Skip to main content

tv   BOS Public Safety Neighborhood Services Committee  SFGTV  May 3, 2022 10:00pm-11:31pm PDT

10:00 pm
10:01 pm
>> chair mar: thank you. welcome to the april 28, 2022 public safety and neighborhood services meeting. i want to thank the clerk for staffing this meeting and for sfgovtv. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes, i do. the board of supervisors and its committees are now convening hybrid meetings that allow remote public comment. the board recognizes that equitable public access is essential and will be taking public comment as follows. first, public comment will be taken on each item on this agenda. those attending in person will be allowed to speak first, and then, we will take those who are waiting on the telephone line. for those watching either channel 26, 78, or 99 or on
10:02 pm
sfgovtv, the public comment number is streaming across the stream. the number is 415-655-0001. once connected, you will enter the meeting i.d., which is 2492-077-7440, then press pound and pound again. when you are connected, you will hear the meeting proceedings but your microphone will be muted and in listening mode only. if you are on the telephone, please remember to during down your t.v. on any of your listening devices. alternatively, you may send written comments to the board
10:03 pm
via e-mail at you may also send your comments to our office in city hall, 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place, room 204, san francisco, california, 94102. items acted on today are expected to appear on the may 2, 2022 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> chair mar: thank you. i'd like to make a motion to excuse supervisor haney. madam clerk, can you please call roll. >> clerk: yes. [roll call]
10:04 pm
>> clerk: and we do have a quorum. >> chair mar: great. thank you, madam clerk. can you please call item number 1? >> clerk: yes. item 1 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to require the police department to create a community policing plan, c.p.p., at each district police station, that among other strategies incorporates a foot and bike patrol deployment and also includes a community process for eliciting input, and to require the public
10:05 pm
posting of the c.p.p.s with a yearly update. members of the public who wish to make public comment, lineup by the curtains or if you are listening remotely, dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2492-077-7440, then press pound and pound again. press star, three to enter the queue, and wait until the system indicates your line has been unmuted before you begin your comments. >> chair mar: thank you. supervisor stefani, at our last committee meeting, you led a very important meeting on sfpd staffing that really highlighted the staffing shortage that we're facing in the department and that's having great impacts on public safety throughout our city. one of the city impacts for me was the lack of ability for the
10:06 pm
department to assign officers to more proactive crime prevention and community engaging policing. this is an issue that's been of high importance to me, a need of our city to address our public safety challenges, so this legislation that i've introduced would require the sfpd to have community policing plans for each district station with input from key stakeholders, especially merchant associations, neighborhood groups, and community organizations. i have been working with the department on some -- a set of amendments for this legislation that unfortunately are not quite ready to be introduced today, so i will be moving that we continue this item to the next psns meeting on may 12, and i'll hold off on my further
10:07 pm
remarks on this right now. okay. madam clerk, can we go to public comment? >> clerk: yes, we can. at this time, if you would like to make public comment, please lineup at the curtains. i am not seeing any in person, and there's nobody in the queue -- virtual queue. >> chair mar: great. public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair mar: so i'll move that we continue this item to the may 12 psns meeting. madam clerk, can you please call roll. >> clerk: on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: thank you. motion passes. >> chair mar: oh, is there public comment on this item? number 1. yeah, we're not at item 2 yet.
10:08 pm
yeah. so this can be continued to the may 12 psns meeting. madam clerk, can you please call item number 2? >> clerk: yes. item 2 is a hearing on the san francisco public utilities commission's emergency fighting water system 2050 planning study and the status of the efforts to expand the city's high-pressure fire protection water supply and distribution system to cover all unprotected neighborhoods by 2034 as called for in board of supervisors resolution number 484-19, file number 191029, requesting the sfpuc, fire department, and office of resilience and capital planning to report. >> chair mar: thank you. so this item is really to continue our public discussion
10:09 pm
about one of the most -- our city's most important response infrastructure project, which is the emergency firefighting water system to all unprotected neighborhoods in the city. these high-pressure water pipelines are critical to fighting fires, especially after a major earthquake. we know we're going to be having one in the coming years, but the e.f.s. is important to fight fires not related to climate or earthquake events. approximately a third of our city does not have the protection of these
10:10 pm
high-pressure water pipelines and are vulnerable to big fires, especially when the next big one hits. so i want to thank the p.u.c., the fire department, and the office of capital planning for their work on developing plans and moving forward with work to expand the efws, particularly on the west side and the southern neighborhoods that remain unprotected. and i also want to thank the dedicated neighborhood leaders that have pushed the city and the departments to address this vulnerable in our neighborhood response system. the purpose of the hearing today is to hear from the departments and particularly the p.u.c. and the lead on the study that they completed last year on the efws citywide and
10:11 pm
what that plan would look like and how much it would cost, so we're going to hear a presentation from the p.u.c. and the departments on that. and we're also going to hear a presentation from the advocates that have really been pushing the city and leading on this issue on the community side, and -- and, again, this is really intended just to continue our public discussion and moving forward the important work on expanding the efws citywide. so first, i want to invite john scarpolla from the p.u.c. to present on the recently completed efws 2050 planning study. mr. scarpulla? >> good morning, chair mar. thank you so much for having me here today and for your
10:12 pm
leadership on this item. also, good morning to supervisor stefani. i am joined today by colleagues from the p.u.c. as well as from the fire department and office of resilience and capital planning, so they're available to answer any questions that i cannot, and with that, i will jump in. as supervisor mar mentioned, i'm going to talk about the objectives and the development of an emergency water pipeline and water supply sources to all of san francisco, and really to help develop this plan we used studies that we submitted to the board. one was on the neighborhood firefighting water requirements study. we submitted that in june 2021, and the feasibility water supply that was also submitted
10:13 pm
to the board in june 2021. so as an overview of the study, what we did was we looked at the existing system, and as supervisor mar pointed out, much of the existing system is located largely in the northeastern part of the city. that's where it was built over 100 years ago, after the 1906 earthquake, and it's focused on the eastern corner. you can see in blue the existing pipelines, and you can see that the west and south and southeast areas of the city don't really have pipelines -- high-pressure emergency firefighting water pipelines. when the p.u.c. started working with the fire department -- when we started working with the p.u.c. and the fire
10:14 pm
department, we tackled this issue using the eser bonds. we'll talk about that going forward. one of the things to note is the current system can supply about 80,000 gallons per minute. that's g.p.m. so when you see g.p.m. throughout this presentation, know that that's gallons per minute. when we look at 2020 demands, and that's demands now, 2020, 2022, 2035, 2050, what we're looking at is we actually need about an estimated water supply of 255,000 gallons per minute for fighting fire after our model earthquake of 7.9 on the
10:15 pm
san andreas fault. so you can see we've got to go from 88,000 gallons per minute to 255,000 gallons per minute. we're going to do this by additional water sources, increased system capacity, and one of the things to note is this plan assumes fire department resources will increase with the increase in population of san francisco. so i talked about the study we provided in june 2021 to the board. this is a pattern of fire demands throughout san francisco in a 3-d visual. you can see while there are a lot of demands in the northeast, obviously, the richmond, the sunset, and the stonestown merced park area,
10:16 pm
you can see there's a lot of lines there, as well. again, this is after the model earthquake 7.8 -- excuse me, 7.9, san andreas. so what are we looking at? coverage and capacity. as you all know and i'll reiterate for the committee and for folks tuning in, the existing pipelines now in the northeast of the city, potable water is the primary water source for it, so the water comes from twin peaks reservoir, and the hetch hetchy water system, that's the water that's primarily used. the large fires that the san francisco fire department puts
10:17 pm
out on a routine basis, it's potable water that's used in that system. in the 110 years that the system has been operating, there have been two recorded uses of the secondary water system, which is sea water, in 1983, and in the 1989 earthquake, at around 10:00 p.m. as we know, the 1989 earthquake occurred around 5:30 p.m. we have the additional benefit of after the firefighting is done, after we flush the lines and reduce the pressure, they are able to provide post
10:18 pm
earthquake drinking water in areas of the city, and areas that don't have this system won't have this benefits. we need to increase the amount of gallons per minute available, and we need to look at efws improvements. these are valves, pipelines, etc., so you'll see those improvements, as well. so let's start with the pipelines on the map. i'll walk everybody through it. let's start with the gray lines. the gray lines are lines that are already in the street. that's our existing system, what we're looking at. the existing system is the light gray pipelines. in the red is the phase one. these are funded, and these are
10:19 pm
funded with the 2020 eser bonds that is just starting to get underway here, which is very exciting, so we are moving forward with this project as we speak, so it's exciting to be able to bring this pipeline to the eastern part of the -- to the western part of the city. the black is in the western part of the city, and it's unfunded. and everything in green we are also proposing to install through this plan, and so these are green and blue, and that's what this lays out, additional pipelines, and those are also unfunded at this time. you see a lot of lines on this
10:20 pm
map. let's talk about what they do. on the left of this slide, they connect water sources. to connect to the new and existing pipelines, we need some new lines to do so, so you'll see new pipelines connecting water sources through the city. you'll see some pipelines in the area. we're also putting pipelines in landfill areas which do move quite a lot during earthquakes, and you want to make sure that they're in backbone areas, so you'll see they're in landfill
10:21 pm
areas in san francisco. if there was an earthquake, when there was an earthquake, the pressure to these pipelines are increased to support firefighting, and then after the firefighting subsides, again, they provide the public water supplies. this is the same system used in japan, in tokyo. they have the same system where they up the pressure for firefighting, and then after drop it. they're one of the countries in the world that has the seismic
10:22 pm
challenges that san francisco has, and they used this system after the 9.0 earthquake, which is significantly larger than the one that we had and the 7.9 model earthquake. on the left, we talked about phase one and two of the west side project. the red is what's funded, and the green is phase two. you saw there was quite a bit of demand in the inner geary corridor, and also to the presidio, like, along the wall in the presidio to provide fire protection there. in the south areas, both the middle south and the -- on the left side and then further south in the southern area, a significant amount of new
10:23 pm
pipelines to put fire protect in those areas where firefighting lines are currently lacking. there's a lot of pipelines, and again, it's to make sure we're covered throughout the city. but what's important is we extend pipelines without the water supply. that's a key. you can't expand and expect the same performance in the existing areas if you don't provide additional capacity, additional conveyance, additional pipelines, which is what those water lines do. in this image on the right, what you'll see are all of the blue squares are water sources that are either already connected or funded to be connected, whereas in the pink, you'll see water sources that we need to -- we are -- the
10:24 pm
plan proposes to connect. so it's a mix of in-city reservoirs, sea water, lake merced. so it's a diverse array of water sources, and that's important. water diversity is important to make sure that you have a lot of different sources that are available and on-line to fight a really large fire after a post seismic event. other improvements are enhanced -- pefws are data, for example, pressure monitoring with data so we can see it and make a fix. and reliability improvements
10:25 pm
throughout the system to existing facilities. so what are the results of this plan that we put together? first, it meets the demands of the report that we put together in 2021, following the demands up to the year 2050. it meets those demands. we want to make sure that the fire department has the water that they need to fight fires, and that's what it does. whenever we do analysis on a water system, through hydraulic monitoring and system response modelling, it's key to the performance. we don't install a system that
10:26 pm
performs great on one side of the city and not the other. we want to make sure that it's working all over the system city. the darker the blue, the better the performance, you should note that it's a white square. just mean there's no demands there, and that comes from the report from a world renowned
10:27 pm
expert, dr. charles cawthorn. but you can see this system performs, and it meets the fire demands throughout the city in a robust way, so we're really proud of this planning work.
10:28 pm
some things to consider when it comes to west side sea water pump stations, one is that plant-well pump stations are likely required. the california ocean plan, which is issued by the state, basically said that the plans state that you cannot install open water intake pump stations in the ocean unless slant-well pump stations are unavailable. basically, ocean beach and the conditions out there, we don't think that we can state that slant-well pump stations are infeasible, so if we can't state that they are infeasible, we can't just jump to a sea water open intake, and that's because open intake pump stations do have consequences, and we do have marine life out
10:29 pm
in the ocean, and that's why the california ocean plan is very specific in that. based on the type of capacity that you can pull from the sand, we estimate 9,000 to 10,000 gallons per minute, so that sounds right. based on that, we would need quite a few pump stations on the west side. the west side system provides about 90,000 gallons per minute of water, and so that's the demand that that system feeds, whereas the conventional system needs to feed about 150,000 gallons per minute, so each station requires housing. they can't just be hidden in the sand. they require housing, and i can
10:30 pm
show you examples of that. putting anything on the beach is a lengthy permitting process. it's not something that can be done overnight. it can take decades, depending on what we're proposing and where we're proposing. tsunami zones with shifting sand, that needs to be taken into consideration. and another thing is sea water cannot sit in pipes and hydrants due to the corrosive issues. the last thing we need is to open a hydrant and we can't use it due to massive corrosion.
10:31 pm
when we need it, we pull the sea water in, we fight the fire, and then immediately, we flush the pipes and the hydrants. on the west side, you would use hetch hetchy system water first, and then in an absolute emergency, post require, then, you use the sea water. i wanted to be clear about that. you can't just have sea water sitting. this is ghirardelli square. fire department headquarters, that's pump station number one,
10:32 pm
and it's at fire department headquarters, in the basement. they cannot be hidden in the sand, the pump stations, so we need to keep that in consideration. 90,000 gallons a minute, that's what the demand is for the green lines in this photo post earthquake. we're estimating about ten well stations with collector pipe. it's the yellow pipe connecting to the existing green pipelines at three locations. the emergency water supply backlog function, where we can provide drinking water supply would not be available immediately after an earthquake. it takes a lot longer to clean them after there's been sea water in them. there's a lot more things in
10:33 pm
terms of maintenance required. they talked about completing this by 2024. it's about $3.4 billion for the five options, and if we looked out about 25 years, we're
10:34 pm
talking about 2.9 billion, 4.4 billion, and 6.1. as you get deeper into the planning, you'll get much more refined numbers. and with that, chair mar and chair stefani, i'm happy to take any questions now or later on in this hearing. >> chair mar: thank you so much, mr. scarpullo, for the presentation and for all of your work, yeah, on this project, and particularly this report that you just presented on for the planning study. i'm going to hold off on questions for now, and i think we should go to the presentation from the community leaders who have been raising the alarm bell on this issue for years and have been pushing the city to more urgently
10:35 pm
address this major infrastructure project. so we have nancy warfull and dick morton who are leader from the citywide coalition for efws expansion, and nancy and dick, you have ten minutes for your presentation, and i believe you have some slides that the clerk can run for you. the floor is yours. >> good morning. i am nancy warfull, presenting the views of the 67 retired firefighting experts for unlimited water supply to save san francisco, in addition to my own comments for this meeting. my background includes working as a government fiscal analyst for ucsf, at san francisco
10:36 pm
general for 22 years, researching, coordinating, auditing reimbursement programs for the federal, state, and local resources. i've written many ors for the west side observer. i've been appointed by three district 4 supervisors to be their representative for nine years on the firefighting board. the sfpuc has only provided a planning study with no commitment to provide equal protection in all neighborhoods. the mayor has not produced a detailed plan from her executive branch units for the board to consider. valuable time that be spent building needed infrastructure to be completed by 2034 has been wasted because there is no plan. the presentation does not demonstrate the urgent need for
10:37 pm
a system. surprisingly, the project stretches out the p.u.c. project to 2050. also, the p.u.c. proposes using potable water for firefighting. there's no plan b if the model is wrong. if not protected now, then none of the progress we might have made by spending $38 billion on projects in the ten-year plan when major parts of the city burns down and the tax base is destroyed. the board should request that the firefighting and water expansion projects should be
10:38 pm
included in the top tier of funding with a place holder for the funding. your packet contains a copy of the report on the status of implementing the civil grand jury's recommendation. even recommendation four to
10:39 pm
purchase 20 new host tenders indispensable to filling the gaps in fire protection will not be available even though the mayor could have chosen to state that recommendation four will be implemented in the future, but she did not do this. she did not sign the board's unanimously approved resolution. she failed to include efws funding in the plan. she failed to support reasonable actions to protect all the neighborhoods equally with unlimited infrastructure and expanded sea water. there is no plan to include equity to the western and southern areas of the city comparable with the high
10:40 pm
pressure water supplies in the eastern and northern areas that they have enjoyed since 1913. are not all lives and businesses equally worthy of the very same fire protection? i ask that you reject the inadequate 2050 report submitted by the p.u.c. i ask that you direct the mayor to direct her departments to develop a fully comprehensive plan to protect the full city and to submit it to the board of supervisors by july 15, 2022. we need a plan b if case all the modelling is not correct. thank you for considering my comments. >> chair mar: thank you, nancy. and dick, did you have some brief remarks? yeah.
10:41 pm
>> good morning. my name is dick morton, and i represent a citywide coalition of individuals and groups that want the emergency firefighting water system expanded citywide, not just on the west side, where i live. the emergency firefighting system study done by the p.u.c. does not comply with the board of supervisors request for a comprehensive plan and for funding. if you were grading this in college or something, they would get an f for lack of responsiveness. there's no state of emergency. they project continuing to work
10:42 pm
on this after 2050, whereas the usgs believes that we will have a major earthquake before 2043. they have no rationale why they didn't go further. you have to recognize that 80% of the damage following a major earthquake will be fires. i am baffled why the san francisco fire department is not a major advocate and speaking on behalf of getting adequate water citywide. there is a minor notation in the ten year capital plan for a bond in 2027, but it's only for the west side, not citywide. the city estimates there will
10:43 pm
be 130 initial fires after a major earthquake, but the study says they will contain the fires within 24 hours, yet 52 fires in 1989 took three days to contain. it does not really give in to the loss of provide residential properties, commercial facilities, lost revenues, the cost to rebuild. it does talk about that they have a significant deficit between existing demand and water supplies they failed to
10:44 pm
mention that state water code 73503 requires san francisco to take roughly two thirds of the water out of the three main terminal reservoirs and ship it south. it wasn't spoken of today. it has never been in any documentation. following the big one, the fire department and sfpuc should not rely on sunset reservoir drinking water or other potable sources. the existing 1913, a 2013 grand jury recognized that we have sea water on three sides of this city. it is critical that we actually utilize that unlimited source of water. the study fails to add the
10:45 pm
critical ocean beach open water intake. the board of supervisors called for a comprehensive plan and the financing mechanisms. this study fails to provide that. there is no study of the acquisition and the financing of 20 hose tenders, so we can outsmart disaster if it we extend citywide independent the salt water emergency fire system. do not tolerate further delays, do not continue the disastrous mistakes and false starts. the board of supervisors must reject the planning study because it did not comply with the resolution and provide a
10:46 pm
comprehensive plan and financing mechanism. we recommend the removal of the efws from the sfpuc and putting it into the city administrator's office. after 11 or 12 years, sfpuc has almost done nothing toward extending the system. we also recommend that we have, for the fall 2022 ballot, a bond to be voted for citywide
10:47 pm
efws. we should also have funds to acquire the 20 hose tenders. supervisors, after the big one, there will be an after-action report. this board could be positively memorialized as working toward a rapid expansion of the emergency water firefighting system, while others will be noted for their dereliction of duty, failure to expand citywide. i urge you to look at the article in the chronicle just recently. it may give a flavor of how we will be seen by future
10:48 pm
generations. thank you, supervisors. >> chair mar: thank you, dick morton and nancy warfull, for your presentation, and we wouldn't be at this point of discussing what is needed without your efforts, so thank you. i do have some questions, but supervisor stefani, i wanted to see if you might want to ask some. okay. great. so yeah, i had some questions for mr. scarpulla and perhaps the other representatives from the fire department and the office of capital planning that are here. again, thank you for -- for moving ahead on efws expansion. i forgot to mention it in my opening remarks, but i think it was referenced a number of
10:49 pm
times in the presentations that this really came about through a resolution that the board of supervisors adopted in 2019 declaring a state of emergency to extend the efws to all unprotected neighborhoods in the city, and it also called on the departments to develop a plan to complete this really important project by 2034. mr. scarpulla, because the board of supervisors set a deadline of 2034 to complete the project, and that was also the recommendation from the civil grand jury, but the sfpuc
10:50 pm
presentation and department presentation uses a 2050 timeline. i wonder if you could speak to that. >> thank you, supervisor. john scarpulla. that is the time that we're using is in terms of the system. we're not building a system that's looking at 2034 demands, we're using 2050 as the demands that the system should be sized for. and then, on my slide presented, you can see we have two different build out timelines. we did note that to meet that timeline, we would need additional city resources. it's a very large project to
10:51 pm
complete in a 12-year timeline, but we do give a price, and we note this would be the price to do it in 2034, and we give additional resources that would be needed. we give a more realistic timeline, so 2046, in terms of another timeline for building that, and you would see a cost for that. [please stand by]
10:52 pm
10:53 pm
10:54 pm
10:55 pm
for all the different contexts. those are laid out in the capital plan so when talking about this level of investment we have to go higher than what we have to necessary for the next 10 years so that's why we have this process of putting together the capital plan and weighing the pros and cons of all the different bonds and proposalsthat are coming forward . those are the discussions we will be havinglater this summer and early fall . the plan will be presented to the board of supervisors march 1 of next year and that will be after extensivediscussions at the capital planning committee . >> thank you director strong for that helpful update on the
10:56 pm
next 10 year capital plan where the esw expansion project will be a high priority but it's also good to know that we are not going to be into fully fund this major urgently needed infrastructure project through the 10 year capital plan given what yousaid about the total amount being $1.2 million . that would be available in any of the other urgent priorities that we need to besupported through that as well . my question i guess final follow-up question would be what is it going to take for us to create a financing plan for the esw project where the geo bonds and 10 year capital plan will be a part of it and it's going to require other creative financing mechanisms as well
10:57 pm
including looking at adderall infrastructure funding potentially or state funding and other creative ways to financethis . what will it take to call with a financing plan for the efwf project? >> asked me if i'm aware of an revenue sources that can cover thislevel of investment, i'm not . can we come upwith , in developing a plan , it's going to require taking the information we have and having to make decisions aroundhow we prioritize things . it's similar to how we approach how we retrofit buildings in san francisco where our buildingprogram is over he years now we're moving on to concrete buildings . think as much as i'd love to
10:58 pm
get with you in five years or even 10 years, we're going to have to have discussions with the community and fire department and puc and other experts around what are the highest priorities that are most important that we can get done and what are some of the other projects that we may need to hold off until we identify or find out the source? i would be a strong advocate and i'm sure o'connors with the fire department and puc would be as well trying to secure federal dollars to do this type of work. so far we've not be six been successful in our discussions with fema for those organizations. they tend to only fund large infrastructureprojects after a disaster has happened . so getting money from the federal government for this
10:59 pm
type of program has been challenging . the states, there are dollars that look like they're coming from the state the next year or so. those have been primarily focused on wildfire prevention and they're also talking about sea level rise and climate resilience. so again, i'm happy to follow up with you and follow up with our lobbyists and other folks on approaches likethat . but that's really ... anyway, that would be my response. the only other option we could do and we could spend time out would be looking at if there are ways. are there other sources of funds wehaven't thought about ? utility or taxes, community districts. there are some of those things
11:00 pm
and we had discussions that i don't knowthey would fit with this but that would be the only other option i'm aware of . >> thank youdirector strong . i really appreciate you sort of starting to outline what it would take to come up with a real financing plan to get this importantinfrastructure projects completed . with the urgencythat we're calling for and we really need . one final question on these issues is who's really looking at these potential other sources offunding . federal, state and other potentially funding mechanisms? is that something you're doing or is the puc lookinginto this ? or if not, what would it take
11:01 pm
to really get our departments to focus in on this and come up with a financing plan? >> i think it's fair to say almost everyone is looking at all the environments that have infrastructure or who needed infrastructure are looking at different ways to fund things . so i do think we're all looking at it. in terms of putting it together for the capital plan, that would be something we could coordinate around. i think to some extent it would be you know, if it's something the board requests we could potentially work with ... again, these require resources
11:02 pm
so we don't have a lot of staf . the mayor has legislative people as well so it would be getting those people together and having a discussion and seeing if there's something we can do outsideof the regular capital planning process . >> that's an important next step not to happen as it is urgentlyneeded . we will need the city department to focus in on and work together to come upwith a financing plan . and that's something i'mpushing on and calling for . as soon as possible later this year. it seems like it's a good time and that as you mentioned we're
11:03 pm
going to be starting the planning for the next year and capital plan this summer . i did have a just a few other questions around the plan or the outline of the plan as reflected in the planning study.and so the first one is i just find it a little confusing where the outline of the plan talks about the big conventional the fws which is kind of what existing right now with the proposed expansion to that. and then a separate potable esw
11:04 pm
11:05 pm
11:06 pm
11:07 pm
11:08 pm
>> what kind of aplan is proposing a new start sea water pumping system in bayview, is that correct ? >> not exactly supervisor. it's proposing additional pumping on the east side. it's likely that it will have to be it could be multiple sea water pump stations and it is notnecessarily situated in bayview. we have to find the right location in the east . for placement or placement of the sea water pump stations . >> so the location is not determined but the plan right now does plan for is it one or more pumping stations on eastside? >> it's likely itwould need to be more than one due to the amount of seawater needed on eastside . >> got it. and again, these would only be
11:09 pm
used as a backup to the potable water sources in the event of a really major fire incident? >> that's correct supervisor. >> got it. can you explain again why we don't need that on the west side because i think this is one of the key sources of contention with the neighborhood advocates on the west side is that we also need to have that unlimited seawater available in major fire incidents which we know is coming up in the coming years. >> supervisor, the reason is because of late merced. lake merced provides the same backup the seawater does on
11:10 pm
eastside. if there was a lake merced on the east side would be we would be happy to go there first but there's not so latemerced with its large volumeprovides disability that if worst-case scenario , huge fire , post seismic , we have to use every good water source and we effectively have to sort pumps on the east side that's when it would be and it hasdays of water that can be provided for firefighting to meet the demand . >> got it, thank you. and then i just had a question around the demand. so there was a separate study done earlier that's also referenced in theplanning study about the 2050 demand . of 255,000 gallons per minute. and so that's more than tripling what the current system was able to provide.
11:11 pm
so is that 255,000 gallons per minute demand by 2050 going to be met by potable water sources or does that also, the demand projection also does the plan reject using feed water pump as a source to meet that demand? >> i like asked my colleague meyerson to jump in and answer that. i want to make sure we give the correct answer here. are you on the line andcould you please jump in and answer this question if possible ? >> date meyerson, sfpuc project manager. as john described in the systems there will be both potable water sources tend
11:12 pm
seawater sources. in fact on the east side we will have to develop more seawater sources so you're going to have a combination of sources providing the 255,000 gallons per minute . >> thank you. >> i'm looking at one slide about water supply sources. it says there's approximately 60,000 gallons per minute of new sea water supply required for the conventional ef ws. i'm assumingthat's part of the 255,000 demand projection . what is the seawater supply required for the west side or the potable efwf. >> that's 90,000 gallons per minute but we need to meet the demands on the potable. that can be met through potable supplies combined with lake
11:13 pm
merced. that's what option one is stating that we can meet those through those sources and those options two and three are othe ways to meet that 90,000 gallons per minute . so it's the same performance for all three options, just different water sources, different costs, different challenges. >> chair: got it. this is helpful just understanding this be complex plan. for the lake merced source that is for the potable efwf on the west side, is that only going to be used in a similar situation as the seawater pumping system for the conventional efws? only in the eye and, probably after a major earthquake.
11:14 pm
>> that's correct. >> okay, and then i have one, a few final questions around the host tenders. that was also part of the board of supervisors resolution urging the departments to come up with a plan to acquire what was projected those 20 tenders that are needed as soon as possible because that placed such an important role in the interim until we get the full efws system built out and i know the host tenders are using the fightthat we have on a regular routine basis . so deputy chief o'connor, i know you're here. if you could talk about what
11:15 pm
the plan is to acquire the what was requested 20 or so tenders that are needed. i know we havecurrently we have five that are really aging and outdated . >> good morning. deputy chief of the fire department. we're currently in contract for three new tenure with the midpoint of inspection right now with a company called rose and ballard inminnesota . we expect delivery of the first fund by december of this year. from there we will take you on our round of tests to make sure that codes work and we can build two additional ones and then we have funding for two more where we would extend that contract for a total of five new tenders within the next few years. that would bring us up to a total of 10 posts tenders that we currently have. and then it becomes a little tricky going forward where we
11:16 pm
don't have the room in our current infrastructure to house an additional 10 tenders. right now we have 64 fire engines and fire trucks for a fleet of 64 apparatus so havin 20 more , their increasing our fleet by third and we just don't have the infrastructure so we have to talkfunding for additional facilities going forward . impossible but along with everything else it requires more resources from the board of supervisors that's where we stand right now with all the spenders. >> thank you deputy chief . when do you expect the five host tenders that arecurrently , we have a budget for it tobe brought online ?>> the first will be online in september and thereafter we're going to build up the next two within three months of that so by the end of 2022 three we would have three
11:17 pm
additional ones. and then there would be contracted for two more by 2024 we have five additional ones for a total of 10 posts tenders in our system. >> then what about the five outdated ones that we have right now denmark i believe there over 30 years old . will those continue to be usable until we can bring additional new ones online? >> we've got to not do it but we can keep them in service until we get the total fleet of new ones here. >> i think similar to the bigger project, the full buildout of ef ws we need a financing plan i think for the timeline for the acquisitions as well so i look forward to working with you and nicholson and the department on that because this is also an extremely urgent project to
11:18 pm
move forward with to ensure safety and fire response in the unprotected neighborhoods of efws so thank you chief deputy. i don't have anyother questions right now . supervisor stefani.>> thank you chair. i want to thank you for your continued attention to this and the advocates who have been after this for so long. i don't have any questions because you asked them all and i look forward if there's any public comment but again thank you for your continued attention and i know we will continue to focus on and get more answers so thank you. >> want to goto public comment .>> members of the public who wish to speak on this item and are joining us in person shoul line up to speak now . you do have one person in the
11:19 pm
chamber. >> thank you, nancy. i wanted to comment on the source of money that's my specialty. we can have a new developer impact fee for supporting the infrastructure forfirefighting as well as the water supply . the puc already has a chart for capacity when you have a new development that is for the connection to having the little low pressure hydrants connected so since they've already established that capacity then we can haveone for the high pressure hydrants .there's a piece of money the planning department and approved an extract from developers and even though they have infrastructure they build within their project they do not pay a dime to get the water from where it is to them so
11:20 pm
that's the fee. the second thing is ilike to stress there is no plan b . if anything goes wrong with these plans and thank you supervisor mar for your insightful questions. i want to make sure you understand if anything goes wrong and we don't understand that we have misunderstood the aftershocks etc. and we need to have another source of water out on the west side so there is a continuing need for a thing called unlimited water. we cannot just limit our water to thegallons you've discussed . wehave to have access to all the water wecan need so we don't burn down again . you for this wonderful hearing . >> seeing nobody in person in the chamber those ofyou listening virtually if you would like to make a public comment at this time please
11:21 pm
call 415-655-0001 .enter the meeting id of 2492 077744. press pound twice. once connected you can press star three to get into the this time we have one speaker or sorry, one person listening only in and zero people in the queue. and there's one person on the queue, i apologize.please begin your comment now. >> my name is john. i've lived a couple decades in sunset district 40th and roberto. just a few comments. i saw thought that since we're in a drought it would be nice to have something other than our potable water to fight fires with just on a regular basis before the big earthquake. also i was wondering if we're
11:22 pm
going to have enough water in reservoirs here to have our potable water has to be shipped by law to san mateo county and then have a major earthquake. with my service in the navy i'm very well aware of what the puc's concerns arewith corrosion and saltwater . there are ways to mitigate saltwater corrosion. and damage from saltwater. it would be nice to have a dedicated saltwater system. that would not have to be decontaminated. after being used. there's also if we get this thing built, there may be
11:23 pm
reductions in our san francisco fire departments iso rating and insurance service organization that has an impact on everyone's insurance which multiplied by all the buildings in san francisco would amount to 1 millions in savings each year for san francisco residents. thank you . >> you for your comments. we havetwo people in the queue . in thevirtual queue . can i please put the color forward. >> good morning supervisor. just want to thank you for bringing and pushing for this really important safety measure for the west side and i'm particularly act obligated
11:24 pm
subject. i don't pretend to understand all of it . there's a lot of technical information but i am particularly interested in focused on the host discussion. happy to see more of these will become available so it's going to be a long time for the permanent infrastructure is in place. 2034 is a long ways away. and i know this is more comments than questions but i'd be interested in hearing more from the fire department deputy chief about the type of infrastructure facilities that would be needed to house the 10 additional host as a stopgap an interim measure for projects again that is all about plans. there's nothing on theground yet . that's my question and my input. thank you very much for ensuring that we move forward withprotecting the city from the next big earthquake .
11:25 pm
>> next color. >> speaker: my name is erica and i'm in the west side in district 4. thankyou supervisor mar that this is on the agenda . i happen to have heard by accident the grand jury report a few years ago and i've been concerned. so i also don't understand all the technicalities here but i would hope that grant writing would be focused on the fire department on this issue especially with the surplus we now have on the state level and the big money that we hear about on the federal level that we need to get in front of that and hopefully are. it's possible we are but i
11:26 pm
wonder if there's a way to push that forward more and in terms of the whole seawater issue í saltwater issue on the west side i'm talking about now. and the approvals by the coastal commissions that will be needed that i heard could take decades. would it be a good idea to put a plan maybe plan g together about the salt, possible saltwater usage and start the process of talking to the coastal commission?because the longer it sets it becomes something that needs to be used or put in the plan. we should start that decades long process soonerrather than later .thank you everybody.
11:27 pm
>> thank you for your public comment and for any members of the public. there are no public commenters. >> public comment is closed. i again want to thank all of the community advocates who can bring in the alarm about this issue for years and also the citywide dfw expansion coalition. really they've been pushing us to act with more urgency and thank you to the puc, fire department andoffice of planning for your work on this issue . in response to i think the calls from the community and the board of supervisors to make this a higher priority in our city. that's going to continue to be one of my top priorities given that the entire district is
11:28 pm
unprotected and but it's also so important for many other in the entire west side and southeastern neighborhoods in our city. i will be pushing for the creation of a real financing plan. to ensure that we can get the job done by 2034. that's called for and i'llbe following up with the department about that . i will be pushing for a real plan for the tender acquisitions that are necessary in the interim. to protect that unprotected neighborhood from the fws. they haven't seemed adequate on average. and yes, this is obviously going to be a costly expensive project to move forward. it's helpful to have the actual cost projections included in the planning study but i think we all know that it's going to be even more costly if we don't
11:29 pm
act with greater urgency to address this major infrastructure project in terms of loss of property and life in our city so thanks again everyone for this hearing and i would like to move that we continue this to the call of the chair. >> on thatmotion to continue this item to the call of the chair .[roll call vote]. >> it will be continued. clerk, any further business. we are adjourned, thank you.
11:30 pm
>> hello everyone. welcome to the bayview bistro. >> it is just time to bring the community together by deliciousness. i am excited to be here today because nothing brings the community together like food. having amazing food options for and by the people of this community is critical to the success, the long-term success and stability of the bayview-hunters point community.