ey come underneath 280 and large chamber there until you get down to the 400 block of alemany boulevard at folsom and that's where it's half as large so this problem shown in the photo is because a location of a higher elevation -- we're not talking about folsom and 17th which is the lowest point of town. you couldn't have road a boat from there all the way to oakland. >> >> this location needs a bond measure problem. that's a solution. and it means that you have to increase the capacity of the sewers from 400 alemany down to the southeast sewage treatment plant and mr. cruz touched on this in part. it's going to cost money but if we don't spend the money and buy people's homes and displace them where are they going to live in

san francisco? and this public -- and this problem involved. >> >> there aren't fatalities involved in this but it's devastating just as the fires on 22nd and mission and on mission and 22nd and third and 24th street and all of the other fires happening over the last 10 years on valencia street so how are we going to get the puc to raise their hand and yes we will participate with you and address the issue without displacement? that's what people are asking for. thank you. >> thank you very much sir. [applause] is there any other member of the public who has not spoken who would like to speak on this item? if so please come on up. i think that concludes it. public comment is -- ma'am, are

you speaking? public comment is closed. >> thank you. mr. chair if i may follow up with mr. cruz and first of all with respect to 17th and kyu gu.gua we will inform the supervisor that people are here and give mr. cruz an opportunity to respond to that and it looks like something along the lines of this hearing that we're having on 17th and folsom probably should happen for this particular part of the neighborhood so before i follow up on 17th and folsom do you want to say anything about that mr. cruz? >> i was going to respond to a couple things that were brought up. >> sure. >> first of all i want to say the puc has been responsive and we are trying to meet with the community and really trying to do everything we can in balancing the overall needs of the system and the specific

needs of this community. i can personally empathize because even though i don't live in san francisco my house flooded in december and i put in a new floor and had to rip it out because of the size of the storm in december. we agree with a lot of the things that the residents said. we agree with the expansion of the grant program. that was the first time the city ever did something like this and went through one year and wide open to changing it so we agree with expansion of the program. we will work with the city attorney's office on how to expand that. one of the gentleman said for 15 years it was fine and now it's gotten bad. that really is not a change in our system as i said earlier. that's a change in the rain patterns and we again agree with that and trying to deal with that but have to stress that whatever we do and even if we were to spend billions of

dollars when a 25 year storm hits we will flood. we cannot as a city ever invest enough money to deal with that storm. it's just not an effective use of public funds. i understand the frustration when you look at the parking lot and it's not flooding and everything else is but the parking lot is 18 inches higher than the street and that's part of the reason why it doesn't flood, so we do recognize this. i heard someone say expand sewer capacity. we did do hydraulic analysis and basically that's what we're thinking about a connector tunnel to do effectively what the gentleman was suggesting. widening the street doesn't do that for us and we need a minimum capacity to make an impact. there is no way to widen tweet sufficiently to store 150 million-gallons and widen it to move it doesn't

work because it moves it to another back up point so we've done numerous analysis. we believe we understand the technical problem. we put costs to the technical problem disps problems and need to figure do that and i love the idea about a committee. and we will do that. i clearly believe that dialogue is important. i thank you for setting up this hearing because it gives us a chance to give the bigger picture and the technical information. it gives the neighborhood a chance to give us specifically the things that they experience and we can share ideas. together we do want to solve this problem. we do have some real challenges here and i don't think they're insurmountable but somebody said you just can't take a piece of the city and say you can't live there i'm not there yet. i think from a policy perspective

if we decide to acquire property and convert it into park or collection system or as the gentleman said low points that maybe the best thing for the city from an overall cost perspective. i will leave that to the policy makers. we'll generate the data and information and work with the community. we do sympathize. i was out there in december and walking through 2 feet of water in some of the residences so i know what they went through, and so i am sorry that we're here but we're are working on it. >> before we go on to 17th and folsom can you say something to the other residents? >> yes, just as stephanie is leading 17th and folsom another staff member saeed is working on that situation. they're complicated by the freeway work

there. the woman that spoke her property is at ground zero and experienced the greatest flooding. technically it should be easier to address than 17th and folsom and have a white paper within the two weeks of the completion of 17th and folsom and somebody referenced the sewer system failure. i take issue to that. it performed to design. the storms are beyond what we designed the system to and that's what we need to address. >> [inaudible] >> thank you very much. >> [inaudible] >> you want to come up? >> [inaudible] >> in you're going to say something i do want you to -- >> why are places like 18th -- castro for example higher than

both of these areas i think. why are the main lines feet in diameter and come to 18th and folsom and what did we decide today? they're 18 inches in diameterral folsom so how does that mean the infrastructure -- it's been replaced back to the original size. i'm not a plumber and maybe i am ignorant in math but that's pathetic. you have that size pipe all the way down 18th street until the corner and in a transfer box that shoots water 16 feet out of the man hole cover and floods the street because of the pipe 18 inches in diameter. that's ridiculous. maybe not your fault either. >> mr. cruz anything to add to that? >> only i welcome the notion of a committee so we can look at the analysis.

>> if i may to the folks that came out on the kyuga issue we're certainly happy to advocate for a response and we will pass it on to your supervisor as well. i think that i appreciate that you came here to raise that issue and i am sure that you will get something not only from the puc but hopefully from your supervisor. on the 17th and folsom piece let me say that i truly feel for the residents and the reason that we wanted and the business owners -- the reason we wanted to have this hearing is this is something i have been dealing with on an yearly basis, and we're happy to work with the community, to work with the puc. as the storm happens but i feel that we need to figure out a short term,

midterm and long-term solution here. and i welcome the idea of a working group . and those that don't know mr. cruz as i know. i have worked with him for years and he's a capable individual you can get and we're lucky he's involved and he really cares. with that said i do think that we need to have a complete outline of what steps the city is going to take. if there is a long-term objective of 2020 that's fine if that is something that eventually will be a permanent solution but we just can't say we will wait until 2020 and that's when something will be done. we have to have a

plan that call it is for specific short term and midterm action. i think having a working group makes a great deal of sense, and i am committing myself and my office carolyn who does an amazing job of putting this together and following up. we're committed to working with the puc and the community to facilitate such a working group, and i think something has basic as throwing out ideas and having a technical response to those idea it is because part of it i think people may not know what's been done or what's been considered and i am certainly not an expert in pipes but i can tell you that i share the frustration. i i've had issues with my sewer system in the last two months and as horrible a situation as can you have as a homeowner. when you're dealing

with that is -- i can't explain how fully how horrible it is so i could only imagine what you've gone through. what i would like to do is to maybe create this working group, and then maybe begin a meeting working meeting with this group and maybe within a month or so, and i look forward to hearing from the community in terms how large you want it to be. we want it to be inclusive of everyone but at the same time we want to make sure that it is a working group that looks at all of the concrete options, and maybe what we can do is hold this meeting -- have this meeting be continued so that maybe in two, three months we can come back to see where

we are with this because i don't want it to be we have this hearing and then we forget about it. i would like to come back to this in maybe three months and see where we are so that there is a concrete set up steps. what i envision to the extent, and again that's the problem with people who think they know what they're talking about, not knowing is dangerous, but i personally feel some of the things that need to be explored besides this long-term solution of the tunnel that you talked about i do think there are properties that probably the city may need to consider taking over and even if having some sort of storage tank is not the solution that you want it to be, seems to me that what i am hearing something could actually help. it's better than what we have right now. i also want to explore the possibility of how

this grant program can be more focused on the specific needs of each property and if there are things that we can do with each property maybe in the end that is -- that's a solution. i do have to say as a lawyer that it is challenging when you're talking about taxpayer money invested in individual property and i think we should do it but it's legally you have to kind of be careful how you do that, but i think we have a lot of smart people here that can figure it out. and then i also think that if there are other things that that can be done that perhaps we're not thinking about -- i mean i think we should think outside the box. i appreciate the sand bags but i agree with folks when the problem is internal to the house and it's coming out of the sewer system

i don't care how many sand bags you have it's not going to fix it. although i do appreciate that you have made them more available, so i think that if anyone can figure this out san francisco can figure it out. if any part of san francisco can figure it out certainly the good folks at 17th and folsom working with the puc can figure it out so i look forward to working with folks but now we're going away and i don't want to keep supervisor mar because we're going to lose quorum and i am happy to chat after the hearing so if we can continue this to the call of the chair, mr. chairman. >> and seems like three months after the community process and do that without objection and continue to the call of the chair. mr. evans anymore items? no more items. >> thank you very much.

>> thank you mr. cruz and your staff. [gavel]sf. >> good evening, everybody tutor coming i'm patrick the chief director of earthquake for the city of san francisco this is an information been the private school ownerships we'll be talking about what is

required and walk you through some of the steps we'll have time to do q and a there's a microphone we'll be happy to talk about any issuance restrooms with right around the corner we have coffee and cookies not back feel free to help yours which of you sought report that was the product of almost 3 years of work that was put into looking at our cities private schools we've known nor a long-term the state has treated public and private schools different this is a no one at acquisition they've been regulated differently in the past private schools are essential inform san francisco one in 3 or 24 thousand kids are educated in san francisco's private schools we know that not only is this an important part

of the children's safety but we know that after a major disaster getting the school up and running it essential with you can't have education without engaging the private schools when he think will be able to get back to work to put our kids in school and get back to normal like a cat tropic health starting in the 30s we starting thinking about the public school this is the distantly from 133 earthquake we took steps to make sure that you are picking up public schools were symmetrical ready for earthquake we started talking about this what do we do we look at the policy interventions was was mcall

schools retrieved we know that information programs are great but not effective in causing change the way we change behavior we know that schools yes, ma'am the private schools have all different kinds of revenue and if we treat them the same we'll see schools close so eventually ample a long discussion we met mount middle to do american people evaluation so as the all that's required in the evaluation the schools do a seismic evaluation to make decisions the charlotte is an explanation of that not actually looking at specific schools but schools in general and looking at 9 types of schools that were under whether concrete and wood

frame and the approximate year that's how we're performing in an earthquake the pie chart on the right there was a huge part we didn't understand again quite a few reinforcing the idea of an evaluation those i realize we have a mix of engineers and contractor and school administrators so i'm going to talk at a level that hopefully everyone can follow me we're happy to explain that but essentially schools under the building code ann are an e occupancy they have their use and jobs because of that we want to make sure that is an easier place to start by evaluating outlets occupancy schools are complex sometimes audios church associated or a a residentialcy

those buildings have not tied up to be elevated so after a lot of months working with the stlrld is stakeholder a group of over 4 hundred and having of you create trademark from so people are comfortable moving forward people are asking me is there other things all this information also available open our wednesday night but 3 exemptions for the evaluation not required for buildings occupied by 24 private or more persons for less than 12 per yearbook or any given day this draws on a previous building code but we're working with the stakeholder this is expressed as a great way to give definite fraction on the hours and whether or not it should be evaluated and second exemption

25 or fewer students not to say we're not concerned of the students survivalists but the overall risk is so with the universal agreement 25 or fewer students should not be required to evaluate speaker the evaluation is not required for buildings not classified and a group occupancy we mentioned churches and other buildings that are exempt from the evaluation process so two things that are required law went into effect of november 2013 in the next few months a scope report that is required to be submitted that could be completed by a school administrator if you work with a design professional work with in the relation but it is not intended to be a technical document this gives us a chance to look at the building open campus and based on the

requirement of the ordinance meets this requirements to be evaluated we know clearly from the be perimeters that are buildings not evaluates that our chance to have that conversation if there's curiosities it as to who is sub or not we're happy to help we have a difference team policy experts and others while we'll not do the evaluations we'll set i up for success as i mentioned the two evaluations i'm going to walk you through the scope documents who what is required at the top part basically, the building code section truly about the restrictions and what you do this is a free document to submittal no cost from the city as we go through that you'll see other things the deadline for the scope is 2015 for some

reason the document is not 134i78d please let us you know in theory if you don't submittal that the department of building inspection will give a notice of violations and or sftv.org you, you want us to do a site inspection you can send a dvd again do worry about the address and things like that it will be available it on the website two location sftv.org back slash e extensive is part of the administration bulletin for the private schools again on the website we'll you work u walk you through the process we know

that most engineers when it comes the evaluation use the template it is user friendly we don'ts o see those as harp the first section does this replace another report yes or no the scope document maybe filled out incorrectly we'll work you you about it you send it in a second time we'll document that we want the school name and address and the block and lock number addresses are complicated in san francisco we rely on a block and lock map some of the schools maybe on multiple lots please give us the lot number to see the size and scope the contact information who've you want to appoint this would be the person ahead of the schools the

principle it doesn't matter on if it's the identified person for the project section 3 repeating the school name on top sometimes papers get separated and one of the thing is resources how are we going to find this as i mentioned some engineers or arithmetic wisconsin you can use maintain licensed in california we have a comprehensive resource lift we work with the association of northern california they've surveyed their plea bargains 23s it is a nonprofit structural engineers and they provided a resource list we've put together a resource list of the engineers of san francisco unified school district they've used for the retroactive and evaluation between those sources there are several names that guess posted on the website other wwwsftv.org

back slash e s i p stand for earth quaked just to make sure we get the audio please come up to the microphone. >> good afternoon paul with san francisco will the scope part be determined to decide whether or not we need the evaluation or are we to have the evaluation done that's one question and schools that have been had major seismic roller coasters will they can didn't want or have the evaluation done. >> that's an excellent question at a point of contact i've been working with the city for almost 3 years prior to that i was the

building code consultant so i've had the privilege of working with the schools and many as they went through the renovation process there was a huge retrofit the work was done you have a safe this and i've seen the entryway so 0 doing the engineering evaluation is a simple you have access to the existing plans and calculations so the engineer should be able to do that quickly that's an important point if you're schools have done revving use the engineer feel free to use whoever you want if you have plans and information that's going to make their job easier. >> thank you i'm with the stern's school our hyphen highly

is in a church we've got more than that 25 ask the full-time do we need to evaluate. >> without seeing the document i'm assume there was a permanent building permit to change the school in addition to the in such u church so if you said you didn't want to evaluate it church you'll have to move that school as long as the kids are there it's evaluated and so a single building yeah. the whole building. >> not part of the evaluation so for those of who you who didn't hear the question is ada triggered as part of the evaluation with that said, if

you choose to do a retrofit there's a remit in chapter 11 this have to be complied with and sorry to keep come back to this so our school is in a church we don't own the church we're that renting the spaces who guess responsible for the program. >> that's an excellent question we have self schools in san francisco that are owned by others and rent this assumes the owner is the responsible part with that said it is complicated open who is responsible when you talk about the lease terms the owner is responsible but they obviously need to work in conjunction with the school i should have pointed that out but it gives spaces and option to identify that to say the school is owned by the person we're the tenant and between the parties decide