transformed this again is the only one focused on improving the public realm. we have as cathy mentioned, had projects over the last few years, we're are looking at creating dog park for the residences alley ways, and arts in the cross walks, i ask for your support and renewal. thank you >> any other public comments? come on up. if you want to have a public comment come over here and line up. >> good morning supervisors shg my name is calvin may. i'm a community guy with ybcbd, this is my first time speaking -- i enjoy working with the

businesses the co-owners the property managers, and also being a -- excuse me -- a problem solver in the neighborhood, working with the police department, sfpd is also assisting folks with the traffic. it's a huge tremendous impact. i never spoke before, so i'm very happy and excited [laughter]. >> you are doing great. >> let me make it quick and simple. you heard a lot of stuff, with the community guys with the cleaning issues helping out with safety issues shg i have a small story, touching to me i had a family, stephen son, it was a pregnant couple i was able to provide them services, and get them something to eat that day these cards provides the homeless to eat for the day, and get them kokted with project connect so

they will continue to get housing. that was important to me the mother was pregnant they were able to put a kid inside an a home instead of on the streets. just wanted to tell you guys thank you for having time for me i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> good morning supervisors i'm john el berling i'm a president of the taco group, and the board of directors representing, community organization we strongly, strongly support renewal of the district. i wanted to highlight two things as mentioned, our request to the district in the renewal is to add the second police officer patrol motorcycle for us seniors in the neighborhood 2,000 of them. traffic, and pedestrian safety is the highest priority, they responded it's a substantial increase, in the

budget, a couple $1,000 a year, it's a major improvement it would be helpful to have that police officer on patrol on the motor bike in the strict. second we're continuing our community district fund at 5% of the budget, since the budget is higher the fund will be. it provides small grants $2,500 to empower smaller groups in the neighborhood. other groups have done art projects, and other betterment that say unique feature of this district, the other cbd's in town don't have that it's creative and specific element that is part of our neighborhood, please, move this

forked forward, thank you. >> any other public comments? seeing none, it is now closed. i would like to say i have seen the difference myself in regards to the area i want to thank the public tr coming out, giving your testimony in regards to the testimony you have seen. any other thoughts? supervisor christensen. >> everybody knows shg i'm a huge fan of the cbd model in the city, and certainly yerba buena has been one of the more effective, that is a part of the city that visitors, and residences see, we're grateful for the efforts those involved, and thanks for all who supported here today, you have another supporter. >> any other thoughts? seeing thought, can we have a motion to the board for recommendation. >> moved. >> okay. no objection? motion passes. congratulations.

ma'am clerk can you call item number two. >> administrative code - chapter six public work contracting and make various other changes and clarifications in chapter six. >> okay, i believe there are three speakers on this item the first will be the director of the department of public works mohammed nuru. >> good morning chair breed and supervisor yee and christensen thank you for letting us present to you proposed changes to chapter six. chapter six is the city's administrator code with the design and construction of city project. over the last year we have had a great working group with several agencies, the public works department staff from the airport, public utilities

commission mta recreation park the san francisco port authority joined with support and assistance from the city attorney's office, general service agency real estate department and the controllers office a number of recommendations were collected, over the year the group has been working very hard to make those changes. as you know, no changes have happened to chapter six in over i think ten years so this is a time when these changes, we believe are very necessary. the recommendations, have gone to the budget analysis, we're in agreement with all of the recommendations put forth, there are three policy decisions that were recommended there. those policy decisions, the threshold amount

on contracts, so so construct contracts, and cm d.c. contracts as part of the process we also involved in of the contractors, i see magil in the room today, he's representing the mte's so we feel good about the recommendations we're putting forth. and leading today a presentation will be rachel superman pr the controllers office. if i may introduce rachel. >> hello supervisors rachel from the controllers office i'm a project manager the city services auditor you have a presentation before you, is there something i need to do on the computer? >> (speaking off the mic). >> power point presentation? >> yeah there is a power point presentation. is it on here?

sorry about that. so we are here to talk about the legislation sponsored by public works as mohammed mentioned and the chapter six deports, cp, airport, the port, reck park and mta, the before you will revise the administration code, i will briefly talk overthe process to get to the ordinance that is before you talk about some of the reasons for the change and introduce edgar lopez, which is the city architecture to talk about the policieses that are before the board. as you know, chapter six, the city's rules and requirements for selecting and contracting for the design management and construction of public works contracts, the departments have general authority under chapter six are the departments that we mentioned previously, public

works, mta, airport, port and reck park, if you look at the audience raise your hands here all of the department that are here airport pc, reck park port. these are all of the people on the chapter six working group and here to support it. as mohammed mentioned it has not had a comprehensive revision since 1999, which is over 15 years ago, and over the last few years, dpd, collected what is needed to be be done on chapter six, with contract and project managers we realize there are other chapter six departments, meeting with similar issues so it's important to get consensus before we come to the board for changes, they asked the controllers office to facilitate a process, to convene a working group of the departments mentionses this working group also included the office of

contract administration, real estate and importantly the city attorney's office. the working group began meeting in june 2014 almost a year ago. we met twice a month for a couple of hours, with a bunch of sub committee meeting to go over 50 recommendations, with 34 proposed to you today the changes have key holders we presented at the lb advisory committee, meetings and liaison, committee meetings -- to make sure we had support of the community before coming here today, there is a lot of different reasons for the changes, some are to gain efficiencies, others are processes, that have come to the board for project-specific

processes to make the city a more attractive business partner, the code has not been changed over the last 15 years there is a lot of lessons, learned to update the best prakts and what we have learned along the way there is a lot of increased sophistication, it's important we keep our administration code up to indicate to meet the needs there is general clean up to the code there is changes to existing contracting methods, introducing new contracting methods and there is changes to the chapter six threshold amount instead of going over each individual change we thought we would discus -- there are policies for the board of

supervisors. there are amendments to the proposed amendments -- to amend the ordinance. the city attorney drafted an amendment you have it with you here today, we thought we would spend the rest of the time going over the policy decisions that are before the board. with that i will hand over to edgar lopez. >> good morning board members, edgar lopez with public works. as rachel mentioned, i will talk about the three policy matters that are before you. the first one is we're proposing to modernize [inaudible] process at the moment chapt ir six doesn't have a sole source provision, so we drafted one that is part of the administration code -- delivering capital projects,

sometimes we have to specify specific types of materials or specific type of equipment like working in general hospital we need to know what operating bed we will be using for the project and sole source that because the work is around specific types of equipment we find ourselves in situationses, we're updating or ren know vaeting buildings, and building systems, that have protry tear information in techology, it doesn't make us to bring in a new brand, a classic example is fire alarm systems shg we may have to renovate a space, and add sprinkle ler heads of the same type and technology without introducing any unwanted

consequences to that. the provision is drafted with several checks and balances the departments who have a commission have to seek their commission approval before moving forward with a sole source. departments like public works, where we don't have a commission we think i have covered

the items here. we're joined today by all of our colleagues, from the chapter six agencies who can answer questions if you have any specific questions. >> thank you. supervisor. breed? >> thank you, are there additional presentations? >> i'm sorry, my notes are out of order with the slides here i failed to cover one of the three point, let me go back to that. we're also proposing to change the threshold amount. chapter six at the moment has a threshold amount of $440,000 we're proposing to change that to $600,000. and two of the things that are we feel we need to highlight before you, the benefits of making this change is that it would allow us to for departments like the port

airport and public works who have a work force who does routine maintenance and improvements of capital projects having a high year threshold amount will allow us to perform more of that work, also having a higher tlermd will have the benefits we can allocate more micro lb contracts right now, there is a requirement of 50% contract, set aside for micro lbe's, having a higher threshold will give us an opportunity to set more of those contracts because we have a higher threshold. apologize i didn't cover this point, where here to answer any questions you may have. >> supervisor breed? >> okay are there any other department presentations? okay. i just have one concern colleagues i wanted to talk through this concern in terms of the recommendation made by the budget and legislative analyst.

the concern is making changed to the proposed resolution to the emergency determination that it be submitted to the board of supervisors within 60 days with the department head's emergency declaration. basically hi a concern -- or. >> i'm just realizing she gave the budget analyst. >> report? >> who has several recommendations to give us an opportunity to let us know what they are. >> okay that is fine. >> thank you. >> good morning supervisor yee supervisor christensen and supervisor breed. debra new man from the budget and legislative analyst office. as the departments are concurring with

the amendments, i will briefly touch on each one and specifically highlight the emergency amendments that we're suggesting. to start with, i would say that you probably are all familiar but i just want to set the framework to tell you, in accordance with charter 69.118, construction contracts are not subject to supervisor board approval they're the exception. when we started looking at all of these changes to chapter six, we realized there were likely to be significant fiscal impacts however they're very difficult to quantify. the one real savings we could identify, is the proposed changes departments would not longer be required to notice contracts and proposals, in the newspapers they would now be able to do

those on websites, it's certainly the way most contractors find out about the work we don't have a problem in general with that we have a specific recommendation regarding that. with that change to no longer advertise in the newspapers, we estimate to be $165,000 in savings to the city. going over each of our recommendations for the amendments the first bullet point is under the proposed changes the departments would be able to have under $10,000 threshold. no competitive solicitation requirements, that is with chapter 21 of the administrative code with concur concurrences concurrences -- we're asking that chapter one went with existing procedures read, to

add the language however, departments, are encouraged for bids and quotes from lbe's and response to the lowest bidder. the next recommendation for amendment is regarding what i just described to allow departments to only advertise on the web the current language is to read to the website of the cities, office of contract administration or the department concern. we're recommending that it be "and" so there be a wider outreach on the web. the third bullet is regarding the threshold amount. there will be more discussion about the threshold amount, but basically, if it's under the threshold informal bidding is required or is allowed. and the code

currently says it shawl be posted with three day's notice that language was going to changed to "may" we're recommendationing it stay as shall for the bidding, when it's above threshold and informal bidding is requires ten days is required. the next two bullet points have to do with the emergency procedures, the departments were originally recommending, current contracts must come to the board for approval over $250,000 the department is recommending that go up to the threshold amount but they did pull back on that recommendation so it will continue to be at the $250,000 threshold. the second area about emergency reports -- this is

supervisor breed to your question i can elaborate on it more. they do have a number of recommendations regarding emergency procedures. it is on page ten of our report. and the changes will add a provision, when department heads declared the emergency, the department head must provide a notice to the board of supervisors mayor controller, and board or commission having the jurisdiction. that is a new provision -- >> would that be inserted into the resolution. >> it's currently as proposed by the departments under 6.6. that language is what the departments were proposing. >> i don't -- that's what i think i'm confused. in the

language i don't see that, i see the -- >> it was not our additional recommendation it was the language being proposed by the city departments. >> can you specify the section and the resolution? >> yes, section 6.60 and -- let me find it -- on the top of page 79 where it says, other determinations under subsection d, described below the department is responsible declared emergency with immediate notice to the board of supervisors, the mayor,

controller and the commissioner having jurisdiction over the area effected by the emergency if any. then it goes on. the department is responsible for the execute of the repair. that is the new language they're proposing. >> great. >> in addition to that our office is recommendationing, and indicating the departments agree to add that the proposed emergency resolution, that the board needs to approve must be submitted to the board of supervisors within 60 days -- >> now why is it 60 days? >> we basically, based on some of the recent issues, that have surrounded emergency declaration, we were concerned by the time the departments were submitting these declarations six months after the declaration, not only had the

work primarily commenced it was almost over. there was no ability for the board of supervisors to reject or do anything different than approve because of how far the work had already progressed. >> so what is the change from 60 to 30 days do? >> we started with a much lower time frame for them to submit. those departments -- dpw does not have a commission, they only have to go to the mayor, but the other city departments that do have commissions i probably should let them speak for themselves but they felt those commissions that only meet once a month, if they have to bring their emergency resolutions to their commissions, they wouldn't have sufficient time to then bring it to the board and they were also concerned that they may not know the extent and the

actual total cost of the emergency until sometimes a little further along. so it was a bit of a compromise to come up with the 60 days but we felt that would, at least allow some time frame. the current ordinance does not have any time frame for submitting those emergency resolutions to the board. >> but also i notice there is no penalties we just dealt with the situation an emergency situation so where is the incentive to push departments to notify and address these issues shg appropriately? number one. number two in some cases, they may not necessarily be an emergency so with this change i think we're making changes to the checks and balances. so one of the things that i wanted to propose in section 6.60 under d is to include the approval and writing from the mayor or the

mayor's designee and the president of the board or commission concern as appropriate to the derpt, and the president of the board of supervisors i want to include that in the language in terms of approvals, because that is not included. >> deputy attorney john gibner. i don't think there would be a legal problem with requirement approvals, notice to the board is appropriate but requiring that the board president approve is probably not something we can do by ordinance. because, ultimately, the approval authority is for the full board and can be delegated to the board president. >> is there anything we can do other than noticification, obviously we're talking about an emergency i will use the fire station of treasure island, example emergency declared six months later, you know, that was

plenty of time, to come back to the board and to you know ask and go through an aappropriate process of approval. and again there is no penalties there is no anything we have in order to make sure that emergencies are being used for just that; emergencies. so i guess i'm looking for the possibility of another kind of recommendation that could be helpful with this process, that could be inserted into this ordinance. >> through the chair supervisor breed our office wrestled with this quite a bit, i had numerous conversations with city departments, specifically regarding that project on treasure island, i had discussions with the city attorney about how we could compel require city departments

to comply with the definition of what an emergency is. the definition it seems clear the problem is what dependents consider to be an emergency and what our office considered to be an emergency. there were disagreements. we couldn't come up with anything that could compel them to do this. >> so would noiification after there is notification is there a process the board can figure out yes, this is an emergency or no we don't want them to proceed. where is the opportunity to do that? >> potentially in addition to notifying the president of the board maybe it should also be the clerk of the board who would then intern notify all members of the board, that might help