energy will remain the same every san francisco street light is powder by 100 percent godfathers hetch hetchy power in one simple word serious as day turns >> this is the historic society commission for wednesday, june 1. please, sounds your mobile devices. when speaking before the commission if you care to state your name for the record and i will take will call at this time. >>[call of the roll] >> clerk: thank you

commissioners. first on your agenda is general public comments. at this time members of the public address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up for up to 3 min. i've no speak of cards. >> president wolfram: does any member of the public wish to make general public, and if so please come forward? >> testifier: i like to see the commission's advice on historic preservation issue. i'm doing some research on >> clerk: can you these speak into the microphone? >> testifier: i'm doing historic preservation research on this building in north beach. try put it on the overhead?'s

>> president wolfram: yes >> clerk >> ter:estifi the time i have left, [inaudible] the factory which was built in 1946-1947 by san francisco architect actually a native of commerce oh higher. got his degree in washington state and started practicing in 1929 was martin j rest. the present st. cecilia church are building [inaudible]. i think it's the building has very high potential for being on the registry of landmarks in san francisco and the present owner, marlene-daughter of fred, who founded the company built the building is still alive. it's going to a bone of

contention for almost its entire life into it went up in operation of manufacturing a see-two zone but it was declared all the legal sausage factory from the time it started running in 1940. it goes down finally in 1981. so there's been some public effort in the 80s, 81, 83 to great a special use zone within the area which is this building is actually it's directly behind the st. francis trying. so come the layout. it's right in that property from vallejo and greenstreet at 535. they bought the property from archbishop mitty as the sole corporation for the archdiocese of san francisco. the archdiocese down in palo alto and actually menlo park is doing some research for me from the die size. i look i guess and seek the commission

said by someone, [inaudible] and let her know what i'm doing , but also your advice i think in bringing to the attention of the supervisors and also this commission should be for further going through research. that's all accurate >> president wolfram: thanks. we don't give advice at this hyatt hearing but you can contact the planning presentations up on the website. any other member of the public wish to make public on? seeing none, and hewitt will close general public, good >> clerk: item 1 directors announcements. >> i have nothing commissioners >> clerk: items to the mission matters >> staff: normal formal learning commission report that i to items to share with you. one is, as you are aware, the government oversight, government audit site and met

after last hearing to discuss the legacy business registry program. at that hearing, the you commissioner timothy was present and she may have some comments regarding the outcome of that meeting. what we heard is that the committee has asked for an update on the program at its hearing tomorrow as well. we been in contact with regina, from the office of small business. she has no stated to me that she has seven complete applications that she will forward to us on monday. which is june 6. if she were to transmit those applications we would have to hear them at your july 6 hearing or, which because it's close to the july 4 all day, maybe cancels.. it

would give her a little more time to transmit those applications if we postpone that a little bit, and schedules that hearing for the july 20 hearing. but that is at your discretion. maybe something you want to take up today. the second item is just a quick report about the departments pending budget. as you recall, the commission-this commission added one additional fte to support the legacy business registry and all of the departments ask for the preservation programming including the additional fte have remained in the mayor's budget. so, we will keep you posted as that moves through the board of supervisors and discussions there. but it looks like everything is in place for the next fiscal year. that

concludes my comments. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank you. any comments or questions? moving on speaker commissioners that a place is on item 3. when the commission matters is in support and announcements >> president wolfram: no report or announcements >> clerk: item 4, consideration of adoption 4 min. for may 18 aoc meeting >> president wolfram: is any member of the public to comment on the draft meeting minutes of may 18 the architectural review committee and the regular hpc hearing? seeing none, and hearing none, we will close public comment. why have a motion to approve the minutes? >> moved and seconded. speaker than to adopt the minutes, with a may 18 architectural review committee hearing and the regular hearing, so moved

commissioners that matt motion passes unanimously 7-0. that places us on item 5 commission comments and questions. >> president wolfram: commissioner matsuda >> commissioner matsuda: i comments will be brief. i just want report to the commission that i did attend last week's hearing and all the supervisors who were present were very appreciative of the commission and are just as anxious to see this program move forward as we are. >> president fong: thank you. commissioner pearlman >> commissioner pearlman: last night i got to go through the-building and if you have not seen it they did a beautiful job in the restoration and just really spectacular so it's on judah near ninth avenue so take a look. i am happy to announce that the first big event at hibernia bank with the rally for hillary clinton last week. i was there and was very

amazing to be in that room with hundreds and hundreds of people , nfl like it was the 1940s and harry truman was cannot come up on the stage because of all the flags and banners and everything. anyway was very excited. thank you. >> president wolfram: great, thank you. do we have the topic of the meeting on july 6 two agreement out? >> clerk: this would be the appropriate time >> president wolfram: the only item on the agenda is the possibility that we may receive this legacy business packet. though that's not been confirmed. building there any other agenda items confirm that hearing. is that true? >> clerk: the only other item i see is the heritage conservation [inaudible]. >> president wolfram: that's in an informational review and comment >> clerk: it's just the beginning of the historic preservation element of the general plan before so i'm inclined to oppose we cancel the july 6 hearing. do we need

to be that you should officially remove that from your hearing scheduled on >> president wolfram: i need a motion to remove that >> clerk: yes steve from >> clerk: then, to cancel july 6 hearing on your hearing schedule, so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. >> president wolfram: commissioner hyland >> commissioner hyland: i have a disclosure and agenda item 6. ingleside presbyterian church. this is the second time it's come before us and less time i became aware during a presentation that architectural resources group,, my previous employer, and company have done

a report for a gin at the time i do not understand what the extent of that was but i checked with the city attorney and that it's a pro bono evaluation, the conservation issues around the murals. the contact is done and closed, so there's no need for me to recuse myself. i just want to clarify that. >> president wolfram: thank you. >> clerk: it is nothing further we can move onto your regular counter for item 6. case number 2015 007219 third, 1345 ocean ave. the landmark designation. >> staff: good afternoon

commission. shannon ferguson department of staff on behalf of susan parks. i'm here today present departments recommendation regarding limit participation of ingleside presbyterian church in its interior collage mural an artist's environment entitled the great cloud of witnesses. located at 1345 ocean ave., in the ingleside neighborhood. the building is added to the landmark designation work in inmate 2013 #staff at the heritage pro bono architectural historic officials and pro bono architectural conservatives arg began working on the project. the building is a committee for landmark status both for its architectural and artistic association. first, the church itself is architecturally significant work of master architect jesse leonard. it embodies the distinctive characteristics of the neoclassical style and a unique example of neoclassical ecclesiastical architecture in the city. architect justin leonard was well known locally for his parts as chosen as the george's artistic today the building is one of limits you extend religious structure. secondly, the church is artistically significant parts interior mural collage. the

great cloud of witnesses. begin by robin gordon in 1980 a big contributions to the study of american folk art. african-american mural, the artist environment and san francisco african-american history. the great cloud of witnesses composition size location and technique used to make it unique. the overall arrangement across multiple rooms and floors the extensive size encompasses most of the churches interior and the distinctive choice of media and collage technique is unparalleled on this scale. they work in progress since 1980, the great cloud of witnesses is a rare tribute and the largest most imaginatively executed folk artist environment dedicated to religion, culture, african-american history and role models in the country. the interior characteristic features include rooms, volume and was, and staircases that

were historically accessible to the public such as the lobby jim & georgia the collage mural is also considered [inaudible]is that rev. gordon has determined to be complete including all components of the mural across all services in the lobby, the jim, the obama technology center, the michael jackson, the willie brown and the legacy room. for the ordinance, "and is allowed to keep working on other rooms that not been determined complete and is a manner that is been working with that entitlement. it also states any future conservation or stabilization effort should be guided by the conditions effectively thereby arg in the california are preservation act subject to the consent of the artist rev. gordon. there's no nonpublic opposition to the landmark designation and the church's support of the designation. commissioners wolfram and hyland visited the site this morning i was met with rev. gordon and without mural work. yvonne leaves the

building needs: status is wanted. donna harman recommends atc resonates designation to the board of supervisors this compose my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president wolfram: thank you. the questions, commissioners? we will now take public comment on this item. remember the public was to comment on this and not designation? please come forward. >> testifier: i'm rolling gordon pastor of the church could oh i think the commissioners for coming out to see firsthand what is unfolding at angles side, that the community is very excited about and i really felt honored today to have you present. i want to say thank you. the wolfram thank you very much for it was an honor to be there. i never any other member of the item was to public ones item?

hearing none, and seeing none, will will close public comment and bring it back to the commission. >> i move we approve this. >> second. >> president wolfram: >> clerk: thank you commissioners. there's a motion to adopt a recommendation for approval. on a motion, so moved commissioners. the motion passes unanimously. commissioners that are places on items seven for december 2015 -007181, 140 maiden ln. this is also a landmark designation. >> staff: good afternoon commissioners. shannon ferguson department staff. i'm here today to present their parts trepidation regarding a mimics to the landmark designation for 140 maiden ln. historically known as the gift shop located in the conservation district.

140 maiden was designated as landmark 72 and 1975. at the all-time leader in your features of the: with designated such as a blank wall of brick and romanesque arch. the internal circular structure is equally as significant as the exterior and as a shop it was historically public good accessible. complete level for the guggenheim museum 140 maiden ln. is the first building to be constructed oozing what frank wainwright's favorite spectral shape the spiral which dominated his work out of finally. frank wainwright is by far the most well known and influenced american art that although they produce several designs further buildings in san francisco, the bc mortgage shop is the only one realize. it is a significant and rare modern building designed by the master architect. the planning

department has shared the designation report with property owners and is received one letter of support from the community member supervisor peskin is also in support of the landmark designation. commissioners wolfram and hyland visited the site this market during the site commissioners noted original light fixtures and [inaudible]. the department believes the building meets the stylish eligibility requirements and does designation is wanted without harman recommends a mimics to the designation to the board of supervisors this concludes my presentation good i'm happy to answer questions. >> president wolfram: thank you. any questions for ms. ferguson? i have a question about the light fixtures in the pneumatic two-tiered that's not currently >> staff: that's not currently listed in the designation. we do not discuss it this morning during the site visit. distort shows that the light fixtures may indeed be historic get people from these are the ones in the ceiling that are kind of what shape would you call that,

spherical? actually the first floor. the upper-level lights are part of the [inaudible]. thank you. does any member of the public wish to comment on this item? please come forward. seeing none, anyone will close public comment and bring back to the commission. commissioners, comment? other comments? i'm sorry. okay. i apologize. we will reopen public comment. the 3 min. >> testifier: good afternoon on sharon slater in the senior vice president of asset management for downtown properties represent the owner of 140 maiden ln. we had a great site visit this morning and it was really good for me to know now that we are really on the same page as far as the preservation of the building.

the concerns that you've expressed the same ones that we have, so that is great. my concern is that we been having some trouble with the leasing of the building. our pool of prospective tenants is fairly narrow because were little picky about who we want to go into. not everybody appreciates the history of the building. we've had some problems with deals dropping out because they're concerned about the process of getting approvals for any alterations they would like to make. granted, not able to make any alterations to the elements we talked about, but just the process of getting plans approved even within that guideline is difficult. so, we talked about potentially meeting so we can talk about specifics of what the guidelines should be for the things that would be preapproved, like the color palettes for paint and that sort of thing. we what we saw when we have a pop-up was [inaudible] is my new pff-it

was my futile beautiful but the activation of the building was fantastic to see it so vibrant and full of people. we have so many request for people to visit the building. so, i would like to see it activated permanently as soon as possible. so i am hoping that you can help me smooth the way on this process so that's not a deterrent to getting the right kind of tenants we all want. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank you very much. any other member of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, and hearing none, will close public comments. commissioner johnck >> commissioner johnck:. those comments, have any influence on the staff recommendation, but my basic idea here is this is another remarkable building for us to endorse landmark use. so i would move to approve staff

>> president wolfram: i like classic question of sector am wondering a subconscious made, whether we could administer this that would allow us to delegate to have some of the interior work, or a set of guidelines that you could meet with the property owner to discuss so they don't have to come back to the commission for doing painting or more minor work within the interior. is that something that could be included in this or how would we do with this? i do know the ministry to see a vase onset of her injury when so much. >> staff: commissioners, the-you are certainly if you're inclined to do so you could amend this ordinance to clarify what could be delegated to

staff, but article 10 in article 11 already do provide a mechanism for you to delegate to us at any time. so, if we were not to take up now, after meeting with the representatives of the building and having a better understanding of what types of scopes of work they're interested in expediting, we could then come back to you at a future date with those and then at that time you could consider delegating them to us. you don't necessarily have to do as part of the delegation agreement were part of this ordinance could you can do it anytime >> president wolfram: so this be approved by the order supervisors and mayor and so at later time when you meet with the property owner we could talk about what items could be delegated. i would like to be a supple to the owner as possible. >> staff: after the meeting we would then have a better understanding of exactly what we could delegate. >> president wolfram: okay get i think that makes sense. >> i moved to approve staff recommendations before >> moved and seconded. >> president wolfram: do it that i can do is a discussion about adding the light fixtures and the pneumatic tube. which i would recommend adding with the

additional the ground floor and light fixtures and the pneumatic tube. >> where is the pneumatic tube and what was it for? be wolfram it was for public processing orders and money. >> do some the sales desk area down? >> president wolfram: yes. maybe the pneumatic tube on those second ground floor not necessarily the basement location. does that make sense? >> commissioner johnck: absolutely. >> president wolfram: i think we have a motion and a second. >> clerk: very good good on a motion to adopt the recommendations for approval to the board of supervisors, as amended to include the oval like pictures on the ground floor and pneumatic tube at the ground and second levels, so

moved commissioners. the motion passes unanimously, 7-0. commissioners places on item 8. december 2014-001711.. the wireless facility planning code did this is a amendment. >> staff: thank you. omar mastery on behalf of the san francisco planning department. the best before you as an item to request changes in san francisco planning code recommendations to the board of supervisors. as it relates to wireless talk mitigation services facility. otherwise known as referred to commonly as cell towers and cell antennas. within this request would be a more brought change to article 10 and 11 of the planning code. which do with certain entitlements first preservation applications peer if sfgtv could pull up the slideshow, please? so, one of

the primary changes would clarify the staff can render a decision which includes approval or denial, of certain historic preservation applications. those would include the mistreated certificate of appropriateness, reminder permit to alter. currently, for example, article 10 of the planning code indicates that staff can it go. by this historic preservation commission, that can choose approve a application but [inaudible] the reason this is important is because a new state law took effect in january 2016. over two initially is a be-57. basically said for wireless facility application comes in for any city or county in california, the city does not make a decision in so many days of application being complete then it is automatically approved or deemed granted. the city would have to go to court in order to try to stop that approval from taking effect. so, in this example, one of our concerns would be the care were to submit an application for wireless facility downtown and

committed building permit application and application for the mistreated certificate of appropriateness is an article can map them of tradition. one of the concerns would be a scenario where the applicant has an application complete. the shot clock the time limit within 90 days or 150 days, is ticking and counts against the city the carrier has not provided design that looks like it complies or appears to comply with the security of interior standards for treatment for historic properties or other local boulders were other guidelines with respect to historic preservation concerns. in that scenario, the staff were inclined to try to deny this facility before the automatic approval took effect, one of the challenges we face is that we didn't initially required notification labels for owners and occupants within 70 feet. back when the application was initially submitted. so the shortest demo, if you will, to get a project to hearing for denial if the carrier is not willing to make those changes in order to avoid an automatic approval. for the sake of

clarity and consistency across article 10 and 11, this change would apply to all scopes of work that are delegated by this story preservation commission to departments that. so, it would include things like signage, including signage on the screen that has tenants on-site. would include roof deck as it currently does. historic alterations, both wireless facilities on rooftops as well as within the public right-of-way. since the antenna attached. by polls and transit polls and utility poles we now see in san francisco. another change would not be maybe a notable interest to the commission, but it would allow screening such as fake scrabble

with the current acception from-it's from steel towers and antennas and women associate with wireless facility. were this would be of assistance as we may see as an example larger building and 6-7 stories where it exceeds the 40 foot height limit for instance down to much of the city. that building may be less intrusive in terms of the overall size of the facility being scale and context appropriate respect to the building but because of the current height limitations for screening elements, the carrier may not be able to pursue that cyprus the screen is used to stop the equipment the antennas and cabling and other appurtenances would not be an option available under the plan current planning code rules. so the ability to add screen above limits consistent with exception currently for on-screen facilities would allow staff to work with carriers and the community to find less intrusive locations especially from a scale and context perspective. however, code amendment this clip by staff would still be able to

review projects with respect to design review, shed of you and city parks and prisons historic preservation review. many limits imposed by the planning commission is so, this example at the bottom of the photo, the proposed simulation, chosen design a potentially historic resource we would not consider appropriate and still maintain the ability to request that the care modified or design more appropriate for the building of the neighborhood. ms. just to wrap up, the one which provides you in the planning commission or start commission back it was on son. you provided a signed version of that. the planning commission unanimously recommended initiation of the amendment of march 17 and the scheduled adoption hearing for june 16 or any time afterwards and supervisor avalos is also sponsored the proposed amendment. with that, i'll post my presentation and be happy to

answer questions. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank you. mr. find >> staff: just a follow-up on mr. mastery's comments, i just want to provide a little more clarity on what existing in the code. in terms of your process. and what this change really means for article 10 and 11. essentially, the code in terms of delegation is silent on whether or not we can disapprove entitlements and administrative entitlement. with this does it just clarifies that. so, in the case of any member of the public were this commission appealing or asking are we filing a request for hearing, all of those mechanisms still stay in place. so, as you recall, i think in the sims 2009, we've had to request for hearings. that would still be the process if the wireless carrier were neighbor felt that we approved or disapproved something in error. they could still

petition this commission, or any of the members of this commission could do the same and we would schedule it at the next hearing. so, really, again, all this is doing is allowing us to disapproved something as long as you've delegated it to staff. because it's related specifically-but changes were brought upon because of this new wireless amendment, we felt though it was more responsible to broaden that still wasn't that we were just disapproving or approving wireless facilities, that we are actually using the same process for all items delegated to us. but again, if you need further clarification on that we can always walk through the code sections as well. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner johnck >> commissioner johnck: did you open public hearing >> president wolfram: we've not done public commented yet. >> commissioner johnck: okay

can i just i'm just curious and maybe can answer more discussion after public comment, but i'm trying to understand the context of this because i've been seeing the mbta's come through in a bit looking at them. say what are the implications for historic preservation because sin there's lots. there's a lot of these. it's a documented many years ago when al gore had wire american we were laying fiber optic cable all over the phrase is using this is phase 2 these kinds of wireless enhancements structures so to speak. i am just like your comments about -i've not seen anything that would be particularly obtrusive, knowing what the purpose of these are. and that kind of thing. although, i be interested to see if you need further scrutiny on these or if there's not too much-not that

many issues with these? do you have enough leeway to approve things as you been doing? or do you need to mark? >> staff: under the current process, yes. i would just add the czar and omar can chime in on this as well. these are very time-consuming applications. there's a lot of back-and-forth that has to occur designwise between the wireless carriers and staff. they are generally open to that conversation, but it takes a number of rounds of revisions to get to a point where we feel that it doesn't sort of overwhelmed the roofline or different since at&t was going to install something, then verizon and t-mobile don't come and try to do the same thing and then we have an antenna farm on the roof. so, because of that-because there is a diminished sort of mechanism to work with because of this new

clock, we felt it was necessary just as a safeguard measure to have this option to deny something. it's purely the carriers in action on responding to us that could require us to approve it. that was when of our main concerns. >> staff: if i may clarify, the federal and state law are required it has to approve facilities necessarily could push us to make a decision faster. the process of the aco will is a definite advantage for the individual specially the sequencer project inevitable for article 10 and 11 entitlement as was the planning commission entitlement to those constrained time frames within 90 days for the location can be a real challenge. with the victory are seeing for the [inaudible] are mostly modifications. they're mostly dismisses where carrier has antennas 10 years further

swapping out and we had varying degrees of success. getting those antennas off the primary side where they should not have been approved using it when we do not knows as much. it's a constant sort of discussion with both the carriers trying to move equipment, mood facilities with the property owners. the sometime questioned why the changes occurring. this often pieces where a staff were talking to the property owner st. rashly asking for this change because it week is beneficial to the neighborhood and building as well as in terms of enhancing its own. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner hasz >> commissioner hasz: to question. when we have the hansen street probably two years ago and we completely asked for redesign our calls. they look great. did that come because of the historic district or why? adjusting market st., van, right because i can to

>> testifier: that was a first for a small. city-owned before that we've only seen wireless facilities on with utility poles the city does not open. those are the most controversial often big and bulky. reddit the bedroom items. we seen a lot more support, if you will, with respect to small styles that can be 40. so verizon came forward the design four 320 small cells initially in soma northeast of the city to attach two small boxes an antenna. we got to design many neighbors about reset it looks pretty darn good it's a fairly unintrusive, and susan were now seen t-mobile, copying our design. seeing att and looking possibly going, that same path and we think it's a good sort of starting point.

>> commissioner hasz: all that stuff comes up under this 98, and? >> testifier: for brand-new site it's 150 days. however, the city owns the assets, likely on the parties actually the sole site is going on, we own the steel plate welcome those do not apply because a property owner we have more discretion we can say that, but start by because we be acting as in her capacity as a property owner of the permitting agency. we face a real challenge to be the new site is on private property. the code location is at 90 days on private property in the antennas attached to the existing wooden poles on by say pacific gas & electric. >> commissioner hasz: think the clarifying. that helps out. by second question would oh my second question my comments and would be ongoing about height limit for screening. i think it's kind of a tricky thing. and to meet you must be-i get worried saying [inaudible] to me that season on a restriction so currently on on-screen antennas is very certain height

allowed to go? is a case-by-case basis? >> testifier: there's no either mr. unscreened antennas and towers. rather approved unscreened 10 is and towers for cell phones first. they generally don't need to be that high. >> commissioner hasz: i would just love to see some kind of limiting language. on height. >> staff: minors in that provision is that was applied to situations where the building is already overnight limit? speeds >> testifier: it be broad-based. imbued reviewed by exceeding a height. for example in the bayview if the carrier came forward and want to put up fake water tower on the site would normally be-if on a rooftop permitted because it's 25 feet above the height limit but the ground for the fake

water tower could automatically require planning commission reviewed and will be subject to any limitations posed by the planning commission specified limit included within the scope of the application. >> commissioner hasz: on top mess of that, under this change would not go to any commission, right? that's what were talking about. doing it so you can take your this in-house. so, to me am happy to give that approval, but i'm really not-i'm leery of giving anything without limiting that height limit. >> testifier: is a qualified. in any zoning district that's not cdm or conduct searches in cedar six, r districts, all they recorded the planning commission and they have. so we check there if you appeared in the downtown, for instance without via any public review normally, if you can exceed more than 25 feet above the roof height you're already can be taken to require planning commission conditional use authorization and so there is sort of >> i've seen a couple of these

installations downtown on rooftops and only 15 feet tall maximum. you adjusting to me that should be a number that should be in the. >> i'm wondering if we could get this works or not you let me know, god limitations on the roof you can do certain things about the height limit and the code right now like elevator penthouses and stare penthouses and there are limitations. on how much of the roof they can cover and how high those can be. it seems like that would be a logical we could use those same limits. i don't know if that works, omar? >> testifier: that's what we are currently good reason since it is a template height exception for pipes we've applied to determination by the zone administrator. for fake elevator and house is only 16 foot height limit if you're in a sony district that's come i'm sorry, a high distance over 65

feet. so that 16 foot exception reply as well for something that makes a fake 0v penthouse. which generally gives the challenge though. it can mimic in elevator penthouses give you near the edge of the roof generally. doesn't look like it belongs there. so you put the elevator penthouses in the middle of the roof and you have 16 foot to work with, it's only 16 feet above the height limit, the building rac site limit you don't have as much to work with. so that site not mean up the bible and we have less ability to encourage the carrier to move further back onto the-further back away from the primary façade. >> commissioner hasz: because i help with these regulations the signal goes out and a certain dive pattern just can't make it over the building down onto the street. >> testifier: to restate the carriers are tied up push to as close as the roof is possible. this of the panel's not for

every type of wireless disorder that odyssey this most challenging ubiquitous facility insulation. so the comp demise has been get a one-to-one setback. for every foot of height above the parapet of the roofline, i move the antenna and screening back 1 foot away from the façade so doesn't appear to impose and dominate the roof line. >> president wolfram: commissioner bauman >> commissioner pearlman: it seems to me the staff in general is fairly conservative about anything that isn't specifically in the code so things like not having a limit. i would trust the staff were specimen comes to historic buildings to be quite certain sect about something being 30 feet up and very visible, and would either deny or would then have a process through as mr.

mastery said the things that would need to go to the planning commission or come here. so, i don't have that particular fear that something is going to sneak through that would be so obtrusive.. it seems that the staff would catch something like that quite quickly. and would work with the carrier to deal with it. speed >> president wolfram: commissioner hasz >> commissioner hasz: in hearing talking about once one that starts making sense that it's a limiting factor. that sounds good. if that's not in their written, maybe it should be. maybe i guide you been using but maybe that should be here starbase standard. 121. >> president wolfram: >> staff: at this time with a public comments. does any member of the public was to make comment on this item we pick if so, these come forward. you will have 3 min. >> testifier: my name is another james. it sounds like

something that i am having a problem with my community. i'm not sure why but anyway, ipg and he has a hole in my backyard in the back of our property, and always telecommunication wires are going to that. but, at the same time, since they put it in they say they have a light easement to the property. but, cars is the easement to my neighbor in that. but now cars are wider and bigger there's only 15 inches so nobody can get through that-descartes or station wagon can't get through that and i asked them, with a move the poll they said they

have a right to be there, but instead of them going back to her property, they stopped in front of my property and blocked my garage. so i'm just saying, this can be a problem and whether, like you limit it to so many years, i think it's a good idea to take a new look at that but, right now, i don't know what this is related to were not but lily is a problem because there's seven houses that are connected to that poll with electricity, as well as the wiring for their telecommunication and what have you. so, anyway, it does have an effect. the other thing i want to say, thank you for voting for rev. gordon because it is my community and we have use that and i thank you very much. thank. >> president wolfram: thank you. any other member of the public was to comment on this item? seeing none, and hearing none, will close public comment and bring it back to the commission did commissioners hamilton asked to adopt a resolution recommending

approval. commissioner hasz >> commissioner hasz: i do want to move to approve that last comment, designer; and, but for the decision coming out currently from our department just looking forward 10 years that we have some standards. the only reason i bring that up and kept bringing it up. but otherwise, yes, i moved to approve >> president wolfram: stirfried >> staff: to appoint accreditation based on commissioner hasz is common. with a desire to include women that resolution because remember, this is review and comment zero comments we forwarded to the planning commission and the board of supervisors. the got something in there at all lines up the hpc desires some language that talks about a limiting factor, whether a not to exceed, or some other existing policy that the department uses just demonstrating that these should not be the carriers should not

have unlimited access to height. >> president wolfram: commissioner johnck >> commissioner johnck: i was also interested in this issue of screening and exceeding height limits the kind of thing. so i would be interested in that to suggest that the code be amended to include a basic standard. such as we talked about. >> president wolfram: commissioner hasz >> commissioner hasz: >> testifier: 121 sounds good to me. she will give a comment on this >> testifier: each of the standards runs of two different technologies. for instance if we make a broad-based exemption to include wireless than total, there's some wireless facilities that are simply antenna the size of the with of

my pinky. he may not have any interest for practical day by day standpoint of limiting the height of that within 10 in the middle-of-the-road in which i do limit based on these different metrics, there's going to be a larger exceptions will be going challenge in order to review. so if i could offer i think the 25 foot height sort of trigger for those providers leverage in terms of same to the carrier, if you go that high, you have to go back for the planning commission and eight limitations imposed by them. >> commissioner hasz: i'm sorry but 25 is so high at the age of any building. right? i mean were talking 16 foot from elevator penthouse. that's never the edge of the building like we were saying. it's just, i just will, were not doing this commonly. i just worry about it being read between the lines in the city getting

sued by some carrier saying i want 25. he did i get that and you know what i mean? be bumped heads with them this commission on the sanford street now and again on the market street now and they were not as bendable is your experiencing. at the commission level. so i can imagine sometimes it's a fight. i just look, we push backs up all the time that this commission but it's only a store building but to me every building should not have stopped jammed up to the front of it. we also don't have a with. find them okay maybe we have 16 foot height but we make the width of the whole building. it just feels a little loose. >> testifier: if i could clarify, the intent is having basic language is also cover things that ought to be on rooftops. for instance, without carrier proposes a tree at a along the freeway on the 280?

get to consider the structure that's a height limitations were part one supported by clocktower that also has cell antennas in there. so we try to create a simple baseline recognizing it preserves our ability to say no. the other item i would point out, there often are instances among site visitors were up there on the rooftops with engineers and rosina try mine were kerry is not going top of the roof try to get ui because what happens they start to interfere with own network chemistry. they want to contain the signal within a lower area. so not seen carrier summary try to get more height because that defeats the purpose of what they're trying to accomplish when it comes to the cell antennas specifically. >> president wolfram: i think what you are saying is that you don't want to codify the one-to-one because there's a lot of extenuating circumstances and unattended consequently the way to incorporate into the guidelines as opposed to the legislation? >> testifier: we can cut a fight into the guidelines. we provided >> president wolfram: if it's

in the code then- >> commissioner hasz: i get you. just something in there. probably the with like no more than 25% of the width of the building or something. you know? >> president wolfram: commissioner johnck >> commissioner johnck: no, i'm done but i agree with putting in the guidelines. i hear what you're saying. >> testifier: i would agree the guidelines would be the appropriate place to put that in. >> president wolfram: okay so i moved to approve the changes. the set was that san francisco san francisco you have a conversation with a woman who spoke earlier? >> clerk: if there's nothing further there's a motion seconded to adopt the recommendation for approval and the motion, so moves

commissioners. the motion passes unanimously 7-0. that concludes our hearing today. >> president wolfram: the hearing is adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> >> the office of controllers whistle blower program is how city employees and recipient sound the alarm an fraud address wait in city government charitable complaints results in investigation that improves the efficiency of city government

that. >> you can below the what if anything, by assess though the club program website arrest call 4147 or 311 and stating you wishing to file and complaint point controller's office the charitable program also accepts complaints by e-mail or 0 folk you can file a complaint or provide contact information seen by whistle blower investigates some examples of issues to be recorded to the whistle blower program face of misuse of city government money equipment supplies or materials exposure activities by city clez deficiencies the quality and delivery of city government services waste and inefficient government practices when you submit a complaint to

the charitable online complaint form you'll receive a unique tracking number that inturgz to detector or determine in investigators need additional information by law the city employee that provide information to the whistle blower program are protected and an employer may not retaliate against an employee that is a whistle blower any employee that retaliates against another that employee is subjected up to including submittal employees that retaliate will personal be liable please visit the sf ethics.org and information on reporting retaliation that when fraud is loudly to continue it jeopardizes the level of service that city government can provide in you hear or see any dishelicopter

behavior boy an employee please report it to say whistle blower program more information and the whistle blower protections please seek www.

>> good afternoon i'd like to call the sfpuc inform order it's monday, may 2, 2016, at 1:307

mr. secretary call the roll. >> >> commissioner vice president moran commissioner courtney are expected horizontal we have quorum thank you next item, please. >> item 3 approval of the minutes of may 10, 2016. >> approval i'll second. in any discussion or public comment from the minutes >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> the minutes carry next item, please. >> item 4 general public comment general public comment at this time please. >> good afternoon. >> afternoon thanks eddy with bright line defense i wanted to thank the commission on a

particular item not on the agenda the calaveres mapping tool you've noted didn't currently include bayview and there's legislative effort that the department well aware have to seeks to include the factors that includes the disadvantaged communities across the state not identified under the mapping tool it is not just important for more than reasons but he itself statewide disadvantaged communities in legislation for reorganization an odd thing to say most were not taken pride in being disadvantaged but for the purposes of this environmental discussion when we are addressing injustices this important to have bayview hunters point included in this conversation that's why in the letter i'll read to the

committee diverse organizations ranging from young developers to iran do have to other groups in commission has worked with in the past and shows how service providers that work on the ground have united in terms of of making sure their community our community can be included so again thapgs to the commission commissioner vietor and general manager kelly that provides the leadership necessary in rallying bayview hunters point together and finally to staff including the general manager julia as well as emily the public affairs person and the leaders without this departments leadership and commissions leadership not enough would have been created

in momentum right now, we're seeing a process and regulatory agency as well thank you. >> thank you for your work on this this is really important work and if you need additional support please let us know. >> to that point love to see it agendized for future commission hearings as well as the process ongoing as well. >> thank you very much thank you. >> any other general public comment at this time? hearing none, item 5 communications >> so you have before you communications any questions or comments commission any public comment on concessions hearing none, next item, please. >> item 6 other commission business. >> commissioners?

hearing none, item 7 report of general manager >> good afternoon, commissioners like to first give an update on the drought. >> good afternoon steve just a minute general manager for water can i have the slides the update on those the drought and the actions for the exclamation for us first, the storage level is looking good the water bank is 4 hundred plus bank a fair amount of water in the system the rest of the slides will retail use this if you look at another reservoirs around the state

they're looking at for drought and cumulative permission is up states gums and the snow make not as average we've done better on precipitation but better in the last few years your forecast water available for the city continues to climb again nine hundred and 22 thousand acres that is available for the city last year, we only have 50 and the year before that one hundred thousand that's the water that allows us to refill the water bank that's critical and on the hetch hetchy again those funds were above average and - same on the local front a lot of precipitation particularly in march well above normal for the local reservoirs

are doing quite well on total deliveries available we're doing a great job of conserving that is based on temperature and i want to talk about the state regulatory action that acted last wednesday and in the regulations through january 2017 directed this executive order that we need to be prepared for next year being a bad year we've not completely out of the woods and the prohibition this is a temporary prohibition and make these permanent use of water 3 is no irrigations run off and no outside hoses and water in restaurant served on request they came up with the unique approach to how to look at

whether or not those had enough water for the agencies we have plenty of water shouldn't have to have the regulation an conservatism for the consuming of precipitation and 2016-2017 in the 2013-2014 basically enough water to get to the next 3 years the state will not need a regulatory act but if you don't have enough whether or not that shortfall how you set our commercialism level of course, this presumes your zero water at the end of the 3 years our official way of looking at if it there's enough water so if we took that action we basically have that analysis not a shortfall for the state board look at but you know our storage is not done totally one bank will for the completely

fill up and don't know about next year to the analysis is not a good thing may not be over like a ohio at that time but - we propose to move before where the state had the regulations in system wide voluntary reductions of temple percent and reduce the retail customer use from thirty to 10 percent, with the excise tax and the interruptables for everyone and reduce the irrigation from mandatory 25 percent to voluntary charge and modify the statewide restrictions we have already in

place that's a prudent case going forward and at the next week meeting we'll formalize those recommendations into our drought program going forward to this year certainly it is off a little bit but we still need to conserve but looking at the next slide that like that cross the middle is 200 and 2 gallons blow the 2013 that is achieving the water use reduction in the 2013 it is below that we're talking about easing off on commercialism but a demand we know that get that right and carry it forward so people don't go froifk and take effect we'll not see a big rebound it is a prudent measure to stay another

that point i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> questions. >> thank you public comment? please good afternoon, commissioners nicole ceo i just wanted to get up and speak on the item in support of recommended staff approach of the continuation for the 10 percent reduction i too agree with mr. richie that that is a prudent approach given where we're at it will not fill maybe we're in a long dry period that's the approach that we talked about i think that is consistent with sending the message to the member agencies thank you >> thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? >> next general manager item

please. >> barbara hale. >> good afternoon, commissioners barbara hale general manager for power i have 3 general deputies and second a little bit of a highlight on a grant we're precipitating in and finally charles will talk about the community plan on general update we're continuing to serve 4 three hundred customers with new locations our opt out ate is one percent now but still very low i mentioned at the last session we're incorporating hetch hetchy into the portfolio with our sf cleanpowersf customers that represents 28 percent of the customers coming if hetch hetchy and we're continuing to sign up

customers for the august deadline in order to receive service from us in november we have three hundred and 70 folks with raised their hands wanting to be part of program and 70 percent are signing up for supergreen with respect to the grant opportunity i mentioned we're praent with the department of the environment and a grant that allows us if we prevail to provide some interesting programming for the cleanpowersf customer base with a u.s. department of transportation smallest city grant application the city named one of 7 finalist for the smart program that makes us eligible up to 70 o $40 million if we're

successful we will be manufactured with department of the environment and the transportation sfmta and as well as ourselves the paul allen bulk piece is a parallel offering where the paul allen foundation is putting up an additional $10 million that portion is intended to focus on zero emission vehicles and vehicle electrification with the goal of decashtion we're well positions to particle in this the 234i679 that will be including that are being included in the grant proposal that involves of puck r puc are the tariff for the cleanpowersf program and something i mentioned in prior reports we're preparing for your

consideration, we're also participating in the evaluation of opposition to help to facility plug in electric vehicles and propose a pilot that includes financial incentives and financial mechanisms for bill financing for example, for electric vehicle infrastructure for the customers we're also collaborating with through this grant with proposing to collaborative with lawrence national lab and pg&e and berkley that will help us with the electrical vehicle infrastructure and the senate it way and opportunities through this grant to work with the private sector and partner an electric vehicles charging for multi unit dwellings and one hundred percent with the bulk as part of housing market to help with the infrastructure and

we're proposing to develop a modesty fleet plug-in vehicles policy that increases the pucs electric sales in san francisco so if we prevail in this grant application we do the proportion of the fund proposed to the puc to fund staff working on those related program areas to try to booster that area with the cleanpowersf offerings so if no questions for me i'll turn to charles. >> yeah. >> on that 28 percent of power from hetch hetchy. >> yes. >> what's the plan moving forward that we get a local build out to replace that power or you know we're able to sell it on the retail market. >> the plan typed it has been that if we have hetch hetchy power available and a need in

the cleanpowersf portfolio we've purchase it a win-win for the hetch hetchy and our cleanpowersf side because of our opt out rate is so much lower than favored we need to have more power than we planned for it is helpful to have hetch hetchy that's why we're relying on it right now the plan going forward will be to replace that power with third party sources either because we're doing local bill or procuring more from the third party private sector bidders that participated in our rfp okay. >> advance calendar update was some comments on the project i've been interested in certainly tying the go solar

into cleanpowersf and kind of laid out what you're doing take a while for all the hoops give me a thumb nail of the process. >> so we're looking for integration is how to modify the incentives that are embedded in the go solar program to extend them to the cleanpowersf customers and to provide more of an incentive to participate in cleanpowersf through the go solar program so what - we have a meeting i'm not or the date but a data soon that will be to discuss the proposal with the broader stakeholder community they've been participating in the go solar completion implementations

and a lot of interest from that community and seeing how we can integrate and hopefully sort of leverage the market opportunity i expect there will be a lot of ideas expressed how we can take the cleanpowersf communications plan and integrate go solar into it to help booster the sales of one time to capture a lot of folks that are interested in clean power and using solar at the overall billing experience with the interslar it is cheaper. >> i'll be looking for i can't really see any reason why there wouldn't be a direct tie if

you're go solar customer that should involved a good part of cca so any deviation i'll be looking for discussion. >> we're definitely excluding that in the dialogue the idea that participation and go solar is depending upon cleanpowersf and we'll see what sort of reactions from the community of interest. >> and there is a situation where some people don't have that available to them yet i think the solution is simple you know they will agree they would be part of cca what and if it is available to them. >> we're using the term enrollment i report to you every week with the folks that signed up to participate they've not our customers yet but the level of requirement we were describing i think that is

consistent with what you've asked us to discuss with them. >> okay. thank you. >> other comments any public comment on this item? >> if i may bring up charles to report on the cleanpowersf communications component. >> absolutely mr. sheen welcome. >> good afternoon, commissioners charles acting decorate for the puc identify got a few new items to update you on and give you a general picture how we're doing with the outreach and approval of the draft minutes towards the august enrollment since the earth day weeks ago we've have successes of signing you up but we found in the earth day weekend working with the 350

volunteers from the earth day fair on that weekend we pulled in 67 sign ups on monday alone and at the other fairs we did about 10 over the earth day week timeframe and averaged 90 sgrr folks so going forward we'll have 350 sf volunteers on june 12th, july 10th august 21st and september we are glad do have the community partners that increase the presence at the fairs and events this summer right now, we're using the mayors arithmetic day with the out takes and video a social media on facebook not paid and

paid and targeting various members on the social community and people that be on sf water power and sewer page asking to sign up for sgrr we talked about the numbers and seeing new sign-ups in the part of this as well as we prepare for august hiring more entry-level assistants and going to the process we'll be staffed appropriately when we enroll the customers 2, 3, 4 august we're talking about thousands and thousands of acted that is different from the last enrollment and much less many more customers merry megawatt as compared to commercial and then the big move identify talked about it we're working with the department of the

environment using they are team to do some door to door neighborhood cabling and campusing and door to door in august targeting residential customers specifically asking him to update or sign up early sgrr for our residential customers for this fall enforcement period. >> those are the major updates so if any questions. >> curious about sierra club because they were telegraph hill involved have you been helping with sign ups. >> they've helped there have staff - we want to do the joint marital to reengage on the dialogue we need to reengage with them.

>> it would be good they were trying to take advantage of that opportunity. >> sure any other questions or comments thank you very much. >> very exciting public comment? hello mr. freed >> hi jason fried, executive officer i hadn't intended to speak but i agree the best approach how to do that is we're not - there are anyone that gets go solar fund should be agreeing to be in the next phase or how far in advance automatically they'll be part of this and not opt out of the program that's the smart approach and good use within the puc money once we get a larger program go solar will be one of the first go solar fund that

will be clearly dedicated towards the customers i want to encourage but want to make sure you're not forgetting about the po u customers to get go solar and should - as long as we're not fothd about the po u customers and i know that speaking away from any day job as the person of the customers i am trying to figure out how to get our building go solar so hopefully keeping that available for everybody within the sfpuc at some level. >> thank you other comments on cleanpowersf; correct? >> yeah. >> hello, my name is silvia johnson. i've been over sacramento and

noticed that they have a sign saying stop the waterfall clean-air act f and i thought that was particular and already took over as that legislation i said to myself what is this really around fclean power in sn francisco i told them that the first i was going to go to school and go to mathematics and interested in the stanford university they've got one start the whole new process to cure cancer and already got it done

and i think we need more of this solar system for clean power for our same in all of your news we have had in the martin course and, of course, this is one of the plans that can stretch in a manners of building and contractors which we've already trying to do with that. >> thank you for your comments. >> any further public comments on cleanpowersf? next general manager item please. my last item is hetch hetchy power and even though quarterly report kathy govern kathy how are you

assistant for infrastructure i wanted to point out this quarter for the quarter ending march 2016 we have four projects that are over budget 20 two i discussed last quarter but two additional ones one is san joaquin with the higher cost of actual construction and also have a small rim fire project that is for eleanor watertank to install a bladder liner inside the tank to extend the future life and projects that are behind schedule 6 in total but the ones not recorded last time are specifically mountain tunnel and inspection and repairs we had originally came up with an aggressive schedule for the

second shut down instead of repairs and had them schedule for january 2018 we have pushed that out to october 2018 but extended the shut down period if 60 to one hundred days and also had the margaret facility for rim fire and done some emergency repairs and so additional inspection was done this project may end upcoming off the list those emergency repairs are sufficient and may not be replacing part of that line we also have oath smaller project related to pursuing a boundary correction this is

delayed awhile staff negotiated with u.s. forest serve and national park service and the last one is back to eleanor watertank this was added to the bladder inc. any questions >> we thought that the our facilities were with the puc right-of-way but it turns out that part of that alignment was within u.s. forest service property other questions or comments. >> public comment on the water and power cpi quarterly report hearing none, next item, please. >> i think that's the ended of general manager report. >> thank you, supervisors.

>> item 8 bosca report. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. >> ceo first, i wanted to express my appreciation for you providing me this opportunity it is a trurnls effort in the communication so i also value my time and your time i want to speak on one par thing the act plan that comes up comes to you in june in 2008, many commission and some of you were on this body at that point adapted it when this environmental document was adopted several water decisions were were deferred those issues are coming back to you we've heard about that a little bit and start discussing them

bosca along with other agencies we've discussed those with the staff and talking about issues and talking about the documents moving forward to being actively involved in the maps and the results in the actions definitely should results in the action but in particular thinking ahead of you receiving this i want to call things turk as first bosca and the member agencies expect 9 puc to go make the goals and your contract all councilmember curls k349s one of the investments to make sure those goals are part of the water map and we believe this is necessary and that's best for our planning we support so and so actions and second as part of your page at the next meeting you'll get 3 letters actually,

one from the palo alto and santa clara and each of them asking for specific things as part of the process east palo alto is requesting water in a unique situation in which their growth is now being essentially halted due to the lack of supply and san jose and others for permits into the future. in each of these cased bosca supports this request and important for you to you understand the staff understand this we're aware of it and looking forward to hearing this commission feedback and your staff begins the discussion and looking forward to be actively involved in the

solution and really just i anticipate this will it takes time but look forward to the process that concludes my comments >> thank you for being here in the meetings and your participation moving forward and a lot of work to get this right so thank you for being here. >> thank you, very much. >> any public comment on the bosca report. >> hearing none, oh, hello, my name is silvia johnson. and as far as traveling around with the investigations you know doing our best written on this this instance i'll be learning

more about this situation and learned the masters and might be a little bit of change in building the construction areas really interested. >> thank you. any other public comments on the bosca report next item, please. >> item 9 a flooding workshop for the resiliency study for the policy options and the second of seizure and discusses regarding the san francisco rules committee a long time plans to reduce flood risk. >> good afternoon and

congratulations. >> thank you good afternoon stephanie project manager i'll talk about the focus on providing different levels of flood protection like the costs concerned with the flood protection and the benefits that we, achieve by studying those dollars i want to say we have to consider this in the critical priorities with the sfpuc faces identify heard general manager kelly is that anyone issue we can agree we deserve more attention and investment but we - so if you think of flood protection as a level not - in doing so the sfpuc faces a switchboard of letters and making other adjustments if we'll notch this up we can't

look anyone isolation but look at the policy options and then put them in the complexities of capital planning and start the discussion on flood policy if i could get the slides up. >> briefly we'll talked about give you a little bit of background on the review i'll go through it quickly and talk about the combined and the resilient study the process and the finding and then we'll talk about next steps so in the background perspective i'm going to briefly touch on terminology i'll be using when we talk about stormwater we're talking about run ogenerated by

rule of law we're talking about residential and mostly industrial watermelon that is carried away from homes and businesses when it is not raining the main 2rib89d when it is not raining other than historic creeks when we talk about combined water that is a combination of instrument and sanitary sewage our pipes with sized much learn in a combined system because of the wet water and rain flow capacity so the flow in san francisco pipes in heavy rainfall is mostly stormwater but in a 5 year storm the made up of our collection system is 99 percent san francisco entertainment commission and about one percent sanitary flow during the peak rule of law during a 5 year storm event

we're talking about flooding in san francisco it is stormwater that can't get into the system and on the surface but low lying areas in the city that combined water can came out and that combined water which as i mentioned earlier the peak of the storm is 99 percent san francisco entertainment commission also mixes with stormwater we talk about flooding i wanted to give you a sense of what the water looks like so how flooding occurs you saw this other than the storm size the in addition, trap graph has an effect on stormwater this is a map prior to develop san francisco is naturally hilly and typography

it is the waterways are concentrated from this map the rights ribbon colors the preliminary colors show flooding that is simulated by the model in the large storm events it exceeds the capacity of the storm system the blue and pastel in the background the historic waterways but the rainbow colors their imposed what you see the green category of flooding 6 inches or less contained we care more about the resolution and oranges and all within the historic waterways so we'll look at this example water shed system

to talk about how to typography creates challenges the bulk of mission creek with a large drainage area in blue goes from the panhandle to cesar chavez and outlined in blue is down stream all the water - the area on the map impacts how the waters moves through 17th street and fulsome when we look at the profile this is the map on the top of this slide shows you the route on a map that a drop of water might take if it fails from a cloud and the profile is the corresponding elevation of the ground shows gray their nylon u underground, as you can see the top grateful is escape to the west and flattens out and that

rapid slow down causes the - in the typography that shows so much water that end up and unfortunately, there recent places in the city that are flooding in the low line give you a little bit of background on the combined system the collection system was built over time in the 1840s that's a really a long time ago to prior to the 1950s they went to the bay since the 1950s we have treatment and major infrastructure we have a regulatory pharynx that guess how we regulate our system at one point upstream and the water shed was individual water sheds were evaluated at the end of the day on the shoreline were built because of the construction impacts were unacceptable for

the neighbors in the water sheds where people lived so we ended up with a shoreline transport box system in process today this is the treatment plant in red and then today, we have one hundred and 80 thousand individual accounts and a very complex network of pipes as you can see the green shows the ever pipe in the city and a lot of them so how are the pipes built over time the first century in the 1840s to 1941 pipe sizings guidelines were evolving and increased over time so there was always an attempt to go to the 5 year storm that looked different over time and in 1941 the city engineers were fined to the 5

storm curb part of the system and separation for the bitten investments with the treatment plant construction and the transport storage box that happened in the 1950s but the resulting curve which is shown by the gold line on the graph the curve that the city relevant today by 1952 and the subsection regulations required that pipes be sized to handle a 5 year storm for new developments and that's remained in the updates the regulation and then as power planning for ssip in 2010 the commission looked at a comparison of capital costs and endorsed the 4 year 3 hour zone it is for the duration of the stormwaters and in 2016 recently in march when the baseline was

presented in the level of services was confirmed so specifically a level of goals the commission for the ssip endorsed and the flooding this is the goal in green and gray for the infrastructure and the level of service we're striving for the construction for a 5 year storm duration with 6 inches of rain with a correspondence of 5 years how does this relate to other cities nationally on this slide new york city and chicago and philadelphia and seattle and kansas city missouri they use the 5 year storm criteria for a combined system in sacramento there is a small portion of the city had has a

combined system right now they're working torts the intern of minute missing flooding in the 5 year storm of a major capital project a final goal and a 10 year storm where typography is different from san francisco ball shaped with a flat bottom that has a greater risk of flooding with 24 shape but san francisco is hike a mountain and flooding is in the historic waterways. >> whether or not new developments can impact i have two slides you'll talk about the commissioned or contributions so storming run off from large areas is the culprit when it comes down to flooding we have the management ordinance in place for this requires the

onsite management that resulted in 200 plus project so we're making process in the half decade the city is looking at incentivizing management when it comes to sanitary flows small contribute to the collection system especially during the large storms that causes flooding so the graph unfortunately is not showing up on the handouts you'll see there is a shaded below background that shows the population over the last thirty years on the rise continuing for thirty years what you also see in blue a water consumption and the dry water sewage flows and that is the wastewater in the system on non-rainy days we find that the

city's growing population water and the flows have decreased instead of 7 to 8 percent in decades this is due to drought cutbacks resulting habitant formed and longtime conservation measures into the building fixtures and things like that so what is san francisco plan for flood miniaturization promotions first, we have beamed that san francisco entertainment commission management and flooding is one of many critical priorities sfaid the ssip is includes projects capital projects for flooding and r&r is presenting opportunity to sort of in an incremental way to

replace the angling pipes in the city at resilience study to to the policy conversation we are starting today that will in the future drive our capital projects so, now i'll spend a lot of time talking about the flood resilience study so first talk about the finding flood resilient is a capacity and limit the impacts and recover quickly from flooding we have a two prong approach today, we'll focus on infrastructure and the risk based framework to assess and identify the capitalized investments in order to review the current level of service important to remind the problematic side we're looking at problematic measures to build did citywide resilience to

provide safety net for the vulnerable areas and getting flood insurance people can have on their property for larger storm events the partnership between public speaker and residents and other city departments is for safety net we'll talk about infrastructure and infrastructure policy so the residents approach in short the first two steps to conduct the analysis and fwraf our cost benefit curves that was the scope of study the next step we're kicking off today to consider the policy changes to confirm our current level of service or make a deliberate decision to have a level of flood instruction with the costs and benefits associated with that decision and once the

decision is made then we need to implement specific projects as part of capital work so the first step was to define what policy options will be evaluated should this shows the top set of number is the numbers as part of study from the 5 year storm to the one hundred storm and people talk about how much rainfall has preceded with the annual probabilities from each the storms and performed a sensitive analysis but a report on line and provide that. >> so the basic process consisted of a series of model in 2, 3, 4 diagram the gray silo shapes with the modeling platforms platforms we us the h

and h hydraulic model for a particular storm in a particular collection infrastructure in place what is the flooding that results on the surface we will run any storm and take today is infrastructure in place or one of our projects in place and see what the flooding is on the surface that goes to the gi s is the virginia lit an example a set of muni tracks with 3 inches inches of standing water an example of a acid impacted by flooding and properties goes into the economic model that tells you the socialal impacts using san francisco specific thresholds and assumption this

example of the mta track we met with mta to determine from their proclamation staff to constituted u shut down a line if there is 2 inches of water from the track has 3 inches of water the track will be shut down and look at the sovereignty or society impact whether the value of sometimes time sitting on the track or can't get to work for productivity, etc. >> so in the in the interest of time skill the more detailed slide and jump to the economic impact it is comprised of 13 issue areas when i mentioned the muni tracks i got to transportation in traffic and got to potential business effects but a whole host of other economic impacts

the four that the right hand column shows you the economic impact shows the significance from high to low and the four that are marked as high account for 90 percent of the total monetary dollars noticing percent of dollars are for the city's high impact categories the relative impacts here is not an dictation of the importance for example, public health department shows the low impact that means that we talked and met with public health department to identify the process to determine what the economic impacts results from flooding and one is dampness and mold and we talked about who is imposed and the rate of

contribution and the economic impacts from the resulting hospitalized and the reason it is marked as although the total cost impact relative to the others categories the low directing amount when you add in looking at total overall impacts not matt haney that public is not impacted issue areas. >> that's from an economic perspective not whether people can indeed. >> sorry. >> it is only from an economic from a hospitalized not the people that get sick. >> it take into account all those the people that are impacted by the floodwater with the asthma and others rate of

getting a waterborne disease. >> x extrapolating all the factors. >> can we go back. >> they're based on the fema and other federal agencies we again make anything up there is precedent for everything that was done in the study and where possible we customized the economic 3408dz with local data like the example of the mta tracks i gave you that 2 inches of water on the tracks is a threshold we use that threshold so we use 11 city agencies and conducted a field survey we didn't have certain gi s from

the databases they don't track driveway down slope or is the front door higher-up than the sidewalk we did a survey of 5 hundred parcels within the one hundred year flood area to find a probability that the buildings will have a barrier to flooding or entry to 2010 and find those in the economic models so let's go look at the flood location policy options they're what it takes to address flooding if a particular design storm from the 5 year storm to the one hundred storm and it eliminates any flood risk and each option as we go through this part of presentation you'll see a recommendation of what projects infrastructure we need to get to the level of protection as well

as the cost benefit and the benefit ratio for different levels of protection as well as the ratepayer impacts so you'll hear the term project assess we talk about representatives infrastructure projects that in order to evaluate a policy option we need to understand the level of investment what to build we're calling project assess their representative and just one way to do it not optimize all the variables for all the storms that will be done with the policy is made and a group that we're moving into high-risk but may not only spend a lot of money in areas that are identifying with low risk in that particular design storm their high levels of the purpose of comparing options and have a

seat and informing policy discussions so what does it mean to minimize flooding we have a high-risk this graph shows you across the bottom each of the policy from the 5 year to the one hundred storm the blue line the volume of floodwater a small percentage the rain that has fallen for example, in the 5 year storm that 25 million gallons of flowed water on the blue line this is 4 percent of volume generated by the storm we have a 96 percent of rain from that storm and 4 percent is flooding given the current infrastructure what the red shows underneath is if we were to implement projects that can manage the