is closeout. the highlighted more construction, division street, c.f.d. rehab project. that's our discharge project and construction is continuing to perform these concrete repairs, now that we had an opportunity to work on these and to implement repair on backflow control in these structures. a lot of this is night work and construction completion is expected to be completed next year. now one of the green infrastructure projects in construction right now and it anticipates completion in 2020. an infiltration gallery construction. the oceanside plan utilization project that's currently under construction with an expected completion of february 2021. the demolition of engines,

similar to southeast. there's much coordination with adjacent construction at the plant, much more congested and busy with a lot of work going on at the same time. finally, a broader perspective for some other problematic updates. we want to acknowledge the great work happening here and this summer we celebrated the eighth year of the city works internship program. since it started in 2012, they provided a paid internship to young adults between 16 and 19. this summer we had 15, supported by 8 program partners, in which my previous employer use to be one. that's my engagement with the program. this is one more example on how we're trying to leverage our infrastructure investments into our youths in the community. special thanks to young community developers, and ms.

lopez for managing this program. so this concludes our presentation for s.s.i.p. any questions? i'm glad to take them and i can roll through the quarterly report as well. >> thank you very much, pretty good for the first time. >> thank you. >> commissioners, any comments, questions? yes. >> you first tim. >> mr. paulson. >> you were talking before i even looked up. what was the role of young community developers in this? >> i can speak to that having served with my previous employer. now as program director, they're a community partner. they're a non-profit and helping leverage a public, private, and community partnership delivering this internship program. they help identified candidates, screened candidates, together with us as partners and p.u.c.

and the private firms are involved. work to make sure the program is administrated and the candidates turn into successful internship partners. >> and how would you describe internship in terms of job descriptions and construction, and all the projects. >> yeah, there is a pretty broad range looking back to 16-year-olds and 19-year-olds. the earlier stages, a lot of it was work shadowing and work site or orientation. when they hit 19, they're on their way to college or in transition, so there's more practical learning skills in delivering projects. >> how does that work in terms of apprenticeship in the construction site? >> that's a next phase. i know there's a long career

pipeline. this internship is one piece in the middle. from there, there's an expectation or progression in trades or more professional career opportunities. >> thank you. >> i want to point out that this is part of the proposal that the firm submitted to the city that they wanted to participate in the program, which is more professional service related. so, a lot of these youths rotate amongst your subs, in your team. this is something that they're doing using their resources to provide. so the city is not really, you know. we welcome it. we try to assist. it's something that the firms are doing as part of their social responsibility that we ask them to do as part of their solicitation. >> thank you. >> thank you. so you were sitting on the other side of the room for years.

>> years [laughter] >> so now that you're on this side of the room, what do you bring? what's going to be different? what have you been looking at and seeing from the other side that now that you're on this side, why did we hire you? >> that's a great question. it's wonderful to be in another interview. it's really good. [laughter] >> i can say it has been ten years. >> it doesn't stop. >> yeah, it keeps going. it's been ten years since i started learning about how we work and what san francisco p.u.c. does in this city. over the last year or so with this transition of what the ssip has evolved. i've had a lot of conversations with the staff, learning how the program evolved and how it continues to evolve. market conditions have changed. we're ten years smarter than when it started. climate change, there are other impacts continuing to impact the

development of this program and how we deliver good infrastructure in the city. i think the timing opportunity for this role, i can bring construction experience and design and knowing how to deliver, at least represent or facilitate the great work we have to deliver the commitments we already made. >> so you're the deliverer. >> we're moving into the delivery phase. one of the last slides shows the development to get to the red line. a lot of the thinking and the planning and the strategy has been developed. now we have to deliver. >> thank you. that wasn't so bad. >> thank you. good. as long as that answer was okay. [laughter] >> i guess since we're doing a few interview questions, i have one main one and you probably know what i'm going to ask. you know, one of my commitments to this commission in the city is around green infrastructure and resilient infrastructure, especially in the face of climate change. we had a lot of discussions and

budget allocations and back and forths about that. i would love to hear your views on climate resiliency and what you -- because you did mention climate change. we now really get it after 10 years since you began. what do you supposed to do to address those issues? >> yeah, climate change, and how we address it in our infrastructure and our ongoing operations is huge. it's personally very important to me. to demonstrate some of that, the majority of the properties i have worked on here has been on the waste water side. the majority of those have been within green infrastructure. i helped deliver some of the early implementation projects. the first efforts in the capitol program to incorporate green infrastructure thinking to our day-to-day waste water and storm

water and what we do here. the majority of those early implementation projects were streetscape probablijects. by moving those along and knowing the challenges and addressing those projects and what it meant to deliver is expensive. it's complicated. the streetscape as a public right of way is challenging. as things move forward, we are now looking to leverage some parcel-type projects and share responsibility with the school district as a partner and move that thinking forward and do other good things. there are other grant programs of course that we're on board with. then there's the storm water management guidelines with the developers, implementing lots of work across the city. there's a great map on the p.u.c. website that shows where all the projects have been implemented and their stages of progress. it is powerful to see it happen. it has to be integrated with everything we do. it is our future. as we fail to recognize that now

then we would have failed. everything i see so far is moving towards incorporating to what we do. we have to keep it front and center and i'll always respect that. >> great, thank you. i invite my other commissioners, if you have an interview question at this time. if you do not, we will thank you for your presentationation. public comment? next item please. >> the next item is the update on pg&e bankruptcy and the city's acquisition. >> you skipped one. >> i'm sorry. that's part two. okay. waste water enterprise capital improvement program quarterly report. >> this one is much briefer. it's about the waste water capital improvement report. we highlight three capital projects that since the last

quarter have now moved into a forecast of we're scheduled extended the previously approved schedule by six months or more or a cost variance of 10% more than the approved project. the first one is called kansas and moran street. it's a delay to the original baseline completion schedule. so the agreement with san francisco public works going underneath part of their property and public works is expressing some concern about the proposed tunnel alignment in this case underneath their maintenance yard. they work on a 35% design but won't be able to release the request for qualification and the r.s.p. for the specification of that tunnel work until we come to an agreement with the san francisco public works with that issue. that's a work in progress.

now phase two, it's forecasting a delay to the original baseline completion schedule. this is the second phase of the project. it's to convert gary boulevard's center lanes and the bus transit lanes. they placed this property on a temporary hold due to funding. thirdly and lastly, the new treasure island waste water treatment plant. forecasting a delay also to the original baseline completion schedule. the team is working to complete the c.e.r. for early 2020 and is moving ahead with the recommendation for a design build operate approach. to -- so that conclude it is highlights of the three projects. i'll take any questions on those if there are any. >> commissioners, any questions? any public comment on this item?

hearing none. thank you very much for your report. next item please. >> all right barbara, you're up for the pg&e bankruptcy and city acquisition offer. >> thank you, barbara hale, goods afternoon. i'm here to make a brief update on where we are at with the bankruptcy case and our efforts in acquisition. i'm going to do a highlight on the bankruptcy on the claims cases that involves pg&e. the regulatory, california regulatory and legislative activities that have been under way. so since we last briefed you, pg&e asked the bankruptcy court to find that inverse condemnation does not apply, which would relieve it of substantial claims against it. the court ruled against pg&e

condemnation does apply. subsequent to that, pg&e reached a $13.5 billion settlement with wildfire claimants. you likely seen reports of this in the newspaper. it was covered in the chronicle today and there was quite a bit of anticipation of this happening, which was covered in the news as well. the settlement would cover pg&e 2015, 2017, and 2018 claims, which would include the campfire and the tubs fire. it also includes the ghost ship warehouse fire in oakland, as well as others. so it includes wildfires except for the kincaid fire, which is the one that happened most recently. the bondholders plan, which was the other competing plan that the bankruptcy judge allowed into the proceedings may no longer have the support as a result of the wildfire victims.

so, another plan amendment, we seen a number of these. we're still on this roller coaster of changes in the bankruptcy where pg&e is trying to put together a plan that meets its financial op -- obligations. none of these plans meet the pg&e safety culture and general approach to center pg&e work on rate payers and customers that we're looking for in a broader change. it's the kind of change we would bring about where we own and operate the system in san francisco and be the utility providing service to all of san franciscans. in respect to claims cases, as a result of that settlement, the two areas of claims cases that are under way are in a bit of a pause mode. the san francisco superior court

set of cases, trial to determine the wildfire claims for particular claimants, that may not need to go forward given the settlement. the judge did not rule on that yet. the u.s. district judge that was asked to estimate claims did formally pause that effort on monday, yesterday, given the settlement at the request of wildfire claimants. then moving on to the california regulatory environment. there's a number of activities under way at the california p.u.c. that is relevant to us in thinking about acquisition and the pg&e bankruptcy. so first off is that i would note the cost of capital case. at this time of year, every year, the california p.u.c. looks at applications from the

utilities on what their estimated cost of capital and rate of return should be. the utilities, all three major utilities, pg&e, southern california, and san diego gas and electric ask for higher returns on equity to account for the additional risks from wildfire. the judge in that case recently issued a proposed decision that would reject that framing and said basically on the basis that ab1054 eliminates that risk by establishing a wildfire claims fund. so we will be filing supportive comments on that proposed decision. we have yet to see how pg&e may comment on that decision. more on that as we see that develop. the california p.u.c. has opened an investigation on the

bankruptcy. looking at the plans, it's an accelerated timeframe. we're monitoring that at this point. we haven't made any substantive filing in that case yet. staff of the california p.u.c. recently issued a report that you may have read ability in the newspaper where it made findings of a pattern of negligence with pg&e, with respect to its treatment of transmission, operations, and maintain innocence, specifically they were reviewing the circumstances around the campfire. the ignition of the fire was sourced at a transmission tower and failing cable hook. the california p.u.c. staff found negligence there. so this goes to that issue of safety culture and what kind of company may emerge from bankruptcy. on that front, we're still continuing to see in the legislative setting a number of ideas and approaches to trying

to address that, what i'm referring to as a corporate culture change. it's either because of a change in governance structure or other reforms. the co-op plan, which we talked about a little bit is one of those concepts. this is the concept that mayor licardo from san jose, working with other public officials throughout pg&e service territory embraced the concept of a co-op, which is a non-profit ownership structure for pg&e. since we reported on this last, we have gotten a number more of local government signatories to that concept and they distributed broad principles around that concept. the co-op principles address some of the concerns we had with

the concept, particularly around the lack of trance -- transparency and the structure of the g.o.overning board. so, that approach doesn't speak yet to how local level decision making on distribution grids, you know, local distribution grids would interact with that co-op, but it definitely shows a lot of alignment with the interest we have in addressing the corporate culture concerns we have with pg&e. then of course there's an ongoing dialog on various yul y utility markets that we're continuing to monitor. as things mature there, we will come and brief you on particulars.

with that i am happy to take any questions you may have. thank you. >> commissioners? any questions? that was a lot of information. thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> next item please. oh, public comment, any public comment on the pg&e update? our next item please. >> the last item i have, which is not identified on the report so i'm going to give you an update on the storm event that happened a couple days ago. chris mcdaniels, please come up to lay out what happened and how we respond and just go over that. >> good afternoon. chris mcdaniels, i'm the manager under waste water. i have a couple of things i want to report on. the first thing is noah, which is our resource for predictions for the rain.

the second item is the thresholds we use at the operations dictates what we do. the third thing i'm going to talk about is what we did this past weekend, when we had the storm. noa is the national rain forecasting resource we use. during storm watch, we monitor it on an hourly basis. we have to do that because it changes so often. what we're trying to find is levels of rain that we need to be concerned with. when we find those, then we react and review our process and make sure we have enough resources and coverage in the field to take care of the rain. so, that's what noa forecast is. internally, we have thresholds. so any rain predicted, a quarterquarter inch or less, it's under normal circumstances. if it goes to 0.5-inch, then we

look for additional resources to respond to the rain predicted. we look at the city and divide it up into four pieces and we put resources in each area in the city so we can shorten our response time. when i say resources, that is equipment and labor. i don't know if you're familiar with the trucks that have a vacuum hose in the front. those come in handy for cleaning out catch basins. we put one in each zone so we can respond very quickly. if the forecast is over 1 inch then we deploy the flood barriers. 17 and fulsome floods on a regularly basis and we proactively try to minimize the flooding at that location. if you look at the corner, we create a barrier on the southwest corner to prevent the water from going into the businesses. there are a couple well-known

establishments. a really nice coffee shop. unfortunately their kitchen and their dining area is 2 feet below the sidewalk. water tends to want to go to the lowest spot. we do that to protect those businesses and some of the residents that live there. this past weekend, as we reviewed noah every hour, the predictions were 0.5 to 0.75. that means we don't do anything extra. 7:30 p.m. on friday night, we took a look at it. it was 0.25. saturday morning at 5:50, it was still 0.25. that means internally, we don't issue any additional resources to fight the storm. so, as we all know around 2:35

and 3:00, we got hit with over 1.6 inches of rain in one hour. so they started ringing me saying what the heck chris, why didn't you have the resources out in the field? we have to go by noa. that's the resource we are going to use. although it looked like p.u.c. wasn't prepared, we were prepared and we had the appropriation resources in the field. these things happen from time to time. sometimes we have too much resources out in the field because of the report we're getting from noa and nothing happens. so we're in the middle of a situation here where we're doing the best we can. we had a meeting this morning where we tried to modify our internal thresholds and hopefully we could be more prepare for next time. >> go ahead commissioner. >> so what was the -- how did

you decide to change the modeling or to look at it differently? some of the things you're going to look at? >> noa will tell you it's going to rain between 0.25 to 0.50. they also have a line saying we expect some thunderstorms. it's nothing exact, but they put that line on the description. what we discussed earlier today is maybe we take that line and take it as it's going to rain additional to what they're saying. we're going to add 0.30 to every prediction we get if that line is there. what the hope is, is that the original number was accurate and we will hit the target. it's a moving target. weather is something that's hard to predict. if we're not there, there is a lot of public impact and we want to minimize adverse impacts to the public. when there is a 1.16 inch rain,

we have tons of resources out in the field. we try to work with them to help us. we are ready to go if we have accurate information. >> why is 17th and fulsome so problematic? is it the typography? >> yes, that particular location is prone to flooding as we all know. we also have 14th and rorona. we identified those as priority locations. when we send our resources out, they go there first. prior to rain coming, we send our staff there to make sure the system is functioning promptly. that means clean the c.b.s before the storm comes. we have proactive measures in place for those priority locations. 17 and fulsome back in the day, we had a stream, the natural

path of water. the system can only hold so much. when it can't take anymore water, it comes up. so we know that and we put this flood barrier process in place to help the community there so we can help them protect their properties. >> so the watershed, the san francisco watershed has something to do with it as well. i mean that's what, the low points with the watershed. >> right, at those points we have over an inch of rain. our system is not designed to hold that much water. so at the low-lying areas. >> are they all built up or some under freeways or some places where we can do something different? i know that alamany usually floods. you can't even get in. >> yeah, we have been looking at

the priority areas for a while and designed projects to help facilitate the water flow. the a main any project will help cayuga. >> what's the plan? >> so we can present to you, because this was on the calendar. we will present to you because we do have projects identified. we would love to share it with you. i know some of it. i can share with you offline, but bring a presentation to go over all that. also, the one thing i want to point out is that we recognize we need to do better communications to the supervisors and make sure that, i mean it's really challenging when we look at noa and it says that it's 0.75. we put the barriers up there. with the barriers, we have someone full time out there

because if someone needs to get in and out of their property, we need to have folks there to remove the barriers. we're out there for three our four days and no rain. then when we saw the forecast go back to 0.25, we remove the barriers and then it rains. it is really challenging. it makes us look like we don't know what we're doing. that's why we're starting to tell the community that we're basing this knowledge on this forecast. so that we are trying to get the best data out there. >> yep. >> so maybe we'll be on television or some way that we can communicate with people so they know what's going on and they would say noa alert or whatever. people would really like to know so they can prepare. if they understand why and how things happen, then i think all of us could really work better together. >> yeah, so last thing. we do e-mail, but we're going to look at other ways that we can get that information out.

so, with that, i just wanted to share that update. >> thank you. i have a question. for the modeling, because i vaguely recall that several years ago didn't we commit to investing in some new weather modeling system that was suppose to be more? >> we'll share that with you because that's something that's coming online in the future that will help us. it goes back -- well, we'll tell you more. >> yeah, because it seems that if it's not really serving us, then you have to add the thunderstorm line and add some arbitrary numbers so you can be protected. so i guess i would have a question, i would love to learn more if there is a better model we could use related to noa and in that conversation. i think what climate change is telling us is that we will be seeing these much more heavier rainfalls in shorter periods of time that are not really

predictable. i mean there may not be a model for it. so it seems that we need to figure out some preparation, both from the communications perspective, but also from resource allocation so you guys aren't caught off guard. >> we notice that it's not just the intensity, but the sales are hitting us from different angles. the prediction is for san francisco in general, it may say 0.25 at city hall. but a sale may come at other -- over an inch. we have a plan to do better. >> thanks, we love to learn more. thank you so much for your work. >> thank you. >> any public comments on this item? hearing none, next item. >> that concludes my report. >> any public comments on the report overall? hearing none, we are now going

to call item number 9 before number 8. if there aren't any objections, and then we will move on to number 8. if you wouldn't mind calling item number 9. >> item 9 is update on the disaster recovery and resiliency planning as it relates to the sewer system improvement program. >> good afternoon. you're going to get a full sweep of discussion today on emergency planning. i will keep this very brief. this is a follow up to a memo you had in your board package, i think about two meetings ago on this same topic. this is just elaborating it at the commission's request. got it? there we go. okay, so what we're going to cover here briefly is how the

ssip program, the project development process incorporates emergency planning and recovery standards for the infrastructure. here's what we're going to briefly go through. we're going to use the seismic reliability, and what the high level of service is, and the supporting objectives for that. so what you see here is the five objectives related to the seismic reliability. the first objective is straightforward. it says we design all our facilities to meet the seismic design event, which is a 7.8 magnitude earthquake. then the three objectives, two,

three, and four are where we take that high level objective and we bring that down into the design and other elements to make sure that we can actually achieve it once the system is built. so those three objectives in the middle, objects two, three and four. these all deal with how we recover from a major seismic event in terms of restoring the critical service. i'm going to briefly recap those. so objective number two is what happens immediately after the emergency event and through the first 72 hours when we are taking steps to assess the system and protect public health and make sure that we are beginning recovery mode of certain facilities. the second one is that within that 72 hour window, or at the end of it, we're able to start conveying and pumping flows to

the treatment plant. the third objective, which is number 4 up there, pardon me, is that the plant themselves can provide primary treatment and disinfection of the waste water flows prior to discharge. so again if you put all three of those together, that captures our expectation of how the system performs following a major seismic event. so, we'll delve into those a little more. on objection number 2, minimizing the public health and safety impacts. i won't go into that in detail. it boils down to we will go through and rely on the primary conveyance routes in the city. i'll show you those on the map and we rely on the storage in the transport storage boxes, which i think everyone is familiar with, and in most cases, those have enough storage to hold between 1.5 to 3 days of

dry weather flows from the system. you can envision those acting like giant storage tanks to the first one to three days of the event. i'm not going to go through this in great detail in the interest of time. i think there is more information here than we need to get into. of course, we'll come back and delve into this in more detail at the commission's request. so this just gives you a schematic. i think you seen this in different forms a number of times of the location and layout of the transport storage boxes and the treatment plants. again, at a certain point, if those storage boxes became full, then we would be relying on essentially discharge through the combined sewer discharge out fall structures. that wouldn't be ideal. you would have waste water flows to the receiving waters, and we recognize that is obviously a permit violation but think this is under emergency recovery for

the city and you think of what's our least bad choice? it's to have that waste water flow if it needed to go through the structure. so what you're looking at here is a map that we use and we are actually very active on this right now. >> sorry. just before on that first objective, there is no other alternative? >> not for that first two to three days after the event. this is a point where you're not sure you have power and yeah, you're in a very -- you're trying to meet the very minimums for public health and safety at that time. so what you see here are two different maps side by side. one of those has the major waste water and storm water conveyance pipelines. the one on the right shows you also the primary street routes that d.p.w. will also use in a

post emergency situation. we have active plans to work in conjunction with d.p.w. and other city departments to go through those routes and do post disaster assessments of those pipelines as part of the post emergency activity. in the third objective, as i mentioned earlier is to make sure that the treatment plants themselves can provide at least primary treatment and disinfections so this is where we get to a much more acceptable condition in terms of what we're discharging to the receiving waters. this graph shows you, even though we have a number of pump stations around the city, there are five of those pump stations that account for about a little over 99% of the flow. so when you look at emergency recovery and where we want to invest in resiliency, we don't have to cover every single

facility to get the biggest return on our investment, so to speak. it's those large pump stations where we want to make sure we have reliable service. now again, we'll go through these future analyses that we're planning. this shows you the southeast treatment plant and this is post ssip. so you're seeing a schematic of the new bio solids and head works layout. so when we talk about meeting the level of service here, this is where we're currently drilling down a little further into the planning, so that we don't try to cover every possible need of that facility. again in that post 72-hour window, we want to have just enough ideally or at a minimum i should say, operational capacity to bring the flows into the system of head works, run them

through primary treatment only, provide disinfection and then provide discharge to the out fall. so, many of the facilities you see there, we wouldn't necessarily be focused on in that post disaster recovery. we would want to make sure we have chemical supplies, power reliability, staff, et cetera, to just meet those operational minimums of again primary treatment and disinfection. this is a similar schematic of the oceanside detail. it gives you an idea of what we're focused on. lastly, the emergency planning topic is really front and center right now for a whole host of reasons, one being the recent developments with the pg&e public safety power shut offs from we haven't experienced those yet. the city is planning for them.

what it does say is that we have a need to focus on the back up power supply reliability to our facilities. if we're relying as we currently do, we call it a duel feat. we have two power supplies coming to the plant from two independent substations. that has been our plan in terms of power reliability, but if the entire grid is down, then neither one of those substations is functioning. that strategy may not be as effective in the future. so that's something we're delving into. and i just wanted to highlight as a backdrop to all of this. there is a number of planning related mergemergencies going o this is a substantial update.

we're working on a staff recall plan currently. in most cases we don't want it to work in a post disaster situation, but we want to communicate how to get them to work. we want to utilizing the collection division has used for the wet weather operations effectively in the past two seasons. we're also working on chemical procurement strategies and fuel needs. also, it's not on this list, we're working on the update and coordination with the rest of the city departments in the continuity of operations plan. you can think of that as a high level city-wide plan that overarches the different departments within the city. we can talk about any of this in

the future if there is interest on the commissions part. that is the presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> i'm still kind of stuck on this notion of releasing the sewage into the receiving waters as you say. i would just love some creative thinking as it evolves on a potential plan b as an alternative. >> absolutely. >> any other comments or questions commissioners? thank you very much. any public comment on this item? hearing none, next item madam secretary. number 8. >> number 8 is an update on san francisco's sea level rise action plan and next steps. >> good afternoon commissioners and if i could have my slides.

i'm a member of the city's sea level rise committee and i wanted to say i really enjoyed sister robinson's answer. >> which answer? >> about climate change. >> i'm here today as a member of the coordinating committee to provide a brief overview of the vulnerability and consequences development that was in the action plan and to let you know that the document is expected to be published some time early next year. i'm joined by brian strong by the chief resilience officer. after my presentation, they will provide an overview of the hazards and climate resilience plan, which includes climate change adaptation planning. his presentation illustrates how the city is transitioning to a

combined climate resilience planning effort so city departments can maximize efficiencies and the con -- co investments of our dollars. this committee brought together representatives from city agencies that work on or have vulnerable assets within the sea level vulnerability zone, including the sfpuc. this group worked together to create the 2016 sea level rise action plan, which called on city departments to work together to delineate the impact of rising sea levels and developed strategies to protect our shorelines and assets. where are we in the process? we are finalizing the data collection phase and are about to publish the sea level rise

vulnerability and consequence report. this report was a large multi-agency, multi-year effort to collect data so we can identify and georeference or map vulnerable assets, identify key findings, and outline next steps. this report does not provide policies or strategies. the analysis, which was based on the rising tide framework completes steps two and three and assessing the city's vulnerability to coastal flooding. it assesses the risks or consequences of that vulnerability on people, the economy, and the environment. as the first step we completed a mapping exercise and determined which assets were illustrated here by a blue line. this map shows a do nothing vulnerability zone. in other words, no shoreline

protection has been included in the analysis. with that information, we were able to determine which assets were exposed to flooding. next we assessed vulnerability. vulnerability is a function of sensitivity and adaptive capacity. sensitivity describes the degree to which an asset is effected and adaptive capacity describes the ability of an asset to be modified, to reduce or eliminate the effects of flooding. finally we assessed the consequences -- sorry, what the consequences would be to the people, economy, and the environment. we applied this analysis to different structure types and systems described here, including waste water and public power. we also developed the series of neighborhood profiles for all neighborhoods bordering the bay or ocean that describe the affected public assets in this neighborhood and the people

living and working here. once we completed the analysis, we were able to identify some key findings. again, these are based on a scenario which the city has taken no preventative action. impacts to local and regional transportation systems, including portions of bart, muni, caltrain and caltrans infrastructure. loss of recreational spaces as flooding risks in low-lying areas such as mission bay. we were able to develop these key findings not only by looking to impacts of individual assets but analyzing how entire neighborhoods would be affected. this map shows fisherman wharf are 77 inches of sea level rise. that is a tipping point where large areas of shoreline is

overtop. we see the overtop and white line indicates areas of no overtopping. this is another example moving further south. mission creek and mission bay and some of our lowest lying areas built largely on fill. this map represents 52 inches of sea level rise. as you can see, there would be substantial flooding due to a low level shoreline. that gives you some insight on how the overall analysis was done. now i like to focus on sfpuc assets, first off the water enterprise and the type of facilities that could be impacted. as you know, san francisco relies on a regional water delivery system. even though this analysis was focused on san francisco proper, we recognize that key components of the water delivery system are outside of san francisco. therefore, it needs to be included in this analysis. as an example, key components are located near the dumbarton

bridge. flooding in this area may impact sensitive control systems and electrical equipment, which could disrupt water delivery service for millions of people. within the city limits, most of the infrastructure is buried. however, as an example, the bay bridge pump station is within the city's sea level rise vulnerability zone. an impact to this facility could keep water from leaving treasure island. now a few slides on the waste water enterprise. similar to the water enterprise, the waste water enterprise has buried assets that are less vulnerable to the impacts of sea level rise. we do have treatment plans, combined sewer discharges and pump stations that could be vulnerable to flooding. to understand which assets were vulnerable, we did an assessment of all the potential pathways where flood waters could enter

the facility. lastly, we looked at the power enterprise assets, which may change with everything that's going on. the power enterprise asset and pg&e assets are intertwined to provide a reliable and consistent power supply. because of the interrelation between the two systems, the consequences of power disruption due to sea level rise could not be separated. pg&e is conducting their assessment and we will coordinate with them with our adaptation projects as the city moves forward. so that concludes my brief overview of the work that has been completed, which is mostly focused on understanding the problem. before i finish my presentation, i want to talk a little bit about what the steps the city has taken or will take to address sea level rise. for example, as we continue to increase our understanding of

how sea level rise would affect the city, we are already moving forward with adaptation planning for some of our most vulnerable areas. these are examples of watter front projects that are building adaptation strategies into their programs by elevating streets and infrastrungture -- infrastructu infrastructure. we have the ocean beach climate change adaptation project, the u.s. army corps of engineers sea wall program. on the previous slide, i mentioned the ocean beach project. i'm the project manager for this project, which is a climate change project, which is led by the sfpuc. this is addressing chronic erosion of ocean beach. we completed the report at the end of september and are now in

the design phase. this is, if not the first, one of the first projects statewide implementing a manage street approach to accommodate sea level rise. in order to achieve this goal, we will be removing the great highway by skyline. in order to do this, we plan to construct a low profile wall to protect the waste water infrastructure in this area. we anticipate this project will go to construction in 2023. so what are our next steps? what are we doing to ensure assets that are being built now, while larger adaptation strategies are developed, consider sea level rise? first, the city has their sea level rise planning guidance that was originally adopted in 2014. that requires city sponsored projects incorporate sea level rise into their design. second, we are moving towards efforts that coordinate sea level rise adaptation so that

the city departments can maximize efficiency and the co benefits of our investment dollars. we're moving towards the development of a city-wide climate resilience program. these efforts are led by capital planning led by brian strong who is here today and will present on the city's hazards and climate resilience plan. thank you. if you have questions, i can take them now or at the end of the presentation. >> let's take them at the end please. mr. strong, good afternoon. >> hi, thank you very much for having me here. i'll try to go fairly quickly because i know there's a lot of information you will be hearing that's already been heard. so as anna mentioned, i'm the chief resilience officer.

we work on various projects that we're pulling various departments together from the city and it's interesting to hear all the various presentations today. we actually touch upon all of them in some way or another as far as how they relate to the broader city family and how we deliver services. so the city's first time we're putting a hazard mitigation plan that looks really extremely broadly. so there is legislation that would require at the state level, where we have to incorporate climate vulnerability and assessment planning into our plan efforts. so hazard mitigation plans are required by fema, every five years if you want to be able to receive fema support. that could be general assistance report after a major disaster. if you want to receive fema

funding and so forth. also by having a complete hazard mitigation plan, you're eligible for the state to cover the local cost, the local matching cost that would come. so large amounts of dollars we get from fema. there's a match of around 6.5% that could be covered by the state. there are a lot of important reasons to do this work and to make sure the city has it done. the other goal of it is to have one place where we're capturing our policies around hazard mitigation. the program started a year and a half ago in april of 2018. i think he was fairly specific. anna was more general and now this is even more general than that. we're looking at the hazards that the city is facing and the assets we have and the vulnerabilities that those hazards will present for our assets. from there, we put together, you

know we have a set of draft goals. from those two pieces, we put together strategies. this plan has over 95 strategies in it. it's more broad than what we done in previous plans. we're thinking big here and we're thinking long-term. the draft document was completed in june of 2019. it was distributed and we had public outreach that happened during the summer. we made further changes to the plan and we just posted the draft for public review. once the public review period is over, we send it to fema, and then the board of supervisors will vote on it. per fema policy, we have to submit it to them first before the board gets to vote on it. let's highlight so of the plans. we talked about reducing risk of damage and disruption. that's clearly critical.

this time we're talking about trying to build capacity. i want to say build capacity at the city level with staff and how we work together, and also at the community level. we heard from some of our stake holder outreach that they want to be aware of what's happening and how they will be impacted and how they can participate and play a role in how we address it. that was important. access to the information we have is important and the ability to sort of enable them to have inputs. you know, in the planning and in the mitigation, and in the response and the recovery. it can't just be one piece. we also added addressing inequitable impacts. we wanted to make sure we have a lens on all the policies and programs. equity is something we're looking at for each part of the program and increasing public awareness, which i mentioned before. so this slide here shows the different hazards. there are 13 primary hazards

that the city faces. these are natural hazards. we grouped them in four categories, geologic, which is common. the big earthquake is what we think about. it's our largest hazard and most vulnerable too. it's weather-related. it was mentioned that we are seeing more extreme storms. we're seeing more heat. in 2014 when we did the mitigation plan. heat and air quality was not an issue on the table. now we know after the fire and the heat events in 2017 and 2018 and some this year, this has become front and center and it shows how quickly climate change is changing our environment. combustion related fires and biological around toxic where we're capturing some of the hazardous materials that moves around during an earthquake and

pandemic flus and those types of things. the process we do, this shows a sample hazard profile we have. these are covered for each of the 13 and they look at these different categories around the nature, the history of it and the city, where we expect it to happen. tsunamis are primarily on the ocean beach side with a little bit on the bay. we're looking at probability to make sure we understand what the risks are associated with those hazards. when we think of the assets. this is typically how we grouped them in the past. we're looking at emergency response facilities, buildings, transportation, protective infrastructure like sea walls, wetlands, parks, those natural types of barriers. the new thing is looking at population this time around. so we're looking at the total population and vulnerable communities. some of that goes to