tv Government Access Programming SFGTV August 9, 2019 9:00am-10:01am PDT
next step we have what is highlighted in green as final dewatering after the die gender expression. and we have the orange in that triangle area, that energy recovery facility that i talked about. blue indicates odor control because we are committed to capture, treat and vent all the processed air from the project. lastly we have that pink kind of on the edge. those are actually two maintenance buildings which we thought was a more visually pleasing public edge that we've located along gerald street. here is an architectural rendering of what it will look like. right down the middle you'll see gerald street and those maintenance i talked about with solar panels and down the side the anaerobic digesters. they're concrete vessels, but also planned to what you see there for more of a visual
esthetic, and then energy recovery as well. i also wanted to show you this just to provide you a snapshot from our actual design model because we did design it in a bama 3-d model to get you to appreciate the complexity. i showed you the pretty above-ground structures. i want you to see what the contractor has to face. basically when you look at this, all the different colors represent different waste streams, whether it's treated and untreated sludge, wastewater, chemicals, all being laid adjacent to each other. remember, i'm connecting to the existing wastewater treatment plant and i also wanted to point out you see those vertical looking piles on the bottom of each buildings, those are piles and based on the last count i got there's 132,000 piles to go along with the 220 cubic yards of soil that are going to be
excavated. remember the digesters in the buildings are 65-feet tall, but there's probably about two storeys of infrastructure and pipe galleries and equipment below those. again, 220 cubic yards of soil and 128,000 cubic yards of concrete. where are we as of right now? right now we have a baseline budget of about $1.3 billion, and i think as you guys discussed previously this baseline was set i think it's harland said it depends where we are in the design phase. when we set this in 2016 and 2018, i was at 35% design. so you can see associated with that, there is a construction period that's almost six years with a significant startup. so basically that is what we knew to the best of our
knowledge back then in 2016 and 2018. to date we have completed a comprehensive environmental impact report, which was approved back in april of 2018. one other note to make was that this project was able to secure close to $813 million of low-interest loans from the federal and the state. over $699 million of that came from the epa through what they call their water infrastructure financing innovation act funding, and the other balance of the $132 million being from the state revolving funds. so it is projected that with these two loans would result in probably over $400 million of debt savings for the puc over the life of those loans. so it's pretty significant. just like headworks, we're also implementing this project as a construction manager/general contractor approach. for us our cm/gc contractor is a
joint venture of mwh constructors. they came an board a little late in our design phase. they came on board at the end when we were finishing with 65% design. moving on to design. the design of the new biosolids facility is at 95% completion, and based on this design, we are developing and updating those cost estimates and construction schedule. as you heard from the previous speakers, one of the benefits of cm/gc approach is that the design is broken into pieces, such that you can begin construction while the other pieces are still in design. with that being said we are planning to issue notice to proceed to construction next month, in august of this year, to start off with the demolition as most of you saw of the existing infrastructure out there and do some utility relocation. so i'm very excited to report that out.
and i think, you know, kind of echoing the two speakers before me, i think we also had great benefit from having the cm/gc on board during the design phase, albeit they came in after 65%, but because they've been so engaged, they were able to influence a lot of the 95% design by providing review and constructability of the design and also doing a significant amount of field investigations, things we weren't able to do earlier because one or two things: the sites were already occupied so we didn't have full access. but it also was more valuable having the cm/cg do the field investigation because they picked locations where we wanted additional geotechnical information. they knew questions to ask and how to find out doing these site
investigations. i do have to mention that because they actually found a few very significant things during their review and identified site challenges, they were able to work with the project team, the design team, to mitigate and manage those issues, some of which would have been more expensive if we found them during construction. i just want to give you an example of that being dewatering. because we put in groundwater wells, we found there was a clay lair that was very permaneeable that it held water and didn't allow it to come out and we found the groundwater is higher in salinity. because of these early findings, the cm/gc brought in what we call a preconstruction core sub,
the shoring expert to do the work and work with our design team and develop and devise a new shoring method, albeit we have to dig deeper, but it provides we predict to be a more stable environment when that construction takes place. remember, that digester complex and that solids pretooement building is 50 feet down. now that we have that more robust methodology for shoring, we were able to mitigate those issues and having a team mobilized and ready. trying to figure out as the holes there, someone in the design shop trying to crank out a new design. also one of the benefits i think with having a cm/gc on board is they develop the construction schedule. they don't look at how fast it takes to excavate that thing. they look at it on the backdrop of site constraints. other construction jobs on site. how fast can we -- the public
roads. i know we will probably have a partial closure of gerald street. so being able to take advantage and stages these. because all of that kind of lands into productivity as well. once again with that being so craned, it's not like we're on an island. with the cm/gc on board, they use their expertise to be as efficient as they can, but also factor in the time and the cost of doing that construction. here is a similar slide that you've seen for the headworks project and here is the cost progression for the biosolids project. you can see when i did 10% which is the first dot on the left, it was august of 2015. you know, progressing forward and then i issued a 35% in october of 2016 and then at the 65%. as i mentioned before, you know, where you see that arrow, the
cm/gc came on board during that 65%. all of their findings have not even been incorporated yet, but they are going to be in that 95% that i will probably share with you at a future update meeting. lastly, you heard us talk about envision. basically envision is -- you know how lead rating is basically for vertical buildings or office buildings. envision was created for civil infrastructure. so it really takes, you know, similar criteria, but applies it to a civil infrastructure, whether transportation, wastewater job, other type of industrial settings. so when we're also applying for the envision sustainability rating, but you do your rating based on your 95% design. so we're not quite there yet, but we did some early assessments when we were looking at envision and we're hoping and fully anticipate that we also will probably get a gold if not
platinum status as well. so i hope to report back to you on how that goes. with that, that ends my presentation. so i'll welcome any questions you may have. >> i have a question through the chair. in the south of market area, the whole idea of infrastructure and being grounded, talking about like millennium towers and what have you. you were very clear about talking about piles. so is there -- is the team really diligent on making sure that we're not going to have to worry about anything? because there's -- getting that infrastructure and driving down through sand or if you find s
surpentine or whatever it is because this is a major project, do you feel confident and maybe explain a little bit how confident the team was to make sure you're going to be on solid ground when this thing is finally put together, that there's not going to be any cutting of corners or engineering like skimming off the top or something. >> yes. >> first of all, we're laughing because that's the exact same question sophie asked on the tour. i think one thing is that we definitely don't want to cut corners. we mentioned that the piles are going to bedrock. >> well, i don't know if they're going to bedrock, but they're going to more stable soil than -- >> what does "stable soil" mean? >> i'm not a geotech, but i can certainly come back and talk further about it. i did want to mention as part of the cm/gc benefit we identify what we call a preconstruction
core subcontractor and we brought on malcolm engineers whose expertise is that, shoring and piles and everything you said. so i feel -- i think the question was do i feel confident? i think i feel confident that we brought those experts who do this into a room, right? we had them sit with our structural designers. a member of my design team is made up of three consultant firms. and we had malcolm, and not just them, but mwh constructors. additionally we could have additional information come your way about the details of that, but in terms of what i could do from a design stage because everyone had millennium on their mind about the sinking and making sure -- with the 132,000 piles, that wasn't something that we weren't worried about. >> maybe what we should do is come back and give a better
response with the experts. >> yes. >> because i know that the city administrator is sort of quarterbacking this and there is a process that they're developing, whereas a third party -- >> it is already in place. i call it like a structural task force. if you are a project of a certain size, you have to go in front of this task force. >> so let's make sure we come back and talk about how we went through that process and where we are today. >> will do. >>president caen: thank you, because yesterday i did ask the question and was told that bedrock, yes, that we would go down to bedrock and it was a different level or there is another way. now i was feeling pretty good when i went to bed tonight and now -- because i'm sure that when they did the millennium they had a number -- in fact, the planning department ensures us that we had other people
looking at it and we had this and that in place and we still have this issue. so i would feel a lot more comfortable if we had somebody else telling us for sure and why they feel. because this is an infrastructure, not just a building, but a service as well. i'm very confident that you -- >> i will have those group experts from the contractor and the design team come back and really have a focused presentation on just that. >> and, commissioner, it was -- when you said we're going to bedrock but not always going to bedrock, that was sort of like not going to bedrock sometimes is scary. >> well, like i said, i wasn't -- i didn't have the geotech in front of me. like i said, we'll come back and really dig in. >> i just wanted to thank you
and the director. tim, you have to go and i would gladly go back because you really get a different sense of what we're working with and the roads and all of the things that have to be really coordinated. it's a major undertaking. so i -- and the enthusiasm of the staff and everybody is still excited about it and what they're working with, they're still excited about that. so i feel really good and want to thank you all for all that you do and the work that you do. i would just suggest that when you're talking to us you really need to be -- if it's bedrock, it is, if it's not, it isn't. i asked the question and was given a great answer at the time. so i think we have to be very careful then -- because this is on our minds, earthquakes and millennium. >> yeah, i want to thank you guys for your time because it helps to see it firsthand. obviously powerpoints are great,
but you don't get an appreciation of the vastness until you see it right there. commissioner paulson, we will happily do another tour. i know each time you do it because of the audience it gets a little bit different. we can easily schedule that whenever you guys are available. >>president caen: i think every commissioner should go because as commissioner maxwell said, your scope is totally different after you're there on site and you see it. because we can interpret what you're saying better having seen it. >> exactly. >>president caen: i would like a copy of the slides if that's possible. >> i'll make that happen. all right. thank you very much. >> i have a couple questions. >> sure. >> and one is on where we are on the budgeting process. the last quarterly report that we did for this project showed the one-year delay, and it showed a budget increase or a
cost variance of about $39 million and it also said that that covered design and preconstruction. so it did not include any inflation to the construction cost of that. again, i'm assuming that that's going to come back to us. i'm also assuming it's going to be significant. do you have a really round number of how many hundreds of millions? >> so what we're doing is we're in the process. we are getting three estimates. we're having the designer to do one estimate, we have the third party -- >> parsons. >> -- parsons is a third party party to give the estimate and the construction manager. >> and the cm/gc gives an estimate. >> they all give a cost estimate and we tri angle late those three, have them talk, because we may have different values for steel or concrete.
think about it, they're estimating the cost now that it will be at the time that it's going to be installed. so they may have put different factors on there so they kind of talk about why they put that factor on there. the other thing i just wanted to point out, and you may bring it up, by working with the contractor with these numbers, again, they will help put the package of work together, but we're going to competitively bid each one of those packages. it's not like they give us a number and we give them the money. it's going to be competitively bid. they do have an option of self-performing a certain amount of work and there's a whole process if they choose to self-perform, there is a process they go through. i wanted to highlight at the end of the day it's what the business are that will come out. >> and through the chair, mr. director, i really appreciate the way you say that
because when people talk about good government sometimes, they don't quite understand the complexities for what it means for the cost of steel is or the cost of concrete -- >> or laborer. >> -- three years from now. it's not like, oh my god, this cost $100 million when we bid it and now it's $125 million because there are certain things that are not in control. it's not incompetence, it's not because people don't know how to estimate. it's what happens in the real world in terms of stuff. it's -- so we have to be diligent in making sure that that is part of the narrative that we have when this great system that we have here at the puc is being expanded and fixed and what have you because it's not based on incompetence, especially listening to your wonderful reports. i want to thank you too. >> and neither of you bid on the round-number question.
my expectation is it's going to be a very large number when it comes forward. i know there are people aside from us who watch it very carefully. we've received some e-mail. steve lawrence sent an e-mail pointing to the $39 million and expecting more and he's right. there will be more coming. i know mr. di costa has been concerned in the past about cost escalation over time. one of the things i wanted to observe is what we're going through right now is an example of why we have tried to move to the cm/gc kind of contracting. when you get more detail and more precise information and the cost goes up, that is always -- that's never good news, but it's better news if you know it before they start construction.
the worst thing you can do is be in the middle of something and then have the surprise and bill that out with change orders and all of that when you really don't have a lot of options. so we are going to see some cost increases, but i just want to point out it's a very different kind of circumstance if you're doing that now than if you're doing that a year from now. the good news is the cm/gc process forces as much of that as possible as early as possi e possible. >> can i say something before you move on. i think what's really important is when we give the cost estimate between the three bodies, we can talk about why do you feel that number is high? what can we do to change it? and we may change it and have everyone do another cost estimate. so i really want to go through the process before i start throwing numbers out there, because we need to try to mitigate what the issues are,
because they're costing what they see on the paper, not what they would do. so that's what we want to go through. >> that's an absolutely correct response to that. the other thing is just -- and i think this is where, mr. di kosta you raised questions about power availability being a key element and i didn't understand what that issue was. would this be a good time to address that? >> i'm going to talk about the process. >> okay. >>president caen: generation -- >> management -- >>president caen: 75 something coming into the city and concern about the digesters. >> i didn't quite understand his comment, but i can talk to the digesters and our plans for energy recovery facility. >> yeah. so let me set it up that one of the things that we start moving towards is to reduce our
reliance on pg & e and create our distribution to the southeast so that we can provide hechi and our resources and use our power plant that we're planning to build to supply the power to our plant. so that's what our plans are. so we've been working with the power enterprises to be able to do that. so i just wanted to put that out there, but within the whole power-plant using canby, we can use the ability to create electricity to help offset some of the power need of the whole canby system and allow the other parts of the plant. do you want to? >> yeah. under ssip we do have a project that provides a redundancy right now southeast plant gets i think six or seven megawatts feed from
hunter's point. we have a project that will bring a redundant 12 megaawatt from another substation. so two separate sources coming in, two separate feeds. in case one goes down, we have the other one coming from the bctd project. so we have -- >> can you say what those acronyms are. >> bay crossroad transmission project, which is headed up by the power enterprise team. so we're bringing a separate feed from a separate substation in separate areas, so that in case one fails we'll have another redundancy to power the plant. >> because i appreciated mr. di kosta's comment it was a concern with the known power demands in that facility and we have projects underway to address that in a perhaps slightly or more robust way to make sure
that you don't give credit to the task force civilians citing the location of where the sewer improvement project should be done rather than this place or some other place. some of these people were there, but they didn't have the ability to understand at that time. so now, they come here with their flowery presentations which goes nowhere. i know in the beginning there was a building that the sfpuc did not know belong to them. it belonged to somebody else, so right from the beginning, this project was shoddy. we know that. now i actually digress a little bit. we had a time where sfpuc
decided to have three, four conduits go under so we could have a turbine. we the advocates fought for it. very convoluted presentation that would have required an hour of my time to explain to you and more educate you on things that are very pertinent and have not bye-been discusse today. thank you very much. >> i'm steve lawrence. i'm a resident, and i followed the p.u.c. for about -- more than 15 years now, including this project. my background is i was a lawyer for sewer treatment plants, south bay side, watsonville,
marin, so i have some knowledge of these plants. this project, the digester project concerns me greatly. the last time the wsip project had a huge project, it overran but more than doubling. just this morning, i decided i'd look at what happened if this project were to do exactly the same thing that the calaveras dam project did in overrunning, and i decided since nobody really pays much attention to these dollars, what i'd try to do is bring it to an individual basis as best i could. for each of you who have an account with the p.u.c., i figured if it overran, it would
be 47 benjamins. so think of it in terms of, you know, you look at the ground, and you don't pick up nickels and dimes anymore, but benjamins, you'd be picking those up. 47 of those if this job does what calaveras dam did. so i'm here trying to ask you to pay close attention to this project because it has quite a number of risk factors. it's going to use a new hydrolysis process that no one's ever used before, and i'd be concerned about that. as far as the excavation is
concerned, they're using a new one. you're going very deep, just by looking at the internet and how this d.s.m. has been used, it's going way down there. so there are quite a number of large risk factors that this job brings to the table, and i'm here simply to ring the alarm and ask you to pay close attention. i do thank you for listening to this presentation and you seem to be very concerned about this project and i'm very pleased with that. thank you for your service. >> thank you. any other public comments? >> president keane: okay. thank you very much for the presentation. next item, please. >> clerk: item 11, approve the terms and conditions of an
authorize and authorize the general manager to execute a purchase plan of $945,000 for the purchase of 787 acres of an area common known as the wolf ranch from the trusties of the jeffrey b. wool living trust. >> good afternoon. michael carling, deputy general manager. this is a piece of property this is near our watershed. we established a program back in 2009 called the water -- watershed environmental environment program, and we established that fund with about $50 million. the purpose of that fund was to benefit us, benefit the p.u.c. and its customers.
the purchase that has just become available was part of that effort, so we're basically asking you to authorize us to purchase this ranch. if you saw this map, the watershed, it showed the location of the property, and i would recommend that we actually move forward with purchasing the property, and i'd be glad to answer any questions. >> any questions by the commissioners? >> it's just -- why are we purchasing it? >> we're purchasing it because it protects the water quality of the reservoir. >> and what's on it now? any buildings or anything on it now? >> there might be some buildings on it. it was a ranch at one point in time, but it's mainly just pasture land at this point. and we're preserving it so it
can't be developed in the future. >> is there any passive -- anything passive that we can do with it? >> well, the passive things we do with regard to our lens is grazing with certain types of cattle. we might be working with the east bay park district so there could be trails and other passive recreation. >> and how many acres did you say? >> 787. >> so does anybody take care of it? does anybody look at it periodically to make sure that somebody didn't decide to grow something else on it? >> so we have -- within the water enterprise, we have a water and natural resource management division.
they make sure that there's no activities taking place, and we do have biologists that do monitor the lands that make sure that they're functioning properly as for as their ecological values, so we do have these people to take care of the jurisdiction. >> london didn't tell me that when she asked me to serve on this commission. >> and what about -- i mean, right now, fire safety? you know, we're taking on another big -- so what are we doing about that and who helps to manage that? >> so we work with cal fire on all our properties, and we do, you know, prior prevention
measures. we do fire breaks and controlled burns and things of that nature. in the summer, we bring in temporary help, and we do a lot of that. >> i don't know if you're familiar with the garden project. we use those kids during the summer to do a lot of the work. >> they do the trail maintenance, they do fire breaks for us and things of that nature. >> all right. do they come and stay there for a while. >> no. we don't have that type of lodging. >> so how far is it? >> it's about 45 minutes, an hour out of san francisco. [inaudible] >> okay. it's about an hour and a half. i get there in about an hour. >> and how many acres is it again? >> 787.
>> as i understand it, a lot of it is a defensive move to make sure somebody doesn't do anything on that land that would be a bad actor on it. >> how long do we get trails for active use? >> you know, it would be a while. >> so we would know that before we do that to that part of the system? >> we would come back and ask for you. >> okay. do we have a motion? public comment on this item? seeing none, do i have a second for the motion? >> second.
>> second for a motion. all those in favor, say aye? opposed? the motion passes, and welcome back, madam chair. >> president keane: thank you. next ite -- >> thank you. next item, please. [agenda item read]. >> good afternoon, president caen, commissioners. i'm kathy howe. normally, i would come to you
later, but i have to come to you earlier in this project because of easements that will be used to get to this property. >> i have a question for you. we're going to be terminating existing leases and licenses? >> yes. so the team was negotiating with a property owner, and they were going to do a cut on a pipe that ran across private property. actually, it obstructed their driveway, so after about nine months of negotiations, they decided to terminate those negotiations and take a different route, and it requires a tunnel under public
works yard. >> okay. i was just wondering how many money we would be losing by terminating these leases and licenses? >> i would have to get back to you on that, but i think we're saving money going the other route. >> okay. that's fine. any questions? any public comment? may i have a motion? >> i'll move it. >> second. >> all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. next item. >> clerk: item 13, approve project cwwsifcfxr-1, cargo waste box odor reduction. >> again, this item is to ask for project approval. we would be starting our public
outreach sooner as opposed to waiting until we award the construction contract or just prior to award, so this gives us more time to engage with the community on this project. >> is this -- is this in southeast? >> this is in the southeast. it is in the bayview neighborhood. >> any questions, commissioners? public comment? may i have a motion? >> second. >> all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. thank you. next item, please. >> clerk: item 14, authorize the general manager to request approval from the board of supervisors to accept and
expend hazard mitigation grant funds in the amount of $488,259 from the federal emergency management agency for phase two of early intakes with charge slope project. >> good afternoon. we're asking you to authorize acceptance of a hazard emergency grant from the federal emergency management system. also to send distribution lines out to cherry lake and camp
mather and o'shaugnessy. we've had problems with slope stability for a while. phase one was obtained from fema for planning and design, so this is the grant for phase two of the project. the two grants combined would cover about a third of the project cost for the slope stablization project, so we would request your approval of that. >> any questions, commissioners? any public comment on this item? may i have a motion? >> i'll move it -- or he did, and i'll second it. >> all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. next item, please. >> item 15 award contract number job 78-r for an amount
not to exceed $2 million. >> so i can answer any questions you may have. this item is before you because there is only one bidder. we had to -- we originally put it out with l.b.e. goals, but on a micro-l.b.e., we don't need to have additional subcontractor l.b.e. goals, and so we readvertised and received one bid. >> any comments? any public comment on this? may i have a motion? i'll second it. all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. next item, please. >> clerk: item 16, authorize the general manager to authorize and execute a cost sharing agreement with the
alameda county water sharing district for alternataticonsul services to conduct a joint faezibility water study. >> again -- feasibility water study. >> again, this is one of our water study projects that could become available to san francisco. this is with alameda county and the union sanitary district. so this project, we would be advancing to the feasibility study phase, where we were looking at taking wastewater from the district, treating it at a high level, and utilizing it in the union sanitary
district for a variety of purpos purposes, so this is the next phase here. there's been a study done. i would note this is characteristic of all the projects that we've been doing now. there are very few projects that are simply within the control of san francisco. virtually all are going to have other public agencies that we are going to partner with so these will all have that added degree of complexity that i've seen in other projects. >> i'm happy to see this come up. i've been waiting for the next part of this. it's a very fine agreement, and
i certainly would be very much in favor of it. any other comments? yes, commissioner -- >> you said consumption. did you mean drinking? >> yes. >> oh, so -- so it sounds almost like toilet to tap. >> yeah. this is what we call an indirect potable release project, so in this case, we're transporting it to percolation ponds that exist in the alameda water conservation area. so it sinks in the ground, similar to what happens in the orange county area and mixes with the groundwater. and then, they have a treatment further down that treats the salt in reverse osmosis.
this is the wave of the future. this is, you know, what we're looking at. for a lot of the people, i'm becoming very fond of the saying drink it again. >> can we quote you on that? >> absolutely. >> any other comments? any public comment on this item? seeing none, may i have a motion? >> move. >> second. >> all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. next item, please. >> so through the chair, i just want to let the commission know that i am recusing myself from a vote on the next item because i am signatory to the project labor agreement that's involved
in this. >> we understand. >> item 17, approve the second addone dumb to the water system improvement program project labor agreement, one, extending the p.l.i. to seven additional sfpuc projects, and authorizing the general manager with the approval of the p.l.a. joint administrative committee to ad additional significant sfpuc capital improvement projects to the project in the future and retroactively approve the actions of the sf joint manager. >> good afternoon, commissioners. so this item formalizes the
process by which going forward we will add projects under the labor agreement. as you know, in 2007, we entered into a project labor agreement with the building and construction trades for the water system improvement program and then we came back to you in 2017 to extend that to the p.l.a. system project and the pumping station system project. the p.l.a. has a joint administrative committee that works with us to administer and implement the project labor agreement that's made up of representatives of the unions, building and construction trades, and then, the sfpuc. so what this item does, it formalizes a process by which the commission expressly
delegate projects to the general manager to the joint administrative committee, and one of the processes is for all of the projects that we've added is we conduct a due diligence analysis. we similarly would do that for any projects and present that inform the j.u.c. and if the j.u.c. votes unanimously, those projects would be added to the p.l.a. in addition, this specific item adds seven projects under the p.l.a. and ratifies the decision of the general manager and the joint administrative committee who underwent the process i just described to approve those four other specific projects. there's one other thing that i want to bring to your attention and ask you. we, under the third paragraph in the second addendum document that we have, under the recycle section, the extension section
references incorrectly to pumping station one, but it actually applies to only pumping station two. so if you do choose to approve this item, i'd just ask that you amend the resolution to only pumping station two. it's an incorrectly referenced title of the extension agreement. it should reference the auxiliary station pumping station two project, and it incorrectly says pumping station one. so all we need to do is change it -- >> clerk: president caen, it's not in the resolution. it's the thing called the second addendum, which is the document that you're approving. it's the third clause in the
recitals. >> so we would have to -- >> clerk: just in your motion approve a correction to replace the word pumping station one with pumping station two. >> okay. any discussion on this item? any public comment? seeing none, may i have a motion? >> so moved. >> and second. >> all right. so we have to move it with -- >> clerk: with the amendment. >> -- with the amendment, which is changing pumping station one
to two. all in favor? opposed? motion carries. okay. let's see...madam secretary, could you please read the items for closed session. [agenda item read] [agenda item read] [agenda item read]. >> is there any public comment on the items to be heard in closed session? seeing none, may i have a motion on whether to assert? >> move to assert. >> second.
>> we have reconvened to open session. there was no action taken during closed session. may i have a motion regarding whether to disclose the sessions? >> move not to disclose. >> second. >> all in favor? opposed? motion carries. is there any other comments? seeing none, this meeting is adjourned at 4:44.
reservoir. we opened up the incident command and started working the incident to make sure employees and the public were kept were safe there is what we call diversion dam upstream of moccasin. the water floods the drinking water reservoir. we couldn't leave work. if the dam fails what is going to happen. >> we had three objectives. evacuate and keep the community and employees safe. second was to monitor the dam. third objective was to activate emergency action plan and call the agencies that needed contacted. >> the time was implement failure of the dam.
we needed to set up for an extended incident. we got people evacuated downstream. they came back to say it is clear downstream, start issuing problems and create work orders as problems come in. >> powerhouse was flooded. water was so high it came through the basement floor plate, mud and debris were there. it was a survey where are we? >> what are we going to do to get the drinking water back in. >> we have had several emergencies. with each incident we all ways operate withins dent command open. process works without headache. when we do it right it makes it easier for the next one. >> we may experience working as a team in the different format. always the team comes together.
they work together. >> our staff i feel does take a lot of pride of ownership of the projects that they work on for the city. we are a small organization that helps to service the water for 2.7 million people. >> the diversity of the group makes us successful. the best description we are a big family. it is an honor to have my team recognized. i consider my team as a small part of what we do here, but it makes you proud to see people come together in a disaster. >> safety is number one through the whole city of san francisco. we want people to go home at the end of the day to see their loved ones. we don't want them hurt. we want them back the next day to do their work. >> there is a lot of