seeing none, next item. >> next item is 11 new business future agenda items. this is charles sheehan. >> good evening. a couple of upcoming item. next commission meeting tuesday, may 22, 5:00 p.m., room 416. for that meeting we are confirmed to have a discussion about the department's retention policy for documents. we are also discussing internally how we can bring more zero 50 meetings and content for your meetings. next policy meeting april 9th at 5:00 p.m. in room 421. next operation committee meeting april 18th at 5:00 p.m. in room 421, also. >> thank you. any comments?

any discussion? public comment? seeing none. next item, please. >> item 12 adjournment. the time is 7:04 p.m. >> thank you all. ♪ ♪

] pledge of allegiance ] >> this is a reminder to silence all electronic devices. fire commission regular meeting, wednesday, march 14th, 2018, and the time is 9:01. roll call. [ roll call ] >> item two, general public comment. members of the public may address the commission up to 3 minutes on my matter within the commission's jurisdiction and does not appear on the agenda. speakers should address their

remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or department personnel. commissioners are not to enter into debate or discussion with a speaker. the lack of a response by the commissioners or department personnel does not necessarily constitute agreement with or support of statements made during public comment. >> there any public comment? please come forward. >> good morning, commissioners. >> i don't believe the microphone is on. >> it's on now. >> is it on? okay. >> it's been a while since i've had the opportunity and pleasure to speak before you. i arise today to speak in public comment with regard to the condition and location of the collection that is owned by the city of san francisco with regard to historical preservation. a little brief background.

they negotiated with the academy of arts to storage antique fire collection when hunters point treasure island was closing. they've asked us to vacate and move it again. and for the past 18 months or more, we've been working with the chief's office, fire department staff, members of the board of supervisors and when w. this commission to -- with this commission to locate a space for this but to no avail. on february 13th, i scheduled a meeting with the chief to review the 2018 agenda. at that meeting, the chief mentioned she was working on a plan to move the collection from the academy of arts to treasure island. to cover them in plastic and wrap them. they indicated there would be a cost associated with the plan. the city was make to make the payment as the fire department does not have a budget

allocation for this item. she indicated the estimated cost was $20,000 to $25,000. i responded i didn't have the authority to recognize -- to authorize this payment but would bring her request to the trustees at our regular march 10th meeting. on or about march 6th, i received a call telling me the collection was in the process of being moved to treasure island. it came as a surprise because i wasn't aware a move had been scheduled. on march -- then as march 10th approached, the trustees had a meeting. the funding discussion centered on the fact the collection is owned by the city and county of san francisco under the care of the fire department. other items discussed were the effectiveness of shrink wrapping and would long-term storage in

an unsecured open field would have on this collection. the motion was made to make the payment, but that motion was voted on and it was not passed. it is becoming quite clear to me after many hours of trying to find solutions, working with the chief, her staff, and this commission that an administrative solution is unattainable. rather, any solution that can be found and achieved has to be done in the political arena. and with positive action taken by the board of supervisors and the maror. thank you. >> thank you very much. is there any other public comment? please come forward. >> good morning. i'm jackie martin and serve as trustees as the guardians of the city and director of the fire

museum. i appear before you today to correct a point from the last meeting. when asked about the antique fire apparatus, deputy chief nicholson said we've been working with the guardians of the city. respectfully, this is not entirely the case. in fact, the first we had heard about the actual movement of the apparatus was through retired deputy chief rich cochovar from atlas towing who wanted help starting the rigs. there's been little collaboration other than a request to pay for the shrink wrapping idea which guardians of the city is opposed. there are others here to speak to that. i would hope there's closer collaboration in the future with the ssfp and the guardians of the city so we can come to an agreeable solution for this dire issue of our antique fire apparatus that is rusting away

at this moment. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? good morning. >> good morning. low ldpe has been and for decades, called shrink wrap. it was used by the military to seal units of foods and products overseas. at that time, there was considerable waste due to spoil age caused by changes in temperature resulting in condensation and mold. the marine pleasure craft industry also uses shrink wrap for seasonal storage of boats, both in the marina or on dry land. in this case, the interiors of the vessel must be completely dry and the base of the wrap is sealed to the hull preventing moisture intrusion. the auto body collision industry uses it for short-term storage

for damaged automobiles and motorcycles. however, many of them remain with interior storage protected from dust and vandalism while awaiting insurance claim adjusting. the benefit of shrink wrapping an object or construction scaffolding is a direct impact from dust and dirt, wind and rain. the disadvantage is with continual temperature swings inside the covered apparatus, relative to the outside temperature, that greenhouse effect can form beads of moisture on the inside of the plastic and the apparatus begins to sweat. shrink wrap systems maintain a higher constant humidity level for the entire outside storage period. the use of heaters, dehumidifiers and reduce these problems. plastic wrap also has a very large carbon footprint and high

level of trash content. each vehicle will require a minimum of 15 to 25 pounds of material that when disposed must be recycled at significant expense at a an approved landfil site. i'm paul berry. i have 40 years in the automotive and collector car trade and i've been licensed by the california state bureau of automotive repair since 1975. i do not recommend the use of shrink wrap as a substitute for inside storage of vintage and one of a kind fire apparatus. thank you. >> thank you. is there any further public comment? are you coming forward for public comment? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. madam secretary, would you call the next item, please. >> item three, approval of the minutes, discussion and possible

action to approve meeting minutes from the february 28th, 2018 meeting. >> is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, what is your pleasure? >> moved. >> do i have a second. >> second from vice president. all in favor say aye. it's unanimous. >> item four. presentation from the san francisco public utilities committee from the oak oilery water supply system. john scarpulla and katie miller sfpuc water to present overview of the awss.

>> good morning. >> good morning, president cleaveland. i want to thank john and katie miller who are here to talk about the partnership that we have formed with uc as it relates to this issue of having additional water resources in the sunset and ridge pond district. he's going to give you an overview for the option for the west side, the history of where we were and where we're at now and really appreciate the hard work of the puc on this. >> we appreciate you being here. there's been some concern voiced out there about the parts of the city not being adequately protected through the awss. i look forward to your presentation. welcome. >> thank you. thank you, commissioners and chief for having us here. i'm john scarpulla, manager of

government affairs. i'm here with katie miller who is the director. she's in charge of the engineering work and plumbing work and i'm joined by tom birmingham who is our manager of development here for the sfpuc. so i will jump right in. so 2010 was a big year in that two major events occurred. first was the passage of the first emergency safety and emergency response bond, and also the transfer of ownership of the auxiliary water supply. i'm going to use awss. the transfer of that from the san francisco fire department to the sfpuc. that kicked off a partnership, and i think a lot of folks thought that when the system was transferred to the puc, all of a sudden the fire department was out, and that is 100% not true. actually, it was the beginning

of a fantastic partnership that's been getting stronger and stronger since 2010. and it's actually -- it's a partnership between 3 city agencies. the first is the san francisco fire department, the puc and public works. those are the three entities involved. and the first piece i'll focus on is the fire department. the women and men of the san francisco fire department are inlay recognized for their expertise, experience, and bravery in fighting fires. the fire department is the end user of the awss system and therefore, any improvements or expansions to the system must meet the fire department's robust and high quality performance standards. their experience for utilizing it over the past 100 years is evidence in the expertise and guidance they provide to our agency. similarly, the sfpuc has a large

team of engineers that are experts in designing, expanding, and improving water systems. it's what we do every day. additionally, they have over 80 plumbers in house that are dedicated to providing high quality maintenance and oversight of the construction projects needed to keep them functioning for fire department's use. i want to point out that it is 95 complete with our water system improvement program. this program strengthened all of our reservoirs and pipelines from where our system begins all the way through the city to in-city reservoirs and pipes. that's very important because the 115 billion gallon water system is what feeds the awss system. so we're more confident in the ability to fight fires after large earthquakes. the standard we used was a -- i

also want to talk about public works. they bring project management expertise to the table and the staff brings awss engineering and project management experience as they've been a partner with the san francisco fire department from day one on the awss. finally, we utilize robust hydraulic modeling to guide the decision making of the three agencies. this level of modeling was really never seen before until the last decade or so, so having this ability to use this high quality modeling to inform our decision making is really critical. so as engineers, the first thing we did with the fire department in 2010 was we took a look at this system and wanted to see, how strong is the system we're working with. in 2010, using a robust model, we modeled a 7.8 earthquake and all of the various fires that would break out after the earthquake throughout the city. then we figured out the water

demands in each of these various sectors of the city. what we found out was that the awss system was 47% reliable in 2010. that means that it was able to provide about 47% of the water that the fire department and firefighters would need to fight fires after this earthquake. on this map, you can see the areas that are darker blue have higher reliability scores. we want all of the city to be darker blue. those in the lighter blue, it's almost white, on the map there have lower reliability scores. where the lower scores are are in the southeast, the west, and the southwest of the city, but even in the core of the city, you can see there's some areas that have low reliability scores. one of the main reasons for that was the water supply feeding into it. the water supply for the awss, there's three tanks that feed into it in 2010 and there's two

ocean pump station that's feed into it, one and two. even those water supplies had issues, reliability issues. so you don't want to expand the plumbing of a system until you shore up the water supply that feeds into it. we wouldn't want to one pipes to these neighbors if we don't have enough water to feed the neighborhoods with the pipes. that's where we started. so since 2010, our three agencies have worked together to significantly improve the awss. one of the first things we saw, again, was that we needed to update our water supply system. so to date, we've completed critical water supply reliability upgrades at the three primary tanks, again, that's the twin peaks reservoir, the ash bury heights tank and the jones street. we added a pipe, doubling the capacity of the water feeding into the awss and increasing the speed of refill during fire

events. we also replaced the engines for seawater pump station number one and installed we moat control capabilities to the pump station. we had our big test last night. we fired that thing up and pushed seawater out into the sea for the first time in a long time. it's probably the most robust that system has worked since 1914. it's a big, big achievement that the fire department and the puc have gotten to. we've installed 30 new cisterns, 15 of which are in the richmond districts and 6 pipeline and tunnel projects. in addition to our capital projects, we've completed hundreds of maintenance tasks. with over 80sfpuc plumbers on calling knowing where the vulnerabilities are and the

engineers at public works, we have the resources we need to complete vital maintenance tasks. so one of the -- i think a great talking point to illustrate the maintenance we've done is in 2010, there was significant leakage. it reduces the pressure that the fire department has during a firfirefighting event. number two is it wastes valuable drinking water. so we immediately got to work with the fire department and since 2010, we've reduced the leakage by 400,000 gallons per day. that's about 150 million gallons of water per year that was leaking out of that system that is no longer leaking. so, again, we helped the performance of the system and is saves water. so what other work is in progress? well, we're connecting the 70 million gallon south basin to the awss, university reservoir is located in the southeast of

the city. the three thanks that we originally started with had a capacity of 11 million gallons. we're connecting a 70 million gallon tank to that. so it's a huge, huge increase. we're in the midst of completing 16 pipeline and tunnel projects including pipelines and tunnels on ocean avenue, connecting off lake merced and in the side. we're installing remote controls and improving the electronic control system. we finished upgrading sea pump station number one and working on number two and beginning design of a pump station from lake merced that can feed in the system. i'm a san francisco native. i didn't realize how big lake merced was in terms of capacity. it holds a billion gallons of water. it's a large source of water that can feed into fighting fires in the city.

now, we're also working on large development projects. so i know a lot of folks -- there's a lot of redevelopment going on in the city. i've listed ten up there. those aren't all of the projects. there are 12. all of these redevelopment projects are required to install awss systems within the boundaries. what they are also working on as we're negotiating with the developers to include awss improvements outside of the boundaries of the development projects. we can put pipes within the projects, but we don't have the pipes feeding to those projects. it won't perform as we need them to perform. chief and tom and katy are doing a fantastic job. one i listed on the previous slides and these projects are implemented our reliability score jumps to 87%. we started at 47, by 2020, we're

going to be at 87%. that's almost doubled the performance of the system. this is because of the hard work of the fire department, the puc and public works working together. so now let's focus to the west side of the city. so in march of 2017, our three agencies presented at the government audit and oversight committee and the supervisors at the time really wanted to have a robust report for fire suppression options for the west side. so working together, we contracted to analyze 12 options. 7 of these options are an expansion of the existing awss system. five of these options are an installation of a potable system. the report of a collaborative review of the fire department and the final recommendations came from chief hayes-white.

the supervisor asked an independent review of the report by a third party expert. in this case, we enrolled professor charles who is internationally recognized for his work in this field. so, again, before jumping into review of the 12 options, i wanted to define what a potable awss is. first thing, is it's designed to meet the robust performance standards required by the san francisco fire department to fight fires. it utilizes the same or better earthquake resistant pipes, hydrants and components utilized. it's rated to meet drinking water standards. during non fire events, there will be minut minimal connectios using the same reliable valves that are used on the east side

of the city. in the east side, we have 30 valves that have to open and close to keep the system at the pressure levels needed by the fire department. we have five of these in the west side. so significantly lower amount. if a fire was to occur, these involves would close and the pressure of the system would be increased via redundant pumps. so what the main benefit of using a potable system is after firefighting following an earthquake, they are able provide drinking water to the districts even if our city's low pressure water system has numerous breaks and leaks. you know the old saying you never 72 hours worth of water after an earthquake in case of water system needs to come back online. this strengthened pipe would be able to bring water to the district even after an earthquake once the firefighting is done. they would be the only two neighbors in the city that have this additional benefit.

so how did we analyze the 12 options? we modeled the performance after the 7.8 earthquake with the break out of multiple fires. we took a look at the reliability of the water supplies, the design of their piping network, the impact to other existing areas served by the awss. for example, in that case, if we're able to increase the firefighting protection of the inner sunset but it impacts the fillmore and western addition, we wouldn't want to go forward with that option, you know. the detriment of one neighborhood to serve another neighborhood is not an ideal option. we also look at the ancillary benefits. final, the supervisors were clear. don't worry about cost. we want the best option for the west side. that's what we looked at. so when we looked at the 7 options of expanding the

existing awss, we found there's not enough supply and pressure in the current awss to expand it. we can get trickey with the piping network and reconfigure a way to increase pressure, but it reduces pressure to the low performance levels in the center of the city. there was not enough pressure at all to even reach the sunset district. we could get it to richmond, but it wouldn't perform well. we couldn't get it over to the subset district. so to adequately supply the west side, we would have to add supplies from sunset or lake merced. and what we found out was that for about the same cost of an awss for the richmond district alone, we can meet the standards of the fire department needed during large fires. what would be the source of

supply for the awss? we're looking at the sunset reservoir located in the sunset district. during the 4.8 billion dollar improvement program was completely retrofitted. there's about a $45 million project. the north basin, which is the basin we would pull from contains 90 million gallons of water. that would equal or exceed the existing water supplies that feed the rest of the city. the reservoir is constantly being replenished by the water system, and will receive water within 24 hours of a big earthquake. that's what we spend the money on to make sure we will get water into sunset reservoir and out to the city within 24 hour. the first thing we need to look out is how long would it take to empty this reservoir in a firefighting situation? the calculation we used was what if every single fire department engine in the entire city was pulling out of sunset reservoir? now, the fire department confirmed that this would likely

never happen because you would never pull every single one to the west side, but that's the scenario we wanted to use. what we found out was that if every single engine was pulling from the reservoir, it would take 24 hours to drain that reservoir. again, we don't think that will happen and also, again, within 24 hours, we would have refilled the reservoir. then we looked at the piping options. so three of the piping options lack redundancy. we had to pull those off. they weren't luke systems. so if there was a pipe break on 20th avenue, which is up stream and there was a fire on 47th avenue, all of a sudden you don't have water downstream that you need whereas in a loop network, even if there was a pipe break, you would have it being fed from multiple directions.

many you wouldn't lose pressure. that was critical. when looking at the options, the fire chief and director kelly from the puc, they wanted to have larger loops and so they directed us to go back to the drawing board. that was a really helpful direction that they gave. so we came up with two more options, options 11 and 12. what we found was greater reliability. they met the performance standards of the fire department and puc. they didn't negatively impact the performance of the existing awss and they can be designed to assure most earthquake reliability that's comparable or better to the existing awss reliability. so let's look at these two options. option 11 is the first option that we have and you can see it comes out from sunset reservoir. that's blocked by the text. it runs to the west and then north. i want to point out that on the far left corner, that little pipeline that goes up, the fire

department is really instrumental in this in that they wanted to have high pressure water supply up to veterans hospital. that's veterans hospital. that's what that tail is up there to feed up to that. we thank chief rivera for coming up with that idea and pointing that out to us. the problem with this is that the central and southern sunset districts are left vulnerable. so then we looked at option 12, which extends the pipeline down into the central and southern sunset district and this really is the option that we're recommending. when we presented to the chief and director kelly, they recommended option 12. they also informed us that we needed to perform rigorous liability analysis and design to ensure the performance requirements of the fire department with met. so we can, you know, put up a concept but until we dive into

the details of which block is it exactly going down, how many different angles are we going to have on that block, do we need to split and do two pipelines instead of one? that's what we're diving into with the fire department right now. we need to design it with agility to add to it in the future. if we want to bring online other pump stations, i talked about lake merced having a water is supply, we need to be able to tie that in. that's really important. also, the technology is getting better and better. we want to be able to add to the system to increase performance. finally, she connected us to allow the piping melt works to be extended in the future to serve additional areas. if we want to be able to add new pipelines off that loop but maintain the performance of the existing system, we designed it that way. i pointed out we can't just run new pipes off the existing

because it will reduce performance. the chief and director kelly said let's design it so we can run pipelines in the future and maintain performance. so after we implement all of the projects that i've listed earlier, the capital projects throughout the city, the west side projects, the redevelopment projects, this is what the new map looks like. it looks much better, but clearly we're not done. clearly there are areas of the city that still need work. glen park area, because of its elevation is a tough one to get to. that's one that's on our radar. but i think it's a big improvement in a decade's time. so really proud of the work there. we're not done. we'll continue to work together on this. what's the cost? the estimated cost is around $109 million. again, that could grow as we go further into the robust analysis

with the fire department. general manager kelly, director kelly, has already dedicated $40 million of funds from the sfpuc. it's on the books and we're starting work with the fire department. that does leave a shortfall of $70 million we need to make up. there's a 2020 bond and other bond opportunities we're looking into and will continue to work with the capital committee to identify the funds for this option. finally, because the board of supervisors said we had to have this third party expert look at it, what did he say? the system needs to maintain high reliability. we clearly agree. he said the analysis is a valuable source of information for choosing an option but that we need to continue with our analysis that director kelly and the chief asked us to perform. he saw there's not enough awss

capacity to serve the sunset and richmond district and that sunset reservoir is a reasonable source due to the location, size, and seismic reinforcement. we need to design this system so that it can be integrated with other water sources to create a reliable fire suppression system for the districts. so what exactly does that look like? this is conceptual. this is what we think it could look like. tying in the 1 billion gallons from lake merced pump station in the dotted lines up to the original loop, tying in the pickup lines from the other side the text is covering, tying in the richmond district up there, and another thing we're looking at is a seawater pump station. we'll continue to complete reliability analysis. we will do the review. we're beginning the design work. continue to work with the board.

then that last point is, we are looking at an ocean water seawater pump station. we have two already. those are serve as secondary supplies in the system. so we start with the water system and if it's a really big fire, then we kick on the seawater pump stations many we're looking at a similar potential from the west side. we start with our drinking water. we would tie in lake merced. we definitely want to look at the seawater as a secondary supply. so we're going to do so. the difference is times have changed. it's very difficult to permit anything out of ocean beach right now or anywhere on the coast of california. in fact, they're asking us to move our infrastructure off the beach. so it will be a heavy lift, but we are certainly going to look at it and examine the potential of doing so. with that, i'm happy to answer any questions the commissioners have. >> thank you very much. is there any public comment on

that presentation? seeing none, commissioner covington. >> thank you, mr. president. thank you, mr. scarpulla for your presentation. that seems to be quite comprehensive. it would have been helpful to have this information in hand before this meeting. it's a lot to digest looking at it the first time. i will be brief in my questions and my comments. it sounds as if we're on the right track. the bonds for 2020 is going to play a major role in getting where we need to be. is that correct? >> potentially untiles we're able to identify funding sources prior to that, but yes. >> what would the other funding

sources be. >> we would have to work with the capital planning committee to determine that. >> i see. they would be in-city resources as opposed to, perhaps, national resources. >> the puc, we actually have a robust team that does look for both state and federal resources: we just got about $600 million in federal resources for water supply improvements and so we are always keeping those options open and we have a team that looks for those. i don't know right now potentially if there is one, but we have a team that does just that. >> okay. so the 2020 bond, how much would you be requesting from that bond measure? >> so we always coordinate with the fire department and so it's hard to give a hard number right now, but clearly, this is i very important project to us. there are other important projects to improve the awss as well. director kelly would work with

chief hayes-white to figure out what the right number is for that particular bond because i know we have priorities. so we always work together to figure out what it is. >> that's currently part of the discussion at this time, commissioner? >> okay. because 2020 is almost upon us in terms of putting together a bond measure. so you must have a floor, if not a ceiling number. no? or you just tell me you have a number but you're just not willing to share it at this time? >> i think that's right on point. >> okay. because i know you must have a number. all right. i wanted to -- you have very good graphics here. i wanted to refer to page 17 of your presentation, reliability scores. >> uh-huh. >> and you were pointing out

this particular area. is that the glen park area, or is it -- >> yeah, i believe it's the glen park and twin peaks area. again, it's the elevation that's the most difficult part there. so we have to work on how we're going to increase the pressure of the water to get it up there with new pipelines. so we're working at that. >> okay. is there a way to have something so that the water is traveling downhill. >> yep. we are clearly looking into those issues. again, maybe i'll acre to katie who is the head of the -- >> i think gravity is often surprising undertaking. >> thank you so much for your interest, commissioners. yes, we see that this is now -- >> i'm sorry. >> my name is katie miller. i'm the manager of the city distribution division which is the retail arm of the water system. so we manage all the pipes,

reservoirs, pump stations, meters for all the customers in san francisco. so we do realize in the planning study that now glen park is one of the underserved areas that stands out on that graphic. there are several options for how to get water up to there. some of pumping awss water up. another option we're looking at is another where we're using the reservoir, stanford heights reservoir serves them with drinking water and we're looking at having an awss correction similar to what we're doing at university mound reservoir as well as summit reservoir. summit reservoir currently fills between peaks reservoir and we've upped the size of the fill line so we can refill it very fast and we also are building a new connection from summit reservoir that will bring pipe out to the western side of the city. we are considering a similar

solution for glen park where we would tie into the reservoir and have that flow by gravity rather than relying on pumps. we really like gravity. >> i love gravity. it keeps me grounded. i think that i'm glad i asked you that question because it's going to be cost effective to let it roll downhill rather than try to get it uphill. so you said the stanford reservoir, the summit, and the twin peaks? >> so stanford heights -- >> that's part of that system. >> that's true. yes. >> okay. thank you. >> for the short-term, we installed two cisterns up in that area so that there will be more emergency firefighting water available to the area. we also have some pipeline projects for the potabrle water system.

we're strengthening the drinking water pipes in the diamond heights area. we're very concerned and aware of the situation in diamond heights and we have a lot of money invested in the future to get that done. >> well, the potable water challenge is still very important. i mean, people do have to have drinking water as, you know -- as soon as possible, and it really does point to the fact that we need to constantly remind people they might be on their own for 72 hours, not to take it for granted that you turn on the tap and something drinkable will come out. so this is something for us to, in our messaging with our fellow citizens, you know, coming out of the fire department, is

something we can continue to emphasize. i'm very happy to see that the veterans all the way out -- the veterans hospital has been considered and given their due in terms of the planning. i also had a couple of questions regarding getting to the redundancy that's needed. in this is 2018 and the bond isn't until 2020 and the money doesn't roll out until 2021, how are we getting some redundancy in place even as we speak? >> john scapula, puc, because

we've put $40 million in the budget, we can started right now. we expect to begin putting pipe in the ground 2019, maybe early january 2020. so we're moving. we're going through here. so that's really helpful. what we're doing is estimating the schedule and determining, do we have a shortfall in money before that 2021 money comes and what is that shortfall. maybe we don't need the full $70 million by 2021 is but maybe we need 10 or 20 to keep the progress going so we -- we know that this need in the west side is -- we need to now. so that's why, again, director kelly immediately put the $40 million towards it. >> very good. we have had, i'm sure the chief has probably shared with you, from time to time people from the west side come to the meetings and give comment during public comment, and they are

very, very concerned. after your presentation, i can see why, because they have been able to get, you know, much more information about it since that is where they're domiciled, but i didn't realize that it had taken us so long to get from the 40% reliability in 2010 to where we are today. so kudos to everyone involved getting us to the 87% of reliability. i think those numbers are fantastic given it's been an 8-year period. so my last question for now, i want to give my fellow commissioners the chance to pum- jump in and i know they will. on page 7, these development projects that you have outlined here. >> uh-huh. >> so i'm a former redevelopment

commissioner, so i'm familiar with a lot of these areas. i just wanted to know, you have here that you're negotiating with developers for projects outside of the development boundaries. could you tell us a little more about that, please? >> yeah. i don't know if katy or tom want to jump in. there will be infrastructure improvements required, not only awss, but water pipes, sewer pipes. with water systems, you can improve within the boundaries, but if you don't improve the pipes, up size the pipes and sewers, bring the fire lines to the boundaries, they're not going to perform as would be expected within the boundaries. so what we negotiate with the very mucher --developers is maye certainly improvements you need to make outside of your boundaries so it performs like it needs to perform.

so that's what we're negotiating. sometimes it's larger pipelines. other times it's additional fire infrastructure that the fire department can use to deploy. that's where the negotiates come in. do we want a larger pipeline or do we want making something up two new fireengines. that's where those come in to play. that's where we're at with a lot of these development projects. >> how far outside the boundaries are you requesting the developers be involved in? ms. miller, you had a comment? >> katie miller, stpu -- sfpuc. because we have this robust modeling capability where we're able to look at fire demands and the ability to get water to those demands, now with the developments coming in, we're able to re-evaluate. does that shift the way that water is distributed to fires? what we found is there's so much development in the southeast part of san francisco, it's

actually pulling the water available away from the existing city. so we feel that the developers should help pay for the -- help compensate for the water they're pulling away and make the city whole again. so that comes in terms of water supply, which means, for example, the project that we're building at university mound reservoir, originally was just to supply the areas in the southeast part of the san francisco. but now when you add the developments on with the additional population that's going to be there, that project gets bigger. so we're asking some of the developers to contribute to the enlarge the pump station at university mound and pay for some of the piping that brings it from university mound down to the developments. >> okay. does the successor agency to the redevelopment agency get involved in this at all? because i'm just wondering how

these monies are going to be -- >> i'm going to ask tom, our manager of redevelopment, to step up to the microphone, please. >> good morning, commissioners and chief. >> good morning. >> so tom birmingham sfpuc development manager. we are going through on going negotiations with all of our development partners. what we usually do is start the negotiations during the development agreement, and we look and see how their development is going to impact the rest of the city, distribution of our awss. for hunters point and candlestick, for instance, that's response ored by oci. they are involved in a small way to help us in the negotiations, but in again, it's really sfpuc and the fire department who are leading the negotiations. oci, will step in if we need help, but in general, they step back. >> all right. i still don't know where the money is coming from because the

developers push back way, way, way back and way hard on these kinds of things because these aren't an anticipated cost, and they are not small costs. so now i'm nervous. >> i agree. they do push back hard. however, we owe it to our rate payers to ensure that as these developers come in, they're paying their fair share. i don't expect a ratepayer on the west side to compensate for the development going in on a project x on the east side. so they do push back, but we push back as well and say we need you to help pay to bring the water to your project. that is the right way to handle it. but yes, it is an ongoing negotiation that is difficult. >> okay. i would be interested in keeping up with this matter because i still don't know where the money

is going to come from for that because developers, you know, they're in business to make a profit. i agree with you that one part of the city should not have to pay for another part of the city, but these are unanticipated costs and they are large costs. i have not heard an answer where the money is coming from. perhaps i'll get it in the future. >> the costs are, during the sequence of getting a project, you have to become entitled. part of the process is getting ceqa. these costs are into the development agreement. we are new in that they are maybe not looked at -- looked at in the very beginning. they're not getting too far down the road and then we drop it on them. before it goes to the board of

supervisors, the costs are included in that step. many they might be new from conception, but they're not dropped on them too far along the way. >> okay. so ceqa is the savior in this? >> if i may add, the fire department has been very active in the negotiations with the developers from way back. for example, mission bay, which is now fully installed and complete, we have awss piping throughout mission bay. that is because of early negotiations of the fire department with the development community to assure that that piping would be installed. so there is a precedence for awss being a requirement as part of developments, and i think that the only difference is that now we're thinking more expansively about how to get water to those pipes and so the increased cost is that now we're saying, well you not only put the pipes into your area, but you also need to pay for getting

the water to the area. it is a work in progress and the modeling has only been available for a couple of years. so a lot of this is being newly negotiated, but the developers understand that that is a critical aspect. fire protection is a critical aspect of their development. >> of course. >> there is a lot of give and take and push back, but i really and very proud o of the work of the fire department. they've been very firm in what's required and enforcing those requirements. >> good. and i'm glad to hear that, and i am glad that in your opening statements, you said that the fire department is still very involved in all of this. the -- >> commissioner if i could add to what katy said. we do a lot of work not he it end of the project, but early on. we have attained agreements as

well as hunters point and candlestick point and have had the discussion with merced as well. we try and make it clear up front that, you know, the fire protection system includes the water supply system. >> that's all i have right now. thank you very much. >> thank you, commissioner covington. commissioner veronese. >> same line the questioning, does the fire department discuss with those developers the impact, or is there a recoup ration on the impact to the department outside of the water supply? for example, if you open up an entirely new neighborhood that doesn't currently have a fire station or if it does, it's underrer served, does development agreements anticipate the cost to the department as those new neighborhoods move in? >> yes. for visitation valley, there is a fire station coul contemplates

well in the hunters point area as well. we've been been successful as this nexus tax, if you will, or some sort of parcel that has been done through mta. so we envision these are going to be really well-built in terms of fire protection systems, but certainly just added population, we will anticipate an increase definitely in our call volume for medical calls. i would like to see something along those lines, but certainly when it comes to our budget in terms of staffing, those stations are contemplated. i would like to have robust discussions related to the impacts to the department. >> i don't know how that would work, but if you need our help in pushing that, certainly -- i can't speak to the rest of the commissioners, but i know that i don't like doing these fire drills every year with the mayor's office on the budget

when we're opening up new neighborhoods in parts of this city that never existed before and we're begging for one or two more people or we're being told we can't have anymore new people. >> i think that's one of the reasons why -- and it will still be a battle to fight, if you will, is why we did collectively the department and the commission, at least for this budget and previous budgets, when we felt it was unrealistic to go by the recommendation -- not just recommendation, the directive to reduce our operating budget. we couldn't because of all these things we see on the horizon. >> right. okay. mr. scarpulla, i think we might be related. who was your dad? is. >> francis. >> fran is your dad? tell him i said hello. >> i will,. >> so these questions are --

>> excellent. >> the same chart that was shown earlier which is on page 17, does this chart -- for an earlier chart, you gave a number, i think you said 47% reliability, do we have a number for this particular chart? >> yes. this one gets us up to 92%. >> oh, great. >> so it's, again, getting higher, but we still have those areas. >> and the issue is if there's an 8% di deefficiency, that's nt good because it means fires can't be stop. >> that's correct. that average is over the entire city. so it could be in the dark blue area that you're looking at we have 100%. but in that light blue area, we have -- i'm making a number up -- 42%. so then you bring it down. so that 90% is citywide. we have 92% of the water that the city needs to fight a large fire after an earthquake. it could be some areas 100%.

some areas are 40%. we would like to bring them all up. i don't anticipate it going from 92 to 100, but it will go to 95 as we continue to work at that. >> does this chart anticipate the options already being done. >> it does. >> so the current state of affairs is not this chart but once option for 12 is done, this is what it will look like. >> correct. we think we'll get to here in the next five years or so. there's all these 16 pipeline projects that are being done, these reservoir projects, the option 12. so 2023, 2024 when we're all done, that's when we get to that map right here. >> got t congratulations. this seems to be an immense project. there's been some news around the world on the supply side. >> there are towns in south

africa like cape town that has less than a month of water left. that was a surprise to them because they had anticipated, as i understand reading from articles, rain patterns to stay constant when they had changed. >> correct. >> so been to hetchy. it's beautiful. that's our predominant source of water. >> 85%. >> 85%. >> how many years of water does the department have such that we know that there's a big enough cushion there where we could go without water for whatever, a year or two, if we get into severe drought seasons or change in patterns where we don't get any water? how long do we have, and is the department anticipating other resources such as desalinization. >> we do