is probably would be given the change of circumstances with respect to the determination made by the department of standards that this work is now being questioned as being that of a multi craft. is there an appropriate way to revisit the survey information on these? we are completing the design phase. the workers have not hit the job site yet. in all likelihood, they have not even been hired. >> for the chinatown public health center, the design is

complete. they are staged to begin work. we have asked them to hold off because we had heard that some action was going to be taken at the state level. once we saw with the action was and this does not address the create an occupation immediately available to us, it appears that it is per pre to go forward without a contract as awarded. were we to terminate that contract, we would incur costs.

we would have a claim against us. >> how much would it cost? >> it depends on how long it takes to do the work. this depends on when we cancelled the contract. >> that was one of the questions we asked, are we able to stop that and could that be the case? there is really no new information that is actionable right before us. do we go ahead and incur a cost and stop a project or do we try to work and get some agreement with who does the work? the state has not clarified who

does the work. >> given the fact that -- is not bound by the local hiring ordinance, is that a correct statement. >> this was awarded over a year ago but they have said that they would comply with it. >> was a 50% or 20%? >> they indicated 20% as what they would work for in consultation working with the unions they have agreements with. >> they do have an agreement with both be electricians. the area that has cost us concern is the fact that they have an agreement with both entities but there is an overlap. what this new decision that comes from the state seems to

address this the overlapping jurisdiction. i guess -- i'm curious given the fact that for whatever reason, they feel like it is a good idea even though the ordinance does not apply to them. they would comply at least with the initial threshold of 20%. that would beg the question, given the fact that a decision has been made, whether it is the absolute most a binding decision remains to be seen but there is the decision that has been made and it tends to address the controversies that have existed and i would be curious to know if a conversation was appropriate given what took place last week because i think that it benefits as far as cost

is concerned. that is what i want to know. did we have those conversations with that contractor? >> we do have regular communications with them, they were preparing to begin construction. we asked them at that time to give us more information. we were hearing that some action by the state was imminent and we were talking internally about the need to perhaps put the project on hold. now that we have seen the outcome from the state, it does not seem to alter the approach that would be taken on projects until after the occupation. the state rep we spoke to

indicated that would take between six loves and a year- and-a-half. we put that particular contract on hold. we would be looking at the higher end of those claims of cancellation or deferral of the contract. i believe this conversation started with public comment. this is a project that has not yet been awarded. this is a contract to which we will see some federal funding. it has the added complexity of having to parse out the local hire requirements between our funding and that of the federal funding. that contract has not been awarded. >> that work was for --?

>> that was for another muni community. that project is some 88 kilowatt on the smaller side. you're estimating that it would cost about a million dollars and three. it has not yet been awarded. i believe that the comment here is looking forward to modifications and what the rulings would be in respect to the prevailing wage. when i was speaking earlier, when we issued to these, we had the conference and we take questions from the contractors.

there were questions at the conference are around what the prevailing wage for the scope of work would be on this project. together with the city family, we rely on the workforce development and the office of labor standards. we responded that it was -- and electricians. this is a project where we would be using -- and not hard panel's. the solar generations are bolted to the roofing materials.

distillation of that membrane that would adhere to that. we were advised that we would have the roofers prevailing wage. then for the work involved in the lecture will components, it would be the electrician with the prevailing wage. >> if you deem that this is appropriate, i would like to ask the gentlemen from -- to come back up to the front. you have asked that we do what? >> we were talking about the contract that she was speaking to.

>> we will move forward with these two locations, whether or not they will voluntarily comply with the ordinance. you are not aware of any discussions taking place? >> as they are being bid, they will be in compliance with the higher ordinance. >> you're talking about the new muni pieces, not those that have been awarded. >> that's correct. >> this is a separate issue. it seems that there has been conversations.

you're concerned as around the prevailing wage issue. why why do you want to see these rebid? >> the community folks who have opportunities to work and these jobs sides, there is a difference between the sunset reservoir and the solar installations on the rooftops. when you make a determination that this is of a particular trade, you incorrectly cut a lot of people out of that work. that is what we are trying to get our arms around and i don't think that we're willing to stop those two projects.

>> thank you. >> any further comments? >> we have two choices, we can have some of the work done. that is a choice. or we can look at who will do the work if we have projects out there. we have chose to stop the work for quite a while.

part of it is what you would prefer to have us do. the ordinance kicks out everything, whether by issuing an addendum, we're looking at whether this can be corrected to catch up. the two existing ones that have been awarded, we can do this with the design already. >> i want to make sure that my colleagues understand.

we are creating jobs. we are getting the job done. >> we are proceeding with the bid. we will be staying the course and publicly by this commission, letting them know that we appreciate their pollen terry efforts to comply and to do it even better than they have promised. are there any other public comments? >> the next item is the consent calendar.

i'm sorry, number eight, the general managers' report from the bay area water supply and conservation agency. >> you mentioned the world water day at the beginning of the meeting. they have a number of categories. our agency one in the government agency category. >> congratulations. >> the benefit is to the

customers in the region. they get quality programs at a reasonable cost. this is your water. we are very proud of that. they won on award on the chances. there is a heartening results considering those that have been looking at the cost of that particular facility. it was well done and this is

faced your staff. we have watched this very close to because we want to see you succeed. congratulations to you on that. if the case studies keep coming, which is the plan, i will be interested in listening to those. lastly, i noted that a comment about bald water, i am proud to say my daughter is getting married. i will make sure that the open bar does not include bottled water.

>> all matters listed consist the consent calendar and they're considered to be routine and will be acted upon by a single vote. a, except work approved by j flores inc. for water and a price, local water repair, and replacement. b, except work performed by dl

falk for water enterprise funded work, water supply to administration building tenant program. c, approve the plans and specifications and award water in a price system improvement program as needed integration services. d, approve modification number five to wastewater enterprise se water pollution control plant, mix liquor, return activated sludge, and headworks facilities odor control improvements. e, approve modification to the waste water in a prize got to the waste water enterprise

control plant, digester gas recirculation compressor replacement with cal state constructors to install a digester gas cooling system upstream of the compressors and ancillary control equipment. f, approved the plans and specifications and award wastewater enterprise, renewal, and replacement program funded contract to the lowest qualified responsive bidder. g, approve the plans and specifications and award was water enterprise, capital improvement program, spot sort repair contract number 25.

if any commissioner would like to move any items from the consent calendar? >> i would like to move the consent calendar. >> second. >> the next item. i intend to discussion of possible action to improve pedestrian lighting policy and authorize the general manager to implement it pedestrian lighting policy. -- item 10, discussion and possible action. >> what i have before you is a request to improve the pedestrian lighting policy and to have the general manager implement the policy. as you know, power enterprise operates and maintains 75,000 lights in the city. we own about 25,000 of them.

i have our project manager who oversees the work of our field staff. there has been historic ambiguity about who is responsible here in the city for pedestrian lighting. we have some pedestrian-scale lighting, so does recreation and parks. the city code provides that the public utilities commission will determine the intensity of elimination, number, and size of lighting. the puc has been deemed to have

responsibility. the ambiguity around pedestrian lighting has come to ahead for us. pedestrian lighting is expected to increase in the coming years as more attention is paid to the streetscape. with the treatment by dpw, the definition of streets also bears on responsibility for pedestrians lighting. sometimes pictures help. here is a photo that shows rincon hill area. you can see a street light and

to the left, a pedestrian light. this is an example of pedestrian lighting that was installed by the developer for and improve to the area. -- and then prove to the area. this is another light that is pedestrian scale. you can see the top of the light. this is a redevelopment- sponsored project. then we will have the lighting that gives you an example of the pedestrian scale lighting we are talking about. many of these projects are

proposed by developers working with the city. the better street plan adoption means that any doctor who will rebuild a block or a number of blocks will be obligated to install pedestrian lighting. once the plan is in place to install it, who reviews the plan. who expects the work after it has installed. under the proposed pedestrian policy you have, we are suggesting that for whites that are located along the street as is currently defined by the public's works code, when it is

poll-mounted, when they have been selected from a pre- determined portfolio of fixtures, when they have been installed to meet the standards for conduit boxes that we have, when the plans and designs have been reviewed and approved by us and inspected and approved in the field after they have been installed, they would take responsibility for ongoing maintenance if this is adopted. we would only assume responsibility for whites -- lights that have 40 been installed. when they are poll-mounted, when

the current into t provides us with specifications as to where they are located, a condition assessment, the manufacturers catalog number for the fixtures, we know what it is they're asking us to take on. we would have information adequate to consider assuming responsibility for those as well. this would not be guaranteed an opportunity to consider. we recognize that this policy would place a financial burden on us to operate and maintain them appropriately. if the city decides to make street improvements and not a separate developer, to than have the capacity to put in the pedestrian lighting and necessary conduits. to give you a sense of what that could cost, we look at a hypothetical street, 5 miles.

if there was a major street like mission that the city decided that there is lighting installed, but there is a cost and assessment for you included in your packet. this would run about 16.8 million, both sides of the street. for the conduit and boxes, another 2.4 million bringing the total estimate up to 19 million.

historically, the city has taken upon itself to install about 33 lights a year. perhaps a more realistic sense of what it would cost is shown on this chart. we're 37 lights are installed with conduits, it would cost us about 550,000. over 20 years, 37 lights a year, that gets us up to 12.9 million. if you would assume, some and not a pedestrian lighting funded by the city as opposed to buy by the city as opposed to buy developer, you have to remember