10 day hanger, and [speaker not understood] notice you see the tow-away sign notice. to projects, we want to point out that project durations that do not exceed 14 days, the 30-day letters are not sent out. only the 72-hour notice signs are placed so the public, that's the only outreach method in term notification the public will get. if the public hasn't received a letter monthly, because the project duration was limited to less than 14 days. so, city agency and private utility companies are required to comply with specific requirements while occupying the public right-of-way to operate and maintain the facilities. these requirements include providing time and date of work, proper storage of equipment and materials, complying with housekeeping rules, placement and securing of utility plates, maintaining traffic control, sustaining noise control, and restoration of streets. in order for projects to be

successful, the department forces the city's excavation code and other city ordinances to ensure safety and public right-of-way. dpw provides information and inspection coordination [speaker not understood] in order to minimize impact of construction on our streets and in our neighborhoods. resident engineers and inspectors monitor the contractors daily. work that doesn't meet standards is corrected or rejected. and new partner requirements do help. a total -- >> can you comment -- excuse me for interrupting -- on how city agencies and dpw in particular coordinate with private utilities? we'll hear from pg&e in a few minutes, but i am -- mostly pg&e, i think at&t does some digging. i'm sure there are others as well. how do you ensure good coordination? and i know that there are legal constraints, too, because the utilities have certain rights under state law to go and dig.

how often is it a problem where utility violates the five-year rule? because we can't really fully enforce. >> first of all, the way we have utility companies coordinate with city agencies is through the cold call. they're required per admin to attend those monthly meetings and at these monthly meetings the utility agency are made aware of upcoming projects and they're required to give information to us to make sure that their work is coordinated with the planned capital projects. also, too, city agencies -- sorry. utility companies are required to respond to what city sends out what is called a notice of intent. it's a document that provides utility companies with planned project work, the dates and ending of the planned project work, and the request also is the intent of whether or not the utility agency would like to coordinate their planned work with the city -- with the city project. now, as far as your last

question of how city utility agencies are required, there are -- there is a component that utility agencies [speaker not understood] utility agencies come in after paving and that's mostly for repair work or emergency work or maybe even new service work that's unintended, unplanned work that the utility company -- that they themselves were not aware of. if a customer comes and asks for a new service -- the utility pg&e require to provide that service to that household. and, so, those cases are unplanned and where we [speaker not understood] it's very difficult to coordinate. >> in general, do you find that the utilities are -- my sense is that pg&e, i have a sense, is coordinating in terms of going in at the same time, but is there a good level of coordination? >> yes, dpw actually meets with pg&e to have the specific coordination meeting with just

pg&e to ensure that 23 miles are coordinated with the paving projects. >> thank you. >> okay. so, finally we want to just go through the jefferson streetscape project. as one of your coordinated projects, the jefferson street project included installation of water, sewer lines, street trees, build outs, repaving and restriping. and the work that is completed under one contractor -- one contract is instead of multiple contracts and multiple contractors, it is done in a linear fashion, but it was just through one contract. although it's necessary for construction activities to impact the public right-of-way in order for the project to be dealt, the project has been lenzed due to the fact dpw, mta and puc worked together to create a joint contract thereby shortening the time frame between construction activities. when all excavation work has been completed, the crews were then able to resurface jefferson street. and finally, and ultimately,

the care for coordination of this project resulted in a new promenade for the public and visitors visiting san francisco can enjoy. so, i'm here to answer any other questions you might have as well as all the other city agencies. thank you. >> thank you very much. okay. at this point the city agency are now done? okay, great. pg&e is here as well. mike, do you want to come up? >> supervisor, thank you for inviting me to attend. i don't have a prepared presentation. dpw has pretty much laid out how we coordinate with the city. in clarification on some of the moratorium cuts that pg&e at times has to do, we do have a requirement to serve new customers. we do have -- we do inform them

that it is a moratorium cut and there are additional costs involved with that type of work, but the unfortunately this is a situation where it's kind of a rock and a hard place. and then as far as emergency work they prepare, there are additional requirements to our restoration work because it is a moratorium street. >> actually, my sense is, i mentioned before, there is really good coordination in terms of the big projects between pg&e and the city. i know one area where tech there have been disputes in the past, pg&e had to go in ~, whether it's a new service or emergency work. and then there's been disputes about the quality of the repaving afterwards. and obviously you don't have to typically resurface the whole street, although there are some circumstances where one can argue the work is so extensive

that resurfacing should occur. but when it does happen, some of it is sort of patchy and i know there have been disputes in the past. so, can you comment on that? i'd like dpw to comment on that as well. >> and this is in reference to moratorium cuts or general, general -- >> moratorium cut meaning within the five-year period, pg&e has to go out, whether it's emergency or new service or whatever, a legitimate reason to unfortunately have to go in. but out of your control. but then in terms of making sure that the resurfacing afterwards, even if it is just this portion, is as smooth and high quality as possible. >> i mean, even on emergency work we are required to take out permits for excavation. and as part of that, there is an inspector on-site from dpw to clear us when we are done with the project. by all means, if there's any instances where there is a

dissatisfaction, that's where myself and my colleague ontario smith really can be used to work on, on those types of a discrepancy as to what's a final restoration. >> right. and i guess are there situations where there's been enough work done on the street that it warrants pg&e simply going in and resurfacing the entire street? >> i'm not aware of any. i know in some of our work that we've done on nonmoratorium streets where we have a trench line, we have a requirement of 13 feet from the trench, or depending on if it's -- if there are actually marked lanes during the entire lane rather than just doing 14 feet because it's a marked lane. if our trench is cut into the middle of the street, but there are additional requirements forest raytion. but as far as emergency work and the moratorium areas, i can't answer that. >> and in terms of what law

governs what pg&e's obligations are in terms of patching or resurfacing, is that -- i'm sure, is it a combination of city law and state law, is it just state law? >> it's actually -- there's part of our excavation permits. if there is part of the reason that, you know, the 13 feet or potentially a full sectioned-off lane, anything beyond that, pg&e pays an annual franchise fee to the city, and that's supposed to help towards general paving as well. >> right. i know one thing i have considered, and this is not just a pg&e, it also has to do with other and city work as well, in terms of taking a look at what the code requires when partial work is done. and then you have, as i mentioned before, sort of this mismatch on the street where it's a resurface, a mess.

i know there are, i'm sure between the perpetual franchise agreement as well as state law, i'm sure there are constraints. but we are going to take a look at what latitude with you -- not just pg&e, it's also a puc issue and so forth, to make sure that people don't have a situation wherefore years and years they're living on this partially resurfaced street because it can look really bad. >> as a san francisco resident, i understand. >> great, thank you, mike. could dpw comment on that particular issue? i know it's not just pg&e. i know, to a lesser extent, at&t some time has to dig and there are probably other utilities as well. >> so, for moratorium streets, are you talking about moratorium or just -- >> i mean, it's both. sometimes it's more, it's more

frustrating you know, when it's a street resurfaced six months ago. even if it's a legitimate reason, have to dig it up, and it never looks quite right again. even a street that's not a moratorium street, you'll have situations where you have patch work that's done that does not look right. >> so, for moratorium streets, i'm sure you probably know in 2010 we recently created more stringent moratorium restoration requirements. depending on the size of the trench, we require the excavator pave property line to property line all effective lanes. so, you might see a better he contiguous repaving. in nonmoratorium streets, there are restoration requirements. and, so, that there is a key trench that you see, but you are -- there is a key trench depending how many laterals are being repaired. we might make the utility excavator, depending on the size and length and the distance between the two

trenches, we'll make them square off the paving. so, it doesn't have just segments individual paving. it will have one continuous type of paving and rectangular paving for nonmoratorium. but the moratorium, like i just said, it's more of a more stringent paving requirement. so, if you see multiple trenches, we instead make the applicant or the excavator pave the entire lane width. >> thank you. he >> did that answer your question? :tñ?ñ? >> actually, judgment one other thing in terms of the disputes. how often, how orphan does dpw have a dispute with a private utility in terms of how much needs to be resurfaced, whether the patch work is sufficiently good craftsman ship? >> well, although we do have disputes, what i could say is that the applicant is required

to resurface whatever the inspector does deem appropriate. and, so, ultimately the applicant is required or the permittee is required to pave whatever seems a fair amount of restoration. ~ that is needed for that particular trench or trenches. >> thank you. >> okay. >> okay. so, i think we've had some nice presentations from the various departments and agencies. i really appreciate that. colleagues f there are no comments or questions, we will now open it up for public comment. is there any public comment on item number 3? wow, no public comment at all? [laughter] >> okay. then we will close public comment. [gavel] >> okay. first of all, i want to thank everyone for participating today. this is, you know, as i said at the beginning, we're seeing an unprecedented level of investment which is exciting. we think it is going to go on for quite sometime.

we have a lot p)4ú/ñof catching do from road resurfacing. it is my sincere hope, and i intend to push hard on this, that we continue to fully fund out of the general fund or whether we're able to establish a sustainable road resurfacing flow of funding from the local license fee. perhaps this november. but either way, we have to keep this up and what that means is as puc continues to replace entire sewer and water main system, as pg&e continues to upgrade its gas line, as we continue to resurface, there will be this continued disruption, which is unavoidable, but it's all of our responsibility to make sure that we're minimizing that. so, i look forward to the department's continuing to push and push to improve coordination and make it as good as it possibly can be, and

to also improve communication through vista, which i know is i think not 100% ready yet, but it is hopefully close, as well as other methods of communicating with the public because i think it's important. so, with that said, if i could have a motion to file item number 3. >> so moved. >> okay. and we will take that without objection. [gavel] >> thank you, everyone. okay, madam clerk, can you please call items 4 and 5 together? >> item number 4 is a resolution declaring the intention of the board of supervisors to vacate a portion of west point road and various public service easements in the hunters view phase 2 project; and setting a hearing date for all persons interested in the proposed vacation of said stree

of a portion of west point road and various public service easements for the hunters view phase 2 development; quitclaiming the city's interest in the vacation areas to the san francisco housing authority; reserving easement rights for the benefit of the city for its utilities; accepting a department of public works order concerning the street vacation; authorizing official acts in connection with this ordinance; and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. ~ phase ii project. >> we have barbara moise from department of public works. >> good afternoon, supervisors, barbara moise, [speaker not understood] task force, public works. >> excellent, barbara, happy to see you today. >> happy to see you. exciting project to talk about today. >> i agree. >> i'm sorry, i guess we have the right [speaker not understood]. the public matter before you today is concerning the vacation of the remaining portion of west point road to allow development of the hunters view phase 2 project. rather than -- let me tell you a little about the project. by way of background, [speaker not understood] which is a initiative, which i think the entire city is very happy about, which is the restoration, rehabilitation of public housing throughout the city. and this is the first project

and the first -- the second phase of hunters view project. as you can see in the photo the image before you, the project is being developed in three phase he, first phase, second phase, third phase, to replace 167 units with [speaker not understood] units on 20 acres of land. the first phase is complete and almost complete. and that provided 267 acres -- excuse me, 267 units of r folks that formerly lived in public housing in this vicinity. a portion of the road which we're talking about today, west west point road, was already vacated by the board of supervisors in 2009, you ordered to implement phase 1 in the project. the second phase of construction is 377 units and some commercial units and that's under construction at this time. demolition is being performed

and grading is beginning. b t and the third phase will follow, which is this phase here. the street vacation consists of abandoning approximately 540 feet of existing west point road. showing you this image we're talking about. %k[ this is existing west point road. as you see, the streets that are adjacent to this, the new streets that are being developed so we're talking about a small piece of the street infrastructure, but we need to vacate it officially in order for us to rededicate it in the street grid. the director of public works has determined that the vacation area is no longer needed for the city's present or respective future public use. the planning department has determined that the proposed vacation is consistent with the general plan and priority policies of section 101 mt. 1 of the planning code.

~ section 101.1. [speaker not understood]. if you have any questions, our development partner john stewart company is also here. if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer. >> great, thank you very much. colleagues, are there any questions? or comments? >> no, no. >> okay, thank you. and i also will then open it up for public comment. is there any public comment on items 4 and/or 5? mr. washington. good evening, supervisors. i'm here directly and indirectly to make a comment parallel to the fillmore and to this particular commission here. the san francisco hope thing, i was there from the beginning of the creation way before y'all came into city politics on the [speaker not understood] under newsom's admission.

and i have been working up there closely with some of the residents. but my comment is not really directed toward hunters view, but indirectly is because the parallel of this city and county. the program up there was guaranteed phase 1, 2, and 3. phase 1 is, as i say, almost completed and getting ready to go into phase 2. my concern is the parallel with the city and county has done to the fillmore with the promises and this and that. so, therefore, i am a person that is with knowledge helping them out in hunters point bayview district 10. i'm an authority over there. now, the thing about it is here we have the city ask county ean the developers here saying what they're going to do and what they're supposed to do, but i'm saying that what has happened in the fillmore was happening in bayview, without a doubt.

recently, a supervisor from this district, 10th district, got word they were trying to change the name. that was kind of weird that she found out about it after a month that it was in the paper that they were doing it. so, it just shows how communications and how department heads are not on tune with what's happening. so, don't get it twisted that i'm here saying that this program is not going, because it's going to go on regardless what my comments are. but i'm here to say that i'm saying visual on what's going on in the bayview. i don't want three streets to do a repeat what they've done to the fillmore street. >> thank you. next, any additional public comment on items 4 and/or 5? seeing none, we'll close public comment. [gavel] >> okay. my understanding is we will need to forward items 4 and 5 without recommendation?

>> that's right, [speaker not understood]. >> i can speak to that. we need to -- we cannot send this to the committee report because there was a noticing or a memo error and it will be heard at the full board on march 18th. >> we can send it with recommendation, but not [speaker not understood]. >> you mean february? >> march 18th. >> i'm sorry. you can send -- item number 4 will go to the board to be adopted on the 25th. item number 5 will be sent without recommendation for consideration for the march 18th, 2014 public hearing. >> okay. >> the resolution item 4 essentially provides public notice that the board will be considering item 5 at a committee as a whole on march 18th. >> okay, great. so, then, could i have a motion to that effect? in terms of bifurcating the two? okay, is that a motion? >> so moved, yes. >> and again, that will be

sending item 4 to the board with positive recommendation for a week from tomorrow. and then sending item 5 to the full board without recommendation for a march 18th. okay. we can take that motion without objection. >> thank you. >> that will be the order. [gavel] >> madam clerk, is there any additional business before the board? >> the motion to clarify the motion, on item 4 is to send it to the full board for february 25th rather than february 18th. >> okay. without objection, we can rescind the motion. >> so moved. >> gov. >> okay. so, the motion is to send item 4 to the full board with recommendation ~ for february 25th and to send item 5 to the full board without recommendation for march 18th. okay. so, that is the motion, supervisor cohen? >> that's the motion. >> okay, and we'll take that

without objection. >> thank you. >> [gavel] >> madam clerk, is there any additional business before the committee? >> there is no further business. >> and then we are adjourned. [gavel] >> thank you. [adjourned] >> thank you for coming again on i think just another momentum

occasion for our good friend jose (clapping) and i know this is the third time i believe that the city is - is it the fourth. fourth swearing in that's right and the reason why lieutenant governor knows that because he appointed jose in 2004 so thank you. visionary. of course, besides lieutenant governor i want to thank members of our family board of supervisors our da and assessor record and department heads and chiefs all the other departments our controller and others are here and really a sincere appreciation for the work that

jose has demonstrated. i want to say he's been such a great partner and i've had the privilege of working with him as a colleague but when i had the special chance of being the mayor here and wonder how to brag about san francisco i want to talk about more than the warriors something beyond supportship. look at what jose doing. so when we starting bragging about our chirnd program boy did you get a lot of attention from the other mafrz in the city. we brought him to a time when there was signature interest generated from the hard work jose has put together.

i know we were appointing someone who was going to go beyond the collection do side of that office. in those years as gavin will recall this city and a country faced itself down in horrible financial times and coming out of those years we asked ourselves what can we do better for the residents and the diverse community in the arena of financial planning and a allotcy and a sense from day one. and so the very creative idea came out and certainly i want to thank lieutenant mayor gavin newsom we're noting now nationally renowned for our san francisco program our kindergarten to college program.

i get to brag about that constantly and not 57 the burden of how that works and smart money and network and curtains in san francisco joining and leading cities on financial empowerment all over this country. those are some of the programs jose has put together gone beyond what we perceive he's helping us to educate the public and a businesses l about financial responsibility. it's sounds boring to everyone outside the room it's financial stuff but i'll tell you if the cities don't do this and cities dodo this they'll be in trouble

trouble. jose thank you and now you're going to work closely with me and many in the city and a entertain our businesses as and transform from a payroll tax to another tax system and low encourage job creation. he will be asked to step out of the traditional you've got to get it done and how do we help you do get under and city maintain and create jobs in the city. i'm here to say thank you jose to really let everybody you know how appreciative i've been 0 o and lucky to have you as a leader in our financial literacy captain. ooip i've been lucky to inherit a movement gavin was there

before me and a visionary and i still get his council as he goes across california doing great things in education. gavin i say thank you that f in your new really as lieutenant governor everything we've accomplished we get a national and state audience because of the work you've done. with that our visiony and former mayor now lieutenant governor gavin newsom. >> (clapping.) >> thank you. obviously, we have the same speech writer i have nothing else to say about jose wonderful work and thank you for covering the base is. i