fully funded and you can see we're at less than two-thirds of where we'd like to be. i'll move to our debt program. there's two major debt programs represented in the capital fund and the first is the general fund debt program or certificates of participation. the total for that program and the capital plan is $963 million. the includes the exit from 101 grove one of our seismically worse buildings. it's a seismic hazard rating of 4 which means it's a collapse hazard and need to get staff. these funds will not fund the retrofit but horizontal infrastructure and up to $50 million to support a family services center. that's the relocation of staff out of 170 ottis and potentially

consolidating with other city offices depending on the site identified. there's three hollow justices participation projects. the first is fiscal '20 with tenant improvements and site acquisition and construction is needed on one of those sites in order to relocate city staff out of the hall of justice as described in the justice facilities improvement program. there's two years of $60 million critical repairs for allowance

recommended by the controller in our last plan and extended here to preserve general fund capacity in the event of an economic downturn or slow down. if we're able to successfully relocate everybody out of the bryant street hall we'll be able to demolish the bryant street side and close the remainor so courts can continue to operate. there's a need to consolidate the public works yards and hall of justice project and the idea is to bring back the die aspo aspore -- diaspora of offices relocated. and the c.o.p. program is constrained. we're not to spend more than 3.2% of our discretionary revenue on debt and the red line at the top of this chart shows

that constraint. you can see the pre opposed c.o.p.s filling in. the general obligation bond program is the second major debt program discussed in the capital plan. have you here the program as proposed in the plan from february 25. this is what the capital planning committee has reviewed and sent here for approval since the publication controller has identified additional capacity and i think there's a memo circulated but the controller's office found in additional $2 million of capacity by assessing and looking at updated numbers in the forecast. we know there's $2.725 million

of capacity in the program but as proposed we have $2.525 and there's affordable housing at the next election for $300 million. $600 million for the emergency response bond for neighborhood fire stations an district fire stations and replacement of the fire training facilities being displaced due to development at treasure island. retrofit dollars for emergency response where we know we have seismic vulnerabilities and the renovation of the 9-1-1 call center which needs to expand for the next generation of technology coming. bonds of the future include the parks and open space bond and our transportation bond at $500 million. this was pulled forward and the last capital plan had a transportation bond in 2024. however, we know there's a cash

flow need for the facilities side of m.t.a.'s capital program and june 22 is when we expect to need the dollars so we brought it forward. the next public health bond at $220 million where we tackle remaining needs on the zuckerberg campus and clinic. a water fund bond program that cycles through the needs and we had the seawall bond in 2018 and that was a need we know lies ahead when it comes to seismic safety and sea level rise adaptation and build the bond to begin the long-term need. then we return to parks and open space in the future. >> commissioner: excuse me one second. supervisor mandelman has a question.

>> commissioner: when you say there's a need is that the downtown extension or what's the thought on what it's for? >> the city procured new light rail vehicles and they're larger than the ones before. if we act quickly and are able to fund facility improvements at the existing yards, we'll have enough swing space until they are delivered to be able to use the land that we have if we delay and aren't able to avail ourselves we'll run out of room so we want to not have that happen. and maintenance. they do a lot of work at the yard. there's a lot of work that happens there not just storage but where the busses and vehicles get maintained. >> i'll conclude here noting

this program also has a long standing policy constraint not to raise property tax rates due to bonds the city controls so you see that constraint represents at the top of the graph here. we also got when i presented the plan the general obligation bond oversight committee they requested through the controller to have as part of the plan a proposal the controller's team who produced the bond report provided context so i'll hand it over to the representative from the controller's office and will go over the notes from that report and then i'll be happy to take any questions ob -- on what was discussed here. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm with the city performance

unit of the controller's office. my colleague and i in collaboration with the general obligation bond program staff complied this overview of scope schedule and budget for the general obligation bond programs. thank you for the opportunity to present our work to you here today. so last month we published an annual report of the citizens general obligation bond to the committee and they represent an 18-month reporting period and represent changes to the scope, schedule and budget since the prior year's record. up to end of fiscal year '18. we started in summer of 2018. our project was that first bond program managers provided financial data and we conducted inviews with about 40 -- interviews with about 40

different program mangers and staff and combined it with other sources including the quarterly bond program reports, office of public finance and for this presentation we one, updated the bonds. here are the nine general obligation bond programs that are actively issuing bonds in our reporting period. along with the expected completion dates. these are grouped by program areas such as public health, parks, affordable housing. this slide just quiv -- gives an overview of the bonds. first voters will thaurs -- authorize the bonds and they're sold in issuances over a period of time and programs then set

aside funds for designated uses then the bond proceeds are spent and for instance, through reimbursements to contractors for project delivery. go back and the controller's office provides accountability and oversight after the bonds are sold and during project delivery. this chart is an overview of spending at the bond level for all nine programs as of june 30, 2018. the bright blue line is expended and this is data after our report was published. as you would expect earlier bonds have spent almost all their authorized proceeds so the orange bar is at or near the gray line which is the issue to date amount. the later bonds have the lighter blue bar and have not issued all their funds and the bright blue

shows spending has progressed for all programs since the last fiscal year. i'll provide highlights and priority for the upcoming months. in the public health program area, the 2008sfg rebuild bond funded the hospital and trauma center which opened in may 2016 and delivered under budget. the cost savings for follow-on projects and of them only one is remaining to be complete. the 2016 public health and safety bond has six projects being delivered in partnership with the department of public health, homelessness and supportive housing and the fire department. the math authority bonds in the program 63% are for building five the 1970s era building the main hospital until the new

trauma center was built and delivered in 2016. most project projects were in the design phase and so in the next year the program is moving into phases for most projects and by mid next fiscal year, most projects rebou will be in construction. the 2008 and 120 2012 clean and safe neighborhood parks bond crud four components managed by the park and rec they have include improvements to city wide parks and programs and clean code park on the water front is the final major deliverable in the 2008 bond. in the last nine months the 2012 program had over 24 million for the pool and playground and expects to encumber $36 million for other major improvements

including the george christopher park and golden gate parks and others. the 2010 earthquake safety and emergency respond bonds have a total of six unique components. the program include three stand alone facilities, the public building and office of the chief medical examiner and other component the emergency fire fighting systems and police facilities. in the program the remaining work is valued at $232 million will be on two major projects so the fire department's fire boat headquarters at pier 22½ and forensic services division completing in 2020 and 2021. the small and medium projects

and the compon s will continue in the next two fiscal years and the projects will be complete this year. in the transportation program area 2011 was a repaving streets bond, rode repaving managed by public works and five components with accessibility and lights and structures is nearly complete. the road improvement bond includes accessibility and the conditions of streets and make roads safer for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. the sfmta has encumbered 66% of the $238 million issued to date. the sfmta has several projects and have over $37 million

programmed for the 22 fillmore, and 7 haight. these are muni-forward projects. the unissued amount includes larger projects that have gone through planning and review and legislation and design including better market street and caltrain electrification. about 1400 housing units are expected to be produced in the 2015 affordable housing bond. they fund developers for the construction of low and middle-income housing project and expedited development an two sites and the program schedule is on track and in fact three of the four components shortened their schedule by a year and the program is slate completion in september 2022. in the last mine -- nine months

they spent $43 million in the low income housing and $10 million in the low income and $4 million in the down payment assistance loan program. so we heard about these challenge and successes in our interviews with bond managers and staff. the high cost driven by the recent construction boom are significant challenges managers are needing to adjust to in their scope and schedule expectation. for instance, in the police facilities component the lowest bitd -- bid project came in 40% higher than original estimates and unforeseen conditions impacted project, budgets and

schedule. the practices we heard about showed creativity and resiliency and the program's capacity to be in the bid environment. flexibility in the construction project and contracting method one way we heard about managers flexing. for instance, using a design model for the fire boat and general contractor method for the facility help the program better manage delivery. interdepartmental coordination and community engagement were pointed to for ensuring project success. for example, staff minimized disruption with meeting with the sfmta. and this stems from the successes we heard about and the

bid environment is a factor for current and future bonds and should be actively planned for assuming market conditions. program managers mentioned several types of projects where pre-bond planning would alleviate more precise conditions and projects and over water or significant builds. the ambulance deployment facilities are examples where it would have provided better insight to the full scope and seismic needs and interdepartmental coordination are important practices but require skill and schedule accommodations. thank you very much. >> happy it take questions. >> commissioner: supervisor mandelman. >> i have questions on page or

slide 19, geobond program status and the 2011 road repaving and transportation. the 2011 road repaving, with the increases in the pay-go program we should never need another bond like that ever again or no? this is controller's planning project but i disagree not to saying it needs to go in the geobond program but there's a large lump sum investment in our streets would make a big difference. right now we're meeting our p.c.i. target funding level to get up to 75 by 2025. that's something we believe we can achieve and is responsible in getting us to a better place. where we want to be is pavement condition index in the low 80s. that would achieve a better condition across the board so the streets become less

expensive to keep up. so improving streets in bad condition so if we can ever get ourselves up to that level we will be in a better place. and we won't get there without a lump sum in infusion. we can keep crawling up but it will take a long time. >> are we planning -- >> no plan for streets at this time. so the source, there's nothing on the horizon, however, the need for a lump sum >> commissioner: is continuing? >> yes. >> commissioner: on the 2014 bond, at first plush this is troubling -- blush this is troubling given the city's significant transportation needs alar a large bond was provided for in 2014 and here we are and $73

million was spent. can you talk about it? i know you touched on some of the projects. is is it fully allocated and is the project taking long or what's going on? >> add capital planning we're not responsible for implementation but we have a representative here from the mta to speak to that bond. >> thank you. so if you look at the chart when we started a number of the projects moving forward, market street, these were large significant projects we cleared. we have since spent the first issuance of the bond, the $73 million. what you'll see on the chart is between the june period and the period february we've doubled our spending. last year we moved the funds to projects on active construction. facilities was a good example where we have significant

projects moving forward. and those things and projects muni forward specifically that required a greater amount of outreach that would be extended we moved to future issuances. knowing we were performing slow with regard to spending and getting projects out, we have done supplemental and doubled the spending since the supplemental was completed and the projects that were next were significantly large projects like 16th street have all been legislated by the mta board and will be moving into construction. based on that we expect to fully expend that bond in the 2022 period and market street is an example where we still expect between $75 million and $90 million going in the construction of that project. >> >> then you expect another infusion of bond?

>> that bond was moved forward from 2024 to this period. the reason being is the mta last year went through a process to look at all of its bus yard facilities and rail facilities across san francisco. we have two over 100 years old that need to be replaced. we're in the process of doing the upfront planning and outreach on that. the bond moving to the 2022 window provides the cash flow needed for the reconstruction of the yard project and we need to meet cash flow and lessons learned how to have projects ready for construction up front and asked to me of the bond forward and the update of the yards is $1.2 million to the bond will move the construction projects forward. >> >> commissioner: thank you.

so on page 13, the bond schedule, the thing that strikes me about this page and i mentioned this is that in kind of area after area, this seems like nowhere near what my sense is we need to spend in any of these areas. so affordable housing bond i know later on president yee is going to be helping us raise that number to $500 million which seems like a better number. but as you go of course i think a lot of us would like to see a $1 billion affordable housing bond but millions for parks and open space by 2020 where i think many of us heard the need is

like $500 million and that's not that's to do a small handful of projects around the city. it wouldn't even touch every district. this spread that out and the $500 million comes in over a decade. transportation and we have billions in unfunded not withstanding the m.t.a.'s relative slowness in spending the money and they need a whole lot more. and water front safety, the $158 million given the multi-billion cost of the seawall seems most laughable. how do we think about how these anticipated bonds like how they fit in the overall need within

the entirety of the capital of the capital plan? >> a few thoughts. i'll try to be concise. one thing to remember is geobonds are not the only source available to the city. if we look back a few slides to slide 9, we see geobonds are just a piece of the pie. i participated in the seawall financing working group and looked at four dozen strategies. some big, some small and looking broadly and holistically so the burden doesn't fall on any one source completely when something's that big. and it also take time to deliver a project. we can identify all the need we want but something we just heard from the controller's report is it take time to spend and we see that across the bond programs. it can take six, seven, eight year to spend down and we'd like to hurry up but also we need to

proceed and follow all of our codes and get the community on board and make sure we have buy-in and we're doing things in the right way and that doesn't happen overnight. so piecing things out is a good idea. spreading across programs is a good idea so we continue to meet the most urgent needs across our portfolio as we go.

>> the need at the start and at the end per a combination that we collect each year. so that is there. the enterprise department, so that the firefighte puc they fuh

various revenue sources. it's a fully funded capital programme there. if you were to add goals to their capital plan, you would made to address the funding for that, but in terms of everything they have planned, that is funded. mta, likewise, has their own capital plan and it's a consolidated ten-year plan addressing 4.6 billion of mta funding but also 4.5 billion, if i recall, of deferred need, so that is called out in that way. the airport so funds and meets its needs with fees and the port has deferred needs with all of the development they like do. so that is addressed. some of the things with regard to affordabl affordable housingy target with census leadership, to my knowledge, has not been establish. we have mayor lee's target inherited and being delivered at an accelerated pace with current

leadership that is continuing to set a goal post on that front, but in terms of what you're talking about, how many billions dollars we would strive to produce and the work group that president thathas convened and d to the conversation. >> thank you, any other comments, questions? yes, supervisor ronan? >> thank you. so given that we need to pass the capital plan by may 1, when there's a merging discussions happening at the board, and again, i'm going to refer back to the, for example, the juvenile justice ordinance and that's not reflected in the plan even though we'll have to build new types of facilities, several

that are smaller, how does that, then, relate to the plan? >> absolutely. so the city's capital needs evolve. this document is static. we do a full new capital plan to capture the latest and an update. so if there are projects that need funding in the interim time, we can address them at that time. there are also opportunities for the board. you can introduce resolution to amend the capital plan within the board's dis-cres discretions and budget instruments, any of those things and all of those things come back before committee and you can revise the capital plan in step with that legislation. so it's a guiding framework to help us though where we are and

to reaffirm or commitments that we want to do good government and take care of the things we need to do that we care about our resilience as a city. it's an opportunity for us to plan out, to have some of the conversations that we're going to need to have to help that legislation coming forward succeed. but the plan evolves, as thinking evolves. >> and then talking about another, i noticed you removed the exit plan, which is great. the board decided not to rebuild a new jail. but there is a mention of a $417 million for the hall of justice consolidation plan for 2028 that doesn't specify details. >> so the plan for that set of cops, at the end of the plan and

as i mentioned, that project -- the planning has not really yet begun in earnest, the hall of justice holds a jail with 350 prisoners. it's revisioning the work group process and prioritized strategies. it talks about some of the strategies that are capital related and indicates that the replacement jail was not the will of that group. as you mentioned, there's to longer a prisoner exit cop dedicated to a capital project for replacement prisoner, for a replacement jail. the question about what to do with the pitcher prisoners is up resolved.

maybe bail will go away and that will make a difference, maybe, but we don't know at this time and many of the levelers that seem most potentially affected are in the hands of the courts, really out of the city's control directing where people are suppose go, whether they're supposed to land in jail or not. so you're right, that the plan is open ended on that question. so there's a consolidation plan envisioned. if we can reduce the prisoner population, which is what all of the narrative says we're prioritizing, then that would br placement jail. if we are able to knock down the building, right, we will have moved the prisoners somewhere and hopefully that's out of the jail system. if it's not and we need the capacity to rebuild, that would be possible. but not explicitly called for and not assumed and all of that. >> so the $470 million is sort

of a place holder. >> it's a place holder for a hall of justice replacement project. if san francisco no longer needs capacity, a jail would not be built. >> this board has clearly stated it does not want to rebuild another jail. i'm unclear why we're still holding that large amount of money. >> well, what this board has said as far as i understand is that we want to prioritize all alternative strategies that we can in order to reduce the jail population so that we can permanently close county jail number four and that's what the plan calls for. there's to commitment to build a jail in this, in this document. >> i'm the deputy city administrator. the current leases abou leases e

exit, this was back to the site. >> that's right. >> we would be building for all of the this come back together to be near the court. whether that includes a jail or not is to be determined later but the $400 million number assume -- >> that's an office space number. >> it's an office space number? >> it is. i mean, that's correct, that's what we're assuming we're going to need in the plan. >> ok, thank you. president yi. >> thank you, chair. is this a good time to introduce amendments? >> yes. >> so i want to thank the team of the office of resilience and capital planning, especially heather green and brian strong for the work leein leading to ts ten-year capital plan today. this is a live, breathing document with a framework to

plan ahead for our city's resiliencecy and to help identify emergency needs. again, the question that supervisor ronan is a good one and is this a living document? and i plan do do further changes in the future, but today with that, it makes sense that affordable howing has been inserted into the capital plan, given the crisis that we are in. it is one of th public magnitud, and we're cochairing the working group to help plan for the 2019, affordablaffordable housing bonh moved up in the bond cycle because of pressing needs. originally the bond was set at

$300 million, but after the proposed capital plan was published, the office of public finance has since updated its general obligation fund model to reflect updated assessed value, growth, projections as of march 2019. the update to the five years of financial plan and some other updated debt numbers. according to the controller, an additional 200 million in geobond capacity has been identified. i and everybody else in this room have heard from many of you and others on the board the need to identify more sources for funding, affordabl affordable hg projects across the city and to ensure we're maximizing this opportunity. the mayor and i coauthored a letter directing the city

administrator naomi kelly, who chairs the capital planning committee, that the full 200 million should go towards our upcoming affordable housing bond. today i am asking the committee to support increasing the 2019 affordable housing bond amount to 500 million by reflecting this in the ten-year capital plan. i believe that in the controller identifies additional increases to capacity, that it should also be directed to the affordable hoddinaffordablehousing bond. the others are in the growing need that has no not reached a level of priority it deserves. 20% of sanfrancisco's population are senior and that map is projected to grow to 30% by 2030. nationally, in 1990, only 11%

was 50 or older. today it's about 50%. i have serious concerns about how this population will be able to continue living in the city. they call home and to receive the type of care they need. some seniors are making the difficult decision to move and those who can't are at high risks of housing insecurity. this is really unacceptable. meantime, we know demand for assisted living with in-home caregivers continues to grow. and san francisco has been rapidly losing residential care facilities for the elderly. we lost 20% in the past six years. not just low income but middle-income residents can be placed far away as a result of this loss. this is not a solution our

cities should be proud of. eventually these seniors will need more care of in-home support. those with means have been able to access what's called continuing care righ care retirt communities and some of the facilities cost upwards of 56,005,000a month. the average retiree makes less than 1500 a month on social security benefits and these are not affordable for most families but do provide seniors the ability to age in place by providing a range of housing options. we need to make this kind of support available to more people. in looking at the pipeline for deeply affordable housing projects for senior, i also see a gap. this is what i call why i callg on this matter as i did yesterday. most of our affordable housing

is at the 50% ami level and many seniors are not even -- wouldn't have enough income to be eligible for. i want to see solutions to this problem articulated in the capital plan. the housing bond working group has a subcommittee focused on seniors now. i know that plans are still coming together, but there are some revisions, i believe, we can make today that will us on a path to address the glaring and growing need. so i move to amend the resolution to approve the capital plan with the following revisions. modify the geo bond programme to update the capacity and add 2 million to the plan, 2019 affordable housing bond. again, making it 500,000 at this point.

also acknowledging that if the bonding capacity increases, that the new amount would also be directed towards the housing bond. number two, add an emergency -- i'm sorry, add an emerging project to the housing and human service's chapter called continuum of care site. this should describe the division of an affordable facility that will emulate the features of a community care retirement community. afford b unit for independent living, space to support residential care for the elderly with at least 30 bed and ideally, an adult daycare facility and a childcare centre to serve the greater community and to offer intergenerational engagement. the housing units would be made

available to the range of income levels including those in moderate range. a potential site for this project would be next to lagunda hospital the land the city electrilandthe city owns. in 1989 the voters of sanfrancisco were 73% of the vote, proposition a which included assisted living or continued care facility at the lugunda honda hospital rebuild. this project was never realized. i think the city can explore this option that has been already been contemplated, but deferred. and number three, add housing stabilityization for aging residents to the economic and neighborhood development chapter. this project should call out the

need for sanfrancisco to tag tae the housing shortage for the san francisco seniors with affordable howing solutionaffors with what they call home for the supports they need. i did hand out the red line copy of the amendments that i talked about to you. so if there's any questions, i would be happy to answer them. >> colleagues, any questions or comments on these amendments? so president yi, to su summariz, your amendments say one to increase the housing bonds slated for november of 2019 by 200 million to add 200 million

to that housing. >> correct. >> and the other amendment is to create a new area, i think, o offe inside the capital plan addressing low-income senior and moderate improve incom rit incoh seniors. correct? >> correct. and the third issue is really to in the capital plan there's a site that could be made available for a continued care residence. >> i mean, i realize that, actually, we've lost 25% of our residential homes, care homes. and then, also, our senior population is one of the fastest growing populations here in san francisco. we are through various hearings, i think, that we could attest to the fact we are woefully prepared for this aging population. absolutely. >> i want to say one more thing

tha.what i would like to do if e get our amendments passed today, at the full board, i will probably ask for a duplication of the file, so that we could have something on record, if, indeed, for instance, if we find more capacity for the 2019 affordable housing bond that we could change it pretty quickly. >> thank you very much. supervisor ronan. >> thank you. i'm supportive of these amendments from supervisor yi and if we could maybe -- i think there might be some willingness on the part of the chair to continue this item. >> actually, these amendments -- and i have amendments also -- are substantive. so we will have to continue the item on the advice of our city attorney general until the next budget and finance committee. >> i see. i'm a little behind the game here, but there's thoughts that

i have that might i want to bring next webbing. >> week. >> to mention what i'm thinking about right now is i'm still not sure we need all $417 million to continue reserved for the hall of justice consolidation plan. that was the same amount of money when we assumed that we were rebuilding the jail and so, i might want to look at that, maybe move some of that over to the housing bond and then have some ideas about maybe how to kind of reserve that money in a similar way to the senior housing. so i would love the chance to talk to president yi about that this week, if possible. >> great. i think miss green has something. >> point of clarification that the fiscal 28 hall of justice

consolidation numbers are based on office space replacement, so i'm happy to provide the detail behind that in between this meeting and the next. and also, just to note, that it is not simply the collapse of the hoj edmund and prisoner exit. we love the hoj behind when he entered into leases and when we got the direction from the board we were not proceeding with the jail replacement. >> i would love to talk about that more in depth this week. >> thank you. any other comments about supervisor yi's amendment. seeing none. i also have amendments. should we bring forth both or vote on this one. >> we can vote on this one right now. it's up to you. >> let's take a vote. >> i think i need a second.

>> supervisor memdelman or ronan, thank you. so shall we do a roll call vote on that, on that amendment. supervisor yi, supervisor stephanie. (roll call). there are five ayes. >> thank you very much. so colleagues, i want to say thank you for the presentation and i'm clear that we have big needs i in terms of public infrastructure and i heard in this press there's an $800 million backlog and could go to 1 billion. one issue i've been very involved in, in advocating for is emergency firefighting water system. it's efws. this issue is near and dear to

my heart and for the past two years, i have met with city departments to ensure we are developing a plan that addresses the real need in the richmond district. there are thousands of homes with wood structures and built crowclosetogether and i live ine built in 1922. it would be vulnerable to fire in case of a major earthquake or major disaster. between the richmond and sunset districts, we are talking about 42,000 structures that are currently covered by high emergency pressure system. while most essential san francisco has been equipped with a rebust water system known as awss or auxillary water supply system, the richmond district in the western neighborhood had the same access to hide pressure water systems in the case of a catastrophe. i am very appreciative of the

comprehensive work to draft a plan for the most robust version of the emergency firefighting system for the west side of san francisco. i understand that serious work has been done to make changes to the plan, thanks to the city administrator's office, the sanfrancisco puc and fire department. can you speak to the new details for the west side build-out now, please? >> absolutely. thank you. and on that, we have subject matter expert from the puc, john scarpola who will provide visuals. >> thank you very much. >> i'm going to ask if we could bring up this image here. so what you'll see in frontc frf us here is our preferred alternative for the west side

and this robust system that a s referenced comes from the puc. this system has two new pump stations with four sources of water that will supply high pressure firefighting to the sunset, the richmond and also to the sea cliff area. and we'll talk about how we came up with this alignment in a minute here. so the first pump station is located in lake merced, a 30 gal 30-gallon pump station, a regional water pipeline and the second being lake mercet itself with a billion gallons of water and if we ran those pumps through, that's over 23 day's

worth of water. so a great source for firefighting. the second location where two sources of water feed this is at the sunset reservoir. it's north basin, which has been seismically upgreate upgraded te of $60 million have 90 gallons of water feeding into a 30,000-gal-a-minute pump and a transmission line into that same pump. so were two pump stations, four sources of water that can feed into this loop system which you can see here and so, you can see there's a line that begins down at the lake merced and runs north and splits and makes its way north through the sunset. you can see the sunset pump station there and continues to head up via two lines to the richmond district, where there's another loop there.

and how did we come up with this alignment? we wanted to ensure robust protection and we also wanted to ensure that a single fire truck could hit all of the different homes within here. and it's actually a fire engine is the right term. i've learned that from the fire department and a thousand feet of hose on those engines. we we looked at the sea-cliff neighborhood, the richmond neighborhood, this alignment allows us to do so. this is quite a big project. so i'm going to now show you this slide and the keynote here is that, the first pump station is at lake mecet and all of the solid lines is what we're calling phase one and phase one is what we hope is the voters pass the 2020 bond that is referenced as well as dedicated funding from the puc that we

plan to 55 million into the project. this is what we would be able to build with phase one and phase two would be built with hopefully subsequent bond funds, hopefully again passed by voters. so that's the general system lay-out. i'm happy to take any questions on it at this point. >> thank you very much. any comments or questions from my colleagues? president yi. >> so i just looked at the phase one piece in which you were build it out and if you could show it back on the screen. in the -- it looks like you have a solid line, a yellow and then a red and then it seems like a broken line or it doesn't seem like a solid line and then you have a solid line in the park.

it's solid on a piece of paper but not solid on the screen. never mind, i've got it. >> i gave him a copy of one that's printed out. >> that's clearer. >> for our best audience. [ laughter ] >> watching at home, living in the richmond district in fear of fire, those lines that look broken are not actual. some look broken on your screen are not actually broken, right? >> correct. >> can you point on that? >> i can change to phase one -- >> maybe it would be good to use. >> this is by the ocean side. comes up north here and then moves west and runs west and the reason we decided do west as opposed to east is because of the existing -- i think it's the same. i think it's the same.

>> the entire funding for the west side would be included for this 2020 bond. is that right. >> for the entire -- the two pump stations. it is not in this 2020 bond, to my knowledge. >> that's right. there are two phases here as you have on the projected materialed.