>> thank you very much. >> that is the report. >> ok, thank you. any public comment? >> david pelle pal, and i'm just touching back on the pg&e gas pipeline on the revocable permit issue. this is the first and hearing about it. i appreciate the watershed mitigation protection. it seems that there would be all kinds of impacts and things. i do not know who has to reply with what ceqa requirements. that is an interesting point. i would hope that within the staff that the groups are involved and what ever we need to do and what ever reports need to be generated or monitored that it can be done to the commission in the future.

i'm also wondering if pg&e will vacate their existing building if their new pipelines are being taken out of the old? and i'm assuming that they will cover all of the puc costs related to this relocation. >> mr. harrington? >> all of the different parts of the puc are involved with city planning, because city planning has to be happy with the final review on that. in many cases, i believe they want to have the old pipeline left in place. what you do when a pipeline is still underground there, we're working on reimbursement of costs. >> and if they are leaving the zero pipeline -- leaving the old pipeline, to the extent that their costs later on, they're working that out, right? >> yes.

>> ok, thank you. >> the report of the bosky general manager, mr. johnson. >> i will keep my remarks brief. you have a long way to go today. i think i am interested in watching you deal with the triple bottom line, as you do your sources to work. a couple of comments, ab 6127, that would allow us to issue substantial bonds that is on the governor's desk, hopefully he will sign it soon, or at least not veto it and allow it to become law. we will continue to work with staff to make sure all the pieces are in place that we can issue the bonds and you folks can use the money. we will be going to our board in september with some major actions. the final action will be in november. but we will have major actions to get people on board to get

their rights in putting our package together. i have already extend my personal congratulations to mr. kelly. with that forward to working with him and continue working with the commissioner -- commissioner and the mayor to satisfy all our customers and state -- stakeholders. i will save all of my guest remarks to a later date. [laughter] >> thank you. which brings us to the consent calendar. madam clerk? >> >> item 9, consent calendar, approve meant -- approval of the award agreement see as a-1678- seat, a conference of technical services for renewal and advanced energy generation systems for a cumulative total of $6,750,000 and with a duration of five years per

agreement. the, approve the selection and award agreement cs-229a-d as needed. for the water enterprise tormc of water and environment, aecom water resources engineering joint venture. a total of $16 million and with the duration of five years per agreement. see, -- c, a community choice aggregation to authorize the

general manager to execute this amendment with an extension of treatments for total duration of four years and three months. d, approved amendment no. 3 to provide continued engineering support for the bay division part by no. 5 cordilleras micro tunnel project and authorize the general manager to execute this amendment. increasing the agreement direction by one year for a total duration of seven years. e, approve the plans and specifications and award a contract w.w.-542, oceanside water pollution control plant dewatering facility upgrades in the amount of $4,547,000 with the contract duration of 510

consecutive calendar days. itf, authorize the general manager to execute a jaunt -- a joint funding agreement with the u.s. geological survey for an amount not to exceed $1,750,000 for the duration of five years. g, discussion and possible action authorizing reimbursement of certain expenditures for capital related costs of the water enterprise from proceeds of a future bonded indebtedness. >> thank you. i have a request to remove to9e. hearing no objections, i move items nine with the exception of 9e.

all in favor? all opposed? motion carries. >> a wanted to speak in terms of solid water content. that indicates there will not be a range of savings on our costs. i wonder if in the future we can report that, or if there is an -- a way to estimate that. i'm very excited about not shopping around a 17% of the dewater cake. hopefully we will do the same as in as possible at oceanside in the next year-and-a-half. this is fantastic stuff. and also, taking with the temperature faced in a big direction, a project was approved a month ago at oceanside that will improve the solid handling process.

i'm very excited about bio solids. thank you. >> i art -- aren't we all? [laughter] i appreciate your comments. one thing i had commented to him earlier today was that this is a good news contract award. it is money being spent on the southeast. it has large purchase a patient. it is a good project and it is worthy of note. >> and i should note that it is significantly less than the engineers estimates. we are taking advantage of the good contractor. >> thank you, mr. kelly. >> the other thing that i would like to point out that is significant is that it will be contained. the other thing i wanted to point out is that the contractor that won this award, cal state, was one of the contractors that loss with a slim margin to

moderate mechanical. and they came back and it again and won this project. we have faith they will be in the program. >> ok, thank you. >> could i have a motion? >> moved. the crack second. >> all in favor? motion carries. item 10 will probably take about an hour and a half. why don't we take about a five minute break. >> can we have everybody sit

down, please? >> thank you. madam secretary, would you call item 10? >> item 10, is to resist an improvement program validation workshop #3. endorsement of goals and levels of service, and validation of the sewers system improvement program projects, scope, and a plantation process. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. we are finally here at workshop 3, the end of our validation series. i want to commend the commission because you helped to guide and for this process in the last several years. and it has been years. we had three workshops in 2010-

11 and we had three workshops this summer, but all has led to the validation of that improvement program. we have had numerous briefings and input from the public. i have to say on behalf of staff, this is for moderate level staff all the way to the very top and general manager harrington, there have been very long days and late nights that have gone into putting this together and to delivering this information in a quick, robust way. we feel that the information we have put forward to you has been well thought out. it has been responsive to your questions and i think he will be happy with the workshop today. maybe we can start with a reminder.

we did have the two validation workshop in july. the first was july 10th and focused on treatment options. then we followed up on july, -- and then we followed up on july 24th. today we are going over the questions that we received an compiling that into our as sip. at the end of the workshop, said the that is different is that we will be asking the commission to consider a resolution -- a resolution to endorse the goals and validate the ip and move forward with the first phase of work. we started out with our five questions. this has been common throughout each of our workshops. do we include the treatment recommendations, the collection

system recommendations, the cost and schedule, the duration, the associated rate impacts, and because of level of service. we have to wrap up the goals and levels of service and have that completed. we want to hear from you if you have supported the recommendations that support our validation process. and if you agree with our proposed phasing for the program, we are looking for a way to take this $6.9 billion program and phase it over time so we can deliver the most important things first. first, todd will review the rates, and then joanne ellis will join us to talk about the public education. this is the agenda for today's workshop. i know some of you are probably thinking about the question that you asked in workshop one or two and wondering when i will get to it. we will start out with a brief reminder of the questions and i

will tell you the reader's digest version. then the presentation itself will match them in the order that we go through them. the program manager will follow my presentation and he will be going through the project options and so that we have that for the record. and we can refresh and look at the great green question. and as we did in a frock -- the prior workshops, we will have a positive * track discussions -- specific times to have discussions. it has worked pretty effectively in the past. with that, we will begin the meat of the workshop. these are the questions. the first one is whether the ssip should change the goal to

integrate green and gray infrastructure and to minimize flooding. we agree that a joy. we will get more on this item. -- we agree that it should. we will get more on this item. the second question is whether the bias salads digester facilities project can be accelerated. but yes, we will present to you today a way to consolidate that schedule. we also have some work in our program some work that could be done on the existing digesters. question 3, do we need to buy a $7 billion program today? we are requesting your validation of our $6.9 billion program, but we will present -- present a phased approach that we think is workable. that will be during the implementation portion of the

agenda. the question came up from commissioner moran, are we double counting the green infrastructure budget. no, we are not. and we will recap the entire section of the workshop where we're talking about gray and gray/green projects and how those compared in costa and can -- and performance. and we will compare rate made -- ratepayer monthly bill impacts. todd will include that and we have actually included what the impact would be in the year 2032. just to revisit, hopefully for the last time for a while, are the ssip recommended goals. in black font are the goals that we have consensus on. we were asked at the last meeting to modify the second goal so that we could articulate our commitment to fighting as

well as integration of green and gray. we have done that and we believe that the goal written grey integrates green and gray of the structure to manage storm water and minimize flooding. we believe it achieved that. you probably wonder why in your packet we included both the non -- both the red line and the non-red line. we have gotten the worksheet that is now complete. in your commission package, we included all the changes that were read mind that made it through the process of workshop wind and workshop two. the recommend -- workshop i and workshop ii. the recommendations are what are delivered. the strategies are what we are deploying.

the goals of servers are what we are trying to me. you have that agger permanent record. and that will be as we move forward and try to get the agenda items on resolution for -- four, the very items that will be included in that. with that, i would like to ask dan donohue from the program management team to come up. he will be reviewing the recommendations that we established. he will talk about the treatment projects and the collection systems projects. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the summary that we will walk through this afternoon focuses on the recommendations that we presented to you at the two previous workshops, one on the treatment plant, and one on the collection systems. as you recall, in workshop one,

we first discuss the dios del digester -- biocell digester facilities and the treatment plant at oceanside and north point. in a workshop ii, we discussed improvement of the system systemwide. and we looked at bayside issues, with side issues, and green infrastructure. we will review the recommend -- -- recommended options from each of the categories. as karen mentioned, you asked also that the cost of the options be related to the average monthly bills. i will try to provide this information as i walk through. for the biosolids, we recommended option 3, which include new facilities. the facilities would be relocated away from the impacted

neighbors along phelps street. the cost of the program is just over $2 billion. also as karen mentioned, you asked us to look at whether the schedule for implementation of the digesters could be accelerated. on this slide at the top, what we reflect is what is presented to you for implementation in workshop i. at the bottom is what we are considering -- presenting for your consideration today. in looking at how to shorten schedule, we looked at activities related to planning and design. we looked at front end as well as back and activities in sequence a for the plant. we looked at shortening planning and design by six months, being very careful not to adversely impact the environmental and the ceqa review processes that we do not want to have a negative impact on. we also look at the construction

sequencing and realize we could consolidate some of the construction packages and bring facilities on mind sooner. that resulted in a six-month reduction in construction as well, for a total of 18 months off of the overall project schedule. we are presently working with staff on efforts to prepare the environment and ceqa information as secretly as possible. -- as efficiently as possible. we're looking to get these priorities on line as quickly as possible and we will continue to expedite the schedule and those things needed for decision making. this would also include considering alternative delivery methods to further shortened schedules. an interesting schedule -- and interesting benefit of shortening the schedule is that we do have savings involved in this, due to the shorting of the schedule and the escalation that

it has on the overall program. what we find is that the overall program is now just under $2 billion for the biosolid digester facilities. and the impact to the average monthly bill in the year 23-2032 would be $20 a month. that would gradually increase over time and to reach $33 in the year 2032. >> just to make sure i have my math right, that $33 is on top of a base of $76, is that right? >> to my recollection is that it is currently $76. we're going to 274 wie 2032 and this is $33 of that. >> $33 represents a 33% increase

over the $76. >> and that is a total on waste water bills. it will make a huge impact. >> thank you. >> as you may recall in workshop when we did not have the specific options, as we did for by a solid as we did for the liquid solid -- the liquid side. these facilities were to identify the long-term needs drop the planning process. what we presented were based projects focus on reliability and redundancy and then we can see add-ons to those based projects and those included seismic reliability, and electrical redundancy, odor control, and new group facilities and processes throughout the plant. recommended option 3, which also added a wet water treatment

facility to replace the existing what water facilities at southeast these projects had a total cost of $800 million and the monthly impact is $14 million per month. at oceanside, we recommended a base project, which again with seismic and electrical upgrade, odor control improvements at the westside pump station, a redundant west main for reliable flow to the plant, great removal and a frog receiving station, the cost of these facilities is four hundred $64 million with a monthly impact of $8 per month. at north point, we also recommended a base project, which was seismic, order control, great removal, refurbishing of the existing out

wall, whitewater pomp rienzi, and system improvements. these projects totaled $624 million and have and $11 impact on the average monthly bill in 2032. having completed the treatment plant summary, we turned to the collection system. we initially focused on reliability systemwide. we then look that particular issues associated with bayside, the west side, and green infrastructure, which as you recall, we made a $400 million commitment to. systemwide recommendations include operational improvements, a pump station rehabilitation, combined super discharge out wall structural improvements and backflow

prevention where needed, and odor prevention sites throughout the system. these projects totaled $838 million and we have a $14 per month impact on the average monthly bill. when we looked at the bayside system, you may remember the drivers were concerned with. there is replacement or redundancy, regulatory compliance to get initially to the recurrence of 10 recurrences per year, but also redundancy in the future anticipated reduction we may face in the upcoming renewal process. we also wanted to incorporate green. as we discussed at that time, we looked at various sites tunnels and recommended a 34 ft. diameter tunnel at a cost of just over $1.2 billion.

at that time, we also discussed the possibility that the 10 discharges per year could be achieved with a smaller diameter tunnel. since the last workshop, we have connected as bad -- additional studies and determined that the infrastructure would like to get us to 10. however, the total cost of that would be just under $1.3 billion. in finalizing the budget for the bayside, we recommend going with the 1.29 $4 billion. -- the $1.29 4 billion. in this way, as we continue to develop this project, we can determine the right combination

of tunnel size and green infrastructure to accomplish our project executive -- objectives. this would be accomplished through the ongoing watershed process, utilizing the triple bottom line analyses, and the planning and ceqa review that will be undertaken as part of the central bayside project. these analyses will be guided by the permit negotiations that will begin this fall, and of course, the performance from the green infrastructure or the invitation projects. this project has a total of one -- $1.29 4 billion and a total impact of 20 two dollars per month per average bill. when we move to the west side, we focus on the csd discharges along ocean beach, lincoln way, the 70 -- vicente and merced.

we had an average discharge our current of 3 per year to the bathing beaches. in doing these analyses, we focused on utilizing the transport storage boxes, the website pump station, and the existing out hall. we looked at various pop stations to get as to the target of three. you may recall that we had 100 stations at a cost of $277 million. we also discussed the possibility that a smaller pond station with green could get us to that target. based on initial analysis, that has been determined that with three could meet the target of three. the cost however would be $290 million.