no one from bay view hunter's point was involved, but i was involved. because everybody had died off and gone in other direction. so what i would like to see happen with this cac now is to start holding meetings back where the sewer plant is and they were meeting on market street. it's hard to get to market street from bay hunter's point. just consider the fact that we would like to have and i know i would like to have input with the cac, and about the concerns that we have dealing with that storage plant and then environmental issues that is going on and that has been going on for a long time in the southeast sector. so i just want -- i met the young lady and she invited me and we're going to get along just fine. >> thank you doctor. thank you

for being here. any other public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. madam secretary, next item. city clerk: item 9 is the response on the proposed march 14 revised [inaudible]. >> good afternoon, commissioners. dan wade, and i'm pleased to report today on a response to the comments and recommendations, that basca gave us in the letter dated 2014 regarding the march 2014 revised water system improvement program. now just very quickly refresher on the revised march 2014 water system improvement program, compared to the march 2013 revised program is that the program was approved on april 22nd of this year, it includes a cost

increase of $120 million and one month scheduled delay to may 2019. both of these overall changes are largely driven by the different conditions for the replacement project. as you know, as the end of -- so in review of the changes made in the march 2014 revised, basca presented mindings and recommendations regarding the budget, and schedule of the project. my goal today is to give you an overview of the response to these commons and actions that were taken to address these comments. so bosca divided their fundings and recommendations into three categories. the first set are based on budget and the second based on schedule and the third set based on scope of

the projects. so in their first set of findings related to budget, bosca asked themselves the question, what is the impact for the revisions on the individual budget project. and i'm paraphrasing the direct quote for saving space on the slide. and to answer that question that they ask themselves, they pointed out the sfpuc is deferring projects in the 10-year capital improvement fund program and that's true, it avoids the water rate as you know. they also mentioned and that including risks at the 65% confidence level which is lower than the previous contingent see. they believe the projects that

are being laid will be timed appropriate for the goals established. the wsip will address this. regarding the second finding, provided a memo on the risk methodology to the commission. in short, spuc believes it's appropriate given the balance of risk at this point in the program and i'll be happy to answer any questions regarding that memo. following on this from finding, the budget recommendations were to discuss in a report to the state under assembly bill 223, the impact on changes of public safety including changes in the ten year sip. that's one recommendation. the second recommendation was to prevent a staff transition plan

and report performance against the plan. so in response, the puc has addressed the public health and safety question, by virtue of addressing level of service goals in the notice of change report from last friday. the report is posted online. the water enterprise will write a separate bill to address the impacts of health and safety due to delays in non wsip project. this will be provided by the end of june. we have the staff transition plan. now, with respect to the health and safety impacts of the march 16 wsip verses the -- this is related to service.

wsip has four levels of service, delivery reliability and in this regard, there is a small increase risk due to the stand replacement budget or the cd rc delay in the event of an unplanned outage. the project in this revised program has a nine month delay. if there was a delay in those nine months, there would be an increased risk of delivery reliability to the customer. however, the risk is small compared to the overall risk of the program compared to where we were even just several years ago. in terms of seismic reliability, they'll be a small size increase due to the delay and the ground order of recovery budget. we have a 24 month delay on that project. this is

for conjunctive use project and it's on the peninsula and we'll have a place to pump water in the event of an emergency or extended period. and that would make over 7 million gallons per day of water available when that project is complete. as a result of that project delay, there's a small increase risk or seismic reliability in case of a disruption elsewhere in the system. in terms of the water quality impact, there is none because there were no delays to the water quality project. and in terms of water supply, the rationing would be required due to delays because of the replacement project. nine months for calavis and 20 months for the ground water project. to

illustrate the small increase in risk is seismic delivery reliability, we've modeled the reliability. it's a model that does 5,000 alterations of different scenarios and what you can see in this chart are on the left, delivery reliability in terms of million gallons per day and on the bottom, you have the years, so starting back in 2005 at the far left, you have the seismic reliability in terms of a million gallons per day and as we go through the wsip, that reliability increases and the yellow is our goal at 265 million gallons per day. the blue bars represent the wsip as established in 2005 and at that time the plan was by 2013 we would have realized the entire goal with respect to seismic reliability. however,

we have had delayed and previous delays have essentially delayed that realization of that seismic reliability goal by a couple of years so the green bars represents the status in 2013 and the purple is the 2013 revised wsip. there's a difference between the seismic reliability goal in the current year if you compare 2005 to 2014. but the difference between 2013 and 2014 is slightly different. now in terms of the staff transition plan, i wrote a plan that has been included in your pocket and it includes about a dozen charts and i

just want to show the overall chart. this is for the overall regional program. and as you can see on the chart, the wsip staff will be ramping down to a steep rate until the middle of 2016 at which point it will flatten out in 2016 and 2018 when a few projects remain. now, the green line is the total staffing in the wsip and we have 300 employees working on wsip. and then the red are consultants and the blue are city staff. so you can see that we'll be ramming down at a fast rate and we'll be flattening out towards the end. most of the steep portion of the curve is really due to consultants rapidly being demobilized over the next couple of years. we'll have some ramping down with city

staff as well, but that's at a lower rate. we plan for those folks to go to other the program, and the hechi improve program and some of those folks will be finding roles in other city departments. we recommend to continue to monitor that closely and track our plan and report in the quarterly report. now, they asked them self a question, is there an increase risk for a scheduled pension. two projects -- in answer to that, two project pensions are for projects critical meaning wsip water supply level goals and these delays expend the time and which customers are exposed to dry sources. that's true. i mentioned the ground water supply and recovery project

delays. following, the recommendations with respect to schedule is to develop -- it's to make sure the water system can meet the level service goal and to provide a status report to the commission by september. so in response to this, the sspuc makes it our priority and we're investigating other options. in particular, we're current evaluating projects with oakdale and we'll continue to evaluate projects based on the need. with respect to scope, bawsca asked them self, what is the scope on service

goals. in an answer to that, they pointed out the recapture program has made changes. bawsca does remain concerned about the yield for their project. in response, we would say these are minor changes. it's pumped that's being refined that will help increase operations and we believe we can recapture up to 82/75 acre feet per year while capturing 94 acre feet per year. we do acknowledge there's uncertainty with the permit condition replaced on the project. so following on with respect to the recommendations on scope, they're asking for us to include regular updates from the

commission on this project which we'll do and present a -- present analysis so we'll continue to do that. and put some focus on this project going forward. finally they recommended we include in the assembly bill - provide updates in future quarterly reports, and we've done that and in this chart illustrates how we've done this. we have the actual forecast substantial dates listed and the various level of service goals whether they're primarily or secondary on this project and on the far right, you'll see we've

indicated if they've met the goals. so with that, i would be happy to answer any questions. >> vice president caen. >> i'm per flex how we're at the year 2018 because it has been an expression of one more year and now we should be finishing up, originally planned next year, correct. >> actually 2016. the end of 2016, yes. >> right now we're five years out of completion, and i'm just worried about how much more that will escalate. i understand the problems involved, but i am concerned. >> yeah, and let me say this, we remain 100% committed to

meeting the level of service goal and completing these project and as timely and factiously as we can and we're working hard to do so, but unfortunately we've had different cite conditions on the replacement project that have delayed that project in particular but two years and nine months. and then the recapture project and the storage recovery projects are two other projects that have lagged behind the target in particular and those do happen to be our water supply projects which is front and sent ner the discussion right now. so the concern is well taken and i want to assure you that we're going to bring these projects to successful completion. >> i would like to add with those projects, we knew about

those hazards quite some time ago, and so the progression of time is getting a bit unmanageable in my point of view. >> can i just respond to her. keep in mind, there were 80 so projects that we've been marching and completing and, you know, making some major progress. the ones that we've been having issues with, we've been reporting on. we've been reporting on and the main one is calvarise. that is something that, you know, we've been working with bsawsca and our stakeholders, and we want to built it in a way that it can withstand a seismic event as it was intended on. while been fine ago lot of trace faults which we've been

addressing, so do you want to talk more about that. >> if i may, certainly on -- certainly on large programs, there's a concern of creeping delays. in this particular case, we really haven't experienced one major delay. because of the fault line, the historic fault line we found in he -- found exculpations, it's a needle in a hay stake. the land slide we did find was apart of the redesign and the redesign is we move 3 million cubic feet of soil. it takes time and effort to move 3 million cubic yards of soil. that was the two year nine month delay that came to this

commission in april. we are delayed but it's because of one project. we haven't seen creeping delays due to lack of attention, and on alameda creek, it could not go into implementation until we finished apart of the program anyway, so a relook at that has benefited us. and so in that case, the delays have been both positive on quality project and on cost of product. so yes, we are committing to immediating -- we're committed to this project. >> thank you for input. every meeting, we have a different calendar

goal in terms of completion. i just want you to be aware of the fact that we're aware of the fact that it changes all the time. we don't seem to have any fixed goal. we have a fixed goal now, and that's 2019. and i have a very strong feeling that soon to come will be 2020. so i just -- i'm not fully understanding why this delay has gone out. i understand what we've found, i hope that we understand the solution to that now, and we're working on it. that we're not going to find something else still. can you answer that or maybe not? >> certainly, i cannot answer with any certainty what we will and won't find underground as we

continue exculpation, but as we progress through construction, the risk of finding things minimize because of the explanation we're doing and exculpation minimizes. >> commissioner torres. >> thank you mr. president. what are you estimating as to how long it will take to transfer 3 million cubic feet of dirt? >> it's one that two year nine month schedule term when we came to you in april. >> so are we comparing that to any other similar models we're looking at like the asaca airport or other models? >> we went through a process at that change order looking at the site condition and looking at the rate at which we could move the soil, looking at sites in which the soil is being held as we moved them, and we went through months of change negotiation using both

our staff and professional staff consultants work with the contractors and looked at increase staffing and weigh that against cost increase, so the change schedule that we presented to you, we believe was the best return on investment as it related to the factors of cost verses schedule so it is an aggressive schedule and a cost effective schedule. >> >> thank you mr. cruise. >> thank you. >> i saw a speaker card downtown. >> nicole do you want to speak to this item or wait on the

next item. >> thank you president courtney, commissioners. i thought it was important to speak on this item given it's in response to our comment letter. i appreciate the pc staff effort to reach out to us to work through our comment letter, understand the issues we were raising and to discuss their proposed and adopted recommendations for addressing them. and for the most part, i understand them. and i think they go in the right direction, but i would highlight a few things for you to think about. echoing commissioner caen's concern about the schedule and wsip, that is our concern is that this program be completed on time and on budget. are we at

the point where we will not see any further skedz you'll ex pensions or budget increase. the program does not have the flexibility within the budget to accommodate budget increases as evidenced that you had to increase the budget increase. it wasn't able to be accommodated within impacts. our concern is what happens the next time. something has to happen. i remain very concerned about calvaris reservoir and something else has to happen. not disputing that everyone is doing their job to address it, but that's a big project. a lot of earth has to be moved. we continue to push your staff to everywhere possible, minimize cost, minimize expenditures, save some schedules and save time in the anticipation that you're going to need it

for something else that comes later. that's the focus on our ongoing conversation with mr. wade and mr. kelly. the other piece that -- there were several items that the staff said they would come back to you on and i would urge you to pay attention to. this goes back to the cost savings. you have a very large staff that has been beefed up appropriately so, now it's time to get them to move to other projects, and the speed at which that can happen is important because that's self cost you don't want to have to pay for wsip. you want to move them to another project, so that transition plan is critical for that. the level of service goal announces, this is critical. as i look at the project that have been delayed at this point, they deal with water supply. alameda creek and recovery project, all three of those are critical to

meeting your water supply level goal and without them you can't do it. it's important that you focus on that. i wanted to add that. thank you very much. >> next speaker card, i have is from francisco. this is item number 9. anyone would wishes to speak on item number 9, submit a speaker card to the city clerk. >> i would like to address this project in this manner. we know that -- at that time we were doing the clean water, our bond measure for this city was 2.6 and the rest of the region 2 billion. over a year and a half ago, i brought this issue of calavarice encouraging the staff to have a report are the

us geological survey and the maps that they had. one of the things i want to find out, i had brought this issue maybe nine months ago and i got a response. i want to find out exactly how many borders were dons. hundreds, less than one hundred, two hundred, three hundreds, how many many were done? it's for you commissioners to adjudicate that so that we the public can know. now, bawsca is doing the right thing. if we had to come over here and make the statements that bawsca is making, people get confrontational. there's a company that's making a lot of

money. are you commissioners evaluating their performance. are you commissioners evaluating the performance of black and rich and a number of companies that are getting -- they're getting huge. at the end of the day, and this is what i want to tell you all, i got an e-mail today where one of our local companies spent a lot of money up front and our smart companies should be paid on time. they shouldn't be waiting for 60 days, 90 days to be paid on this project. the men that's due diligence and they give this kind of work and they're not paid. and they come to me and

he came to me once and i referred to a gentlemen who is the head of this project, and he tried his best. so there are many things happening on this project, but the problem is, commissioners, we need an evaluation on of the work of the clients. thank you very much. >> thank you very much francisco for being here. this is item 9. any further comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. madam secretary, call the next item. city clerk: item 10 is a baswsca update. >> good afternoon commissioners. thank you for allowing me to speak today. i sincerely appreciate this time. i wanted to focus on mount tunnel. i received a letter from mr. ritchie on june 19. and a prior letter in march and those

are appreciated. he spent quite a bit of time with us including having a meeting with us with senior staff where we received information. that information has been helpful and it has been responsive to our request but it raised questions which i want to talk a little bit about because we believe this issue has continued important. as you know, we represent your wholesale customers, the 1.7 million people that they serve, 30,000 businesses and residents. they rely upon this system. that's the issue. that's why i wanted to focus my comments on this today. one of the answers in mr. ritchie march 10th letter discussed the local resources, the san francisco would rely upon if there was an interruption through the mountain tunnel following some catastrophic event. i