Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 254-07City of Palo Alto City Manager’s FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES DATE:JUNE 4, 2007 CMR:254:07 SUBJECT:INFORMATION REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FROM THE CALIFORNIA SEISMIC SAFETYCOMMISSION This is an informational report and no Council action is required. BACKGROUND In January 2000, the City’s primary water supplier, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), released a report indicating that its regional water system is vulnerable to great damage from a large earthquake and that water supplies could be cut off to the users, including Palo Alto, for up to 60 days. On July 10, 2000, the Palo Alto City Council adopted a resolntion reconm~ending that the SFPUC take prompt action to improve regional water supply reliability and quality [CMR:311:00]. The agencies that purchase water from the regional system were members of the Bay Area Water Users Association (BAWUA), which represented the agencies’ collective interests in their interactions with the SFPUC. As an additional response to the risk of failure of the regional water system and the lack of action by the SFPUC, BAWUA undertook a legislative campaign at the begim~ing of 2002. BAWUA sponsored ttu’ee bills, all of which were passed by the Legislature and were signed into law in September 2002. One of those bills, Assembly Bill 2058, allowed the creation of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conselwation Agency (BAWSCA), with broad water plamaing and financial authorities. Since its formation in 2003, BAWSCA has replaced BAWUA in its role representing the agencies that purchase water from the SFPUC. Another bill signed into law, Assembly Bill 1823, requires the sFPUC to complete certain key projects in its capital program. AB 1823 required San Francisco to formally adopt the capital improvement program prepared by SFPUC staff, including a schedule and financial plan to complete all projects by 2015. In May 2002, SFPUC adopted a capital program to repair and upgrade the regional water system. The capital program was later renamed the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP). CMR:254:07 Page 1 of 5 AB 1823 acknowledges that the WSIP projects and schedules may change. If SFPUC does adopt changes to the WSIP that result in deletions of one or more projects or postpones the scheduled completion dates, it must provide the changes to the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) and the California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC). Both the CDHS and the CSSC must review the proposed changes to the WSIP to detemaine if the changes would have an impact on human health and safety. Ninety days after receiving notice of any proposed changes to the WSIP, CDHS and CSSC must submit reports to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) with their conclusions. In November 2005, the SFPUC adopted a revised WSIP which incorporated changes to scopes and schedules to the previously proposed capital program. On January 23, 2006, the SFPUC submitted a Notice of Changes to the WSIP to the CDHS and the CSSC as required by AB 1823. DISCUSSION Report from the California Seismic Safety Commission The CSSC issued its report on the revised WSIP on April 17, 2006 (see Attaclmaent A). That report generally finds that SFPUC’s revised WSIP is an improvement over the earlier adopted capital program. It also identifies several issues that will need to be considered in the future~ Some of the report’s recommendations apply to local water distribution systems, including the SFPUC’s retail v~ater system inside the City and County of San Francisco and the systems operated by BAWSCA’s member agencies: Retail service providers, including the BAWSCA agencies and the SFPUC, should inform the public that, even after the WSIP is fully implemented, 30% of the system’s supply connection points to the BAWSCA agencies could be out of service for up to a month after a major earthquake. SFPUC’s newly created Seismic Safety Task Force and other experts should be encouraged to evaluate critical, seismic-related design decisions. Although modeling the regional impacts of earthquakes to the system overall are helpful, individual facilities in the system will require site-specific analyses to identify their engineering design requirements. In order to meet the WSIP Level of Service goals, the WSK~ engineering design effort should make use of the most up-to-date knowledge and understanding of how water transmission system components withstand the impacts of earthquakes. The SFPUC should proceed as quickly as feasible with its Prograrmnatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the WSIP, followed quickly by individnal project EIRs. The underlying reason for upgrading the San Francisco’s regional water system is to ensure that customers can receive sufficient water after an emergency such as an earthquake. To achieve this goal requires that the local water distribution systems be in a condition to deliver water fi’om available sources to customers and that there are adequate CMR:254:07 Page 2 of 5 emergency response and recovery plans in place. Those plans should envision the possibility that supplies fi’om the SFPUC regional system may not be available for a period of time after a large earthquake. Joint Legislative Audit Committee The JLAC received the reports from the CDHS and CSSC and, on February 13, 2007, Assembly Member Nell Soto, the Chair of the JLAC, sent a letter with the reports attached to the General Managers of SFPUC and BAWSCA. In her letter (see Attachlnent B), Assembly Member Soto urged SFPUC and BAWSCA members "to address the CSSC’s recommendations related to their retail water systems." Palo Alto’s Water Distribution System Seismic Prepm’edness With regards to the CSSC recommendations, Palo Alto has completed many assessments of its water supply and distribution system including corrosion inspection, seismic, capacity, supply, flow analysis, and vulnerability assessment studies: ¯August 1986 - Tank Inspection Report; Villalobos & Associates ¯January 1987 - Seismic Evaluation of Water Reservoirs; Beyaz & Patel, Inc. ¯December 1999 - Water Wells, Regional Storage and Distribution System Study; Carollo - Engineers ¯May 2000 - L-ong-Term Water Supply Study; Carollo Engineers ¯December 2003 - CIP Phase I Improvelnent Pressure Surge Analysis; Flow Science ¯June 2004 - Water System Security and Bioterrorism Tl~reats (EPA Mandated Vulnerability Assessment and Emergency Response Plan); Utilities staff The December 1999 Water Wells, Regional Storage and Distribution System Study identified critical rese~woir, well, and pump station improvelnents in the distribution system that needed seismic and reliability improvemems. The existing water pulnping station facilities in the foothills have been rebuilt as part of the Phase I Water System Improvements Project. The pump stations have been rebuilt to the latest seismic standards. This project is in the final stages of construction and will be completed by June 2007. Staff is currently pursuing the construction of the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project to improve the seismic readiness of the City’s water distribution system. This project will provide Palo Alto with a stand-alone emergency water supply that will meet approximately 90% of the City’s winter demand for up to 30 days. This supply could be extended further with additional water conservation efforts by customers. In addition to these projects, staff has proceeded on the Seismic Water Ta~zk Valve (WS-09000) project and the substitution of an existing 6" water main with a 10" water main to improve reliability and emergency selwice to the Hewlett sub-area off Los Trancos Woods Road and parts of Foothills Park. Palo Alto has one intertie with East Palo Alto and two interties with Mountain View. Palo Alto has constructed two new interties with Stanford University over the past seven years. The City is currently plalming a new intertie at the Mayfield development (Alma St. near San Antonio Ave.) with the City of Mountain View; fm~thermore, a new intertie is being designed by the Los Altos Hills County Fire District for Purissima Hills Water District and Palo Alto. This new water main CMR:25a:07 Page 3 of 5 and intertie will be located near the entrance to Foothills Park. The construction of this new line to improve fire protection and reliability is plmmed for fall 2007. Additional interties with Purissima Hills Water District are also under discussion along Arastradero Road. The Utilities Departlnent has developed a Water Operations and Emergency Response Plan and staff has identified Palo Alto’s critical customers as well the distribution system’s critical facilities. This plan contains a comprehensive staffing and action plan that details how staff will respond, evaluate, patrol and operate the water, gas and sanitary collection systems in the event of an emergency. The plan will be updated to reflect new booster pump station operations that were constructed as part of the Phase I Improvement Project later this year. Regarding non-capital plalming, the City has participated in a nulnber of emergency response planning workshops conducted at the San Jose Water Company prelnises, which included participants from around the Bay Area. Staff also participated in a SFPUC survey of customers to identify critical water supply COlmections to the SFPUC system. These critical turnouts supply water to hospitals, City Emergency Operations Centers and other critical emergency facilities. SFPUC is coordinating the selection of these critical turnouts with the State and County Emergency Response Plans. SFPUC will prioritize the restoration of its pipeline systems along with the State and County Emergency Response Plans. _ Regarding identification of sensitive seismic areas and other hazards, Palo Alto participated in BAWUA-sponsored seismic assessment several years ago and used BAWUA’s consultant, John Eidinger, to conduct a seismic assessment of the Palo Alto systeln. This seismic study reinforced the need for Palo Alto to have a stand-alone emergency water supply. The study pointed out the need for Bay Area water retailers to have a self-sufficient emergency water supply system to withstand a prolonged outage on the SFPUC pipelines due to an earthquake on either the Hayward or San Andreas Faults. Staff has mapped the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) - identified earthqnake fault lines on the City’s GIS system. Also, the USGS liquefaction areas are being added to the City’s GIS. Council and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) have been apprised of the seismic vulnerability and operational capabilities of the Palo Alto water system tln’ough study sessions, public outreach progralns, neighborhood workshops, project websites and staff nlemos. The UAC made extensive investigations into the water systeln emergency supply proposals and fully supported the staff recommendations for the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. Palo Alto’s City Council certified the EIR for the Phase II Emergency Water Supply and Storage Projects in April 2007. Palo Alto also is dependent on the SFPUC for improvements to the regional water system pipelines and desires to have the SFPUC Water System Improvement Program completed on schedule. Through its public processes with the Council and the UAC, the community has been informed to expect water outages on the SFPUC system of up to 60 days due to large earthquakes in the region. Staff has discussed that this vulnerabilit£will exist until approximately 2016 when the SFPUC WSIP is plalmed for completion. Staff has continued educating the public on this issue by lneeting with business organizations and neighborhood association leaders and presenting the existing and proposed operations of the City’s Emergency Water Supply and Storage Program. CMR:254:07 Page 4 of 5 Staff encouraged public input into the types and locations of projects that were included in the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project EIR. The City routinely informs customers regarding conservation efforts with the utility bill inserts. Palo Alto plans to implement 13 different water conse~wation programs over the next 25 years to maintain Palo Alto’s water consumption levels at or below 2004 consumption levels. Palo Alto’s proposed Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project (WS-08002) helps the Palo Alto water distribution system increase the reliability of its distribution system and meet recommendations from the California Department of Health Services. These improvements also address CSSC’s recommendation for SFPUC’s retail agencies to be prepared for the possibility of water supply disruptions. Future Water CIP design proposals and development reviews will also consider any necessary "hardening" of existing water pipelines to identified critical facilities in Palo Alto. RESOURCE IMPACT The fnnding for WS-08002 will come from a combination of Water Fund reserves and future revenue bonds. POLICY IMPLICATIONS _ Improving the water distribution system reliability and emergency preparedness is consistent with existing Citf policies. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Appropriate enviroma~ental review will and has taken place for the capital projects identified in this report. ATTACHMENTS A: California Seismic Safety Commission Report on the Significance of Changes in the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) With Respect to Public Health and Safety dated April 17, 2006 B:Letter from Nell Soto, Chair of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to Susan Leal, SFPUC General Manager and Art Jensen, BAWSCA General Manager dated February 13, 2007. PREPARED BY:JANE RATCHYE Senior Resource Plmmer DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ROGER CWIAK Water, Gas, Wastewater Engineering Manager VALEZ~~FONG Director of Utilities EMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR:254:07 Page 5 of 5 A TTA CHMENT A State Of California SEISMIC SAFETY COMMISSION ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR Report on the Significance of Changes in the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) With respect to Public Health And Safety April 17, 2006 The Legislature enacted and the Governor signed into law AB 1823 (Chapter 841, 2002) "Wholesale Regional Water System Security and Reliability Act". Under the act, the Seismic Safety Commission (SSC) is required to "submit written comments with regard to the significance of any changes with respect to public health and safety" within 90 days of receiving notice of changes to the scope or ~chedule of the previously proposed (2002) SFPUC Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Such notice was received January 23, 2006.-The purpose of this report is to fulfill that obligation. The SFPUC’s water transmission system serves 27 wholesale customers in addition to delivering water to the San Francisco City Distribution Department’s retail system. Together these 28 retail distribution systems (including San Francisco) serve approximately 2.4 million users. In 2002, the seismic upgrade component of the CIP was comprised of a collection of projects intended to limit the loss of service to the SFPUC’s wholesale customers following major earthquakes. The SFPUC staff has indicated that the 2002 program was prepared and evaluated in an intuitive manner, without the benefit of specific seismic perfornaance objectives, quantitative analysis of alternatives, or a completion schedule that allowed for a programmatic environmental impact review (EIR). The newly adopted 2005 program, now named the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP), differs in a number of important ways: 1) The SFPUC established new Levels Of Service Goals; 2) they analyzed the alternatives to optimize the sequence of projects and their effects on the expected delivery of water after major earthquakes; and 3) they incorporated a schedule that accommodates a programmatic EIR. Appendix A lists the plarmed seismic safety projects and their schedule changes from the 2002 program to the 2005 program including nine key projects that were identified in the above state law. It must be pointed out that it is still very early in the deployment of the WSIP. Many projects are still under study, environmental reviews are in early stages, and, apart from the early projects, plans for final design and construction are not completed. SFPUC staff has been very responsive to SSC questions and provided detailed responses where information was available. The primary limitations to this review include the limited amount of detailed design information about projects in the new program and the fact that the changes in both the Levels of Service (LOS) Goals after major earthquakes and the details of some of the individual projects are so substantial that the two generations of projects are difficult to compare directly. It is important to note that the proposed WSIP applies only to the wholesale trunk line of the water supply system, not the post-earthquake supply of water to the 2.4 million retail consumers served by a combination of the SFPUC system together with the 27 wholesale water companies of the Bay Area 1755 Creekside Oaks Drive, Suite ]~0 [] Sacramento, CA 95833 [] 916-263-5506 ~fax 916-263-0594 [] onailceffi(~stateseismi’c, eom [] ~awv.seismieca.gov Water Supply & Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). The following quote from the SFPUC’s March 8, 2006 V/SIP Notice Of Changes To V/ater System Improvement Program is illustrative: "....the efforts being made by the SFPUC to improve the reliability of the system after a seismic event relate ... to the delivery of water only up to the turnouts to the 28 wholesale customers. The reliability of the water supply to individual customers (served by those wholesalers) after an event is very much dependent on the plans and upgrades being implemented by the various wholesalers." As pal~ of its review, the Seismic Safety Commission examined SFPUC’s project summaries and strategies, those of other similar organizations, and other relevant literature. In addition, Commissioners and staff drew upon personal expertise in conducting and reviewing major proj ects. Appendix B has a partial list of sources of information used during this review. FINDINGS: The Commission finds the following: The changes in methodology and scope of the proposed program between 2002 and 2005 should result in a-more robust system that will increase the ultimate seismic resistance of the facilities to a degree that makes the 2005 program the preferable one from a public health & safety standpoint. When completed, the probability of meeting the wholesale water delivery Levels of Service (LOS) goals for the retail agencies should be greater (i.e. the risk lower) than the probability of meeting the new LOS goals under the original 2002 plan. The establishment of Levels of Service (LOS) Goals in 2005 is a distinct improvement over the original proposal. In fact, because there were no clear LOS seismic criteria in the 2002 plan, it is difficult to quantify the improvements that were anticipated by that plan, let alone compare it in a meaningful way with the 2005 plan. The new LOS Goals for seismic reliability are as follows: Deliver minimum system demand (winter month demand) within 24 hours after a major earthquake. Minimum winter month demand is estimated at 215 million gallons per day (MGD) in 2030. Deliver minimum system demand equally to three regions within the service area to the extent possible. These regions include: 1) the East and South Bay Area, 2) the Peninsula, and 3) City of San Francisco. At least 70 percent of the turnouts within each region should receive flow to achieve minimum month demand for the region. Estimated 2030 minimurn month demands for the three regions noted above are 96 MGD, 37 MGD, and 82 MGD respectively. Restore facilities to meet average demand within 30 days after a major earthquake. Design facilities to meet the established seismic upgrade criteria. Various levels of hardening will be required for different components of the system, depending upon site-specific conditions and system functions. o The SFPUC is planning to adopt new "General Seismic Requirements for the Design of New Facilities and Evaluation and Upgrade of Existing Facilities" that appear to meet or exceed the standard of practice for such programs. These general requirements will be incorporated in detailed design criteria adopted for each project forming the program. The Commission reviewed draft requirements that include compliance with American Lifelines Alliance’s 2005 Seismic Guidelines for V/ater Pipelines and the 2006 International Building Code where applicable. The SFPUC also plans to use state-of-the-art methods to periodically evaluate changes to the seismic vulnerability of the water system during the course of construction. The current plan also includes an increase in risk due to delays in the schedule of completion of several key improvements compared to the 2002 plan. SFPUC characterizes the schedule as having up to approximately a three-year delay in the interim portion of the program, but some delays are later reversed by accelerated construction schedules so that the final program completion is expected to be sooner than was anticipated in the 2002 plan. The interim delay increases the chance that an earthquake will occur before a portion of the upgrade is complete, but the final completion of the entire program occurs earlier in the 2005 plan schedule than it did in the 2002 plan schedule. Any delay in completion of the system increases the risk of a loss of function if an earthquake happens during the delay. The USGS estimates that the probability that a major earthquake would strike the region during the time that the project was delayed is approximately one to two percent for each year of delay. Depending on the progress of environmental impact studies, the detailed engineering design activities, and!or the construction itself, the schedules might be further delayed, even from the 2005 plan. The overall level of increased risk from these individual changes is not easily quantified. The schedule has slipped in part because some facilities have been redesigned to result in a more robust final product. In other words, to compare the two plans is to compare apples to oranges. Building a less capable system for which portions would come on line one to three years earlier would clearly not i~esult in a reduction in overall risk through the life of the improvements. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS: While the 2005 WSIP plan appears to be much more desirable in terms of post-earthquake public health and safety than the 2002 CIP plan, there are several issues that will need to be considered by SFPUC to ensure that the WSIP plan meets both the overall LOS Goals that SFPUC has adopted and its proposed schedule of completion by 2014. A complex upgrade program with interrelated projects like this can be delayed or sidetracked entirely by problems that arise as engineering planning and construction proceed. A number of specific elements of the plan should be reviewed carefully as the individual projects proceed through detailed planning and into construction. The following issues were identified in the course of the Seismic Safety Commission’s review: A public information and outreach effort on the part of SFPUC and the retail water service providers is required so that the retai! customers understand that a successful response to a large earthquake by the SFPUC water system could still result in up to 30% of the regional turnouts being out of service for up to a month, based on the SFPUC’s new Levels of Service goals. Furthermore, which turnouts will not be in service cannot be predicted ahead of time. Therefore, widespread recognition of, and planning for, the expected performance of the water system after the earthquake will help make the entire community safer and better prepared. Active participation by the SFPUC’s newly created Seismic Safety Task Force, and other experts as needed, to evaluate critical, seismic-related design decisions should be encouraged. Those decisions have a substantial effect on the future performance of the system, and thus on the future risk to the health and safety of the water users around the Bay. If necessary the Task Force should be expanded so that experts from the appropriate fields of earthquake science and engineering can review all major seismic design decisions, to assure that the current state of the practice in earthquake-resistant design has been incorporated into each element of the water delivery system. o o o Use of a large hypothetical earthquake on each of the three major faults crossed by the water delivery system has been helpful in modeling the regional impacts of earthquakes to the system overall, and in identifying the primary projects and sites that need to be upgraded as a part of the WSIP. However, the effects of those particular earthquakes do not constitute a typical seismic hazard standard for design purposes. Individual facilities in the system will require site-specific analyses to identify their engineering design requirements. We understand the design phase will incorporate appropriate site-specific seismic criteria. The results of these analyses could change some of the conclusions about levels of risk that were drawn in the WSIP report. The ability of pipelines and other components of water transmission systems to withstand the impacts of earthquakes is the subject of a number of active engineering research programs today. Important information comes both from laboratory testing of pipelines and facilities, and from observations of the performance of existing water systems during recent and future earthquakes in other parts of the world. The engineering design effort will want to make use of the most up-to- date knowledge and understanding of this topic, because many parts of the upgraded water delivery system being proposed in WSIP must not fail in future Bay Area earthquakes, if the Levels of Service criteria are to be met. The SFPUC should proceed as quickly as feasible with its Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the proposed WSIP program, followed in short order by individual project EIRs. Because the progriim consists of a number of phased construction projects, the schedule for the EIR approvals is critical to meeting the deadlines in the WSIP plan. The environmental rbview process could lead to additional delays, which would increase the health and safety risk of the public in a future earthquake. The SFPUC should continue to work with the retail providers to facilitate completion of comparable programs for risk reduction in the distribution systems that carry water from the SFPUC regional water transmission system to the 2.4 million users. Public health and safety ultimately depends on delivery of the water to the end users as quickly as possible after earthquakes. Delivery of adequate quantities of water by the SFPUC regional water system to the retail water distribution systems’ turnouts is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition to assure that water actually reaches the end users. Emergency response and recovery plans should include provisions to accommodate the potential’that direct supplies ofp0table water will not be available at all connections to the SFPUC regional water transmission system. The entire delivery system, from Hetch Hetchy to the local faucets, must operate in the hours and days after major earthquakes if public health and safety are to be protected. Appendix A Water System Improvement Program Seismic Reliability Projects and Schedule Comparisons The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is undertaking a $4.3 billion Water System Improvement Program to enhance the Hetch Hetchy water transmission system with an anticipated 2014 completion of seismic projects. The table below summarizes the seismic reliability projects and compares schedules between the 2002 program and the 2005 changes. New Irvington Tunnel Crystal Springs to San Andreas Reservoir Transmission Upgrade Bay Division Pipeline Reliability Upgrade Seismic Upgrade of Bay Division Pipelines 3&4 Alameda Siphon Upgrade New Crystal Springs Tunnel Bay Division Pipelines 3&4 Crossover/Isolation Valves Crystal Springs No.2 Replacement San Andreas No.3 Pipeline Installation Calaveras Dam Projects Capuchino Valve Lot Improvements Baden & San Pedro Valve Lot Sunset Reservoir- North Basin Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant Short Term Improvements Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant Long Term Improvements Pipeline Repair & Readiness Standby Power Facilities Slip line of Bay Division Pipelines 3 & 4* Bay Division Pipelines 1 and 2 Repairs*** Aug 2009 Ju12011 Feb 2013 Aug 2010 ** May 2009 N/A Nov 2015 Nov 2014 May 2009 Mar 2016 N/A Oct 2014 Nov 2012 Mar 2016 Sep 2004 Nov 2013 , N/A Jan 2013 Sep 2013 Apr 2014 Jan 2014 Oct 2012 Apr 2011 Oct 2010 Sep 2008 Apr 2012 Jun 2011 Jun 2012 Jul 2009 Oct 2011 May 2009 Sep 2010 Apr 2014 Mar 2007 Dec 2010 Mar 2008 N/A 2 8 4- 5 6 7 *An assessment of pipelines is included, and the construction or rehabilitation process will be determined later. ** The Alameda Siphon Upgrade is now a separate project that was previously combined with the New Irvington Tunnel. ***The SFPUC removed this project from the Water System Improvement Program since it is not required to achieve the new Levels of Service Goals. Refer to the Bay Division Pipeline Reliability Upgrade Project. Appendix B List of Publications Received/Reviewed American Lifelines Alliance, 2005, Seismic Guidelines for Water Pipelines, (CSSC library copy). American Society of Civil Engineers, 2003, Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings ASCE/SEI-31-03. (CSSC library copy). Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency, 2006, Letter to Mr. Lawrence Klein, Chair, California Seismic safety Commission re: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Response to AB 1823 Requirements for Notice of Change to water System Improvement Program, dated February 23, 2006. Department of Health Services, 2006, (Final Draft) Response to Notice of Adopted Changes to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.(SFPUC) Capital Improvement Program (CIP)/Water Supply Improvement Program. (Received March 20, 2006). Division of Safety of Dams; Guidelines for Use of the Consequence-Hazard Matrix and Selection of Ground Motion Parametecs, CA Department of Water Resources, Fraser and Howard, October 4, 2002. Federal Emergenc~ Management Agency, 2002, Second Edition, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, FEMA 154/March 2002. (CSSC library copy) Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, 1999, Seismic Reliability Assessment of Critical Facilities: A Handbook, Supporting Documentation, and Model Code Provisions, Technical Report MCEER-99-0008. (Received March 27, 2006). Nisar, A., Honegger, D., Ameri, A., Summers, P., Hitchcock, C., Liu, A., Louie, H., Bachhuber, J. ,2004, Mitigation of Fault Rupture Hazard to Water Mains of a Major Metropolitan in the San Francisco Bay Area, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, B.C. Canada, August 2004. O’Rourke, T.D., Wang, Y., Shi, P. 2004, Advances in Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, in 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, B.C. Canada, August 2004. O’Rourke, T.D., Wang, Y., and P. Shi, 2004, Final Draft Report: Seismic Wave Effects on Bay Division Pipelines, (Received March 16, 2006). Parsons CH2M HILL, 2005, Water System Improvement Program Assessment Report, Prepared for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. (Received November 2005) Ruskin, I., 2006, Letter to CSSC Chairman Lawrence Klein regarding timing of completion of CSSC AB 1823 report (March 16, 2006). San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2003, Emergency Response and Recovely Plan Sections 7.1 through 7.4.2 (Received March 24, 2006) San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2006, AB1823: Notice of Changes to Water System Improvement Program, (Received January 23, 2006). San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2006, AB1823: Notice of Changes to Water System Improvement Program (March 8, 2006, with clarifications requested by CSSC). San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2006, General Seismic Requirements for the Design of New Facilities and Evaluation and Upgrade of Existing Facilities (Received April 3, 2006). San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2002, Capital Improvement Program Proposal Documents May 28, 2002. (CSSC library copy). United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1991, Seismic Evaluation and Rehabilitationfor Buildings, TI 809-05. (Received March 16, 2006). Meetings With SFPUC and CSSC Ad Hoc Committee or Staff October 26, 2005: initial briefing with SFPUC staff and seismic task force members. November 10, 2005: CSSC hearing with SFPUC staffproviding an introduction about the WSIP November 29, 2005: SFPUC hearing to adopt changes to the WSIP February 21, 2006: CSSCAd Hoc Committee met with SFPUC staffto discuss SFPUC’s respon.se to the CSSC’s Feb. 14, 2006 letter. March 28, 2006: ~SSC Ad Hoc Committee met with SFPUC staff to discuss CSSC requests for additional information described in CSSC’s March 27, 2006 letter. 7 .STATE CAPITOL P.O. BOX 942849 SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0030 (916) 319-3300 (916) 319-2352 FAX JOINT LEGISLATrW AUDIT COMMITTEE N~LL SoTo, CIqA~I~ A TTACHMENT B STAFF SIEGLINDE JOHNSON PRiNCiPAL CONSULTANT ANDREW J. HOAG ASSOCIATE CONSULTANT KATARINA MALY COMMI~rEt~ SECRETARY February 13, 2007 Susan Leal, General Manager San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 1155 Market Street, 11-GM San Francisco, CA 94103 Arthur Jensen, General Manager Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency i55 Bovet Road, Suite 302 San Mateo, CA 94402 Dear Ms. Leal and Mr. Jensen: In 2002, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1823, which requires the City and County of San Francisco to upgrade the Hetch Hetchy regional water system to prevent prolonged intelruptions in water delivery services in the event of a catastrophic earthquake. The following year the agencies that depend on San Francisco’s regional water system chose to form the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) to exercise its authorities on their behalf. Given the state’s concern for the health, safety and economic strength of the people and areas served by San Francisco and the BAWSCA agencies, it is important the Legislature monitor the implementation of the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP). To ensure legislative oversight of the project, AB 1823 requires San Francisco to submit various reports to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC), Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC) and State Department of Health Services (DHS). Specifically, the Water Code requires the following: Section 73502(c) requires annual reports to JLAC, CSSC and DHS describing the progress made on the implementation during the previous fiscal year. Section 73502(d)(3) requires changes to the capital improvement program to be reported to the CSSC and DHS. CSSC & DHS are then required, within 90 days, to submit written comments on the public health and safety impact of the changes to JLAC. Section 73504 requires annual reports to be submitted to DHS and the Legislature describing the progress made on securing supplemental water supplies during dry years. Printed on Recycled Paper SFPuc & BAWSCA Reporting Compliance Letter February 13, 2007 Page Two The most recent San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) mandated reports received by JLAC include the January 2006 Notice of Changes to the Water System Improvement Report and the September 2006 Annual Progress Report on the Implementation of the Water System Improvement Program. As required by law, JLAC has received the Seismic Safety Commission’s and Department of Health Services’ review of the SFPUC’s March 2006 Notice of Changes to the Water System Improvement Report. Copies of this letter and the reports will be forwarded to the relevant policy committees and legislators whose constituents are in the BAWSCA service area for their review. The reports are attached and I strongly urge you to pay close attention to and consider the agencies’ observations, conclusions and recommendations as they could further protect the residents, public agencies and economy of the Bay Area. I believe the SFPUC should promptly address the recommendations in both reports that relate to the work on the regional water system. To provide even greater protection of the health, .safety and economic well being for the people and institutions that depend on the Hetch Hetchy regional water system, the SFPUC and BAWSCA members are also urged to address the CSSC’s recommendations related to their retail water systems. I would like to trust that your respective agencies will fol!ow through with these thoughtful recommendations. The Committee may call on your agencies at some future time to demonstrate what progress has been made. Your prompt attention to this issue is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me or JLAC staff, Missy Johnson, at 916/319-3300.. Sincerely, NELL SOTO Chair NS: mj Cc:Members, Members, Members, Members, Members, Members, Members, JointLegislative Audit Committee Senate Local Government Committee Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee Assembly Local Government Committee Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee Bay Area Legislative Delegation