stand by for the san francisco public utilities commission meeting of september 10, 2024. september 10 meeting of the san francisco public utilities commission is now called to order. can we have roll call, please? >> president paulson, here. vice president rivera, here. commissioner ajami is excused. commissioner stacey, here. we have a quorum. >> thank you. so, i like to acknowledge san francisco public utilities commission acknowledges it owns and stewards of the land of the muwekma oholone tribe of the mission san jose verona band. also recognizes every citizen residing

within it greater bay area has and continues to benefit from the use and occupation of the muwekma oholone tribes aboriginal lands since before and after the san francisco public utility commission in 1932. it is vitally pornts important we recognize the history and acknowledge and honor the fact the muwekma oholone people established a working partnership with the sfpuc and are productive and flourishing members within the greater san francisco bay area communities today. so, i would like to also let people know that i was-i was called by the mayor's office yesterday and informed that i'm not going to be renominated for the san francisco public utilities commission and i just thought i would mention that. i think many of you remember over four

years ago i kind of came just a little kicking and screaming to this commission. i was--so many people in the labor movement i served over 20 years as executive director of the council as well as secretary treasurer of the building and construction trades council recruited and pushed me. i usually don't sit on commissions, i advocate in front of them, but anyway, the mayor's office, a lot of labor people did it and i have been sitting here and i have been honored and serving in this position for many years now and i was frankly reappointed also to this commission and unanimously approved by the board of supervisors as part of the checks and balances as things happening. and considering that when i was walking down the isle not too damn long ago talking with the mayor's folks and whatever, i reaffirmed i continue to want to serve as your

commissioner, because it has been a honor and i'm actually it is breath-taking that i got that call yesterday and i'm sure the board of supervisors yesterday or as of yesterday didn't know that was going to be. the other thing that is breath-taking, i was told by the mayor office, everybody on the commission up for reappointment is also not going to be reapointed, so this is pretty breath-taking i am hearing this now. i just wanted folks to know that. i might say that, i read the city's charter and i know the city charter has a pretty very vibrant series of checks and balances. it is also a extremely mayor heavy charter. the mayor has a lot of power in terms of running administration, which people like or dont like based on usually what

the politics are. here is what is funny when i was reading around, there is some knuckle head that has come up when we vote this november, a piece of legislation that will give the mayor more power and get rid of some damn commissions as we are going on and boy, i tell you, if there is a-how should i say, a fake solution, in search of an imaginary problems and don't know what knuckle heads. i'm all most finished. i understand what's going on. thank you. i am--i know there is a bit of slap in the face for the labor movement and slap in the face to public service when things are said and done, but that being said, i know that the workers of san francisco are what make this city and county work, and i would be

more then remiss in my couple words, no matter what comes from this side of the bench during my course of many years here, those who do the work and in particular in this great department protecting our natural resources and our water and putting together all infrastructure, i am just more then pleased i have been able to be a commissioner for the two terms that i have been on and i would be remiss if i didn't say that. i also fellow commissioners, i am also honored to serve with both you and fellow commissioners that i also served with and i'm honored that you guys have thought it important that you elected me to be the president during this term that i'm here. sounds like the mayor's office has different type of vision for public service. so, anyway, i will thank you fellow commissioners for serving.

commission secretary, can you read item number 3, please? >> approval of the minutes of august 27, 2024. >> are there any corrections or additions to the minutes, commissioners? seeing none, i'll entertain a motion and second for item 3, please. >> motion to approve. >> sorry, excuse me, before that let's turn this item 3 over to public comment. thank you. >> remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to comment on item 3. do we have any members of the public present who wish to comment on this item? if so, please approach the microphone at the podium. moderator, are there any callers with their hand raised? >> mrs. lennear, there are no callers that wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> okay, public comment is closed. can i now entertain the motion and second? >> motion to approve. >> second. >> there is a motion and second. can we have roll call, please? >> president paulson, aye.

vice president rivera, aye. commissioner stacey, aye. the item passes. >> can we read item number 4, please? >> general public comment. members of the public may address the commission on matters within the commission jurisdiction and not on today's agenda. remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide general public comment. do we have any members of the public present who wish to provide general public comment? if so, please approach the microphone located at the podium. >> thank you for putting your card up. we should always make sure we see there are cards on the desk so we can recognize those in the house. thank you.

>> [microphone not on. unable to hear speaker] no one is above the law. not even the mayor. i served in the federal system, and i have been all over the world. we always have to respect. you just can't go and bulldoze and do

whatever you want to, and if you look at your organizational chart and the commission, you know what each one of you all has to do. now, if the mayor doesn't respect the chair, do you think she will respect anybody else? she is a laughing stock of the nation. when the 49er was shot, she said, this happens all over the nation. we are not talking the nation, we are talking about union square with different kind of policeman. about 40, 60, 70 police and somebody got shot in a day. that is your responsibility, mayor. and now she's come to the commissions. the commissions are there to

have a standard. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> moderator, are there any callers with their hand raised? >> ms. lennear, there are three callers that wish to be recognized. >> thank you, go ahead, please. >> caller, i have unmuted your line. >> yes. hi. this is max. can you hear me? >> yes. >> we can hear you caller. >> wonderful. i think i have two minutes so i'll address this quickly. i prepared comments. my name is max, i live in hillsborough california about a 4 minute drive from [indiscernible] at the crystal springs reservoir and i'm participating today remotely. apology for not being there in person. i wanted to address the commission today. i recognize this might be a 10 year journey i'm potentially on, but i wanted to look at the public

use case of the crystal springs reservoir to understand how to actually update the peninsula watershed management plan over the next decade to allow for public access. i had the opportunity to [indiscernible] watershed management plan as well as speak to tim ramirez as the actual mechanisms how to do this with not just this commission but a variety of other environmental commissions as well. as you are probably aware, lake merced, which is also managed by the commission is a reservoir and has public access. do have public access for kayaking or swimming or canoeing, so the goal here is to potentially drive and set up a subcommittee or help whatever way i can as a citizen to make this reality, and learn more about that process that it might entail. thank you very much.

>> thank you for your comments. caller, i unmuted your line. you have two minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon, this is peter dreckmyer, policy director for tuolumne river trust. last week i sents you a letter and support materials regarding a couple resolutions that were passed by the commission in 2019 and 2020 directing staff to include biological goal and adaptive management in-staff denied request for information showing they have done this. based on attorney client communication. that is no no. the request [indiscernible] revealed no correspondence related to this

issue, and i ask for response to my letter and i hope you will support that. we fought really hard to get this language in those resolutions. basically staff was saying tuolumne river voluntarily agreement is wonderful and produce more fish with less water. we asked, what happens if it doesn't? is there a fall back? are there biological goals to manage success and adaptive management to address deficiencies and there were four meetings, four iterations of the first resolution, and it passed and it was noted by staff that this was policy direction. what i have seen over the years, i have been working on the issues for 17 years, staff is very good at waiting out commissioners and then dropping a request they have or directive, so the first resolution none of the current commissioners were on the board. for the second one, only one,

mr. paulson. and so, it is really critical for us to answer this question, did staff follow direction, and include biological goals and adaptive management in the tuolumne river volunteer agreement? >> thank you caller. your time has expired. caller, i have unmuted your line. you have two minutes. >> thank you very much. good afternoon president paulson, members of the commission. [indiscernible] i am speaking just to share some remarks in response to the information that president paulson just shared. i wanted to take this opportunity to thank you president paulson and presumably commissioners rivera and stacey for your service on this commission, for your service to the

water customers and particularly within my authority, your service to the wholesale customers. i have appreciated the respect that you offered me in your time there on the dais, and i wish you the best in what is to come. i hope i will see you later this month when i come on the 24, but if i don't, i wanted to make sure i had a opportunity to speak to you so thank you very much for your service to the public. it is critically important people step forward and do the necessary work and the leadership roles for good government to work. thank you very much. >> thank you caller. there are no callers that wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> report of the general manager. >> thank you madam secretary.

item 5 a is a draft 2025 hazard and climate resilient plan. melissa higbe will be presenting. >> thank you commissioners. my name is melissa hig hp be the resilience program manager in the office of resilience and capital planning and thank general manager herrera including the item on the agenda today. i will speak about the draft 2025 hazard climate resilience plan. it is currently available for public comment and i love to be able to answer any questions you might have about the draft plan. sfpuc is a critical partner in updating the plan and implementing many resilience actions that i'll provide an overview about today. if i could get slides, please. thank you. so, as a bit of background rbs this plan provides a roadmap to improving resilience in the sit a eand includes project s for fund.

it makes hazard information more accessible to the public and developed with extensive department and stakeholder engagement. fulfills a few different requirements we have at the federal level for eligibility for fema grants and public assistance. this needs to be updated and approved by fema every 5 years. at the state level, it helps with compliance with sb379 to be doing climate adapation planning and lijic linking to our general plan and at the local level companion to the climate action plan and helps update resilient sf our resilient strategy. little overview of the scope, it includes 13 different natural hazards and also includes overview of climate change projections and how climate change influences many hazards making them more frequent or more

severe. for this update in 2025, we have done a more targeted update considering we did a very comprehensive one in 2020, so we focused incorporating new science like around how precipitation patterns are changing and ground water is influenced by sea level rise and new risk assessment and plans in the city like the waterfront resilience program the port is working on with the army corp. in terms of the planning team, we worked with a lot of different part ners across the city. interdepartmental planning team includes many staff from the puc, for community engagement we focused on meeting the community where they are going out to existing community meetings, especially in environmental justice communities. we have been to about 15 different events in the community to hear about their resilience priorities and focused on prioritization.

the 2020 plan had 96 different actions. this draft has 74. we really tried to look at feasibility and benefits in doing that prioritization. i just wanted to highlight since we done community engagement the themes i have been hearing. i wanted to highlight the first 3 as the most relevant for the sfpuc. i heard a lot of interest in increased energy resilience from the community, especially after the extreme storms that we had in the past winter wanting to avoid power outages and having improved access to backup power. earthquake resilience is top of minds for folks, including [indiscernible] and having adequate water supply for that. waterfront resilience is also a big topic for folks, including addressing contamination, adapting bridges and using nature based solutions. this engagement we did really

informs the heart of the plan, which is chapter 7. for strategy include three different pillars. buildings, communities and infrastructure. it is organized around 17 different objectives you see here on the slide, and again there is 74 actions. it is a lot to cover. i wanted to highlight for you all today where the sfpuc lead actions really sit in this plan. there is a couple in the building section around existing buildings and new buildings. there is another one in capacity building and collaboration among agencies. and then of course many in the infrastructure pillar. around electric power systems, protecting waterfront assets. adapting the waterfront and of course, increasing resilience of the local and regional water systems. so, these are some of the 2025

actions that puc is leading. to highlight for you all, in the electric power area, including energy or enhancing energy resilience at critical facilities and improving our energy system to support new development and increase resiliency. of course implementing the ocean beach climate adaptation plan, and developing comprehensive assessments and combined flood risk in each watershed. and these are the two really big areas here around local water and wastewater systems, and regional water supply systems. actions like, the pipe replacement prioritization program. a couple actions around improving resiliency and new infrastructure system at treasure island. working towards expanding [indiscernible] and pursuing green infrastructure projects to

manage storm water. the regional water system improvement and regional dams, for flooding and earthquake events. managing wild fire risks in sfpuc owned watersheds. diversify water supply options and adaptation planning in the water system. and just couple more in the building sector. working on the flood water management grant program. supporting increased electrification, and incorporating flood resilience into the building code, and lastly in the community section, around collaboration with peer agencies developing a city wide policy and proposed governance structure for flood resilience. that is a overview of the many many actions that sfpu is leading on resilience around the city.

i have one more slide that highlights sfpuc also as a partner on many other actions being lead by city agencies. a couple of these do relate to energy, but many are related to the city efforts to plan for increased flood risk. sfpuc is a really critical partner in that effort. as i mentioned, the plan is currently available for public comment till the end of the month. we are continuing to do commission presentations at this time and brief board of supervisors. following receiving and addressing public comment, we will be submitting the final draft to cal oes and fema. they take up to 6 months to review and then will submit to the board of supervisors for adoption. so, with that, i just wanted to thank you and open up to any questions or comments.

>> great. thank you so much for summarizing all this great work you are doing and i think your last slide or second to the last slide in particular, kind of hits the heart of the one question i have and the question just to frame it is in terms what you are doing within the puc as a stand-alone hazard and climate resilience plan and i notice a few dots here and there whether public works or tida and [indiscernible] different areas based on what type issues and whether or not it is rising sea levels or fires. there is all these different touch-points. i wonder if you can do a quick summary as this plan when it goes to the board of supervisors or farther up the food chain where it fits in terms of total context? as a stand-alone plan what the puc does and where it fits in the

department of emergency service, whatever, how it fits in the whole city plan. a quick summary what is different what we are doing versus what anybody else is doing. >> sure. this is actually the city plan, not just the sfpuc plan. this does cover all the resilience work happening not just in the sfpuc, but also in the planning department, dbi, city administrator, so i tried to highlight--we- >> so you are the lead and employed by this department. you are not in some other department, correct? >> i am in the office of resilience and capital planning. >> got it. >> and office of city administrator. >> got it. >> we have taken the lead on updating this plan and bringing in other departments to participate in that effort so we do have a integrated city wide strategy and don't have every department having their own different efforts, but rather looking at whether the pieces together.

>> got it. that answers my global question without getting into details. thank you. commissioner stacey. >> thank you and thank you for your work on this. i don't have a question, i mostly have comments and only to emphasize how important i think the climate resilience work is and also the work that the city does under the climate action plan. i know there is probably some overlap that happens between the two that when we take actions to mitigate climate change that it also help strengthen our resilience both as a city and a region and i think that is so important and this is really critical work. the climate clises is upon us. when i worked on the issues in the past i think i said this before, i both felt very angry and also very anxious about the future, so the more we can

do now to prepare for it and to mitigate it is just incredibly important and i think the puc is already working in so many ways to address climate change and to try to mitigate climate change. i know your office is too. many city departments are. i'm not saying anything new or exciting here, i just really want to emphasize the importance of it. from the puc's point of view, i think that we have been very proactive in trying to address the effects of climate change, as well as do our part to mitigate to the extent we can the effects of climate change in our water system. we are looking at diversifying the water system, we are preparing for drought, we are looking at using ground water better and reflinshing it in a wise fashion. i think we also need to really

focus on protecting our watersheds and protecting all the rivers and creeks that the puc draws water from and has care-taking responsibility for, whether the tuolumne river, alameda creek, [indiscernible] or san mateo creeks down the peninsula, but protecting our watersheds is also a really important part of not only resiliency, but also helping mitigate the effects of climate change. i know we have been the puc has been looking really hard at trying to improve water quality in the bay that the changing temperatures and the changes to the bay are going to effect everything we do with respect to wastewater, and it is a collaborative effort with all of the water districts and utility districts around the bay area.

we are looking at better treatment and better treatment processes. i know we are always looking for better ways, low energy solutions for how we treat our water and how we address water quality and i think these are all really important. treasure island water treatment is a very interesting step forward in how we are trying to improve on our water treatment and to address the effects on the bay. i think the puc and the city has a really important role in developing clean energy. i know this has been absolutely the focus of our energy enterprise, and we need to continue doing that and the city has been also looking where we can put solar panels on city sites, puc sites, puc reservoirs. i think we have to look at all the assets and really think about

how we can improve and expand our clean energy portfolio and i think that-again, i know i'm not saying anything new, staff is acutely aware of this, as are you, and many city departments i just want to emphasize how important it is. i think our green infrastructure program that the puc sponsors is really important and a way of addressing the flooding issues we see with more extreme weather events. we are really already seeing pretty dramatic changes in the kinds of weather and the kinds of flooding events we have in the city. finally, and i know this is part of your resiliency plan, i think we want to look at city equipment. how can we improve it and how can it be cleaner and how can we address changes in technology and keep ourselves up to date. i know this is a ongoing

process and i know all the information, the intelligence, the technology is always evolving and i really want to emphasize how important it is for us to really stay as a city and as a department as much on the cutting edge as we can. finally, i think there is a lot of work that the city has begun in using water resources more wisely on site. thinking about how to reuse water and conserve water on site, and that's also a really important component of both climate action, and climate resilience. i really honor the work you are doing and really can't stress enough how important it is not only for the city, but the region and future generations. thank you for hearing me out. >> thank you commissioner stacey. i appreciate that. i do just want to highlight the

intersection with the climate action plan like you mentioned and we do highlight each of these actions that have cross-over with climate action. things like electrification and heat pumps that reduce emissions and also provide cooling as we face more extreme temperatures so that is just one example. i think many of the other points you made are captured in the plan and have been raised as priorities by staff. i think the technology change that you mentioned is something that i think potentially a gap in the current draft of the plan we could be think ing about how do we keep abreast of how technology changes so quickly and things like a i. i appreciate you bringing that forward as well. >> thank you so much for this

update. i am personally a planner so i love reading the good plan and kind of drives my wife crazy sometimes because i over-plan, but i was really impressed, specifically the interdepartmental team that is so important that everyone is oen the same page and getting everyone's voice being heard. it really makes a difference within the team and within the city family itself. the one thing that really stood out to me was the community interaction. not only going out and preaching what is going on, but having that feedback, having that interaction where you listen to what the community has to say and as you know, different demographics and different geographical locations within the city are going to have different prioritize, and it

just--i truly appreciate that your team is doing that and i just want to let you know that i think that's one of the highlights for me is getting that feedback, because a lot of times we plan things and ultimately the citizens of the city are the benefactors and we want to make sure that their voice is heard so thank you so much. i appreciate it. >> absolutely. thank you. >> great. thank you so much andia sume we'll continue to hear from you as things move forward. this is needless to say, very important city work. so, let's-commissioners, let's open up to public comment. >> remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item 5 a. do we have any members of the public present who wish to comment on this item?

moderator? >> we have somebody at the microphone. >> thank you. >> mr. acosta, are you-? no. okay. item 5 a, i climate resilience plan. public comment. thank you. >> in order to do a needs assessment you first have to realize that russia, china, india. these are countries that depleted in the united states are the key culprits that depleted the ozone layer. we don't mention that. when we talk about climate change, we can talk about all these other things, but what about our children? what about human beings? not a mention of it. in san francisco, we have tons

and tons of methane gas spewing in the air. liquefaction. the areas prone to liquefaction. no mention that. at one time, our department of environment had a plan when the board of supervisors and point blank they told them, there is no money and what did our mayor do for all the talk? she didn't even lift her voice to give them money. what we do is we know this is a enterprise department and has money, so we put a little money here, put a little money there, and try to pull wool over our eyes. i have been an environmentalist for 60 years. this is not a plan. this is a type of a circus.

a good plan has actions. short-term actions, long-term actions. okay? it's-let's not--the people. let's focus on tree canopy of san francisco. on a scale of 1 to 10, it is 3. that's [indiscernible] don't bluff us. thank you very much. >> moderator. are there any callers with their hand raised? >> ms. lennear, there is one caller that wishes to be recognized. >> thank you. please go ahead. >> caller, i unmuted your line. please proceed. you have two minutes. >> thank you.

peter dreckmyer, tuolumne river trust. i like to thank commissioner stacey for her comments. some of the best i heard. i want to atouch oen the long-term vulnerability assessment which is the climate change. i raised this many times and never been able to engage the sfpuc. one of the key take-aways was an expectation there is not chaipg in mean annual precipitation, which is good news for us. great to have a watershed so high up in the sierra. the ltva looked at return periods which are likelihood occurrence of known drought but not design drought, which baffled me because it seemed like that is the big question is the design drought practical or over-kill? through public records request we found documents that showed consultants determined it was once in 25 thousand years. they didn't include it because they

didn't feel much confidence in those numbers. they did downgrade the return periods for the known droughts by 2/3, so the numbers in the document were 31 percent of what was the in document in public records request. if you take 31 percent of 25 thousand years you come up with 8 thousand years. that is all most the existence of human civilization. that is what i think the number is for return periods. once in 8 thousand years. if you take a year off the design drought, reduce the need for 25 million gallons per day as alternative water supplies. i was going to comment on a wonderful presentation dave warner gave to the group monday. i'm running out of time. focusing on the issues for 17 years and i get two minutes. it is really a shame. thanks. >> thank you for your comments. ms. lennear, there are more

callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. president, that concludes my report. >> item 6 is consent calendar including 6 a and b. >> [microphone not on. unable to hear speaker] >> remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item 6, consent calendar. do we have any members of the public present who wish to provide comment on this item? moderator, are there any callers with their hand raised?

>> ms. lennear, there are no callers that wish to be recognized. >> thank you. president paulson, aye. vice president-- >> move to approve. >> second. >> motion and second. >> president paulson, aye. vice president rivera, aye. commissioner stacey, aye. 3 ayes. >> [unable to hear speaker.] >> adopt a refined mitigation monitoring and reporting program pursuant to the california environmental quality act; approve the terms and conditions and authorize the general manager to execute a purchase and sale agreement and easement deed with sunol glen unified school district for the acquisition of a 4,008-square-foot easement for an underground

water pipeline and associated appurtenances and a 34,834-square-foot temporary construction easement on and across a portion of alameda county assessor's parcel no. 096-0155-004-01, known as 11601 main street, sunol, california, for $35,000, subject to board of supervisors' and mayor's approval. >> dina, right of way manager with the infrastructure division. here today to seek approval for purchase and sale for acquisition of ease lt for water pipeline for the town of sunol pipeline project and asking you to adopt a refined mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the project. the town of sunol pipeline is a asset that feeds potable water line and non potable fire suppression line. the sfpuc replaced most of the town of sunol pipeline system and this current project will complete the effort by replacing the section of the pipeline that crosses arroyo laguna and sunol glen school. also owns an easement for the existing pipeline across the school property. however, the new pipeline will need to be installed north of the existing alignment to avoid in mature and beloved tree. to implement the project, the puc needs to acquire a permanent pipeline easement.

the project also requires the temporary use of additional property during construction for access to the work area. puc staff worked with the superintendent of the school district to negotiate a easement for purchase and sale of the easement. i like to acknowledge and thank malleen barns the school superintendent who retired in june after a long career as a very well respected educator in the community of sunol. she was a wonderful and accommodating process throughout the design of the project and she was very protective of her student safety and school resources, but understood the importance of the project and the school's role in implementation. with her we worked together to craft an agreement that schedule work around the academic calendar when students were not on site and temporary areas of disturbance to preserve as much as possible the outdoor education and play areas, which we will of course restore as a part of the project. it is why the temporary

construction easement looks so bazaar when you look at the drawing. what you would be approved today subject to aprubl of the board of supervisor is purchase and sale agreement for conveyance of the easement between the city and county of san francisco through the public utility commission and sunol glen unified school district. the easements to be acquired a pipeline easement comprised of approximately 4008 square feet and temporary construction easement comprised of approximately 34.834 square feet. the totet purchase price for the two easements is 35 thousand dollar equal to the appraised value determine bide a third party appraising commissioned by the sfpuc. the work associated with these ease mentdicize is within the scope of the project authorized under the final environmental impact report for the san antonio back up pipeline project amended by the san francisco planning department for purpose of

evaluating the project. issued a addendsment october 5, 2023 and refined a program to be more specific to the work for this projeth. in addition to approving the purchase and sale agreement for the easements, by today's action you also are adopting the refined mitigation monitoring and reporting program. i'm joined by project manager alicia rinehart to help answer questions about the project and the real estate acquisition in particular. thank you very much. >> [microphone not on. unable to hear speaker] always a interesting slice in history and geography and topography. i have one question, very important one. did i hear you say mature and beloved somewhere? >> yeah. >> okay. that's interesting and glad you have a great relationship with folks in the school district to get these

things done. i really have no questions, so thanks for that report. does anybody else-any other commissioners have questions about this beloved and--anyway. about this particular--any questions commissioners? yes? commissioner stacey. >> i just wanted to be sure that it is clear that what is referred to as the refined mitigation and monitoring reporting program is the attachment that is labeled, sunol pipeline mmrp. there is a couple different mmrp's attached and i know it is sort--many steps. >> [multiple speakers] sorry, didn't mean to talk over you. the original program eir, one for the project the san antonio backup pipeline project refined for that particular project and then this for the

town of sunol pipeline is the one that should have been attached for you. >> yeah, there are several attached, but there is nothing that is actually labeled refined mmrp, but it looks pretty clear it is the sunol pipeline, i just wanted to clarify. thank you. >> yes. >> we good? >> yep. >> okay, thank you. any other questions commissioners? okay. thank you. let's go to public comment on item 7, ms. lennear. >> remote callers, raise your hand if you wish to comment on item number 7. do we have any members of the public present who wish to comment on this item? moderator, are there any callers with their hand raised? >> ms. lennear, there are no callers that wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> thank you, public comment on item 7 is now closed. can i get a motion and second to adopt item 7, please? >> motion to adopt item 7.

>> second. >> there is a motion and second. can we have roll call, please? >> president paulson, aye. vice president rivera, aye. commissioner stacey, aye. three ayes. the item passes. >> can we please read item 8, please? >> approve the expansion of the wastewater, water and power enterprise interim funding programs. >> thank you madam secretary and good afternoon commissioners. as you recall earlier this calendar year you approved 10 year plans for capital program and bonds and then specifically the two year capital program, and normally whenime i'm before you i am discussing specific transaction but i'm here to speak to you about is a beginning of a process to help us manage future debt

in a more efficient way and the cost for rate payers by expanding our interim funding program. may i have the slides, please? slight technical problem here. so, what we are seeking today is to approve the expansion of our interim funding program for all three enterprises. this would be a resolution authorizing the general manager to go to the board of supervisors for an ordinance to begin this process. this process would likely take us through december and we would potentially be able to enter into new facilities next year.

currently we have an interim funding program of $1.5 billion across the three enterprises. this would grow that program by $950 million across all three programs. what it does not do, and what i want emphasize it, does nothing to change the amount of debt we would enter. it simply provides us with a tool on interim basis before we issue that debt. so, quickly discuss what we do with our program, where we propose changing in the future and why. on august 27, my colleague edward kwon presented to your capital financing plan for the year and this is the first item on that plan. the expansion of these facilities. our interim financing program

allows us to accomplish two primary things. first of all, when you and then ultimately the board of supervisors authorizes us to issue debt, that funding is put on reserve until we can demonstrate we have a source of paying those bonds and most of our peers who simply go out and borrow for specific project issue bonds and draw down those proceeds and beginning pay interest right away. by using our interim financing program, when we begin, say a $2 billion project, we dont have to issue $2 billion of bonds up front and incur interest costs. we use our interim funding program to first allow us to enter into the contracts, and release those reserves, and then ultimately as we need funds, rather then issuing $2 billion

of bonds, we will issue 30, 50, $60 million of commercial paper as we need it, and that is the way we significantly lower our borrowing costs and our impact on ratepayers. so, there are two functions this program fills. it allows us to release the reserves, and keep the projects moving, and it allows us to accumulate the borrowing and then issue bonds only when we really need to. we have across the three enterprises 3 interim programs. first one i have on the screen is the wastewater program. you've previously authorized and the board of supervisors authorized $750 million for that. for that we have five series of

commercial paper and a revolving credit agreement, and throughout the year we come to you with a various renewals as we manage these various relationships based on the ratings of the respective banks, the pricing they offer through rfp processes. similarly, for the water enterprise, we have three credit facilities in the commercial paper program, and then one revolving credit agreement. our smaller power program has two letters of credit. this chart provides you with a lot of information, but if you focus specifically on that purple line and the right axis, that is the growth of our 10 year capital plan. as we all know, our capital plans have been growing.

those bars reflect the total of our interim financing program, and i think what you can see very compellingly on there is that our commercial paper program, our interim funding program for water did not grow since 2009. our wastewater program hasn't grown since 2017 and for power, 2019. what that has done is it has constraining us and forcing us to issue bonds sooner then we might not otherwise have to. for example, last fall we issued the power bonds as you recall, even though we had not yet exhausted the commercial paper because we needed to free up the capacity to allow us to issue further contracts. to be clear, we are not issuing bonds

before we need the bonds in terms of spending money, but we could have used our interim funding program as a much lower cost way of releasing reserves had we had the capacity. that's the long process we like to begin now seeking board of supervisors approval for that. you have already seen this chart a number of times showing you the debt we have been issuing in recent years. last year was the largest debt issuance in the puc history. our most recent wastewater bonds we closed in july was the largest single transaction action we closed and so now what we want to do is right-size our interim funding program to allow us to differ when we need to issue the bonds as much as possible.

what we have done is on the next chart, we analyzed what our usage is over those two years of each cip, and we have approximated the amount we might need. now, importantly, we are very sensitive to what we do to our pricing in the marketplace, and so it is our intention not to simply go out to marketplace and seek $950 million of new credit facilities for the program, we would stage it as the needs occur. or most immediate need is with power bonds. it has been a while since we issued those bonds. we just issued wastewater bonds. we don't need credit facilities to expand that program yet. we are going to be coming back to you as you saw on the financing plan in december to seek authority for

our next water bond. so, that's how we are managing it. we will slowly seek those facilities as they are efficient in the marketplace and as we always do, we only acquire them when the ratings of the banks and the pricing are advantageous to us. so, once again, the specific request is to authorize the general manager to advance an ordinance to the board of supervisors, seeking expansion of the interim funding program in these amounts and with that, i would be very happy to answer any questions. >> i'll start off. i just have one comment. it is always fascinating to watch the lack of better term, the dance between knowing exactly when critically and professionally you need to be issuing these bonds so that we have

captop to move forward with the projects necessary and have been approved and also, again there is always the inprecise game when is the feds said they are going to lower rates. how does that fit into the whole picture and how that dance comes in. i just know that watching and listening to the different reports that we have, we have a pretty good track record of so many things, including the green bonds and what have you that i usually feel very comfortable with the decisions that we made so far, but i want to without asking you a question acknowledge that it is just always fascinating and there is a strong level of trust in the professionalism of seeing in your department when you give us these reports, so that being said, i-thank you for giving us these always timely and necessary reports as to all these things we do to make sure

our resources and our infrastructure and our energy is going to be doing what the voters of san francisco want and what we expect in the city. that's my comments. i don't have any specific questions. commissioner stacey. >> thank you, i is a couple clarifying questions to make sure i understand this. without these interim tools, we have a couple options. we either issue bonds earlier or delay projects. both of which seeing both more expensive if not unattainable for the puc to continue working on the projects the commission already approved and they are underway. so, if i understand what you said today, we draw on these letters of credit or credit facilities when we need them and also when the terms seem advantageous to the city.

if the terms are not advantageous to the city we still need to draw on the funds, right to keep the projects in motion? it is sort of your constantly watching the numbers. is that what i understand? >> yes, it is competitive marketplace and we as we did earlier this summer, we had 5 facilities that we brought to you. some of those we renewed with the same amenities, some we renewed with different entities based on the combination of their fees, the rating and then when we choose which ones actually borrow from, we are also looking at what is the market demand for that particular bank. at different points, certain investors get full up on certain credits. they want to have diversity in

their portfolio, so we speak to our financial advisors and our various dealers to optimize the results. >> one of these facility types may be a better option for the puc to draw down on as a interim? >> yes. as you could see, we also maintain a diversity of types of facilities, letters of credit, lines of credit and revolving credit agreements specifically for that reason as well. >> right. and one other question. you mentioned today a couple times that we don't draw or issue bonds until we need to. when does that typically happen, is it when the project takes shape? how do you gauge when it is appropriate to issue bonds? i assume you are also looking at the markets and again what terms

are advan taijing for the puc, but is there a typical point in the project process that it makes sense to issue the bonds? >> so, once again, most of our peers in municipal government will identify a project and assuming they dont have other funds available will borrow the funds. those funds will sit in an account until they are needed for the project and if that project is built over three years they are drawing down, but you are beginning to pay interest from the first day you close that transaction. what our interim funding program allows us to do is to differ that bond issue, instead we will go out to the marketplace and seek 20, 30, $50 million of commercial paper and add it

up and when we get close to the capacity that cp program, then we will take it out with a bond transaction. that allows us to both differ when we are issuing the bonds. it allows us to also have more efficient bond transactions, frequently issuing bonds. it is also a reflection how we are man madgeing our program. at any time we have dozens of projects underway in each of our enterprises and we can manage them as a portfolio rather then doing a bond transaction for every building or project we undertake. >> so, it is really more a financial decision rather then a project definition decision? >> yes, for example, a bond transaction right now would have a all in interest cost like our recent

transaction at 4 and a half percent. by only releasing reserves against credit facilities, those credit facilities are between .25 and .42 percent, so we are not accumulating the interest costs, we are simply having that facility to satisfy the control. >> thank you. >> any other questions commissioners? okay. thank you for that report and we will actually turn this over to public comment now. ms. lennear. >> remote callers. >> thank you. >> please raise your hand if you wish to comment on item 8. do we have any members of the public present who wish to comment on this item?

>> commissioners, in the past when we had a presentation like this, you also had a presentation given by a manager of the treatment plant, so we saw the improvement of what was happening. we haven't seen this in four years. haven't seen it in four years. you are the commissioners. bankers come here and whatever they call them and they say, talk about how they are going to manipulate doing this and that with interest. our economy now is stable, but we also know that when it comes to infrastructure, it is very shaky.

we started the project with $8 billion is now heading to $12 billion and before you know it it will be 20billion and where is that accountability to the taxpayer? the taxpayer isn't mentioned. what happens when you have a presentation like this, those people that have to work with workforce, they give a damn. outsiders come and get everything and we get nothing. we don't get resources. if we want resources, we dont get it. they say they are going to form a request for qualification. for what? when you are wasting billions of dollars. billions of dollars. no accountability. and if you commissioners, the few who are left for a small interim period, y'all need to zero in on that

so the mayor knows what is really happening. as i said the last time, today the corruption in the sfpuc is worse then when it was in [indiscernible] at least [indiscernible] was a engineer and knew what he was doing. i met him many many times. you may not know this, initially i asked to meet the general manager or the deputy--they dont care. they do not care, but we do care and we will be-- -thank you so much. >> anymore folks? >> moderator, any callers with their hand raised? >> ms. lennear, there is one caller that wished to be recognized. >> thank you. go ahead, please. jrsh caller, i unmuted your line. you have two minutes. >> thank you.

peter dreckmyer. on your agenda communications item 11f is water enterprise capital improvement program quarterly report, and table a is program cost summary. current approved budget is little over $3 billion, and forecast costs a little over $3.7 billion, so cost variance of $632 million. that is 20 percent over-run. i'm worried this is going to get much worse. we are really fortunate to have dave warner volunteering his time. he is really quite a brilliants economist. he recently produced a risk analysis of over-investing in alternative water supplies we have been focusing on the last year and a hal. half. if the finance department is

correct that sales in 2045 are 207 million gallons per day and that's what you built for, the price for acre foot per water is $4500 from $2500 for acre foot today, the highest in the state. however, if the puc over-invests and they believe the water enterprise number of 244 million gallons per day, but it is only 207 which is what finance projects then it is $5700. $1200 more. this is why it is so important to get demand projections right. the difference there is 37 million gallons per day and finance is probably high if history repeats itself. it is always closer to the-much closer then water enterprise, but a little bit high. thank you.

>> thank you for your comments. ms. lennear, there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> public comment on item 8 is closed. commissioners, any other comments or questions on item 8? seeing none, let's-can i get a motion and second to approve this expansion? >> motion to approve. >> second. >> there is a motion and second for item 8. can we have roll call, please? >> president paulson, aye. vice president rivera, aye. commissioner stacey, aye. three ayes. the item passes. >> item 8 passes. can you read item 9 please? >> accept work performed by mitchell engineering under contract number db-129.1 bay corridor transmission distribution phase 22019 north approve modification number 21, decreasing the contract amount for total contract amount of 20 million, 691 thousand, 291

and increasing the contract duration for total contract duration of 1195 consecutive calendar days. >> president, vice president. thank you for having me here. ask for acceptance of the work performed by mitchell engineering for design build contract 129.1, bay corridor transmission distribution phase 2 north. i'm not going to repeat the amount, but i'm here to ask for your approval for the final modification to decrease the contract amount. i want to point it out the contract-the project achieved significant saverings and reduced the final amount by 14 percent roughly $3.3 million and also took longer asking for additional 28 0 days. the time is needed to cover a

timing analysis to reconciliate the resequencing of the duct work and also the final reconciliation of the bid item and we also took longer to do the [indiscernible] final close-out for drawing and supporting documentation. so, i'm also here with me i have my colleague construction manager eric gee and we are happy to answer any questions you have. >> okay. thank you. thank you for that update on item 9. i know i personally see mitchell engineering all over the place doing all kinds of crazy work that has to be done, so i have to admit that i guess it is nice to hear that especially the monitoring going on when things go up and down, because a lot of field work we do, despite all the agreed work engineers and architects and designers come up with, there is still stuff that is done in the field and has to be figured out because that is the

nature of maintaining infrastructure. i personally like when we see something like this where there is extra amount of accountability. commissioner stacey. >> thank you. big thumbs up on the 14 percent savings for value engineering, thaujs. thank you. i had a question mentioned thin report and want a explanation what it meant. one item you list is resolution of the fluidized thermal back fill exceeding design strength. could you explain what that is, please? >> sure, not a problem. i guess typically the stronger the concrete the better, that is how the manufacturer is trainedx but in this case we want a slow straenth concrete, because especially in the seismic active zone like san francisco, because what happen, you have a seismic

event, those concrete around the conduit will crumble like soil and basically dissipating heat so it take the stress of the conduit. we want the contractor to make it low strength as possible and i think the speck is 50 psi. some case s it is easy to go above that because all you have to do is put more cement and that how the vendor because they throw in extra cement, they dont want to break the concrete so it is about training and making sure they understand. in this case, we actually ask the contractor because they are design buildser, for the cases increase of strength range from 80 to 300 psi and their response is they are still very low strength and similar behavior then 50 psi specified in the specks.

so, in order for the city to accept that explanation we do due diligence. we hire consultant to do a analysis. it is like a sensitivity analysis we do a model with different strength of concrete and see where it will be a problem and did it up to 800 psi and 400 and 500 is where we show that the conduit will take stress instead of the concrete. based on that , because it is within the range expected, so i think that help us build a case for the next project or next speck. we can relax a little bit and it gave us more flexibility to work with the manufacturer to produce something achievement. a great lessen learned and something to share with you guys here. does that make sense? >> yes, thank you for the

thorough explanation. >> sure. >> appreciate it. i'm always learning. thanks. >> that is a good question. and good answer. any other questions commissioners? okay, great. thank you for that. let's open item 9 to public comment please. >> remote callers, raise your hand if you wish to comment on item 9. do we have any members of the public present who wish to comment on this item? >> seeing none. >> moderator, are there any callers with their hand raised? >> ms. lennear, there are no callers that wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> public comment is now closed. any other questions or if not can we have a motion and second to approve item number 9, the change? >> motion to approve item 9. >> second. >> there is a motion and second. can we have roll call, please?

>> president paulson, aye. vice president rivera, aye. commissioner stacey, aye. >> thank you. iletm 10, please. >> accept work were formed by rubicon builder inc. under contract wd-2687r, ux ilry water supply system pumping station. improve modification 14, increase the contract amount for total contract amount of $22.699.579 and increasing the contract duration for total contract of 2180 consecutive calendar days. >> welcome back. please. >> here again. acceptance of the work performed by rubicon builders for contract wd-2687 pump station 2, long time coming. we ask for additional time.

437 already approved by the prior commission agenda within the current contingency and asking for additional 380 day and the time is needed to resolve potential claim from the contractor for time due to-we have a lot of delay due to the site condition and also electronical modification on site. we have done a lot of improvement also at the pump station like painting, piping, structural improvement, and i think the most significant time impact was the alarm system modification. try to integrate with the old system with the new, so that took longer, so that is why we have to ask for additional time and ask for final payment to the contractor. >> okay. again, questions commissioners?

>> yes. >> yes, commissioner stacey. >> another quick question. thank you for helping me here. the final modification this payment of $1.1 million, that $1.1 million is the outcome of negotiated settlement? >> correct. >> understanding that right? >> yes. >> and, there won't be any further modifications in the amount? once we approve this accept the close-out, approve the modification, the 1.1 should settle all the delay discussions? >> correct. >> i assume national park services, rubicon and the puc have all been involved in the discussions? >> correct. >> okay. thank you. >> thanks for the question and answer. any other questions commissioners?

commissioner rivera. >> thank you president paulson. so, i just wanted to comment if anyone has a chance to go out and see pump station 2, it is a beautiful architectural landmark within the city of san francisco. engineering wise, it is unbelievable the ability to take water from the bay, pump it into our system for fire fighting. it is amazing. i worked on this project and will say rubicon never brought donuts to any of the meetings so dont know if we should give them extra money. it was a challenging project due to the historic preservation component, and just geographically where it was, it was hard bringing in equipment and generators and such. i am really pleased that this is

completed, and it just another level of strength for our fire fighting community here in san francisco, so thank you very much for bringing this to a close. thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, let's open item 10. thank you again for the recap and questions. commissioners, let's bring item 10 to public comment, please. >> remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to comment on item 10. do we have any members of the public present who wish to comment on this item? if so, please approach the microphone at the podium. moderator, are there any callers with their hand raised? >> ms. lennear, there are no callers that wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> public comment on item 10 is closed. can we have a motion and second to approve the change for item 10, please?

>> move to approve. >> second. >> motion and second. can we have roll call, please? >> president paulson, aye. vice president rivera, aye. commissioner stacey, aye. 3 ayes. the item passes. >> thank you. item 11 is communications. do i see any items that need to be pointed out commissioners? seeing none, item 12. read item 12, please. >> items initiated by commissioners. >> commissioners, do we have anything you like to put on future agendas or anything to that effect? no. thank you. so, seeing none, let's go to item 13, which will be the items addressed at closed session. >> public comment on the matter to be addressed during closed

session. >> should we read the item in closed session so we know what we are talking about? is that what we are doing here, counsel? grab my agenda. let's read the items addressed in closed session. >> the items, ann marie versus city and county of san francisco. >> summarize. >> the commission will go into closed session. >> counsel, can we summarize what is in closed session before we go into closed session? >> sure. there are five items on the closed session calendar, and- >> if you can summarize them, please. >> ms. lennear, would you mind reading the items into the record?

>> absolutely. pacific gas and electric company. 150 post street, llc versus city and county of san francisco. >> great. thank you. so, i entertain a motion whether to not - >> we need to if we can take public comment on going into closed session. >> thank you for reminding. let's go into public comment before closed session on the items mentioned. >> remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to comment on this item. do we have any members present who wish to comment on this item? if so, please approach the microphone. >> seeing none.

>> moderator, are there any callers with their hand raised? >> ms. lennear, there are no callers that wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> public comment on those items is closed and now i ask for a motion whether to assert attorney client privilege regarding thoset mayors as matters as we go into closed session. >> motion to assert attorney client privilege. >> second. >> motion and second. can we have roll call, please? >> president paulson, aye. vice president rivera, aye. commissioner stacey, aye. three ayes, the item passes. >> okay, we'll go into closed session.

[meeting reconvened] >> we are now back in open session. thank you. i am here to announce the commission is recommending that the board approve the 5 items that were mentioned in item 15 in closed session. i don't know if we need to read the items. we know the 5 because they have been listed so if i can ask for a motion whether to disclose the discussion during closed session. i will entertain a motion not to disclose. >> i move not to disclose. >> second. >> there is a motion and second not to disclose. can we have roll call vote, please? >> paulson, aye. rivera, aye. stacey, aye. 3 items the item passes. >> great. thank you. so, the meetling meeting of

sfpuc is now in adjournment. thank you. >> it was an outdoor stadium for track and field, motorcycle and auto and rugby and cricket located in golden gate park, home to professional football, lacross and soccer.

adjacent to the indoor arena. built in the 1920s. the san francisco park commission accepted a $100,000 gift from the estate to build a memorial in honor of pioneers in the area. the city and county of san francisco contributed an additional $200,000 and the stadium was built in a year. in the 1930s it was home to several colleges such as usf, santa clara and st. mary's for competition and sporting. in 1946 it became home to the san francisco 49ers where they played nearly 25 years. the stayed de yam sat 60,000 fans. many caught game the rooftops and houses. the niners played the last game against the dallas cowboys january 3, 1971 before moving to candlestick park. the stadium hosted other events before demolition in 1989.

it suffered damages from the earthquake. it was reconstructed to seat 10,000 fans with an all weather track, soccer field and scoreboards. it hosts many northern california football championship games. local high schools sacred heart and mission high school used the field for home games. the rivalry football games are sometimes played here. today it is a huge free standing element, similar to the original featuring tall pink columns at the entrance. the field is surrounded by the track and used by high school and college football and soccer. it is open for public use as well.commissioner wolford is pr.

patty zarb present. vice chairr. zarb is present with three members present. we do have quorum for the public works commission meeting. public comment is taken for all informational and action items on today's agenda and to comment in person, please line up

against the wall closest or i guess closest to these two screens. the audience is right. when public comment is called. and for members of the public wishing to comment on an item from outside the hearing room, you may do so by joining via webinar through the link shown on page two of today's agenda, and to be recognized, select the raise your hand icon in the webinar. you may also comment from outside the chamber by dialing (415) 655-0001 and using the meeting id of (266) 481-6148 5 pound pound. and to raise your hand to speak, press star three. the telephone login information is also available on pages one and two of today's agenda. commenters may speak for up to three minutes per item, and you will receive a 32nd notice when you're speaking. time is about to expire in the event we have many commenters on an item, the

chair may reduce the public comment time per person to less than three minutes. unless you are speaking under general public comment, please note that you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed. if commenters do not stay on topic, the chair may interrupt and ask you to limit your comments to the agenda item at hand. we ask that the public that public comment be made in a civil and respectful manner, and that you refrain from the use of profanity, abusive or hate speech will not be tolerated. please address your remarks to the commission as a whole, not to individual commissioners or staff and the public is always welcome to submit comments in writing via our email address. public works dot commission at sfdp. .org or by mail to 49 south van ness, suite 1600, san francisco, california 94103. and on behalf of the commission, we

extend our thanks to the sfgovtv building management and media services staff for helping make this special meeting possible. chair post, thank you. before we go on to the next item, which are announcements, do any of my colleagues have any changes or additions or requests regarding today's agenda? i will only point out that we did make a modification from our usual format today to accommodate director short's presentation. we have moved it closer to the end of the meeting. it made more sense for the items she will be discussing today, so we won't hear that toward the beginning of the meeting as we normally do. otherwise, that's the only change i've had to the agenda. all right, well, then we'll move on to announcements. i only have one today. and that is to point out, since we haven't met for quite a while, the july and august issues of the departments

in the works newsletter, which have a number of always interesting articles and wonderful graphics and videos regarding a number of projects we've reviewed here at the commission, but also many new ones. the mission branch library renovation, workforce development at the new nursery, and an art exhibit. there that i recommend. our curb ramp construction program. the initial planning for a new park that is underway under some freeway ramps in the soma neighborhood. the replacement of fireboat manifolds, which is really interesting if you don't know what a fireboat manifold is, i strongly encourage you to take a look at the august newsletter maintenance of sfpd's gun range, and i would only make an editorial comment. a new gun range is desperately needed for the city's police department, and we look forward to bond funding, which has been delayed, to be freed up for that new project. also in our newsletters, the marina neighborhood paving project was featured and our love our city volunteer work in district two and soma. that concludes my

announcements. do any of my colleagues have announcements today? secretary fuller, any announcements on your end? my only announcements are also first. welcome back from our august recess. but then also we will be we i have circulated a draft calendar for calendar year 2025 for our meetings and we'll be having ongoing discussions about what makes the most sense for commissioners, staff, and the public. but we'll be working on that to adopt a new calendar early this fall. so great. that's my only announcement. thank you. please open this item to public comment. members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment in person on item one. announcements by the chair, commissioners and secretary may line up against the wall for this from the door. and if you're commenting from outside the chamber, please press the raise your hand button in the

webinar or press star three on your phone to be recognized. okay looks like we have one in person commenter, you'll be given three minutes to speak and you'll get a 32nd chime when your time is about to expire. if you don't mind introducing yourself and your time begins now. thank you very much, aaron. we're here, just commenting on press clippings, things like that, the sf gazetteer published an article recently about the botts dots on dolores hill bomb, which included quotes from dpw. responding to requests by raphael mandelman's office to maintain those dots, stating

that they were being used inappropriately and that they were not intended for the purposes of stopping skateboarding or slowing traffic on dolores street, and that they were hesitant to continue maintaining them despite the fact that they were insisted upon by raphael mandelman. so i just want to make sure that these sorts of things don't get overlooked in the press clippings, as there is journalism being done, citing public works authority being overridden by political interests on behalf of district eight. thank you. thank you. and sfgovtv, do we have any callers at this time? and they are indicating that we do not. so that concludes public comment on item one. thank you. please call the next item on the agenda. item two is general public comment, which is for topics under the commission's mandate

but not related to a specific item on today's agenda. and members of the public who wish to make three minutes of general public comment in person may again line up against the wall for this from the door. and if commenting from outside the chamber, please press the raise your hand button in the webinar or star three in your phone to be recognized. mr. moore, you'll have another three minutes and, do you want to project something? okay. sfgovtv if we could show the projector as wel. thank you. i'd like to use this time to play this clip recorded recently on shotwell. this is san francisco police operating on behalf as they quoted a public works enforcing the

clearing of people who, as they, as the code they cited, said were illegally, residing on the sidewalk. this video begins with the police kicking their tent continues with these folks loading all of their belongings into a bin, hoisting it onto of all things, a skateboard and rolling all of their things away down the street. while the police continue on disassembling their tent in order for it to be tagged and held by public works. from talking to a social worker that i know, it is my understanding that these tents do not need to be withheld, that people should have the opportunity to disassemble their tents and move on. and yet the police here did not give these people the opportunity to do so. they're doing this on behalf of public works. they said they were just doing their job. so as somebody who comes here to

advocate for skateboards and people who rely on things with small wheels, i'm sure you can see here that my constituents include houseless folks who, when forced by the police, have to wheel their entire belongings away on the sidewalk. so question for you all is whether or not you feel that sfpd is doing the right thing here. and whether the code is being implemented appropriately. there was no sf public works present in this moment, just these two police officers taking these people's home apart to be bagged and tagged for these people to eventually reclaim. i would urge you to send observers from public works to make sure that people actually have appropriate opportunities to take their homes with them when they're being kicked out by people with guns. thank you. we can just, let this roll for a second badge

numbers are shown here, and i'll be sure to leave a note with the public works code that they were citing. 30s. and your time has expired. thank you. and sfgovtv. are there any other are there any other callers wishing to speak during, general public comment? okay. and they are indicating that there are none. so that concludes general public commen.

thank you. please call the next item item. item three is the consent calendar of routine matters. it includes draft minutes from the july 22nd and july 29th meetings of the public works commission, 13 contract awards, and four contract modifications. one one correction of note that was caught at the last minute is item s, there's a typo in the title calling it potrero tower station. it should be the potrero power station, which is indicated in the staff report and the resolution. but that was missed in the actual agenda. so just want to make sure that is marked consent calendar items can be heard individually upon request by a commissioner staff or the public, and adoption of the consent calendar and all resolutions contained in it is an action item. but before a motion is made, i'm happy to make any corrections to the minutes and any questions. i

have no corrections to the minutes and i regret that i did not get two questions about the consent calendar, to staff in time to speak at this meeting. so i'd like to request just brief written answers. director short to my two questions. and again, i apologize for not getting these to you well in advance of the meeting so that they could be answered immediately, disregard my two questions are regard item three q the rent board tenant improvement project, that is a contract modification. i just would like to know just briefly what lessons were learned from this project. i understand it's going to be delayed now over three months. it sounds like there are a variety of scoping issues that didn't get caught initially that have been caught along the way. it's quite a laundry list, i thought. and just just a brief comment on can we do better going forward, not

we public works per se, but when we scope projects when they're unknown and unforeseen conditions, which i do appreciate, particularly in old buildings. just it just seemed that there were a lot here for what's not really that big a project. and my other question was for three, are the rebid on the south venice avenue elevator modernization? i just wanted a little more color on why this was rebid. i did read the report, but just a little more background on on why this was rebid. so again, brief written answers. it would be more than sufficient. thank you very much. so if any other questions. otherwise i will move to approve the consent calendar today. is there a second? second? thank you. please open the motion to public comment. members of the public wish to make three minutes of comment in person on

the motion to approve item three, the consent calendar and all resolutions contained in it may line up against the wall for this from the door. and if commenting from outside the chamber, please press the raise your hand button in the webinar or press star three on your phone to be recognized. okay mr. breitbart, do you have any to project something again or okay, sfgovtv, if you could show the projector and you have three minutes to speak. thank you. my understanding is that the consent calendar includes the sidewalk maintenance contract, unless i'm incorrect, but i want to cite, ada compliance. this is changes in level section 303.3. changes in level between one quarter inch and one half inch maximum shall be beveled with a slope not steeper than 1 to 2. a change in level of one half inch is permitted to be one quarter inch vertical plus quarter inch bevel. however, in no case may the combined change level exceed

half an inch. changes in level exceeding one half inch must be must comply with 405 and 406 ramps. changes in level greater than a half inch shall be ramped and shall comply with 405. shown there okay, i've been here before to talk about this. this is the standard detail for driveways in san francisco. thank you, director short for letting me have a meeting with some of the engineers. i appreciate that the engineers told me that driveways are for cars. that's like saying streets are for cars or sidewalks are for just walking. we know that we have a reality that is different than code states. this engineering drawing is not ada compliant, simply put. so sidewalk maintenance five year contract should include bringing all sidewalks within san francisco within ada compliance.

more specifically, the reality of the driveways in san francisco are not ada compliant. so regardless of what the drawings state or what any engineer believes, that driveways are for the production of these facilities is not in line with the standards, and the standards are not in line with the ada, so we'd love to see that addressed explicitly within the scope of work of this contract, which i believe is being approved today, and if this is not included, i believe that that contract should not be approved and that the scope of work should be readdressed to include this, as this is a five year contract for millions of dollars, and regardless of what the ada says, it should not ever be weaponized as a maximum standard of care. so let's see what we can do to fix this. thank you. thank you. and there

are no more in-person speakers and sfgovtv is also indicating we do not have any callers at this time. so that concludes public comment. thank you. if there are no further questions or discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye or yes. i aye. and it passes unanimously. and the consent item resolutions will be posted to the commission's website. secretary fuller, please call the next item. turning to the regular calendar. item four is the various locations. pavement renovation number 62 and sewer replacement contract award and project manager edmund lee is here to present this contract award, and it is an action item.

right. good morning. good morning, chair post commissioners, deputy city attorney tom and director carlos schwartz, edmund lee, public works project manager for the infrastructure design and construction division, it's been a while. glad to see everybody again, today i'm here to present on the various locations pavement renovation number 62 and sewer replacement project. i'm recommending to award this

contract the various locations, pavement renovation number 62 and sewer replacement contract in the amount of $7,866,714.20, with the construction duration of 425 calendar days to the contractor s construction management. as this contract contributes to the overall goal of maintaining or increasing the overall average condition of streets maintained by public works. i mentioned many times, but san francisco public works maintains approximately 12,900 street segments, and this is one of several contracts that implements the public works street resurfacing programs goal of maintaining and improving the overall average condition of the streets maintained by public works in san francisco and along with geographic equitable distribution of the street, resurfacing in all 11 districts neighborhoods, the public works street resurfacing program considers factors such as pavement condition, use of street, and coordination with other agencies, inquiries and

available funding when planning and issuing contracts. and this is a map on the left of the locations of work within our contract, as well as a list on the right side. for reference, this project has scope of work throughout various neighborhoods and districts five, three, five, and six such as downtown, civic center, tenderloin. south of market consists of pavement resurfacing on 34 blocks and 15 intersections and constructing ten curb ramps. sfmta has also joined our contract with electrical conduit work and the sfpuc has also joined our contract with four blocks of sewer rehabilitation. and this slide shows the overall life of the project. all the highlighted blue columns is sort of what's what's already past the vertical

dark line shows today. and then the light gray columns show the future of the project. so, so far, you know, we've we've had our planning and design and advertisement phases. currently we're in this awarding phase with hopefully with the commission's approval today, we can kind of proceed with the award and, move on to construction and with the implementation and close out of the project. all right, so june 26th was when we opened the bid, we advertised april 18th of 2024. we received four bids and the average bid was $9,548,448, $0.79, percentage of the average bid of all four bidders, compared to our engineer's estimate, was 120%, or a difference of approximately 1.6 million. the percentage of the lowest bid submitted by rnz construction management was 99%

of our engineer's estimate, or a difference of about $83,000. after applying the appropriate bid discounts based on local business enterprise statuses, gns construction management would remain the lowest bidder and our contract monitoring division from the office of city administrator reviewed, confirmed and made the determination that gns construction management, with a 10% micro hlb discount, was the lowest responsive bidder. this slide shows the breakdown of the cost share of the different sponsoring agencies. i do apologize for one error on this slide with the contractor. low bid reference. it says bassett engineering, but it should be gns construction management inc. so the main sponsor of this project is public works. with about $4.5 million of resurfacing and curb ramp work, then we have our sister agencies

of public utilities commission, as well as the sfmta and our standard contingency. we apply a 10%. just to recap on the ask today is the recommendation is to award this various locations pavement renovation number 62 and sewer replacement contract. in the amount of $7,866,714.20, with a construction duration of 425 calendar days to gns construction management. happy to take any questions the commission may have. thank you, mr. lee. nice to see you as always. i do have just a few questions, why was there such a large difference between the high and low bids? i did look at the background information, and i saw that there had been an adjustment to the high bidder. but what what were the main components that, accounted for that difference? sure, i can see

go back. well, so out of the four bids, r and s construction management as well as, esquivel paving, those were the two bids that were pretty close to our engineer's estimate, the other two from mitchell and baumann were, you know, were sort of the ones that were much higher, overall, between all four bids, all of our scope of work, our public works scope of work, of the resurfacing and curb ramps was actually pretty spawn on, slightly under our estimate. or, you know, well, within the 10% range, mainly the other factors were sort of related to the either the other scopes of work or other support services that are part of the contract. such as traffic, traffic control, bid items or, muni overhead line de-energization bid items. so it was sort of a combination, you know, one contract, one

contractor is higher in this in this category and lower in this category and so forth. but as i mentioned, overall between all four, our public works scope of work was was pretty close to the engineer's estimate. great. so in other words, it was some of the other city agencies that perhaps were a little under on their estimate, such as muni wire overhead. correct. okay. got it. thank you very much. that's very helpful. i also, slide four, which is the map of the segments that will be worked on. on if we can go to quickly go to that page for a second. thank you. i think these maps are fantastic. director short would be possible. i see deputy director robertson is in the office too. in the audience that annually. perhaps it's in the annual performance metrics report. we have a five year map. let me know if this you think this is doable. let me first say the greater issue to ensure that all neighborhoods are getting adequate attention from public works. so the department is never accused of favoring one

neighborhood over another for any reason. it would be great to see where all this work paving works happens annually with a five year snapshot. i would expect that most of it would be in the northeast quadrant of the city and the major commercial corridors, and the other three quadrants, just given the wear and tear from density, commercial industrial uses. that would be my guess. in other words, i'm not going to expect to see you know, equitable and even paving throughout the city. and so those reasons would, of course, be noted if it doesn't look even right. we're not just throwing darts at the dart board. so but i think it would be really interesting to again, update it every year for a five year snapshot on where in the city, what segments were redone. so again, there's no district supervisor or neighborhood activist group could say our streets are messy. they've been a mess for 20 years. why don't you aren't you here? we say, well, actually, and we can always demonstrate. demonstrate how? we decide which segments get repaved and maintained and

what goes into those decisions. would that be? i mean, just since we're doing these maps now, it's just a question of merging them and updating them. do you think that's doable and would that be useful, do you think maybe deputy director or director gordon thinks, you know, that would be helpful to her when she responds to requests on why hasn't my block been done for since i moved here 20 years ago or whatever? what do you think about that, director shaw? yeah, i think that is very doable. we actually do an annual look at all the work that's been completed, so we could just, compile those. i can, i can touch on that a little bit too, actually. yeah. so we actually do prepare, you know, some of these maps that, that you're talking about, a lot of the, the local grants that we apply for, you know, require us to sort of show what our overall scope of work is with, you know, with the funding. but also we show, you know, with our sort of the, our whole program, you know, by fiscal year and also sort of the, the lookout of the, you know, the five years as well

as the history in the past of what we've resurfaced, you know, over the past decade, are our street resurfacing program website also has an interactive map on there that you can kind of zoom in and to a particular block or zoom out if you want a more holistic view and see what we've resurfaced over, over the life as well. so a couple of different areas where, you know, we can reference that, but i believe we have, i think an annual update to our resurfacing program coming up, i believe, next month. we can have that incorporated into the update just for your reference. that would be great. thanks. so i'm not surprised you're already doing this. yeah. so and to chair to chair post's comment, i think just as important as the map is the qualifications of why streets are being done, because it's not because they're distributed evenly, it's because they are in need of work, because they have more traffic. right exactly. it's just yeah, i mean, it's just to make sure again, that no supervisors

always getting that that area blocks paved or things like that to make sure it's not squeaky wheels that get paved but just need. sure, sure. and i believe this will be our first, annual update from our program. so we do have some slides prepared in there that sort of give a little bit of background and strategy and methodology of our program. so perfect. thank you very much, and then i guess my only other comment would be that i look forward to hearing how the progress on this particular contract has come along in in a year from now. so, secretary fuller, we can make a note on our forward calendar to hear from mr. lee just briefly on on where we are in your timeline that you showed us. if we're on schedule. thank you. commissioner selby, i know you had a question earlier. do you still have that question? yeah, sure. i'll just follow up to her question about i actually i mean, i did try to see and understand why these contractors are giving such a wide range because the winning the winning bid was like 32% lower than the

highest bid. i, couldn't, couldn't decipher it. so i would like to make a request for the future to maybe give a short presentation about page two in the attachments, which has the, you know, the bid items, quantities. i'm not sure if i can i share my i can't share that. yeah which, which is this? yeah. just to learn these. yeah. yeah. for sure. okay and, and just, just like chair post said, i would love, you know, just to get an update on this and see we get a lot of change orders. i want to see, you know, i just want to study on what type of change orders we've had on this project. and did it actually surpass the highest previous bi. oh i see, okay. right thank you,

commissioner wolford, i was just going to share that if you actually look at the bid prices, they're not in an unreasonable range from one another. you know, there's many there's the reason why that they're lower when you look at the adjusted bid price, is that the selected bid had a 10% discount because of the participation for minority microbusiness, you know, participants. but the range is actually in the normal acceptable range. one would generally see probably a 20% swing in a contracting number. and when you think about street, streets involve asphalt. asphalt involves petrol and people are putting in prices not knowing where petrol is going to be within the time span of this award. so they're putting in their own contingency because they really don't have the ability to come back and ask the city for more funds because they underestimated what it would cost them at the max. so when i look at these numbers, i see a really normal range. but to commissioner selby's question, i think it would be helpful for

the public to understand what goes into you know, a bid at a high level without breaking it down into kind of micro pieces. but just what constitutes a bid? and at a, at a level for the public to understand the great idea. thank you. any other questions or comments for mr. lee before we open this item to public comment? all right. let's please open this item to public comment. i suppose we'll have a motion. actually, i will move to award this contract, i'll second now open the motion in public comment. thank you. chair post, motion to approve. and vice chair rossabi seconded it. okay, great, members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment in person on the motion to approve item four, the various locations, pavement renovation number 62, and sewer replacement contract award may

line up against the wall. furthest from the door. and if commenting from outside the chamber, please press the raise your button. raise your hand button in the webinar or press star three on your phone to be recognized. and we have one commenter in person. you're projecting again. okay, sfgovtv if we could have the projector and your time, your three minutes begins now. thank you. and we're here again, first, thanks so much for all the repaving efforts, they do not go unnoticed. my ride to here has gotten significantly better since van ness was improved. i'm looking forward to division street being repaved because it is particularly dangerous underneath there, shown here is some of the repaving done in the sunset district. this is just above kintara at 14th street. super nice. love it. skate here all the time. i've been skating here for the last 15 years. makes a big difference. when my

friends and i go out to play. shown here is shotwell street. this is at 14th street, if it's not clear just by the way, that the light plays on the ground, the new pavement, as i've noted before, is incredibly rough. bryant just a few blocks over, is more like the pavement on the first picture shown. but these these contract discussions never include any details about the aggregate to be used or anything like that. so repaving alone does not guarantee quality. and we've discussed how these things can be harmful when people fall on them. they can slow people down when they try to roll over them on. things with small wheels can be turbulent when rolling over them in wheelchairs. et cetera. et cetera. so i think it's really important that the public gets more breakdown on these sorts of things. i understand that the mta has the lion's share of

advocacy in it, as noted by or as evidenced by the fact that i am often the only one here to speak on behalf of the public. and yet, it's important for you all to know that there are many, many advocates who just seem to concern themselves with the mta because they are mostly concerned with walking and biking and so are not sensitive to these sorts of things. but these nonetheless affect low income people as we just saw in the last video, who rely on things with small wheels to get about in the world, missing from the map, i would note, is market street, which is, well within the bounds of the work area. i have previously tried to ride a bicycle down market street all the way out to the ferry building, and am continuously jostled about the challenge for me in that instance is that market street has sidewalks with brickwork that are laid perpendicular to the path of travel, and so my choices are between a very vibratory sidewalk and a street that is

full of potholes, so stand in question for me as to why market street does not include it in this contract, that it is well within the work area. thank you. thank you. and sfgovtv is indicating, oh is indicating we do not have any callers on this item either. so that concludes public comment on item four. thank you. all in favor of the motion, please say i or yes, i and the motion passes unanimously. thank you again, mr. lee, for addressing us today. thank you. commissioners and the resolution will be posted to the commission's website. secretary fuller, please call the next item on the agenda. item five is the director's report. and communications and public works director carla shaw is here to present. and this is an informational item. good mornin.

good morning, commissioners carla short, director of san francisco public works. i have several topics i'd like to cover today, chair post. i think you had asked for a brief update on how the grants pass ruling affects our work. so i wanted to give you that today, as you know, a federal injunction was in place restricting how san francisco could remove encampments. a portion of the injunction was lifted in late july in response to a ruling by the us supreme court. that portion concerned when san francisco can cite or arrest someone for violating our ordinances about sleeping or erecting tents in public, what has not changed since the grants pass ruling is our bag and tag policy, which pertains to the

storage and disposal of unhoused people's belongings. the policy continues to be litigated in federal court, and the city remains under an injunction to comply with its own bag and tag policy. while san francisco continues to conduct encampment operations through the healthy streets operation center initiative by offering shelter and services to those on the street, the city now is able to better enforce laws when refusals of shelters occur. this includes being able to follow up at a later time to an area that has recently been cleared in order to prevent encampment. in addition, public works staff is working with the police departments district officers to address smaller encampments on a daily basis. the goal of these engagements is to prevent encampments for areas recently cleared and to prevent small encampments from becoming larger ones. police officers conduct regular canvasses of their areas to identify any new encampments, and then work with our staff to clear them. okay. moving on. i

am pleased to report that jason anderson has joined your sister commission, the sanitation and streets commission, nominated by mayor breed and approved by the board of supervisors. commissioner anderson has been appointed to a full four year term ending july one, 2028. a fourth generation san franciscan, he earned his j.d. at uc law, san francisco and has worked as corporate counsel for 23 and me and law clerk at paul, weiss, rifkind, wharton and garrison llp here in the city. his addition means that all five of our sas commission seats are now filled. last month, public works staff welcomed a delegation of government officials and leaders from kazakhstan to our 49 south van ness headquarters to share with them san francisco's approach to earthquake resiliency and building safety. the q&a discussion was part of the us

departments of state, department of state's international visitor leadership program. as the state department's premier professional exchange program. current and emerging foreign leaders in a variety of fields develop lasting relationships with their american counterparts through short term exchanges. city architect ron alameda building design and construction project manager, management bureau manager magdalena reiher, public works chief structural engineer ray lewis, and senior earthquake resilience analyst laurel mathews from the city administrator's office of resilience and capital planning, met with the officials from kazakhstan to share their knowledge and expertise, and our second group of global visitors just last week were from the municipal engineering foundation in victoria, australia. they came to meet with christina oliva, project manager with the bureau of project management and idc, and staff from our paving program to learn about road rehabilitation and

reconstruction and waste reduction and reuse. these people to people. meetups provide great opportunities to tap knowledge and skill sets on a global scale. i have to say, years ago i met with some folks from operations division in, from stockholm, and i was both heartened and a little discouraged that we had so many of the same challenges in terms of graffiti challenges and vandalism in large municipal cities. so it's misery loves company. i guess all right. new flashing beacons. last month we held a ribbon cutting in the outer richmond for a set of new solar powered crosswalk safety beacons that were installed with the help of our skilled trades workers and engineers. the beacons aim to bolster pedestrian safety. the new light fixtures, located at the crosswalk of 38th avenue and geary boulevard and formerly known as you've heard as rectangular, rapid, fast, rapid flashing beacons can be

activated with the push of a button by any pedestrian wanting to safely cross the busy boulevard. once turned on, the flashing lights alert drivers that someone is looking to cross the road. this is a collaborative project with the public works and sfmta. several public works teams are involved in this vital effort, including project management, disability access coordination and engineering, and from our operations side, carpenters, electricians and cement masons help with the installation work. under this initiative, public works installed the first safety beacon. earlier this year in dimond heights neighborhood at duncan street and diamond heights boulevard. the outer richmond one marks the second. the next flashing beacon is set to be installed at clayton and fulton streets, near the university of san francisco, and it is gravely needed at 38th and geary. when we were turning on the beacon and crossing the street, cars honked at us, so it was pretty shocking. yeah i

wanted to share that 311 is expanding their language access. and last week, deputy director alaric degraffenreid participated in a press conference with 311 to announce the expansion of language access at the 311 customer service center with the sf 311 mobile app now available in chinese, spanish and filipino. no longer just english, the 311 customer service center is vital to the work we do on behalf of the people of san francisco. in fact, public works receives more 311 service requests than any other city department, accounting for one third of all 311 service requests last year, we received 278,285 service requests through the 311 system. that's almost 38 requests an hour, or one every two minutes, every day of the year. i want to take this opportunity to encourage members of the public

to get that number up, but truly to use 311, because it does make a difference and it does help us both track and manage our work. all right. latinx hispanic heritage month this week marks the beginning of latinx hispanic heritage month. as always, our all star latinx hispanic heritage month committee has orchestrated a month packed with exciting events and informative presentations. this year's theme is honoring and recognizing latinx hispanic people's contributions to the sciences, which i am particularly excited to learn more about because there are so many intersections with the work we do here at public works. in addition to a variety of great events, the heritage team will be sending out emails that highlight and explain some of the most significant scientific contributions of the latinx, hispanic community. i want to give a huge thank you to the entire latinx hispanic heritage month planning committee for their work to organize and promote all of these exciting

events. it's great seeing everyone gather, learn about, and celebrate the diversity that makes our department so strong. and lastly, as a reminder, our next neighborhood beautification day greening and cleaning work day will take place in the bayview, dogpatch, potrero hill and other district ten neighborhoods on saturday, september 21st. this is a great opportunity to beautify the neighborhoods, meet neighbors, and give back to the community. kickoff is at 9 a.m. at the bayview casey jones playground, which is at 1601 armstrong avenue and more information can be found on our website at sf public works .org/ volunteer. i hope you can join us. and that wraps up today's report. thank you. i have no questions or comments for director shaw. do my colleagues. secretary fuller, please open this item to public comment. members of the public

who wish to make three minutes of comment in person on item five. the director's report may line up against the wall for this from the door. and if you're commenting from outside the chamber, please press the raise your hand button in the webinar or press star three on your phone to be recognized. okay, mr. brimmer, you have three minutes to speak and you're projecting again, correct? yep. okay all right, shown on screen. great i'm just going to keep presenting on this until we address it, because we keep getting encouragement about 311 reports. so i've made at least a dozen about this. this

photo is about a year ago. almost. exactly. so i'm just going to proceed. this is august 1st, 2023. oh, i'm sorry. my apologies. let's get this just right. hopefully this will work out okay. yeah. august 14th. these fences just continue to grow. they started as a line here they are blocking somebody getting out of their car with a wheelchair. here they are protruding into the sidewalk. they just get bigger and bigger. they go away for a minute. when i report them. and then they come back in different orientations every single time. more and more dense over and over again. sorry, those ones are on the other side of the street. let's keep going. these are here in order to block the

sunday market, right? that's what they're for. and yet they're up 24 hours a day, seven days a week. this is the block away from my just a block away from my house. the sunday market doesn't not happen anymore. it just makes it all the more dangerous for people to walk through the area. these fences expand and expand and expand again, protruding into the right of way. so there's all this talk about houseless folks who don't have anywhere to go being in the right of way, but there's no discussion of the way that private building owners are weaponizing public works using the ada as a shield to say, well, the sidewalk is still compliant in order to compromise access to the street. that's what ada compliance looks like. apparently but you see how much extra sidewalk there is and how hard it might be to pass somebody on the sidewalk when they're walking towards you. now that this has been compromised, this is what it looks like toda.

so fences, cones, you know, and all of this to stop some people gathering in public on a sunday. so i'm going to just continue to bring this up because 311 calls don't work. and the ada is being weaponized to say that this is excusable. this was previously my favorite block. on my way home, i would ride downhill from wherever i was to get to my house. it's one block away from my house now. it's super dangerous. there are so many tripping hazards which are approved by public works anytime there are two people ahead of me. as you can see in this photo, i now have to come to a complete stop. the right of way is being compromised. we would never accept this for cars in the street. your time has expired. thank you. and sfgovtv is. there are no other in-person commenters and sfgovtv is indicating we do not have any other callers. so that concludes public comment on the director's report. thank you. please call

the next item. item six is the commission's response to the civil grand jury report from june 20th, 2024, and chair post will present this item and i do have a visual to show. and sfgovtv, if you could show the clerk pc. thank you. since our response is posted and attached to today's agenda and posted, i'll try to be brief here. as we've discussed before, the civil grand jury for 2324, fiscal year 2324 did issue a report, and citing public works, oversight and construction of capital projects in particular that part of public works mandate and the commission was

requested to respond to the civil grand jury report. we were not required to respond. the department was, as were several other city departments. but the commission was just requested to respond. but of course, we chose to respond. and i'd like to thank director short and the senior staff for meeting with the commission to talk about some of the issues that were raised and help us understand better, some of the concerns that the grand jury report surfaced so that we can better have a better informed response. we did submit our response ahead of the mid-august deadline for it. it was sent, as requested, to the san francisco county superior court judge and the jury foreperson and we, of course, thank and again, thank the citizens who served on the grand jury and took a look at what we do view as a very core responsibility of san francisco to construct and maintain capital projects. the first finding of we were we were requested to respond to two findings and four

recommendations. and the first finding noted a lack of a central database of capital assets that made it difficult to track and budget when they when they and how they should be maintained and upkept and the budget required. we agreed with that finding. it would be terrific to have such a database, but we don't feel public works is the right agency to house it. that we feel public works should be a leader in helping, populate the database, if you will. and of course, monitor asset facility degradation and when it's needed, when it needs to be maintained. and of course, we weigh into that when we oversee project construction to begin with. so we would like to participate in such a database. compilation. but we didn't the commission didn't feel public works should have core responsibility for it. the second finding by the grand jury noted that the commission lacked reporting protocols necessary for basically doing our job and overseeing department performance on capital project delivery. we agreed and

disagreed with with this finding, we agreed that that we right now don't have perfect reporting measures in place, but that the past two years since we were formed, we have been working very regularly and diligently with staff to put such reporting metrics in place as as we, as you all have heard about now for many, many, many months, and that we do intend to have regular reporting on capital projects on an annual basis beginning later this fall, and when we will receive the first of such reports. and we do feel that that report will allow us to meet our obligation to provide oversight in this part of the department regarding the recommendations that the civil grand jury made, that they requested the commission respond to, the first regarded having quarterly public hearings on public works croct delivery for scope, schedule, budget. the similar things we always ask about in these meetings, we agree that it was

important to ask these questions and get our questions answered, but that an annual basis for reporting is more than sufficient. and as i noted, these reports will begin on an annual basis late this calendar year. the second recommendation that the grand jury made was that the commission should weigh into capital facilities, design and construction processes and procedures. we disagreed with this recommendation, frankly, with the exception of commissioner wolford, none of us have the expertise to get involved in this, nor should we. that is not our role. our role is not to get involved in the minutiae of project design and construction. our role is to represent approximately 820,000 citizens in san francisco to ensure that bond funds, when they are approved, are spent for the projects voters intended them to be spent on and thought they would be spent on, and that public expectations are met. we do our best to do that, and that is how the commission views its role. the third recommendation by the civil grand jury was for

the commission to visit all city capital projects that are completed by the department to assess their quality and performance. once again, the commission disagreed with this recommendation for some of the reasons i just stated. regarding the second recommendation. but first of all, we feel quarterly visits to select capital projects are sufficient, particularly projects where we have contracts pending or projects that are under construction recently completed as a volunteer body with a heavy lift for our regular meetings, we feel it is not feasible or reasonable to request site visits more often than this, nor to insist that the staff do the preparation to host commissioners for these site visits. while we find these site visits very informative, particularly, i'd like to note our tour of zuckerberg general recently. we feel that quarterly visits to select projects are sufficient and aiding us in performing our public role. the fourth recommendation by the grand jury that we responded to, again, we disagreed, was that the commission should develop processes to obtain client

feedback on unresolved construction issues or concerns with capital projects that were delivered by san francisco public works. as you know, we do invite client departments to come speak to us about their partnership with the department on large capital project delivery, lessons learned and anything of value that can be passed on to the commission and to the public about capital projects and public works. leadership of them with other city agencies. so we feel that is our role in assessing how clients feel about the partnership with public works. we rely on staff in their months and years long process of partnering, partnering with other city agencies to ensure that it is a smooth process and that city client concerns are raised before, during and after the construction process with senior staff, not with public commissioners. so that's sort of a summary of our responses. and as i said, the detail is posted

along with this agenda and i encourage the public to take a look at it in concert with the department's own response to the grand jury report and the other city departments that responded to this report. my colleagues, have any questions or comments on this? if not, secretary fuller, that concludes my report on this. please open this agenda item to public comment. members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment in person on the commission response to the civil grand jury report may line up against the wall for this from the door. and if you're commenting from outside the chamber, you would press the raise your hand button in the webinar or star three on your phone to be recognized. okay mr. boyer, go ahead. your time has begun. thank you, just to compare, say this commission to the mta commission. mta commission weighs in a lot on

design, perhaps more than they should, they rely on public input, perhaps more than they should, because it slows down processes a lot. they would have, i would say the burden of community outreach and often use it as an excuse to not make any forward progress. the other thing they use as an excuse to not make forward progress is the department of public works, because they say things are done. the way they're done, and we have a hard time dealing with their engineers, we all need to reimagine streets. there's a century old legacy of focusing on car centric culture that continues to kill people. the mta has failed to meet its vision zero goals, despite the involvement of the commission and the public and everything else, i would say that the commission's, opinions on this are, unfortunately, compromising public safety. the fact is that the data shows that the mta

alone is not able to save lives. and until they are, public works should be working as hard as it can in concert with the mta to solve those problems. and if the mta commission cannot do it on its own, then the public works commission should be charged with stepping up and doing that sort of work. i am also not a traffic engineer, but i have a qualitative experience of the real world that allows me to come here and speak with expertise on things that apparently nobody is paying attention to. and public engagement alone with you all seems to not get us anywhere, because i've been coming here for at least a year, if not two, raising the same issues, and we're not making forward progress. so i would invite you all to come out into the world with us and engage. and i do believe that if the grand jury feels these things are important, then they should be entertained until they are found to be inconsequential or not helpful. but i see no reason to just say no. when a bunch of

people have gone out of their way to say that we would like you to be more engaged because people continue to die as a result of a lack of engagement on behalf of public works. thank you. thank you. and there are no other in-person commenters and sfgovtv is indicating there are no more callers on this item. so that concludes public comment. thank you. please call the next item. item seven is the department's response to the civil grand jury report for from june 2024. and director short will present this report as wel, and i'll have a visual posted for it. thank you. secretary fuller. so as chair post noted, the department was required to respond to the civil grand jury, we have our full response in the attachments for the agenda. i will give a brief overview, if we can go to the next slide.

thanks. so there were four findings and nine recommendations directed towards public works. the city as a whole drafted a single response led by the mayor and included public works, city administrator, controller, office of resilience and capital planning. i think it's fair to say that we all really appreciated the efforts put in by the civil grand jury. they spent a lot of time. they were very thoughtful about their assessments, and we share their goals for fiscal responsibility, maintaining our valuable assets, improving construction and maintenance, and transparency, and then also looking at capital planning and design processes. overall our next slide. thank you, we felt that there was a bit of a misunderstanding of the role of some of the city departments, particularly the role and responsibility of the departments of real estate, and then our client departments and how public works interacts with

them, we felt that they, particularly with the department of real estate, the civil grand jury didn't really understand how they play a role in asset management. and how we interact with them, we don't share the, civil grand jury's conclusion that more frequent reporting is necessary and will automatically result in better outcomes, through the commission, we have now improved and increased reporting, though we have always had internal reviews of our wor, and we have also invited other departments to come and attend those internal reviews of our work to provide feedback. so we continue to invest in those existing reporting procedures and the oversight processes and oversight bodies. but we didn't feel like it was necessary to add new, new, processes. we also continue to invest in our existing accountability tools. we have the facilities resource renewal model. there are

alternate alternative project delivery models. our public works statute, which is our internal monthly review, as well as reaching out to client departments, getting feedback from them and then partnering, formal partnering and informal partnering with other departments and our delivery partners as well as really trying to learn from our best practices and, other city benchmarking and best practices. next slide. so in general, we, disagreed partially with findings one and four. whoops thank you. which was that the cities significant amount of degraded assets is not properly quantified or understood. we don't disagree with that, resulting in an increased cost to taxpayers and a lack of transparency and accountability.

what we found was that we do use the departments. city departments generally, not just public works, to update the facilities resource renewal model annually, with estimates of remaining useful life for all building subsystems. it's not perfect in terms of cost projections, but it does provide a high level estimation of which assets are most degraded. but fundamentally, we don't have the resources that we need as a city to maintain these assets. so to sort of assign, this responsibility to of a theoretical cost increase to taxpayers solely on the lack of quantification didn't seem like the appropriate conclusion to u, we also disagreed partially with the finding that, the perception that the hourly rates of employees of the department for work performed by client departments are too expensive, and which leads to frustration and irritation, and that can

negatively impact the working relationship with departments. so we have, the resources and the availability to provide the calculation for labor costs to any client department who requests it. and we have taken, an effort to educate our client departments on the various components of our indirect cost plan. and i think that has helped, actually them process and understand why some of our costs are high. and then in terms of the recommendations, we disagreed partially with recommendations one through seven. i'm not going to read all of these. they're in our report, because they essentially didn't feel we didn't feel that they would be warranted or were reasonable. a lot of these relate to those additional reporting. we're doing some reporting, we could spend all our time reporting and we wouldn't get any work done. so we need to strike the right balance and then we actually disagreed with, recommendation number eight, because that has already been implemented, and so

generally, again, i think that it was we really appreciated the thoughtfulness of this civil grand jury report and the folks who contributed to it, and we always want to make improvements. and so we look carefully at recommendations. some of these we have already started, some have already been implemented, implemented, and others will will continue to invest in the existing reporting structures. so that's a brief summary. again the our full response is included with the packet and on the website. and i'm available for any questions. thank you director short and thank you to your team for putting your response together. i thought it was very strong an, i think i actually feel very comfortable and proud of the department and the commission's response to the civil grand jury report. as you noted, we all appreciate the hard work that these citizens obviously put in.

it was actually one of the stronger civil grand jury reports. i've read over the years. they took it very seriously. it was very well done, and it deserved a serious response. and i think we've met that obligation. so thank you to you and your staff for doing that. thank you. any questions or comments for director schwartz? commissioner wolford, it's not a question. it's really a comment that as a professional practicing architect, being aware of the civil grand jury, i to respect the integrity and the public and civic advocacy that the grand jury undertook. having said on other commissions for the city and county of san francisco, some of the findings, neglect to, you know, account for the fact that design is already design oversight services are provided by the civic design review and the arts commission. they're provided by the historic preservation commission, our planning department. accountability resides within real estate. and so while the city isn't perfect, you know, understanding how the

city works within its different commissions and divisions and departments on the whole, it's doing an admirable job. and so i just simply wanted to advocate and support what our commission and our directors report found. and endorse them. thank you, commissioner wolford, very helpful remarks. as always, secretary fuller, please open this item to public comment. members of the public wish to make three minutes of comment in person on the department's response to the civil grand jury may line up against the wall for this from the door. and if you're commenting from outside the chamber, press the raise your hand button in the webinar, or press star three on your phone to be recognized. and we do have one in-person commenter and your microphone is on. go ahead, please. thank you. and

you have something to project. okay. sfgovtv, if we could use the projector to. let's just keep doing this. if the city cannot meet its construction codes, if the design is already done. but it cannot meet them, then something is not working. so where's the oversight? where's the accountability? if a civil grand jury makes recommendations and the department can just say, well, we don't think it matters and move on, what's the point of the process? if somebody can make a311 report and the city can say, well, it just doesn't doesn't really work for us, and that's the end of it. if an engineer can say, well, driveways are for cars, not for anything else, what's the point? when we construct bridges or

tunnels under the ground a few inches is very expensive. being off by a few inches is very expensive on a mass scale, and when we construct driveways and we're off by a few inches, it can be very expensive. personally, to fall and break your wrist, or hit your head, or lose all the groceries that you just spent all your money on. so i'm just sort of at a loss here. if so much work can be being done on behalf of the public to make recommendations to this organization, and it can just shrug its shoulders and say, well, we just we don't think this matters. as long as people are dying in the streets, as long as people are getting injured by infrastructure that's not being built to code. whether the san francisco code or the ada, then the job is not being done appropriately. and every step should be taken. i know

that if i were a commissioner, i would volunteer my time to show up and look at all of these projects, because it matters to my material experience of the built environment. so i would like to see the same level of effort put forward by other people who have gone out of their way to volunteer. thank you all for doing the work. and also, it's apparently not enough because we're not there yet. people are still getting injured. thank you. thank you for your comments. that's our only in-person commenter and we do not have any callers at this time. so that concludes public comment on this item. thank you. please call the next item today. item eight is new business initiated by commissioners. this is an opportunity for commissioners to suggest business for a future agenda. and it is an informational item. thank you. i don't have any new business and i'm going to cheat. and one comment from the consent calendar i neglected was i wanted to thank michael lennon from the bureau of street use

and mapping for answering my previous questions regarding the street inspection repair program. thank you, mr. lennon, for doing that. do either of my colleagues have any new business to propose today? commissioner wolford? it's not new business. it's not new business. but i did want to comment on the extraordinary vibrancy that we see returning to san francisco as someone who both lives here and works here to see the energy on the streets, frankly, the cleanliness of the streets and to work. i work downtown and to see concerts happening and street night markets happening. it really is just an exciting time to be back in san francisco and to be a san franciscan. here, here, commissioner zombie. yeah, i just wanted to just add my request from earlier to the new business section about explaining explaining the report that we get about. yes, thanks. okay. and i would like to agree

with the commissioner wolford doing a great, i've seen i see all the trucks coming around public works and just, you know, makes me feel good every time i see them just pull over. you know, we're getting the 311 calls. that's true. but i see more proactivity from the team. so i'd like to commend the public works team on their work. thank you. secretary fuller, please open this item to public comment. members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment on item eight, new business initiated by commissioners. you may line up against the wall for this from the door. and if you're commenting from outside the chamber, press the raise your button. raise your hand button in the webinar or star three on your phone to be recognized. okay, mr. brightmore, go ahead. your time has begun, to the best of my knowledge, this commission has yet to receive a report from the mta on its biking and

rolling plan. recently renamed, was previously called the active communities plan. it is a curb to curb mobility plan because the mta's purview is within the streets, it is lost on me as to why the department of public works is not also included in that, or why a second phase of the project has not already been started to be imagined. that would include the sidewalks, especially as this commission is able to sign five year contracts for sidewalk maintenance with virtually zero public input. meanwhile, we can have a years long discussion about mobility in the streets that costs millions of dollars and has again, excessive public input, all while we wait for these departments to act and take measures to save people's lives. i have asked previously for this commission to request that the

mta come and present on its biking and rolling plan so that we can understand as as group here, what is being done to further non-automotive mobility. that request has not been met. i wonder if this is just falling on deaf ears, or if there is a reason for not doing so, or if we can amend, new business at any given point in any of these meetings that i will continue to show up at in the future to make sure that that report is being given on a quarterly, if not monthly basis, so that the department of public works can understand what is being done in the streets. and so that it can make further recommendations within its own department to make life more habitable. because as we know, not everybody who needs to move around in the city is using the street. some people rely on the sidewalks. and as i continue to show, these sidewalks are hostile. thank you. thank you. and that is our last in-person

speaker. and we do not have any callers at this time. so that concludes public comment. thank you. and we will not need item nine. is that correct, secretary. that's correct. item nine is not necessary. all right. we have two meetings coming up that unfortunately i will miss. our next meeting is scheduled for monday, september 23rd at 9 a.m. back in our regular room of room 408, there is a chance that meeting will be canceled if staff does not have any contracts to bring to the commission. so i just want to give everybody a heads up that that's a meeting in pencil, so to speak. more likely is a meeting on the next meeting on october seventh, and at that meeting, we may have a new commissioner to welcome. i'm sorry. i won't be here to welcome her myself. she still needs to get through rules in the board of supervisors. but we haven't heard that that will be a problem to date, so i won't see you all until later in

october. but my colleagues will see you earlier. thank you all very much. it is 1017 and we are adjourned. [music] san francisco emergency home program is a safety net for sustableable commuters if you

bike, walk, take public transit or shares mobility you are eligible for a free and safe roadway home the city will reimburse you up to $150 dlrs in an event of an emergency. to learn more how to submit a reimbursement visit sferh.

>> preston, the owner of cafe alma and-- [music] the cafe started as a temporary project and made it permanent projecktd. project. the building is slated to be demolished probably in 5 to 10 years. it u.s.ed to be a awning manufacturing and i decided to turn it into a cafe. it also served as a incubator for small businesses in the area. we also do a food bank from the location. it has been an amazing

community experience to have it, because we are [indiscernible] we like to [indiscernible] everything as much as possible from different vendors in the area, different producers. we like-other people as well. sometimes we have a pop up from a local maker. we also do a marketplace with another local business. definitely a lot of collaboration and local products. we have been in san francisco about 25 years. when i first came here i was in the restaurant, cafe, hospitality world and it is what i love to do and being in this neighborhood i have been in bayview about 20 years, but definitely knew i wanted to be a small business owner and do something here lovely in my community. >> driver, bye.

>> hi. i'm will b. mixture weltake a walk with me. >> i just love taking strolls in san francisco. they are so many cool and exciting things to see. like -- what is that there? what is that for? hi. buddy. how are you. >> what is that for. >> i'm firefighter with the san francisco fire department havings a great day, thank you for asking. this is a dry sand pipe. dry sand pipes are multilevel building in san francisco and the world. they are a piping system to facilitate the fire engineaire ability to pump water in a buildings that is on fire. >> a fire truck shows up and does what? >> the fire engine will pull up to the upon front of the building do, spotting the building. you get an engine in the area

that is safe. firefighters then take the hose lyoning line it a hydrant and that give us an endsless supply of water. >> wow, cool. i don't see water, where does it come from and where does it go? >> the firefighters take a hose from the fire engine to the dry sand pipe and plug it in this inlet. they are able to adjust the pressure of water going in the inlet. to facilitate the pressure needed for any one of the floors on this building. firefighters take the hose bunked and he will take that homes upon bundle to the floor the fire is on. plug it into similar to this an outlet and they have water to put the fire out. it is a cool system that we see in a lot of buildings. i personal low use federal on

multiple fires in san francisco to safely put a fire out. >> i thought that was a great question that is cool of you to ask. have a great day and nice meeting you. >> thank you for letting us know what that is for. thanks, everybody for watching! bye! [music]

>> come shop dine and play. taraval street is open for business. >> i am a coowner at 19th. this establishment came about when me and my brother andy, coowner, we decided that it

time for us to take a step up in the barber industry, and open up a space of our own. ory business is a community that shows their true artistic side of the barber industry. we are involved in teraival bingo so stop by, get a hair cut and when you do you get the barber sticker made just for us. i say in three words we are community, arts and here to help any way possible we can, so come by, visit at barber lounge, 907 taraval in the sunset. you can find us on instagram. >> time for teraival bingo supporting small business, anyone can participate. it is easy, collect stickers on a bingo gameboard and enter a raffle event.

>>ime autumn looijen andeme polk running for district 5 supervisor. i have a track record getting things done. i run the school board recall and brought algebra back to middle school. our schools are on the-mind but city in crisis. running for supervisor because i came home and found a drug useer in front of my home. there were 5 kids on the top floor but couldn't stop himself. we must make sure people like him don't hurt himself or anything else. last year [indiscernible] a lot happen ed in the tenderloin now part of our district. we are a village in district 5 and we are going to help them. i have been walking thin streets talking to