>> secretary fuller, please call the roll. >> respond with here or present, newhouse segal? >> present. >> commissioner newhouse segal is present. warren post? >> here. >> paul woolford? >> present. >> fady zoubi? >> present. >> we have four members present. we do have quorum for the public works commission. due to the covid health emergency and the public health recommendations

issued by the san francisco department of public health and the emergency orders of the governor and the mayor concerning social distancing and lifting the restrictions on teleconference, this meeting is being held via teleconference and being streamed by sfg tv. for those watching the live stream, be aware there's a brief time lag between the live meeting and what is being shown online. on behalf of the commission, i'd like to extend our thanks to sfgovtv, media services and building management staff for their assistance in putting on this meeting. for members of the public wishing to comment on an item from outside the hearing room, you would dial 415-655-0001. and your meeting access code is 24844066366.

followed by pound and then pound again. and to raise your hand to speak, press star three. please note that you must limit your comments to the topic on the agenda item being discussed unless you're speaking under the general public comment section. and to remind you, if you do not stay on topic, the chair may interrupt and limit your comment to the agenda item. we ask that public comment be made in a civil and respectful manner and that you refrain from the use of profanity. please address your remarks to the commission as a whole, not to individual commissioners or staff. chair post? >> thank you. before calling the next item, are there any request from the commission to amend the order of today's agenda? hearing no request, we'll move on to my announcement as chair. i do have two. one regards, last

week's passing of proposition b. and i will ask director schwartz to address what the effect that the proposition will have on the departments operations and on the pw -- or commission, the public works commission and the sanitation streets commission. realizing director short that election was barely a week ago, i would fully expect you to expound on the effects at our next meet. i would request you do that for us. second, as we get to the end of the year, and we will be voting on next year's meeting calendar for the commission, i've asked secretary fuller to pull each of us and to take a look at our personal calendars and at his request, when you hear from him to give him any meeting dates you anticipate you will not be able to attend in 2023 and the january through june period. i

know i have some travel plans coming up and there are a couple of meetings i'm going to be asking to be rescheduled. when secretary fuller contacts you, if you look at your calendar for the next first six months of next year, i hope we can we reschedule a couple of months so we can attend. what we'll do going forward, every november and may, secretary fuller will poll us for the six-month period, january to june in november, july, december and may and ask us to give any dates we anticipate not being available for so he has a lot of notice to reschedule any meetings that will affect the public and the department and not being able to attend. look for an e-mail from secretary fuller that concludes my announcements. and our preliminary business. [gavel] we move on to item no. one, secretary fuller, please call

that item. >> item one is general public comment, members of the public may address the commission(s) on topics that are within the subject matter of the commission(s) but are not part of this agenda. comments specific to an item on the agenda may be heard when that item is considered. members of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. general public comment may be continued to the end of the agenda if speakers exceed 15 minutes of general public comment. at this time. members of the public who wish to make three minutes of general public comment may line up against the wall furthest from the door here in the commission hearing room. if you're present. if you're calling in, please dial 45-655-0001. -- 4-156-505-0001.

and access code, 2484406636 of. pound and pound again and press star three to raise your hand to speak. looking in the hearing room, it does not appear we have any members of the public present who wish to speak. and sfgovtv is indicating to me that we do not have any members in the queue wishing to speak. we have no public comment on, general public comment. >> thank you. we will move on to item no. two. mr. fuller, please call that item. >> item two is the director's report. interim director carla short is here to present the report. this is an informational item. >> good morning, commissioners, carla short, interim director,

san francisco public works. well, as chair post mentioned and i'm sure you're aware, proposition b was approved last week by voters. it's a ballot measure that returns our operations division back to public works and becomes -- >> can you please move your mic closer to your face? >> yes. i'll move my face. >> that's way better. >> thank you. it restores, returns our oppositions division to the department of public works and it becomes effective on january 1, 2023. so, while the ballots are still being counted, we are -- we have increased a little bit and we're over 74% at this point. so, i'm fairly confident this will be certified. proposition b was placed on the ballot by the board of supervisors as a charter amendment and it basically undoes portions of the previous ballot measure which was also prop b. that was adopted two years ago to split

the department in two with the creation of a new sanitation and streets department. the split did officially occur as you all know, on october 1st of this year but because of the new ballot measure, we put portions of implementation on hold pending the out come of last week easy -- week's election. we're moving forward with one department led by one director. like the first prop bt keeps the department under commission oversight. there will be two commissions. yours and the sanitation and streets commission. however, because the sfa commission will not be overseeing a separate department, its duties were limited to holding hearings and reviewing data and setting policies for sanitation standard and protocol and the maintenance of the public right-of-way. your commission, the public works commission will oversee all other aspects of the department of public works. in terms of how the two commissions want to

interact with each other, that's something the city charter is silent on which will give members of both commissions an opportunity to discuss how and if i want to formalize your interactions. staff can kick start the conversation with ideas for conversation at a future meeting. and city attorneys for the two commissions will be involved to ensure that any arrangement complies with the city charter and the "brown act" so we actually have lined up a meeting between the two chairs and then we will continue to advance those conversations about how these two commissions will interact. a few other items that i should note. city attorney's office is working on drafting an implementation ordinance to reflect the repeal of the sanitation and streets department and other changes under the new prop a, the legislation must be submitted by the public works director to the board by june 30th of this 2023.

the commission is not taking action on this. it is the responsibility as assigned to the director. i also want to point out that a lot of work went into preparing for the split and i want to emphasize that work is not going to be wasted. we analyzed every division, bureau and position. we took stock of our services and programs. we inventories our assets and gained understanding the many interactions of our work across the organizations. this process also gave us the opportunity to really hear the concerns and ideas of our workers. i think that was really fundamental. and we're going to take all of this knowledge and we're going to really focus the next few months on how we improve our internal coordination so we move into the future as a more effective and efficient operation, so it really was a very good exercise to undergo and i think the department will be stronger afterwards. and finally, as a department, i think it's

important to acknowledge that we've been through a lot over the past two and a half years starting with the arrest of our former director and the lengthy corruption probe that was followed by the covid pandemic which is still with us and these two ballot measures deciding the faith of san francisco public works. these challenges have been real. but at the same time our employee who's are incredible, skilled, dedicated and truly resilient have not wavered in getting the job done, cleaning our streets, designing buildings in public spaces and planting trees and giving tech support for permits and tracking data, working with volunteers, advancing or racial equity initiative, developing budgets, ushering through contracts and managing construction contracts and producing podcast and more. that's a glimpse of the work we do at public works. so the bottom line is public works will move forward as one department

with a common purpose to serve the people of san francisco. i also was asked by chair post to explain a little bit about as-needed contracts and how their vetting is different from other contracts and why we use them. generally, we try to have as-needed contracts so we can have flexibility to bring in specialist or skill sets or actually as an extension of our staff. for example, project controls, we issue contract service orders against that for as-needed contract service orders to help us with project controls. or if we need flexibility where we're doing the work, i'll use an example of our tree printing contracts and we have as-needed contracts we can issue contract service orders so if our crews are short staffed or busy working on more technical sites, we can issue contract service orders to contractors on an as needed

basis. so, i wouldn't say that or we wouldn't characterize it as a higher level of scrutiny for those contracts but they have more controls around the contracting and procurement of as-needed services. and i want to give a shout-out to our contracts attorney, taylor who helped me with these distinctions, so for an as-needed construction contract, they are more controlled in some of the following ways: the duration, so they are limited to five years total. and no new work can be issued after four years, so you can issue contract service orders up to the fourth year and they have that last year to complete work but you can't issue additional work n. addition, the original contract amount can be for any amount but they cannot be modified more than 150% of the total contract amount. the size of the work or

projects, as-needed threshold is, well, they can't exceed the threshold amount which is currently $1 million. and then work is always competitively priced either at the time of bid so general as needed contractors how through the quote process at the time of contract issuance. we have multiple contractor who's are qualified under that -- contractors who are qualified under that master agreement and when we issue a contract, we issue up to three and they bid at the time of the service order. the department is also required to issue quarterly records to the board of supervisors on the department's use of as-needed contracts. and please note that while this reporting is a requirement, i'm not sure how often we complete that reporting so that's something we're going to look into. for as-needed professional service contracts, all of those same limitations apply except

for single project as needed agreement. if you have a single project for professional services project, no duration apply. this contract is more similar to contract but limited to one identified project. so, hopefully that addresses chair post questions about as-needed contracts. they do provide some flexibility to us. we like to have them in place before we need them, hence the name as-needed and we don't get caught in a lengthy procurement process whether we have that need. chair post also asked me to discuss why 50% of public works manager was in acting positions and not permanent roles. so, i will give you some reasons for that but i do want to start by saying that we are not higher than other large departments, according to the controller's office. this came up during budget and the controller noted it's not uncommon for large departments.

however, there are some reasons why we currently have a higher number of positions and i expect those will go down soon. fundamentally, this happens when we promote and we promote internally and end up with this domino effect, so you know, if albert co becoming city engineer, then his position becomes vacant and then when his position is vacant, ideally, someone is given that acting assignment and their position becomes vacant so we have this domino effect. the reasons that we haven't actually filled these roles yet are several. during the pandemic, there was a freeze on hiring except for health care hiring to allow all of the city human resources to focus on hiring health care workers so we built up a backlog during that time. we couldn't fill them as they came up. as you know, until this fiscal year, our human resources services were provided by the city administrator's

office. they had limited resources and so, we had to prioritize filling positions within the department and we chose to prioritize frontline workers rather than managers. so we focused on hiring general laborers, truck drivers and frontline engineers and architects over hiring managers because we have the ability to assign acting roles for those managers. now, that we're developing our own hr staff and we have very recently focused on hiring the hirers and i'm pleased to say i met three new hr employees who started today and a fourth who i didn't meet yet who started yet. we quickly progressed had hiring up our hr staff. that means we can now start focusing on filling these positions. so, our new hr director, karen hill has promised that we're going to see a real impact before end of the this fiscal year. hopefully, we'll address some of those concerns. on a related note, i

think now that we have some clear guidance on how we're moving forward as a department, i hope that we are may see a little attrition and see people interested in coming to proactively interested in coming to work for public works and someone reached out to thursday and said i was waiting to see what was happening and now that we now the path forward, i'm interested in transferring to public works. i'm hopefully we'll stabilize now and we can focus on getting these positions filled and with that, that is my director's report. thank you. >> thank you very much. and of course, thank you for addressing my questions. i appreciate that. just a couple of follow ups and thank you for explaining the as-needed contracts since we'll hear a lot about those. i thought we can get the basics down the first go. and regarding prop b and the effect, what i would like to request is city attorney brief both of our commissions on what our changing

roles will be. this is at the request of the city administrative officer. and i think it's a good request and so if city attorney could brief each of our commissions and to one of your points, director short, how much needs to be formalized, if something needs to be in writing above and above the legislation, that would be helpful going forward so we know -- so everybody knows what to do. thank you for discussing managers and acting roles. one final question and i don't want to belabor it. one final question, when people are affecting, does it affect their competition and benefits and responsibilities and authority when in acting role? >> yes. all of the above. when they are in an acting role, the memoranda of understanding dictate what increase percentage they can receive, but they do receive an increase in compensation. it doesn't affect

their benefits, other than that increase in compensation will impact their retirement benefits. in terms of responsibilities, in acting roles, they are filling that role, so their responsibilities increase and in some cases, their authority will increase because we expect them to be in that assignment and filling the responsibilities and duties of that role. >> thank you. i just -- i've worked with several managers in dpw who have been in acting roles many years and it seems to me they get promoted or shown the door but i hope, anyway, so thank you for clarifying that. my last question, unrelated to your comments, where should we as commissioners direct public complaints and questions we get for dpw? now, of course, there's a commission, we're going to start hearing from our neighbors when they are unhappy about this or that. and i'd like

to be able to direct the public to a person where they can get a result since short of me getting a broom and getting out on the street, they are not going to get a result from me, so how do you recommend that we all handle questions and complaints we get from our friends and neighbors in the city? >> thank you, chair post. that's a great question. we always want people to call or use the app to register with their concerns for 311. that creates a tracking number that allows us to understand what happened, if anything doesn't get resolved to the person's satisfaction or allows us to use that data. that's what we use when we look at our stats, how quickly were we able to get to these concerns so the first request is please do have them call 311 or use the app or e-mail 311. i think there's a perception that maybe 311 goes into a -- black hole.

we meet with 311, they flag anything if it hasn't met the fla and that's how we get our request from the public. you can invite them to e-mail our public works which is dpw a- atmosphere dpw dot org. there's a link on our website. if they want to follow up, they can approach it that way but i would also have them really encourage them to call 311 because that's the best way to learn over time about how we're providing services. >> thank you very much. those are my questions and comments. thank you again for your presentation. commissioner woolford? >> thank you so much for your report. i wanted to follow up on chair post's question about the two commissions and the one department. before, it was clear we had purview and we're here to support and look contractually

across the non-sanitation sewer streets program. now that it's one again, it wasn't entirely apparent in the resolution where that division lay so i guess, i'm curious too, how best our commission is supporting dpw and is there any overlap? >> i think there is, as we said, there will be an opportunity for commissions to discuss how you want to interact with each other. the primary responsibility for sanitation and street services hasn't changed fundamentally from the original prop b but they are limited now to holding hearings, looking at data and then making policy recommendations about the sanitation and streets portion of public work. so, that's primarily the operations work, so we currently have our, even

hearing about our data and our stats about how we perform as it relates to contracting and other things that public works commission has been looking at, we also have those same functions in operations and so, i think sanitation and streets will be looking primarily at, you no know, what is response rates for street clean and -- graffiti and how can we be more efficient and provide that public forum to discuss or efficiencies and responses and to provide policy recommendations. >> will all the contractual conversations then be in this commission rather than sanitation and streets for sanitation and tree -- and streets project. >> i'm going to defer that question to the city attorney sitting next to me to see whether there's a wiggle room there. >> not that we're asking for it

but i was curious, to again, not quite clear on where the lines are drawn. >> good morning, commissioners. deputy city attorney, chris tom. so, as you know, prop b of 2022 repealed section 4.138 of the charter and it also deleted some language from the other relevant charter sections. it's currently silent on the contracts review of issue. it's something that, it's a question that city attorney's office will continue to look at as we near the implementation effective date of january 1st and we'll have conversations with you all to discuss what the legal implementations are, particularly on this question of contracting and also it's important to note that there will be a follow up implementation ordinance will

that will go to the board of supervisors that will address some of these regulatory, sort of ambiguities. >> and to go on woolford's statements, you said sanitation streets will make policy recommendations and recommendations that the staff can act on or recommendations that we would see and have to vote on or is that to be determined? >> my understanding is that they would be recommendations so staff could act on and i am seeing nods from our city attorney. >> thank you. commissioner newhouse segal. >> so, i like everybody. i have a lot of questions about the implementation of this, so if i -- if i understood correctly, we expect an implementation ordinance by the end of

june 2023 and i would like to know, well, i would like to suggest and i don't know in that's my place to suggest it but it's just -- i'm a member of the public as well as a commissioner, that a committee, an interagency or inter office commit -- committee to be set up and how it's practically going to be applied. and because that's what we're all missing. that's a question we're all getting from our neighbors and from other people in city government and i would like to see, i don't know if our chair would appoint that or the board of supervisors would or city attorney's office or the -- i have no idea. the city

administrator's office but an interagency working committee -- a city administrator working committee and someone on our commission should be on that and someone from the sas commission, so that would be my suggestion. it might already be done or might be inappropriate but i would like to see that. also, i'm looking at the latest department original overview we received today and i still don't see the sas commission. it's so basic to me. where do we -- i must say i wasn't even clear before the new prop b before last week, where we fit in with the sas commission and how we interacted with them, if ever, but now that is really needs to

be cleared up. i have at other meetings that we get regularly -- i know we can look for them but it would be nice for our commission to receive the minutes and the agendas of the sas commission so when chair post asked about complaints, i won't say complaints or compliments about what our department is doing from the public, i want to know what do those commission meetings look like? there are a lot of commissions in this city that have the public comment talk about what is in front of their house, what -- do they have a lot of public interaction? how does this all happen? are specific complaints adjudicated there or decide there or are these in the hearings? i have

attended some of the tree hearings, found them very, very interesting. but i think people really want to know because this department has been changed so often, not just in the past two years but in the past decade, i guess. how -- i mean, people are really crazy about this. i see people with trees who have had homes in my neighborhood that are still talking about what -- what was going on before the city took over tree maintenance and so, i want to know where all of that is heard, where are the public -- where are the public comments specifically heard? people are saying to me, shall i come to your commission meeting? i'm like, no. but should they come to the sas committee meeting and where do we fit in with this. i think that's really important and if it's not -- if

it's being taken care of already and it doesn't have to be reconsidered, can somebody please tell us how so we have an answer that's clear? >> so, perhaps director short in one of your future presentations, if you would, maybe expand a little more or we could have a separate agenda item from someone from your staff, perhaps, who runs the 311 system on explaining exactly what the 311 system is, how it works and addressing some of the comments and questions from commissioner newhouse segal more specifically on how citizens of the city, now that there is no robust public depths and it's together and there's two oversight commissions, it would be nice to refresh everyone's memory and take this opportunity to tell the public how best to get their concerns addressed through 311 and anywhere else you recommend. i guess i'll leave that to you, director short, as to whether you would

like to request a staff member give a presentation on this at one of our meetings in the near feature or if you would like to handle that in the future. would that be helpful, commissioner newhouse segal? >> yeah. >> thank you. >> commissioner zoubi? >> good morning. and yeah. thank you for the report, i really appreciate it. i don't want to sound redundant on these questions so it looks like it's a lot of dust and i'll wait for half to settle so i can ask more questions about it. my questions are about 311. so, what is the expectation of 311 and what is the timeline that is expected where dpw or sas look them up and actually take action on the complaints? >> sure. so, that actually depends. the answer to the timeline depends on what the service is. so, for all of the

services that we provide and i think that most city departments provide, we give 311 what is called our service level agreement, so the expectation is you know, we'll respond to public graffiti within 72 hours or we'll fill a pothole within 72 hours of receiving that request and that's why it's so important that people call 311 because we can track, when did we complete the work against when did they call and that's how we assess whether we're living up to those service level agreements and already, currently, we have regular meetings where we look at that data and we say okay, we were at, you know, 84% of our graffiti request were responded to within the service level agreement. and then we look at, where did we fall short? and maybe why. we try to diagnose that so we can try and correct that. so, we could give you, you know, the service level agreements, 311 can give that to you. if you call 311 and say i'm

reporting graffiti on a public light pole, 311 will say okay the department expects to have that resolve within 72 hours and they let the person know what the expectation for that is. so each of the services has a potentially different service level agreement that's established. >> and then would that also include weekends or is there -- is there blackout dates or times where it will take longer than 72 hours? >> we are a 24/7 operations at public work, so that is not factored in for routine street cleanliness request or other requests. there might be, that might factor into some of the longer term projects that we do, so if somebody was calling in about concerns over implementation of a streetscape project, you know, a multi-month construction project, then the

service level agreement might account for weekends and holidays because generally our contractors don't -- it's written into the contract whether they work on the weekends or holidays typically. >> got it. one last question. so, from the moment that, let's say human waste on the sidewalk and if i go in, take a picture, i use it a lot. i use the 311 app a lot and i really like how we easy -- how easy it is to use, so my expectations are, so if i take a picture of that, submit the request, they have 72 hours, which is minimum to do that or would there be any consideration of -- the severity or or stuff like that? >> yes. that's a great example. human waste, we try to prioritize those request, so

that's not a 722 -- it's not a 72-hour timeframe. it depends on what the service is, the triggers and what the service agreement is. for human waste, it's a 24-hour service level agreement. we try to complaint within 24 hours although for human waste, we prioritize those and go out to those right away. for, you know, as i mentioned for potholes, i think it's 72 hours. public graffiti, so each type of service has a different service level agreement. >> is there an escalation process for request that have not met that timeline? >> yes. people can do that through the 311 system, so you can say, you know, i'm still waiting. this hasn't happened and 311 will then forward that to our, typically it will go to our radio room and they will contact the appropriate supervisor and ask them to address it. if the caller leaves a contract number or e-mail address, we can contact them that way and explain what

happened or maybe we did address it and it didn't look like we addressed it because something happened again right away and it can escalate through the 311 system. >> thank you. >> thank you. i think as part of the future presentation on 311 and how the public should best get needs addressed, i know our commission and i'm sure san station streets will be interested in seeing that data in the months and years ahead because it would be a good metric on responsiveness in the department and if their shortfalls and how we can patch those and do a better job or if there aren't shortfalls, we know kudoses are in order. thank you very much. i have one more question. i did want to comment to commissioner newhouse segal. i would like to say, let's let the staff and city attorney work on this prop b aftermath for another few weeks. i think when we get briefed by the city

attorney on our role and the sanitation streets committee -- commission gets briefed, that will be helpful and short and staff working on this and with the holidays coming, they are working more than usual on it to try and get this all sewn up by new year's so i would like to let them go forward and we look forward to briefings between now and christmas. >> thank you. >> okay. good. >> commissioner post? i also wanted to address the handout that was at each commissioner's desk. that's related to the first item on the regular agenda. there are common terms related to that contract that the project manager felt each commissioner should have in front of them as well as the or -- the org chart and it's provided so you can see where

she and her team are within public works. that may have added a little confusion but it's specific to that agenda item. >> thank you. oh, yes. commissioner -- >> thank you. i absolutely agree. a couple of weeks or even the way things work sometimes, a couple of months for them to wait but i would hope before the implementation ordinance is finalized or proposed to be finalized that those city departments interact with a member of our commission and sas about how -- what deficiencies they have seen in the past and what deficiencies they have seen since the 2022 election and how it is actually practically working because we're fortunate we get this little opportunity to tweak it and make it better so to see how we feel

practically would be great, some representative of our commission and some representative of theirs at least. >> thank you. and then i just have one more. i'm sorry, director short. unrelated to everything we have talked about including in our commission packet was the restricted communications contract report. can you just give us a quick reminder, please, on how -- on what that list means for us as commissioners? >> right. thank you, chair post. so, those are contracts that are in the procurement process, so we are -- they have been announced and we are awaiting to get the proposals from contractors, so this is now the period whereas commissioners, you cannot -- where as

commissioner, you can't engage in conversation with someone about the contractors. so if someone approaches you and say i have a question about a contract, you need to say it's not a contract we're not soliciting for. if there's a question, don't hesitate to reach out. we'll clarify and confirm. we want to be sure that no one is inadvertently running a foul of our restricted conversations. if it's on the list, you as commissioners can't have conversations about it even the most innocent discussions. >> great. thank you for that reminder. any further questions for director short? hearing none, secretary fuller, please open public comment on this item. >> members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment on item 2, the director's report, may line up against the wall furthest from the door here in the commission chamber. or if you're calling in, please dial 415-655-0001.

and use the meeting access code 24844066366. and then press pound and pound again to access and then press star three to raise your hand to be recognized. looking in the hearing room, it does not appear there are members of the public wishing to speak on this item. sfgovtv, do we have callers who want to speak on this item? okay. looks like we have one caller. please unmute that person and caller, you have three minutes to speak and i'll provide you with a 30-second warning when your time is about to expire. >> [webex recording]

>> hello caller? okay. caller, either it sounds like you have a bad connection, you can call back at a later item but we will move on, hearing no actual comment. okay. thank you. we have no further public commenters. >> thank you. is there any further discussion from the commission? hearing none, we will move on to item no. 3. secretary fuller, please call that item. [gavel] >> item 3 is the consent calendar of routine matters. it includes the meeting, the meeting minutes from the november 4, 2022, meeting of this commission. the

modification of the general as-needed g13 sidewalk inspection and repair program contract and the findings to allow for continued hybrid meetings. for the minutes, please note that there's a typo under item two under the commission request sections, it has been corrected. and then the contract modification on the contract calendar is an as-needed contract which can be thought of as director short explained as services that are available not specific to a certain project and are used over time. as-need contracts as a -- as-needed contracts are -- are subject in the procurement process leading to commission approval. according to the contract delegation passed by

this commission in september, all as-needed contract modifications are on the consent calendar but can be heard individually upon a request by a commissioner, staff, or the public. adoption of the consent calendar in all resolutions contained in it is an action item. >> do you hear a motion and second to approve all items on the consent agenda including all resolutions included as an item? >> so moved. commissioner -- commissioner wool for. >> given the motion, we'll turn to public comment. >> members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment on item three, the adoption of the consent calendar and all resolutions within it may line up against the wall furthest from the door if in the hearing room or if calling in, dial 415-655-0001. use the meeting access code 2484406636

and press pound and press pound again and press star three to raise your hand to speak. it doesn't appear -- appears that anyone is lined up to speak. sfgovtv, has anyone raised their hand on this item? >> it looks like we have one caller who raised their hand. unmute them and caller accident you'll have three minutes to speak -- caller, you'll have three minutes to speak and i'll provide you with a 30-second warning. >> [background noise] >> caller, all we can hear is background noise. can you speak directly into your device?

hello caller. okay. please mute the caller. does not sound like they are attending that line. they may have left their hand raised. sfgovtv, please lower all hands after this -- after this round of public comment so we can clear the board and then folks will be recognized for future comments. so we have no other public commenters on this item. >> are we sure there aren't technical difficulties with callers being able to address us? are we positive about that? >> i'm quite positive. we did a mic check earlier this morning, so -- >> okay. >> i think sfgovtv was suggested that an unattended line where they left their hand up. >> thank you. is there debate on the motion? hearing no debate, all in favor of adopting the

consent agenda, please say yes. >> yes. [multiple voices] >> any opposed say no? the motion passes. secretary fuller will publish the adopted minutes and resolutions to the commission website. [gavel] we move on to item no. four, mr. fuller, please call that item. >> we now turn to the regular calendar of items to be considered individually, the first item on the regular calendar is item four which is the modification of the duration to the construction contract for the upper market corridor safety improvements project. and the contracts value is above the $5 million threshold for contract modifications to be heard on the regular calendar. this is an action item and project manager

carol will present this item. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is carol wong, sorry. sorry about the feedback. i'm with the streetscape program. i'm a project manager with the idc, project management pure owe led by mr. patrick who came to you a few weeks ago. it's my pleasure to be here today to present to you the time extension request for the upper market corridor safety improvements project. with that, i'm going to pull up my presentation and i'm going to start talking about it. with this agenda item request, we're seeking contract modification

approval to increase the original construction contract duration contingency by 169 calendar days and authorize the public works director to approve future modification for a total contract duration up to 664 consecutive calendar days. the project limit is within district 8 between octavia boulevard and castro street. the streetscape improvements are primarily at the intersections and medians which include curb ramp upgrades and widening and landscaping improvements with new trees and landscaping and traffic modifications, place-making improvements such as median lighting and commemorative parks and decorative elements such as custom railings by racks and decorative asphalt. before i go

into the contract method any cajuns, i would like to provide you some project background for this project. in early 2021, the city awarded the construction contract to egp for the project. in may of 2021 the city issued the notice to proceed to direct egp to start construction on july 6th in 2021. the original construction contract duration requires substantial completion in 390 days and final completion to be reached 60 days afterwards. the project construction was split into two segments to minimize construction impacts with market and 16th street as the dividing point for the two segments. due to the project limit, it's a long business blocks, the construction is subject to city's holiday moratorium and no construction activity is allowed the day after thanksgiving through new year's day. finally

the project construction started during covid-19, coronavirus and we have encountered issues and worldwide material shortages as well as other unforeseen conditions. therefore the project schedule has been significantly impacted. as discussed in the previous slide, all construction started in july 2021 with the original total contract duration of 450 calendar days and the original duration contingency is 45-days. as of now the estimated project completion today is more than 77%. however, the project team has identified a potentially 7-month delay due to material shortages, supply chain issues, and unforeseen conditions encountered during construction plus the upcoming holiday moratorium observance. we would like to request approval to

extend all regional construction duration to allow us to reach final completion no later than april of 2023. earlier, i have highlighted the causes of delays and i would like to further discuss each of them. first of all, the schedule was impacted due to material shortages and supply chain issues. about one month into construction, contractor notified the city that the procurement of the grand ice stone curb would be delayed by more than four months due to shortages and delivery and because of that, we had to reschedule the delivery several times. the project team attempted to mitigate the delay by obtaining necessary materials either through other contractors or city reserves but we were unable to secure enough materials for the project and this caused coordination offers with caltrans and curb ramp construction locations within the state right-of-way. caltrans

have been responsive in working with us. at the moment we're coordinating with them regarding the lane closure request. the delivery the electrical and raying components were impacted by supply chain -- chain issues and this requires efforts with muni and parking control officers and they had to schedule multiple times and we had to coordinate with other projects to get into the queue to get the needed support. one good news for today is we have received all the remaining items as of last month, so we're not expecting further delay because of this particular issue. aside from the supply chain issues, the team had also encountered multiple unforeseen conflicts and had to conflict water facility relocation and unexpected coordination with the

department of technology to disconnect and reconnect the source from the traffic signal. chair post sent questions to me and i would like to address them. one of the questions was how come the water facilities and dp facilities were not identified before construction? san francisco is a historic city. a lot of the streets are congested with (indiscernible). sometimes the as-built draws we receive -- they represent the condition, so from time-to-time, we may run into utility conflict. and obviously potholing everywhere is not feasible. we can use that method to confirm the utilities and at this particular location for the project, we don't have a potential conflict identified during the design phase, so that's why we did not identify the utility conflict and as it was unexpected during

construction. in addition to the supply chain issue and unforeseen conditions, i mentioned that holiday moratorium observance was also a key element that makes our project unique and more complex. the holiday moratorium restricts work from the day after thanksgiving through january 1st between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. pm. holiday moratorium is not unique in san francisco. it's actually pretty common practice in medium and large studies to help promote access to retail and dining establishment during the holiday season. we're less than two weeks from thanksgiving but still have some work to complete. the project will require more time to return after the new year to finish the remaining scope of work. in this and the next slide, i'm summarizing the original and

proposed schedules trying to demonstrate to you with bar charts and also this slide with the bar chart at the bottom also gives the general overview of each schedule impact. the supply chain issue and shortage contributes to 2/3 of the schedule delay. we're requesting the 169 day extension and the new completion date will be extended from july '22 to february of '23 and also the new final date will be in april of 2023. on this slide, the table summarizes some of the milestone dates i just mentioned. we are almost done with the improvements between the -- between 14th and 17th streets on market street and we're currently wrapping up all the remaining scope between octavia and market on market. between

octavia and 14th street on market street. prior to this meeting, chair post sent a question about the time elapse between the contract awards and notice to proceed for this project and i would like to address this question as well. first of all, the certification process is a process that can be long or short. it varies for each project, funding is also a very big factor that during those certification processes, the contractor needs to provide multiple documents to prove they are responsive and we need to make sure that the project receive all the funding and put into the system, that we're ready for the project to start. particularly for this project, we were coordinating with the da district to set the notice to proceed date. june is actually pride month and we're basically working really close to castro and there were multiple public events prior to the month of june as well, so therefore the supervisors office suggest we wait to start construction after

the month of june to minimize disruption. with this in the next slide, i would like to share with you some of our improvements that are in progress. we have completed the installation of all the decorative railings on market street and 17th street within the project limit and the project also added eight new rainbow parks along the project limit. we're working on the decorative crosswalk and the photo shown on the left is showing the asphalt stamping process at luna and herman intersection. with this presentation, i hope that i have given you a clear overview about the project and the reasons for the needed time extension. we hereby request your approval for the contract duration increase for the upper market improvement safety project. before i take any questions, there are two more questions that we received

prior to the meeting that i would like to address. the first question is regarding the project funding sources and the project is funded by development fees called (indiscernible) funding. it's funded by prop k which is the half cent sales tax funds administers by transportation authority. we also have affordable housing and sustainable communities program fund for the project which is primarily for land use, housing and transportation and land preservation projects. in the addition, we have general fund, which is sf mta operations fund and public works operating fund for this project. the second question we received is regarding -- it's regarding the project compliance category we included on the staff report about equal benefits, ordinance, compliant, local business, utilization, compliance, the averages and business enterprise

programs and non-discrimination categories. for those categories, it's beneficial to invite contract monitoring division for future presentation to get into more details. with that, i hope that i addressed all the questions that we have received before this meeting and i'm happy to take any additional questions that you may have. >> thank you, ms. kong for your presentation and addressing some of my questions that i did give you. i appreciate that. >> of course. >> i also want to thank you for the timeline you've shown on page eight comparing the original schedule to the amended schedule. that's always very helpful to have that visual. and i also appreciate you explaining the reason for the lag in the notice to proceed being issued. thank you very much. a couple of follow ups. i appreciate what you said about why the water facilities in the department of technology source and facilities were not identified prior to

construction and we have heard before that the city is historic and we don't know what's under the street but instead of beating up dpw for not knowing this, do you -- when you're putting the project together involve the puc and the departments technology, it's up to them to tell you what is under the streets. right? so i just want to be sure that we don't want to put the blame on dpw for, you know, taking a casual attitude to what's below the street if the people who should know what's below the streets are not working with you in advanced of the project starting to give you a heads up. >> that's correct. we usually start with the notice for information request process and usually all the agencies, once they receive that request, they should get back to us within a month to provide all the asphalt drawings. you're right and most

of the times we do get responses and they do come to us but there's times that we have run into that we received the puc, water department drawings they are showing the pipelines with the die mentions but in reality, there's a couple of feet off in the field, so that's exactly what happened on this project, you know, we ran into utility conflict that we didn't think it was a conflict. >> i see. thank you. i hope that also the department policy that when you issued a request for motion and said you have 30 days for -- other departments to get back to you, follow up to get the information. don't assume there's no problem because no one checked their e-mail. thank you. lastly, i would add i think it's a nice idea to have a presentation at some point from the contract monitoring division. i think it's good for us to start but coming into compliance -- they affect the project timing and cost by

complying with them, so another long -- a long list of future presentations where we can shoehorn it and never key lay contract approvals of course, so thank you. those are my questions. commissioner zoubi? >> yeah, carol, thank you for the presentation. i have a -- some questions about the planning and the execution of this project, so it was a 450 calendar day project and from july, so were the 37-day moratorium included in that number? >> yes. so, we started construction in 2021, so we actually went through one holiday moratorium already but because of the material shortages and all the other justifications i mentioned earlier, now we have to go through a second holiday moratorium. that's why this

second holiday moratorium was not accounted in the original estimated schedule. >> got it. and yeah. you mentioned material shortages. who keeps track of that? is that contractor who is responsible of keeping track of the material or dpw and what are the impacts? i mean, are there any, in the contract itself, i know there's -- i asked at last meeting, there is a penalty for late completion of the project. so, how is that calculated in this case? so i know covid and shortage and so forth but the contract itself was actually awarded during our covid emergency. >> correct. so, for this particular contract, i want to

say it's part of the contractor's responsibility but the same time it's not them -- they are responsible for traffic signal cabinets. so, there kind of, like, during the time, we -- not only the contractor by the city actually continue to follow up with us, following up with the contractor but we have some meetings and calling with the subcontractor, the fabricator who is producing the product but they waited for shipment and the delivery was rescheduled multiple times. >> got it. again, i'm not trying to point any fingers. my main concern here is how -- what can we do differently next time to prevent this because i mean, i'm

calculating the 664 days. it doesn't come up to a total of the 37 and 169 and the 450. >> yeah. so the 450 is our regional total contract duration and 390 out of the 450 is what they theoretically per contract they should complete the substantial completion and after the first 390, they have 60 days to complete final completion. sorry about all these numbers and i know it's confusing. and then what we were really asking is the 169 calendar days, either it's for the construction contract duration or the total contract duration to allow us to receive all these materials and also to -- for example the holiday moratorium is going to waste about a month and there's the unforeseen conflict that took additional time which is

equal to almost one month, so you know, when you add all those together, that kind of help calculate why we came up with the 169 calendar days. >> and that 169 will cover the last 25% of the project because we're -- >> correct. >> we already hit 75% >> that's correct. >> that's almost 60% of the original, right? >> correct. >> will there be any penalties on the contractor? >> so, for a lot of the products especially for the materials, the supply issue that happened during covid, i want to say it's not a unique event that we -- that we foresee in every single contract. this is basically globally happening and during the pandemic and you know, in addition to that, there's a project that the contractor was trying to submit a request for increased price on the steel because of the pandemic but

obviously the city did not approve all those request, so it's kind of like in the other ways, you know, we understand this is not something that they intentionally do to our project but it happens because of the pandemic. usually, if it's, you know, if it's not a unique situation, we would actually try to talk to the contractor about damages because of the contract delay but in this case, we don't believe any of the scheduling impacts that i mentioned are actually intentionally caused by the contractor. >> got it. one last question. so, the day after thanksgiving of 2022, are there expected to be any equipment parked in the area? any undone or -- that may actually impact the public

access? >> they should, the contractor should be demoralizing all equipment and traffic control. even on a regular construction workday, they have to demoralize everything by the end of the workday but in terms of equipment, they should remove all of them from the public right-of-way and usually they have to apply for a street occupancy permit and i don't believe during the holiday moratorium, it supports them -- that they are going to do active construction so they should be removing all the construction equipment away from the project limit. >> thank you. >> if i can chime in to clarify and they have to basically make the site safe and accessible during that time. it might require putting plates over if there are any exculpations and progress so during the moratorium, they need to leave the site in a safe and accessible manner. >> thank you, commissioner zoubi. commissioner woolford

>> yes, thank you. thank you, carol for your presentation. and commissioner zoubi, you know, what has been explained here today is frankly fairly endemic for the entire construction industry for the last few years so it's not unexpected. i want to ask a couple of questions and one, do we have a sense of what the percentage increase in contract is in addition to the contingency time? >> i don't have the exact number but i think it's between 44% and 50%. it's close to 43%. >> of the total cost? >> of the total contract. >> that's a substantial amount so that's unfortunate. the holiday moratorium is a self-imposed thing by the city san francisco, at what point does it apply to all construction projects or street projects or just limited to certain specific areas? >> i think it's limited to a certain location of the project. in this case, i think i

mentioned this is blocked. usually if you have a business that's more than 50% of the entire block, that's considered a business block and obviously if a project is in a residential district, that doesn't have any businesses. we don't have the holiday moratorium so that's why you know, we're working on market street and almost every single block is a business block so that's why we have the holiday moratorium observance. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. one more thing. i actually walked through the project area last week, coincidentally i was in the neighborhood and i thought the improvements looked good. i had a question though. some of the median planted areas, the palm trees look good but the ground was, you know, it collects trash and some areas looked dead. are median landscapes difficult to maintain generally? >> in general for this location, i think it's difficult because of the muni tracks that are on

both sides of the existing median and there's also ocs like muni overhead wires. a lot of locations that don't have these special traffic conditions, i think it's easier but in this case, i think it's difficult. also, more to that, because a project has to work in between the median and there's also f-line that's fronting along the tracks. it's not an easy task for us to coordinate with mta to basically deenergize and have the f-line, historic f-line changed to a motorized bus. it is a little difficult in this particular area. >> chair post, if i may. medians are generally hard to maintain because we have to typically do traffic control in order for our employees to work safely on the median. some good news for the

department, we put in a budget initiative that year to create a nighttime median maintenance crew that will allow them to work, so many of the medians have restricted hours so we don't impact traffic too badly so it ends up meaning our crew has to do other task before they can take the lane of traffic and then they have limited hours to work on the median, so we were selected for funding for our nighttime median maintenance crew. we're in process of hiring those staff and that will allow them to work the full length of their shift on the median because we don't have those time restrictions and then also these are for immediate yabs where we have a lot of traffic -- medians where we have a lot of traffic so octavia boulevard. it's safer to work when it's less traffic and the light will make it visible. hopefully we'll have improvement in median maintenance. as carol mentioned, when we have overhead lines and

also tracks right next to the median, that's an added layer of complexity. we have to work with the sf mta and their special track training that employee have to go through before they can work on medians within six feet, the six hfr foot envelope of the tracks and we have to pay the sf mta to have a monitor out there with us, so what we try to do is maximize the opportunity to work when either the trains aren't running so if the trains are down, we'll try to work then or if they have a project where they are going to de-energize the lines, they notify us. so this year we took advantage of their existing project to de-energize and pruned all palm trees. so we didn't have to do that coordination or cost. >> great. thank you. it's just, i know i mentioned this before and i won't harp on it, i promise but they need to be maintained and look great or let's throw gravel or concrete on it. as a taxpayer and

resident, i would rather see concrete than dead landscaping and yet of course i would rather see growing landscaping is the ideal as we try and green this city and have it be an attractive city so again, we leave it to the department's judgment but maybe some medians can't be planted because it's just not practical or too expensive to maintain, that makes a lot of sense. but anyway. it's a nice project overall and best of luck in getting completed. we look forward to hearing when it's all wrapped up. >> thank you very much. one more thing, we're planning a ribbon cutting ceremony. it's set for december 8th at 5:30 p.m. when that time and date is concerned, we'll invite all of you. thank you. >> thank you very much. are there any further questions? if not, do i hear a motion and a second? >> so moved; commissioner woolford. >> thank you. and second. given

the motion, we'll turn to public comment. >> members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment on item 4, the contract modification of the upper corridor safety project may line up furthest from the door if with us in the chamber. if you're calling in, please dial 415-655-0001. and use the meeting number access code 24844066366. followed by pound and pound again. and to raise your hand, please press star three to be recognized. looking in the chamber, it does not appear we have any members of the public wishing to speak on this item. sfgovtv, do we have any members of the public who would have raised their hand on this item? it does appear we

have one person in the queue who has raised their hand to speak on this item. please unmute them and caller, you have three minutes to speak and i'll provide you with a 30-second warning before your time expires. >> great, can you hear me okay >> yes, we can. >> great. david, sorry. i had two other things but those have concluded so you have my complete and undivided attention, to begin on an unrelated note, and i was sad to learn this morning that clifton of the sheriff's department passed away last week. he was a wonderful person and will be terribly missed. on this issue, i actually appealed the original ceqa determination of the board of supervisors in 2017 regarding fire department access to upper market street and that appeal

was gone to the board of supervisors and lost. but we had a good discussion about it. at any event, it looks like it took a while for the construction to get underway and given the issues with access code materials, holiday and the moratorium, is it moratorium? anyway. the holiday moratorium or -- i appreciate the work that staff did to fuel this project. thanks. >> thank you, caller. it appears that is our only caller on this item. that concludes public comment. >> thank you. is there any debate on this motion? hearing no debate, all in favor of passing the resolution. i'll read it out to approve an increase of 169 calendar days to the contract duration

contingency to the upper market corridor safety improvement project, contract number 100017336 with he is skaville graving and authorize the director of public works to approve it for total contract duration for 164 calendar days. all in favor say yes. >> yes. [multiple voices] >> all opposed say no? abstentions? the motion passes. secretary fuller, please call the next agenda item. [gavel] >> item five is the project and construction management system software contract award. this contract's value is above the $1 million threshold for professional service contract modification to be heard individually on the regular calendar. please note that several typos in this resolution have been corrected and this is an action item. project manager

josil alberto will present on this item. >> >> good morning, commissioners. my name is josil alberto and i'm the it project manager for the project in construction management system project. i'm about to pull up my slides. and i should start. again, i'm the, my name is josil alberto. the next slide covers our project sponsors and the project team. our project sponsors are all the deputy directors, bruce from the financial and management administration. al we're, deputy director and construction division. and ron, the deputy

director and city architect from the building design and construction division, construction division. the project team consist of various staff from the construction management team. the project managers and information technology staff and financial administration staff. i'm here to seek authorization to award professional services contract to the vendor inno active group who will be working with the department to implement a project of construction management system. as well as provide the hosted services for the system for unlimited user in the amount of 3 million 467 and $92 for the term of 18 -- 1,825 calendar days which consist -- which is about five years. this is a standard practice for it projects. there's the option to extend up to additional five years. we plan to implement the

solution in the first year of the project and the following four years will be when the users start -- will be using the system. a little of project background and objectives for this project. the departments staff identified significant gaps in supporting standard procedures and spending time on administration and reporting processes. there's a desire for easier tracking of staff, client and challenges interacting with the city's new financial system. the department also faces other challenges due to unintegrated systems and construction management of projects and the goal of the project is to provide a comprehensive contract and project management solution to better manage construction and support the project management life cycle that includes initiation, planning,

design and construction across the departments through enforcing standardizations and best practices and eliminated redundant systems in the department. public works collaborate with contractors on behalf of the city departments, a comprehensive tool is needed to approve communications and notification between public works, client department, project managers and construction managers and engineers and design accountant, contract -- contractors and subcontractors. this is a general contract scope of the project. to achieve the objective shown in the previous slide, the department is seeking for an off the shelf solution that is also configureable to meet needs of the project and the project team and the project teams business processes. the

vendor interactive group will provide services including project planning, the discovery of business process ease, designing and configuring the system and test and implementation of system features. the vendor is also going to be hosting the system, training, will include training of system users and creating as-needed documentation for this project. the slide talks about the selection process. the project team went through the form of solicitation process, the rfp was advertised october 9, 2022, and had a pre-proposal virtual conference later that month. proposals were due october 11, 2022, after the initial six-week advertisement period which was later extended for another three weeks. nine proposals were received in december 2022. two panel were convened for the evaluation

process. after being reviewed by the panel, all nine proposal were deemed qualifying and in the end, four proposal advanced for product demonstration and it was inno active group selected for contract new negotiation. this slide covers the evaluation process consistent -- which consisted of three different stages and the stage one, minimum qualification. the panel evaluated all proposals that, which met the minimum qualification stated in the rfp. it was a pass or fail and the panel determined that proposals received all qualified. stage two consisted of proposal evaluation. the panel evaluated the qualifying written proposals and provided a score of up to one hundred points for each proposal and the top four proposers were invited to the product demonstration. finally project stage three, part

determination. the panel identified the demonstration and provided a score up to one hundred points for each demonstration. the evaluation panel team -- the product demonstration scored the highest -- 180.36 points which included the c and d rating points. this rating point is for certified firms received a rating bonus when bidding as a prime contractor. this is available for principle, place of business in san francisco and meets certain requirements. the program is not specific to public works and is run by the city's contract monitoring division, cmd. with that said, these are our planned next steps. we're requesting to award this contract today,

november 14th, hoping to distribute the notice to proceed by december 21, 2022, and by -- and hope to have the contract completed by december 2027 which is five years. with the commissions approval, we hope to award the contract to innoactive group and the project and its project team experience many challenges over the course of the project due to the pandemic and losing two of the initial it projects managers for this specific project. after a lengthy negotiations between the city and the vendor, we hope it have the notice to proceed by december 21st, 2022, to begin working on the project. the resolution before you is to award the contract to innoactive group. this concludes presentation. bruce robertson would like to respond to the questions that chair post asked

regarding this contract. >> thank you, josil. commissioners bruce robertson, deputy director of financial management and operation. director post posed questions -- questions for us. the inpull from the controller's office and the ability to streamline and improve things and audit and the impact with the financial system that they implemented, it's a lengthy question. so, i want to start with the reason we're proceeding with this system is we have a system called enterprise system management that doesn't provide the life cycle, front and input of our ability to track our projects the way we would like to, so this will adjust that. the financial system from the controller's office is just that. it's the system of the, of

record for the city on all finances. we hope to integrate with that system and have the financial components in this system so we can improve our reporting and capabilities. the one thing we'll do, this will very much help us with the production of responses we need for audits. we have audits as you know, whether we're spending information accurately and in compliance with the color of money so, there's -- there's the general oversight committee that looks at over go bonds and we make sure we're in compliance with the restricted use of the funds and the system will help on that. we get audited with our change order, when it starts with an rfi, it's a change order. are we in compliance with those, the system will help. it will help with the interaction we have with the financial system and the controller's office. the financial system

doesn't track errors and omissions, meeting minutes, construction manager reports, all of the items that happen out in the field from our construction management team, on the city financial system, it doesn't do that. this will be the fourth system of this type that i've been involved in so i have some experience which is good because i've worked with private project management and construction management firms to implement these, so the material five years is industry standard -- the material five year is industry standard. we went through a lengthy and thorough development, scoping, rfp, negotiation. i've never been on a panel that had this many members on it and i think that really speaks to the complexity and the sheer number of stakeholders and interested parties we have in this so we're excited to go forward. ms. alberto did indicate we had turn over. this is during the heart of the pandemic where a lot of staff were reevaluated in a lot of things. we will two

project managers on this project leave. we have a strong and project manager and team dedicated to it now, both within it, within finance and admin, within the department design and construction side and the infrastructure design and construction side. so this is an exciting project. and i'll say the fact there are other folk who's have presented who were thinking of leaving but wanted to hear this item because it's of high interest to anyone. with that, i think that's most of the questions. i can certainly talk about the compliance. we did talk about cmd and i think having them here for a presentation would be really beneficial. this being a technology project, every large technology project gets reviewed by the cio of the city as well as you have to go through coit, that's the committee informational technology, so in addition to the 12b and the 14b compliance as well as 12x, all

of those had to apply to this project. we have some specific one-off approvals needed for a technology project. i mentioned that negotiation process. when we have construction companies that do business with the city quite frequently, they are used to the terms and conditions and the clauses. when we have a technology company that haven't done a lot of business with the city, it was proactive and explaining what are the terms and conditions in our language to a new term. that extended the timeline. we have many others and i don't want to bore you all but we've got the minimum compensation ordinance and health security ordinance. we've got to make sure that the vendor isn't disbarred, either locally or federally or the state level so the compliance checklist, i don't want to say onerous but lengthy and we make sure with

staff that we're following all of those but you know, that does add timeline especially when you have a one-off and it's not a bread and butter paving or complete streets project that you see quite a bit with a vendor that's not familiar with the process. so with that, i'm happy to take any other questions. we've got josil here as well but i wanted to make sure we addressed all of your questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. robertson. this is near and dear to my heart because when i was on the cgobac, a lot of dpw staff had a lot of problems with the current project tracking software and it's really important we get this right and this is either the answer or it isn't. and if it's not, i'm not going to vote for it. but if it is, i will applaud it. so, please bear with me if i'm a little fussy on this agenda item because it's near and dear to my heart. who was on the selection panel, in particular, did any end user such as dpw project managers who

have had such trouble with the old system participate on the selection panel? >> yes. >> people that will be responsible for project delivery to this city >> yes, they were a part of the panel. >> thank you. >> uh-huh. >> is there anyone here -- is director alameda here or anyone from his department. i would like his assurance that his department says yes, this is the answer to our prayers, maybe not so strong but to that affect, please. >> oh. good morning, this is -- [laughter] sorry. i have to be remote. i'm still in isolation because of the incident. but i appreciate the opportunity, commissioners. and morning, mr. ron alameda, deputy director from public works and city architect and

chair post, i appreciate the opportunity to speak to this agenda item which is near -- and dear to my heart as well. it has been a long protracted endeavor to get to this point. lots of criteria with respect to procurement and lots of criteria with respect to technology, but i show you that we both, depth tree director albertco on the idc side and myself, we objected at every ground level as practitioners to partake in this procurement. as to the question of, do i recommend advancing the (indiscernible). yes, i do. i'm not fooling myself. none of these applications are always the end all product that will cure all difficulties, but i'm

excited to finally have an opportunity to have a common platform for all our professionals to spring from. it is trying to cover a lot of ground with respect to construction, overall project data capture, so overall program and division needs. i'm pretty confident that this application, which i'm somewhat familiar with, it's being used in other agencies. i understand they now use it at tjpa as well. so, i'm excited to see this onboard but i'm realistic that all these software applications have their limitations. it will probably address many and most of the construction needs and project needs and hopefully as much as

the financial integration as possible. i'm excited to onboard this and cover as many of these needs across the board rather than the current kind of ad hoc situation we had where each project or program is captured in a little bit more of an ad hoc situation as you may have experienced at gobac. fortunately, we've been able to capture this data and speak to it and often get no findings in the audits. however, this platform will be in a common ground. it will afford us to the opportunity to better do future planning because we'll be able to access the data a little bit more across divisions and across

programs and across projects, so with that, i can speak to any other further questions and again, thanks for the opportunity. >> thank you very much, director alameda. i really appreciate your comments. it's heartening. i guess one final question, you did mention that you thought tjpa used inno active group package. as part of the selection pan em, were other cities in different parts of the united states, other sector clients consulted on the -- in the inno active group product as to its success and ease of use, et cetera, et cetera? >> not that i know but director robertson may be able to speak to that. >> commissioner, bruce robertson again, from public works. i don't know in we reached out to other -- i don't know if we reached out to other jurisdictions to speak to them

but we surveyed where the systems were implemented and one of the strengths that we found with this system is city architect alameda is correct, tjpa is using this system and other states are using it for road projects so that was interesting that we like in the system. the pennsylvania turnpike authority is one of the key clients of the system as well. so you've got vertical and horizontal that use the system quite frequently so that was a big draw and when they came and did their presentation and responded to the rfp, they made clear that their ability to not just vertical or horizontal but they can meet both which is a requirement. >> great, thank you very much. just to hear you say the words one last time and that concludes my questions. this will be a big

step up in integrating across city systems. i mean, wouldn't it be nice if dpw could lead the way in improving the way various city departments talk to each other and share information to assist the mayor in her budgeting, to assist controller in his audits. this would really be terrific if this is the first of a nice trend of city departments being able to work better together because they have a much more robust information sharing system. so, i hope that if -- are you confident >> yes, we are. >> is alberto -- >> yes. >> it be easier for other departments to facilitate this cross-department sharing? >> i believe with the, again, this is josil albert. with capturing more robust data set, we should be able to do that. >> great. well, thank you all, deputy directors robertson,

alameda and ms. alberto for answering all my questions. as i said, we have to get this right. it's going to take five years to rollout, other systems have try. we don't want to be here in five years saying oops, this didn't work and we have to try again. thank you again and thank you to the selection panel for all your work during the pandemic in coming one a solution. that concludes my questions and comments. commissioner zoubi? >> thank you, chair post and thank you josil and bruce for the presentation. if -- a little bit more detail. what are we foreseeing for the next five years and what's included? >> we're purchasing the software which we can configure to what the department needs in terms of business processes. as well as the vendor will be hosting the software on their environment, so that it's a hosted, like -- >> we're borrowing the software

and they are going to be hosting it on their platform? >> yes. >> are we purchasing -- >> we're purchasing it but it will be hosted on their server, so what we're doing, instead of hosting the application within our server t -- it will be hosted within the cloud. >> we're purchasing license over five years where unlimited users. >> is the almost $700,000 a year, is that including support? >> yes. >> what are the expectation of that support? >> i believe the turnaround time, depending on how severe the support is, i don't have the fla agreement between us because it's in the contracts but it should be immediate, especially if it's a critical issue. >> got it. last question. so, so

the implementation, the software -- is the software ready? >> it is already built. instead of the department, like, our it staff building an application from the ground up, it's in an application built and utilized with other areas and we will just configure the software based on the business process needs of the department. >> got it. and the data sharing, information sharing, are all -- are all departments onboard? >> yes. >> they are okay with sharing all that information and putting it in that software so we'll give other departments access to that software, right? >> we will be given -- giving any of the users like clients access to the software, hence the unlimited licensing so that they will be able to access any of the data that we capture in this particular software. >> is the company that provides the licensing, right? they will have access to all that

information also? >> it will be on their servers, the data will be on their servers. >> got it, thank you. >> uh-huh. >> are there any other questions or comments from the commission? hearing none, is there a motion and a second to adopt the resolution regarding the award of the professional services contract. >> so moved, commissioner woolford. >> i'll second. given the motion, we'll turn to public comment. >> members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment on this item, number five, the contract award for project and construction management software may line up against the wall for further from the door if present in the hearing room. calling in speak, dial 415-655-0001 and use the meeting access code,

24844066366. and then press pound and pound again. and to be recognized, dial or press star three to raise your hand. looking in the hearing room, we do not have members of the public who have stood up or come to the front to speak on this item. sfgovtv is indicating we have one caller in the queue who wants to speak on this item. please go ahead and unmute the caller and caller, you have three minutes to speak and i'll provide you with a 30-second warning when your time is about to expire. >> great. can you hear me okay? >> we can hear you. >> excellent! great tech no, ma'am. -- great technology. david. i support the staff recommendation and i appreciate chair post, hope and desire that public works leads the city and other departments in good project and construction management software, which you

know, results have varied. i guess my concern is not so much about this recommendation but where are other city departments. i know other departments use things like maximo and four square and there's not a lot of consistency among a software and integrating projects and relating projects among city departments, for example, if it's a project that dpw is the lead on but mta and puc have some involvement, it has been difficult and can be difficult to track that because they are all tracked differently. so, it to the extent that we at least get similar functionality and field and some inoperabity and it would be great. being on the same system would be amazing but

that's just a beautiful dream we may never have but i support the move to get better software to track and manage these important projects that leads within public works. thanks for listening. >> thank you, caller. and it appears we do not have any other members of the public who want to speak on this item. that concludes public comment. >> thank you. is there any debate on this motion? hearing no debate, all in favor of the motion, please say yes. >> yes. [multiple voices] all opposed, please say no? the motion passes. i now want to take a look at my commissioner to see if you would like a ten-minute break now or like to proceed to the next item and have a short break? >> chair post, i just wanted to

ask also the city, deputy city attorney but for the next item, it is for a project that is the design services were done by the firm i'm an employee of so you wanted to confirm that i should recuse myself from the entire item even though it's not directly related to a contract with my firm. it involves the project itself. i say this just because our firm is doing construction administration services, so it just struck me it might be best if i recuse myself. we still have quorum. and then you can call me back when the matter has been resolved by the commission, does that sound all right? >> thank you, commissioner woolford. can you describe again what is the potential conflict? >> just that we're doing the construction administration services for the project and the

duration extending would impact the scope of work for my firm not that it impacts the contract. i work for the firm that's doing the services, not the construction. so just by any affiliation, i wondered if it would be best for me to recuse myself. that's the question? >> i think -- >> i'm sorry. >> the whole thing. >> typically, in the arts commission, if one of the commissioners had a conflict, we would excuse herself from the hearing room so we add no input, you weren't a part of the conversation or vote at all. i just wanted to confirm that made sense and -- >> commissioner woolford, i think that would be visible. >> okay. >> i'll recuse myself. so, i mean, if you would like to take a break, i'm going to step outside though. [laughter] whatever you like. >> we can do a break now or after this item. thank you. it

is 11:51. why don't we >> secretary fuller, please call the next item. >> item six is the police department traffic company and forensic services division contract modification. this contract value is above the $5 million threshold for construction contract modification to be heard individually on the regular agenda. or regular calendar. this item was postponed from the november 4th meeting of this commission. this is an action item and project manager michael rossetto will present this item. >> good afternoon, commissioners. good afternoon by a couple of minutes and director

short and deputy attorney and bob, nice to see you. i will proceed here. this is as mentioned, traffic company forensic services division project that's in the bay view district. do i need to hit something to bring the presentation up or -- it looks like it's here. >> it should be up. you would use the right and left there. >> there it is. >> to advance it. >> the reason we're here today is to ask for a contract extension of 2224 calendar day. this is to add cameras so the card readers will allow the doors to operate during loss of power at the facility. some photographs of the project. upper left, the view from evans

with towens to the right. a close up view from the intersection, looking at what we call the public plaza and beyond the two flagpoles is a one-story parking garage for the traffic company. the motorcycle cops and upper right there, you'll see a courtyard which is an outdoor space amenity. lower left is a view looking directly at the main building entrance off evans and then the lower right image is standing in the plaza looking up towards that outdoor courtyard amenity. this project is for the san francisco police department. the actual owner is the real-estate division with the police department being a tenant. the architect which is a combination

of hoa and ema and the contract contract was the clark con -- construction group. the construction of 100,000 square feet facility, three-stories in height. it has already achieved lead gold certification. that includes green roofs which satisfies a city's better roofs ordinance and as i've mentioned, an outdoor courtyard as an amenity. this project is really born for the need to, for the city to vacate the hall of justice, both the traffic company and csi. we're located at the hall of justice. in addition to that, the crime lab was located out at the hunters point shipyard and that facility

will ultimately be demolished as well as that residential project expands out there. so, all three of the units in addition, members of the real-estate division are now at the facility at 1995 evans. this project utilized construction manager general contractor delivery method and as described in paragraph here, what this does is brings on the expertise of a construction manager early in the project, typically at the beginning of the design development phase and they will do cost estimation, perform constructible reviews and general input so that the design team can implement those within the documents. it's an attempt to become in sync with that

future builder as the general contractor. their logistic plan and just their eyes as builders to head off future problems. this project had an interesting twist which i believe was the first time the city undertook this where we defined core trade subcontractors and brought them on as design builders, so in addition to having the construction manager general contractor, their expertise early, we had mechanical, electrical and plumbing and the exterior facade contractors on time to get their input and that was a great success. we had quite a bit of budget challenge that we overcame. and this slide is simply showing the request here, the contract duration. looking for 224 days to complete the upgrade work to the doors.

and this is the slide, just to remind why we're here, the contract extension for those 224 days. this request was brought to our attention from the real-estate division, real-estate division while testing the emergency generator noticed that there were three doors where the card readers, with loss of power, the card readers did not unlatch the doors. there was -- the electrical circuit was not connected so what we ended up doing was installing backup batteries on the three doors so the card readers could continue to be used. heart keys were able to be used by real-estate prefer to have the card reader be the main use. so, this is something that we classified as a design omission. it's the kind of item, any item that's not defined within the contract documents, the drawings or the

specifications. that is deemed ultimately to be in need for the completion of the project. it's considered a design omission and these happen on every project. design errors and design omissions. a design omission is something where the scope is missing, so even if it were in the documents originally, there would have been that cost, so the cost is -- the need is identified later. the cost is also identified. fortunately, in this case, this wasn't an expensive retrofit, so.... again, these happen on every project that i've ever worked on. so.... that's it. any questions? >> thank you, mr. rossetta, it's nice to see you again. i had the opportunity to tour this facility when it was still under construction but shortly before it was going to be occupied by

the clients and it's an impressive building. so kudos to your team for delivering such a lovely project to the city of san francisco. >> thank you. >> it really -- it has many fine features and i was pleased to say that, the budget requires value engineering and cost be cut here and there but i was assured it wouldn't affect the operations of the clients and it didn't certainly didn't diminish from the appearance and success of the building project as far as i could tell, so congratulations on squeaking those -- or squeezing, i should say, those savings out of the budget and for a successful project. i look forward to seeing it now that it's completed and when the art is installed so thank you very much. >> thank you. it's all due to having a great team who really went after getting this project and all its challenges taken care of. >> when you mentioned it, this was unique and you had the

contractors at the table earlier than usual, is this a model that can be replicated for other capital projects that dpw manages? >> i hope so. cmc g has become more and more common much incorporation of the design builders at that time as well with the cmgc. it's something i think is very -- the more complex the project, the more it makes sense. so this being primarily a laboratory project, mechanical, electrical and plumbing especially made a lot of sense to get those builders onboard and when we had those budget challenges, day one, when i looked at them and said it's a good thing you're here with your cost estimate telling us we're over budget but you're going to be the one that helps us figure out how to reduce that and they, game, it was a great team effort. everybody rolled up their sleeves and went after it. >> director short, would you say this project could be a model

for future projects? how do we ensure that throughout the department people immolate this project in terms of cmcg? >> thank you, chair post. yes. interim director, carla short. we always try to do lessons learned from projects and learn what the successes are. this is certainly a project we hold up as a success particularly given the ability to make those budgetary cuts without really losing any of the important features of the building. i know that there are multiple different contract delivery methods that we look at for every project and then based on the complexity, based on the risk and the liability, we then choose, you know, there are often trade-offs. you gain some flexibility with some but you might lose some of the liability

or you might gain some of that liability and lose some of that flexibility, so we have to look at the trade-offs depending on the type of project but i think involving the core trades early is definitely a lesson learned that we'll take forward. >> great. thank you. and i mistake, cmgc. thank you. commissioner zoubi? >> thank you. thank you for this presentation. i had a couple of questions about the attached documents that we have here. so, this project already had a $51 million increase to its original budget? >> yes. >> can you tell me more about that? and the reason? >> this project goes back to 2008. i started in 2016. and the budget had already been established with the direct costs listed at $60 million. and

as the project went out for solicitation, rfq followed by the rfp, we knew the project was several million dollars over that budget but to keep the solicitation moving forward, we listed -- to maintain the direct costs that had been estimated back in 2014. and at that time, it was super heated construction market and we knew that it was going to be over budget but we went forward, got the contractors onboard and then we, once their estimate came onboard and it went through the value engineering process, we identified that the first change order was going to be have to be a substantial one to right size the direct costs, so it moved from essentially $60 million to $100 million, just to right-size the contract for the direct cost. >> got it. and right now, there's no increase in budget. we're requesting duration increase which is 224 days?

>> yes. >> tell me, i like the story. tell me what happened with the whole design because, i mean, i would assume everything that is electrical would be connected to the same system or how -- >> this isn't an -- this item involves the security low voltage and in this case, design builder coordination with the signal coming from a card reader outside of a door and it not being tied into the emergency generator in the building which was never a request. at the assumption from the architecture design team was the hard keys to open the doors when power went out would be sufficient. and so what happened is that during the testing when real-estate division realized that the card reader did not work, they simile

requested for a backup power to be added to those doors, so that the electrical signal would cause the lock to unlatch. so, a fairly complicated understandable omission i would say in this case of two different scopes. probably not asking the question of the client because i'm sure if they asked, do you want card readers to operate under all circumstances, the answer would typically be yes. but when trying to keep control of a budget, the yes can't be yes across the board many times so this is a situation where we came back and we identified three doors that were considered more critical to allow the card reader for ease of access so people aren't fumbling around getting into a main door of the building, looking for a hard key or trying to find someone from the real-estate division to had the hard key, so other users who have the card key access could

get in. >> got it. >> in these rare instances where power is lost to end tire facility. >> we have to be ready. unfortunately, i haven't been to that building yet but on our -- on my visit, there was that city policy that every city building has to be -- have to be able to be off the grid for 7 -- for 72 hours so that's a part of that. the client did not accept a manual key. they wanted to still make it electronic, right? >> yes, for the three doors. >> would that, it would be used with the same contractors that we've had the contract with? >> clark construction would bring back the low voltage contractor, subcontractor to install batteries on the three doors. >> oh, install batteries and not connect them. >> they are backup batteries installed on three days.

>> it would take 220 days? >> it's the amount of time from when the request happened because the contract expired so we're extending it. they need to get the materials in place and ordering the batteries and scheduling the work, ged it scheduled with the building occupants and get out there and the work is one day worth of work. it's very minor. >> got it. >> it's creating that window dpr it -- it's creating that window for it to happen. >> great, thanks. >> any other questions or comments? all righty. hearing no further questions, is there a motion and a second to approve this item, increasing the construction contingency? >> i move to approve this since paul is not here. [laughter] >> all right. given the motion, we'll turn to public comment.

>> members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment on item 6, the contract modification for the police department traffic services and forensic services division may line up against the wall furthest from the door if with us in the hearing room or calling in, dial 415-655-0001. and the meeting access code is 24844066366. and it does not appear we have any members of the public in person wishing to speak on this item. sfgovtv, do we have any folks in the queue who want to speak on this item? and they have indicated there are no callers wishing to speak on this item. and that concludes public comment. >> thank you. any debate on this

motion? hearing no debate, all in favor, please say yes. >> yes. [multiple voices] anyone opposed say no? abstentions? the resolution is passed. thank you, mr. rossetto. >> thank you very much. >> secretary fuller, please call the next item. >> item seven is the overview of the public works department building design and construction bureau of construction management. acting bureau man sxwler laura will present and this is an information -- bureau manager laura will present. this is an informational item. i'll let mr. woolford -- oh, you did, thank you. >> good afternoon. laura,

building design and construction division, construction management, acting bureau manager. i'm one of the 50% acting. first i'd like to say that i'm very proud to have been with public works construction for over 30 years. and i'd like to point out that public works has two bureaus of construction management. this one in the buildings division specializes in work inside the property line, buildings generally and vertical work whereas the infrastructure, construction management specializes in horizontal work in the right-of-way. i'm generalizing. there are exceptions to the division of the types of projects. as we're in the building design and construction division, of course we work closely with the project management, the building project

management group and the architecture landscape architecture and because our projects are complex, they involved mechanical electrical plumbing and discipline. we work closely with the infrastructure design engineers. here are staff proudly wearing their ppe, their personal protective equipment because safety is important to us. we have a staff of 32 people including 24 engineers, civil engineers and most licensed and we have building engineers, construction inspectors and during the summer, we invite in six to ten student interns to work on the projects and learn about construction. in the life of a project here, we have minimal participation during the planning and design phase. we participate in constructible

review. we joined the team once it hits the construction phase after a contract award and we have notice to proceed. we see the contract through the close-out phase. our job, once we have the construction contract in place, we partner with the contractor and we do these three main tasks here, quality assurance. we inspect the work, monitor the work as it progresses to make sure that we are complying with the construction contract that we're getting what we paid for. budget and schedule, we review all the progress payments, the change order requests, the schedule updates and make sure that we are paying appropriately and that the project stays on schedule as much as possible. if there are adjustments needed to be made to the budget or the schedule, we review those, negotiate those and make sure they are appropriate.

regulations. there are a lot of regulations that we have to be aware of and make sure we're meeting them. we are under the jurisdiction of the department of building inspection inspection for most of our projects, also state inspections, department of fire, health, environmental agencies, labor compliance agencies and others. so if you see the contract in paper, sometimes it's six inches thick. it's a lot of information to do track. overall, we make sure that the project is completed per the contract. oh, i'd also like to say that doing all these tasks, we produce and receive a great deal of documentation, so thank you for approving the earlier item on the construction management software. we're looking forward to that and hope it will help us. here are some

of our typical projects that we do. we serve over a dozen other city departments and agencies. we also do work for public works. we do fire stations for the fire department, health centers, shelters, recreation and parks, libraries, sheriff's department, port, all the other city departments really. and we currently have 72 projects in construction. our average project size is about 6.3 -- $6.3 million and some as -- some as large as 100 million. if it's a jc contract. let's see. oh, these -- this is an example of exceptions and he said vertical work earlier. we do parks which are flat. here are some progress

photos of completed projects. the ambulance deployment facility and the southeast self help center. this is to give you an idea of the magnitude and the complexity of the projects you see here in the lower center piles, steel piles about to be driven for the foundation of the ambulance deployment facility in the center. upper center, you see the construction. on the right, it's reinforced concrete structural work. on the left are framing and skin being put on the ambulance deployment facility and of course, there's utility work, site work, mechanical, electrical plumbing going on. we inspect all this work. here are some recently completed projects. the southeast health center in the

bay view, castro mission health center, recently opened, southeast community center in the bay view also recently opened. and the fire boat headquarter, station 45 out at the embarcadero. and some upcoming projects, we're excited about the 900 inez park in hunters point which just broke ground recently. the castro metro station elevator about to start soon. mission library renovation also about to start. mission police seismic upgrade which has started. and the laguna honda hospital has a whole program of projects, the largest of which is the m and o ring renovations which is about to start soon. that concludes my presentation. are there any questions? >> thank you ms. tangawa for

that set overview. it's nice to see photos of the projects and particularly interesting as they are under construction. thank you for including those as well. i don't have any questions, believe it or not. commissioner woolford? >> it's not a question but i just wanted to thank you for your presentation and sitting in this commission from the commission, i sat in for the last eight years for art where i evaluated and worked with public works on each one of those projects and it's wonderful to see them coming to fruition and built wonderfully. >> thank you. we're very proud of them. >> any other comments or questions for ms. tang? all righty. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. then, we will open public comment on this item, please. >> members of the public who wish to make three minutes of public comment on item 7, the bureau of construction

management overview, may line up against the wall furthest from the door if joining us here in the hearing room. if you are calling in, please dial 415-655-0001 and use the meeting number access code 24844066366. followed by pound and pound again. to raise your hand to be recognized, press star three. it does not appear we have any members of the public looking to speak at this time who are present in the hearing room. sfgovtv is indicating that we also do not have any members in the queue through the teleconference looking to speak on this item, so we have no public comments on this item. >> thank you. any further discussion from the commission? hearing none, we will move on to

item no. 8. secretary fuller, please call that item. [gavel] >> item 8 is the adoption of the proposed rules of order for this commission. commissioner newhouse segal led the discussion of the proposed rules at the november 4th meeting. the proposed rules reflect the direction from this commission to update the previous draft and contain article five, section one regarding parental leave policy. that is an addition, since the november 4th meeting. this new policy section is mandated by administrative code section 67b. notice of the consideration of these rules were posted publicly ten days ahead of this hearing on november 4th and a copy of the proposed rules were also posted publicly on november 4th. having

fulfilled notice and posting requirements, this is an action item. >> thank you very much, secretary fuller. in the antrum, the commission did receive extensive comments from members of the public on the draft we will be voting on today. and my review of them showed them to be worthwhile in the main, but i did want to ask deputy city attorney tom and director short if they had seen a copy of this member of the public's edits, extensive edits to the rules of order and if they advise that we take another two weeks to possibly incorporate some or all of them, if we dismiss them and vote on the draft we have today and then maybe look at them over a longer period of time, i personally am fine with having us vote on the final draft of

rules after order at our next meeting on december 2nd. but we like to hear from you two and the rest of my colleague s the commission, please. >> deputy city attorney, christopher tom. i did take a look at the suggestions offered by the member of the public, mr. pell pell. i don't have an opinion right now as to whether a portion or all or none of the recommendations be adopted by this commission. but if that is the direction, i would be happy to provide you with that advice prior to our next meeting. >> thank you, carla short, interim director. i think since the rules really govern the functioning of the commission, i would defer to you all. i did

take a look as well and it's not my area of expertise but they looked reasonable. having said that, i think you could always adopt what you have proposed and then amend them later if you would like but i would really defer to the commission, thank you. >> thank you very much. commissioner woolford, did you have -- >> i was going -- i was going to say that i will be traveling on the second so i won't be here. i would support what director short just recommended if we wanted to. if you would like to defer, that's fine. i won't be here to vote but if you wanted to vote today, it seems like what it's hand prepared to date is acceptable and if we choose to amend based on the advice from deputy city attorney, then i would support that too. >> thank you, commissioner woolford. any further thoughts. commissioner newhouse segal. what's your inclination since

you led the charge on this? >> to keep it simple. i think it would be better to wait rather than to pass something and then amend it right away because we're basically planning on amending it if we pass it today but i could go either way, however the rest of the commission goes -- it's a shame we have to keep passing this down the court. >> thank you. commissioner zoubi, do you have an opinion on this or will you yield -- >> i saw the final draft that was presented and i'm okay with that. i did also see the one -- mr. pell pell's adjustment and it did not have core changes. it was just grammatical from what i noticed. a lot of, like, legal lingo that -- adjustments to that and i'm not sure -- i was

hoping that city attorney's office would actually give their opinion about it but as the way it is right now, i'm okay moving forward. >> so, i guess, one more question, deputy city attorney tom. would you be able to review the member of the public's proposed edits and make a recommendation on a final draft for us to adopt at the december 2nd meeting, is that enough of a turnaround time for you given the thanksgiving holiday in the middle? >> deputy city attorney, christopher tom. yes, i could provide you with further advice on this. i think director short made a really great point which is, since these are rules of order to be adopted by this commission, as far as procedures and style and dictions, as long

as there's no legal implications, you can proceed with your preferences. you can provide me with direction or i can provide you with some further advice but with some direction from you. >> i guess my only main question was, if mr. pell pell suggestions made our rules of order conform more to other commissions and if his suggestions do that, i'm inclined to punt this to december 2nd. if they don't, then i'm inclined to vote on the draft we have and give you time to take a look. do you know from your cursory review of it? >> so i would say that the conventions have varied across the different rules of order and

bylaws. commissioner newhouse segal spent a great deal of time looking at them and i think she could likely say the same thing. there's perhaps not conformity among the various rules so i think mr. pell pell did identify some stylistic differences. >> all right. thank you very much. considering the time and trouble their pill pell took, i would like to postpone this to the december 2nd meeting to give deputy city attorney tom to review it and secretary fuller, more for you too, if you could work with mr. tom to have a revised and what i hope will be a final draft for now of the rules of order for consideration at the december 2nd meeting and then i hope commissioner newhouse segal, we'll put this to bed, this matter to bed and thank you, commissioner woolford for graciously letting us go

ahead with that plan. any other comments before we go on to the next item? >> i have a comment. >> yes, commissioner newhouse segal. >> so, commissioner zoubi did use a very succinct phrase and i hadn't thought of it that way but he said looks like most of this is grammatical changes and that might seem like a simplistic way to look at it but a lot of it will be. more people we have looking at this and the longer we take, the more stylistic changes and not substantive changes and we can go on and on and i think waiting until december 2nd is fine. i think it's a good idea but i think we should just make sure that what we're looking at and changes that we're bothering to

make are just stylistic and not substantive and i would suggest that we not make any changes if there only stylistic because then we're asking for more comments, what is only styled to one person may be substantive to someone else. so, i'd like to keep it simple, as simple as possible and since we're looking at this, i would hope that city attorney will take a look at all this and keep it simple please, and come back to us on december 2nd. that's my preference but i could go either way. >> thank you. if there's no further discussion or comments, we will open this item to public comment. >> i think we need a second for the motion that you had made.

>> i move to -- thank you very much, to postpone this to the december 2nd meeting. you're right. this was an action item. i beg your pardon. >> i'll second. >> thank you. we'll move to public comment on the item. thank you, secretary fuller. >> of course. members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment on item eight, the adoption or on the motion to postpone this item until the december 2nd meeting may line up against the wall furthest from the door if with us in the hearing room. if calling in, dial 415-655-0001. and your meeting number access code is 24844066366. followed by pound and pound again. and to be recognized, press star three to raise your hand. looking in the hearing room, it does not appear we have any members of the public present with us who want to speak on this item. sfgovtv,

are there any members of the public who are, have expressed interest on speaking on this item and there appears to be one member of the public. please unmute that caller and caller, you have three minutes to speak and i'll provide you with a 30-second warning. >> can you hear me okay? >> we can hear you. >> excellent. david pill pell and i did take a fair amount of time over whatever weekend that was and did some proposed edits. i wanted to summarize them briefly and if you have questions, we can get into that very briefly. i certainly support a continuance. i'm not going to discuss of what i proposed and there weren't that many and just stylistic changes. did i try to make this consistent with other commissions, current practice,

references for the law, but i thought it made sense that i didn't think this needed to be one hundred pages and i did try to keep it internally re-confirmed. there were some more substantive suggestions on whatever page, the new proposed section six about e-mail use. i thought that was useful given some issues that i've seen on the task force and access about e-mail. i did include my version of the parental leave policy. i think it's a little shorter than what's in the latest draft but either way, i think it does the trick. i was suggesting having the election of officers occur at the first meeting in january for the entire calendar year but certainly, you can elect officers whenever you see fit. as i think we discussed at the

last meeting, i don't think there should be a term limit and i think the commission will evolve to a practice of having officers either serve for one year or two years, maybe three years but you know, probably not for a life time and i think that's good and healthy. i added with respect to the commission secretary, the annual performance evaluation, i thought it was -- it was worth including. and the director. and i think i suggested somewhere here, i can't remember where, that yeah. it's buried in regular commission meetings, that the calendar be adopted at the first meeting in october, that could be the first meeting in november. i thought it was -- >> 30 seconds. >> thanks. i thought it was good to not wait until the building of december to adopt the meeting

schedule for the following year. i suggested changes in the order of business, the callout of secretary's report and minor tweaks and a comment on public comment and consent calendar. and those are the substantive suggestions. >> your time has expired. >> if you have questions -- >> okay. and it appears we do not have any other public commenters on this item. so that concludes public comment. >> thank you. so, is there any debate on the motion to consider this at the next meeting in commissioner newhouse segal? >> i want to thank mr. pill pell for his diligence and caring so much about what we're doing here, so if we do not, if we're not going to accept all of the suggestions that you made in

your very -- in the draft you've spent a lot of time on, please understand that -- thank you for caring about all this. it's important. it's important to our city. it's important to us and it's important to you, so thank you. >> thank you. any debate on the motion or further discussion? hearing none, all in favor, please say yes? >> yes. [multiple voices] any opposed say no. all righty. the motion passes. [gavel] we will move on to item no. 9. mr. fuller, please call that item. >> item nine is the director hiring update and it is being provided by, pardon me, shawn

sherburn, the assistant director ever employment services for human said services -- human services and joining us via teleconference so he should be coming up on the screen. unmute yourself and the floor is yours. >> good afternoon, commissioners. can you hear me? >> we can hear you. >> great. thank you mr. fuller and thank you for inviting me. actually, i have great news. this morning, we were able to secure a contract, at least moving forward with a contract with berkeley search. we worked with the office of contract administration as well as the mayor's office but this morning, we were able to secure that contract and it would be a recommendation at today's meeting that we move forward

with berkeley search. part of that was waiting to see what the election results would be for the streets and sanitation department. so now that we have a decision on that, we're able to move this forward and bring to you today that information that we can recommend berkeley search to move forward on this and i can do a quick high level timeline about where we go from here and i'd be happy to answer any questions and i would open that up to the commissioners if they would like to know any additional information about berkeley search or the timeline. >> thank you, what was your name again, please. i didn't catch it? >> no worries. shawn. i'm the assistant director of employment services with the department of human services and work with kate howard who i believe attended one or both of your

last meetings to update on this. >> yes, thank you mr. sherburn and i hope i'm pronouncing it correctly. yes, we want to hear more about berkeley and why they were selected and why they are qualified to take this search for the city of san francisco and yes, we would like to hear about the timeline, thank you. >> absolutely! so, berkeley search is a search firm out of the east bay, obviously. they helped, actually they did the recruitment for the public health director, the position that grant colfax was hired into so we have experience working with them. we put out a mini request for proposals for executive search firms. they responded. their timeline matched the needs that we had.

they are actually, potentially lined up to support us on a director for the streets and sanitation department. so, because of that now being folded back into the department of public works, they were uniquely situated to work with us, to work with you all on this recruitment and the availability is one of the key factors we have here but i do want to underscore we've worked with them at the department of human resources on a number of other high profile recruitments. we feel like they do excellent, excellent work. and we have 100% confidence they will be able to support you all, work with you and your stakeholder groups and put forward a really robust poll of candidates for this important position. >> thank you. that would be a national search? >> they are committed to doing a national search. what's really going to take place in the

timeline is they are going to meet individually with each one of you and get a sense for how we want to move the process forward. what the ideal candidate is going to be and then they are absolutely going to want to engage each one of you and the department of human resources in a discussion of where we should source those candidates so nationally, absolutely. >> thank you. and of course, director short and her -- deputy directors will also be heavily consulted, i hope, in what the department needs and is looking for? >> they are going to -- they are absolutely want to identify which stakeholder groups are important for the commission to talk to current employees, constituent groups, other stakeholders. they will want to work with you all to see who are those folks that they should be talking to.

>> again, i really -- that's fine but i would refer to director short at dpw. and of course, we would love to speak to them but with our vision of the director but truly, we're new to this and i really have to defer to the expertise and professionalism of the top department staff, so i look forward to hearing about their close collaboration with berkeley. and now if you could talk about the timeline, please. >> yeah. one of the other reasons we recommending berkeley search is they have a pretty aggressive timeline, about nine to 12 weeks from the point where this is launched to the point of having a job offer. normally, we would start off pretty aggressive and it would be something that we would caution against but we have seen their

success in managing their processes and working with groups and getting that in within that timeline so 9 to 12 weeks is a reasonable estimate for them, so about one to three weeks to get things launched from point we move forward. another two to five weeks to go through identifying the candidate, ideal candidate, sourcing those candidates and policing them in, but 6 to 9 weeks, not an additional 6 to 9 weeks but at the 6 to 9-week mark, we expect them to be able to qualify and bring forward a candidate pull and (indiscernible) is going through the selecting process and conducting interviews and bringing forward the finalist. >> thank you very much. and of course, as i've mentioned earlier, the holiday period will probably throw a wrench into

this but i hope berkeley will work double quick to keep moving this along despite the unavailability of people at times during the holidays. thank you. those are my questions and comments. commissioner zoubi? >> thank you, mr. sherburn for coming to our meeting today. my question is, just through transparency and being fair, how many search -- how many employment search companies actually applied for this rfp's? >> there were, berkeley search is one of two. there was another company that also expressed interest. >> and do they, i'm not sure, the rfp's on hr are different of rfp's of structure of the city or dpw? >> this is a citywide, we call it a mini request for proposal because there was a larger

request for proposal to call search firms interested in doing business with the city so we have a number of search firms required to do business with the city. we put out a proposal, a mini proposal to these firms that are already within the city, that have already secured a contract and we say, this is a recruitment we need done. do you have the availability, the willingness to be able to do this and to do it within a specific timeframe and berkeley was one of two that responded back saying that they would be willing to take this effort on. >> and one last question. and who determines the timeframe? >> the timeframe for the recruitment process? >> yeah. >> so, what i outlined earlier the 9 to 12 weeks is what they

proposed. and again, it's one that we've seen them actually be able to meet, so we have some level of confidence that they can get there but they are going to be looking back to you all and to the groups that you're pointing them to, director short, us, to identify steps in the process and if the commission wants more stakeholder inner engagement or if the commission wants additional meetings or steps in the process, they would work with you all and those kinds of things would push out the timeline a little bit but what they have identified, i think is a good benchmark for being able to deliver a candidate. >> thank you. and when will that commence if it's approved or is it -- is it an action item? oh. >> it's an informational item today. >> did it start where you have

candidates going on or owe >> it has not. we needed to -- one, the good news that i was able to share, so i used this commission meeting as a little leverage to get the office of contract administration and other groups to allow us to move this forward. so that came this morning. it actually came an hour ago. so, we can now move this forward. but we wanted to bring this information to the commission. of course, if the commission wants to take a different action, we can work with your commission secretary to agendized that for a future meeting, otherwise, what we are sharing today is that we have proposals and that d hr is recommending we move forward with berkeley search and that we move this process forward. >> thank you. >> any other questions or

comments from the commission? all righty. hearing none. please open public comment on this item, secretary fuller. >> members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment on item no. nine, director hiring update, if present in the hearing room, may line up against the wall furthest from the door. if you're calling in, please dial 415-655-0001. and use the meeting access code, 24844066366. followed by pound and pound again. and then press star three to raise your hand to speak. looking in the hearing room, we do not have any members of the public who have approached to make comment on this item. and let me see. sfgovtv, do we have any callers on this item? and they are indicating we do not. so, we do not have any public comment on

this item. >> thank you. all right. we'll move to item ten, new business initiated by commissioners. does anyone have new bring to bring to our attention that they would like to initiate? >> may i speak. >> commissioner woolford >> yes, just informational. i'm going to miss you all the meeting of december 2nd because my project, the center for academic medicine was selected by the architecture award. the award ceremony is that evening so i'll be there with my clients from stanford. >> congratulations on that award. very good news. secretary fuller, i don't have it at my fingertips, do you have what is on the agenda for the december 2nd meeting readily available? i just want to ensure that there's nothing on there that, given commissioner

woolford's absence, i may want to (indiscernible) the meeting when he can't attend. >> i've been busy getting that agenda ready. [laughter] >> it's on the forward calendar. >> i can bring up the agenda. so, there are, it's a pretty ambitious agenda. i'll say that much. at least right now, there are 11 items on the consent agenda, primarily these are as-needed contracts as we've discussed earlier today as well as the adoption of the minutes from today's meeting. and then on the regular agenda, we have the potential approval of the

commission branch library. as-needed architecture services contract award on the regular agenda as well as a project about the san francisco fire stations number 37 and 44, their generator replacement and overview from two bureaus. the infrastructure design construction bureau of engineer and infrastructure design construction bureau of engineering management. we'll have the public works commission rules of order, potentially, being voted on that day as well. so.. . >> thank you. i did find the calendar, so i'm sorry to have troubled you. >> not at all. >> it's indeed full. well, yeah.

there are a lot of contracts to approve, those on consent and regular. i always appreciate commissioner woolford's expertise in these discussions. i hate to delay the contracts, so i think we'll proceed with the calendar as we have it. thank you, commissioner woolford. >> i also plan on meeting with the executive team this afternoon to see if there is any wiggle room for moving some of those items to another agenda if possible, but -- >> that's fine as it doesn't hold up the project schedules, thank you. any new business or -- before we go to general public comment? okay. we will move on then, please, to item 11. >> okay. members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment on item ten, new business initiated by commissioners, if present in the

hearing room, may line up against the wall furthest from the door. if calling in, dial 415-655-0001. and the meeting access code 24844066366 followed by pound and pound again. to be recognized, press star three to raise your hand to speak. it does not appear there are any members of the public in the hearing room who wish to speak on this item. and sfgovtv indicated to me, there were no members on the queue of callers who are interested in speaking, so we have no public comment on this item. >> thank you. and then on to item 11, general public comment, please. >> item 11 is the continuation of general public comment from item no. one. since we did not exceed the 15-minute for public

comment in item no. one, this item 11 is not necessary. >> thank you very much. mr. fuller, do we have any remaining business on the agenda today? >> there is no further business on the agenda. >> hearing no objection, i adjourn this meeting. we'll meet again on friday, december 2, 2022. thank you. [gavel]

>> [inaudible] i'm a illustrator by day and a [inaudible] composition teacher. right now i'm practice by transscribing [inaudible] that is what i have been doing the past couple years, teaching myself. california college of

the arts, illustration there has really great teachers. robert hunt, vance story taught me a lot. what i'm working on is a portfolio [inaudible] riding a donkey unicorn in the process. >> my name is dawn richardson and musician, drummer and drum teacher. i guess i would say i started my professional path quh i started playing in bands and teaching drum lesson when i was in college. they were definitely not that many women that would do what is doing. in 198 8 i graduated from cal state los ang and studied mostly classical percussion and music education but at the same time i was in hollywood so played at night

in rock bands so was doing two different things. >> the reason i'm [inaudible] the people. there is a extremely vibrant art community especially arounds the red poppy art house [inaudible] as a artist in the past 2 or 3 years there is a event called the [inaudible] every 3 months a free art music festival that i usually play at and just met so many people. >> i was teaching a little bit and doing odd jobs like waitressing and going at night and playing in bands and meeting a lot of people. i chss in ban that had cool break jz get parts on tv shows or things like that. a friend of mine, we had mutual friends that got signed to a record deal in san

francisco called 4 nonblaunds and i addition frd the bands and moved to the bay area. i think things are different now than 30 years ago, the world evolved a lot. it could be a challenge but have to know how to negotiate everything and sometimeatize is [inaudible] it was great to get to a point where i was just treated like another one of the people, a musician not a female musician and that is always what [inaudible] >> you don't hear stuff on the radio [inaudible] i need to write music [inaudible] be more conscious in their decisions and somehow make that poetic so they will be convinced. i think i will do that. [singing in backgrounds] drawing and writing music since

i was a really little kid and fortunate enough to have a good education in art and parentss who supported me. i hope my life will continue to allow me to do both. >> for me now having all male, female girls, boys students it shows the world has changed a lot and people areope toon open to a lot more than they were in the past. you can get a deep satisfaction from responding a lot of year practicing in one thing and becoming really good at something. sometimes i think that it is better to get lost. you have to practice and become good at what you do, so if you have everything together then go out in the world and do what you do and then i think people weal accept that.

>> good morning and welcome to the retirement board meeting here in san francisco. this meeting is being held in hybrid format with the meeting occurring in-person and live in sfgovtv. before we begin i would like to remind individuals that the meeting in-person, that all health and safety protocols and building rules must be adhered to at all times. requirements may result in your removal from this room. i will appreciate your cooperation with these important rules and requirements with the interest of everyone's safety. please also note that hand sanitizers are available in every building and mask