employee orientation sessions allowing for 30 minutes union access. it is during that time we respect -- we invite our respected unions to come and talk about union membership, the privileges of membership, the provisions of the memorandum of understanding, and however, they unions see fit to use that time. respective of the existing practice, we allowed 30 minutes time. the existing practice has always been to allow our respective union partners to come in for at least ten minutes. for now, that time has expanded to 30 minutes. the bill requires two fundamental things i would like to hat highlights. a public employer to give a union notice regarding new employee orientation of new employees of that unit, at least ten business days prior to the orientation. they comply with that portion of the bill by providing all unions with an annual, central and

typically, what we do, we sent out the annual schedule between november and december for the following year. in this particular case, for 2018, we sent our schedules between november and december. the second area at that the bill also covers, is employer to provide aunion representing it's employees, with the name, job title, department, work location, home, work, and personal cellular telephones, personal e-mail addresses and that's been a coordination efforts between my respective hr department, and dhr for the city. that is just to give you a quick i -- highlight of the bill. with the passing of this bill in concert and with working with commissioners, we have made some additional changes with respect to our communications with the labour union partners. regarding the following ways. we sent personal calendar

invitations to the respected union organization who have thbers attending an eeo at upcoming sessions with the wrist instructions on where to go, when to arrive we also provided copies of the agenda and the roster which is the actual sign and seat. these invites typically go out 1-12 to a business days before n.e.o. is scheduled. to give you a context of how often we conduct n.e.o., we have a regular schedule of two n.e.o. a month at the training conference -- happens on the first day of the employee's work. during the summertime, we moved to scheduling it every week due to the high volume of employees that we hire, and typically there in time. my staff are very busy at the moment. one of the request that was made was to further enhance our communications by implementing a new form which identifies

employees a respectivenion organizations, contact information for the union representative, and a link so the employee can actually act on that information and become much more dictated about what being a represented employee means. this form will be on letterhead and will include the general manager's signature on it, and it will be disseminated at the beginning of every new employee orientation. we think commissioner courtney for working with us to enhance some of our communications. we indeed a partner with all of our respective labour or toganizamake sure all employees are aware which unions they belong to, and how we can continue to work with them in that partnership. at this time, i will take any questions you might have. >> thank you. public comment in this item? so i want to thank you for your

work and your staff. i also want to note that this isn't just about the assembly bill, bu th assembly bill, and that effort was really triggered by a national effort by those of urt decision that issupreme inevitable coming down any day now that will really impact the way that laborunions an in the public sector do with their members and howthe employer feels about their members. for a few years, i've been talking about as having some kind of an articulate -- articulate workforce development at our level so we know exactly how we deal with current employees, onboarding, recruitment, et cetera. i think this is, not just a positive step, i think it is kind of step that, andi think we have to thank francesca and we need to thank the city thinky attorney's office too, about their assistance -- without their assistance, we would have wobbled more. there is a big difference

between the kind of folks that work for the public utilities commission that work indoors and have college°. that are assigned workstations. we take these devices for granted. they are very expensive. expensive to upload. with my cable bill i cut that cable bill but with the folks that i come intocoact with routinely, they are confronted with making decisions about whether or not to pay their auto insurance, or their cable or their internet or whatever it is. there is a big difference between a young man, a woman who is being brht on board at a much lower rate of pay, from a community that we identify as being a community that we want to go over and above for. and so, providing them, and making sure they have that information, is probably one of the things that i hold most dearly to myself, in terms of taking care of our workforce. i do look forward, and this is an interesting game, because, you know, the chair man or

chairwoman it sits in that seat for about a year. it is really, really hard to get anything done in a year. but that is how the game is played. so, i am moving this ball, and 's itviousto everybod i'm moving this ball because i expect a real thoughtful and deliberate approach to work force development in both the public and private sector, because the mayor, about a week ago, he also convened a group to anticipate the next economic downturn. the pressures that we were under 3-5 years ago, with respect to the community workforce, they are about to come back here. we will be ready for it. because i think, even though we don't always agree, i think we are all thoughtful, and enough to work together, find a common ground, and get it through. my hope is that there is a little tweaking i see that i would like to talk to the general manager about, but i also want to thank the general manager and the city attorney,

because at the end of the day, i want to be part of a conversation with all of us. i want to be part of a conversation that sets the gold standard for the city. i think the notification -- from the gm, and wh we aim to do with this little onboarding piece, sets the gold standard and i think we should ask or other city departments have access to it. thank you for your efforts. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> now commissioner? >> thank you. >> commissioner courtney. public comments on this item? item seven f. please. >> seven f., i was going to bring up the award and i just want to say, i want to thank staff on to answer your question park we actually looked at last years and we talked to the ways

we can improve it. a lot of those ideas came from you and from some of our atms and staff who have worked on the awards. what i think everyone felt in the little video was that people can actually ha and show their families. people who couldn't attend. i thought it was a great touch as well. i'm st really proud, and i'm looking forward to getting some feedback, so that next year will be even better. if you guys, or any commissioner attended, if you can provide some feedback in ways that we can improve it, that would be great. and with that, that concludes my report. >> any public comment on seven f.? >> at this point i would like to hear the tale of the origin of this but we will sa save that fr another time.

>> bay area water supply and conservation agency update. welcome. >> thank you commissioners. can i have the projector, please? i will apologize for my low-tech version here. i had a failure of technology on my end. so donna assisted me when i started out today. i wanted to take my time today to talk to you about an effort that we've been working on for the last year. and we planned t plan to move fh it next year, regarding the governor's request to make water conversation a way of life. the work that we have been doing for that... and only 2017, there were two pieces of legislation that were introduced in sacramento to support the governor's call for water conservation and this was conservation above and beyond

the idea of a drought conservation. really speaking to long turn -- long-term conservation use. both of those have moved through the legislature and have made it out at the legislature as they are awaiting the governor's signature. what we did, in july 2017, as we initiated the development of our strategic plan to meet this. to really try to decide how to help our agencies meet this requement, and how to do it best. we anticipated to have a role for that, and this was our weight to try to develop that. so that strategic plan had three main components. the legislation is very specific. it has very detailed requirements about how to develop water targets, activities you have to do, highly data intensive and activity focused.

so, in looking at it, the question was, we have to assess what it will take for 26 agencies, 26 water suppliers that are small, and large. cities, water districts, private utilities,how do they have this information and do they have it available to them? what does it take for them to get this information? what are the systems in place within their districts that will help them, you know, do this work? so that assessment of their capability is is a critical component of it. we also looked at the cost of that. not just what it would take for them to do it, but also trying to figure out what would it cost for them to do it? part of this was figuring out how do we help them implement the most cost-effective way? and we use this information to also develop our position on the legislation. we were relaely quiet, we don't speak on active positions

aren't bills but we do push in certain directions. we work closely with the association of california water agencies and other water utilities in the states and with your staff as well, to get certainangesmade for the legislation so it can be more easily implemented and actually made sense this type area. and that was successful. on the legislation currently reflects that. the other thing that's this information did is we developed a work plan. based upon what the assessment said, and what they needed to do and where we can identify some cost-effective opportunities, we put together a work plan. what we could do to help the agencies next year and what they were going to do. this idea of working together which is consistent with how we implement conservation today in the service area.

so, a couple of the key pieces of this legislation, the first is outdoor water use. and examining what kind of information our agencies had to look at our out -- outdoor water use. landscape area measurements is one of the big requirements of this new legislation. essentially coming up with a water budget on a per residential account basis based on actual measurement data out. if you can imagine, i know this is one of your issues and constraints you have had to, kind shows try to get that data is difficult. coming up with cost-effective ways to do that is important and how you deal with that amount of data. those types of analytical questions where the things we looked at with our agencies. commercial and industrial water use is another major component, that to be totally honest, a somewhat undeveloped in the service area. is not the largest sector of water use, and it has been one

that has not easily been responding to previous water conservation efforts. so now, looking at, you know, what kind of commercial audits can we do? which ones are successful? how do we all classify our commercial accounts? do we all do it the same? and how do we change that at what would that take? these type of questions all get into different departments, if you will in the city, you know, who does the billing, who does all the information. it is not a slamdunk and try to figure out the answers. and then, water loss is another major component of legislation. it was building on a previous bill that passed a few years before that. senate bill 555 that required agencies did you water loss evaluations, and then do verifications after that, every year. the first set of evaluations were sent in last fall. and now he requires verification. this is done annually. again, these are areas where it is like, what worked? what didn't work?

what kind of help do you need? i will say, we have worked mostly with chris nelson in your water supply and treatment division manager, and helping us with this. it certainly impacts, you know, the work that you do on your metres, and your launching of the metres on the verification and all those types of things. that will be an ongoing effort. that is not an easy one, but it will be necessary to make -- meet the requirements of this law. there's a reason why we don't do those things anymore. [laughter] so, last week, the board adopted the work plan for fiscal year 2018-2019. it essentially took all of this information and put it into an action plan. we did a lot of case studies with this analysis and try to look at other water utilities throughout the state and elsewhere to say, how did they

meet these requirements? what are different ways to implement these programs? we brought that into what we are going to do. the first one is a residential indoor, outdoor water use study. the legislation requires a certain residential efficienc and then we have to do the outdoor efficiency. we, in our region, have not done a study that provides a breakdown of what is an indoor use on a per account basis or a type of residential customer basis and an outdoor use. we will go through that process to understand what is the base start in the service area for residential water use so we can understand, what do we need to tackle to meet the requirements of the law? the other thing we are going to do is implement a pilot audit program on a regional basis. we will look at a couple of different options to see what might work and come up with the best alternative to me to the needs an exhaustive -- cost-effective way for the agencies. the other piece is what we call our water loss management

program. and bringing on someone to do multiple parts of this water loss investigation. it is highly analytical and there's very specific requirements. and unfortunately it is kind of like any other audit we have one person that does the analysis and you have to have a third party verification and then you also have education about it. what we have found is some agencies want help with the water loss and they will do the verifications and some want to do the verification without the loss. it is a combination of activities, but overall, getting them to get these things done and getting them completed, so we can all meet the requirements of the state legislation. i'm really excited. i think it was a bold step for us to take this on a year ago. really, it is building on what has been our historic activity for water conservation, and what has worked in the service area, and in recognizing the differences between our agencies, and how we can help

their needs. i was very excited with the support we go off and the board the other night and i look forward to seeing that what the results are. just to kind of, in my comments, so, as we continue to keep track of water use in the service area for last march, about a month and a half ago, i guess, use was 28% less than it was in march 2018. this is where it is interesting. this is total water use. all support -- all supplies of the area. social water use has been reduced by 21%. the interesting thing, is for the san francisco supply, it was only reduced by, now i can't find my numbers. four%. so, this is something we know

happened. agencies have multiple supply sources are using something different. and in this incidents, it is likely. another wholesaler in the issues have a treatment issue in their plants. they asked some of their agencies to take more san francisco supply. the presumption is it will balance itself out. it was certainly things we have done in the flip side, but it is an interesting thing to track. if you look at one supply, you missed the picture. this is something we will continue to keep track of as we move through that season and we see what the long-term implications are. with that, i will nclude my comments. >> thank you. commissioners? thank you very much. is there any public comment? we will move to the consent count. madam secretary? >> all matters constitute the

consent calendar are considered to be retained by the san francisco public utilities commission and will be acted upon by single vote of the commission. there will be no discussion. in whichentev the matter will be removed from the calendar and considered a separate item. >> the request to remove items from the consent calendar? >> commissioners? or public? no discussion, the public comment, do we have a motion to approve? all in favour? opposed? approved. item number 10. >> item number 10, improvement number 1, customer and administrative services for community choice aggregation programs with energy solutions, and authorize the general manager to bring and this amendment and increase it by

14 million and extend th extentm of the agreement by three years. >> discussion, commissioners? >> any public comment on item ten. do i have a motion to approve? all in favour? opposed? item 11, please. >> item 11, approve correction to an error of scheduled... adopted by the commissioner on april 10th 2018 by resolution number 18 to include a monthly service charge for nonresidential customers at the wastewater enterprise. >> any discussion? any public comment in item 11? i have a motion to approve. all in favour? opposed? please read the closed session

items. >> item 14, existing litigation. a proposed partia propose partif action as to property damage. numerous plaintiffs are remaining in litigation. a settlement amount of 28,000. item 15 as existing litigation. a proposed settlement of action with the plaintiffs release of all actions of the city. the plaintiff amount of hundred 99,000. as a president mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, item 16-21 will not be heard today. >> it's or any public comment on matters to be addressed during closing? do i have a motion to assert the attorney-client privilege regarding the mitre -- items below? all appro

sustainability mission, even though the bikes are very minimal energy use. it still matters where the energy comes from and also part of the mission in sustainability is how we run everything, run our business. so having the lights come on with clean energy is important to us as well. we heard about cleanpowersf and learned they had commercial rates and signed up for that. it was super easy to sig up. our bookkeeper signed up online, it was like 15 minutes. nothing has changed, except now we have cleaner energy. it's an easy way to align your environmental proclivities and goals around climate change and

it's so easy that it's hard to not want to do it, and it doesn't really add anything to the bill. l larry bush? here. robert carlson here. kristin chu here. kevin hughes present. brian larkin? brenda mcnulty present. madame chair, you have a quorum. that are not on the agenda.

>> can i have the overhead, please? well, for the rest of the audience. thank you. good morning, my name is jerry. first, i'd like to commend controllers' office for embedding the links for the supporting documents into each meing agenda topic on the sfgovtv website, it's both useful and insures that supporting documents are available to meeting attendees. the benchmarking report that was discussed in the april meeting, it contained useful descriptive statistics, but in the 84-page

report i could only find six slides that benchmarked the financial performance of san francisco against other cities, that would allow the reader to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of city services, which is the mission of the city services auditor. the first slide was page 27 of the report which dealt with street resurfacing cost. n safrancisco spends $1134 per square mile. actually, san francisco's overhead cost of $242 per square mile is 80% of seattle's total cost. so it looks like, as you can see from the graph, the san francisco costs are way out of line. one thing i would comment on that the material used in san

francisco are dramatically different andae lger life, but the amount of difference i wy beyond that difference slide 2, deals with the cost to maintain a tree. it cost per maintained tree, $530 in san francisco. which is three times more than the average in sacramento, san jose and san diego. so something seems lout of line there. -- out of line there. and the last slide is the daily jail rate. so you can see the rate in san francisco is $250 a day. and it's tough to see those little bubbles, but the average is $149. [bell ringing] so my discussion

is the liaisons work with the departments to identify the difference, or in the annual work plan, cgoboc retains detailed audits of the area, because obviously the costs are way out of line. thank you. jerry, in looking at the jail population, san francisco is carrying a large number of people who don't have bail. that's an issue that has come up. >> yeah. i think -- but what they're talking about here is the cost to house one person. >> are we housing people because they're not out on bail? there are bail reform efforts being done. >> there is also the issue of people who should in mental

health programs, shouldn't be in the jail. this, i think, just deals with what it costs to house somebody, not why they're there. and irrespective of why they're there, the city should be doing a better job in maintaining or administering the cost per day. i agree with all the issues. >> i'm looking at how to reduce the cost since you highlighted how much it cost. thank you. >> mr. bush, through the chair, ben rose enfeld, controller, we have done other work, and i would be happy to provide them after the meeting. >> any other public comment? if not, let's move to the next item. >> item 3, approval with possible modification of the minutes of the april 21, 2018 meeting. >> motion to approve?

>> seconded. >> approved? >> yes. all approved aye. >> through the chair, deputy city attorney, we need to take public comment first. >> oh, yes, pardon me. public comment on the draft minutes of the last meeting? seeing no pubc comment, are the minutes approved? minutes approved. next item. >> item 4, presentation from public works about the 2011 road repaving and street safety bonds and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation.

>> good morning, chair mcnulty, members of the committee, john thomas with public works on the road repaving and street safety bond. as reminder, the bond was approved in november of 2011 for $248 million. as of last june. and i'll just preface the comment by saying the financials have not been updated in some time as we await the final closeout numbers for this year. i won't go into detail on that, but we are largely completed with most of the work envisioned under the project.

as i go through detail in the next slide, we can talk about that. in the upper right, you see images from several of our street scape projectth finishing up. the laurell village, irving street scape, top right. the wiggle area, which is the bike route from market street. and then chinatown living alley which is a joint project. with the puc. so for highlights, public works has completed 48 street resurfacing contracts with four currently in construction, paved 1355 of the planned 1423 blocks at this stage. or 95% of the total. so as these four contracts are closed out, we will hit the goal and exceed it. the wiggle street scape and

pedestrian improvement project reached completion this year and work on the irving street project as well as columbus, stockton and valeto was also completed. in june of this ye, we'll complete the chinatown living alley. in september, the polk complete street project. andlso in september, gary park pedestrian improvements and then the california laurel village stre expcated to be. pa lieu, i believe the last of the street scape should advertise in june. this is a bit more detail on the street resurfacing. 48 projects have been

substantially completed and four are currently under construction. one other thing to see on this slide, is the chart on the bottom right which again indicates our pavement condition index and how that has improved since the bopped funds were added. the other thing to note as of this year, there is change how the mtv scores streets. so the score has jumped up, not as a result of a significant change, but as a result of the metric itself being changed. we're essentially still in the same place we were under the old scoring criteria. so we were at about a 69 with a goal of a 70 and now we're at 74 and shifted our goal to 75 to match that.

>> moving onto street scapes. mentioned most of this already, but just in summary, the projects are now largely complete. palou is the ltf the projects that we have remaining to begin construction. moving onto the curb ramp and sidewalk programs. both of these have been completed. and as you can see here, the curb ramp program completed 15 hundred 63 -- 1563 projected on that, we had an original goal of 17 hundre-- 1700. we were able to exceed the revised goal as you can see here. the programs again, completed and both exceeded the goals that

were set out in the original bond report. moving onto the roadway structure program. 100 had hundred percent of appropriated funds have been expended or encumbered. so 39 of 40 projects were completed and 41 structures repaired. the rich land avenue bridge, we have completed design work under the bond and are anticipating other funds to issue that as a construction contract and that will complete the work, but that's the reason we're still tracking that open project. lastly, traffic signals, we're now completed with all phases. one, two, and three, traffic signal priorities. at 10 intersections and the infrastructure upgrades are now

all in place and 97% of the appropriated funds or expended or encumbered as near as we can tell at this point. and the last slide i can take us to is the change order summary slide. rather than go through specifics there, i can answer questions. that concludes my presentation. >> ms. chu: thank you, mr. thomas. >> mr. hughes: as a liaison from the committee to this bond, i met with mr. thomas and his staff on april 16 of this year. and without belaboring this too much, i'll just run through some of the things that we touched on at that time. on road repaving and street

safety bond -- first of all i want to preface it with you have either reached the goals that were set out at the time of the ballot measure or exceeded on those complete. and those that are pending, are pending completion are very close to the original anticipated goals that were met. so on road repaving the street savings bond, you were at 95% of the goals had been reached as of that time. and it is currently projected that you will meet or exceed the original goals set out at the time of passage. so, thank you. and to your staff. outstanding. on the pci, the metropolitan

transportation commission's revised pci scores, there was a change in the way that was determined. and that resulted in new score. and we understand that the old score was 69. the revised score for the city is a 75. and if i understand you correctly, you mentioned that was essentially a no change, it was just a change to the method of determining the score. but it is still reflects a 3% increase from 2013. even adjusted for the different methodology used to reach the score, correct? >> yes, it does. >> mr. hughes: outstanding, thank you.

on the streetscape pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements, 74% of the 73 projects are substantiat mp12% are still active. could you give us just a little bit more information? of the remaining 12%, how close are they, what is the status, please? >> so, on streetscape there were, as you may recall, two types of projects. the larger, 24 of those, and initially we had 49 of what we called following the paving projects. out of the 24 streetscape projects, now that we're closing out within the next month four more projects that, will take us to 23 out of the 24 will be done by the winter of this year. out of the 49, there were a

number of projects that were cancelled. as you can see -- so on this slide, on the far right, you can see that 10 of those projects were actually cancelled. so we had a total of 39 of those. so the 73 was reduced to 63. and in any event, those projects are now largely completed, so we're really down to one streetscape project, and that will complete our streetscape overall. >> mr. hughes: fantastic. i know we discussed the criteria, or what triggers cancelled projects. maybe fort benefit of the other

commission members you could explain how projects are cancelled. >> so when we developed the initial 73 projects, it was in conjunction with all city departments, planning department, mta, puc and others to determine what the best implementation or the use of the funds would be under criteria established in the bond report. several of those projects were funded by other sources, in other words, took advantage of projects that were out there before the bond project was ready to move forward. so they were already done. others were determined to be infeasible, things that the mta wished to do, like add in a bike lane, or change the configuration of an intersection after they did more detailed analysis, it was determined not to work the way they wanted to, and we would cancel those projects as well. it was a combination of those

scenarios and in our report we will define where the projects went and the funding was reallocated to. >> mr. hughes: fantastic. thank you. i'm almost done. madame chair, if i could, on curb ramps, we're at 115%. we won't -- so congratulations. and thank you. and the richland avenue bridge project, what is the status on that? >> so as i mentioned, the design is completed and at this point the project manager is looking at other fund sources so fund the complete work. we used this -- the funding within the bond to sort of jump start that project and get it ready for the construction funds. we anticipate having those funds

later this year an commencing the work in early 2019. >> mr. hughes: and there is reference to 1 thousand -- 100,000 bond funds that would be returned back to the bond fund? >> that is an option. we have not decided. but what i mention here is that given the delay in bringing money to that project, one option would be to -- because you have to complete any work you started under bond rules. and so we can take this money out and apply to it a smaller project that we can get constructed within the near term. because the richland contract is roughly a two-year construction project, so we would hold open the bond until that completion, even though there would be no additional bond funds expended. it's something we haven't quite made a decision on, but that's the option we have there.

>> mr. hughes: and madame chair, i appreciate your patience. one last question. let me just check my notes here before we let mr. thomas go. that's it. thank you very much. >> ms. chu: thank you. i think mr. carlson has a comment. >> mr. carlson: actually, a question, page 3, the street repaving and reconstruction. i'm not sure what the current balance is right now, i'm not sure anybody does, but is that balance allocated to the four remaining projects? >> i think. at the time this was summarized, it was a combination of things. it was either remaining projects or outstanding support costs like construction administration costs and/or work authorizations to the mta for striping and

support costs associated with those projects. >> mr. carlson: and when is the expected completion of this program? the project, when do you expect this one to be complete? is there a completion date? >> the paving team is here, they can probably answer specifically on the paving projects. palou is not going to advertise until june, so roughly 20, 21, beginning of 2021 before that finishes. the paving program? >> ramon, paving program manager, public works. we have basically four contracts with paving out on the street right now under construction. the first one is irving street, which is joined with streetscape, that started six months ago. >> mr. carlson: i'm sorry, just a real quick question. there is four projects under construction. but there is still another project to be advertised?

>> yes. >> palou. >> mr. carlson: when is the estimated completion date of palou, maybe you don't know that? >> i believe it's 18-24 months. >> mr. carlson: that's all i needed. all right, thanks. and then second, on the streetscape pedestrian bicycle. are the improvements currently under way on masonic street part of this program? or were they funded by different? >> they were not funded by the bond. >> mr. carlson: ok, thank you. >> ms. chu: any other comments? >> i have a couple of questions. in terms of pedestrian safety, mta says it's going to expand the amount of time allowed for people to walk in crosswalks by

a second or up to even five seconds, but it will take a number of years for that to take place. what role does your work have in relationship to that? and why will it take years for that to take place? >> i can't -- i don't know ife have anybody -- i don't think cheryl is here today, so i can't speak to why it would take as long as that. sounds like they have to update grade the signal timing cards for each one of the intersections. >> they said ten years, ten years is a long time. >> it is. i can reach out to the mta representatives on that and work on getting you an answer if you like. for the most part, our streetscape projects incorporated any safety improvements that the mta recommended were added to those projects. some of that included bulb outs, including visibility. there was streetlighting added

to some of the projects. intersection improvement, signal changes, all of those things combined, obviously, the paving and curb ramps also enhanced the safety of the intersections. but those are the lions share of the elements we would add. >> according to the report, 50% of the deaths in crosswalks are people who are 65 or older. so it seems like there is a population that is certainly heavily impacted by this. one of the things that is a correlary to safety for seniors is the accessibility of handicapped parking. when was the last time that you people or anyone took analysis of whether or not we needed more handicapped parking available? i know for example in the castro, right by the walgreens, which is a place you would expect to park handicapped, eight spaces have been removed for buses and no single space is

available for handicapped people. how does a decision like that get made? >> so there is a representative again at the mta, whous on painted curbs throughout the city and determines where those go. i will say when we do streetscape improvement project, that element is analyzed. in our accessibility coordinator usually recommends that we add in blue curbs on some locations to meet code required numbers. but in general, on paving projects, to my knowledge, it is not something that is evaluated. >> it's a piece of the safety in the city that matters to a lot of people. one last question. when you are undertaking major construction, it has impact on commercial businesses, especially small businesses that require some pedestrian access. or at least people being able to drive up, i notice this is certainly true on market street where a lot of work is being

done. it goes on for a long period of time. in other cases, for example, when the central freeway was being done, there was a program that provided some compensation usins they had.or the loss of does your program take a look at the commercial business losses and what its impact is in the neighborhoods, and whether or not you have funds, either through the bond or elsewhere, to provide compensation? or whether you review whether or not the construction is taking much longer than anticipated and so the period of inconvenience, putting it mildly, is much longer than people had been led to believe? >> i mean, certainly our department is sensitive to those issues. we have been working with the mayor's office, workforce development as well as members

of the board of supervisors who expressed similar concerns, came up with measures. i'm only aware of one program, central subway, wch looked businesses.sation for the it has not typically been done and certainly not in my career, although it has been something we've been discussing for some time with members of the board. >> we might look at that when we do analysis of the post construction survey later in the program. thank you. >> ms. chu: thank you. any other comments from members? >> mr. hughes: the last question that escaped me earlier, any idea when we'll get numbers. i know it's not years. >> i can pass that one off to the controller. >> good morning, again, committee members. so in talking with the finance officers, department of public works, current status is the

majority of non-labor related expenses have now been cleaned up. not complete, but the majority have and they're in the process of a systematic allocation of labor costs. the expectation that i've heard from public works is that work will be completed by the end of june. such that by the time you have your next update here, you should see refreshed and validated information. >> mr. hughes: thank you. >> ms. chu: thank you. any public comment on this bond presentation? >> good morning, my name is jerry. i'd like to commend the department of public works on their package and i'd like to focus on page 10, which is change orders. the reporting is greatly improved, of course that leads t mor probing questions.

when you look at page 10, they've done a nice job of breaking out the four types of change orders and it's safe to say that change orders as a percent of total cost are at least 7% of the project, which is quite high. but the other thing that is quite interesting, too, whe you look at the four reasons, for change orders, is client request. i would think on road resurfacing the manager and the client are the same department. that's interesting. street structures, relatively a small expenditure has 39% change order rate. which is pretty dramatic. so i guess in the closeout process, it's been called out in many of the csa audits, we have a change order problem in the city.

so i would like in the closeout process, analysis looking at the cost, the change orders and what is driving them. thank you. >> ms. chu: any other public comment? seeing none, let's move onto the next item. >> item 5, presentation from the mayor's office of housing and community development about the 2015 affordable housing bond and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation. >> good morning, kate hartley, i'm the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development. we are pleased to be here today to report good progress on our $310 million affordable housing

bond. as you recall, we had three categories of expenditures, public housing, affordable housing, low-income housing which h a subset of low-income housing for the mission neighborhood, and middle income housing. the first bond issuance is projected to be 93% expended by 2018 and fully expended by 2019 and we do have a little bit of news to just follow up on. we presentationed this information at our last meeting and we did reallocate funds in our low-income housing category. we took funding that we had reserved for 250 laguna honda road for senior housing and applied it to senr housing at 296 shotwell. 448 mission, we moved that to family housing in the

embarcadero neighborhood at 88 broadway. i want to state for the record and this is something you'll be interested in, there were some news reports regarding our reallocation ofunding for 250 laguna honda that suggest thad the reason we pulled away from that project was because of neighborhood opposition. and there was strong neighborhood opposition. most of it does get neighborhood opposition on every project we work on. it's a job hazard for building affordable housing in a dense city. but i want to assure the public and you that the reason that we pulled away from 250 laguna honda was solely due to the need to be cost effective in our application of bond funds. there was site due diligence that our team did on the site, is that showed a very unstable

hillside above our parcel. and the geotechnical engineers adseus there would be a stream of debris constantly flowing down onto our project. in addition, more seriously, that there was severe seismic safety risk for the homes above our parcel and that created what we thought was potentially an unsafe condition with serious cost implications. as well, there was a church on the site that had been deemed historic resource. and so we were unable to use that land that we thought we could replace with housing for housing. so the combination of fewer units and high costs and high long-term liability led us to the decision that it made sense to reallocate those funds in a more cost effective development. and into a development that we could get going immediately.

so the public could see the benefit of the bnds. so just wanted to state that for the record. also 4840 mission, that has a better story. by our engaging in development at that site, it opened up on additional development opportunity at the adjacent site which will lead to an additional 75 units of affordable housing through a sort of joint venture arrangement. so we're really excited about that. ok, so you can see the level of disbursed and encumbered and the funds for the various categories. i can tell you now that all the funds have been 'em cumbered, so we're well on our way to expending those bond proceeds and this money will help to