strong use for the san francisco waterfront. again, we do not know who these people are, and how much time they might have spent for the planning process. you know, we have run into situations where people were not aware that there were maritime uses at the port. that may be a reflection. >> when you survey their connection, in terms of how often are they down here. it was like 78% or more. so you got the audience responding. physically they are down here, some of them are on a daily basis. that was very positive. we get people living in the sunset per se, they could be living in the sunset, these people that have moved onto the waterfront. that is an important action we need to continue, just to

understand where people are coming from and building that connection. we've been projecting for a while, it's not just about the neighborhood, it's about the whole city connecting to the waterfront. >> absolutely. one of the thing you mention, i don't know that we've ever see the whole length ourselves area if you are not planning to come i just want to encourage, and i think you probably have, if you please develop an executive summary it is much easier, for not just us as commission members, the people in general who want to go through it quickly, understand the key takeaways of the changes. the only other thing i want to also mention relative to the references that we always use a detailed letter from one of our very concerned constituents. he represents a lot of things going back to 1990. i just want to make a comment that, you know, this is 30 years later, the city has changed dramatically in many ways.

the character of the city, the physical, the people in the residence. you can debate whether it's better or worse, but change. i think part of our responses to balance that change, we have to do that responsibly. i don't think we can just go back and say this is like a constitution, we are bound by the constitution. i think this is a living document, it is a dynamic document. that is the reason we do updated every few years, to make sure it's getting the new circumstances. a gentleman mentioned earlier, it's a modern development. it's about space development, and i would add physical responsibility of what this commission is working for. we have to be able to afford for keeping this waterfront vibrance, we have things like the seawall which you have to figure out how we are going to actually pay for that, which we hope we will solve that issue. anyway, i commend all of you for doing this. i think it's a very important document. i like how it is tied into our

strategic plans. i think we need to be able to help people see that this is going to be a living document. it isn't going to go back and say what was said 30 years ago, is what we are doing today. >> thank you. [inaudible] >> i think this process can be a model for other city departments. [inaudible]

[inaudible] i really want to share their comments and echo that i suppor.

with our values, particularly or in equity sustainability and stability, it's really important. we need to have it as a living breathing document. then you can debate her better or worse. you want -- don't want to see peers quartered off. thank you for all of your work on this. >> thank you. >> diane, you are one of the hardest working people i know. i tell you. you're like james brown. the hardest working man in show business. the hours, the commitment that you have and showing up to all of the meetings, your passion and your commitment just goes beyond you and your team. i wanted to personally thank y

you. alice, you are spot on about your comments. you have a rearview mirror that looks like this, are you looking at that scum are you looking out the windshield in front of you? i know this commission, we are looking out the windshield in front of us, not something that happened in 1999. we are moving forward, and both of my commissioners don't know if the city is better or worse. he looked around, there is some good, and some bad. san francisco is so progressive, and it has moved, and it is counseling moving. you cannot stop change. change i think it is better. do we have some problems? yes, we do. we have issues with homelessness, dirty streets and stuff like that.

why do 30 million tourists a year come to our city? we are the second biggest attraction in california, behind disneyland. people cannot wait to come to san francisco. there is something to say about this city. how we lead here, in san francisco, the whole nation follows the way san francisco does. if i had ice choice between living in san francisco, even with problems in la, i choose san francisco hands down 10-1. diane, keep keep doing what you're doing, keep looking forward. those that are living in 1999, let them live in 1999, this is 2019. this port commission are rolling on into the future. thank you. >> thank you. diane, thank you once again, i want to thank alice and the entire committee for all of the time that you have dedicated to this effort over the last three years, because you have done a

lot of work, and you've come up with some really good recommendations. with the bcdc amendment, this is another phase of work that is just beginning. just wondering, have you had any preliminary conversations with bcdc about these? >> yes. we have actually had a series of meetings with the staff, and we are going to be meeting with -- i would note also, with the state land commission staff, they were present at many of the meetings of the working group, and so having estate lands, bcdc on the port, each with our public trust responsibilities coordinated and aligned, so we are not stepping on each other's toes so we are not marching in the same direction. that is what our objectives are. we met with bcdc staff, i think

all of that is really fundamental coming together with policies that make sense together. >> how do they feel about the preliminary? >> well, i think they have been very open to it, and because of what we have done between the pier 35 and china basin is replacing the 50% rule. just to back up, the 50% rule was trying to balance giving support at that time on land use, and then the ports giving bcdc some extra base sale and public access, public benefit. what we did between pier 35 in china basin, create these parts that are graciously spaced and working with the development projects in the historic preservation within the historic district, is a good track record. we are trying to bring a lot of those same principles into the

fisherman's wharf area. bcdc has no interest in trying to undermine the restaurants. i think that, with all of the public investments i have gone in for the pier at 43 promenade, to remove a blighted parking lot that was there previously, and all of the partnering that has been done with the cbd and the city with this public realm improvements. that is what we are trying to get some recognition for as the offset of getting rid of the 50% rule. >> is the 50% rule just for fisherman's wharf or is that port wide? >> it is port wide. the remaining resources are in the fisherman's wharf area. versus solid fill, which is what we have in this other waterfront. our most urgent concern, especially now as we are starting to go into the seawall and resilience planning.

we need to have the tool and the toolkit for making the infrastructure improvements that we need. with bcdc being the thought leader on many of the resilience planning initiatives. i think it should not be hard to connect the dots as to why we can come up with a better strategy for delivering public benefits, not having this old policy in place. >> this september 19 meeting is to cover all of these conflicts? are there any action items, or is this just for information? >> it is in an -- an initiation process. we have submitted a list of these issues, these as well as some others i have spared you from today. that is being presented to the commission next week so that the commission can say yes, go forth, and then there is a series of steps in public hearings and public comment hearings that go along with that. there will still be, we expect

to talk through the issues, and develop the proposed amendments to the special area plan, will be into the first half of next year, there will be a public review. >> great, thank you. any other questions or comments. >> next time, i would love for you to go first, most everybody left, and they're so much knowledge here. i wish the community was here to hear this. this is a lot of pertinent information. there's probably nobody here. you know, there are certain things, you know, you're going to come up and you will pass. this is important. i feel like something like this, when we have a full house, the public on the community needs to hear all this information. she knows how important it is for her group to have the stuff. we don't know what is going on, so i just ask in the future that you would consider first. this is too much information. thank you. >> thank you, diane.

>> item 15, new business. >> i have recorded to add park activation in the open space for the tease tdk hotel, and dinner theater project for information item. is there any other new business? >> yes, i would like to add an item. i am a governance kind of person, and we seem to always be in a continuous improvement mode here, at the ports, in terms of our policies, processes and procedures. i think it has been a while, and i think it would be good for us to review several things, but i think we should start with one. we have talked a little bit at one of the hearings, in terms of our revised ethics and rule of conduct. that is a big topic. i think staff can start to approach that. one of the areas of governance that i would like to come back and have your comments on, and you may want to talk to some of the individual commissioners, as

well as consult the officers, and that is to look at the term of the officers, come back with a proposal that we can then have an informational session and perhaps we can move to an action item. does that sound reasonable to you? >> you are actually -- asking to look at term limits of the officers? >> i think it is always good to review some of these administrative processes and procedures, to see whether they still fit, what we think will be good going forward, just as we made all of these revisions to the waterfront plan. and then, i think, silly follow-up i think it may where we had the discussion from the city attorney, it would be good to see, and i know you are still working on perhaps some sort of rule of conduct, or whatever it is that we are doing as far as it applies to all of us, the commission as well as the staff. it would reinforce a little bit of what we talked about in the water use management plan.

>> for this commission.an. >> understood. >> and then the term -- we're going to have the term on the discussion, but i think we

should also include something regarding the commission. >> the commission secretary. >> to be at every meeting. >> that's always bothered me the way it's written, because it requires that amy be here for every single meeting and it's not practical. it's impractical. so we need to amend that to give more flexibility. >> will you bring that back at the next meeting for discussion and possible action? >> absolutely. i can do that. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> a motion to adjourn is in order. >> second. >> all in favour? >> aye. >> the meeting is adjourned.

>> san francisco and oakland are challenging each other in a battle for the bay. >> two cities. >> one bay. >> san francisco versus oakland. are you ready to get in on the action? >> i'm london breed. >> and i am oakland mayor libby schaff. >> who will have the cleanest city? >> we will protect our bay by making our neighborhoods shine. >> join us on september 21st as a battle for the bay. >> which city has more volunteer spirit? which city can clean more neighborhoods? the city with the most volunteers wins. sign-up to be a bay protector and a neighborhood cleaner. go to battle fo

>> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses, and challenges residents to do their shopping within the 49 square miles of san francisco. by supporting local services in our neighborhood, we help san francisco remain unique, successful, and vibrant. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i am the owner of this restaurant. we have been here in north beach over 100 years. [speaking foreign language] [♪] [speaking foreign language]

[♪] [speaking foreign language] [speaking foreign language]

[♪] [♪] >> chairman: member mccue? member natuli? >> here. member mills? >> here. >> member patoha? absent. vice chair post? >> here. >> chairwoman: i've got everyone? okay. item number two, opportunity for the public

to comment on matters within the committee's jurisdiction that are not on the agenda. >> actually, mismcnulty is on it. >> mr. mcnulty? >> present. >> chairwoman: moving on to item number two, opportunity for the public to comment on any members before this jurs jiks that jurin that are not on the agenda? >> i have a handout. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. just to note, member

patoha just walked in. >> good morning, my name is jerry drafter, and i served on the civil grand jury -- excuse me, as a civil grand jury member in 2015/'16, and i'm a retired c.p.a. there are many new members and i thought it would be useful to hand out a copy of appendix with legislature underpining for the city services auditor, and the department and the position. seago is charged with overseeing the c.s.a.. >> i allowed two section, sf100 and sf101 that outlines tasks that the c.f.a. shall perform. and this is important, because there are tasks the c.f.a. may perform and tasks they shall perform. i will address what the

c.f.a. is required to porm and is not performing. if you look at section 101, and on the top there are three types of assessments. i'm going to deal with number two, which deals with the measures of efficiency, including costs per unit, of output or the units of service per full-time employee. this is also important for the citizens of san francisco to understand how the $12 billion annual budget is being spent. so, you know, are we getting more units of output? or it costing more to develop or produce each unit of output? that's a really important part of open government, and it's not being addressed. there are also nine specific service areas identified in section

f101a, where the c.f.a. is required to collect data and conduct comparisons. i think if you look lieu thlookthrough the list of nine areas and the reports that have been issued this year, you'll find there are major deficiencies. in conclusion, i think it is very important, as one of the agenda items is to review the annual report, that there is a more complete disclosure in the annual report as to what was done and what was not done. when i looked at the annual report, it's really a statement of what you did versus what you should have done. thank you. >> chairman: next public comment. >> i also have a handout.

and copies of a longer excerpt. c.f.a >> i can go ahead while you're reading that to save time. my name is kermit cubits, and i'm a resident of the shermot fords neighbourhood. my comments are about the emergency response funding bond programme. the citizens bond oversight committee must ask for additional

information on the bond spending, planning, and prioritization. rather than spending additional funds on office buildings for lower priority services, like traffic, forensics, or medical scanner offices, the city of san francisco must focus on earthquake preparation, specifically the auxiliary water supply system and the emergency firefighting water system. you may be aware, or you may not be aware, that the san francisco civil grand jury, manned by citizens like this gentleman here, issued a 114-page report on july 17th entitled "act now before it is too late: a ag aggressively handle our water system." this raises several questions for me.

first, do the city, government, mayor and board of supervisors and management agree with the analysis in the grand jury july 17th report? i believe the response is due in 90 days. second, how does e.s.e.r. work described in the 2010and 2014 bond reports fill weaknesses in firefighting, i.e., coverage of the city by adequate water supplies in the event of a nearby earthquake? third, as funds have been allocated for some projects, should lower priority office projects be delayed to accelerate firefighting water supplies and equipment? fourth, can san francisco take interim measures, such as portable water systems, to fill gaps in water firefighting systems, and should e.s.e.r. funding or other funding be prioritized to

provide such interim measures. and fifth, can reports on e.s.e.r. planning projects and prioritization provide mapping data to show coverage, or lack of coverage, of san francisco neighborhoods rather than merely tabulation of budgets and expenditures? it is the result that is an adequate firefighting water supply, not just the list of projects that needs to be monitored for progress. and if you can switch to the computer just to show, this is a table from the grand jury report that shows which areas of the city have high reliability, and which have low reliability. and as you can see, the sunset has low reliability, and bay view hunter's point has low reliability. and only the san francisco bay has adequate reliability. >> chairman: state your name again? >> kermit.

>> chairman: any public comment? >> i have copies. seeing no public comment, can you call number three? >> item number three, election of chair and vice chair. >> chairwoman: so we did do this last month or last meeting, if it feels like we just elected. we have to do it at the beginning of every fiscal year. this is our first meeting in the first fiscal year. are there any other nominations for chair and vice chair? is that how that works? >> thank you, ken rue, deputy city attorney through the chair. that's the process. i think what we've done in the past, we start with the election of the chair. we have a discussion out out of the discussion, we have a motion.

before we vote on the motion, however, we need to go to public comment, of course. and then we take the vote. if that fails, we repeat the process until someone becomes chair. once we have a chair elected, we simply repeat the process for the vice chair. >> i would hik like to nominate kristin chu to be chair of this committee. >> second. >> chairman: any public comments? can we take public comment? seeing none, can we vote? >> yes. >> chairman: okay. chair chu? >> yea. >> mr. lurkin? >> is that me? >> chairman: okay. member mccue? >> yes. >> member mcnulty?

>> yes. >> member patoha? >> yea. >> chairman: vice chair post? >> yes. >> chairman: great. mr. mills hasn't been sworn in yet, so he is not is voting today. have there any nominations for vice chair. >> i will nominate lauren post for vice chair. >> chairwoman: i will second. any comments from the members? we already have a nominee? any public comment on vice chair? seeing none, can you call the vote. >> chair chu? >> yea. >> member lurkin? >> yes. member mcnullty? >> yea. >> vice chair post?

>> yes. >> item number four, approval with possible modification of the may 20th, 2019, meeting. >> chairwoman: do any of the members have comments? >> i'll move to approve the minutes. >> second. >> chairman: any public comment on the minutes? move on to item number five. >> i think we need to vote. >> chairman: can we just do one big vote -- i think we need to vote on the ap priewl oapproval of the minutes? how can you do it without calling roll call -- >> you can do a roll call

oraor any say any objections. >> chairman: any objections? great. moving on to item number five, present takes regarding the 2008 san francisco general hospital bond, and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation. >> good morning, madam chair, and members of the seago committee, my name is joe chin, public works public manager for the public health and safety program. my last presentation was back in january of 2019. so before we -- i move into the presentation this morning, i just want to kind of spend a moment to acknowledge the rest of my

public works public management team that is here today, as well as members of the representatives that are here as well as part of the bond program and to help answer any questions on that. that i'll be answer that morning. i see members of the department of public health, homeless and supportive housing, as well as the fire department. they're all here. i wouldn't go through any individual names, but we do have representatives from the three client departments. so now moving to slide number two, this is for those members that were here back in january, or maybe have seen the report -- the last report that was published by the public works. so this bond program, i believe, was back in may. so i'll quickly go through

the bond program for those that are not familiar with the public health and is safety bond program. this is a slide that maps out the bond authorization for the entire public health and safety program. it provides the total amount for this bond, $250 million, and provides funding for three client departments. the lion's share of this bond is for public health, at $272 million, and $58 million allocated to the fire department, and then $20 million for the department of homelessness and supportive housing. to just quickly walk through the graph, the red-colored bars, as you can tell by the slide, maps out the allocation by bond component, and also the orange is the allocation by bond sale, and then the yellow is the -- the orange is the first bond sale, and the yellow is the second bond sale. for this bond program,

we've completed two bond sales two date. the first one was $176 million, and then the second bond sale was $52.5 million. and then moving on to slide three, i think in general, from public works' perspective, the projects have been doing well from all components. the bond program covers six bond components, and we've been making great advances from starting with a programming phase to design and moving to construction. so let me just focus quickly on the first section, which is highlights and accomplishments. there will be more deeper dive into each bond component as we move through the slide deck. for now, let me give you a high-level view of where we are currently. so one of the largest bond components is the

zuckerburg bond component, and of the 19, 16 are active. roughly one project has been completed, and there are four projects that are in construction,and two in plan approval, and one in design and five other projects not currently in the programming phase. in the community health centre, we're tramaticing four projects. one project has been completed, and two others currently in planned review. the ambulance project is a great success, where we've starkly issued the notice to proceed to the contractor in the later part of 2018, and as of july, we already started steel erection for the facility. so it is way into construction. and one of the first projects that we've now completed for the

homelessness and supportive housing component way 440 church streerntled whicstreet, which we essentially completed. we are just tracking the projects to quickly move these projects from design to construction as soon as possible. this is obviously related to risks that -- the adverse bidding environment that is faced by all projects. this bond program, as well as other bond programs managed by public works or other city departments. just to quickly talk about southeast health center and cash emission, those two projects are an upcoming milestone, really to finish our design. we're currently in the permitting phase, and we'll hopefully look to starting construction by the early part of 2020. in section three of this slide, bond sales and

appropriations, i mentioned there are two bond sales to date for this program. the first bond sale was completed in march 2017. the second bond sale was completed in june of 2018. at this point we're currently targeting our third and final bond sale for early part of 2020. and in section four, just risk issues, concerns on budget scope or schedule, the risk and issues continues to be the same since we started this bond program. once again, it is not knowing what the bidding environment is. we've looked at lot of different projects across the program, as others. it is just a very challenging bidding environment. we -- however, we do see some lightening up of some contracts being let out, so that could be a good sign, you know, that that's forthcoming. okay. moving on to slide four,

as i mentioned, the next few slides is a height highlight of each of the sex components under this bond program. there are more details and photos of each project that is part of the bond component, that is part of the part that was issued as part of the slide deck. if there are any questions on that, i can talk about that at the end of this presentation under the "q" and "a." but moving to zuckerburg general hospital, the budget remains the same, $22 million, and current expenditures is about $46 million, which accounts for about 42% of the first bond sale amount. and then in terms of accomplishments, i.t. infrastructure, and there are two projects currently going through oshpod plan

review. oshpod is the authority and jurisdiction for hospitals in general. all of the projects that we're currently delivering, under oshpod, not the local jurisdiction -- it is a state agent see tha agency thats jurisdiction over the cheap care facilities. the family health center is one of the latest projects we completed programming, and we just wrapped up or schematic design. and this century beginning is tt attempt of or planning for seismic -- basically retrofitting the existing hospital after the new hospital is completed.

so we've are about 95% complete under phase one, and that accounts for about 30 locations out of 20206locations, and we're looking a lot. how could we maximize services while we do this very important work. 6h, the rehabilitation department, seismic upgrade, those are -- we're looking to complete construction by the end of the year and the early part of 2020. and kind of another key activity that we're looking at is what i call a request for a proposal for a c.g. contract, and this centur is the message we've

worked on with the client department, as the most efficient way to promote one project under the building five program in this bond component. just moving on to the southeast health center component, this component comprises of phase one and phase two. phase one was completed in 2017, which included renovation in the existing facility, renovating the dental clinic as well as the lobby area. and now the team is focused on phase two, which is building a 22,000 health center adjacent. and currently we're tracking three documents, and we received a city design review of phase three, back in july, which then allows the project to segue into the next phase,

which is to start the construction bidding. so we're tracking for that to happen next month. so that's our current schedule. which will allow croud crowks construction to starter in the early part of 2020. moving to to the health center component, there are two locations that we're focused on under this component. the maxine health center located in district five, and cash emissions health center located district eight. we're embarking on an upgrade to improve seismic performance, as well as to perform major interior renovation for both facilities. maxine hall is ahead of cash emission, and we awarded a contract.

we issued m.p.p. in july. the construction in the facility itself will start tending the relocation of the clinic to a temporary facility that is currently being set up by the off-sight location, less than a mile away. at the l. hill hutch community center. that's currently what we're tracking for maxine. the move-out date for maxine hall is currently in october, into the temporary facility. and the clinic will remain there for the whole duration of the construction face. and cash emissions, just wicly oquickly on that, we finishing up design, and we had to push out the bidding date, do some mec commechanical improvements

and air conditioning, that has been added to this project. we're looking at starting bidding at the end of the year, and starting construction by the early part of 2020. and then moving to ambulance facility component, this is one project -- one big project. it is constructing a new facility for the e.m.s. section of the fire department. an n.p.p. was issued in october 22 of 2015, and steel erection started in july. i'm happy to report in the early part of august, just a few weeks ago, we've completed the steel erection, and we've had a very nice and formal steel topping off ceremony with the fire department and the contractor. so this project is well under way. at this point, we're on target to complete the

project by winter of 2020. there are some photos at the become of the slide, highlighting some of the steel that has been completed now, as of today. moving to the neighborhood fire station component, under this component, we're tracking two scopes of work. the main one is the host tower removal project. there has been an assessment done that the host tower that currently at six remaining fire stations will create a seismic vulnerability in the event of a majority event, and so the project is to remove that scope tower. and the other is replacing the existing emergency generator at three fire locations. so this -- the host tower

projects have been very challenging. i'm happy to report that after a very long and arduous process, after almost a two-year process, they received a category exemption approval from the san francisco planning department, which al o lousallowsthe project to movem design into permitting and construction. we're tracking to have construction commencing on these projects probably by mid-2020. on the generator replacement, there are three locations that are being targeted for generator replacement, at fire station 18, 37, and 44. and those are currently in design, permitting with construction also to start by middle of 2020. and then last, but not least, on the homeless service sites, we are targeting or tracking

three scopes under this component. 44 church street renovation, that's one of the larger projects, where we are building out a new administrative office, as well a clinic access point for the department homelessness and supportive housing, and there are the three city-owned shelters we're improving, and the last is the 1064 mission, which is a project among three departments. there is a mayor's office, a housing community develop, and the department of public health, as well as the h.s.h. departments. as i mentioned, 44 church street was completed july 31st. at this point, we are tracking the h.s.h. group to move into this renovated facility by mid-to-end of september of this year. and then we are starting

to start the construction work, or at least getting cost proposals for one of the city-owned shelters. that's at 260 glen gate, also known as hamilton adult shelter. and we're anticipating starting construction by end of 2019. moving on to the last slide, which is slide 10, i won't go through all of the lines and numbers here. i think it is pretty self-explanatory. this is what we have shown before, a summary of all of the expenditures and incumbrances for all six bond components across the board. it shows pe percentages and what has been spent to date, compared to the bond appropriation, as well as to the original bond budget. at this point, that concludes my formal presentation this morning. so myself and my team is

available here to answer any questions you may have. >> chairman: awesome. thank you. so i am the liason for this bond. and i met with joe a couple of weeks ago, i think, regarding this. before i go into my report, if it's not completely clear, the department of public works is working on behalf of three departments. they've got client departments. and so i wanted to take an opportunity to ask the client department if they have any issues or concerns that they would like us to be aware of? and in general, are their expectations being met? i believe we have members of the fire department, homelessness, and the department of public health. so we're here to listen. anything you would like us to know? >> d.p.h., do you want to come up? >> good morning. my name is cathy chung,

and i'm the director of facilities and capital planning for the department of public health. i just want to say that we're actually quite excited that after many years of planning we have three community clinics of our health centers going into construction by erl early next year. they are once in a generation-type projects. we've worked very hard, hand-in-hand, in collaboration with the public works team. so we would like to thank them for all their efforts, and just look forward to getting these done and being able two move back in. >> chairman: great. thank you. >> i'm terry schultz from the department of public health, zuckerburg capital planning. it is going to and transformational. the seismic project is going to be impacting, as joe said, there are 206

touch points in the building, but they usually have a column which impacts two rooms. so usually it is sandwich between two rooms. there are 400 changes or relocation that is we have to do enabling those efforts. so there is a lot of risk that is involved with that effort. and we spent a lot of time with joe's team and our teamworking collaboratively, and i think it has been going very well. and we've been very successful as mitigating some large problems. i want to thank joe for his efforts. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. >> hi, i'm lindsay haddock with the department of homelessness and city housing. i want to thank joe and the department of public works for the collaboration on getting these projects up and running.

440 churchill has just completed construction. and the department is looking forward to moving later this summer. it has turned out better than i could have hoped, given some of the challenges we have with the existing building. and h.s.h. is really excited to be under one roof, together for the first time, in our department's short history. and as joe mentioned, it is a complicated project involving the department of public health, along with h.s.h., but it has been a smooth planning process, and i'm looking forward to starting construction on that next year. and in terms of the three city-owned projects, city-owned shelters that are going to start construction shortly, that's really been h.s.h.'s homework, to prioritize which scope items to get started with first. we're looking forward to starting work at hamilton shortly. hopefully in the next month or two. again, i want to thank joe and his team for their collaboration on our

portfolio. >> good morning, my name is dawn dewit, and i'm the new deputy chief of the fire services support division. i'm replacing tony rivera, who retired last week. i've been on the job a little more than three weeks, and i want to add that i'm really impressed by the collaboration and attention to detail that i'm experiencing in working with the focus scope bond team fo for the -- and the ambulance deployment facility team, too. i'm impressed with the level of care they're taking, the organization they exhibit, and i couldn't be happier with what i've seen so far. it is really impressive.

>> chairman: thank you. i appreciate you guys being here and your comments. as the liason, this has been in front of us, i think, twice before, and each time i will tell you that i find this bond extremely difficult to govern. when you think about whether it is on time and on budget with so many different projects and such a fluid contracting environment and decision-making process from our clinton departments. it is overwhelming. so i think it is fantastic to hear that the client departments are getting what they want. one of the things that also makes me more comfortable about that is that i know that there are commissions behind this, the fire department has their own commission, so there are people watching this besides us. it's hard to govern because the bond was written that way when it went to the ballot. it's not d.p.w. who is trying to make it more complicated than it is.

so a couple of things to point out: there is a financial audit that will be presented to us in our january meeting, so we'll get to look at that, also. and in our debt calendar, it looks like, as you mentioned, none other bond issuance, probably about $126 million, so it is a big bond issue that is expected in the spring. so we will hear again from the audit group about some of the financial responsibility associated with the bond and before the debt issuance. so that's -- overall, i'm very comfortable with the status of where this bond is at. does anybody have any questions for d.p.w. or the client department. >> actually, it is about -- this is a little bit of history, joe. the 2008 s.f. g.h. bond,

some months ago, i spoke to the city attorneys office, elaine o'neill, and she said that the subcontractor passed through claim and had gone through the g.c., had talented --did it settle? >> she gave us a little back story about this issue. >> thank you, member lurkin for the question. yes, this is regarding the 2008 s.f.g.h. improvement bond. this century bond tha is the bos passed to construct a new hospital on campus. what mr. lurkin was alluding to and chair chu mentioned, as the party was completed, there was ongoing litigation that was, i guess -- that the city got involved with. it started with a

litigation between web corp builder, which is the general contractor, and there was an ongoing litigation between one of their subcontractors, by the name of khsns. they had filed a lawsuit again web corp, and web corp pulled the city into litigation. so it was a cost complaint against the city and county of san francisco. so, yes, since then the settlement has been completed, finalized, i believe, and it has also been signed off by the board of supervisors. so, yes, so as of now, the litigation between web corp, the city, and k.h. has been resolved. so there is still a followup to the piece of that. the fact it is under litigation, maybe we can speak off-line about this

because there is a followup litigation piece on going where the city has filed a lawsuit against the designer of record. >> i'll check in with you later, joe. >> sure. >> chairman: any comments? >> i have a question. so you mentioned about one general contractor and five projects. did you say "lean" contract bidding? i didn't hear the term you used. >> the contract and mechanism is c.m. g.c., and it standards for construction manager and general contractor. we do a six step process, where we go through r.f.q., mean a qualification, to really perfect