issues at this stage. it is wrong procedurally, wrong with the facts, along with the alw. president miguel: broader sponsor, you have two minutes, as you wish. >> i think there were a few misstatements there were just made. we are not being forced to do this. it is for safety. i will show you this again. he is talking about going into this backyard and having debris fall on us. whether that is your or whether it pops out, it is the same space. i do not think there is any argument to be made about the type of egress we have back here.

and so this whole issue about rise and run has to do with building this to present day code. this is a required second exit for the building. it is not that we are forced to. thank you. commissioner sugaya: you made it clear in the packet. could you clarify exactly what is in front of the commission? >> in front of you today is -- are the considerations as the project relates to design guidelines, whether or not there are exceptional, extraordinary circumstances that relate to those guidelines. president miguel: that is the

sole item for us. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i have a few questions. i think i know the first one. there were comments by the d.r. requester that there has not been a variance. but the hearing has to happen before the variants. that is a procedural question so that answers that part of it. the other question that has been brought up is the replacement of the stairs in its existing format, which would be kind of inside the building, back and forth on itself, instead of coming outside the building, which requires a variance. are there safety reasons why it is better to have it in the new configuration? or could you do it in the old manner? ñr>> as the engineer outlined, t is so rise overrun standards can be met in the building code. under the building code right now, you cannot have that stair

configuration. commissioner antonini: as written now, there would not be a solution that would allow you to replace the stairs under the configuration that exists at the present time. is that true? >> that is my understanding. commissioner antonini: my next question would be, it seems like the most compact way you could do it. i do not know how else you are going to put it any other way. >> and other king -- another configuration is explore where the stairs would be turned in towards the other building, but that would put it closer to the property line and would remove windows from the fire wall. staff review this and felt that this was the least intrusive design. commissioner sugaya: just to clarify, the sole issue or the

issue before the commission is not the variants itself but whether or not there are exceptional, extraordinary circumstances with respect to the stairway and its potential intrusion into the backyard. the other thing that i think is not within the purview of the commission or any building code arguments that have been made, we are assuming and it is braley true that you cannot replace the existing stairway with the exact same stairway. i would doubt that the building department would allow that at all. which means that meeting the current code, as it has been pointed out, makes the stairway longer and 1 foot water. -- wider. turning it 90 degrees would put it up against the other building. that does not seem to be an attractive alternative either.

as far as the commission's motion, vote, decision, we are fairly limited as to what our jurisdiction is. commissioner moore: just for the record, i would like the zoning administrator to state that even repairing the stair were not the permitted under the current code because of the stairs are not compliant. >> it is an interesting question. under the planning code, an alteration can be made. as long as it does not intensify the discrepancy. the building code is an entirely different kettle of fish. we do not have the experience to opine on that. but it stands to reason is quite valid. commissioner moore: that means this there would be in order terrible condition. -- in repairable condition.

it would have to go through a review by the building department and replacement complied to the rules that exist, the correct proportion between the rise and run. >> that is correct. president miguel: is there a motion? commissioner sugaya: i will make a motion to not take d.r. and approve the project. perhaps the planning staff can explore with the building department, the engineer, everybody, whether or not a repair is a potential or not. >> second. commissioner sugaya: it is not a condition, i would just like to suggest that staff looks into

the alternative. commissioner moore: this raises a very interesting question. in this particular neighborhood, where property line windows were at the time and the building code was permissible, it is only the later code that took an issue with that. there are many situations where the stairs are an integral part of the body of the building. what do we do as it starts to open up and change not only the character of the building itself, which it does, but it also starts to change the overall open space? i would like to see it somewhere in your library a stair which has not met our position but was replaced to meet current standards and i would like to keep architectural track of it. it is not just doing something that conforms to code. no disrespect to the gentleman who is making the proposal. sometimes it is an issue of design.

stairs are stairs are scarce. there are many ways to design stairs. i would like the planning department to track that because there are possible ways to treat it in an architectural way that is compatible an interesting. that does not affect the motion or the position the commissioner is taking on it. but i would like to pose it as a challenge looking ahead. commissioner antonini: i can certainly understand the d.r. requester her's -- the d.r. requester's concerns. it does not sound like there are a lot of options on this assuming that the stairs are not repairable. i have been in some of these buildings, and in recent days, i go very slowly down is a because they are very steep and you could have an accident really easily if you are not careful. i would think the run would be

more gradual on the new stairs. i do not think there is too much we can do on this other than not take d.r. unless it is found out that there is a way to repair the existing stairs. >> the motion on the floor is to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. with the suggestion that staff check in with dbi to see if there's a possibility of repair. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president miguel: aye. >> the motion passes unanimously. commissioners, you are now on general public comment. president miguel: is there any general public comment? >> from the experience today, it would be wise for the staff to resort to the position of when

legislation is drafted, that outreach is done at the time it is being drafted. this legislation was drafted by staffing. we have done a lot of legislative drafting. when you have something 300 pages long, it would be helpful if the people that follow these things were aware that it was going on, that it was reported on to the commission, that the commission could have input as well. and we just treat all legislative drafting projects as public transparency. to the commission and to the public, just to make it less gruesome. i have sat for 500-page legislation and you have generally had lots of community meetings, lots of opportunities to have input. even outside the commission.

i think that would be a really good policy. thank you. >> if i may, this was not drafted by staff. interest -- it was introduced by the supervisor in may and that was the first time we found out about it. >> i have a public record request and i will show you. >> i would be happy to look at it. president miguel: is there additional public comment? if not, public comment is closed and so is this meeting.

>> good afternoon. now like to call the january 24 meeting of the public utilities commission to order. secretary, would you call the roll? [calling roll] i expect vice-president torres to be joining us shortly. >> we will go into closed session at the beginning of the meeting. any public comment on the items listed in closed session? he none, can have a motion? >> so move. a-- seeing none, can i have a motion?

>> conference of legal counsel anticipated litigation is council of bill legal counselor. conference with legal counsel existing litigation as defend iant fontana v city and county f san francisco. government code se >> we are now live. [inaudible] president moran: we are back in open session. the commission met in closed session and took no action on

items 5, 6, and nine. the commission did approve settlements on items 7 and 8. can i have a motion as to whether disclose discussion during closed session? >> motion not to disclose. >> second. >> motion carries. -- president moran: motion carries. mr. secretary, if you would call item 12. >> item 12, approval of the minutes. approval of the minutes of the january 10, 2012, regular meeting. president moran: any revisions or corrections to the minutes? could i have a motion? to go so move. >> second. -- >> so moved. president moran: all those in favor? motion carries. >> item 13, public comment.

this opportunity is members of the public may address the commission on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction that are not on today's agenda. i have no speaker cards so far. president moran: mr. acodecosta , welcome. >> happy new year. i think 2012 is going to be a very challenging year and a good way. i am here to talk about the san francisco redevelopment agency, and at some of the changes that are being fostered. not because the city needs it, but because the state demands that somebody take charge of the

assets and a one ever has been grandfathered in. so they have to do it rather quickly. after the martin luther king holidays we did not get sufficient time when the meeting was held for some sort of resolution being presented. today that same resolution will be before the board of supervisors, and if they vote on it, then all of the details will be taken care of. and whether you like it or not, and i am talking about the san francisco public utilities commission, with all that's happening with the america's cup, this, that, and the other, the larger properties of mission bay, hunters point, candlestick point, comes under your

jurisdiction or one way or another. whether it is you wersewer, clen water, and also, energy. even transportation effects you in one way or another because of the infrastructure. so because every development has gone away, other large parties are primed to come in, if they have the money some of which they do in some cases. in so i am here to say that with a sewer system improvement project, which is in our backyard, and with whatever else is happening, sfpuc is poised to have san franciscans, because we

know the training was done and a lot of money came from the redevelopment and other enterprise agencies are going to have changes there. and so i am here to request that the southeast sector is taken care of so that we have people with skills to do the right thing when the right time comes. thank you very much. president moran: and you. any additional public comment? -- thank you. seeing none, communications. we have a fairly rich set of communications that have been provided to the commission with this agenda. faugh foon item three, a quartey report on the waste water improvement projects, i know it

does combine the interim cip and anticipated ssip. that is something we requested, and i appreciate you doing that. that is something we were asked to develop under recent. that is something very positive. i appreciate that. >> on the same topic, page 10 of that report, ongoing construction. i wanted to ask about the cost variants, which is almost 11 percent signed. -- 11%. that would be the figures on page 11. >> page 11 is blank. >> let's see.

capital improvement programs. that is quite a bit. why is it so much? >> do you have this report? item 14, 3c and under tab 2,

page 10 and 11. i think i can answer it. and there are two big things. the single biggest thing is $7 million. originally we were going to do this in two different phases. we record to do an underground portion, and then we were going to do a trench on another portion of it, and this came to the commission two or three meetings ago where we said this micro tunneling went so well that by continuing to continue to do micra tunneling and bringing in a new contract would save us time and money, so we amended the old contract, which is the reason for $7 million. but we figured it would probably cost us 8 million or $9 million to have an outside contractor do that, and we would have to stop the entire process.

that is the major portion. >> see, we do look at these things. [laughter] president moran: it is a format that point out things like that. where things are happening, and makes it clear they are happening. >> for that one change, the real variants stake here is more along the lines of 2%, right? -- the real variant figure at stake here is more along the lines of 2%, right? president moran: any other comment on the communications? >> thank you for catching that

item. this is a really comprehensive projects under way. it is very helpful. i assume it is on the website. perhaps people >> any other public comment? commissioners, is there any other commission business? >> without any, the report of the general manager. >> good afternoon. we have two items today. first is a short update of where we are. >> as part of today's agenda, we're going to seek your approval for the clothes out of two regional project.

i would like to give you a progress update on the challenges that have been encountered in the last two weeks, starting with that eastern segment of the pipeline currently on my radar screen. there are two issues that could lead to potential schedule delays. one is the potential delay of fabrications -- fabrication of the pipes and the other is the need to secure a missing environmental permit from fish and game. we have a project tracking these issues and i am confident we will be able to mitigate these issues and the overall project schedule will not be delayed, but i wanted you to be aware. i want to keep you apprised of

two of the most challenging progress issues. it continues to average 40 feet a day, which is projected in our schedule. we are not falling back schedule-wise, but we are not able to make up with those rates, leaving us what about six months behind schedule. the good news is that in the last two weeks, we have had to use less ground water and this is a good sign we may be able to start making up time. at the dam site, the deep soil mixing work that was needed to stabilize one of the areas where we will be disposing some of our soil, that work is going well and will be done the first week of february. the actual excavation of the dam

will begin in earnest the second week of february, and this is what we will start blasting. for your information, we could be blasting several times a week for a couple of years. bade division pipeline no. 5 -- they were continuing to make good progress on all remaining change east bay segments so that we can declare a final completion in march. on the peninsula segment contract, we are 85% complete. welding repair work is progressing as planned. on monday, we will issue an order for the tunnel under a large archeologist -- archaeological site. this will proceed in the next few months and it is projected to be completed at the end of

april. we had a record day last week and we were able to make 160 feet advanced and one day. we had to go through a curve and we have the entire trailing year, we are very optimistic in our ability to achieve great production rates. yesterday was the first major day of the shutdown. while it is not operational, we wanted to use the opportunity to show you the photos that show the extent of work taking place. it's hard to see -- we want to actually go the other way. that doesn't count for my five minutes, does it?

maybe we will forget about this. it's better for us. this whole area is where the wall is built and where we will be building the treated water reservoir. in this area here is where we are going to be building new filters. this does not do it justice, but these are like little bulldozers and they look like ants on these photographs. this is another photo of the basins which are now totally demolished and getting ready to add new filters installed. watts of work taking place. i wanted to close by giving you an update