>> secretary fuller, please call the roll. >> good morning. please respond with, here or present. commissioner newhouse segal is present. chair post is present. commissioner turner is present. commissioner paul woolford is absent for this meeting. vice chair zabi is present with three members present we have quorum for the public works commission, and i just want to please note that the rules for regarding hybrid meetings and remote participation have changed, but remote participation by the public is still a possibility and encouraged and for members of the public who want to comment from outside the hearing room, you

would dial 415-655 -0001. use today's meeting id number of 24965523189 fallowed by pound, pound again and to raise your hand to speak press star 3. please note you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item discussed unless you are speaking under general public comment. if you do not stay on topic the chair may interrupt and ask you to limit your comment to that item. we ask public comment made in civil respectful manner and refrain thum use of profanity and please address your remarks to the commission as a whole not individual commissioners or staff. madam chair. >> thank you. before calling the next item, i like to amend today's agenda to postpone item 8, the operations division

overview. deputy director durden who is going to make the presentation had a unexpected obligation arise and requested she make the presentation at a later date for she would like to make it herself. any other re quest by the commission to amend today's agenda? alright. thank you. we will move to the next item. announcements by the chair. i just have brief announcements. i like to thank olivia lee to the response of as needed contracts, i found it helpful. since our last commission meeting i had a number of one on one meetings with public works department stakeholders, primarily discussing permitting and capital project delivery. i also had my monthly meeting with chair am goneen of

sanitation and streets commission and i had a quarterly update with board of supervisors president peskin. from my meeting with president peskin i have good news, which is his colleague supervisor mandelman's legislation to abandon the city's 12x restrictions on city employees travel to and ability to do business in states with policies that may differ from san francisco's, that this legislation is likely to be scheduled by the board for their consideration in the next few weeks. as my colleagues may call, commissioner woolford spoke eloquently why he and i others feel why the restrictions should be abandoned. it cost taxpayer money and project time to adhere to them. last, i have been requested by members of the public works staff to not call dpw and i'm trying to break the habit to

call sfpw or san francisco public works so i like to request my colleagues, we all try to say public works and not dpw. we will try our best. that concludes my announcements. secretary fuller, please open this item to public comment. >> members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comments on item 1, announcements by the chair, may line up against the wall furthest from the door if present in the chamber. if calling 415-655-0001 meeting access code 24965523189, pound, pound and then press star 3 to raise your hand to speak. looking in the chamber does not appear we have any members of the public wishing to speak on the chair's announcements. sfgovtv do we have

callers to speak on this item? they are indicating that we do not have any callers on this item so we are no further public comment. >> thank you. any questions or comments from the commission on my announcements? >> not on the announcements. i missed a couple meetings and i wanted to announce some things, but i like to get the opportunity to do it right now. first, i wanted to wish the muslim community in san francisco and the world happy-the breaking of the fast. i wish everyone have a great year every year. i went to arbor day, and i really really want to thank the

public works team and staff for having that. it was such an eye opening experience. it was my first time and i loved how the community came all together to plant trees, to learn about the projects that are happening, to actually ride the cherry picker. it was a great experience and i want to thank carla for and her team for planning this and we ended up i think planting 177 trees, was it? >> 117. >> 117 trees, 200 volunteers were there. that was great. i will do it again. next time remind me so i can make it. i wanted also to thank chair post for her dedication to

the commission. while she was traveling she was able to stand recommendation and push to help public works get the budget that was requested and i was my jaw dropped on the floor. thank you for your commitment. i want to thank my colleagues. this has been a very successful week. i got to see them all most every day, and those are my comments. thank you. >> thank you commissioner zoubi. i did have a question about arbor day. am i mistaken or was the department interim director attending arbor day just as a tree? [laughter] i like to clear up the public record on that, please. >> you are not mistaken chair post. i dawned my tree costume which i reserve for

very special occasions, so usually arbor day is where i put that on and it is in fact the best day of the year. >> thank you for clarifying that. alright. i think that concludes the announcement portion. secretary fuller, please call the next item. i beg your pardon, please open public comment. no, we did that. please call the next item. >> the item 2 is the commission secretary's report and my report is very brief and centered on you sibling commission, the sanitation and streets commission, which held their most recent meeting on monday april 17, and during that meeting they passed a resolution establishing the montoya awards program to recognize laborers and other staff within public works and they did that in partnership with the san francisco building and trades council.

and then they heard the department hiring and vacancy report from the human resources team of the department, and then also heard the bureau of building and street repair performance report, and that concludes my report for this meeting. i'm happy to take questions or comments. >> any questions for secretary fuller? if not, please open this item to public comment. >> members of the public who wish to make 3 minutes of comment on item 2, the secretary report may line up gaest in the wall. if you are calling in dial 415-655-0001. use the meeting access code 24965523189, pound, pound, and then press star 3 to raise your hoond hand to speak.

and in the chamber, no members of the public approached to speak on the secretary's report, and sfgovtv is indicating we do not have callers who expressed interest in speaking on item 2 either so no further public comment. >> thank you. please call the next item. >> item 3 is general public comment and members of the public who wish to make 3 minutes of general public comment of items within the commission mandate but not on the agenda may line up against the wall. if calling in use that public comment call in number 415-655-0001. use the meeting access code of

24965523189 and then press star 3 to raise your hand to speak. we do have one member of the public with us in the chamber to speak on during general public comment. thank you for joining us. you have three minutes to speak and there will be a chime that tells you when you have 30 seconds left. thank you for joining us. >> adam (indiscernible) local business owner here in san francisco. i traveled by skate board, it is my low cost low maintenance highly portable way of getting around the city. i have been skating boarding for transpation since i was a kid and a way to avoid having a bike or car in many cities in which i lived. i moved back to the mission recently with my 11 year old and can get around town on skate boards and scooter and we have sidewalks and bike lanes and i'm here today and to make one point about the need to

include other modalities with small wheels in design considerations. there are textures and transitions which are easy to navigate when stepping over them or rolling over them but harder to deal with when you have wheels that are 69mm tall. this is just one comment about drawing 87171. if we can bring this up. sorry, thank you. i'll try to be quick with this.

okay, i can probably work with that. driveway construction. 87171. so, this is a driveway drawing in detail and specifications. i to draw attention to this specific detail here from the side view at the curbline. you have a specifically a 1 inch lip height right there, so skate boards for transitation have wheels between 66 and 69mm tall which are 2.7 inches. half that is 1.35 inches. a wheel that small cannot get over something that is too tall. this is a instance on shotwell of a driveway lip that is much taller then 1 inch. it is well over half the wheel, so well over 1.35 inches. i want to draw attention to this specifically because there are people who want to get around the city by various

means. a driveway lip like this means i can't get out of traffic so if there is a lot of stuff going on on the road and my or my child are using this becomes preventative to get out of traffic when it is dangerous so i like to request this 1 inch specification reduce to somewhere between nothing like on curbcuts on sidewalks or maximum of.5 inches. thank you very much. >> thank you. okay. that is our only public commenter in person. sfgovtv do we have any callers in the queue? and they are indicating we do have one caller. please

unmute that 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. david pillpel, you can hear me okay? >> we can hear you. >> excellent. i wanted to go back to the chair's remarks, vice chair zoubi had additional comments after you had public comment. i'm concerned he may be cherry picking only the things he can remember recently, because there is always a lot happening in the works. anyway, good comments and great information from both the chair and vice chair. thank you for the work that you do not just in meetings, but substantial additional time you respond outside of meetings attending to the business of the commission and the city. i have not had a chance to look at the minutes yet. if i see something i'll share that afterwards with the secretary fuller. i'm a little

challenged because my computer keeps crashing and i'm trying to juggle three different meetings now. i did notice on item 5c not related to the substance of the item, but it looked to me like the long title on the agenda duplicates the description, stow it is a little confusing, unless i missed something, it looks like it simply was copied twice in there. anyway, those were my thoughts right now. as always, thanks for listening. >> thank you caller. that is our last public comment. that concludes public comment. >> thank you. so, our public speaker who attended today does not need to hang around to the end of the meeting when we discuss new business. i like to ask interim director short if she could get back to the

commission with comments on the gentleman's proposal. i'm not familiar with the 1 inch he explained to us for skateboards and small wheel vehicles. i like to learn more and get the department's comments on that. may i please request at a future meeting and sooner rather then later when the department can explain to us what the speaker was referring to and help us understand so we can act to make some changes if we think we should. >> sure, happy to do that. if i may take a moment here today for the benefit of the speaker. the roadways actually are designed to function also as conduits for storm water, and that happens even if we are just cleaning the streets for example. the function of the gutter and the reason we generally have a lip of some sort is prevent the

water flowing up and on the sidewalk or properties. having said, that, we can take a look to see if there is any room to adjust that minimum or maximum or minimum value. >> thank you. i want to be sure the public feels safe when they are on skateboards and small wheel vehicles and that we can address that if possible. thank you very much. commissioner newhouse segal. >> what agency or department is responsible for establishing the rules for what kinds of wheeled vehicles are used on sidewalks and streets? because we are talking about a transition from the street to the sidewalk here. >> yes. thanks commissioner newhouse segal. you were asking what city

agency is responsible for determining what type of vehicles are allowed on sidewalks or streets. good question. there are a number of state regulations that actually regulate what can be placed-what types of wheeled vehicles can be used on sidewalks, but our sister agency, the san francisco municipal transportation authority would be responsible for the local regulations around that. >> i would suggest if we are going to make it easier to transition from the street to the sidewalk or from one area that is regulated in one way to another, i think we should be aware that that involves more then just paving or whatever. >> thanks. generally if public works or any city agency proposes a change to

specifications that might impact another city agency, we have a process to refer those proposals to the other city agency, receive feedback from them, try to address feedback before we make any changes so we definitely want to be sure we don't have unintended consequence by making a change to one of our specifications so we'll always refer to the other relevant city agencies. >> thank you. i would really like in the future if there are any changes made or any decisions made for this commission to be made aware of those so we can answer-so we are aware as the public who uses those different modes of transportation. >> will do. >> thank you. >> thank you. secretary fuller, please call the next item. >> item 4 is director

report. interim director carla short is here to present. this is informational item. >> good morning commissioners. carla short, interim director public works. commissioner turner, welcome. sorry i missed your inaugural meeting. happy we can enjoy nice spring weather and there are a handful of items i like to bring to your attention today. i want to give a update oen the third street bridge. very pleased to report that the bridge, which as you know was battered in the major storm march 23 which 3 run away barges ramped into, is once again able to resume lifts. we conducted a series of test lifts this week raising the draw bridge to 45 degree angle and increasing to the 70 degrees. all the mechanisms were in good shape. we had

structural engineers on site. our expert staff not only conducted visual inspections during the test lift but also listened for any unusual sounds and luckily all was good. apparently it is normal to have creeks and growns when the bridge is lifted for the first time after a period of being closed. we did notify the coast guard that we deem the draw bridge to be operational and safe and let the house boat community at the mission creek know they can once again request lifts. we had been keeping the span in the down position in the weeks after the storm until we determine with confidence public safety is not jeopardized by raising the bridge or not stuck in the up position. as reported to you at the last commission meeting we kept the bridge open for crossings by skate board, bikes, scooter, foot or motorized vehicle since the day after the storm. however , the

east side wooden walkway remains closed. there is other damage to the bridge that doesn't impact structural soundness but must be repaired. that work will take time and our cost estimate is $6.5 million, so it isn't insignificant. we don't have a final timeline for the work and identifying how the work will be paid and we'll keep you updated. special thanks to everyone who worked to get us where we are today. not just engineers but the carpenters and sheet metal workers who removed the damage portion of the bridge and made the path of travel safe. next up micro surfacing. april 10 we kicked off the annual micro surfacing pavement preservation operation we run through infrastructure design construction street resurfacing program. micro surfacing is a mixture of liquid oil and crushed rock which preserve the asphalt pavement protecting the service from effect of natural

aging, rain and heat. it can extend the life of pavement at a fraction of the cost by restoring the surface of the roadway sealed off moisture and prevents oxidation that require more costly repaired down the road. the cost to micro surface one block is about $50 thousand. complete rebuild can cost 10 times that. micro surfacing takes 2 days to complete on a block compared to several days or weeks for full roadway construction which include street base repairs and repaving. the first application of micro surfacing is applied fallowed by a second application typically a week after the first. this is a efficient and cost effective way to prolong the life of streets. it really helps cut down on the potential for the road to get impacted by water and create additional potholes. we are scheduled to wrap this current operation up the third week of may and plan

to resurface 82 blocks and 17 intersections. as of yesterday, we were at 31 blocks and 4 intersections. you may have read about the event commemorating the 1906 earthquake at the fountain. every year april 18 at 512 exactly city officials of san francisco history gather at the fountain located on a pedestrian island at the intersection of market geary and kearney streets to mark the anniversary of the 7.9 magnitude quake causing deaths and property damage. the fountain which is city and national landmark serve as significant meeting place thin aftermath of the devastating earthquake and fire and every year the crews make sure the fountain sparkles shines and in good working condition for the event. last week our staff

including plumbers, electricians, stationary engineers inspected every in the fountain is in good shape and gave a thorough cleaning to dislodge debris. back at the fountain before dawn on the day of event to make sure everything ran smoothly and trouble shoot problems that might pop. the ceremony went smoothly drawing a big crowd including mayor breed, former willy brown (indiscernible) early 20th century garb. the fire sirens sounded at 512 and crowd broke out in song single san francisco. our scope of work was not big but impact is huge as we did our part to make san francisco history is kept alive and collectively be reminded we are a city sof resilience that rises and rebuilds. that is a message that certainly needs to be heard today. and that

is it for my report today. happy to take any questions. >> thank you. any questions or comments for mrs. short from the commission? alright. please open the item to public comment. [providing instructions for public comment] looks like we have mr. (indiscernible) how you pronounce your last name? provide comment on this item. go ahead, please. you have 3 minutes to

speak and there will be a chime when you have 30 seconds remaining. >> thank you very much. the micro surfacing. loving all the new pavement in the city, great and smooth stuff. i dont know the specific details of this micro surfacing, but i want to make a note that sometimes solutions like this that involve aggregate and liquid can be textured to the point of slowing down transportation by small wheeled vehicles so while i totally understand the value of cost savings and reducing the timeline of these projects and absolutely appreciate the budgetary concerns there, i want to make a point that if there isn't consideration taken for this there might be adverse effects, so if there is anything that can be done around the granularity of the aggregate or nature of the liquid and the interaction with things like small wheels, wanting to make sure we are not creating conditions for people

who go by small wheeled means. thank you. >> thank you. and that appears to be the only person in person who wants to speak on this item. sfgovtv do we have callers in the queue? and they are indicating there are no callers so that concludes public comment. >> thank you. secretary fuller, please call the next item. >> item 5 on the agenda is the consent calendar of routine matters. it includes the minutes from april 7, 2023 meeting of this commission. one job order contract award. one as needed contract award and one construction contract award. all three contract awards are eligible for consent calendar in accordance

with the contract delegation policy adopted by this commission and please note a number of corrections for clarity have been made to the minutes in items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11. appreciate commission members for pointing those out to commission staff. all consent calendar items can be heard individually upon request by a commissioner, staff or the public, but happy to take corrections to the minutes or questions. adoption of the consent calendar and all resolutions is action item. >> thank you. i have a question on one of the items on consent calendar. it regards 5d, the minnesota street scape improvements. perhaps interim director short you can

answer it. what is the ipic eastern neighborhoods funding source? what is that funding source? >> that is-the development impact fees that are collected from development-trying to remember what it stands for. do you know, bruce? okay. interagency plan implementation committee. those are development impact fees that are collected and then they are used in accordance with one of the basically the area plans that have been developed, so those fees can be used to implement one of the approved area funds, so-sorry, area plans. they are usually site

or neighborhood specific funds that can be allocated towards improvements identified in that neighborhood plan. >> so, in short funds collected in the neighborhood stay in the neighborhood, is that a way of putting it? >> yes. >> thank you. commissioner zoubi. >> just correction to the minutes. >> there were extensive correction submitted. have you look at the most recent draft or- >> the one online right now? >> secretary fuller, is that a correct draft or original draft? >> the one posted online is the corrected version so further corrections would be welcome. >> yes, please go ahead. >> lauren isn't acting anymore. >> thank you for that.

>> any further comments or questions on the consent calendar before we open the item to public comment? hearing none, please open the consent calendar to public comment. >> [providing instructions for public comment] >> i made a mistake in procedure, i like to correct. is there a motion to adopt the consent calendar of routine matters? >> so moved. >> thank you. now

we'll open the motion to public comment. >> thank you. members who wish to speak on the item follow those instructions that i just gave, and to note while anyone may be approaching to speak on this item, we are working to decrease the temperature in this room. i know city hall responds fairly slowly to changes in temperature, so my apologies to commissioners and everyone present for the temperature. it appears we do not have any members of the public who would like to speak on the item in person and sfgovtv is indicating we do not have any callers wanting to speak on this item. that concludes public comment. >> thank you. if no further debate on the consent calendar, all in favor of adopting the consent calendar please say yes. >> yes. >> i believe it issuenanimous

unanimous and consent calendar passes. secretary fuller will publish the minutes once final corrections are made and all resolutions to the commission website. we will move to item 6, secretary fuller, please call that item on the regular calendar. >> item 6 is the san francisco public library support services-190 9th street energy efficiency hvac up grades and photovoltaic panels and contract award. this item will be presented--this item will be presented by project manager sherry cats. the value of this contract is above the threshold for it to be considered by this commission and also to be considered individually on the regular calendar jis the is a action item. mrs.

cats, the floor is yours. >> thank you. do i-- thank you. good morning chair post and commissioners zoubi, newhouse segal and turner. sherry cats bureau project management here to recommend the award och san francisco public works contract 199 street energy efficiency. in the amount of 5 million, 697

thousand, 259 dollars with a construction duration of 455 calendar days to the contractor trico construction. this project is located at 190, 9th street and includes replacing the existing roof top hvac efficiency with new equipment and replacing with new build up roofing system and installing no photovoltaic panels and batteries on the roof to provide facility resilience. the library support service building is located south of market street on the corner of howard and 9th. it is three story, 45 thousand square foot facility and mest of the work will take on the roof

top. i will continue. it seems to not be the full one. i will just wing it. so, the project purpose is-this is a maintenance type of project that also focuses on energy resiliency and efficiency, and as i said, it includes replacement of all the hvac equipment that is past the useful life and need of continuous maintenance, so we are replacing. the panels and batteries that cover 40 percent of the 15 thousand square foot roof were designed and funded

by puc and provide 35 percent of the build ing energy needs and pu c will own and maintain once the project reaches substantial completion. the facility is the location of san francisco public library technical support services. tss serves as the library collection and technical service division and keep the library collection vital and up to date through ordering cataloging and preservation of library materials. it is the main distribution center to all the library branches throughout the city. and this concludes my presentation. staff recommends that commission award to trico in order to advance project to the construction phase and happy to respond to questions from the commission. >> thank you. nice to see you again. >> nice to see you. >> i had the pleasure

touring fire station with mrs. katz she had overseen renovation to. there was a fire station however that hadn't been renovated yet in the tenderloin i think it was. >> fire station 3. >> yes. i did not feel safe and thought the firefighters couldn't feel safe either. any word when the fire station is in the queue to be seismically retrofited and brought up to 21 century standards? >> the think the bond is at capacity for 2020 so i think it will be 2028. >> we look forward having public hefft to move that forward because i commented to the captain taking us through, i hope there isn't a major earthquake now or we all will die. i think it dates-maybe shortly after the 1906 earthquake interim director short was relating to so look forward to maybe advancing that. thank you, i realize that doesn't pertain to the

presentation today. i have no questions about the project. any colleagues have questions for mrs. katz about the library hvac upgrade. >> i was pleasantly surprised to see the integration of batteries into the resiliency plan. what's the expectation of the battery able to provide that resiliency, is it 12 hours, is it 24 hours? how are you envisioning it and again, i think it is great we are introducing batteries, but how are you envisioning in terms of resiliency and operations or do you know? >> i don't want to say for certain, but i think we talked about either 8 or 12 hours. but, i can get back to you on that if you like. >> i would. i think it is a pleasant surprise. of course it is cost, but considering

changes to how all solar panels are calculated and resiliency, i really thought that was impactful so love to know about this project the hours and looking forward to my own source to see the great work you are doing. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner zoubi. >> thank you for coming giving the presentation. i just dont know what photovoltaic- >> pv panels. solar panels. >> solar panels. >> yes. >> what are the batteries for? >> the batteries retain the power so it doesn't get returned to the grid, so it can be used within the building, and that's the question that was just asked about how long will batteries retain the power. these solar panels are specifically for the building and they don't return energy to

the grid. so, that's why the batteries allow for the resiliency. >> the batteries are full charge- >> they charge-anything not used that day will be retained within the batteries. >> anything extra doesn't go back to the grid? >> no. >> thank you. >> quick conversation about batteries. one reason i ask the question and think about our new fire stations, we are fortunate in mission bay our last project we completed, we put in a battery backup and is intended in emergency, making sure the elevators and residents keep the insulin cool and for the environment standpoint didn't have to bring a diesel or gas generator. i think it is impactful to explore from a resiliency standpoint and environmental protection standpoint. we don't want to diesel generators everywhere because the

city does (indiscernible) we need to preserve in this case our as long as we can. that is the biggest tangible benefit from resiliency standpoint and why i love to see more about how we are tackling this. >> i know that puc felt this was a viable candidate for their solar array, because of the size of the roof. it is such a large amount of real estate up there, and so we are taking a lot of it up with some of the hvac equipment but there was still a lot of room up there. i think one of the photographs will show the roof. the one that gives the address, and you'll see it is just a lot of blank area, so they decided that it was worth the investment. sometimes on smaller projects its

not cost effective. >> no further questions or comments we'll open the item to public comment. >> we would need a motion- >> thank you, i did it again. pardon me. is there a motion to approve the contract award for the library up grade we just heard described? >> so moved. >> i'll second that. now we'll open to public comment. thank you. [providing instructions for public comment]

>> it appears we do not have members of the public in person wanting to speak on the item. sfgovtv do we have callers who have expressed interest in speaking on this? they are letting me know there are no callers and so that concludes public comment on this item. >> thank you. before we vote on the motion, mrs. katz i want to request this. a year from now we can get a quick update on the progress of the project, if it is on schedule, on budget, if the scope changed. we'll mark the commission calendar for a short update and interim director short i meant to ask on consent calendar, same request for minnesota street scape improvement, short update a year from now on budget schedule and scope for

the commission. thank you. >> okay. >> this has a very long duration. the duration of the contract. because the pv and sometimes the hvac equipment as well as very long leave. probably in a year we'll just be at the point where we will not have made the a lot of progress, but we will have procured all the equipment. >> that is fine, even if that is what the update is just to make sure if that is the expectation- (indiscernible) >> i love to- >> that would be great. thank you so much. >> sure. >> alright. no further comment or discussion, all in favor of approving the contract for the library work please say yes or aye. >> aye. >> i believe

unanimous. the motion passes. secretary fuller will public the resolution related to this item on the commission website. it is 1054, i like to take a quick break of 6 minutes and resume at 11 o'clock. thank [meeting reconvened] >> item 7 is changes to the commission charter authority due to proposition b, 2022. deputy city attorney christopher tom will lead this discussion and this is a informational item. >> good morn ing commissioners. always a pleasure to be here with you. several months ago, we all experienced some changes to the charter that took effect on january 1, 2023, and chair post and other commissioners had requested a briefing on how

proposition b, that was passed by san francisco voters in november 2022 changed or effected your jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of this commission as well as the jurisdiction of the sanitation and streets commission. so, that's what we'll be talking about this morning. i want to just acknowledge that you are in a unique and perhaps uninevable position having a lot of changes you experienced and in the thick of a lot of impactful work. part of our my presentation will just refresh your memory on the recent legislative history that got us to this point and resulted in the formation of this commission, and then i'll walk through visually what changed as a result of the

first proposition b of 2020, and then how that was effected by proposition b of 2022. and then we'll go through more granular textual changes to the charter and feel free to stop me any time and we have plenty time to discuss and we don't need to wait to the end for any discussion. recent legislative history. you may recall that before proposition b of 2020, the public works department was managed by the public works director and overseen by the city administrator. a lot of this has not changed as far as the division of public works consisting of operations, building design and

construction, infrastructure design and construction and financial management and administration. so, when proposition b of 2020 took effect, that established the public works commission as well as sanitation and streets commission and department of sanitation and streets, which was largely the operations division of public works, which was removed from the department of public works and became its own independent department. and for the benefit of just visual representation i'll show you a few charts. this is a context for this new proposition b of 2022. this was the proposition that took effect or the legal

effect of this proposition took effect in january of 2023, and it essentially merged department of sanitation and streets back together with the department of public works and it made some changes to the commission-respective commission's authority under the charter. first we'll go through visual changes and then some textual changes. so, this is today. today we have a department of public works, we have the 4 divisions, and we have 2 commissions that have oversight over aspects of the department. this was the effect of proposition b of 2020. so, the

operations division was removed to create the sanitation and streets department. and the two commissions were established. so, as a result of proposition b2020, the operation division was removed from public works. under the new proposition b of 2022, the operations division was merged together back with the department of public works. and then there were modifications to each commission's authority, and we'll talk about that in a second. any questions

so far? okay. so, this slide identifies all of the charter sections and one section of the admin-no. all the charter sections that were modified as a result of proposition b, 2022. so, section 4.138 had described and precribed the requirements for sanitation and streets department. that was removed from the charter. and there were some changes to the charter authority of the sanitation and streets commission. in section 4.139. so, there was one

previously a section discussing in 4.139a, the purpose prescribing the purpose of the commission to set policy directives and to provide oversight for the department of sanitation and streets. that has been removed. there were also some differences in what would be deemed the qualifications for commission members, so the composition of this commission-of the sanitation and streets commission, continues to be 2 seats appointed to consist of 2 seats aopponented appointed by the board of supervisors, 1 by the controller subject to board's conformation and 2 seats appointed by the mayor subject to board conformation. the qualifications, this language has changed in the charter now, so whereas before there were

some prescribe requirements, they are now desirable qualifications. i think that's fairly self-explanatory. now you see under section 4.139, the authority of the sanitation and street commission is more prescribed and specified in a way where it was broader prior to this new proposition b. so, what was removed was the authority of that commission to exercise all powers and duties in section 4.102 of the charter, which enumerates powers and duties of commissions. and then it removed the authority of that commission under section 4.103, which pertains to the

annual report for a department that corresponds with that commission, and section 4.1 o4, which relates to regulations and bylaws. and what was added was a more specific language about--the focus of that commission continues to be looking at and establishing standards protocols and procedures related to maintenance of the public right of way. so, you'll see there is new language added in section 4.139c regarding oversight authority over those --over standards and protocols and maintenance of the public right of way. what is different and new here is that there's a clause that states the commission shall exercise only the powers set forth in

this subsection c, and the public works commission shall exercise the authority described in the other sections set forth in 4.141, which will turn back to in a second. yes, please commissioner newhouse segal. through the chair. >> better to interrupt? okay. so, going back earlier, so what has changed in the sanitation and streets commission mission or authority? they no longer set policy as they did in section 4.139? so, they do not set policy, they set standards?

>> that is a great question. what has changed is the broad catch-all authority for commissions to set policy under section 4.102 of the charter, that is the catch-all section that applies under most commissions unless their charter section specifies otherwise, that general authority that includes setting policy has been-is no longer part of that commission's authority. however, they continue to have some policy making authority with respect to the prescribed areas under section 4.139. under that section, the commission will hold public hearings and set policies regarding-i

think it's sanitation standards and protocols. there is a policy function there as well. >> are standards policy? isn't policy a overview of-that's broader then standards? it does concern me and has since this has been passed who sets policy and if we do and if we review that? or even hear what the sas commission is considering when they set standards, because that's policy. >> certainly. when it comes to the public right of way, it is hard to draw perhaps bright lines as to where one jurisdiction begins and one jurisdiction ends, because the

activities are multi-faceted but to your question newhouse segal hear what the san station streets commission what issues they are addressing and how they are deliberating, i think that is always something that this commission can request if it is not squarely in the jurisdiction of this commission. it is information that you're always welcome to request and the director-interim director short or chair post can continue to provide that information. you may recall that when we started this commission, there was one joint meeting between both commissions that is a practice that some commissions have from time to time. joint meetings between say the

planning department and the department and dbi commission, planning commission and dbi meet from time to time jointly. that is also another option for this commission to consider whether there's any interest in doing that, having a joint commission meeting. >> i think we are very interested, if the san station streets commission sets a policy within their purview, is that-do we have a chance to review it, change it, veto it, not recommend it? in other words, what i'm unclear about is, i saw the chart er language you reviewed, but again, we have oversight for the entire department, the rubber hits the road with us. there

are specific requirements of what the commission responsibilities are and they need to do that and live up to them, but again, do we get-does it all come to us or is commissioner newhouse segal says-it is more then just a presentation, it is-is that one thing you are concerned about because i'm concerned about that? >> it is even more basic then that. it looks to me, and obviously i am not a expert in this, that's why i want to have it explained. it looks to me just from the way it is worded and the way that you are explaining it mr. tom, that they do not make the policy. all they do is set the standards, which are basically how-basically operations. what standards would meet

our policy objectives? >> can i add to that question? i'm struggling with this too. real life example that just happened here. we had public comment about skate boards, and so if the streets and sanitation make a decision that they are going to lower it, which would be conflicting with the whole bunch of other street standards and how the street is built, that is from run-off, also vehicular-my question would be, they passed-they made a motion and said we want to do this, and we know on our side it got all these other issues who prevails? >> i think it is difficult to discuss in the abstract, but i certainly hear your concerns and i--in this city, there are as you know various

commissions and various commissions have different degrees of authority under the charter over a certain area. for example, if to the extent there is some changes to the public right of way, speaking of the roadway related to vehicular traffic, that is squarely within the jurisdiction of the mta board. whereas, if there is some issues related to storm water or pow er or gas, there may be areas where there is a overlap between the work of the puc and the authority of the puc commission, and the work of the department of public works with respect to designing and building sidewalks and roadways. >> that's a good

example. i think that is where i get little confused as to again, who would prevail? if steets and sanitation is taking this up they can have a sense of what we should be doing and how to coordinate it and they may have a policy recommendation and we are in the same position with a counter policy recommendation we take back to puc, mta or who ever it is. to you point, i'm not trying to be semantical but trying to be practical which is simply, who sets policy? i think that commissioner segal is correct, if you read this, it is all most as if we got the authority, but we are delegating them to do very specific things that to me don't read as policy. they all most read as operational or functional things that have to happen so dont know if the intent of the language is they are setting their policy within streets, or are they more from

a regulatory standpoint make recommendation that come to us for approval and adoption? >> i thrink it would be safe to say that there are various types of authority that are addressed in these different charter sections. but maybe to bring it to more granular level, under section 4.139, the policy authority is prescribed with respect to minimum standards of cleanliness and baseline for service to maintain cleanliness of the public right of way. i think it certainly provides that commission with policy making authority. those are rooted in or pertaining to standards of maintenance and cleanliness. i'll add one more

perhaps-one other consideration, there are certain standards and statutes under state law that also effect and in some cases limit what the city can do. >> in that case, and again -streets and sanitation absolutely seems they have policy authority that have budgetary authority, so what if they did pass something that is basically a unfunded mandate? it seems that they lack full authority to actually effectuate a policy change, given the limitation. i'm-how could they not come back to us and say here is our recommendation, but here is the budget, here is staffing, all the things they technically do not control and would need our consent along with the director?

>> i think that-you identified certainly one pertinent issue which is budgetary authority of this commission, which is to make recommendations on the public works budget. you are correct that isn't something that is part of the authority of the sanitation and streets commission. how that plays out ultimately i think it is something that we'll work together to implement smoothly. >> i have a question too, but commissioner zoubi i'll yield to you and ask mine after. >> one reason i asked to have this presentation is to give you a example, in a previous meeting i asked for information about a certain process that

had to do with street and sanitation and so city attorney told me stay in your lane, you are not allowed to ask about this stuff, because that's under a different commission. i wanted to know--again, i understand the part that we have budgetary authority, we give the budget, but ultimately the operations manager already asked for that money to work on sanitation and streets. we have-if they need to go over the budget they will get back to us, but the same time, again like a member of the public came here asking about sidewalk and streets, do we tell him sorry, you are at the wrong commission meeting, or-we just wanted to know where we stand. >> i also want to add in your presentation, the

voter pamphlet digest where it says sanitation streets commission hold public hearings and set policies on sanitation issues for the department and i realize what it says in the pamphlet is not the law. the law is what it says in the charter. none the less, when the public voted for prop b in 2022, my guess is most people just would have read the digest and not read the law change, so i have two concerns, which is one, that we are doing what the public thinks we are doing and are sanitation and streets is doing what the public thought they were voting for for them also. and then of course we are doing what the law states regardless what voters thought. the law is the law. i am cognisant of what expectations were last fall when voters voted not to split the department and to change the commission mandates so i think we'll let you continue the presentation, but i think everyone stated articulately that where the confusion is is

that it isn't as we lack things to do, we have plenty things to keep us busy every 2 weeks, however, we just want to be sure that we are carrying out our mandate to the voters and to the city in whether it is setting policies or reviewing standards and why we have full confidence of the sanitation and street commission colleagues-again, this isn't to take responsibility away, just to clarify what we can comfortably rely on them to take care of. fine, we don't need to worry about it, they can deal with it public on the isues or not. what we need to be worry and happy to work with the public on, that is all we are try ing to get at here. it is really important. maybe interim director short can think of a real example because abstract is tough but there are examples where it could come up or murky who has the final word. please continue, but i think that's the crux

of the matter. >> i did have--as a example, you had mentioned mr. tom, that mta would make a basic decision about transportation. so, let's say mta has a policy about use of lanes or sidewalks or whatever, which we discussed earl ier in the meeting, and they would just-i'm confused about whether their requirements and other agency requirements based on their policy will go directly, whether sanitation and streets has the authority to implement what they interpret as mta's policies for the use of sidewalk s and

streets, when it is the public right of way, do we have any say on these things at all? the curbs we are discussing, it becomes pertinent very frequently because we are talking about minute things that can effect people's lives. literally, their lives. >> so, i think you all touched upon one of the unique aspects of running the city. it is a very complicated city and there are lots of overlapping jurisdictions. even internally. but i think what i have witnessed is that to the extent that there's any issue that effects two departments or two commissions or more then one government unit within the city and county as part of the city and county family as it were, these government units

usually work it out. if there is ambiguity about one that is not amenable to a precise distinction or line drawing exercise, then it typically what happens is the department heads will get together and they'll discuss what makes policy sense and coordinate. >> can i ask-how would we know? going back to commissioner zoubi's earlier point, if we don't know and it isn't coming to us, it is like it is-we are always reactionary and i guess my concern here is, i understand you have your reg ural check-ins with sanitation chair and we appreciate the report out, but it isn't the same as engagement and expectation and leverage one more example again, we got public comment here that really my question is, should that have gone to streets?

did he miss a opportunity? this goes back to how we serve the public and how we are making sure we are efficient to our roles and possibilities and at the same time-i feel strongly about this, our citizens need to know where to go. it shouldn't be this complicated. let alone sitting at it dais having this debate. >> i guess just to your last point commissioner turner, i think with respect to the question of whether the comments about dimensions of lip of a driveway would be in the subject matter jurisdiction of this department and this commission, the answer is yes. so, i think to the extent there is perhaps a question about frequency of street sweeping, or methods and means of street sweeping, that would be

sanitation and streets issue. but i think my experience has been that when commissioners have been interested in maintenance issues or issues not squarely within the charter authority of this commission, director short and her staff are happy to share that information and to address it, and this commission has oversight over the department head, so to the extent that all of the functions that you described are-that are within the jurisdiction of the commission of sanitation and streets, they are all implemented through this department of public works, so i think that this commission is always welcome to request information to hold hearings, to use the power of inquiry, to investigate and learn more and opine about subjects

of interest to this commission. >> to clarify then, i'm not worried about setting up the system to have adequate reporting on policies and standards set by the sanitation and streets commission. we could set that up so we are fully briefed, but however, what if we don't like the policy? what if we don't like the standards? we represent the public too and we have a higher authority in this higharchy. are we sorry you should have gotten your word in earlier like any member of the public to the sanitation and streets commission or no, we have a shot of reviewing that policy and possibly modifying it? >> i would just piggy back on again and thank you for the clarification around the role of streets and sanitation. you can't clean without money and resources so it goes back to very basic think, it

seems they are missing some authority or need to come get maybe delegated authority. not sure how that works, but seems they can only do half their work. >> so, what i just heard you say mr. tom is that the-they set the policy. these micro policies. i don't want to call micro policy, because they all very important, but standards and then i believe this is what you said, then they are implemented by us and that's exactly the opposite of what my prior understanding of this was. granted, it is limited, but-even though we pay

for it, we vote on the budget, that's not exactly implementation. we set the standards, and the policy and they set the policy of how it will be implemented. that's my understanding, and then we pay for it. we say oh yeah, we like that. >> let me try to draw an analogy. i think what you identified is certainly a puzzle. it is a puzzle, and but what is clear is that the work that-there is work that the department performs, and the department reports to this commission with respect to most of its functions and certainly with respect to its budget, but there is a certain

amount of subject matter in section 4.139c that is specifically excluded from the jurisdiction of this commission, and resides within the jurisdiction of the sanitation and streets commission. i think it may not be-i think it is difficult to discus this in the abstract. i think as we encounter issues moving forward, we will work through them, and my office will provide the best advice we can. it is certainly the case that where there are overlapping jurisdictions or questions or ambiguities that certainly occurs with respect to other commissions. that's not new and not unique. but, i think we'll work through those issues as they arise.

>> interim director short. >> thanks. i thought i might give a little perspective on how i think this could practically work, and i encourage deputy city attorney tom to correct me if i'm wrong about any of this, but my assumption would be that this commission really would be relying on the director to kind of raise flags at both commissions if anything that is being proposed-for example, if the sanitation and streets commission says, we would really like the department to look at having daily inspections of the sidewalks in high need areas and we are going to propose a resolution, i think it would be

incumbent upon the director to say, commission, we appreciate that feedback. there will be budgetary implications to what you are proposing, and therefore before we pass a resolution, i think we should flag this for the public works commission, because we would expect to have to hire 50 new people to achieve that goal. conversely if the sanitation and streets commission suggest, can you assess switching street cleaning days on this block from tuesdays to fridays based on feedback we received from the public, that isn't likely to have a budgetary impact and can be implemented by the department. i don't think that is something that needs to be raised or flagged to the public works commission. i think when deputy city attorney tom was suggesting that you give direction to the

department and the department head, that person is responsible to try to insure there are not areas of conflict or to help identify them so that they can be reviewed and discussed by the commissions and there could be a joint meeting or the chairs could discuss, we want to see this happen, well, we dont have the budget for that. you can duke that out. i think fundamentally there are unfunded mandates all the time, and the department will do the best to respond to something with a unfunded mandate if the sanitation and streets commission gave us direction that the public works commission simply couldn't fund, we would do the best we could without any additional funding, but that would be the best we could do. i don't know if that helps, but that is how i envision this working and that is similar how it works if we do have city

agencies that have conflicting priorities, we meet and try to work it out and we may raise it to higher level for discussion and then we try to come to what's the best solution for the city. >> commissioner zoubi. >> thank you. that totally makes sense. if we switch it around, let's say commissioner request the public works commission says could we-we had some public reach out asking us to change the cleaning time from tuesday to thursday and at the public works commission, now the director would come and say, no you can't do that, you have to go to sanitation? >> yes, i think that's right. if someone was coming to this commission, i think this-i'll just-editorialize for

a brief moment. i think this shows how complicated the department is how much overlap there is, which-so, i think if someone came to this commission, it would be appropriate to direct them to the sanitation and streets commission if they had a question about sanitation and maintenance policies standards or procedures. >> can this-let's say--go ahead and make a motion commissioners, second approve, it cannot happen according to chart, right? >> that is my understanding, it cant happen. the public works commission could not make recommendation for- >> or resolution. >> or resolution for policy changes specifically around sanitation and streets standards and protocols. >> can i ask with

clarification, with the exception of their budget? so, that's the crux of what i want to understand is, at the end of the day, no matter what policy they make unless it is cost savings, how do they effectuate it, because-it seems that going back to the hierarchy here, i'm wondering was the intent of prop b to actually give them delegated authority from the charter or for them to make recommendations to the commission? clearly there are two commissions but talking about policy making. or is there a point of clarification? i do appreciate we are talking in the abstract, but rubber will meet the road here and we will be dealing with this issue and so just trying to understand how we can either address it in real time and don't know if is a interpretation or it is to director short's point, it is a process lauren and the

chair have to sus through and i'm okay with that too just to be transparent. >> thank you. i'm not okay with it. what i like to suggest is mr. tom you finish the presentation because i'm not comfortable taking things as they come. i don't want to wait to future commission meeting where something comes up and we have the discussion and turns out it should be with sanitation and streets. i just personally want a very-it may not be leaving the meeting today. we might want to think about it and have a working session, not a formal meeting, maybe with both commissions, but i actually want very clear understandings for both commissions on how to go forward, not take it as it comes would be my preference. why don't you finish the presentation. >> i do have a question what director-acting interim director short comment, because it was kind of different then

my understanding. if what you stated is correct, using the example of using more frequent maintenance-don't remember the specific example, and that that would have to come to us because it would require a change in budgeting, i actually would think that it wouldn't. that would come up through the department and in our operations and in our own accounting department, and then if they can figure out if that works in the budget, then we approve it, and it goes to the mayor-the department budget and goes to the mayor's budget and city budget. i wouldn't think we would make that decision on a policy level. that would only be a matter of

funding. >> if i may, what you described is correct. i think what i was suggesting is if we-if the sanitation and streets commission proposed something that is outside of the budget we have available, then i think it would be appropriate for the director to flag that for this commission prior to the sanitation and streets commission passes resolution that would require the department to perform something we know we don't have there budget for. i think the process would then be, if this commission says yes, we think that is worth pursuing, then the department budget team would add that request to our annual budget that this commission would then approve

and forward to the mayor. i think the concern--as i understand it, the sanitation and streets commission could choose to pass a resolution for us to do something that might have budgetary impacts, and then we could end up in a situation where public works commission does not feel that that is worth supporting in the budget. so, i think in a effort to have the two commissions work well together, the director could flag it and say, sanitation and streets commission, i think there will be a significant budget impact that we cannot absorb in the existing budget. you might talk with the public works commission or direct the director to talk with the public works commission before you pass this resolution. they could say, we don't care, we want to pass it anyway. they have the authority to

do that as i understand it. if the goal is to get that work done, then i think working with the public works commission to understand the budget implications would be appropriate. but you are right, if it is something we can absorb within our existing budget, absolutely there is no need to bring that to this commission, it would just be if this result in a significant addition or significant budget ask. >> can we get clarification on that point? because i would argue even if there was a line item in the budget that there is a million dollar savings, i don't think the streets department can curate a problem-they don't have any authority. even if you any time they want to take a action that effects our budget, good, bad or in the middle how can they take it without authority? that is still my question. >> if i may, commissioner turner. i think and thank you director short. i think your comments are very

astute and helpful. i think it is the case that if you look at section 4.139, and what the sanitation and streets commission duties and authority consist of,b it could be a theoretical universe in which they adopted a policy pertaining to street maintenance and protocols, and to director short's point, it could be the case that the budget does not reflect the same prioritization that lead to the effectuation of that policy. that could be the case, but eeben if that were the case it could be said that the commission fulfilled its role. it complied with its authority and the

duties under the charter to set a policy standard. and i'll add another couple layers to this. so, the budget process in the city also has involved other authorities, including the board and the mayor, so it's a very-there are many participants in that process, and the budget that ultimately results can look different from what comes before this commission, and in addition, the board with respect to certain ambiguities in the charter language, the board could pass an ordinance that clarifies scopes. for instance, section 4.102 of the charter, which this commission

has authority to implement states there are duties prescribed by the board, so the board could pass a ordinance that says, before this project is approved, it must be reviewed by the public works commission. there are requirements that could be codified in the municipal code not in the charter. that are not specifically in the charter, but clarify the roles of this commission moving forward. >> just one more-i'm still slightly confused. so, we are all grateful for president peskin and additional funds coming into public works. if the streets and sanitation commission decided to have a

hearing and without our consent decided to allocate it all to anything that is under their authority without our acknowledgment, that would be okay, because the money is there? i think what you are saying under section 4.139c, because it prescribes their duties to set policy around cleaning streets and sanitation, could they have a meeting pass resolution and say this $25 million is just going to that without our consent? >> i'll add-answer the question by offering another maybe dynamic. it could be the case they pass resolution that does not have a legal effect. they could pass a resolution that could be a urging resolution. it could be a statement of their preference. it could be a statement of their request. but again, this is all sort of talking in the

abstract. >> why don't you proceed in case there are key points because we need-at the end after we heard the presentation decide next steps. thank you. >> i this can section 4.140 is fairly straight forward. this memorializing the merging of sanitation and streets department functions back to the department of public works and there's a clause that addresses what happens in the-to the director serving at the time that the departments are merged. that essentially states that that director would continue serving until there is

a vacancy. one thing to note is that the charter does require that by june 30 of 2023, that the director submit to the board of supervisors a ordinance that amend the municipal code to make conforming changes based on these charter amendments. something to keep in mind. and if we go to section 4.141, this is the section that enumerates the duties and powers of the public works commission, and similar to section 4.139, the previously prescribed requirements for the qualifications of the commissioners has been changed to reflect there are certain desirable characteristics and

qualifications. so, now this is-we sort of discussed this-in 4.141c, this discusses the powers and duties of the public works commission, and essentially it states that with regard to the department of public works, this commission will exercise all duties and powers of boards and commissions set forth in charter section 4.102, 4.103 and 4.104 accept for the authority conferred to the sanitation and streets commission under section 4.139. and may take other actions as prescribed by ordinance. so, what was removed was there were certain previously

enumerated duties on top of the authority under section 4.102 or section 4.102, 3 and 4 and that includes overseeing the department performance, approving all contracts proposed to be entered by the department, and the director proof of adequate performance of any contract. and the commission performance of annual review of the filing of department vacancies. and you may recall that you continue to have authority under administrative code chapter 6 with respect to contracts for public works, and contracts for services related to public works projects and those contracts continue to come to you according to the delegation policy that you

approved early on in the life of the commission. so, then we get into the specific enumerated powers and duties under section 4.102, and you i presented on this early on when we met, but for your benefit we can revisit those duties. so, unless there's some contrary provision in the charter, each commission shall formulate evaluate and approve goals objecives plans and programs and set policies consistent with the city's overall objective. and then this commission shall also develop annual statement of purpose, outlining jurisdiction authorities purpose and goals, and this commission

has authority to approve the budget of the department that's initiated by the mayor, and may be modified. and budget modifications or budget transfers that require budget approval. the commission can recommend rates fees and similar charges. and act on the mayor recommendation to remove the department head. and this is a very important point, which is this commission has the authority to use its power of inquiry to investigate government operations within this commission's jurisdiction, and to make recommendations to the mayor and the board and again, this commission can exercise other powers and duties prescribed by the board

of supervisors and may also appoint the executive secretary to manage commission affairs. it may take-you may take testimony and hold hearings. you may retain temporary legal counsel. and each commission is required to deal with administrative matters fully through the department head. so, that's a summary of the duties and powers under section 4.1 o2. the language in section 4.103 and 4.104 is less broad, so section 4.103 gives the commission authority to prepare annual report describing at the commission activities and this annual report could be included in the annual statement of

purpose, and this commission under charter section 4.104 has the authority to approve regulations and you have done so through the approval of bylaws. lastly, under sections 16.129 and f1.102 there were conforming changes to remove references to it department of sanitation and streets. and there was a requirement that the services audit unit conduct-there was a removal of the requirement the service audit unit conduct annual cost and waste analysis evaluating whether their inefficiencies or waste and administration and operation of the two

departments. i believe that concludes this portion of my presentation, and happy to continue our discussion. >> are thank you very much. there is a lot to digest here. i think you heard a lot of good questions and comments from colleagues. before we go to what i would like to see as next steps, which is a working session with both commissions, because i will be leaving this very dissatisfied today. i'm very confused and remain confused. we have been up and running full time about 6 months and couple months part time i call it last summer as we got up to speed and we got to get to the bottom moving forward. especially now that our commission is fully fleshed out with 5 members. we just all need to feel very comfortable to make our meetings so much more

efficient for the staff, for the commissioners, for the sanitation and streets colleagues, so this will be continued, however i did detect reaction to-from the deadline for the department to submit by the end of june the ordinance putting the charter changes that were voted on by the city last fall, submitting the ordinance to the board of supervisors and want sure if a couple colleagues had comments on that. >> chair post, you hit where i was go ing to come back. it seems-by june 30 the director shall submit proposed ordinance amending code to conform to sections 4.13 and others. 4.139c. i assuming it is embedded there. it does seem we need to not just grapple with this but get our

hands around and make a decision ahead of the ordinance passed, is that correct? >> so, by way of background, the prior proposition b had a similar cleanup ordinance requirement, so for that charter amendment, a version of a cleanup ordinance has already been introduced, and it is due to proposition b of 2022. it remains-it is held there. nothing is happening. it isn't proceeding. but, i would anticipate since i worked on that ordinance and will work on this ordinance, i don't anticipate there will be a lot of major changes that would be required to conform that ordinance to reflect proposition b of 2022.

and i think it remains the case that there will be instances where there may not be a precise clarity on a certain question. just given the breath of the work that this department performs. >> so, just to clarify then, the ordinance by the end of june is more a clean up to make sure the charter amendments are absorbed properly into the city? okay. it doesn't matter what we think or don't think, just clean up item. i understand. however, going forward, it is critical then we understand what the law is, so we can abide by it, and we can articulate it to the public in non legal language and as i said, so our work and the department's work goes much more efficiently if responsibilities are very very clear, and are then even if we might not like what we hear, at

least we know that is what it is and it is sanitation and streets division. i think this will as i said, we are not over yet. commissioner newhouse segal. >> i believe that this is also going to be relevant to our transition into a permanent director, and that person i hope that person would be made to understand that some of this is still being ironed out how we all actually going to interact and function and are that that person may have some suggestions or input about it, but it is critical now. now it is really starting. we are going to have a permanent director, we will have-we have

two commissions and we will have a budget, so a lot of this is the time to understand how it is going to be implemented and know there are always questions and different ways to interpret laws, but we will try to make this clear to everybody. >> great. if i can then recap and make sure i stick with procedure since this is informational not action item. i will work with interim director short and deputy city attorney tom to develop a workshop if you will, a study session, whatever we want to call it, that this will be the only item on the agenda, it won't be a part of the regular meetings because we have a enough for both commissions to be together and with legal counsel and interim

director short and staff to hash this out. going forward, i want a one page bullet summary. that is the outcome of the discussion, one page bullet summary on what maybe two pages, a page for us and page for sanitation and streets, but i'm dead serious. i like to understand boom, boom, boom, boom, our jurisdiction and theirs. i think it is helpful for everyone. understanding life isn't like that. there will be murky areas and maybe not clear cut but in general going forward we are all are comfortable and understand what the effects of prop b2022 are. does that seem reasonable deputy city attorney tom? to meet in a workshop or working session if you will. >> of course. >> interim director short you would participate too? >> yes. >> thank you very much. how does it sounds to

colleagues as a next step? okay. i'm sure commissioner woolford would agree. thank you very much for your presentation. we can now have public comment on this item please. [providing instructions for public comment] >> it looks like we have mr. britnor with us to speak on

this item. you have three minutes to speak and you'll hear a chime when you have 30 seconds left. >> i want to thank you all for your rigor with this. this is a challenging thing. i have been get nothing to the advocacy space around this, understanding who to talk about is difficult to say the least. i started with sfmta and here today understanding there may be another commission i need to speak to. i had difficult get nothing to the building to be here points to the barriers to entry for people who are trying to be on the front end of the space. just thank you for your work. --

>> unless there specific accessible issues. we decided to keep the option for the public to call just because we cant expect people to take time out of work day to come to city hall. in the future, we always love to see you in person, but feel free to call in. >> thank you. >> thank you for your comment. that's our only member of the public in person who approached to speak on this item. sfgovtv is letting me know that we have one caller on the line. please unmute that 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. david pillpel, can you hear me okay?

>> we can hear you. >> proving to the speaker in person that yes, you can participate from elsewhere. on this issue, some difficult and interesting questions on powers and duties under the charter. one of my favorite topics and good discussion and great different views among members of the commission. i did note the slide presentation was dated march 17. i assume it was prepared for a earlier meeting and didn't happen till now, but there was nothing sentimentally different or wrong about the slide presentation. i think it was fine. while i think commission oversight of public works may be useful, i do think having two commissions is proving a little too cumber omsum and inefficient and gives rise to a lot of questions about jurisdiction. i support a new

charter amendment at some point in the future to abolish the sas commission and assign certain specific tasks that they have under the charter now and maybe add additional members to this commission so as to have only one commission. i think having about two regular meetings a month of about 4 hours is about right for oversight of public works and i think having these two commissions now is just a little cumbersome. in terms of functionality, i think this commission is very much a full-fledged commission with authority over the department, but the sas commission, the way i read it and the way it is seems to be working in practice is it has very limited functions and all most advisory in terms of setting street sanitation goals and things like that, so it is just a much more limited jurisdiction commission the way i read it.

in terms of having a future joint meeting and further discussion, i strongly encourage you to include rachel alanzo and perhaps douglas leg, both of whom i believe were involved in the pre-and post prop b planning and discussions about jurisdiction and i think rachel in particular may have much insight to share. i'm happy to engage if that is helpful. thanks for listening. >> thank you caller. that is our last public caller on this item. that concludes public comment. >> thank you. is there any further discussion or questions or comments on this? commissioner zoubi. >> i would like to ask for rachel alanzo to be part of the conversation. >> so noted. thank

you. thank you very much deputy city attorney tom. you are not done with us yet. sorry. please call the next item. >> the next item 8 has been postponed to later meeting for the motion to postpone following role call so move to item 9. item 9 is public works director hiring update. chair post will lead this discussion and this is informational item. >> thank you. is there a slide for this that could be put on the screen? thank you. as the slide reflects and the bullets, the search for a permanent director of pub lic works remains on schedule. right now, candidate interviews are underway for the

position and as i think i mentioned before, but if i haven't i will now, the city did receive a number of resumes and applications from qualified public works professionals from around the country, and indeed some are being interviewed. as recap of the schedule, i expect that we will continue into may or june before the mayor makes a public announcement. i want to reiterate that per the city charter, all candidates that are interviewed must be qualified by either technical training or management experience in engineering or architecture and i can attest the candidates interviewed do meet those qualifications. the charter also requires the public works commission to submit at least three qualified candidates to the

mayor, and i anticipate that the public works commission will be able to fulfill that charter mandate to submit a slate of at least three qualified candidates to the mayor. if and when the mayor announces an appointment to the permanent director position to the department, at the commission next regularly scheduled meeting after the announcement, we'll provide more details on the hiring process that we went through to the public, and i request patience from the public until that time when we can brief you. as i'm sure you can imagine and appreciate, strict -that concludes my overview and aupdate on the director hiring. any questions or comments from the commission?

interim director short. >> thank you chair post. i think there was one misstatement included in your statement that i think was just a hold-over from the prior charter requirements. so, the candidates are not required to be engineers or architects. >> management experience. >> i just wanted the public to- >> i am reading a direct quote i believe-just to be clear, qualified by either technical training or management experience in engineering or architecture is my reading of the charter. is that not correct? >> chair post, just

read directly from--give me one second. thanks for

your patience. it is correct that there was language that was previously in section 4.140 that was struck and that is no longer part of the requirements, which is that it previously stated the department shall be headed by the director of public works who shall be qualified by either technical training or management experience in engineering or architecture. that was removed. >> i see. i beg your pardon. i was looking at prior language. so, i will modify my comments to say that, per the directive and information provided by the city human

relations department, that all candidates that are being interviewed for the position are qualified and meet the qualifications specified in the job description that was posted and i apologize for the confusion. any questions or comments now from the commission before we open? alright. open public comment on this item. thank you. [providing instructions for public comment] >> looking in the

chamber-wait. wants to speak on the item. you have three minutes to speak on this and there will be a chime when you have 30 seconds remaining. >> thank you. i would hope who ever is hired for the position is also asked about the familiarity with the needs of small wheel devices. appreciate the attention of this commission and the interim director and just hope we are able to see the same level of attention continue through and hope that those unique qualifications will be asked for, even though there may not be precedent for them in the job description historically. thank you. >> thank you. and now turning to the call-in queue, sfgovtv do we have callers on

the item? they are indicating we have one caller. please unmute that caller and caller, you have 3 minutes to speak and i'll provide with a 30 second warning. >> great. david pillpel again. a couple points, first of all, if i haven't done so i want to continue to appreciate publicly interim director short's continued service, which terns turns out is not short, but longer then she probably wants. she is doing a fine job as interim director, and i'm sure she would like to go back to (indiscernible) not that she dislikes people. i also want to make a moment to appreciate the what i'm sure is a lot of time and effort that the 4 of you plus commissioner woolford are taking in closed session along with other staff

and the search consultant on selecting a new director. it is not a simple or easy process to run through resumes and have interviews and thoughtful discussion, and all that and so i appreciate the time and effort there. i understand from chair post comments just now that there will be more information provided following the mayor's announcement of a new director. i continue to think that the charter does not preclude you from making interim or intermediate announcements about the status of the search without revealing any names. as said before, not interested in names until there is a new director. i'm very interested in hearing about the status and if possible to say that you got x number of applications and you

widdled down to y number of candidates and to indicate when you actually send 3 or more names to the mayor, that would increase my confidence in the process which is already pretty high but you could increase further with steps like that. again, i don't want to brief any confidentiality. i'm not interested in names until there is a new director hire said. thank you for listening and thank you for your efforts on this. >> thank you caller. that is our last caller on this item. concludes public comment. >> thank you. please call the next item. >> item 10 is new business initiated by commissioners which is a opportunity for commissioners to raise topics to be included on a future agenda. this is informational item. >> is there any new business initiated by commissioners

today? hearing none, please open public comment on this item. [providing instructions for public comment] >> looks like we have one member of the public wishing to speak in person. you have three minutes to speak and you'll get a 30 second warning. >> i might ask there be a special appointment of a commissioner for small wheeled access, . there is precedent

for this in other countries in the world. specialty to advocate such these affordances are taken into account over the long-term. thank you. >> thank you. seeing no other members of the public in person, we'll turn to the call-in number, and sfgovtv indicating there are no callers in the queue so that concludes public comment on new business. >> thank you. i believe item 11 will be no further public comment since we did not use the full time allotted. is that correct secretary fuller? >> that is correct. >> thank you. mr. fuller, do we have remaining business? >> there is no further business on the agenda. >> alright. we will meet again

on friday, may 5 at 9:30 a.m. this meeting is now adjourned. [meeting adjourned]

>> you are watching san francisco rising with chris manner. today's special guest is carla short. >> hi, i'm chris manner and you are watching san francisco rising the show about restarting rebuilding and reimagining the city. our guest is carla short the intric director of public works and here to talk about the storms we had and much more. welcome to the show. >> thank you for having me. >> great to have you. let's start by talking about the storms that started beginning of the year. there fsh a lot of clean up recovery and remediation. can you talk about what your team did? >> sure. the 17 inches of rain we got starting on new year's eve through the first 2 and a half weeks of january made it one of the wettest periods in recorded history for san francisco, so as you imagine we had a lot of work to do. we gave out more then 31 thousand sand bags, we were

operating all most non stop from new year's eve to san francisco residents and businesses out of our operation yard and frequently working thin rain so it was a beautiful dance to watch. we had a corio graphed where people drive in the stop and load with san dags and get on it way so thats was the most visible thij weez had to do. responded to all most a thousand calls for localized flooding for the corner of the street with catch basin. our team trying to address that. we clear and pick up anything to block and it hopefully get the flooding to go down. if we are able to respond we call in the san francisco pub utility system and are responsible for the sewer system under so they bring ing vack trucks that vacuum out debris inside the catch basin. we also

dealt with lots and lots of calls about trees and tree limbs down. i think we actually faired better then some other places in terms of loss of full trees. we did have whole tree failures and that is not that uncumin with super satch waited soil conditions. we had over 950 calls about trees or tree limbs down. a lot of calls were about loss of a limb and we could save the tree. we are still assessing the data to figure how many were full tree failures versus limb failure. >> also had land movement too. the great highway comes to mind. what is your approach to managing rock mud and land slides? >> that is a great question. we had 28 different slides over the course of that period. it is kind of a interesting process, so the first step is we have our geotechnical or structural engineers take a look to see is the hillside safe, do we need to

stabilize it in some way or just need to do some cleanup? once they made their assessment they will recommend the next steps. often times to protect public safety we will place k rails the giant concrete rails at the base omthe slide area to make sure that any debris doesn't get on the edroway and bring ing the heavy equipment to scoop up on the ground and move off the roadway and try to open the roadway. some cases, we will actually inject some rocks or other stabilizing forces either into the slide area or sometimes below the roadway. right now there is nothing that's unstable out there but be are keeping a close eye on the areas including the gray highway area. >> right, right. well, so talking about the storms in the city response, brings us to southeast community scepter when there is rain

remediation projects going on. can you talk about the inconstruction project kblrks that is a favorite project. a beautiful new community facility. we were involved in pretty much every aspect of developing that project for the public utility commission. they were a client. we design project management and construction management and the landscape design for that project. and one thing that we included was storm water management throughout the entire project site. so, that project encapturealize the rain water that lands on the roof and flows into the landscape where we have rain gardens so intent is slow the water down to and give areas to collect to percolate into the ground rather then the sewer system. when we have sewers that are overloaded, because our rain water mixes with the sewer treatment storm sewer system,

we actually can end up dist charging into the bay which we dont want to do. anything we can do to just prevent those combined sewers from overpm loaded is a good thing and in this case allows the water to collect onsite and percolate to the ground which is the best way to manage the storm water and it is beautiful and provides habitat. i encourage everybody to see it. it is special place. >> that's great. there was recently news about how city (indiscernible) powered by steam, which is super unusual i think. i understand public works ablgtually does the maintenance on the system. can you just talk about that a bit? >> sure. that is a unusual situation. that steam loop was actually built when the city was recovering from the 1906 earthquake. it only provides

to steam about 4 buildings in civic center but that is how we keep buildings like city hall warm. the steam goes into the radiators and provides the heat. it is a old system and if you see steam billowing out of the man holes or other spaces, that is indication of a leak actually. we spend a lot of time trying to fix the leaks because it's a old system. it is managed by the real estate department and at one point they were looking trying to replace the whole thing but think that is a massive undertaking so now they focus on making as needed repair said. we did a big repair on growth street where we spent a month and a half working on the known leaks s in the area. it is a very tight spot and have to use blow torches to seal up the leak so a intense operation and seeing more leaks on polk street so we will be

out there once it warms up to fix the leaks. >> excellent. let's discuss what is the reunifiquation of public works. there fsh a proposal or plan to split off the division, called the street and sanitation. now that has been shelved and public works is going to just retain being a single entity. can you talk through the process? >> sure. yeah. the original proposal was a ballot measure voted on to split the department into 2. it basically create the department of sanitation and streets that was really going to incompass all our operation divisions so it was a street cleaning department but encompass everything we refer to as operations. when we worked preparing for that split with the city administrator office, we found there were actually 91 what we call touch points between the operations work and our engineering and architecture side, so

we really felt like it could be very difficult to split into two departments. we have so many areas of overlap. there was a new ballot measure last november to reunit the department. technically we split october one and did split in some ways. we did put on hold some of the behind the scenes things like rebranding all the vehicle jz giving everyone a new e-mail address in the sanitation and streets department, but on january 1 of 2023 we came back together so we are reunited i want sing the peaches and purb song and think it is a good thing for the 91 areas of overlap. we making #2c3w50d use of the research. preparing for the split. looking at all the touch points and trying to strengthen the department so we are more streamlined and efficient. one of the most important

component from the original ballot measure is commission oversight. we retained two commissions, the public works commission which oversee the over-all department and approve the budget and contracts. and sanitation and street commission and their mandate focus on policy and deliverable for street cleaning and basically the operation division. reporting to them regularly how we are doing, we think will help make sure we are as efficient and effective as we can be as a department. >> that sounds great. thank you so much for coming and talking to me today and appreciate the time you have given. >> thank you so much for having me. it was a pleasure. >> that is it for this episode. you are watching san francisco rising.

>> roughly five years, i was working as a high school teacher, and i decided to take my students on a surfing field trip. the light bulb went off in my head, and i realized i could do much more for my students taking them surfing than i could as their classroom teacher, and that is when the idea for the city surf project was born. >> working with kids in the ocean that aren't familiar with this space is really special because you're dealing with a lot of fear and apprehension but at the same time, a lot of excitement. >> when i first did it, i was,

like, really scared, but then, i did it again, and i liked it. >> we'll get a group of kids who have just never been to the beach, are terrified of the idea, who don't like the beach. it's too cold out, and it's those kid that are impossible to get back out of the water at the end of the day. >> over the last few years, i think we've had at least 40 of our students participate in the city surf project. >> surfing helped me with, like, how to swim. >> we've start off with about two to four sessions in the pool before actually going out and surfing. >> swimming at the pool just helps us with, like, being, like, comfortable in the water and being calm and not being all -- not being anxious. >> so when we started the city surf project, one of the things we did was to say hey, this is

the way to earn your p.e. credits. just getting kids to go try it was one of our initial challenges for the first year or two. but now that we've been doing it three or four years, we have a group of kids that's consistent, and the word has spread, that it's super fun, that you learn about the ocean. >> starting in the morning, you know, i get the vehicles ready, and then, i get all the gear together, and then, i drive and go get the kids, and we take them to a local beach. >> we usually go to linda mar, and then occasionally ocean beach. we once did a special trip. we were in capitola last year, and it was really fun. >> we get in a circle and group stretch, and we talk about specific safety for the day,

and then, we go down to the water. >> once we go to the beach, i don't want to go home. i can't change my circumstances at home, but i can change the way i approach them. >> our program has definitely been a way for our students to find community and build friends. >> i don't really talk to friends, so i guess when i started doing city surf, i started to, like, get to know people more than i did before, and people that i didn't think i'd like, like, ended up being my best friends. >> it's a group sport the way we do it, and with, like, close camaraderie, but everybody's doing it for themselves. >> it's great, surfing around, finding new people and making new friendships with people throughout surfing. >> it can be highly developmental for students to have this time where they can learn a lot about themselves while negotiating the waves. >> i feel significantly, like,

calmer. it definitely helps if i'm, like, feeling really stressed or, like, feeling really anxious about surfing, and i go surfing, and then, i just feel, like, i'm going to be okay. >> it gives them resiliency skills and helps them build self-confidence. and with that, they can use that in other parts of their lives. >> i went to bring my family to the beach and tell them what i did. >> i saw kids open up in the ocean, and i got to see them connect with other students, and i got to see them fail, you know, and get up and get back on the board and experience success, and really enjoy themselves and make a connection to nature at the same time. >> for some kids that are, like, resistant to, like, being

in a mentorship program like this, it's they want to surf, and then later, they'll find out that they've, like, made this community connection. >> i think they provided level playing fields for kids to be themselves in an open environment. >> for kids to feel like i can go for it and take a chance that i might not have been willing to do on my own is really special. >> we go on 150 surf outings a year. that's year-round programming. we've seen a tremendous amount of youth face their fears through surfing, and that has translated to growth in other facets of their lives. >> i just think the biggest thing is, like, that they feel like that they have something that is really cool, that they're engaged in, and that we, like, care about them and how they're doing, like, in general.

>> what i like best is they really care about me, like, i'm not alone, and i have a group of people that i can go to, and, also, surfing is fun. >> we're creating surfers, and we're changing the face of surfing. >> the feeling is definitely akin to being on a roller coaster. it's definitely faster than i think you expect it to be, but it's definitely fun. >> it leaves you feeling really, really positive about what that kid's going to go out and do. >> i think it's really magical almost. at least it was for me. >> it was really exciting when i caught my first wave. >> i felt like i was, like -- it was, like, magical, really. >> when they catch that first wave, and their first lights up, you know -- their face lights up, you know you have them hooked. >> i was on top of the world.

it's amazing. i felt like i was on top of the world even though i was probably going two miles an hour. it was, like, the scariest thing i'd ever done, and i think it was when i got hooked on surfing after

on april 25th 2023 at 504 p. m. yeah. and with that we will start our meeting and with that we will call for public comment on closed session items. do we have any public comment in person? no public comment in person. if there are we okay to move on to for virtual participants if anyone cares to share their public comment for our closed session items, please raise your hand. seeing no hands raised for public mm