>> 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 applaud the santa clara water district with east bay mud and haward. there's a question where the water supply may come in a long term disruption and one you would get in the failure of that tunnel. this is something that this commission should be concerned about. it's not an immediate answer, but when we talk about emergency preparedness, we want to know where that water is going to come from and what plans need to come into place. mr. ritchie's letter talks about in extreme

measures, the puc will request emergency support from the arrogation district or the state wide project. i'm aware that any emergency agreements exist with these entities. i think that's a great idea. if san francisco is working on agreements, when will they be completed. these are not the agreements you've been talking about to meet the service goal, or long term transfer, truly an emergency agreement in the event that you lose that tunnel. i would strongly encourage you to move forward with securing those a greems and direct your staff report back to you because it's apart of an emergency plan. mr. ritchie cites some immediate fixes to prepare for and then reduce the time necessary to restore the tunnel and the service should it collapse. a restoration plan up in the area of the tunnel, a tunnel monitoring

program to monitor the pressure to kind of see what's going on and several key access -- this should be implemented. i'm not aware that this has been presented to you with a schedule and time, but i think that would be important for you to aware of. how is that work going to be completed, what's the schedule for having it done. it is important going back to the emergency restoration services. during our meeting with the staff on april 1st, we were told that a project manager ha been appointed for this work and that's a great sign. the subject of environmental approval was discussed. it had a large estimate, three to four years to approve the environmental improvement by a fix or whatever else is decided upon.

it's important to start understanding has that been verified. do we have a schedule in place for what the fix might be. i haven't see that, but i think it has been nearly six months since this issue was raised at a very critical level to you. that started in january essentially. i think it's important for you to understand that and make sure that's happening. mr. ritchie's letter stated that -- the tunnel is unlikely in the near term. i don't disagree with him, but it seems the estimated chances of failure is a simple guess. you can get one engineer to say one answer and get another engineer to say another one. for so many businesses and community agencies in our territory and the committee should be worked on the tunnel. i preer the efforts of the puc

staff. this is a tough issue, certainly and it's not an easy answer, but our intent is to help in every way possible on this major project. that will conclude my commons and answer any questions you might have. >> for me, i think what really struck me was the reference that you made to the emergency agreement, so i would hope unless there's objections from my colleagues, i would hope we would get a report back from staff on that particular item if not every item, but certainly that particular item since it was raised here. i'd like to know what those agreements look like, how many should be put up. thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> any public comments on item number 10? seeing none, public comment is closed. madam secretary, next item.

city clerk: item 11 is a consent calendar and items 1-a through 11-e is a consent calendar and retained by the public utilities commission and will be asked upon by a vote of the commission. they'll be no discussions unless the members or the public request in which the matter will be removed and a separate calendar. >> it has been moved and seconded. >> any comments on a, b, c, d, and e. all in favor, significant -- signify by saying aye. next item. city clerk: item 12 and possible action to authorize the general manager to concert on behalf of the -- the development agreement between the city and county of san francisco and visitation and adopt finding pursuant to the

california environmental quality act and litigation and monitoring report and reporting program. >> good afternoon. michael, deputy general manager. the item was continued from the last meeting and i'm going to turn it over to ken rich from the mayor's office of work force development to start the presentation and address the questions that were raised in the last meeting. >> thank you, mike. >> good afternoon commissioners. i need to beg your indulgence for a second to get the power point on the screen. >> thank you. >> i apologize for that. what i'm going onto do is give you a

brief overview of this project, turn it over to the mediation consultant it talk more in detail about some of the remediation issues and turn it over to the public health and about the relationship to this property. if i can have the slide, as i'm waiting -- is this mic on. okay. i'm waiting for the slides to come up. this has been a project that's been about 15 years in the making. if i can have the slides, i've gone things for you to look at. >> can we have the computer please. >> okay. so this budget has been 15 years in the making.

you have a timeline in the screen. there's been extensive planning on this project going back into the 90s as you see that was because of a redevelopment plan and a certification of an environmental report. it was resolved in california in 2011 and my office -- the office of economic and the planning department took over and tried to make sure this project was able to happen when we negotiated the program based on redevelopment. so here you see an overview of the project. this is a 20 acre site, former industrial site, and the project involved mediation. it's brown field so it needs all new utilities on the streets and sidewalks. the

project will be include 1609 housing units which will be for lower income families, so that's important for this project. up to 46,000 and 700 square feet of retail space including a grocery store and two parks and rehabilitation of the lock office building, including some community space, and impact fees paid to the city for a number of different things. the developers obligation to deliver this project is moralizing a development agreement between the city and the developer. the city is allowing the project to move forward and giving it vesting. to the entitles are frozen by contract moving forward as long as the developer complies with the terms. i'm going to go into a little bit more detail on the aspect of the agreement which is the subject of this commission's hearing. i'm going to read detailed things

here. the action before you includes authorizing the general manager to consent to the development agreement on behalf of the p urg c and the develop agreement has key positions which have been developed in close collaboration with the puc staff. number one, it requires the developer built the horizontal -- including a waste water system and storm water improvements and ex i will rary. number two, the development agreement requires that the developer corporate with the puc assessment of the feasibility of proposing power to the site. number three, the development agreement includes as an

exhibit, an infrastructure. because this plan is only at a conceptional level, the city will have many more opportunities to weigh in on the details of the plan as the project gets built out. the infrastructure plan states the following, before the developer may submit 60 percent drawings for review, the puc must approve the project, water master plan and release master plan, combine sewer master plan, and storm water master plan. in addition to the 60% drawings, the developer will submit 90% drawings. all elements of the project will be go through the permitting process. it does not require a plan as the city is analyzing which system configuration will be preferable. the ore nance before you says that

the general manager and the fire department leadership will work together to reach a decision about the system. this ordinance also adopts the slade lock and the reporting program which was approved by the board of supervisors in 2009 as apart of the eri report. there's no mitigations required. i'm going to have nanny vice come over and give you a fiefsh minute review of the site followed by stephanie from the department of public health. >> good afternoon, my name is nancy vice and i'm with

consultants. i'm a california certified engineer geologist and i've been doing environmental projects for 30 years and i've been working with puc on this project for six years and i'm going to give you history of the site a little on the remediation status and our final steps for development. >> it operated for 100 years and 1/3 of the site is northern pacific rail road which operated for 50

years until 1960. these were old operating factories and old operating sites and there were residual materials left that needed to be cleaned up. and those clean ups are ongoing with the california department of toxic substance control which we call tsc and they're the authority. they have the authority through the health and safety code of california to do those -- to oversee those clean ups. >> this figure shows you the two different portions of the site. the slage unit and that term that dpu uses to distinguish when we have a site that has two responsibility parties which was the case in of the past. we have the schiage to

the north and west. and the sprr unit to the southeast. if we start with the schiage unit, the contaminants were used for cleaning metals. there's a dtcs action plan for this site that plan is a clean water phase. it includes long term monitoring of the ground water to insure that that clean is ongoing over time and it includes land use control to protect workers in the field and it includes clean utility corridors to protect utility workers during