own consultants conducting expensive investigations and have determined that two of the three features identified could cause an issue of stability. however, and i do actually have a graphic here, if we could transfer to the projector again? this is a graph that i showed you last time. but these are the features that actually cause an issue of stability, but only the temporary and false. the conclusion was that the feature was another landslide, confirmed that the permanent cuts designed were adequate. we also found that inactive landslides crossing the site was

wider and at a different location. we concluded, based on our findings and the findings of the consultant was that this had a different condition, per the contract. based on the findings of our consultant and contractor, according to a final cut, not the temporary one. as i mentioned last night, this will require billions in q a material, which will mean additional costs and scheduling impact's. the one positive is that we were able to get expedited approval

for a temporary disposal site. we will be able to restore the cubic yards of material. our project team is working closely with a project manager to mitigate scheduling impacts, with the goal of making some decisions. i want to keep you appraised at each meeting and the progress for these options. identifying the quantified impacts. i also wanted to bring your attention to a second issue related to the pipeline project. there are three contracts there. the third term working pipeline,

the contract involved feasible descriptions for work along the alignments in the vicinity of the vernal pools, but there were no additional restrictions imposed or associated with the permits. that impacted an additional in restricted areas, so in addition to the unanticipated bird nests that impacted the project earlier on, we had scheduling impacts. without taking immediate action, we could have project activity extending into the following year.

a number of these options were sent to the general manager and assistant general manager. by transferring the schedule risks to the contractor, it was the most efficient. the celebration costs will be in the order of $3.7 million. it is still less costly than the option of doing nothing. in the meantime, there is a change order, as time is of the essence. then there is the following seasonally year, the next year. those are definitely the largest construction issues we're dealing with right now.

>> there was good news and bad news in there, in terms of cost impact. >> i do not want to speculate at this point. the other good news is that we have potential options for being able to sell, to the extent that we could still fill the reservoir back up. if we are able to do that, the cost impact would be a lot less, obviously, than if we needed to extend it. at this point, it would be a wild guess. if that is what we are doing. all that i can say is that it will be significant. no question about that. the scheduling impact could be a matter of two months to three months. hopefully. that is the best case scenario. if we are not able to get

everything done in the stable area. >> we have to get rid of that side of the mountain. there is no way out that goes down to the water treatment plant where you do not have to get ready for next summer. >> the other good news is that there is no impact on the structural integrity of this bill like. this is the slope above. >> commissioner? >> i am good. >> thank you very much. on the good news side, we issued a few more bonds last week. commissioner? >> allow me to say a few words. on the water system improvement

project. >> ok. >> what we have been doing in the bayview has been difficult. it is working on some of your projects. there are many contractors here listening to me and it is more for them than for you, commissioners. so, again and again, when people have talked like our young people cannot step up and do something, whether it is building defenses or doing the scaffolding that is projected on your screen is when you have breakfast, our young people have been doing that. sometimes our young people go to the sites. they encounter certain things,

like birds' nests, eggs. then they have to remain of of work for a couple of weeks before going back and doing good work. right now we have eight of our young people " -- working on these sites, linked to the water system improvement project in doing a good job. they assemble at 5:30 in a place and go to the work site. union wages on average of $26 per hour. i wanted to bring this to the attention of those contractors behind me. to think about the youth in our community, it comes from outside, they have no respect for the community. all of them want to make money, i know. but i tell you, with the water

system improvement projects, we do not get much. hopefully, with this sewer system improvement project, and you are listening to me and are connected, this contractor behind me will do their due diligence. with a water system improvement project, something that has been left out, you should know that that bond measure was done before the water system improvement project and was also for the sewer system improvement project. this commission and this city conveniently left that out. now it is time for you to do not only due diligence, but to be right, be fair. adjudicate well, so that our

young people can get jobs. to many of them have died. thank you very much. >> the night -- the next item is a report on egg on sale from last week. >> good afternoon. if i could have the overhead projector pulled up? so, as we are focusing on that, i can let you know some very good news. bond tester is once again had -- once again had an aggressive appetite. there is reporting and transparency. what we were able to accomplish last wednesday was go to market with $24 million in water and refunding bonds. what is important about that is that it was an opportunity to save ratepayers even more money. particularly the sale that

achieve $1.4 million in savings. this was a successful sale that the average interest cost was 1.34%. take a moment. as we know, average inflation alone is 3% per year. investors wanted our bonds and wanted to pay rates that were absurd. it was a very good deal representing the perspective of what has become. this was especially significant, because our bonds traded with the water district, two notches higher than our own credit ratings. two notches by s&p, which investors' desire in want. in fact, you had over- subscription of 2.5 times the amount of bonds available for sale. very good news.

the take away of $1.4 million in retail bonds for the projects, the savings far exceeded your 3% hurdle of 5.8%. it is also important to note that each time you issue bonds again, you give us the authority to do that. we see the competitive sale as the best one for the ratepayers. because of the unique nature of the bonds and the duration, that was a successful negotiation with citigroup and wells fargo. they did a very good job. >> the contra costa bonds were competitive? >> they were. this allowed us to also academically test our hypothesis as competitive or negotiating the best way to go.

at least at that day and time in the marketplace, interest rates were always resetting. it shows for us that on that day it was the best for ratepayers and a testament. >> ok. thank you. >> thank you. >> the last item is the update on community aggregation. two topics. one is an update to the program. the second is timing. i believe that the program, we have had a variety of issues talking to advocates and others about where they want money spent. we were able to go back to shell and as you recall, part of the deal was setting aside $15 million, a cap on what the city might be reliable for if there is a good-faith effort and the program does not work. that money had to be appropriated and set aside.

what we change was taking $8 million out of that, leaving only a $7 million pot. $2 million would go into the operating revenue funds. $6 million could be real appropriated. the supervisor to introduce legislation over the past week that board authorized the spending of that $6 million over the next two years. $1 million for each topic, each year. energy efficiency and conservation in city generation, if you recall those were the three areas going out for the next 10 years. as set aside, we were able to have those go forward in furtherance of the contract. so, the timing part of that item was supposed to be up this week. when i set this on the calendar,

it was to bring it to your attention that it would be at the budget committee tomorrow. the mayor's office contacted us because there were a variety of things happening at the board of supervisors this week on the ballot this november. they asked us if we could postpone those discussions until september. they ask if i would stay here for those discussions. contrary to mr. dicostra thinking about the last meeting, my plan was to leave at the end of august. the contract you approved was august or as late as december, and that was never my intention. at the mayor's request i have said that i would be happy to stay until september. of course, that will be your decision.

failing anything else, absent anything else, i would be bringing the contract back to have that happen in the month of september. >> thank you. any questions or comments cca? public comment from the general managers' report? mr. brooks, are you leaving? or rising to speak? >> leave, are you kidding? [laughter] after that? eric brooks, representing the local grassroots area. rumors have been flying around that the general manager had been asked to stay until september. it was not confirmed until just now. personally, that is really good to hear. contrary to -- i think it was a

couple of years ago, when some of us were not so sure on the directors leadership on this issue. we have been proven to be quite wrong. if it had not been for the general managers leadership, we would not be where we are now, on the doorstep of this potentially very extensive program. i might have said this a few years ago, i have said it had virtually every presentation. because of the failures in copenhagen and south africa on doing something on climate change internationally, california is crucial. even though marin county is a success, it is not ramping up a huge amount of local build out over efficiency as fast as the model we are promoting here in san francisco likely will.

most cities in california are waiting for san francisco to take the lead on this issue before they jump in. it is very cute -- crucial that we see in colorado and the rest of the west they are ordering a number of magnitudes in the global climate crisis, which is extremely serious. not only the general manager, but you, the commissioners, have provided leadership to make sure that a large build out is the cornerstone. as he said, it is an essential component of our cca. to the extent that we find a replacement to the general manager, it is absolutely vital that that replacement be as knowledgeable about clean energy and as dedicated to it as the general manager harrington.

also, we note that seats on the commission are up for reappointment, and one more of those seats may be in jeopardy. because of the seriousness of the climate crisis, we need this team to stay in place, all of you need to discuss with the mayor the needs to keep this commission intact so that this program does not get lost in the shuffle. we all know the political dynamic around this. i will not bring them up, but we know they are there. [bell rings] we need you to fight to keep your commission in tact so we can be successful and lead the world towards solving this. thank you. >> ok, thank you. other public comment? >> commissioners, i want to give you some history. in the year 2000 when we were

debating to close down our two power plants, we managed to close down the hunters point, but pg&e delayed that closure by buying credits from another power plant and doing all sorts of things. then we managed to close it. then, pg&e sold to the other plant that it operated, which most people for good. the one near potrero. and some mitigation moneys were given to the city. and because of that, we had our department of energy. our department of energy comes from those moneys. at that time, $1.5 million was given to the conciliatory that has nothing to do with the bayview. i am pointing this out to you,

about the injustices done. but also because of that money, much before sfpuc was in at the lead, 58 homes had solar in the bay view. much before sfpuc got involved in contributing money is for solar. today, we talk about the carbon footprint could i am the director of environmental justice advocacy, but i am also a representative at the i am into the carbon footprint. but you, commissioners, should get some history about the huge area from 4th and king all the way to the other pg&e site,

jefferson site, which is our landfill. and i have said this before, but nobody pays attention, and you should pay attention -- 1 ton of methane gas equals 22 tons of carbon dioxide. if you multiply that by the thousands and thousands of tons of methane gas, you can figure out -- let's take 150,000. [bell rings] you can figure out the adverse impacts. so we need clean energy. fp, for sure, but we also need to address the adverse impacts. it just so happens that sfpuc is one of those entities that can do something about them, and it helps that the commissioners know the history. thank you very much. >> that concludes our report,

commissioners. commissioner moran: thank you. moving on to the report from bawsca. >> thank you, commissioners. i am from bawsca. a brief report today. i wanted to say a few things about our board meeting last week. it was an interesting one. we were pleased to have both ed and president moran there. and this is -- this was the last bawsca meeting before ed's retirement. >> they made every other month. >> really? >> just a new standard to consider. [laughter] >> anyway, i did not want to jump the gun, but i do appreciate his great service and enjoyed working with him. every day we can squeeze out of him, the better.

i wanted to report that the board took some actions on an investigation of issuing bonds. $360 million in bonds to save people money. they approved the second phase of the contract in the bond counsel. and the approved the appointment of bond underwriters. we will come back to the board in september with a specific report, a plan of action, and ei expect a request to continue on. i also want to talk about how are our -- how our agencies can continue to work together constructively. i appreciate both your comments and ed's comments, and i enjoy working with you both. thank you. commissioner moran: let's move on to the consent calendar. madam secretary. >> item 9, consent calendar. a, award wastewater enterprise agreement number cs-27 -- ocean beach master plan phase 2

coastal management agreement, to san francisco planning and urban research, for planning, design, engineering and outreach services, and authorize the general manager to negotiate and execute a professional services agreement for an amount not-to- exceed $750,000, and with a duration of two years. b, accept work performed by precision engineering for wastewater enterprise, contract number ww-434, baker/blake/cook/ broderick/washington/francisco streets sewer replacement, approve modification number 1, to account for actual labor and materials required to complete the work under bid item allowances, decreasing the contract by $277 for a total contract amount of $1,447,943 and with a time extension of 51 consecutive calendar days for a total contract duration of 214 consecutive calendar days and authorize final payment to the contractor. c, approve the plans and specifications, and award wastewater enterprise contract ww-442, mason and powell street sewer system improvement and pavement renovation, in the amount of $4,920,357, of which $504,223 is funded by wwe/cip,

$3,570,114 is funded by wwe/r&r and $846,020 is funded by dpw, to the lowest, qualified, responsible and responsive bidder, shaw pipeline, to replace or rehabilitate existing sewers and construct associated appurtenances and perform pavement renovation on mason, powell and bay streets. d, approve the plans and specifications, and award wastewater enterprise contract number ww-490, oceanside water pollution control plant digesters and facility improvements, in the amount of $15,373,000, to the lowest, qualified, responsible and responsive bidder, shimmick construction company inc., to repair corroded digester infrastructure and perform necessary improvements to the existing digestion process to achieve class a biosolids at the oceanside plant. e, approve the plans and specifications, and award wastewater enterprise contract ww-535r, wastewater enterprise facility security improvement contract number 1, in the amount of $6,378,218, to the lowest, qualified, responsible and responsive bidder, azul works, inc., to install security features at three critical wastewater operating facilities. f, authorize the general manager, on behalf of the city of san francisco, to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the city of daly city for an amount not to exceed $205,500, and with a duration of 24 months. sfpuc funding will be used by daly city to hire consultants to complete pre- project planning, design and environmental review work for the vista grande drainage basin improvement project. the proposed project would be designed to alleviate flooding on sfpuc owned lands within the lake merced tract by routing a portion of storm water currently flowing to the pacific ocean into lake merced, thereby

providing a sustainable supply of water for the augmentation and management of lake merced water levels. g, approve modification number 1 to joc-34, general engineering, san francisco/peninsula/east bay, with power engineering construction company, to accomplish general engineering construction work for all sfpuc enterprise operations and bureaus, increasing the contract by $2,500,000 for a total contract amount of $7,500,000, and with a time extension of two years for a total contract duration of five years. h, approve the terms and conditions and authorize the general manager to execute a lease with communications & control, inc., for use of land located on mt. allison, on a portion of alameda county assessor's parcel number 96-090- 5-7, for a sfpuc radio communications services facility and for other general telecommunications uses, for a term of approximately two years and two months, at an initial annual rental rate of $10,382.40, with four percent annual increases. i, authorize the general manager to approve an agreement for the sale of an interest in real property to tenth and market, llc, for an amount not to exceed $77,000, subject to

approval by the board of supervisors pursuant to charter section 9.118, the sfpuc intends to sell its interest in the public service easement across this real property, located at 1407-1435 market street -- lot 041 in assessor's block 3507, in the city and county of san francisco, and vacate the surplus sewer on this site. commissioner moran: thank you. i have a request to remove items d, e, and i. any other items? for the remainder of the consent calendar, can i have a motion? >> so moved. >> the second. commissioner moran: all those in favor? opposed? the consent calendar, absent d, e, and i is approved. there is a question on item d. >> good afternoon. on items d and e, if i can

comment on those together. item d appears to be a state of good repair project. and also significantly would upgrade biosolids as class a. that is significant. class a was something we talked about for southeast two weeks ago. not the oceanside part. but this is a significant accomplishment. i look forward to this project being completed. hopefully we can talk about the use of that cass a biosolids because it will have additional opportunities for use. without the same restrictions as a class b, perhaps we can compost that and use it in the city. it is great stuff. on both d and