tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 21, 2019 9:00pm-10:01pm PDT
from the department of building inspection. he's returned and maybe have an updated report on properties. >> 1326 11th avenue, item number 7 and 8. 198 15th avenue. item 14. 722 16th avenue. 43rd avenue, item number 66. 4650 california avenue, item number 109 and 110. 424 congo street, item number 125, 128 and 129. 759 revere. and 68 rockwood, item number 282. item 282 and 284.
>> president yee: okay. thank you. colleagues, can we have a motion to amend the report contained in item 11 and remove the properties identified by the department staff. motion made by supervisor fewer, seconded by supervisor ronen. without objection, the report -- okay. without objection, it's been amended. without objection, the report for item 11 is amended. colleagues, there is a lot of objections there. so the resolution is adapted as amended. unanimously. >> thank you. >> president yee: madame clerk, can you go to adoptions item 16 to 23. >> items 16 through 23, introduced for adoption without
committee reference. unanimous vote is required for adoption of resolutions on first street today. >> president yee: supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: could you sever item 16? >> president yee: supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: could you sever item number 19? >> i don't think we did committee reports? >> clerk: we did. >> president yee: we did. yeah. let's see. >> clerk: that leaves 17, 18, 20, 21, 22 and 23. >> president yee: can we take these items same house, same call? without objection, these items are -- motion approving resoluti resolution. adopted unanimously. going to item 16.
>> clerk: item 16 is resolution supporting united states house resolution number 6 authored by united states representative lucille roybal-allard. >> president yee: supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: thank you. i just wanted to thank everyone who came out to support this resolution. that president yee and i first rote in support of h.r.6, american dream and promise act of 2019. needless to say, these people would be losing their status here in the united states and without action they would be deported. these people, more than 1.1 million hard-working men and women. i would like to thank my colleagues and cosponsors, supervisor yee, mar, walton, ronen, brown, mandelman, satisfy
safai and haney. >> president yee: can we take this same house, same call? >> supervisor stefani: i'm sorry. i wanted to add my name as a cosponsor. >> president yee: same house, same call? without objection. then this resolution is adopted. unanimously. madame clerk, call item number 19. >> clerk: a resolution urging the federal budget appropriation to replace aquatic park, pier and . >> supervisor stefani: the aquatic park pier was once in district 3, but now in district
2. this holds special meaning for supervisor peskin. it was built by the work progress administration in 1933 on the site of the army quarter master pier in order to provide a protected cove where san francisco residents and visitors could swim. the pier is a vital historic element, anchoring the landmark distribute and protects historic ships moored nearby. the pier is the maritime resource and first line of defense that protects the city's waterfront against sea level rise and wave action. united states national park service conducted by the risk assessments and studies that shows significant deterioration of over 600 pilings, including the concrete deck. the pier provides a safety buffer that protects swimmers and boaters and the rest of the
waterfront. the pier is at significant risk to deteriorate further and collapse endangering the lives of san franciscans and visitors. the last repairs were made in 1948 and it is now requiring a full replacement and reconstruction. the original projection of cost in 2008 was $65 million. it has now grown to more than $100 million for complete reconstruction. we're committed to leveraging local, state and federal resources to get this done. as president yee mentioned, i had an incredible trip to washington d.c. with the chamber of commerce and president yee and representatives from our great city partners, where we had the chance to meet with senator feinstein who did express her support to save the pier. i want to thank you, president yee, for cosponsoring this with supervisor peskin and i. i hope you will join our efforts to reconstruct the aquatic park
pier. >> president yee: thank you. can we take this, same -- supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: can you add me as sponsor please. >> president yee: okay. can we take this same house same call? okay, this resolution is adopted. okay madame clerk. can you read the in memoriams. >> today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the late may pond barrie. on behalf of supervisor peskin, the late yolanda demar. >> president yee: that brings us to the end of the agenda. any further business before us today. >> clerk: that concludes business for today. >> president yee: okay, we are adjourned.
>> good morning. my name is jerry dratler. the new delay of the citywide financial system has hampered the efforts of d.p.w. and others to present comprehensive expenditure reports in cgoboc meetings. when will the new financial system be fully operational? what is the current level of actual and committed expenditures relative to the initial contract and budget, and how many controller
department f.t.e.s are currently working on completing the financial system implementation? thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, item number three, approval with possible modification of the march 25, 2019 meeting. >> i'll move to approve the minutes with one typo corrected. it's in item 7, and it was about the capital planning program. i think the words capital planning program just got left out in the line about christian's request. you'll see it. thank you. >> clerk: okay. noted. >> any other comments? is there a second? all in favor?
oh, i 'm sorry, is there any public comment on the notes? >> public comment? >> okay. item number 4, presentation from corey canapary galanis about the public satisfaction survey and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation. >> good morning, members. i'm peg stevenson, director of the performance section of the controller's office. you'll recall part of your work plan that we did with you last year and this year was a couple of projects. this was one to understand the public use of perception of the bond funds. we chose two projects and hired a creditors and corey canapary and galanis and done a lot of work for the city and different departments also worked with us on the city survey, and this is john canapary who's the primary
researcher and he's here to present the report and answer any questions that you might have. and thank you for making this in and we're looking forward to trying to use the information to better understand how we manage and oversee the bond programs. >> before we get in there, i want to welcome the new bond member. how do you say your first name? >> siobhan. >> siobhan. i wanted to say the reason we're having this presentation, this came before a lot of our new members joined the committee. and one of our responsibilities is to ensure that, you know, the bonds in general, the question we're trying to answer is does the bond meet the expectations of the voters, and that's a very difficult thing to do because expectations are set with bonds during the, you know, not just how the bond is written and not just how it's presented on the ballot but also how it's -- you know, how
it's advertised, what the voters -- it influences what the voters think the ballot is going to do. so this engagement came up when we were trying to understand how can we as a body ensure that the needs -- the expectations of voters are being met, and so we took one specific bond which was a park and rec bond -- two park and rec -- >> two park and rec, one street and sidewalk improvement. >> oh, i'm sorry, went through the methodology -- hired a consultant and went through the methodology to understand what we're going to get. very hard to figure that out because everybody thinks differently. >> chair chu, if i can just add a few thoughts, when we started looking at this, we found out while bonds are created with surveys of residents about what
they wanted to be done, and then, the bond was drafted with that in mind, afterwards, there was not a follow up, what would be the equivalent of an after-action report that said, well, then, did you get what you wanted? and that became a larger issue in some places where there were changes to sidewalks and to streets. and so some businesses complained that there had been a loss of business for them, and storefronts were vacant and so forth. so the idea was we would then add to the information that is available to the commission, information about what voters felt they got as a result of this, and i think that's where we're headed. i think that we should look at that as a larger issue beyond these two forerunner bonds and consider this in all cases. it's hard to come up with a
metric that can be used across the board, but i'm sure we have people who are talented enough to come up with that. there are -- some of the metrics may be a little different for each one. for example if you want to look at the impact on residential businesses versus housing, you can look at the street changes around the flower mart where they want to change the street in front of the flower mart from three lanes to two lanes, and the flower mart people are saying no, that means we're going to have to move because we cannot put our trucks into a two-lane street. it's not altogether together when these things are being done if enough people are talking to each other about the unintended impact about some of the decisions that are being made.
this would be helpful in all that regard, so i'm glad we're underway with it. >> one more thing before we start, i'd just like to thank and introduce you to catherine, who is on our staff who worked with corey, canapary and galanis. >> okay. thank you very much for allowing me to present today. my name is john canapary. i'm the c.e.o. of the firm. what i'm going to present is some of the key findings of the study that we did.
the purpose of the study was mentioned before, but it's to gain a perception of the experience of users, so what we did was we went out there and we surveyed people that were using the facility. we asked them the survey and asked them utilizing our staff. these were folks who were on the bartlett street location going through, going to the farmers market or using it in various ways. we did it at different times, both at the end of the summer and the beginning of the year
so we did it during different time periods, so it wasn't just in the morning, it was also in the afternoon where you might get more of a teenager crowd or whatnot. the methodology, so one of the -- you know, one of the key pieces or the key piece of the survey was a quantitative piece at each location. and doing that, we were able to look at the data in a very sophisticated, reliable way. today i'm going to give you an overview of findings, but the report does have the full detail. we did a qualitative survey as a follow up. it was done by telephone, and it was done by people who had already participated in that quantitative survey, so we called them back and asked them for additional survey.
quantitative survey was designed to be done so that people even in a hurry approximawould participate. this shows you that green area is the entire kimball playground area. the playground improvements were really on the area toward geary and on the outskirts of the facility itself, where they redid the playground, we did the bathrooms, additional landscaping, etc. getting into key findings, so i'm going to talk about the bartlett street locations first. so the official questions in general, how would you rate the bartlett street update, so you had 77% of the people that rated that update as excellent or good, and we asked about
specific things they liked about it or areas of improvement. but the 77% is a very strong number. 77% saying it's excellent or good on the surface is a high favorable share. a high share had familiarity with this location. keep in mind, some of the people we surveyed live around the block, and they walk to get to work, where other people live in other locations and walk over to bartlett street for whatever reason, so there's a variety of different respondents you would get, but we had a high share who had visited before. interestingly, it didn't really impact how they perceived the update. you still had that 7 to 10 that
reacted positively, but you didn't have a big difference in terms of perception. 6 in 10 of all participants who said they would use bartlett street. 13% don't know, but 6 in 10 said yes, they would use it based on these updates. we also asked what they liked best about the updates based on what they would have done differently. top reason mentioned at bartlett in terms of what they liked the most was the landscaping and planting. now we have a whole list in the
report of things that people liked about it, but this was the top one. in terms of improvement, 17% said it should be cleaned more. once we had gone through the first half of the survey, we did initially act about the money. how did you react? would you use it more, and then, the terms of the amount of money spent for the bond. the question was approximately $1.7 million in bond money was used. did you support the use of bond money for this purpose? 60% said they did support the use of the bond money for this purpose. 24% were neutral, so you had a low share that would oppose it, and about 6 in 10 would approve
it. remember, we interviewed anybody using that area, it was higher amongst san francisco residents in terms of the support level. as maybe would be expected, you know, people who lived outside of san francisco, you had a higher share of neutrals, and maybe they felt like they can't respond to us because i don't live here. now to go through some of those same questions for the kimball playground. i guess one thing to add it was very effective and useful to do both of these facilities because they're different facilities. so with bartlett street, you have a lot of people passing through, going to work, whereas kimball playground is more of a destination, so i think you're going to see that in the responses. you had 85 to 94% rating it as good or favorable.
that's a very, very high share on any survey we would do to get that rating. you had fewer people when you compare to bartlett that actually visited prior to the update. 37% had visited prior to the update. with bartlett, it didn't make a difference in terms of their perception. they rated it highly whether they had visited before or after. and then in terms of the likelihood of using it more often based on these improvements, they had a high share, very high share, 83% of respondents who said the playground improvements did make them more likely to use that facility, very big number there, okay? and then 11% who said don't know. so this is a higher share than bartlett. it's not necessarily a comparison between facilities, but this is high, 83%. and then in terms of upgrades that people noticed and would
have made if we could do it all over again, two key updates were the playground and equipment and landscaping improvements were the improvements that stood out the most. and in terms of thing to consider, people would have considered doing differently, location of the bathrooms and the area needing more bathrooms. so you look at that map, you've got the playground, and then, you have to sort of walk around the fields to go to the bathrooms, so the rest rooms where they were located previous to the update. so the bathrooms get used a lot, people mentioned in terms of the condition of the bathroom. also, the drug dealers, users, homeless in the area were mentioned, and mentioned a little bit more, a little bit higher, a little bit higher share amongst san francisco resident of that being an area of improvement. keep in mind, very high share
are rating this highly, so we want to bring this up, but i think you sort of have to measure these things. and then, the question where we actually add in the money component. approximately $3.3 million in s.f. park bond money was used to improve kimball park. do you support this? 83% approved and only 2% opposed and that's a very high share for this facility. and that concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. i have questions. i'm one of the newer members, so forgive me if they've been asked and answered. how soon were the projects completed after the surveys
were undertaken? >> so we completed the surveys about six months ago and completed them about four months? >> when was kimball finished and when was bartlett finished? because that would be important to know how many people had been using it -- using them both. because my concern on both of them or some of the comments on how they could be improved which was street cleanliness on bartlett and vague rant issues on the playground. and to larry's point -- vagrant issues on the playground. and to larry's point, going forward, it would be interesting to see if this is a trend in these projects or if this is a one-off. i guess as bond improvements are completes and we have beautiful new facilities whether it's bartlett or a
playground or a fire station or whatever, if -- if -- if city departments are not maintaining them, and people are complaining, that's a problem because we've just spent a lot of money to make these beautiful facilities, and if the people in the mission say the bartlett sidewalks aren't being kept clean, that's not good. now again maybe -- maybe it's -- that's kind of the normal percentage for every street in the city. i don't know, but you know what i'm saying, i think over time as we do more of these, we'll see trends emerge and it's maybe something we can complain about. it's not something we do. we just do the bond measures, but i think it'll be good as we do more of these to see our homeless problems in every park that we do. also, my question, what did bartlett look like before the improvements? i was not familiar with it. >> to answer the first question about the timeline, so it's
around 2015 in january that bartlett was -- construction was completed. >> okay. so there was a nice timeline. >> similarly, somewhere around 2015 -- >> so there was a history of people using it. >> right. from like a survey perspective, we would never say hey, you just finished that. let's just go out two months later and get a read on that. we would want to wait a certain amount of time, but it's a great point to wait until a consistent point in the future. >> right. and so was bartlett pedestrianized before this? or was it a regular alley in the mission? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> okay. do you know? okay. do you -- >> the major elements of the redesign that was pedestrianization. there's a canopy over part of
it that's partly for the service of a farmers market that's there on thursday evenings and landscaping and i don't know if parking was moved but there's movement that would have make it more of a -- made it more of a pedestrian street and less of a car street. >> okay. thank you. >> i have a couple of questions. do we have a breakdown of how many people that came had children? >> i don't think we asked a children question. we asked age, but we didn't ask children. >> i was just wondering in terms of the playground, are we seeing a lot of the families have children? >> without a doubt. simply because of the design of the playground, unless somebody's accompanied by children, they can't answer the survey. now we did ask elderly folks
and other, but yeah. >> and did you ask questions about concerns since there was answers about drug dealers? >> so the drug dealers was something that people were mentioning. we don't have crime statistics in our report itself, but i know that it's available and we certainly could do that. >> i only ask because it's now come up at the board because of the diversity of use. do you have any information on how diverse the possibilipulat? >> we do. we ask ethnicity, we ask about household income in the survey, and we have that broken out in the full report. additionally, the survey was done in multiple languages at both locations, spanish,
chinese, vietnamese. >> what can you tell us about that? was it predominantly one over another? >> at bartlett, it was higher spanish, so we did more surveys at that location. i think at kimball, it was a higher percentage of folks of color. >> one of the questions was the parks being improved tilted towards higher income parts of the city, and some of the reports indicated that lower income parts of the city were not getting at much -- as much support. >> we definitely have that, and we can definitely look at the city's statistics from a higher level, but that is something
absolutely that could -- yes. >> okay. what lessons have been learned from your view? >> you know, what we found as an overarching -- when you have a destination facility like kimball, and i think it's a common sense thing at the end of the day, but you have a large percentage of people who said there was a great upgrade, but when you have a destination thing like kimball, your numbers are sort of off the charts in terms of what you're seeing as far as those, you know, support for the project itself, but a lot of times in surveys when you throw that money component into it, say, we spent $2 million or $1.5, people always think other ways the money could be used. once you throw that component into it, your level of support drops quite a bit.
and for both of these locations, that didn't happen, particularly for kimball. it was still high, particularly after we told them the amount of money that had been spent. at bartlett, you have people walking through there, and they're not going to stop. if you design a survey that's too long, you don't get a cross section of the folks that do it. you get folks that have got a lot of time. we've got folks who say, if you can do it by the time i cross the street or get over there. particularly for the street and sidewalk ones, you keep them that length. at kimball, they have a little more time. not at bartlett. not if you're going to get somebody who's getting back to work and they don't have the time. >> i hope some of these lessons will be applied to future bond surveys. >> i do have a comment.
i noticed your -- when you described both of them, but there's just one element that i would bring to your attention. these two playgrounds are different in size. i'm familiar with kimball playground, and it is as you say a destination. it covers a larger piece of land so you have less pedestrians that are just going to be passing through. >> yes. >> i think that having brought that difference to our attention, these high numbers are very encouraging because they're very different plots of greens, if you will, in the city, so i just wanted to bring that to your attention to see if the size of the park mattered. >> i don't -- you know, in terms of the size, i think it matters more in terms of what you initially said, the reason for visiting, and the fact that
people are coming there versus -- you know, whether -- the size itself, from the standpoint of what can you do with the money that you have? >> they expect differences in terms of perception. if somebody's passing through, they're not going to bartlett to utilize it. they can see the improvements and respond to it, but it's a different animal. >> it is. i'm glad you mentioned that and planned that dollar mark, if you will, towards the end because i think that tends to influence people. but again, going back to size, one of the reason that we spent $3.3 million and $1.3 million at bartlett was the changes, and there are a lot of sports
related changes at kimball, so it would normally cost a lot more. >> so i think this is fantastic. you did a good job of taking something and putting structure around it. there's obviously methodology -- if people are at a playground, and you ask them if they like it, they're there because they like it. if they didn't like it, they wouldn't be going there. even park and rec, if you ask people -- you know, the real question is to the voters of the city, you know, in potentially the neighborhoods that didn't get any -- their parks didn't get upgraded, are they still glad that they spend the money to upgrade the kimball playground? >> go ahead. >> no, please. >> no, that's a -- it's a really different survey, for
sure. the charge on this was let's talk to users, and we did talk about do we go into the neighborhood and do some type of intercept that way. but we thought it made more sense to talk to the users and drill down on that. i think understanding resident as a whole or san francisco as a whole, it is a really different survey. you can ask about this bond funding, and often times what you're going to see in that survey -- we've done many of those surveys, as well, what you find is the folks that have had something done in their neighborhood or have noticed it or used it, you're going to get a higher level of support there. i think doing a lot of san francisco surveys, as well, you do get citywide support for this type of a measure regardless of whether they've use it or not. from -- from the survey that we
did, though, to be clear, we don't have the answer to that. that definitely is a citywide, and you'd definitely be doing a mix of the citywide. >> so on our agenda today is both earthquake and safety emergency response bonds which have to do with fire and police changes, and one even more difficult which is the how -- housing. so i think that if -- did you learn something in the doing of this that would extrapolate to something really helpful in those areas? i agree it is the perception of our safety, right? our general safety, but you can do that, actually. and housing -- housing was sold, i think as a bond -- the perception of our vulnerable populations. it wasn't did i get a unit right next to me, although for some people, it is.
there's a lot of nuances there, but i think that's what we're trying to get at in our complex environment, our cultural environment is are these bonds as they are being written and sold to the voters meeting the needs from that perspective? >> right. and so -- to address that, i would say from this study because it was designed differently, i wouldn't say i pulled something from there, but just doing other studies and seeing what studies have been done, you can get good
results. >> there's some interesting things that you can learn looking at the different demographic breakdowns when people ask about the support questions, so very useful from that perspective, i think. and just to remind people, whenever any of these things are done, there's a long community process about the design. lots of public meetings showing people different designs, testing their thinking, and you
know i'm planning to send this information to the designers who were the project managers for these improvements to see if there was any differences between things that we heard in the design and then the feedback. and then, the numbers of things that people mentioned in their quoted comments to the surveyors that aren't to do with the capital improvement itself. this may be obvious to all of us that work in these areas, but people mentioned things which are largely about maintenance or safety or both. so even if people support the uses of the bond for the capital improvement itself, it's not different from their experience of whether it's maintained, and whether there's litter or whether they feel safe: so it just should push home for us what concerns bond
improvements. >> if we're trying to sell it to the voters, one thing that does matter to the voters is economic impact, so what kind of economic impact did you have from a park going in someplace. are there little shops that people are picking up a sandwich to go have in the park? any kind of economic spillover. i don't know if you've done that in this survey, but you can do it in future ones. >> absolutely. we didn't measure that in this specific one, but you can measure that in the bartlett and kimball. there are some locations nearby. >> thank you. >> so to christian's point, have you been retained to do surveys on any other bond improvemented? >> not at -- improvements? >> not at this point -- oh, is
that our decision today? >> are you making a motion? >> i didn't know if this was a report and you're looking at some other bond issues and we'll await -- >> so for -- >> this was a test. the first of this particular type of survey that we've done, and we can discuss it as part of your work plan. there's other surveying activities that go ones in other parts of the city that touch on these same issues, so again, we can bring you information on some of those types of surveys if -- as we discuss these, but this is the first of its type that we've done. >> okay. and the only other thing i'd mention, you mentioned some of these big things like earthquake safety and housing. one other thing to keep in mind, there are other surveys, bay area wide that we've done, m.t.c., relates to housing. it's always good -- we'll stay in touch with the controller, as well, utilize that
information, as well, so you're not trying to reinvent the wheel. there's a lot of very valuable information in terms of reaction to housing, affordable housing and whatnot that was done bay area wide with san francisco being a key portion of a high sample size which could be utilized. so i think using those secondary sources -- it's always good to go primary and get exactly what you want, but we'll stay in touch with the controller's office and let you know if things change. >> yeah, and i think you did that with the demographic information. >> well, we have direct primary information from our respondents, but we have some, as well. >> yeah, absolutely. absolutely. so i don't know how you guys feel, but i would love to continue this engagement. we know from the capital
planning from previous meetings that there's another housing bond coming up. we know that housing is a big issue here, and so i -- can i make a motion? am i allowed to make a motion as a chair? >> you can, as long as it's reasonably foreseeable with item number 4. the principle behind that is members of the public need to know what's going to be done before you take action. if you propose a motion that seems within the parameters of this agenda item 4, members of the public were aware of that, could have commented on it. that's probably more of an answer than you wanted. i couldn't give -- >> i think i have to word it very carefully. okay. so i'd like to make a motion to continue -- >> and ben rightly reminded me that we also have the 19-20 work plan, which is 7-b, i
think, and we can take it up there, as well. >> i'm feeling it now. >> what's that? >> i'm feeling it. like to make a motion to continue our work around public satisfaction surveys and analysis to your point. it doesn't have to necessarily be all survey. >> second that motion. >> through an orientation through a focus on the housing bonds. >> and just to be clear, i think that's perfectly fine. >> i'd like to comment on the motion. it's not specific enough for me. we're either going to move forward with surveys on bond projects that have been completed or we're going to be talking about this a year from now and won't have, so i'd like clarification on the motion. i personally would like to authorize more surveys on completed bond projects. i'll leave that up to the staff to decide which projects those are and who to hire, but i don't want those to to be the only two.
i'd like seeing trends on satisfaction on a variety of projects so we can see issues on cleanliness and safety and not let this go. so is this appropriate -- >> can we talk about that in the work plan because i think we can set volume expectations? >> in the work plan? that's how that happens? okay. >> make sense? okay. can we vote? >> what? >> public comment. >> public comment? >> good morning. my name is jerry dratler. my comment is for the benefit of new cgoboc members. i'd like to talk about the point that was raised, capital expenditures versus ongoing main nan maintenance and why it's important.
one thing that's been discussed but never acted on is prepared bond documents by the city to specifically include an estimate of the annual future maintenance cost of capital expenditures. this is most important when there is a park or library expenditure that is funded with both public and private money. there is no such thing as a free public park in terms of ongoing maintenance. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> i would like to support including that, and i'd like to also note that in addition there are certain things that bonds do not pay for but which are necessary for the functioning of the ultimate project. so for example, when we built san francisco general hospital and had that bond, that did not pay for the all the equipment that was going to go into the hospital. that money had to be raised
separately. so as long as you're talking about what you're going to do, it's also all right to say it's going to require additional funding from a nonbond source for additional work to bring this to full completion. >> item number 5, presentation from various -- >> oh, i'm sorry, i think we need to vote on the motion. >> we need the motion again. >> to -- yeah, sorry. >> okay. i'm going to go ahead and do roll call. [roll call] >> i'm going to have to hear the motion again. >> okay. i'll try. to continue our work around the
public satisfaction survey, to ask for another survey and analysis associated with the housing bonds. >> oh. >> so essentially, we're going to do it again. >> okay. great. [roll call] >> motion passed. item number 5, presentation from various departments about the 2010 and 2014 earthquake safety emergency response bond and possible action by the committee in response to such
the earthquake safety and emergency response bond programs 2010 and 2014. very happy to be here this morning, again to share with you the work that we've done and we are doing going forward here. in regard to the overview, you know that we have a variety of components in each bond. they usually align with first responder functions of the city and most specifically with regard to police and fire. at times, we have others who participate in the bond program with us. most recently in 2014, we had the office of the chief medical examiner as one of our projects. in regard to at a high level where we've been and where we're headed, we've had some very nice accomplishment in regard to the completion of two
major fire station facilities. fire station 16 and fire station 5. this report is through the quarter march 2020, so there are some things that have emerged since then, and i'll share them with you if they're notable. fire station 5 was inaugurated on march 1st of this year. it's going to suggest to us the new fault of facilities -- quality of facilities for the fire department as we go forward on future bond programs. fire station 30, which is the fireboat station, is moving ahead. we have secured big conservation development construction permit. we're currently in the midst of
securing an m.o.u. at the facility of the pier. we expect the permit to occur within this month. that is to say the port commission's approval of that m.o.u. and then on the heels of that almost immediately will be the permit that we'll collect from the port. bond sales wise, we've sold all the bonds we intend to sell certainly for 2010 and as well for 2014. as regard to risks, issues, or concerns, as you all know, we've spoken to this before, these points haven't really changed since the last time we presented. the construction market in the city is quite heated, very active as we describe it. there are up charges that we would normally see, so to speak, and we understand that many of our budgets were set before this heating up of the
marketplace back in 2013 back when the 2014 bond was being considered, you can understand that puts a particular burden on us. separately, we're still working through the financial system in regard to its granular level of reporting so that we understand the expenditures. but in regard to all three of these particular issues or concerns that have been raised, we do maintain what i consider to be prudent reserves to anticipate any of the up charges if you will in regard to some of these components. there is one exception that i'll speak to a little bit later that is actually more of a challenge than everything else that we're involved with, but i'll speak to that as it comes forward. public safety building, it is just here because it's one of the projects that we've had. we'll continue to share it with you insofar as it's one of the
components of eser 2010. this, one of the components and fire station 10 was completed in 2004. it was by all accounts running operational according to their needs and interests, and i'll just leave it at that. so if you have any questions regarding that, i'll be happy to respond to those. for the next couple slides or regarding the next component, i'm going to ask project manager sherry katz to come up and offer you some comments. sherry? >> good morning, committee members? i'm one of the project managers for fire, and i'll talk about -- give you an overview of eser 2010 and recent accomplishments. as charles said, fire stations 5 and 14 are complete.
fire station 14 generator is 90% complete, and will go to d.b.i. for permit? recently, we still have 26 fire stations to replace the apparatus bay doors at? and basically, we procured two job contractors to do that work? package 6 is one of those projects that -- for one of those jobs. and we expect that those apparatus bay doors -- we'll start issuing work orders for those in early june. n.s.f. 2014 recently
accomplishments include exterior envelope fire station 4 has been completed. the generator at 31 has bid and procured a contractor. the work is expected to begin in early june? fire station 2 and 19 generators, those are still at d.b.i. fire station 14 bay doors were replaced. showers package 2 is under construction, and it's expected to be completed in july. and as charles said, fire station -- fire station 35 is 50% complete in c.d.s. and we did receive a bcdc permit at the end of april. pier 26, final completion at the end of may. okay.
i'll turn it back over to charles? >> actually, this is going to be spoken to by dave meyerson. dave is the project manager for the san francisco public utilities commission who are directly managing the emergency firefighting water system. dave? >> thank you, charles. dave meyerson, project manager, sfpuc. for eser 2010, we continue to work on the