it's uncomfortable. i run down that way every morning. we need those improvements. we have an opportunity to take our game to the next level. we need to be like the warriors. we need to come out like champions. maybe i can hear more from the tenants, but i don't know if we can get it done in less than 14 months, but whatever we need it do, we need to do it. the tenants just them being here today, they are giving us direction. we're commissioners, we're not down there every day. they work, live, eat, sleep down there. the guy just said, 50 some years. that's what they understand. i don't know if it should be a

plaza. we want dollars coming into san francisco and we want people to enjoy the waterfront. i will say it again, we're the second biggest attraction behind disneyland. so if we're going to be a world class port, world class city, we need to think like that. we can't be nickel and diming. let's step it up and do what we need to do. and let's get it done. i like the work that's being done. that's where i am. >> president brandon: thank you for the presentation. i think we're very fortunate that d.p.w. and the city are investing $14 million in the upgrade of fishermen's wharf. it will be beneficial for everyone. as a commission, we need to clearly understand what our investment is in this endeavor and so -- are we getting rid of parking on both sides of the

street or just one? >> both. >> right now, there is parking on both sides of the street on two blocks of the three blocks. so one side, two blocks. phase one eliminated parking on two sides for two blocks, plus a third block on one side. but that's already done. >> president brandon: so there will be no parking on the street? >> correct. which could contribute to a fuller triangle lot at other port facilities. >> president brandon: with the parking lot and the proposed plaza, if we were to turn that into a permanent plaza or even a part-time plaza, have we looked at what the lost revenue would be on that? >> we have not looked at lost revenue from that corner area yet. and we could make that assessment and look at that versus if it gets used 20 days a

year or 200 days a year in return to that. i think that decision would not have to occur at exactly the same time as your larger decisions here, but it's one -- it's port property. it's scheduled -- or it is port of this project, funded as part of this $13.8 million. the use of it, i think the commission has -- >> president brandon: i understand, but our tenants have been telling us for years that parking is vital to their business. so as losing parking, it may have a significant impact on our restaurants and our tenants. so i just want to be sure we're looking at everything before we make that decision of what we're going to do. it's hard to understand how you have a parking lot plaza. and how often it will be one or

the other. and so just being able to make an informed decision on that piece of it. >> but it is being used as a parking lot today. >> president brandon: yes. >> 20 spaces? it's about 20 spaces we're talking about. out of 165-space lot or -- >> president brandon: that's always crowded, always closed. and so we will be losing spaces if we decide to do it, but need to know what the impact is if we make that decision. i, too, would like to see the less impact to the tenants for this project as possible. what are the next steps? >> today is an informational presentation. the next steps are -- we return to the commission with a resolution as described to approve the phase two design and to authorize the executive director to enter into the

m.o.u.s with three or four different city agencies for the operation and maintenance on the streets. >> president brandon: by then, will you know what we're doing with the parking lot plaza? >> we're very interested in remaining public works schedule. if you do the math, they want to bid it and go through pre-contract requirements and then start it so they only end up impacting one summer season. we anticipate coming back at the october meeting with the resolution. the improvements to that area of the plaza, if approved, would not be affected by the decision as to how it is used. it would probably be difficult to come back with an answer to get the community input back as to the importance of that. we could come back with

estimates from the revenue, but also need to question how valuable it is to the community if we change this as a purely public space. >> president brandon: and i want to know the total impact, it could be -- >> it could be 20 spaces. we could come back with a look at that. >> and i would suggest that we need to talk to the merchants. and i want to be sure that we have discussion that includes public outreach. >> commissioner makras: how often is the flow in the

parking. 180 versus 200. how many times a day are they packed? are they using every spot and multiply it out so we can understand. if they use it every day maximizing, it tilts people for revenue, but if it's only capacity two days a week for one hour, then the impact could be gauged appropriately. >> and we do have a lot of information on the lot and we could generate that. we would like to bring the community's input on this issue before the commission as well. and that may take a little longer than just generating the options for the numbers. >> in october, if this is okay with you, dan, we would like you to move forward on your consideration of the project, so s.f. public works can move along on the schedule.

if they have a flexible design in the small area of the parking lot that can be plaza or parking, we would like to take time to study that more, work with merchants and make a proposal for how to use that space. we'll have an opportunity to make some decisions down the road. but we want ample time to not have that answer for you in october. i don't think it will be enough time to do the analysis required and it will be a changing environment as we will be eliminating the street parking. so the lot may be used differently. we will study it and work with our tenants on it. >> it might be helpful at the october meeting to tell us why the work was done.

even though i know it's flexible and don't need to make a decision to move the project forward, i would like to have a deeper understanding because i'm sure it was not d.p.w. staff and our staff that wanted this plaza/parking. so i would be interested to understand the background and how it came about. >> commissioner makras: do they do any valet parking in any way? is it pay on your own? go up to the box? every time i've been there, that's what it's been. or do they split it and sometimes they will valet? >> they do some tandem parking. we can address both points in greater detail when we come back in october. >> president brandon: thank you. >> clerk: 14a, request authorizization to award construction contract 2797r,

pier 29 utility upgrade and beltline building sewer, rerouting rebid project to cf contracting inc. for amount of $944,250 and authorize a contract contingency fund of 10% for a total of $1,038,675. >> good afternoon. i'm the senior engineer for the port to seek your approval for the award of the contract to 2797r upgrade to cf contracting incorporat incorporated. i will do part of the presentation.

pier 29 and the beltline building, the proposal of the project is to improve flexibility for pier 29 and the belt line buildings. the project at pier 29 is to expand sewer and water beyond the bulkhead area. this will make the space more valuable and easily marketable. the connectivity can be added without interrupting the

tenants. the belt line building includes recruiting of the sewer line to the city sewer on the embarcadero roadway. the existing sewer line is connected to the pump station inside of pier 29 bulkhead. it will eliminate the need for the pump station inside pier 29. as you may recall, on march 27, 2018, we presented this project before you and received your approval for add advertising this project for competitive bid. on june 19, 2018, the port

received two bids. both bids exceed the budget by 40%. the bid was rejected and decided to modify the project packaging so a project could be bid and constructed. for the outreach effort, i request tiffany tatum to provide a quick summary. >> good afternoon, president brandon and commissioners. i'm tiffany tatum, outreach coordinator for the engineering division and i will be highlighting our outreach efforts for this project. in early july, the port entered into contract for the purpose of

outreach on several projects including 2797r. over 100 emails and follow-up phone calls were made to district 10 businesses to inform of the upcoming opportunity and invite them to our town hall meeting. on august 8, engineering staff hosted a meeting to give contractors a chance to meet with the project managers and have discussions about the work. we strongly encouraged all attendees to bid. on the original due date, this contract received two bids. five bids were received, redoubling our efforts. i will turn it back over and will be available at the end of the presentation. thank you. >> thank you, tiffany.

good job. on december 4, 2018, the port received five bids as shown. because of the budget, they showed the ranking of the bidders. the bids were within 6% of each other. the bid from cf contracting was the lowest responsive and responsible bid. it shows the sub contractors for cf contracting incorporating,

with the 24% l.b.e. goal. the to ttal contract duration would be 11 months. the final completion will be in october, 2019. the contract with cf contracting incorporated in the amount of $944,250. and authorizing a contract contingency fund of 10% for a total authorization of

$1,038,675. this concludes my presentation. thank you, commissioners >> president brandon: thank you. >> vice-president adams: so moved. >> second. >> president brandon: any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner makras: i support. >> commissioner woo ho: i see there's a brief paragraph in the staff report on cf contracting, who you recommend as a panel evaluation. and the sfdpw and so just how

much of this work that we're asking them to do is the area that they've worked on before. >> this company used subcontractors more than themselves. as you can see, it's a system, 30.6% for the base bid there. they used -- you can see that they used -- >> the commissioner's question is what relative experience does

this firm have in the job that was performed for winning the contract. >> i would like to ask my project manager to come up here. >> okay. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is david wu. i was the person for staff report for advertisement by the commissioner. so i'm a mechanical engineer at the port and project engineer and manager of the project. when we received the documents from the contractors, we evaluated the requirements and

experience, etc. ch for this particular contractor, they submit more than maybe 15 references and they've done some projects with the city, including airport of san francisco and -- >> in the area of this, i mean, was it the same type of work? that's what i was trying to understand. >> most of the projects they've done basically are on zero engineering like roads -- i

mean, roadways and pavement and facilities. >> okay. so they're general contractors? >> yeah. and also some small amount of -- in the street. so the main thing is they basically supplied the plan to the subcontractor. >> do we evaluate the sub contractors? >> this contractor was working with the port for one of my really big projects. do you remember, the one on taylor street for all those restaurants, down the pier, piping replacement for the whole pier, pier 49, along taylor street. that was my big project about in

2011-2012. >> and just to clarify, we evaluate the prime contractor. but they, of course, assemble the team that has the relative expertise. so there is a lot of sub contracting work here with experience with sewer repair and we collected them on the low bid and years of experience including a lot of city projects. >> i guess what my question was -- because this is very specific work -- i'm trying to understand since it's a general contractor subbing out, which has -- and we're also very focused on our l.b.e., etc., but do we evaluate the subs, too, to know that they have the expertise we need? >> yes. >> that's what i wanted to be sure. >> to answer your question, this

subcontractor's california-specific, yeah. they are one of the sub contractors working on the taylor street. >> okay. so you know them. okay. >> commissioner makras: does the subcontractor meet the qualifications as the contractor? >> yes. and it is -- >> commissioner makras: same qualifications? >> yes. does that answer your question? >> president brandon: yes. thank you. >> commissioner gilman: all i want to say is to congratulate staff. i've only been on the commission for 5 months, but for every bid, the outreach, he just want to

say nice job. >> vice-president adams: i'm good. thank you. >> president brandon: thank you for this presentation. i just wanted to clarify. in the staff report versus the summary, you have m.b.e. on the team. is there an m.b.e. on this team? and then it says for alternative bids, will they be doing that or -- >> on the table, we show the l.b.e., which is 24%. this is for the base bid. we don't use them in the evaluation. we only evaluate 21.4%. >> but are they working on the

project? will the m.b.e. firm work on the project? >> yes. will work on both projects, because we plan to award a-1 and a-3. >> so this is an issue of the base bid and bid alternate. >> yes. >> for the c.m.d. review, they just looked at the base bid to see if the contractor was complaint with the rules of the ordinance. because we're pulling the trigger on the alternate, we have additional l.b.e. participati participation? >> correct. >> what will their participation be? >> i don't have that. i don't have the number here. at the time, we knew it would meet the code there, so the

number, we did not put in the table, so i have to look at the report one more time. >> they're not in the staff report. that's the thing. >> we'll look at the a big documents. >> to make the bid work, we took out alternative two. is that something that we need to do in the future or will we just not do that anymore? >> we'll do that in the future. at this time the port maintenance, to do that with our own labor, the budget that we've try to find from somewhere, but cheaper than using our own labor to do it. but it will be done. >> can we use our own labor to do the whole project? [laughter] >> good afternoon. i just wanted to point out the

a-3 and a-1, both had up to $119,000 -- >> i show $113,000. >> $113,000. >> i want to thank you for the outreach and the bids you got in. thank you for the hard work. all in favor? resolution 1855 has been approved. >> clerk: item 15, new business. >> president brandon: is there any new business? >> i would like to ask -- i have a request and it's a future commission meeting. today we approved mission bay landing and we know the budget for that, i think $30 million, $40 million, whatever it is. big number. i think in line with the fact that we are looking to could more water transportation and we have a lot of projects that are

hitting the waterfront going forward, i think it would be good for us to understand besides doing a full-fledged ferry landing like mission bay, what are the alternatives that we can for water taxis, what are the alternatives for a floating dock, so we know, how do you set up a network, transportation network, for water transportation throughout the port and what are the alter attives natives? full-fledged ferry landings take time, money and effort. and we need to look at more or less better cost alternatives. so when we're approached, we know it may be a responsibility instead, other than doing it one by one, one by one.

and it will take forever to build a network. this commission is in favor of having a network of transportation, but you have to facilitate that in the inf infrastructure somehow. we need to go into the infrastructure. the second one, i was struck by jefferson street today. and we approved many months ago selling fish off the boats. and it was a pilot. so i'm wondering if we can get an update, how has that pilot fared in terms of selling fish off the boats. because that seemed to -- we had a lot of discussion on that item. in part, how to do it and if it was requesting to work. it would be interesting to know what the progress was made and what are the results. thanks. >> commissioner makras: and to follow up, if there is problems with the quality, health department complaints or

anything that fell out of that. >> president brandon: any other new business? >> i had one. will we have an informational meeting on this ferry building and what is happening with it and the future and -- >> yes. >> and pier 70 would be a good one, too. >> president brandon: any other new business? >> vice-president adams: i make a motion that we adjourn in the memory of sister veronica sanchez and may she rest in peace. >> second. >> president brandon: all in favor. meeting adjourned. 5:40.