impacts of flooding. vice president moran: we are really at the ground stages of developing a triple bottom line. i will need more quantitative stuff. the idea of doing a ranked choice assessment for each of the areas, i have a real problem. >> i think that is great.

our watershed and planning staff have begun to develop a later date metrics type of approach -- have begun to develop a layered metrics type of approach. they might be able to make use of a modified approach. president vietor: commissioner moran, i know this is an area of interest for you, so maybe you can provide input so we can get it right at the outset. vice president moran: i appreciate that, but i do not know anybody who has done it right. whatever expertise they can bring to it, as a yell. yes, i will be glad to participate -- whatever expertise they can bring to but, as well. yes, i will be glad to

participate. >> we will also be looking, and this is back on metrics, to be able to compare benefits and costs, local jobs, safety, being that we do not have water in the streets and a dangerous situation versus what are the capital costs of the project, and i may be repeating and repeating again -- light cycle costs. what is this going to cost over the long haul -- life cycle costs. what is this going to cost over the long haul? obviously, we went to maximize the benefits and minimize the overall cost. to we want to -- we want to maximize the benefits and minimize the overall cost. we wrapped up a workshop with you, and we have one of our

process engineers, and we were lucky to get someone who has been really acting as a project manager on this effort, and those two, with the help of our maintenance liaison -- oh, i thought he was in sacramento. they have conducted interviews to be able to obtain information from stakeholders, and the puc, we are really focused so much on the day-to-day -- we have made efforts to reach out within the puc, external affairs planning, sustainability, as well as to other departments for expertise, as well as with president vietor, who has spent hours with us, but all of that has benefited us. we found out dpw has greening

programs. the school system has something. korea sustainability plans. side what plans. -- we have sustainability plans, sidewalk plans. hopefully, we will be able to get some traction. the informational interviews were great, and they provided us with a lot of information with the public issues. the concerns are to maintain a dialogue with the stakeholders and that we are open to comments and suggestions. in terms of interagency coordination within the puc but in others to make sure we make use of what we do have. the types of projects, this is a big one, as well as having the right data and metrics, which we talked about, making sure we have things that are maintain a book, so where are we going? -- that are maintained of all --

may attainable -- maintainable, so we are we going? to perform the full assessments of each of the basins. we have tools and are looking to actually customize one for ourselves. after our meeting today, 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 nc