of the san francisco public works commission. today is monday, april 22nd, 2024. our meeting began at 9:03 a.m. secretary fowler, please call the roll. good morning. please respond with hear or present. lynn newhouse, seagull and commissioner seagull is absent today. warren post here. chair. post is present. gerald turner, commissioner turner is present. paul wolford, present. commissioner wolford is present. fatty zarb present. vice chair zarb is present. and with four members present, we do have quorum for the public works commission. public comment is taken for all informational and action items on today's agenda to comment in person, please

line up against the wall near the screen. the audience is left when the public comment is called, and for members of the public wishing to comment on an item from outside the hearing room, you may do so by joining the joining via webinar through the link shown on page two of today's agenda, and to be recognized, select the raise your hand icon on the in the webinar. you may also comment from outside the chamber by dialing 14156550001 and use today's meeting id of (266) 355-1985 8 pound pound. and then to raise your hand to speak, press star three and the telephone login information is also available on both pages one and two of today's agenda. commenters may speak for up to three minutes per item, and you'll receive a 32nd notice when you're speaking. time is

about to expire. in the event that we have many commenters on an item, the chair may reduce public comment time to less than three minutes per person. unless you are speaking under general public comment, please note that you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed, and if commenters do not stay on topic, the chair may interrupt and ask you to limit your comments to the agenda item at hand. we ask that public comment be made in a civil and respectful manner, and that you refrain from the use of profanity. abusive or hate speech will not be tolerated, please address your remarks to the commission as a whole, not to individual commissioners or staff and public comment, the public is always welcome to submit comments in writing via our email address, public works dot commission at. sfdp.org or by mail to 49 south van ness avenue, suite 1600, san francisco, california 94 103.

and on behalf of the commission, we extend our thanks to sfgovtv building management and media services staff for helping make this meeting possible. chair post, thank you. before calling the next item, are there any requests from the commission to amend the order of today's agenda? hearing no requests. we will move on then to the next item, which is announcements by chair, commissioners and secretary. i do have several announcements which include questions for director, short. there was a recent press report that described legislation introduced at the board of supervisors that would increase enforcement against illegal sidewalk vending in more neighborhoods than the mission and un plaza. the article noted that this bill would, quote, allow public works to change its enforcement policies without commission approval to give the department more flexibility in responding to the crisis, unquote. director short, is that

statement regarding this legislation true? and if so, what does it mean? also, what are some examples of enforcement policies that public works may want to change to better address problematic street vending? good morning, commissioners carla short, thank you, chair post for those questions. so i think it it's broadly true. although i would i would note that what it allows us is to change our regulations without seeking commission approval. so as you recall, this commission approved a number of regulations changes to our regulations that allowed us to better manage when our, people were allowed to create sidewalk vending plots. so essentially, this legislation allows us to make changes like those types of changes in the regulation to better manage what's happening. so, for example, the ordinance authorizes the department to establish a number of regulations, including such

things as standards for approving permits, additional requirements regulating the time, place and manner. so those are the recent amendments that you all approved, requirements to maintain sanitary conditions. so the department doesn't currently have any changes that we are waiting to implement based on this legislation. but because the commission recently approved the changes that we thought we needed, so i don't have a specific example in mind to share with you, but i was trying to think of something. and, one example would be, you know, we have the requirements to maintain sanitary conditions as a type of regulation. so if we felt like in order to better maintain, sanitary conditions and reduce litter, we wanted to require permit fees to have a trash receptacle next to their plot. this ordinance would allow us to make that change without having to come back to the commission for permission. so it while it relates to the

enforcement, because it allows us to change the regulations. it's not specifically about enforcement changes. thank you. and do you feel that the, regulations that we did approve, as you reminded us, are sufficient for expanding the program to other neighborhoods than besides the mission and un plaza? i mean, i realize if it hasn't happened yet, maybe you can't say, but are you hopeful that exists, that you'll be able to do your existing work in new neighborhoods under the existing regulations? so the, there's no prohibition around other neighborhoods at this point in time. so it's really where the permits seek to, to have permits for vending. and there are some permits in other places, plaza, just a reminder, is excluded from vending. so that is an exclusionary zone that was in the original legislation, but i think that we may see additional requests for permits in other

places. i think we've already seen some additional requests for permits. i will note that this legislation also prohibits, vending in in specifically zoned residential areas. so that is another change in the proposed legislation. thank you. also in the news was legislation crafted by the mayor to allow group purchasing for construction goods and services when renovating or constructing small public facilities and projects under $5 million. the goal would be for participating city departments to realize cost savings from the type of bulk ordering currently used for equipment and vehicles, was public works consulted when this legislation was being drafted, and if passed, do you think it would indeed save the department and thus taxpayers money, public works was made aware of the legislation prior to the mayor's

announcement, and we consulted with our contract staff as well as our city attorney, and, and so we did have the opportunity to provide some feedback, i think the goal is to, well, i'll just note that existing law allows departments to work together and with other cities to get group discounts when purchasing goods, such as vehicles and equipment. and this proposed legislation would then extend that capability to include construction. and as you noted, it's for small, relatively. they still sound like big numbers to many of us, but relatively small projects. so i don't know whether this will save us money. that certainly the goal, but i think we'll just have to see how it how it goes when we implement to see whether it's successful. good. thank you. and finally, further in the news was a follow up article to the tragic death of an employee of a public works contractor working on a city

sewer project. the death was mentioned in relation to the contractor being cited and fined by cal osha for not providing a safe means of escape from deep trenches under construction. apparently, the contractor had been warned to provide proper safety measures, but failed to comply with that warning. my question is for construction projects overseen by public works. what is the department's role and responsibility for ensuring contractors provide proper worker safety throughout the duration of construction activity? thank you. chair. post so primarily our our role as construction managers is to ensure that our contractors have a safety plan in place and then additionally, if we are on scene, we look for any potential safety violations and we will stop work until the hazard has been abated, just a little bit more information about this. the in the earlier inspection, cal osha had told darcy and hardie

construction that a trench excavation did not have adequate shoring and did not have a ladder or other means for workers to escape in case of collapse. those hazards at the site were abated before work was able to continue. in that case, and public works was serving as a construction manager on that project as well also a puc project. and we required to have darcy and hardie have a certified construction professional on site during the work hours. going forward. so the project where the fatality occurred had been paused, but has started back up with the all of the excavation work scope removed and only paving and bulb out construction and other surface level work is currently allowed, there is an effort to have a third party safety monitor on site for these types of projects, where there's a concern like this. okay. i guess

i was a little confused by that answer. i realize we're apparently we're not on site every day if we're managing a project, that's why we hire contractors. it's not feasible that we have someone there to sitting there watching. i understand that, so but this was a case where the safety measures were removed prior to when they should have been. no. in this case, i think those safety measures, while they had been well, cal osha had recommended those identified that similar problem and recommended those safety measures at the other location. it's not clear that those safety measures, if they were ever in place at this location, i see. thank you for clarifying that. but yes, you're right that we're not on site. our construction managers often rotate between a number of projects, and so we're not on site all day, every day, right? which i would of course support and appreciate. all right. thank you that those conclude my announcements and my questions is, if there are no further comments, commissioner zombie,

good morning, by the way. happy public works week and happy earth day to everyone. so my follow up question on on that. so what what happens to the contract. so to the project in this case. so now that they're not allowed to do the work because of osha violations, do we would would public works seek different contractor to move forward with the project or we just hold the project and expect an extension? there are a number of potential outcomes. so we are working on behalf of the public utilities commission for this project. so we're working with them on how they would like us to proceed on this project. one possibility is that, again, if we bring in a monitor, third party monitor, that that would be on site every all day, every day that the contractor would bear the cost of then

potentially the work could continue. and another alternative would be to, remove certain scope from the project and, and complete the rest of the project and then a third possibility would be to potentially seek another contractor to do the work. so, i think we're still in the process of confirming what how we're going to move forward in this case. but as i said, we're working with our client department, the public utilities commission, to make those decisions. and would the removal of that scope have a time limit? so let's say they were supposed to replace pipes and that scope is gone now we're doing the bulb outs and the sidewalk, but then they're going to have to dig it again. is there a moratorium on on that kind of action if we do decide to take the scope out? generally, the if the scope is removed, it wouldn't affect the moratorium requirements. so if it would fall under moratorium requirements, that would still be the case. they would only remove the scope if they felt

like that scope could be removed without, you know, completely upending the purpose of the contract. so i think the discussion is, is whether it makes sense to remove the scope or to try to find a way to move forward, including that scope. but currently the idea was to get the contractor moving on. what they could, what the what the city as a whole felt they could continue to work on. so that's the surface level work. thank you. please open this item to public comment. oh. excuse me, urine or urine? i think you should ask if any of my colleagues have any announcements. no. and excuse me, secretary, for your announcements. no, no. no problem. i actually do not have any announcements this morning. all right, then please open this item to public comment. okay members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment on item one, the announcements by the chair, commissioners and secretary may line up against the wall furthest from the door. if you're commenting from outside the chamber, please press the raise your hand button

in the webinar or star three on your phone to be recognized. and we do not have any in-person commenters who have come forward, and sfgovtv is indicating we do not have any callers. so that ends public comment. thank you. please call the next item. item two is the director's report and communications and public works director, carla shaw is here to present. and this is an informational item. all right. good morning again. commissioners carla short, public works director. happy earth day and happy public work week. public works week to you all, i have just a few additional items to bring to your attention today, so today marks the start of public works week 2024, and we have a lot going on. open houses, project tours, our annual employee recognition awards, and years of

service pin ceremony. we give out pins for every five years of city service. this year we have eight employees who will be receiving their 35 year pins. yes thank you. in all, we have 329 people on staff receiving their pins with a cumulative 3430 years of experience. to me, that is awe inspiring and impressive. public works week is an annual event where we celebrate our employees for the work they perform 365 days a year. actually it's leap year, so make that 366 days. it also provides us an opportunity to showcase our services and projects to the broader public, including the more than 400 young people who will be attending our hands on open houses. our public works team is looking forward to all this work this week has to offer. next up, i have some additional exciting news to share. it's hard to top

public works week. three of our great projects are being honored with awards from the international partnering institute. both our harrison street improvement project team and our soma street tree nursery site improvements team won a john l martin partnered project of the year award. the john l martin partnered project of the year award recognizes teams that distinguish themselves by implementing ipi's best practices and fostering high trust and collaborative relationships on their projects and our 19th avenue combined city project team won a 2024 ip honorable mention. we also learned this week that the american institute of architects san francisco chapter gave our bureau of architecture and architecture commendation honor for the design work that we did on the southeast community center. i want to give a big congratulations to the teams that worked on all four projects. the recognitions are well deserved. i'm also happy to

report that last week, the office of economic and workforce development issued its annual local hire report and among all city departments, public works reported the highest local higher percentages on projects covered by the city's local hire policy, with 47% of the total hours and 74% of apprentice hours performed on our projects by local residents. that's out of a total of 542,171 hours of work. rec and park and the san francisco public utilities commission were close behind in local hire hours, but all other departments lagged further behind in apprentice hours. the local hire policy applies to all contracts for public work or improvement projects in excess of 600,000. it mandates that at least 30% of all project hours within each trade be performed by local residents, and that at least 50% of the project work hours performed by apprentices within each trade be performed

by local residents. we had a large variety of contracts that fed into our numbers among them roadway paving, sidewalk repairs, street tree planting, a branch library renovation, and general hospital projects. we take pride in giving local residents opportunities to work on the city projects we work on. and if you're interested, you can learn more about the policy and see the full report at sf gov sf.gov/information/local hire construction. all right. icu's creek bridge as you may know, we have three drawbridges in our portfolio, including the icu's creek bridge that serves as a segment of third street connecting the dogpatch and bayview neighborhoods. last week, a section of the deck became damaged, and our bureau of building and street repair crews secured the lane to avoid vehicles getting tire damage removed. the damaged portion, and added a section of plate to repair the damaged area of the deck. the work was completed in less than three days. while a

lane closure was necessary. the traffic disruptions were minimal. our operations team will continue to monitor the deck conditions on the bridge and alert the structural engineers if any new areas become damaged, so the team can quickly assess and repair those areas. these measures are intended to be a temporary fix until the entire span is replaced, and that's why i'm bringing this to your attention. the yslas creek bridge is nearly 75 years old and is approaching the end of its functional lifespan. the structural elements have been deteriorating over the years as it continues to age. structural deficiencies were noted several years ago in a caltrans bridge inspection report that prompted public works to pursue a rehabilitation project to address the deficiencies. as the complexity and cost of repairs became better understood through a detailed condition assessment, the project expanded into a larger project to replace the entire span currently in design. the replacement span will be a fixed concrete bridge rather than the existing steel bascule bridge. the replacement project

requires several years of environmental clearance, regulatory approvals and funding authorized by the federal highway administration before a construction contract can be awarded. the new bridge, anticipated to start construction sometime in 2026, will eliminate the need for spot repairs that we now must make. the new bridge will be built to take into account sea level rise and is expected to last generations. so appropriate to mention on earth day. as the project advances, you will be hearing more about it. and that wraps up today's report. please let me know if you have any questions. thank you and thank you for the update on eisley's creek bridge. we all thought the same thing when you mentioned that this needs to be replaced. this is why it needs to be replaced and the commission shares in your congratulations to the employees involved in the four projects that were recognized. it's great news. thank you. thank you, any questions or comments for director short? please open this item to public comment. members

of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment in person on item two, the directors report may line up against the wall furthest from the door. and if you're commenting from outside the chamber, please press the, raise your hand button in the webinar or star three on your phone to be recognized. it does look like we have one in-person commenter. and if you don't mind, stating your name and any organizational , affiliation that you have, and you'll have three minutes to speak and you'll get a 32nd chime when your time is about to expire. for sure. thank you. my name is kate bloomberg. i'm. i live in potrero hill, and i'm a member of the livable streets committee of the dogpatch neighborhood association and the potrero boosters. and i thought i was going to have to speak at public comment. but because director shaw talked about icu's creek, bridge repair, i am going to speak now. so i'm here to

talk to you about much needed mitigation, to make it safe and comfortable for people to walk and bike during the planned closure of the third street bridge over slacks creek, as i'm sure you know, illinois street is the only parallel route that goes very directly from the bay view, more or less to downtown. and it's both a bike route and a truck route. so so as a result, we bikes, the bike traffic already shares the road with a huge number of, of large trucks about 150 class seven and eight trucks an hour. so, just imagine how scary it will be with two or more times that traffic, third street has two lanes in each direction. illinois street has one lane. so you can imagine that much of that, those two lanes will end up on illinois street, i'm here to ask, dpw to

fund and support important street safety measures on illinois street, before and as a mitigation for the closure of the third street bridge. we have a plan. the neighbors for a bidirectional parking protected bike path on the east side of illinois street, which would take the bikes completely out of the way of cars and trucks. it would not reduce the lanes. it would not reduce the parking. it has widespread support from the community and also from the businesses along the corridor, in addition to the bike lane, which would make the street safer for all users. i believe that the illinois street bridge over slacks creek also needs much needed improvements to make it safe, for bikes and pedestrian traffic, in increased

numbers during this closure. this could include repairs and modifications to the existing bridge structure for traffic signals to make it safer for bike traffic. or better yet, dpw could fund a standalone bike and pedestrian bridge on the east side of the existing illinois street bridge, to continue the separated pathway to the south of icu's creek. we have a plan safer dash illinois .org, you can read all about it. and i'm happy to talk more with with folks about it. thank you. thank you. and we do not have any other in person commenters. and sfgovtv is indicating we have no further public commenters on the phone either. thank you, the speaker reminded me of another question i had for director

short and also, i presume, of course, director short, that given the speaker's comments that as we work with, would it be sfmta on this project that of course the community will be consulted and the, the speaker and her colleagues will be a part of whatever community process goes with this type of project? yes. thank you chair post. yeah, we are working closely with the sfmta on how we're going to mitigate the bridge closure and provide for all the forms of transit that we need to. and as noted, we have a couple of years before we go into construction. so we've been working really collaboratively with them to try to identify those areas. it's, so we will be presenting some of those options. great. and and if we could just make sure that community groups such as the speakers are of course, spoken with not reliant sfmta to do that. maybe, but we can be part of that too. thank you. and then, speaking of safety, i just

we did have a speaker at our last meeting regarding vision zero, and he had asked us to be mindful of that and try to work with other city departments, particularly the clients that we build projects for in incorporating vision zero goals. and i, i just my follow up was just i do think it's an opportunity for us to be proactive and not wait to be asked. and since we do get involved with clients very early in the process, it's always best, of course, to early on start making suggestions on vision zero goals and not at the 11th hour when it may be too late to implement a change to the construction plan. so do you think there's potential then, to be to be again, more proactive with our clients when they come to us for project management? thank you, chair post. and i intended to include this in my report, so apologies that i failed to, yes, i think we are proactive already, we, we are a signatory to vision zero, although we did not have a commission, so we did not have a

resolution at the time, so i think we, we take an active role in advancing our vision zero goals, for example, at our meeting earlier this month, i let you know about our partnership with the sfmta to install new crosswalk safety beacons at the intersection of duncan and diamond heights boulevard in diamond heights. those flashing beacons, which are also being installed at other locations, are specific to the city's vision zero program. i do want to kind of note that the vision zero initiative has four main elements education, engineering, enforcement, and evaluation, all of which are more completely described at vision zero. asphaug and i feel like we often focus on just one of those four elements, which is the engineering component. so i think i want to encourage everyone to continue to focus on all four components. the sfmta is the lead agency and they provide public works with project goals and objectives, as

well as funding as projects are selected, often based on the most urgent needs, which are identified through analysis of data on the city's high injury network. public works provides project management, design services, construction management and grant administration to these projects in order to help deliver as many high quality projects as possible, we are committed to advancing vision zero objectives throughout the city, and we recognize the importance of integrating safety measures into capital project planning from the outset. so we do do this. we actively engage with our city clients early in the planning process to identify opportunities for enhancing pedestrian and cyclist safety, reducing traffic fatalities, and creating more inclusive streetscapes. our approach involves collaborating closely with city agencies to incorporate vision zero procedures into planning, budgeting and project execution, and by proactively integrating these principles, we aim to foster a culture of safety across all aspects of urban

infrastructure development. at public works, we believe in taking the lead in championing vision zero initiatives and rather than waiting to be asked, we seek opportunities to collaborate with other city agencies. as we search for grants, we share best practices and offer guidance on incorporating safety measures into their projects, so we are committed to playing a proactive role in advancing vision zero goals, and we're dedicated to working collaboratively with our city partners and taking the lead in integrating safety procedures into capital project planning and execution. thank you for that. very helpful and comprehensive answer about the department's efforts toward the vision zero goals. i personally think the vision zero goal is unrealistic and should never have been established, because it will never be possible to have zero pedestrian fatalities a year in a big city. however, certainly reducing the number of pedestrian fatalities is always laudable, and we should keep working toward that. but not set us not feel we failed. if we don't ever have a zero fatality

rate. so thank you for that answer. secretary, please call the next item. item three is general public comment, which is for topics under the commission's mandate but not related to a specific item on today's agenda. and members of the public who wish to make three minutes of general public comment in person may line up against the wall furthest from the door. and if you're commenting from outside the chamber, please press the raise your hand button in the webinar or press star three on your phone to be recognized. and we. it appears we do not have any in-person commenters at this time. and sfgovtv is also indicating we do not have any, any, commenters on general public comment from outside the room either. so that concludes the, public comment. thank you.

please call the next item item four is the consent calendar of routine matters includes the draft minutes from the april 8th, 2024 meeting of the public works commission, as well as two contract modifications and one contract award. and please note that corrections for clarity have made been made in the draft minutes, and these corrections are reflected in the documents posted on the commission's website, the consent calendar items can be heard individually upon request by a commissioner, staff or the public, and adoption of the consent calendar and all resolutions contained in it is an action item before a motion is made. i'm happy to take any corrections to the minutes or questions. are there any questions on items on today's consent calendar? not seeing any? do i hear a motion and a second to approve all items on the consent agenda, including all resolutions included, included as part of an item. so moved wolford. second,

thank you, secretary fuller. please open public comment on the motion. members of the public wish to make three minutes of comment in person on the motion to approve item four, the consent calendar and all resolutions and resolutions contained in it may line up against the wall for this from the door. and if you are commenting from outside outside the chamber, press the raise your hand button in the webinar or star three on your phone to be recognized and. and no one has approached, to speak on this item, and no one has expressed interest in speaking on it from outside the room either. so that concludes public comment. thank you. if there's no debate on this motion, all in favor of adopting the consent agenda, please say yes or i. i i, i believe the vote is unanimous, secretary fuller will publish the adopted

minutes and our resolutions to the commission's website. thank you very much. please call the next item. moving to the regular calendar. item five is the golden gate avenue and laguna street pavement renovation and sewer replacement contract modification and project manager, raymond kang will present this, contract award or, pardon me, this contract modification, this is an action item. thank you. rob, good morning, commissioners. good morning, director short, happy public works week and happy earth day, my name is ramon kong, and i'm the project manager with the paving program here at public works, we're here today. let me see. let me move, the next slide.

okay. is this one right? oh, yeah. that maximize it too. yeah. okay, great. thank you, so we're here today. you know, for administrative documentation to close out this contract, by seeking your approval, for a contract modification to increase the duration of the contract by 130 days for the golden gate avenue and laguna street pavement renovation and sewer replacement contract, this contract was awarded to, michael o'shaughnessy construction in the amount. of $7,122,075.54, with a duration of 305 days, the reason for this request is because additional time was required to account for delays for the material suppliers for the sewer work, and also for the, auxiliary water supply

system, you know, fire hydrant work, also for, unforeseen hard rock subsurface surface condition, discovered during the excavation for the installation of the sewer pipes and also the discovery of active existing utilities, conflict with sewer work, the location of the paving and sewer work was done on district two and five, in the neighborhoods of hayes valley, lower pacific heights, western addition and civic center. this contract has 37 blocks and 18 intersections paved with new pavement, 29 new curb ramps were constructed, meeting ada compliance and 14 blocks of sewer work was joined from puc, and this has been completed as well. the project started on may 16th and 2022, with a duration of 305 days and a contract

duration contingency of 31 days, as of now, the project is 100% fully completed and as mentioned earlier. now, upon your approval for this contract modification to increase the contract duration by 130 days, we will fulfill administration documentation and move forward to close out this contract. as this, this contract was joined with puc sewer work and in previous slides shown, the reason for the contract duration increase was due to material supplier delays of the sewer pipes. and as you know, fire hydrant component. that's, also for unforeseen hard rock conditions, you know, some location for the installation of the sewer pipes and also unforeseen conflict with existing activities, or active utility facilities crossing, installation of the sewer pipes near the geary boulevard and laguna honda intersection, on

this slide. i'm sorry, we see the contract duration and the original contract duration with the required time extension to complete the to complete the project. so to recap, you know, we're here today for, administrative documentation to close out this contract by seeking your approval for a modification to increase the contract duration contingency by 130 days for the golden gate avenue and laguna street pavement renovation and sewer replacement contract, that's basically conclude my presentation, and i'm available to answer any questions that you may have. thanks for listening. thank you. mr. it's nice to see you again. thank you. are there any questions or comments for mr. kong on this contract modification, commissioner zombie, quick question. good morning. good to see you again. good morning, so what will happen within the next 130? so it looks like there was an extension, an contingency extension of 31, which got us to

like almost, almost the end of this month, so and the project is, is over. so what happens in the 130 days? well, those were the time required by the contractor to complete the job, of the 130 days, the delay attributed to the material delay was about 63 days. delays, you know, pertaining to, the excavation, you know, the material unsuitable, or hard rock condition was about 33 days and about 22 days, you know, for, for, for the 30 lake, which was related, to, my recall. and, so the project is not done yet. the job is completed and the contractor basically, didn't claim any compensation, so, you know, it was their responsibility, you know, as far as the, the time, you know, for the procurement of the, of the

material, as far as, you know, as the unforeseen unsuitable material, you know, they were they were compensated for that because that was basically unforeseen condition. got it. i'm a little bit confused, but the project. so it's completed, the project is over, and we're going to extend it to 130 days from today, right, from the day that was supposed to be completed, march. yeah, yeah. so. thank you. no, no. it's okay. thank you. yeah. no, i'm here today, requesting the motion to, to do the administrative closure of this. but the project has been completed, and this is basically a process that we have to go through, even though the project has been completed, mr. walford. you answered my question. i was wondering if they were requesting additional compensation, but you said they're not, so i have no further questions. thank you. if there are no further questions,

is there a motion and a second to approve this contract modification? i'll move to approve it second. all right, please open the motion to public comment. thank you. members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment in person on the motion to approve item five, the golden gate avenue and laguna street pavement renovation and sewer replacement contract modification may line up against the wall furthest from the door. and if you're commenting from outside the chamber, please press the raise your hand button in the webinar or star three on your phone to be recognized. and no one has approached to speak on this item. and we do not have any callers on it either. so that concludes public comment. thank you. if there are no further comments or questions all in favor of modifying the

contract for the golden gate avenue and laguna street pavement renovation and sewer replacement, please say aye or yes i. the motion passes unanimously and secretary fuller will post the resolution to our website. thank you again, mr. kong, for your presentation. secretary fuller, please call the next item on the agenda. item six is the revised contract approval delegation policy. and, to provide some context, recently, commissioners requested revisions to the commissions contract delegation policy. given the need to hear frequently, items such as the last one administered cleanup items and this policy, the that currently exists was originally approved when the commission first began meeting, back in, in september of 2022. and it governs which contracts can be approved by the director of public works, which must be heard by the commission. and which of those, that must be heard, can be on the consent

calendar and department staff and the city attorney's office formulated the following revisions to the policy in response to requests from the commission and manager of contract administration, alexander burns will present this item. and it is an action item. good morning, commissioners, alex burns, manager of contract administration and public works. i'm happy to be here again and see you today. we're putting forward a revised policy for contract approval, delegation. when the commission was first implemented under the original prop b, the charter section read as approve all contracts proposed to be entered into by the public, by public works provided the commission may delegate this responsibility to the director or director's

designee, since that occurred, there has been a revised prop b issued with the new language stating. public works commission exercised all powers and duties of boards and commissions. so, per the revised prop b, they're moving forward to have the public works commission follow in suit with other commissions within the city. so what we're going to recommend is a revised approval of the revised contract delegation policy, incorporating thresholds for contract awards and modifications based on contract type and size. the goal of this new policy, one is going to be to provide meaningful oversight, there's a goal for the commission. i understand, to not just be a contract approval machine. so we're hoping that the revised policy allows the commission, more, more time to exercise its other duties as and time to devote to its other functionality is, the second

goal is to ensure departmental operations continue efficiently and, finally, as i said before, provide sufficient time in commission meetings for non contract items. so in the next few slides i'm just going to have it state exactly how it read originally and what the proposed revised legislation policy would be originally for a variety of contracts, including grants and general services, the commission approved cumulative increases of 10% or more of the contract time duration for construction. the commission approved approved cumulative increases and decreases in increments of 10, and for chapter six professional services, any increase or decrease of contract terms. so the revised policy, if you read through it essentially no longer the commission would no longer approve, increase and decrease in time only amendments. so what

this does kind of quickly is removes duration as a trigger for commission approval, i ramone, had just come up with an item that was fall similar to this scenario, oftentimes at the end of projects, there is a lot of administrative cleanup. and those items would no longer need to be approved by the commission, but delegated to the department head to look at how this would affect your, commission workload. based on 2023 information, this is about 14% of the total items approved. so it reduced the contract approvals that come through your office through this commission by around 14. so i just want to note as we move on, that is the only change to the actual approval section of the delegation policy. all other changes moving forward will be in regards to the commission calendar of regular versus consent. so one change for

commission calendar items is currently professional services and grant awards qualify for consent when they're in between the minimum competitive amount in 1 million. we would revise this to professional service and grant awards. qualify for consent when they're between the minimum competitive amount and 2 million, what this does essentially is increase the threshold from 1 to 2 million for these specific types of contracts of professional services and grants, a reminder, any item on consent can be pulled to regular. and i'm looking through that has happened in the past. so in regards to these items being put on consent, any desire of the commission to pull them to regular, obviously stays the same. so based on the data from 2023, this would be about 15 ish items and it would move, maybe

around 12% of items from regular to consent, those would be contracts for professional services or grants that were awarded that were between 1 and 2 million. so finally, bear with me. this one's a little wordy, but i just wanted to have it written exactly how it reads now versus how it will read on the revised policy, the first item, professional services and grants . it reads the same as i had previously stated, with the 1 million on consent and all other contracts which most commonly include construction, the commission shall hear contract approvals and amendments to these contracts when on consent. if they're below 5 million, what we're proposing to change here is for professional services and grants and all other contracts, if they meet that threshold to go on the regular agenda, there will be a they will be heard on

consent if the amendment to them is revising them by 20% or less. so based on 2023, this was about eight contracts. so it would bring about, 9% of amendments through from regular to consent. so in closing, just want to, kind of highlight, you know, the commission's been approached, is approaching its two year, two year mark and i think when these this contract delegation policy was first issued, there was the idea that it would change into long terme. the main goal of revising the delegation policy is to allow the commission to devote its time to some of the other functionality issues and, create time so that it doesn't seem like the contract approvals

are a time suck for the commission. so if there's any questions, i'll take them. thank you. thank you, mr. burns. it's always nice to see you. i do have some questions, if you could put slide three back up, that'd be great. and i would add, it's not just to save us time, it's to save the staff time for more formal presentations. that's an important consideration, given that the commission is always cognizant of, i'm a little confused about us giving up, comma cents on the contract terms. how will we know if a project gets delayed, say, a year? if director short approves that year extension and we never see it? so i think that's a good, item. and i believe the department was committed to issuing bi annual twice a year reports on items that would have gone to the commission under the

previous delegation policy. so you can see the approved items that had been approved by the director that would previously have been approved by the commission, and i think that could perhaps inform you for the future if there is, how the delegation policy is working out , maybe i just think when we have, when projects come to us and they're delayed, we often ask good questions about why is this delayed. and i think it's important for the public to understand that we are very mindful of project delays and for to hear about it after the fact. i'm not crazy about. i'd like to know what my colleagues think about this. i think i obviously don't want us to get lost in the weeds, and i'm all in favor of increasing our threshold amounts. that's fine. and of course, moving things to consent is fine. we could always pull them off. we have a question. it's not a big deal, but not seeing when a project's

been delayed materially until after the fact, we could, you know, pitch a fit. but that would that would be a waste of time. so anyway, my colleagues have any or if you want to respond further, my colleagues have a thought on this. are you okay with it? no, i would agree with with the, chair post. we can, you know, we've been learning a lot commission. we've been learning a lot about how public works works, but we can't assume that the public knows these things. the public understands what we learned. it took us a year, maybe less or two years to learn, we here are, you know, on behalf of the of the residents and public in san francisco and i and i do believe that delays need to be explained as, as they go, just just for like those who are asking questions about, for example, taylor street project that's being delayed, we know why we

had a presentation, why it's being delayed, and we saw photos of basements being flooded and stuff like that. that's that's what i like. and that's, that's that's how it's i mean, i feel that it should look, i'm not sure how how we can move forward with that. commissioner wolford, you had a comment, explanation, but just a couple of questions around this. so as i understood it, alex, what you were saying is, is it doesn't come in front of us. if it's only a duration issue, if it becomes a contractual financial issue, then it would come back in front of us. so it's really a time matter. similar to what, mr. kong just presented. and i have to say, i'm comfortable with that because it's not actually a financial thing. it's really it's really a matter that doesn't impact the finances. so if it does impact finances, it still would come up before us in a, in a typical way. is that correct, correct. commissioner any change in amount is has not

been revised. so it's time only changes time only modifications that the commission would no longer approve. yeah, almost any construction project has got unforeseen things, it's really material to, i believe, us in the public is when it's financial because that's that impacts the city budget. so i would like to hear from director schwartz and i just want to comment on that. i don't agree. i think it's material when projects get delayed. as commissioner zarb was saying, if especially if it's your neighborhood, i think it's really important. so, commissioner shaw or. excuse me, do you want to comment? i want to call on commissioners first, and then i know director short has a comment, and deputy director robertson has stepped up and i can i imagine everyone's about to do the same thing. i just wanted to echo, commissioner wolford's kind of understanding and interpretation, but also it is being mindful. it is delegation of authority. and so there are

two things happening at the same time. but i am mindful and trying to think about how do we keep the business of going. also, how do we be mindful of our kind of governance and our authority and our time, this seemingly is something, just as we've just seen, just really about contract time, not necessarily delegating our authority that could have a fiduciary impact, i think that's i think that's correct. director short, thank you. so, yes, commissioner wolford and commissioner turner highlighted kind of the points that i wanted to make. i think, as you noted, and we are grateful for chair post, it does take a lot of staff time. and, energy to prepare for coming to the commission. and i think we had a perfect example with, ramon kong's project where the this is a time only and it's really to allow for project closeout. most

i think most projects that have significant delays, i if there are significant delays, they would most likely end up coming before you because there would be a financial component to it. so i think when we have time delays, only they're much more sort of routine, unforeseen, but not completely unexpected and causes for time only delays. so this again, anything that has a financial impact would still come before the commission. i know you understand that, but i think the, we would be happy. i would be happy to provide updates on projects that have these time only delays, yes. people feel time delays also in their neighborhood needs. understood, we do provide lots of construction outreach to people in those neighborhoods. expect and feeling those impacts so they a lot of the public, if they are directly impacted, they

will be getting updates from our construction outreach team. so i do feel like it would save us staff time in preparation for the commission to allow this, this delegated authority to move forward and to try to address your concerns and be very transparent about it. we would be, you know, happy to provide those regular reports on this. but obviously, you know, the commission needs to feel comfortable. thank you. thank you. i do appreciate your comments and, the item today, mr. kong's presentation, when it's just administrative cleanup, of course, that does not happen. that could be revised. i'm not talking about closeout periods, which often is when a contract duration needs to be modified. i'm talking about a project stops. it's delayed. we don't know about it. you do tons of community outreach. that's very nice. i feel our obligation is to keep track of scope, budget and schedule. and you're saying, don't worry, you'll have the budget, presumably the scope that goes with budget. but i'm

just very reluctant to give up monitoring schedule. perhaps there's a compromise where we can work out what you were implying that on projects over a certain dollar amount, you are obligated to let us know if the schedule slips more than pick a time where we're concerned. the schedule slips a month, six months, a year, whatever. we can decide what we think is important. that would make me feel better, if we are going to give up knowing when there's a significant project delay again, not the closeout, not the cleanup, but but when it's really going to affect the project being completed. deputy director robertson, did you want to, commissioner. thank you. deputy director bruce robinson for public works. i think i would clarify it in two ways. i think i would say delay versus duration and the item we heard earlier was a perfect example. the project was 100% complete. so there is no delay in the project. there is an extension of duration of the contract to

do the administrative paperwork and close out the contract. and almost all of these. that's what you see. so it really is the project schedule for the delivery of the project is an impacted. and if there is a scheduled delay, there's always and commissioner wolford can speak to this. there's a dollar component associated with it. so all of these are usually just not a delay in the project. it's just a duration extension for administrative paperwork is really what these almost all are. you're confident that every time there'd be a material delay, it'll be a dollar cost associated with it and we'll see it, yes. and i think it's fair to ask, director short to just make a part of her report to inform us as to what's, you know, notable projects in neighborhoods that are experiencing either duration, extension. but if it's a delay, there's almost always a monetary ask. and that and then it comes back in front of us. i just agree that it would be if it

saves 10% of staff time to not prepare like mr. kong just did. you know, that's i mean, it's wonderful seeing him, but i'm sure he has other things to do. no, i agree with you too, commissioner zaban. did you have any. yeah. one one more question. so how many delays happened in the past year that wouldn't that you said i think 14, how many is that? approximately 15 items in the past. and calendar year 2023, approximately. and i was just going to talk about like a compromise. would that be okay for to be part of the director's report, just like, sure. yeah, i'd be happy to just note in my director's report if just to let us know that, you know, you exercise that and. yeah, absolutely. all right. well, thank you. i'm willing to, give it a give it a try. as i said, i

think i've made my concerns known, if there are no further questions or comments on this one, i just want to thank the staff for answering my questions , about this item this past weekend. thank you. i would also say i think it's completely logical and normal that the staff comes to us with this recommendation. this is evolutionary. as a commission, you know, and to note that it's actually doesn't affect the public good. it doesn't affect the city budget. there's no real contractual change that's happening with the subcontractor or the contractor. it's really a matter of duration extension and no ask. the moment there's an ask, it comes back in front of us. and if the director is willing to just, you know, keep us attuned, especially since, you know, we do get asked by people in our neighborhoods what's going on. if there's an extension, we should be aware of it. and if the director is willing to do that, that seems like it resolves the issue without adding staff time and

saves. frankly staff time. yes, that that sounds right. thank you. is there a motion and a second to approve this? adoption? and i second, thank you, commissioners, please open the motion to public comment. members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment in person on the motion to approve item six, the revised contract approval delegation policy may line up against the wall furthest from the door. and if you're commenting from outside the chamber, please press the raise your hand button in the webinar or star three on your phone to be recognized. and we do not have any individuals who have approached in person on this item. and we do not have any callers on it either. so that concludes public comment. thank you. if there's no further

discussion or comment, all in favor of adopting the revised contract approval delegation policy, please say i or yes i. the vote is unanimous and the revised policy is adopted. thank you very much. mr. burns, for your presentation. and thank you, deputy director robertson and director short for answering our questions. secretary fowler, please call the next item. item seven is new business initiated by commissioners and this is an opportunity for commissioners to suggest business for a future agenda. and it is an informational item. thank you. is there any new business to be brought forth by any commissioner, commissioner zarb, just just a question. i noticed that, memo on political activity. is that the answer to our request to discuss this? last time we were talking about the elections and what we allowed to do and stuff. so this is the answer? yes. so the memo, in included in the agenda is

from the, the, city attorney on political activity, and that was included in the agenda and sent to commissioners in response to questions that have arisen about political activities during the election season. and i do believe that the city attorney's office also issued more recent, guidance. also, following the proposition on the march ballot about ethics. and so i'll be able to, to, send that directly to commissioners and include that in the, in the next agenda packet as well. thank you. all right. i don't hear anything else. please open this item to public comment. members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment in person on item seven, new business initiated by commissioners may line up against the wall for this from the door. and if you are commenting from outside the chamber, please press the raise your hand button in the webinar or press star three on your

phone to be recognized. and no one has approached on this item, and we do not have any callers on this item either. so that concludes public comment. thank you. and i believe we can dispense with the other item. that is correct. was the next item. so, as director schwartz mentioned and commissioner zombie, this is public works week and its activities have already started this morning. and i know our staff and commissioners are eager to get to them. so we will now adjourn. our next meeting will be monday, may 13th at 9 a.m. in this room 408. thank you very much. we are adjourned

>> conduct a field shelter exercise where we open up a number of tents that animal control has they have supplies and equipment and staff and volunteers. we simulate the need for cape ability after a disaster or

earthquake. >> animal care and control is your city's animal shelter. we care for approximately 10,000 animals a year. we are opinion for san francisco's animal in thes upon effect of an emergency. we got our tents and practicing how to deal with that. >> this is the shelter is overwhelmed with animals after a disaster this shelter is full regularly. if we torch have an event that would cause a number of animals to escape or injured or stray or separate friday their people that's where we would respond. >> pets are part of the family and need to make sure they are taken care of like people with the supplies and equip we are able to provide shelter for pets in addition to the existing shelter.

>> we have formulated a plan so this in the event of a disaster we are hear ready to help and support the city. >> we are able to use the muni bus to transport the people. animals and other equip if the shelter. >> encourage people there is an evacuation order to take your pet with you. >> very first thing everyone should do is microchip the pet. and pack a bag >> shelter cert not a place where you want your animal to end up unless the last resort and like to keep most out of the shelter when we can. >> take care of your people and your friend and family. pets need to be taken

treasure island mobility management agency committee meeting this morning at 9:00 am., tuesday, april 23, 2024. i'm chair dorsey of the committee our vice chair is vice chair mandelman apologize for the late start thank you to sfgovtv our clerk is clerk yvette lopez-jessop madam clerk, call the roll, please. >> >> yes. good morning chair dorsey present. >> vice chair mandelman present we have quorum. >> thank you, madam clerk i believe a public comment 0