156550001 at and the meeting access code. is (266)!a398-42477 pound pound. and then to raise

your hand to be recognized, press star three unless you're speaking under general public comment, please note that you must limit your comments to the topic of the agenda item being discussed. if commenters do not stay on topic, the chair may interrupt and ask you to limit your comment to the agenda item at hand. we ask that public comment be made in a civil and respectful manner and that you refrain from the use of profanity, abusive or hate speech will not be tolerated. please address your remarks to the commission as a whole, not to individual commissioners or staff and the public is always welcome to submit comments in writing to the commission at our email address. public works dot commission at sfdp .org. on behalf of the commission, we extend our thanks to govtv building management and media services staff for helping make this meeting possible. chair post. thank you. before calling

the next item. are there any requests from the commission to amend the order of today's agenda? all right. i don't hear any. we will move on to the next item. announcements by chair. i have just two today. my first is i'd like to call out the recent addition, the october edition of the department's newsletter in the works out this week i found it once again to be very informative and interesting and enjoy the references to the holiday that we all had on tuesday. in it, there is a history of san francisco cemeteries featured and the care taken by san francisco public works and other departments. when excavating for new or renovated public facilities. there was an exceedingly creative public awareness campaign. i thought, to spotlight illegal dumping in particularly problematic neighborhoods and to encourage proper disposal of bulky items.

in addition, our newsletter featured public works project design and management for the upgrade to the city's 911 call center. i was very pleased to see that the 2020 bond proceeds were used so quickly for this project at which voters had approved. of course, and the importance of giving our emergency dispatchers a better work environment. we'll hope that the upgraded center does indeed promote job recruitment. since our nine over 11 workers are significantly understaffed. secretary fuller, can you please put a short presentation on our calendar for early next year? after the 9/11 project is completed? i think it'd be nice for the public to see the before and after photos and understand how these bond proceeds were used. the newsletter also had highlights from last month's love our city neighborhood cleanup and beautification day in west portland surrounding areas. and finally, very interesting information about a seismic upgrade to the moats surrounding the main library funded by the california state

law, california state library grant. i was stunned when it noted that the main library was built 27 years ago. it seems like it was built yesterday, but time flies. my other announcement regards what we've been hearing about for the past few months. the love our neighborhood permit legislation. i'm very pleased to say it is proceeding. i'd like to thank again the public works staff who have worked very hard to bring this important measure to that will streamline installation of neighborhood serving amenities. earlier this week i attended a board of supervisors, land use and transportation committee hearing on the legislation and was very pleased to hear community and business organizations, those who will actually be pulling these permits, speak in favor of the legislation and the department's effort to assist them. i look forward to seeing the final draft and being kept apprized of progress on developing the rules and regulations associated with the new procedures so that the city can benefit from them as soon as possible. that concludes

my remarks. i did have a question, though, for deputy for interim director short and deputy director gordon. i hope that once this legislation is passed that the department will issue a press release letting the public know about it. i think it's newsworthy. is there any reason that that all department press releases shouldn't or couldn't be included in our commission meeting packages? i think it'd be a nice way for us to be apprized of items when that you feel are newsworthy. and to the extent the public looks at our materials is a good way to get the information out to them as well. thank you. chair post carlos short interim director. yes i think that's a great idea and we will make sure that we include press releases in your packet. great. as they come out. that'd be that'd be that'd be great. thank you. i think a nice opportunity. commissioner turner . good morning. i guess i have a question for interim director

short. over the course, really of the last week or so, there's been a lot of discussion around things that could or couldn't be impacted by love. our neighborhood, good activities. and i guess my outside of the land use process where there's public commenting and those things as we're developing any new programs, any new legislation, what is our process for kind of gathering public comment at the front end? and then is it not necessarily from a land use hearing and formal way, but do we in fact have kind of a public commenting process where we kind of gather that information and it's kind of folded in, or is it really left to kind of the other lack of a word public review processes like land use that almost all of our legislation is subject to? thank you, commissioner turner. carlos short, interim director. we don't have a formal process. we do strive to contact

community representatives that we think would either be interested or impacted by whatever is being proposed. but the general the public hearings, whether at this commission or whether at one of the board committees, are kind of the formal public process for that. we do reach out, especially if we have constituents who we know are concerned or interested, and we do try to reach out to them. but the formal process would just be those hearings that you mentioned. got it. it makes me you know, develop too much housing. think about when hud puts out a new cfr, there's a 30 day comment period where you can submit written comments and those type of things. so but it sounds like given our own public hearing process or deferred by another sister agency, that's really where the public comment is both taken and impacts the legislation long term. so thank you for that clarification. thank you. chair post commissioner newhouse. siegel yes. so thank you, chair post,

for bringing up the press release idea. so rather than putting it in our packets, i would love for it to be sent to each of us. if you could add that to your distribution, that would be great because i comb the local news every morning so that i know what the public is hearing about dpw or what's on their the tip of their tongues. so it would be great for us to know before we leave our houses what everybody else is talking about. so thank you. that would be very, very helpful. so thank you. do either of my commissioners have a further have announcements today for the meeting? secretary fuller, do you have any announcements today ? i have one brief announcement. my only announcement is that is a preview for commissioners and

for the public. of course, that at our meeting scheduled for december 1st, one item that's on the agenda or scheduled for that agenda is the election of officers. and just want to make sure that folks are aware of that date. and if members have any questions about the election process to please let me know. and that's my only announcement for today. thank you. please open public comment on this item . members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment on item one announcements by the chair, commissioner and secretary may line up against the wall furthest from the door if you are present in the chamber. if you are calling in, you would dial. 41565550001 and use the meeting number access. code (266)!a398-4247 7 pound pound. and then press star three to raise your hand to speak. and

. in the chamber it appears we do not have any members of the public wishing to speak and sf govtv has indicated that we do not have any callers interested in speaking on this item either. okay, so that concludes public comment. thank you very much. please call the next item on the agenda to item two is the director's report and communicate actions. and interim director carlos short is here to present her report. and this is an informational item. good morning, commissioners. carlos short, interim director. just a handful of topics to bring to your attention today. i'll start with the better market street project to advance work on better market street project, we shut down market street between fifth and eighth and actually a little bit on either side for two weeks just to vehicular

traffic for two weeks between october 14th and 28th to allow our contractors to work safely in the roadway. and muni trackway the work included. yes, apologies. the work includes replacing underground electric conduits to support the new upgraded traffic signals. replace missing the concrete crosswalks and installing new ada compliant curb ramps. i am very happy to report that the temporary closure went very smoothly. crews were able to get so much work done without the traffic interfering that it is very unlikely that there will be need for any more shutdowns. before this, we thought that there would be a need for two or even three more temporary closures. i want to give big thanks to the city engineer, albert coe, the project management team headed by christina olaya and flora law and the public information officer, ben peterson. the temporary shutdown took extensive coordination and due

to the detour of about a dozen major bus lines and the bike lanes and replacing the historic f trains with busses, pedestrians still had access and the businesses remained open. the better market street project is expected to wrap up by next summer. there are two other projects i want you to know about. the first is the refresh of the webster street pedestrian bridge that crosses over geary boulevard and connects japantown and the fillmore and western addition neighborhoods. yesterday we hosted mayor breed, the consul general ohsumi of japan and community partners for a ceremonial inaugural walk over the newly painted bridge, the once light gray concrete bridge now pops in the color vermilion, which is in the family of reds and can be found on traditional torii gates in japan that symbolize gratitude and harmony. the new color scheme, which includes black railing, is something that japantown leaders strongly championed public works

delivered the project. and i must say the new look is great. the 56 year old bridge now stands out as a new neighborhood marker. the event yesterday was really moving to have community members. they actually linked arms as they walked across the bridge. it was lovely. and next up, our street tree nursery. next week, we'll be celebrating the opening of our new street tree nursery. this will be a centerpiece project for public works located on fifth street between harrison and bryant, up to 1000 trees will be grown there at a time, and once mature enough, the trees will be planted in neighborhoods throughout the city. our bureau of urban forestry has wanted this for a long time and we are so excited that it's finally happening. the nursery is beautiful and will bring much needed green oasis to the south of market. as you noted chair post, we were at the board of supervisors land use committee to discuss our new love, our neighborhood permit. thank you for attending and for your advocacy on this important legislation initiative. i do want to note that supervisor

melgar is carrying the legislation which already has five other sponsors. and while the permit is almost finalized, we are planning to conduct additional community outreach to see if any other changes are needed. we will also be able to use that input in the development of our regulations for the permit. it's scheduled to go back to committee on november 27th for a vote and then head to the board of supervisors for consideration. given the number of sponsors already on board, passage is expected and commissioners, you may have seen in the news over the past week or two reports that we were changing the vending rules about permitted sidewalk sales in the mission. we're looking at pausing sidewalk sales. the plan is including the start date on the moratorium is still being developed. the city is looking at prohibiting sidewalk vending along mission street between 14th street and cesar chavez for a minimum 90 day period due to public safety and health concerns. in partnership with

the office of economic and workforce development and supervisor ronan's office, we're engaging with community partners as well as working across city departments, to develop a plan to support vendors during this moratorium. the plan will include providing access to services and resources that can provide permitted vendors alternate alternative economic opportunities as street vending will still be allowed outside the prohibited areas along less impacted corridors. once we have more details, the city will be conducting outreach to the vendors that have active permits . as commissioners, you have an item related to vending on the calendar for your consideration, but it does not actually directly relate to the proposed moratorium and lastly, i want to conclude with tomorrow's neighborhood beautification day. it is our final neighborhood beautification day of the 2023 season. our work day will be staffed as always, by our community engagement, street and

environmental street and environmental services and bureau of urban forestry teams. it gets started at 9 a.m. with a brief kickoff at sherman elementary school, which is at 1660 green street and will be working in district two tomorrow. and with thh that, i m happy to take any questions. thank you. thank thank you very much. i'll just, as you know, echo my support for addressing the vending conditions and other unsafe conditions along that stretch of mission. having experienced them firsthand. so i think it's good news for the city and certainly for that community in that neighborhood. i have no questions today, believe it or not. do either my colleagues have any questions for interim director short, please open this item to public comment members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment on item to the director's report may line up against the wall furthest from the door if you are in the chamber, if calling in, please

dial (415)!a655-0001 and use the meeting number access code. of 26639184247. 7 pound pound. and then press star three to raise your hand to be recognized. and we do not have any members of the public who have approached to speak on this item in person and sfcv is also indicating we do not have any callers on this item. we have no now. so that concludes public comment for the director's report. thank you very much. please call the next item. item three is general public comment, which is for topics under the commission's mandate but not related to a specific item. on today's agenda, members of the public who wish to make general public comment may line up against the wall for this from the door. if you're here in the chamber for folks calling in, dial

(415)!a655-0001 and use the meeting access. code (266)!a398-4247 7 pound pound. and then press star three to raise your hand to speak. and as a reminder, general public comment is limited to a total of 15 minutes for all commenters can be continued to the end of the agenda if we exceed that time limit and it is now 952. and we do not have any members of the public in person wishing to speak on to make general public comment. and sf govtv has has indicated that we do not have any callers either. so general public comment has concluded. thank you. please call the next item on the agenda . item four is the consent calendar of routine matters and the only item on consent is the

draft minutes from october 20th, 2023. for the meeting of this commission. and please note that corrections for clarity have been made and posted for item six, seven, eight and 11 and consent calendars can be heard individually upon request by commissioner, staff or the public and adoption of the consent calendar is an action item and before motion is made, i'm happy to make any corrections to the minutes or take any questions on. i have no questions or corrections. so do either of my colleagues have any comments or questions prior to making a motion to adopt the minutes? i will then make a motion to adopt the minutes from our previous meeting. is there a second? second. thank you. we will now open the motion to public comment members of the public who wish to make comment on item for the adoption of the

consent calendar and all resolutions contained within it may line up against the wall for this from the door. if present it if calling in dial. (415)!a655-0001 and use that meeting access code of. 26639842477. 1 pound pound. and then press star three here in the chamber. no one has approached to speak on this item. sf govtv is indicating that we do have one caller wishing to speak on the consent calendar and it's one item which is the minutes. sf govtv please unmute that. caller and caller. you will have three minutes to speak and i'll provide you with a 32nd notice when your time is about to expire. great. can you hear me now? we can hear you. good morning. it's david pilpel. so just a couple of suggested tweaks on the minutes. it's on

page two. the line that says commissioners paul wolford and fadi zabi absent. i might say, were absent. so it's consistent with the previous line, were present, were absent. i might have had fewer bullets and more paragraphs, but that's a stylistic choice. happy to discuss that with the secretary fuller offline on on the follow ing page i didn't understand include adding the line under general public comment that it began at 11 and concluded at 11:05 a.m. that seems kind of superfluous and i would suggest striking that on page four at the top, my public comment. i'm not sure i like the word argued.

maybe commented on or suggested that and on item six, where i pondered maybe again commented on, i would try to stray away from words like argue or ponder and just, you know, characterize it sort of neutrally with commented on or suggested there was, i think one other thing. one moment. director roberts and that's fine. i i think the rest of it was, um, was good enough. i'll leave it at that. if i find anything further, i'll discuss with the commission. secretary fuller offline. again thanks for

listening. thank you. caller. and that is our only caller on the consent calendar. so that concludes public comment. thank you, commissioner newhouse. siegel so no, thank you. i i should have mentioned this earlier when we first brought this up. i'm not sure exactly how to how we should proceed with this. i have not read the minutes from october 20th, and i have not read the corrections to them. and i was present at that meeting. so i don't feel comfortable voting to accept those minutes. i, i don't want to hold things up if you all want to vote for them, that's fine. but i don't think i can abstain because that would mean we don't have a quorum. is that correct? deputy city attorney tom, there is a remedy for this. can you explain it to us, please? which is that she can rely on our judgment as her colleagues. i believe you'll say it more articulately than i will . chair post. good morning.

deputy city attorney christopher tom that is correct. i agree with your suggestion. one option would be that commissioner lynn newhouse siegel could rely on the judgment of her fellow commissioners or rely on the staff recommendation. an or we could revisit this item later in the agenda. if you'd like to continue it to a different time or continue it to next month, is that correct? to the next meeting? bring it. we can we can accept the minutes at the next meeting. is that correct? that is correct. that's what i would prefer we have a very busy agenda. i'm not going to i was present at that meeting and i. i like mr. fulford. mr. hill, pilpel read them very carefully. and i remember being, you know, very engaged at that meeting. and i, i apologize that i and i, when i heard that there are

corrections to it also, then i really feel that i'm, i must read them. so if we could put this item off and we already have. mr. people's comments so we can make those changes if the secretary feels that that's appropriate, i apologize for that, but i cannot vote for them at this time. i will withdraw my motion and please remind me, deputy city attorney tom, may i, as chair, just continue this item to our next meeting. good morning, chair post. you may then. that's what we will do. we will continue this. secretary of fuller to our next meeting. please. thank you very much. all right, secretary fuller, please call the first item of our regular items moving to the regular agenda. the first item is item number five is the sixth street pedestrian safety project . project contract modification and project project manager arun bhatia is present and is here to

present this modification. and this is an action item i'm. and just for the commission and the public's knowledge, there are microphones. unfortunately we are still having they're not picking up quite enough on the public, on the public microphone. so we'll be using the remote ones today. okay. hey, good morning. can you see the presentation? not yet. not yet. okay. let me know when you see it. now we can. okay, great. and mr. bhatia, given your stature, you can take the

microphone out if you wish. it'd be easier. you don't have to bend over if that's easier for you. yeah. there you go. that's better. that's better. comfortable yep. much better. thank you. okay. good morning, everyone. my name is arun bhatia, project manager here at public works with the streetscape group. and today i am presenting a contract modification request for the sixth street pedestrian safety project. so i'm recommending that the commission approve a contract modification to increase the cost contingency by . $2,017,601 and contract duration by 276 calendar days as well as authorize the public works director to approve future contract modifications for a total contract cost of up. to $13,114,406.55 and a total duration of 1286 consecutive calendar days. the original contract amount is $10,088,005.05, and the original duration is 918 consecutive calendar days. our contractor is

escoval, grading and paving. and the reason for this request is that we are extending the project limits to include two additional intersections of work, which i'll go over shortly . so the current limits for the sixth street project are between market and howard street. and we are requesting to add two additional intersections on folsom and harrison street and the project is located in district six. there's a red pin showing a general location of the project on the map there and more info can be found on our project website. the project is ongoing now and in construction. it's expected to finally complete next summer and i'll go over quickly some of the current scopes we're working on and future ones that we have not yet started. so the project includes a curb ramp upgrades, all curb ramps within the projects will be constructed to be ada compliant. here's an example of one corner completed at sixth

and stephenson. also new curb to curb paving from market to howard, most of which has been completed and example here at sixth and mission we also have sidewalk widening at bulbouts at at key crossings to help shorten pedestre distances, crossing distances. example here at sixth and market and we have traffic signal upgrades and new pedestrian light upgrades which will help increase pedestrian visibility and improve the traffic signal systems. two examples here a traffic signal improvements at sixth and howard and pedestrian light improvements at sixth and mission. so that's some of the work we've completed and what we what we're expecting to be completed early next year are our decorative elements. we have 18 community identity plaques being installed along the corridor, six for each of the districts listed here, six from the transgender district, six

from the soma district and six from the lodging house district. and we're expecting these bronze plaques to be installed sometime time in spring of next year towards the very end of the original contract project. we also have raised and decorative crosswalks that also highlight the districts at the smaller intersection. stevenson, jesse mena and natoma. here's an example. all of our contract drawings showing the decorative element decorative crossing at the main street intersection on. and so that essentially highlights past work and future work that we're expecting on the project. and i'll quickly go over a project background. we see notice to proceed on january 17th, 2022, it was issued to grading and paving and directed them to start and reach final completion within 918 calendar days. the project is currently on schedule and on budget. the project sponsor sfmta, has requested that the project limits be extended in additional to intersection lanes folsom and

harrison street, and these improvements would essentially include all the same improvements we're seeing at the other major intersections civil roadway work, sidewalk work, bulb outs, sewer work, lighting improvements and traffic routing improvements. overview of that started on january 17th, 2022 918 calendar days with our final completion july 23rd, 2024. we're approximately 80% complete. 80% through the project and the addition of these two intersections, folsom and harrison street were identifying the need for six additional months of work, which is in line with the scopes of the intersections, the amount of length, the corridor is extending and how much we've done so there there's it's just in line with how the project has been progressing so far. and we would have a final projected completion date of january 2025. i have a quick drawing of the folsom intersection just to show

you some of the improvements we're going to get. bulbouts in all four corners and the bulbouts are going to be able to host new curb ramps, shorten the crossings, as well as allow us to install improved traffic signals, pedestrian lighting so overall, the intersection will be vastly safer for pedestrians who are continuing down the corridor from howard and onto folsom. the same type of intersection in or same type of improvements at the harrison intersection. i have not included that here though, and a quick graph of the contract schedule with the time extension on 918 calendar days is the original. the original contingency was 92 and we were requesting 276 days to be added and. finally today, hoping you can approve the contract modification increase this as well as authorize the public works director to future contract modification increases to the project. and any questions? i actually do have. sorry, you did send me a

question chair post before the meeting you asked if this was discussed in planning and design and you know it would probably be cost savings to have it originally included in the project. so yes, this was actually discussed in planning and design. i wasn't the project manager, but the history of the notes show that it was. we also did also have the project environmentally cleared to go all the way through to harrison. so the intention was, hey, we might be adding these intersections into the project, but we were looking at holistically as a risk reward, you know, how much funding was the project expected to receive and what could we do? we didn't want to try to do too much with too little, and we also have future projects coming in, such as the folsom streetscape and in very far future, the harrison that could also capture these intersections if need be. the project is going really well. like i said on time, on schedule, on budget and so we see an opportunity here where we have a contractor who's familiar with the corridor, the different types of roadblocks that could

occur at folsom and harrison. and we see an opportunity to bring this bring these intersections into our current project at current unit cost items for items that already exist and potentially reduce the risk of those future projects. so we're just really trying to balance out where does it make sense to have these intersections and so because it's environmentally cleared, it's an easy change order into the project. we don't have to do a new clearance. it's already included in the original project and that was our that was our thought process on why we're doing it. thank you. and so i just want to be clear. so this wasn't an sfmta request that came in later. that's our client organization, right? that we're basically we're project managing this for, for the mta. so they didn't come later and say, oh gee, we're so happy with what's going on. will you please add these next two blocks? it makes like like i said, it was discussed very early in planning and design. i think at one point the folsom intersection was included. you know, we started

to design it as part of our project and it hopped on to the other one. it's there's a lot of sub sidewalk basements on sixth street. there's a lot of potential problems that could occur when you open the ground. even the ones you know of could pose a problem that they weren't constructed properly. and so we have run into those problems that we've just managed to navigate around them very well with the project team. we have the construction management team, we have the contractor, we have we've we've really been able to handle these types of situations and either have the contractor phased differently than originally planned. pause on these types of things. they've been really reactive and responsive. and so we have a team here that is working effectively and we have the funding now to add these projects with a much lower risk than if we bid it out. and potentially if there were more things we ran into that could extend the project. now we're looking at a 918 day contract that's, you know, maybe 1400 days, but it's going to be in line with the original time per intersection. yeah, no, i understand. i think the answer i'm looking for, i think this is

the short answer, is that we held back some of our budget. we didn't plan for those last two in case we needed the full budget and for up to folsom exactly what we didn't. we can now do the second two blocks exactly. that's that's okay. yeah. we're basically using the contingency we already had instead of using it for major change, we're using it for these intersections. perfect. yeah, that's. that's all good news. so the money is ready to go. thank you very much, commissioner newhouser. so thank you so much. it is really nice to see a face behind a project like this that we're going to be living with for many years and we're going to be living with the construction for a while. so it. thank you. this is one of the nice things about having a commission and having the faces behind public works seen by the public and by us. i also want to say this. i understand the change is totally this neighborhood has gone through so many changes in use since the since the planning for this project began. and now that that

thank you for keeping up with this and certainly these changes that you're requesting, the amendments are necessary, but not a but an additional question . what are we doing about being ready for the apec conference? are you going to have to remove remove equipment and is this going to slow you down any because i imagine that that neighborhood is going that that the area where we're doing this is going to be heavily trafficked by apec? yeah. so i think the city was looked at and projects were identified that needed to be prepared for the apec or for the apec week. and so this project is one of those projects that was identified. so yes, we will be ensure that the project is safe for the increased pedestrian flow. the contractor has been notified of the upcoming event and there will be a cost associated with

that. but i think the safety measures that we are going to get as a result of the contractor, you know, either pausing work in certain high, high traffic areas and focusing on other areas. there's going to be a there has been discussions about that with the contractor and they are going to be making moves to ensure that the corridor is safer and that the those areas are on either pause and they're moving or they find work in other locations that aren't as high trafficked. and the contractor is going to be moving any heavy equipment that's that's normally would stay there overnight or. yeah, and there are there are locations, the traffic control plans have multiple locations where we can store. and so we're just essentially not going to be using those very those those those high risk areas. and so there's going to be some mobilization or remobilization to new locations. but yes, they will be moving heavy equipment. thank you so much. yes good luck with this. thanks commissioner turner, the piggyback on that

comment about good luck. i think many of us who've ever come into the city and trying to get around traffic have come down sixth street. it becomes a gateway into the city. and so i've been watching in the last year really the transformation of the work there. so one, i want to take my hat off, but i also want to remind us, you know, not just these partnerships, but what does it mean? i was actually walking san cristina, which is a thousand market street. so it's right there at the corner. i've never seen so many small businesses now popping up because the sidewalks are safe. they're pedestrian forward. so i really think it's not just about the physical work we're doing, but the design that's being put into and the thoughtfulness, because i don't know if most people think about sixth street as a major gateway, but it truly is. if you're coming from 280, 101, depending on where uber wants to take you. so i really do want to take my hat off and really want to make another comment, which is this strategic to look at the contingency to leverage and push a project forward in concert

with our sponsors agencies. so i really like this project. i think it's an exciting project and i want to take our hat off to the team who didn't just deliver a construction project, but i think fundamentally changed a gateway into the city that of course it's going to be echoed by fifth street in our nursery just a couple of blocks over. thank you. i appreciate that comment. thank you. if there are no further comments, we'll open this item to public comment. chair. i think we'll need to have a motion. to take action on this item. i second. okay. thank you. there's been a motion and a second. mr. bhatia, thank you for your excellent presentation today. thank you for your time. it's nice to see you again. nice to see you. have a good one. we will now take public comment on the motion, please. members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment on item five, the sixth street pedestrian safety project modification may line up against the wall for this from the door. if you are here in the chamber for those calling in dial. (415)!a655-0001 and use te

meeting number access code. of (266)!a398-4247. 7 pound pound pound. and then press star three to raise your hand to be recognized. and no members of the public have come forward to speak on this item in person. an sf govtv is indicating that we do not have any callers wishing to speak on this item either, so that concludes public comment. thank you. if there's no further discussion on the motion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye or yes. i the motion passes unanimously and secretary fuller will publish our adopted resolution to our website. thank you very much again, mr. bhatia and his team. secretary fuller. please call the next item. item

six is the folsom streetscape project contract award and project manager carol huang will present this contract award. this is an action item.

good morning. high commissioners and deputy director, deputy interim director short. deputy city attorney tom and secretary fuller. good morning. i'm carol huang. good to see you again. i'm happy to be here today to present about the folsom streetscape project. also, we have our client, representative alan. we've sfmta. he's also present here in case you have any questions. today i'll be presenting and also requesting your recommendation to award the folsom streetscape project in the amount. of $34,979,747.50 for the construction duration of 950 calendar days to mitchell

engineering for complete street improvement along folsom street to enhance multimodal safety. the 1.4 mile project runs along folsom street between second and 11th streets within district six. we hope to begin construction in spring 2024, which construction will be split into three segments. which segment? one being from second to fifth street and the second segment between fifth and eighth and also the third segment between eighth and 11th street. so that we can minimize impact and avoid contractor working along the entire corridor during construction. and segment three between 8 and 11 street will be prioritized. moving on to project timeline since 2016, sfmta in collaboration with public works, conducted in-depth planning outreach for the project to identify opportunities. areas of high concern and suggested improvements. and from 2017 to

2018, multiple open house events were hosted by sfmta. we collaboration with public works to present near-term alternatives and positive and possible long term traffic changes. some near near-term improvements. we protected bike lanes and modified traffic signal phasing were implemented at various locations on folsom street in 2018. a photo on the right on this slide kind of gives you an example of seeing that the protected bike lane and traffic signal improvements at the folsom and eighth intersection after working closely with the community to align project goals in 2008 2019, sfmta secured the legislative approval on the long term transportation changes on the folsom streetscape project, and from 2019 to 2021, public works led the detailed design and hosted a public room open house event in 2019 and later on during summer 2021. the project was awarded 15 million federal

funding from transportation authority and after that the project team worked with caltrans closely to complete additional environmental clearance right of way certificate and funding obligated portion of on july 7th, 2023. public works advertised the folsom streetscape contract for bid and received five bids on september 20th, 2023, after contract award approval. we hope to begin construction in spring 2024 and complete the project by the end of 2026. the project improvements include transportation modification to establish two way parking protected bikeways, also curb ramp upgrades and bulbouts with widen sidewalk raised crosswalk birx mid-block crossing to improve pedestrian walking safety. we also have traffic signal modifications and most of the intersections to include new

traffic, pedestrian and bicycle system. there is also going to be new roadway and pedestrian street lighting to enhance the visibility and overall roadway lighting level all along folsom street. in addition, utility improvements, including wastewater replacement and rehabilitation, drainage improvements and emergency fire, water system replacement, will also be included in the project. they're also going to be overhead contact system and traction power improvement, along with new boarding islands to improve transit efficiency. and last but not least, there's also going to be new median planting street trees to be added to folsom street. there will also be new decorative crosswalk, which i'm going to show some rendering later on in the future slide. and at the end , the project limit will also be paved from curb to curb between second and 11th streets. during detailed design, the project team had coordinated with

multiple stakeholders to solicit input on placemaking elements. key stakeholders include letter and lgbtq cultural district, san francisco, filipino cultural heritage district or soma filipino as the yerba buena community benefit district or cbd. the soma west community benefit district, soma, west cbd and sf park ghanaians and also the south of market community action network also go for soma can some can actually hold a lot during the planning level outreach. they conducted a lot of the workshops, collaborated with sfmta and sf public works to gain input from the community . the project was divided overall in three main improvement zones for focused discussion with leather and lgbtq, which is from 7 to 11 streets. the soma filipinas, which is between fifth and seventh and then the cbd, which is from second to fifth street.

it is in the next two slides. i have some project renderings and visuals and hope that will help you understand a little bit more about the project. public, public realm on the left here there is a rendering for the folsom branch hallam street intersection, which is actually within the leather and lgbtq improvement area where you can see the two way cycle track on the rendering. and there's also going to be decorated crosswalk at and within this area we are also going to install multiple command metal plaques that led an lgbtq got legislated for. in addition, there's also going to be cultural pole wraps to be added onto the poles within the corridor. and on this slide there are two renderings which the one on the left are demonstrating some sample improvements within the soma filipinas district and this is

actually at the folsom and ross street intersection to we are actually going to include different type of decorated crosswalk within the area. and you can actually see that there's also different type of bench to enhance the cultural identification for that district and the rendering on the right side is within the cbd district, which you can see. we also have a third type of decorated crosswalk within the cbd area and we're also going to install additional cbd benches and bike racks within the corridor between second and fifth street. the project was advertised on july 7th, 2023, and we received a total of five bids on september 20th, 2023. the average bid was. $40,824,467.18. engine year estimate. was 37,518,000 and $400. the average

from the five bids compared to the engineer's estimate was 109,109. excuse me, or a difference of 3,306,006 $7.18. the lowest bid from mitchell engineering compared to engineer's estimate was 93% and due to the federal funding participation, we also have the goal and also participation requirement on this project, which is 23% and in conclusion, we are asking for your approval to award the folsom streetscape project in the amount. of $34,979,747.50 with 950 calendar days. construction duration to mitchell engineering. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you, miss wong. it's nice to see you again and thank you for this excellent

presentation motion. i'm delighted to see a couple of things. first, congratulations to you and the department for obtaining all the federal funding that you did on this project. what a wonderful accomplishment. great job. thank you very much. and then i'm just so happy to see the way you'll be on this stretch of folsom delineating these different neighborhoods. it's a long stretch that you're going to be working on. and as someone who lives near the first stretch of folsom from the embarcadero to second, and we have neighborhood identifying benches and planting and crosswalks, it's a huge deal to people who live in these neighborhoods to have these neighborhood identifying features, amenities that to instill a source of pride in your neighborhood. so thank you for walking us through those. i'm sure the people who live there appreciated having all the input working with you on all these design features. so that's a great, great part of the project. thank you. you're welcome. commissioner newhall segal. so i also want to congratulate you. this is i also

want to congratulate you. this is really a necessary in the 80s, i briefly worked out of an office on folsom street and i have had reasons to be there during the day. i'm surprised there are schools there. there are parents picking up their kids. there is activity, but there could be so much more pedestrian activity. and i this will encourage it and i think it's very needed. the federal funding is fabulous. what would be really, really helpful to me anyway, because this is how i see things in on the street kind of linear way in in future materials. could you also mention the length in miles or the so that people understand what this is in a in an urban environment? how big a change this is so of course that works. yeah, i think i may have talked

too much. and then second slide to and probably talk pretty fast. and i did mention 1.4 mile for this corridor between second and 11th street. that's all. it seems much longer. it does. it does because it's pretty it seems shorter when there's more activity. small shops and rest, lots and lots of pedestrian activity. this is going to encourage. so we won't think of it as being long stretches between blocks, but as a community hub. so thank you so, so much. you're welcome. thank you for the feedback. thank you. i'm going to support this. thank you, commissioner turner. let me get on the bandwagon with good feedback like sixth street is a gateway to the city by all stretch of imaginations. folsom is a outdoor global performance stage. think about how many festivals and things, but more importantly, how many people recognize it around the world. and so for us to improve it, to

make it more accessible, particularly the pedestrian side , doing our multitude of festivals that happen there, my hat goes off to you. so i wanted to say that second part though, and i think interim director short and maybe deputy director robertson, if you're here, i saw the amount of federal resources and more important, some of them are one time, but what also struck me is just the number of sources. and if this is becoming a trend that we're going to see and this is kind of echoing, i think our last couple of meetings of where are we with kind of bond proceeds, where are we with, you know, small one time sources i take my hat off because what an amazing way to co-mingle these funds to bring real benefit to the city. but i also understand that's a lot of work to do this. and so i'm trying to understand, is this a is this our model that we should now be envisioning the multitude of sources to accomplish these goals? i will start and then i

can invite deputy director robertson to chime in. karla short, interim director i do think, particularly given that we are entering another challenging few years with our projected revenues for the city, that we will be needing to get creative or continuing to get creative with how we fund our projects. but you highlight a very important point that multiple funding sources many times come with different regulations for reporting for what the funding can be used for. sometimes even with some of the federal funding they disallow some of our local requirements. so it's a very challenging way to manage a project. having said that, i think we're going to be seeing a lot more of it and we still i think it's a challenge that we're up for because we don't want to just slow down our work because the city itself isn't able to fund as many of these components. deputy director

robertson, do you want to add anything? good morning, commissioners. bruce robertson, deputy director of finance and administration, interim director . your overview is perfect and spot on. i think the only thing i would add is in the infrastructure, design and construct streetscape projects. we actually see this. this is not uncommon. so this project has ten funding sources. i use second street as an example. i think second street had 25 and some of the works were block specific. so a lot of work and did whisper into the ear of rachel gordon our communications director, just how much work went into getting and obtaining the funding sources for this project. but on the on the infrastructure side, it's very much it's not uncommon to see five, ten, 15 different funding sources. and one of the things that really makes public works unusual is the different the term we use is colors of money, the different color of money we use. and it's really up to the project managers and our

accounting staff to really know all of the intricacies and the rules related to that. so it is something we see quite a bit. to answer your question specifically, it is something we anticipate seeing more so in the future and it's something we are actively working on both within finance and with our project managers to address all potential funding sources. we can get. because if we do have a downturn with local funding sources, we want to try to be able to use other sources. commissioner newhouser. a little over a year of being on this commission and it's new to this department to have a commission open. i just think one of the advantages is, is that we all get to see what's behind public works because this is just i continued to be impressed. and many of you have been working here for years and the public has not seen that. so this is one of the one of the one of the

advantages of having this all in public now. so thank you so much . yeah yeah. thank you. if there are no other comments and we'll open excuse me, is there a motion to award this contract for the folsom streetscape project motion? we approve. i'll second that. we will now hear public comment on the motion. mayor members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment on item six, the folsom streetscape project contract award may line up against the wall furthest from the door. if you are with us in the chamber, if you are calling in, please. dial (415)!a655-0001 and use the meeting number access code. of (266)!a398-4247 7 pound pound. and then press star three to raise your hand to be recognized

and. we do not have any members in person who have come forth to speak on this item. and sf govtv is indicating that we do not have any callers either on this item. so that concludes public comment. thank you all in favor of the motion, please say aye or yes. i the motion passes unanimously and secretary fuller will post our adopted resolution to our website. secretary fuller, given the $35 million size of this project, can you please put on our advanced calendar an update from miss huang or her designee on the progress of this. a year from now, i'd like to hear how it's going a year from now. sure. thank you very much. thank you for your time. thank you. secretary fuller, please call the next item item seven is the san francisco municipal

transportation agency parking enforcement, construction control act award and project manager michael rossetto will present this contract award and it is an action item. good morning, commissioners. city attorney and interim director, short. glad to be here today. project manager from public works for this mta parking enforcement headquarters project , which is largely a renovation of an existing building at 1,215th street and this i'm here today to ask for award of the cmg with design assist core trade subcontractor contract to get started with pre-construction services that will coincide with the bureau of architecture led design team that is now in the design development phase of design.

thank you for pointing that out. we were so engrossed by your words, we didn't notice that we didn't have the visuals. thank you. there we go. can we make it bigger. too big. put it in presentation mode. there. hopefully we're

good. up this is actually the previous presentation. now no. i got nervous because the contract amount is actually very, very close, but it's off so wondered what happened. except that. all right, now i think we're good. okay yes. so the contract amount 30 just over $34.8 million. this is based on the rfp, which issued was prescribed to all the proposers direct costs of $28

million plus asking for the fees for pre-construction services and construction service charges. so this does not include food escalation and indirect costs. the estimate that we have, the construction cost estimate for the project is at $49,500,000, and that's based on a completion of schematic design documents. that's and that estimate was produced in december of last year. so we will be seeing some escalation. but in the in the meantime, with the start of design development in june, the team has already undergone value engineering exercises. so perhaps with escalation we'll balance out and hopefully be very close to that 49.5, which is the budget limit that mta we've established with mta for the project. the project site, 1200 15th street, is very close to here. if you went down south and you would take about

20 minutes to walk there. so. very close to where we are at the northern end of the mission district, there's the project site. the orange portion is the existing building. it's contiguous on the north side with the scott garage that mta also owns and operates. it is the building is considered a historic resource. it was built. in 1931 and it is an example of art deco industrial, a major driver for the project is seismic upgrade. the project site sits over a portion of mission creek. so as we find all too frequently in the city, not great soil, approximately $17 million of the current estimate is in the foundation and so

you'll, as i move through this and one of the slides talking about the cmg team, we did bring on for this project as one of the core trade subcontractors, a deep foundation contractor, to get their expertise to try to bring that the design and that cost to make it as efficient as possible. some examples of the interior, the main stair, which is off the main entrance on 15th street, which is the south side of the project site, it has nice banisters, nice wood entry doors, a nice terrazzo floor. the project team will be retaining all of that. perhaps the greatest challenge challenge on the project is the what are depicted here as the green lines on the puc. there's a puc sewer line which is over a mile in length, and that project is slated for full replacement. and so when that happens, we've been working closely with the puc

there, working on their design. they don't yet know when construction will start, but we fully expect it to start while this project is in construction. and so we this was a one of the main points made in the rfp that the cmg team is going to have to interface with the design team and puc to work out the logistics and how this is going to be accomplished with minimal impact to both projects. to be fair, when the puc does the construction work, they're going to be basically opening up a full block at a time. they've told us anticipate 24ft wide and 20ft deep. so it'll as it crosses through the outdoor yard of the project, one of the things that we're already doing to mitigate that is we're separating the building permit from the outdoor improvements. that way, if there is direct impact with puc construction

happening at the same time in the outdoor yard area, we can still get a certificate of occupancy and get mta moved in and let the yard finish on its own schedule. this is a slide is about the construction manager, general contractor contract relationship. so in short, we're bringing a team on, a team of construction experts on as early as possible. as i mentioned, it'll be in the design development phase so that there first task will be to do a cost estimate. i'm giving them 30 days to produce a cost estimate and also come up with a construct suitability review comments and cost reduction slash value engineering comments . so that'll be interesting moment when we have the city's estimate to do a full update on the estimate and compare it to the cmg team's estimate. this

slide is talking about the overall solicitation process for this project. 60% was based on non cost criteria and 40% based on the cost criteria for the 60% is divided equally between the panelists scoring of the responses to the rfq, which happened approximately a year ago and the other half of that was from the oral interviews. as of the four pre-qualified teams and those interviews took place in august and then at the end of august, the cost proposals were due and all the numbers are crunched and combined. to reveal the ranking, which is where we are now. this is just talking about some of the key benefits of the cmg contract. and really, i touched on it already. it's getting the expertise of the

builders on board as early as possible to work as as team members hand in hand with the design team to see where we are and gain their expertise to how to improve efficiencies and cost . these are just some of the elements contained within the non cost and cost criteria. so in the rfq phase, looking at a firm's safety record and project experience and items like that and panelists independently scored them and then moving on to the rfp, oral interviews as these are the three questions that that were issued to the teams. the four teams, i believe it was ten days prior to the interview. so they have time to prepare for these response pieces. and the panelists are in the room and they're scoring in real time right there and turning in their their time sheets. so you can see right here, question number one. and

these questions were were weighted differently, if i remember correctly, in in the order of one, two and three that they're presented here. so we put a major emphasis on this sfpuc sewer line replacement. so we were really looking for what innovation they could bring to the to the table for that. and then the cost criteria, it's really just based on their completion of the of the. the bid form that they're given. and this shows the overall scoring. of the four proposers and the overall scores on the right hand side. and clark construction was the highest ranked. this shows what the cmc team players rose and did an electric it includes

low voltage so that's lighting and other items like that southland industries mechanical and plumbing and condon johnson for the structural specifically pile driving and compac and grouting again that emphasis for the major cost for this project being in the foundation and. this just this shows some of clark's recent experience. i think some of you may have seen the project on the right, if not all the others. um the anticipated schedule. i'm really hoping that we're ready to get moving with the cmg team this month. i keep things on schedule. i know we're moving into the holidays and typically there's a bit of a slowdown, but the design team is approaching a 50% design development deadline december 1st. and so that's

going to be that's going to be the tool that both the city's estimator and the cmg team, as long as they get the mcp quickly enough that that'll be the most recent document for everybody to look at, see where where we are. it's roughly speaking, we have about a year of design and two years of construction and of course getting the cmg team on board. one of the things we'll look at is how to compress both of those as design coincides with permitting. so that's not always entirely within our control. once we have the permits, the construction phase is more within our control. unless we hit unforeseen conditions, which can always happen. so this is really the conclusion. this is the same slide that i showed at the beginning. there's a question slide, but i'll leave it here because it's a little more information. thank you. mr.

rosetta, it's nice to see you again. thank you. i do have a few questions. thank you. my first is i think a part of this project. it's that the emergency operations for this division will be permanently housed in a trailer and not in the renovated building. why? why is that? is the building too small or shouldn't we put an addition on it? it just why not a permanent brick and mortar structure for the emergency operations? yes, i did see that question. i added a it's not i'm sorry, it's not on there anymore, but i added to one of the slides here to touch on that issue. it's really it goes back to, well, everything is tied to cost. trailer is going to be less expensive than a than a new construction. the it's meant for emergency ac situations where the building itself can no longer be occupied . that trailer happens to sit directly above where that sewer line is, which is only about

four feet below grade. so we actually can't build a building there. so a trailer is kind of the perfect option. it'll have its own emergency generator, so it'll be a self contained. it's not meant to be normally occupied. it's really there for emergency purposes. i see. and i do see now the note you added to the slide. thank you very much. sure. um my other question is on the award of bid to clark and the scoring on the on the non cost and the cost their non cost was was high, but their cost was not as good as some of these other bidders. are you able to tell us some of the things that really put them way over the top on the non cost? i mean, i know you had the slides on it, but i just was curious because their cost was not as good as others. and i'm sure you could see in the in the overall ranking there that the difference between the first and the second place ranking is was very, very small. but so the panelists i read

through the panelists notes afterwards and, you know, i could comment on my own perception because i sat through the interviews, but i did not score. so that ultimately doesn't matter. the panelists are the ones who scored, but having read their notes afterwards, it's pretty clear that everybody was very impressed with how clark was especially prepared. and they had done a lot of research on the specifics in. it really came across as they understood the major challenges. and they came to the table showing ng what what they've done to understand it and what they can do to help guide the team. and that came across in the scores. thank you. and then my last question was, i guess about the cost. and you mentioned that the foundation, because of the building, the historic building being over mission creek, that the foundation would be about 17 million. you're estimating, which is almost a third of the project cost. is that normal for

a foundation to be about a third of the project cost? well, a lot . it's i would say it's fairly normal for where we're building more and more projects in the city, in landfill areas, because a lot of times it's the only land available. obviously this is an existing building. it was built. they must have known in the early 30s when they were undertaking this project that it was over mission creek, but they just for whatever reason, they proceeded. so for this project it does make sense. you can see in those images well, yeah, several of the images show how many piles are going down and they're not even going for this design. it doesn't even take them down to bedrock. like there are different pile type than was used at the police facility. we did go down to bedrock. yeah, so it is definitely for this project. it although it's a large number, it does make sense. and so i guess a couple

questions were i understand it's an emergency. it's a parking. i mean, it's an important city building and i guess if this wasn't if this was i know a different use, would it have to be renovated with a foundation, have to be the secure? i mean, i guess what i'm trying to understand is, should this building have been picked for this use is what i'm thinking here, that if it's an historic building that's over a creek and it's going to be expensive, should this have been put elsewhere, given what's going in the parking enforcement? but but i hear you saying, yes, maybe, but we're running out of land here, except what's on landfill. and we're there's going to be a lot of water. so maybe it's six of one half a dozen of the other. if we decided somewhere else, it might have been just as costly. that's what i was just trying to struggle with that it i mean, i'm i want to keep the historic building and use it for something useful, not have it

sit vacant. but i was just sort of thinking and not that it's our decision, it's sfmta's decision. we just need to do the best job. we absolutely can for them. but that that's all i was kind of wondering about if you had thought on that. so this the design is not taking the new use will not cause this building to become an essential facility. so this is the standard required code application. it's not heightened. and as was the police facility that we worked on. okay. so if it was going to be an arts building, for example, this would be the same required. the same? yes thank you very much, commissioner turner. i think i want to piggyback on that point, but i think it is important to frame correctly. mta is the client. we love our clients. we're going to do as they dictate. i guess my first thing is just to clarify though, the difference of some things we've seen come in front of us a few months ago we had the inglewood police station and i was like, why would we ever do

this? but one, it's driven by what the voters appropriated the money to do is to do that seismic and so on. and so forth. but in this case, this truly is mta bond as their proceeds. so they're just making this decision on not necessarily driven by some of the other parameters is that correct? yes, it is. this project actually goes back to the burke warehouse . this was previously the animal care and control facility and mta. they did the basically the swap of properties. and so at the time, this was already slated to become the parking enforcement headquarters when that swap occurred, they got it. and, you know, understanding of their discretion, as i think chair post pointed out, i do have to though slide six for building of this size and scale, the number of piles, the number of other issues, including puc, pga, are you are you concern and

just as many other projects we've seen, once it gets complex , we're going to be significant budget overruns, significant time. i just i really looked at this one and i just can't get my hands around both the complexity of it. but i'll be very transparent. also, the necessity of it. it does seem like you could find a much easier approach to do this, and i'm not even sure very similar to other times. are they even getting what they want? that is, it seems like we did a budgetary exercise, not necessarily a need exercise as well. one of the one of the exercises that took place prior to me coming on as project manager was there was a study done, a bureau of architecture was involved looking at demolishing the facility and building from scratch. and that actually came in. the estimate came in $1 million more than renovating the existing building. so i believe mta is committed to turning this

somewhat historic building into their new headquarters and see it as the right thing to do. part of the number when you look at the images, it is a bit striking to see the number of piles. one of the reasons for that is that the piles themselves are small, all because we have to get a pile driver in beneath the second floor. that's one of the complications of dealing with an existing building. so we have to get a smaller driver, smaller piles. it's basically more smaller nails holding down a big piece of wood. that's that's basically the challenge there. i would just like to i don't know if my point is coming across correctly, but my concern here is we have a budget in front of us, but we have a history of projects, this complex that just cost overruns and others. you're going potentially spend another $1 million that a new building you'd be more effective, more control. and we know what we're going to get an and you could control for things like the

replacement with puc. i just i'm not going to stand in the way of this. it's not my money. this is their discretion. but it does seem very striking that they would make this decision in. i'm certainly not mta, but i would i would comment i would comment. one of the things that comes to mind is in this case, the land was free. so if you were to buy that parcel of land, let's throw out a guess what that would cost 10 million, $15 million. so. commissioner newhouse, segal i was not going to comment on this at all because my colleagues had such excellent questions. but commissioner turner's latest question did did bring up so you may have mentioned this already. is this building historically preserved currently we yeah, there is a renovation done to the building. i believe it was the early 90s when animal care

and control was there. it's in need of another renovation. when you walk into the existing all the all the dog cells are still there and so it it will be turned back. back when it was built it was a it was a city storage facility. so it'll be become essentially an office building with locker rooms. but that's not my question is has the has the historic preservation commission, is there. yes. is yes. it's been officially historically preserved. and recently, as far as an actual preservation interface that will be part of this of this project. so it could have been chosen to not do this and to start over from scratch. it's not. it could have been. yes right. there is a there is a consultant on board who is a historic preservation

architect firm that helped brought this through the planning and sequa phases. can i just piggyback just to be clear, so we all are clear. so the question is, is the building currently on the national or even state recognized historic register? the answer is no. no, it's not. it's classified as a historic resource, which if the historic resource is looking at an entire zone of the city and if they proceed with building to building throughout the zone, each building can be added to the register for as those the studies are done on those buildings. so this one is essentially saying that it has the potential to be moved to the register of historic places. it's hpc, which is historic preservation commission, which is part of planning, and they

make city designations so you don't even have to go nationally . i do think it would be helpful maybe for future presentations when we have historic buildings, you know, are they on the register? and in this case, we're talking about a building potentially being a contributing structure in a district and both are important, i think, for us, understand pending discussions about new construction and others. but i also think really contributing structure and others, it does give you a i think, a decision around do you new new construction versus preservation. and i think in this particular case, it's why we're having that discussion. an but it's ultimately the discretion of the client. and so i again, defer to that showplace square is the district that it belongs. to all right. if there are no further questions, is there a motion to award the

contract today? so moved. i'll second it. secretary fuller, please open the motion to public comment. member members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment on item seven. the san francisco municipal transportation agency parking enforcement construction contract award may line up against the wall for this from the door. if you are here in the chamber, if you are calling in, dial. (415)!a655-0001 and use te meeting number access code. of 26639844247. 7 pound pound. and then press star three to raise your hand to be recognized and. in the chamber we do not have any any members of the public who have expressed interest in speaking on this item. sf govtv is indicating that we do have one caller on the line. sf govtv please unmute that caller and

caller. you'll have three minutes to speak and i'll provide you with a 32nd notice. great can you hear me okay, we can hear you. great. it's david pilpel. so on this item i have no particular issue with the project or the proposed action. an interesting discussion that you just had on a number of topics, including the historic resource issue, project funding, the history of the site and the area around it. i did note in the environmental review section and the documentation that was included that the approval action. was going to be triggered by the issuance of a building permit, by dbi. that was as of a year or almost a year and a half ago. the may 2nd

memos. but it appears to me that dbi has not yet issued the building permit. and that's why today's action before this commission would constitute the approval action under chapter 31. and i think the staff report could have included that on page two in the environmental determination box, just so that that's clear as to the questions on the historic resource issue, the h.r. was referenced in the attached documents, but that h.r. was not actually included. so i had to go find that on the planning website, which really is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. and just finally, the related puc project, the folsom area stormwater improvement project, under the cumulative projects and cumulative impacts discussion,

it suggested that that project would be implemented prior to construction of this project. it sounds like from the staff discussion just now that that might not occur prior to construction of this rehab project at the building. and if that's the case, i'm wondering if the environmental review documentation is still accurate for purpose of this approval. maybe somebody can confirm that and whether that folsom area puc project then would need to have thanks would then need to have further analysis based on this project's potential contributory impact on a cumulative basis. to that watershed or that sewer project along treat avenue, which used to be the original

railroad right of way through san francisco. all right. anyway those are my thoughts. i don't think there's anything fatal to approval of this item today. and thank you very much for listening. thank you. caller and that's our final comment on this item that concludes public comment. commissioner turner. i just want to actually, i'm glad that question on the sequa did come up and the environment i didn't bring it up because i do think that because of the approval today and our we're imminently getting ready to start this project, that there shouldn't trigger any additional environmental reviews, even though the start of the puc, it was always contemplated within at some point touching our project. that is timeline. so it didn't trigger it shouldn't have triggered any additional review because the whole project always contemplated that scope of work impacting us. is that fair to say? to my knowledge, yes. okay

thanks. as long as i've been involved in the project, the puc project has been hand in hand with it. thank you. if there are no further questions, we'll take our vote. all in favor of the motion. please say aye or yes or oh. mr. did you have a question? is there discussion after the motion? because i have a so right now. yes this is about the vote. so i'm going to support this. but i wasn't sure when i should bring this up at the end of our of our whole meeting or now. but since i, i had to think long and hard about this, i feel that that our feet are to the fire. you all have been putting in years of work on this, not just your department, but. but mta. your we're new having being open to the public are our

meetings, our hearings, our commission and reporting to the public. but i would suggest that during the planning phase when this is an initial phase, that someone let the commission know publicly that this is being considered and that the public know that as well. so that questions like commissioner turner's, which we all said, why is this really is this the best way to do this, that that they can be looked at before so much investment of time staff time, everything interdepartmental planning is put into it. so i would like to know in the future we're going to have a lot more changes. we're going to have a new director at some point. i would think that that these things come to our attention an earlier and to the public's attention. so this is a new it's a new ball game. wouldn't there

been a public process with mta interim director shorter mr. rossetto isn't that the time when or is that the time when projects are first aired? so to speak? yes, i believe so. mta would have had these discussions or public outreach early on as they are right now. i know that a lot of that is taking place on other projects that mta is involved in. can i think though, to commissioner newhouse eagle's point and i've seen this happen, it takes years to get these projects done and as they evolve, costs and things change. and commissioners will evolve over time. there's going to be different prerogatives, perspectives and those things. i think the question is all development is iterative until it's built. and so are there check points? are there places that we gather additional comment, additional feedback over sometimes a two, three,

four, five year period of when something gets approved and budgeted until we're sitting where we are today actually contracting? sorry, is that the question? yeah, that's part of it. but also to hear about if it's going on for so long, progress reports what what's going on with it and is this is this still our decision? is this so it's not a question is it still our decision? let's not go there. but. i guess my view maybe i'm not understanding my colleagues is that this is an mta project. right. and we're citizens with an interest in it. of course. and but that our interests here is serving the public in whether to approve this contract or not. but i feel it is in my interest in representing the public to approve it. perhaps i would have asked my questions had i gone to participate in the public process with mta when they had

it. but i think that just is part of our comes with the territory of our job is that we will get projects that the clients of public works and we want to do well by our clients and we rely on our clients to have gone through some sort of a public input process so that we and our neighbors can participate in it. when not as public works commissioners, but just members of the public and taxpayers. so what i do know, as you know, is once we do approve a contract, i'm going to ask mr. rossetto or his designee to come back in a year and tell us how it's going that i do feel is appropriate for us. but i think as much as we may be happy or unhappy with the project, just as taxpayers, not as public works commissioners by the time it comes to us, that train left the station a while ago. so that would be my thought on on that. i would just i think there's a middle that i think we're trying to get to. and it just may be

actually how we coordinate the agenda and the schedule when we, you know, these things are gonna have to get approved 120, 90 days ahead. and i do wonder, one, we shouldn't be here in the public debating someone else's contract. clearly, that's not the goal here. but i do think that commissioner newhouser eagle's point is things do change. things are iterative until they're ready. can we get some of that feedback? you're sitting in project management meetings, so you're getting this year's over time. so that you know. yes. mta everyone's bought into this. we don't know that because we've not been there for the 2 or 3 years that those conversations are happening. so i think it's just really about how do we make sure and one, we trust. you don't get that wrong, but that that that comment that this is really truly ready to go now seemingly we should know that you wouldn't be standing in front of if your client didn't want you to get this approved. but i do think as we try to massage our role, we try to understand what we are proving, how we're approving it. i think it's just that really, are they ready to go? and yes, seemingly

you standing there should be enough for us to know that. but i think just human nature and again, being somewhat new to the process, we're just really trying to bootstrap suspender and belts on this thing to make sure that everyone is aligned. given the delegated authority, we have to approve these contracts. i would just add that at any given time, there are many studies for many potential projects that are going on. so it's a judgment call as to when a project is becoming real, so to speak. and from my position, i would think that as a team is working and preparing for the first submission to dbe, which is our site permit submittal. that's the permit that's required. and prior to applying for any other permit. so at the point that you are working towards applying for the site permit submittal, the project is real enough. and if that's becomes part of the public works commission procedure that a project manager comes and

presents a project very early on, not really to ask for anything but to say this is becoming real and i'll see you in a year or so. when i when i am actually going to ask for something that might be a good opportunity right there. yeah, i don't want to add another layer of anything. i would just say, you know, again, you know, what's coming. maybe it shows up on the advanced calendar. i think it's just something very simple where we know we know what's coming. we could, you know, ask our questions, make sure things have kind of been buttoned up. and i think it's not adding another layer. another report, anything of that nature. it's just when do we get the information that it's going to be agendized i think we can make sure that everything's been kind of checked. and i wonder if maybe it's an advanced calendar type mechanism versus a full staff or preliminary staff report. i don't know. i'm just. but we need to maybe do something to find a solution. okay. well, why don't why don't we work with interim director short maybe to think of a way that might work for the commission and as well as for the staff. does that make sense?

interim director short? yes, happy to. great thank you. thank you. mr. rossetto. so again, are we ready to vote on on the motion? okay. yes. all in favor of the motion to award the contract, please say i or yes. yes. the motion passes unanimously. secretary fuller will post a resolution to our website. and as i mentioned, thank you, mr. rossetto, for today's presentation. you're welcome. thank you. look forward to seeing you or your designee a year from now to tell us to update us on the project and how things are going. i'm counting on coming back for something. thank you very much. okay secretary, i'm going to ask my colleagues, would you like to take a break or would you like to proceed to ms. hill's report today? all right. we will recess it as 1114. we will. let's take an 11 minute break and resume at 1125. thank you sight that i didn't ask.

representatives from mta to speak on the folsom street skate project and on the parking enforcement construction contract that we just awarded. they were here in the audience and in the future i will make a note to be sure to ask if our clients are here so they can come to the microphone and answer our questions or just give their endorsement of the project. so i apologize for that . all right, secretary fuller, please call the next item. item eight is the public works hiring report and public works hiring human resource director karen hill. we will present this is an informational item. no. oh. want to do that? good morning, commissioner. pull it out so soon after. bend over. that's fine. yeah. then you have to bend over. it makes it easier.

good morning, commissioners. karen hill, hr director for san francisco public works. i will be presenting out on the hiring and vacancy update. so so this morning i have the update on the hr action plan to fill positions and i'll be going over the position overview of filled positions by appointment type and vacancies. so our hr, hr action plan hire updates from our last report out in february of 2023. our goal was 250 position. by june 30th, we talked about using provisional appointments to speed up hiring as well as streamlining and standardizing processes as and to conduct training on new hire

on our new hire processing and to create a tracking system for transparency by creating a new hr tracking system that will show accurate data for the department. so so as far as the training we standardize, we streamline and standardize our processes. it's still a work in progress of doing that work. but since then we've conducted training of all of our hr staff and we trained over 120 hiring managers as we also have created a new hiring tracking system. and that has gone live today. so we're excited about that. that rolled out this morning at 7 a.m. and we train over 78 managers on that new hr system.

our recruitment updates our goal as i mentioned on a previous slide, was to hire 250 by june 30th. as of july 31st, 2023, we've hired 270. we made 274 hires and we have 90 selections. as of that date, we had 90 selections made and processing. and in the process of onboarding as of august 3rd, 2023, that brought our vacancy rate to 13.1, which is down from 21.4% a year ago. other hr project updates as well are the air hub page, which is currently in progress and we're looking to have that go live by the end of this month. the other update is

the. hr presence at the operations yard and we have a fully staffed team at the hr at the operations yard monday through friday from 8 to 430. our goal for 2024 is 350 hires and as of october 23rd, we've hired 126 and that includes new hires, transfers and rehires. we have 67 selections made and in process of onboarding, bringing a total of 193 to date, we have a few accomplishments. this fiscal year. we had two general labor recruitment hiring events

that we partnered with local 261. one was last month and one is actually in progress right now. so i haven't got an update of how that's going, but we had 62 rsvp for today with over 100 interested in the event. we've also had a participated in a city and county of san francisco job fair and two community connection workshops and pathway events with other city departments. improving our applicant pool for other vacancies, other positions that we had open. we hired 66 excuse me, 63, 99, 16 public service aid positions from january to date and some of our recent challenges we've had some staffing turnover within an hr,

within my own team, and this is due to promotions to other city departments which kind of tends to happen throughout out the city. so that's a take. so we're working through those staffing challenges. so as of october 2023, we have a total of 1478 positions filled and that. quick break while we get a new mic from miss hill. test. test. okay. okay. so the total staff

total hires excuse me, total filled positions, 1478 as of october 20th, 23, which makes up of 24, which is 354 exempt hires . for 5, which is 78 provisional hires and 71% which is 1046 permanent civil service hires. i do want to point out that from our report out back in february, where we had two only two positions filled as provisional and as i talked, spoke on previous slides that we were using provisional hiring to speed up hiring and to date,

we've hired 78 provisionals, which is up from the two that we had in february. so that's a great progress. our vacancy rate as mentioned in the previous slide, is down from the 21% to 13.1, which shows a breakdown of where those where the 13.1% comprises is broken down by bureau divisions. one area that i want to point out is buff, where the vacancy rate is much higher than the other areas that are average, which is at 21.6. and so there's some challenges with recruitment in some hard to fill areas, specialized positions, gardeners, arborists, truck drivers. so in inspectors

as well. so we've discussed some ways to improve and increase those applicant pools over the next couple of months. same way that we've worked with our union partners to fill some of our labor positions. so we're going to use that same method with the labor partners to work on increasing our applicant pool for arborists and gardeners. so our goal is to probably host another hiring event and focus on those two areas, and that will hopefully reduce the vacancy in the area of buff. so that concludes my presentation and i am open for questions. thank you, miss hill, interim director short. it seems to me miss hills hiring has been a

game changer in the department tonight. is that correct? am i reacting? i mean, from a 21.4% vacancy rate when she started to 13.1% a year later, is to say congratulations are in order. miss hill, seems like an understatement. we should be throwing you a party. i mean, is it a game changer in terms of filling out the ranks at the department? absolutely. it has been a game changer. it miss hill deserves a lot of credit, as does her team. they were hired as part of this hiring and i've always said that if there's one part of your department that should be fully staffed, it's your hr department because those are the key people to get the rest of the department staffed. so it's been a game changer for sure. some of our we've never i don't think we've ever been fully staffed with our corridor sweeping team. and we are at full staffing there. i really want to highlight and appreciate some of the creative solutions

that miss hill has brought this working with local 261 to try to identify thai laborers and help ensure they have the necessary qualified options. you know, really pushing the union to help support us in confirming that people are qualified for the job is fantastic. at the last event, we had 15 people. i think that we were able to hire as a result of a one day event. so we're hoping today we get even more. but yeah, it's been a huge improvement for the department to fill some of these critically important positions and to use some of the available tools that we hadn't been using, like the provisional that miss hill mentioned has really, really been wonderful. great. thank you. and i suppose it's a testament to your success that you've lost staff to other departments. they're poaching you, but and i do appreciate you mentioning that's a challenge. i think it's really important when we hear from the department that never be shy about mentioning challenges because all we're going to say is, what's your

idea for addressing them? right nothing to criticize. i mean, any job as challenges. it'd be very odd if you said, oh, everything's fine. i have no challenges. i would immediately be suspicious. right so thank you for that. and i guess thank you for elaborating on how you want to try to fill those buff vacancies. the partnership with labor. that was very interesting . so, so big thanks. and for all the work you're doing for the department, it's truly amazing the way you brought the numbers down and your goals for 2024 are are admirable. and it sounds like you're already making good progress toward reaching them. so thank you very much. thank you, commissioner newhouse. siegel so i would like to know for positions that have not yet been filled, we are looking forward to a reduced budget for the whole city next year. is this going to be these positions are vulnerable to that? is that correct? when we adjust our budget to fit with the city's when we submit our our adjusted

budget, when you were working with other departments, our goals might change our short term goals. yes it's certainly fair to say that we are likely going to look to vacant positions to try to address some of the budget shortfalls. we always want to avoid. you know, the prospect of laying off staff . having said that, i think some of these positions we know, are critical to achieving our work and so we do want to proceed with filling the critical positions that we need to fill. thank you, commissioner turner. i think i'd like to piggyback off that point and just make sure i'm clear, because i had the same question. so we've now had three meetings really forecast ing the next 4 to 5 years in the city and it looks a

little gloomy and so when i look at the positions that you filled , the positions that you intend to fill, all i see mr. robertson and our director short, are we doing this exercise and identifying. but you know, this vacant position is probably going to stay vacant. and if so, is it reflected in kind of our hiring strategy? because i, i don't see and piggybacking on commissioner newhouse, siegel doesn't seem to be getting better. so it seems like we should be planning for this and actually reflecting it. so i do want to add and the microphone is working. that we will repeat, digitize our hiring based on whatever the budget will present to us. we don't want to pause anything right now until we have all the information that. mr.

robertson will share. but until we get those, you know, those budget instructions or where we need to slow down on, but we will reprioritize and make adjust, as you know, as we receive them. but mr. robertson can add more to that. good morning, commissioners. bruce robertson, once again, miss hill and i are very much attached at the hip and we meet frequently to talk about the filling of our vacancies. one of the things that makes the public works budget unusual, and we saw it when we talked about some of our projects earlier, ten funding sources for that one project. and so what makes public works a little unique compared to some of our other departments in the city, is the amount of external funding we get for our critical projects. so one of the things that we do, both internally within finance and administration and human resources, is in collaboration with our infrastructure, pms, our building pms and then all of our client departments. we're

looking holistically at what the numbers look like citywide. so we meet with the cfos from the other large funding departments, public health mta, puc, where we do a lot of work. and when times get tough, one benefit public works has is a lot of work we do is from general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, those funds that have already been issued that are a little bit immune to economic downturns. so on our construction side, that absolutely is a little bit advantageous for us because they're not as impacted by the economic downturn. that said, when bryan strong and the capital planning committee was here, when we were at that ceiling, there's only so many long term obligation instruments you can use, whether it's geo bonds, know certificates of participation, etcetera, for what is impacted is general fund. and so whenever there's an economic downturn that's that's impacted. so one of the things we're very much looking at is what is the funding? because the

last thing we want to do is onboard a bunch of staff and then have to, you know, the worst thing we want to do is do layoffs. so we're always looking at that. and i think i'd mentioned at a previous meeting we're doing scenarios for the absolute worst case scenario. so we're looking at it from all different angles, but very much it's a it's a partnership. and i think in ms. hill's office every day, i think she's in mine working on these issues to make sure that we're strategic and hiring the right number of people, not just hire to hire, where we then have to off board people. my next kind of question really has to do, and i want to thank interim director short for giving me a crash course on provision of hiring versus exempt employees. i want to first start by giving a hat off. this is a thing that really gets me excited about the leaders at public works is you guys are running a business running strategy and really thinking about how we achieve our mission. so i think the use of

the provisional hiring one, we can see the tangible benefit of getting people in into the organization, but it also seemingly is doing something else which is and if i understood, interim director short correctly, we can hire folks, we can get them seasoned and they can get ready. so when the test comes around, they're ready and there's a higher probability of success of them being able to get hired long term. i want to say i think that is brilliant. but i also say, boy, it's pretty labor intensive. the amount of follow up and partnership that you have to do to make sure that people get to that place. i take my hat off, but i also want to say this, thinking about that as a strategy and asking you, is it sustainable? i know that we're a year into this department per se , leveraging this strategy, but do you do you see it as a sustainable strategy that right now you onboarded 50 folks through a provisional strategy? do you believe in a year, two years, six months, whenever the test comes up, we're going to continue to see people actually

successfully passing that test and staying and getting hired permanently? yes so provisional is not the ideal situation because, again, it's a quick way to speed up the process and get people in. but it's ensuring they have the tools they need to successfully pass that exam. so, you know, being a city employee for close to 27 years, you know, you can kind of see where the impact of hiring provisional can be a negative and a positive. and so the city doesn't really see support provisional hiring and have not over the years. but they also seen how it takes so long for the city to hire permanently. right. and we're losing our candidates to our competitors because we can't seem to get people in fast enough. so provisional, you know , the director of human resources opened up the

provisional door again. right. which it wasn't really i mean, it was cracked, but it wasn't really open, but, you know, reopened that door because it was a way for us to get our candidates in quicker. but they also have looked at the way we've been testing over the years and have changed, you know, different ways of doing testing. right to ensure more probability of passing civil service exams. and so we have three years, you know, provisional appointments are up to three years. so where someone may fail the first time, they still have. between 2 and 3 more opportune cities to pass that exam because they're able to take the exam if they're not successful, they can take it in another year and then another year. so the probability of, you know, the provisionals not passing is very slim. and, you know, again, over my 26 years of being with the city and going through these provisional hires to transition to the pccs, the fail rate is very low. it's very

low. it's not many employees that we have to displace due to them not being successful on the exam. so, you know, this is one being a new hr department where i'm, you know, training my team and developing my team and my exam team who have to conduct the exam. it also gives us time to develop our team and prepare them with the tools to conduct the exams. so it gives them three years to get developed and prepare for these exams as well. and some of the exams too. and we're strategic was strategic on the provisional hiring. so some of those provisional appointments that we made, a good chunk of them were exams that was conducted by department of human resources, which means our exam team wouldn't be responsible for all of these provisional exams. and then these exams are continued testing so they don't have to wait a year. you know, for an exam to come up. they these tests are continuous. so for the most part, a lot of these

provisional hires that we've made have most have well, if not half have already transitioned to pieces to permanent already because we hired them provisionally. we was able to get ahead of even other city departments, not even private sector, but we were able to hire provisionally in our department. well in advance of the other departments that was waiting for the exam. so by the time the exam came out, we had already made our selections and all we had to do was transition them to permanent. so it kind of helps us with our competitors within our own department, with our own within, you know, our own other city departments as well. i just really like to emphasize and echo that last point you made, and it's kind of what i was picking at with the interim director short. this is such a good strategy. you know, one of the challenges and you've worked in the city for long enough, i've got to take the test. i'm not going to pass the test. and so allows us to really meet people where they are. one, they need a job. we need them to do

the work. but then there are always these other things that come about and so we can wrap around them, support them, and from a public perception, we're there to support them. if you mess up the first time on the test, there's another test, but you have some time to really get seasoned and work with us. so i want to really emphasize, i think this should be our policy. i hope that drake really continues to look at public works and what we're doing, not just what it means for us and our needs, but really what does it mean in terms of the city bringing civic service into our system? i think that we've really got something that brings the barrier down but doesn't change the requirements. and that's what's really powerful. yes. are there any excuse me, any further questions before we open this to public comment? okay. please open ms. hill's presentation to public comment members of the public who wish to make comment on item eight. the public works hiring report may line up against the wall furthest from the door here in

the chamber. if you are outside the chamber. call (415)!a655-001 and use the meeting access code. of (266)!a398-4247. 7 pound pound. and then press star three to raise your hand to speak. no members of the public have raised their hand or have approached to speak on this item, but that govtv is indicating that we do have one caller who has raised their hand. please if govtv, please unmute that caller and caller, you'll have three minutes to speak and i'll provide you with 32nd notice. can you hear me now? we can hear you great. david pilpel again. so i echo the great words for hr director hill for significantly reducing

the vacancy rate with all the challenges that exist in the city and being a new hr director and a new hr department that didn't exist this is just a fantastic work. i would just comment for the future for i think both the budget and hiring challenges that the city now has suggest to me an opportunity be looking at the budget for next year to possibly reorganize some element of the department. i'm sure that deputy director robertson and his folks will be looking at that and i would think off the top that possibly be merging elements of bdc and edc would be in order. there are two project management groups i believe, and it seems to me like there could be some savings there. ultimately, we need to have as many frontline engineers

operations staff at cetera, but perhaps some of the supervisory and management positions could be consolidate a bit and maybe the offset for that is to get more of the engineering work that's done at other departments, be they mta puc or others brought in-house to dpw. i have come to believe that public works should be the department that does virtually all the engineering, construction, construction management for other city departments with very limited exceptions, possibly for rail and water sorts of specialties. but other than that, building a building is, you know, building a building and i think that's something that public works is good at and should continue to be good at and is not a core function of any other department. so that's that's a

little advanced thinking on my part as we get into budget season the next couple of months . but thanks again to director hill and her good work. thanks for listening. thank you. caller and that is our only caller on this item. so that concludes public comment. commissioner turner, did you have an. oh, yeah. thank you, miss hill. thank you very much. you can tell we're all so happy. and again, are so happy that you're here with the department. and we'll look forward to seeing you. maybe in about six months or so for another update, which i know will be good news. and i know what your your hard work is near and dear to commissioner zogby's heart. he couldn't be here today, but i will be sure to have him look at today's presentation. so thank you very much. thank you, secretary fuller. please call the next item. item nine is the street vending regulation amendment. to the two to the public works code and interim director short will present this item and is an

action item. thank you, commissioners. i'm going to be presenting this item and i'm going to be relying on secretary fuller to help me with a visual. so so you've heard a lot about the challenges facing our inspection team as we manage our street vending since it was decriminalized and local regulations gave us the responsibility to permit and enforce. so we are proposing making some amendments to our vending regulations is for your consideration today. and so, secretary fuller, if you could just scroll down a little, i'll describe the text. but if we get there, perfect. thank you so really the goal with these proposed changes is to clarify for our applicants is the size of the area that they can occupy for vending and to ensure that

it's clear to them and to the public that we need to keep business entrances accessible. we need to keep corners accessible for people crossing the streets and getting to the right to the primary path of travel and that we need to allow people to exit a vehicle if they're parking next to the curb. so the basic proposal here is that there will be standard stand vending plot. quote, quote unquote, plot sizes of four feet by eight feet and that no, no vending plots can be allowed within six feet of corners. they all must be set in at least a minimum of two feet from the curb. and they have to be at least six feet clear of building entrances. additional alley. they have to be six feet clear of each other. and the purpose there is that you can get out of your car. but if you can't get to the sidewalk because everybody's lined up immediately adjacent, then you're walking along the curb, which doesn't

work either. so basically, each plot will allow six feet between them. so you'll only have to get out and have eight feet that you would need to walk to get to a six foot access place to the to the sidewalk if they're placed near the curb. so really, it's just about creating clarity for the applicants about here are the sizes you're allowed to have and ensuring that we're really meeting the accessibility required points for the sidewalk that we need. and also really for those businesses. many of the businesses have had vendors right up next to their entrances and it makes it very awkward for them. the other component of this proposed these proposed changes is the requirement for the permit to specify vending hours. so the intention here is basically that the sidewalk vendors will not be allowed to operate beyond the times that the other neighborhood businesses can operate and so they will be proposing their vending hours and then we will be checking any of the other relative codes that control

operational hours and then imposing that on any permits that we issue. so this is really about just clarifying those regulations, ensuring that both our permit team has kind of the backing to explain to applicants why those regulations are imposed on their permits. and then also for the applicants to have that clarity going in. they know what to expect. and of course, our our enforcement team can rely on this documentation if they need to tell someone you're not in compliance with your permit, you need to shift it. so we're asking for your approval today of these proposed changes to our article 5.9 of the public works. sorry, our regulations relative to article 5.9 of the public works code and brief presentation. but happy to answer any questions. thank you. thank you. i support these changes. i did have a question

on an item in in the regs that isn't part of the amendments today and i believe it was that the clearance between the edge of the curb and the vendor site was two feet and that seemed not very much if you if it isn't a curb area where people are where people park, where parking is allowed and a passenger door, i mean, clears probably more than two feet. is that it just i it almost to me raises a larger question. should the city restrict sidewalk vending to sidewalks that are a minimum width that that. you know what i mean? i mean, maybe the city is trending toward wider sidewalks and we all know why. but it's an old city and most of the sidewalks are narrow. and i just again, i'm thinking out loud, i'm not sure i have an answer to my own question, but i'm just wondering if a two feet just did

not seem like enough. if you have people trying to get out of a car on the passenger side and the vendors two feet away. thank you, chair post. i will note that the two feet is consistent with many of our other guidelines for placement of objects on the sidewalk. it's consistent with the sidewalk landscaping permits. it was that two feet. what we call sort of a accessible path to the sidewalk or to the gap that will get you to the sidewalk. was reviewed with the mayor's office of disability. our own disability access team, and is consistent with many of our other guidelines for use of the sidewalk. so we can certainly look into it. but two feet has been pretty consistently used within the department in terms of the sidewalk width. in some ways, having the standard plots is going to limit where we can

permit on more narrow sidewalks because we also need to ensure always that we have an accessible path of travel. so because we are now saying, you know, that you can't be larger than this and we have to have an accessible path of travel that will inherently limit with again , with adding the two feet to the curb in aberrantly limit the ability to issue permits on more narrow sidewalks. so i think it will achieve that goal with the combination of regulations that we have. thank you, commissioner newhouse. siegel. yeah. so i should know a lot more about this. thank you for bringing it to our attention so. how does this first of all, i agree with i agree with chair post about the two feet people who might be waiting if it's a particularly popular for vendor or a busy

area where the vendors are used. a lot of there might be people waiting. there might be people with dogs waiting. there might be people with strollers waiting . and two feet is not it doesn't seem like that's adequate. it's not the same as putting a trash can or a or a fence around trees. so i, i, i would also question that. but i'd like to know, does this apply for all days, like special days? i'm wondering how this relates to their placement near near trucks, near food trucks. so this does not regulate them. is that who regulates it? i should know. do we regulate food trucks as well? that's mta right? no. oh, okay. yeah. so if you're referring to the mobile food carts, that's really under the

department of public health's purview for regulation. so these as these guidelines would not apply to those carts, but there's nothing prohibiting these people from being in the same area. if it's a busy day when people are going to be getting food and they'd be populating areas where there are food trucks, are they prohibited from being there on those days as well? there is a permitting process for food carts as well. i'm making a distinction because food trucks are generally the larger vehicles that are in the roadway and those are permitted through a multi agency permit process includes sfmta, department of public health and public works. but the mobile food carts, there is a permit process for them as well. and so if they they would they would not be permitted to create a blockage to the sidewalk. so sidewalk accessibility has to be

adhered to by any any city department responsible for issuing permits. so generally, a permitted food cart would first go to the department of public health for their permit to operate the cart. and then if they were proposed to be in a in a location, they would come to us to ensure that there's a sidewalk. so efficient sidewalk accessibility for them. okay, thank you. just learning, commissioner turner, i think i have a question almost in the same vein. i will, though, put out a disclosure disclosure before i say this. i love hot dogs. i get them at costco, i get them on the street, i get them in my house. i get anywhere i can get a hot dog. i love hot dogs. and one of the places i like to get my hot dogs is on the embarcadero, just north of the ferry ferry building. so i guess when i saw this and i saw the intersection on when you come out of the building and washington and there's usually, you know, five, six, seven,

eight carts, if we applied this standard of almost creating a plot, what you would almost end up with is only four carts that technically could be there. so indyref actually, we're also going to limit the number potentially of permits in an area by establishing this these plots. is that correct? meaning i'm not going to get my hot dogs as many as i want. you are correct that by establishing these guidelines and i would say particularly the space between the vending that that is going to limit the overall number of permits that we can issue in an area. yes, but it doesn't negate, you know, folks going to other areas. it doesn't impinge upon their business, their service and none of that. it's just in one specific area. now, given on, you know, how the sidewalk lays out. maybe there's only four people that can be there versus ten. and if that's the case, i imagine sorry to commissioner newhouse eagle. i think about a ball game. how do

we help our staff who are going to try to manage that craziness? you know, is this are you really in your four by eight? are we going to, you know, in high traffic areas? is it possible for us like, to demarcate where they should go like that day? you know, this is your box. i'm just trying to how do we how do we enforce something in a crowded area where you do have multiple uses like the ballpark where we do have the carts you're raising some challenging questions because most of the carts in those areas are unpermitted carts and one of the things that has been a challenge for the city is, is managing when we have a lot of unpermitted vendors who are gathered in an area to again, the department of public health is really the primary regulator of those food carts. and i think

that. managing the areas where we have lots of food carts, all in one place has been a focus of theirs for a number of reasons. but ensuring actual accessibility to the venues like chase center and the and the giants ballpark is, is part of the goal. there for and we work with our sister agencies you know at their request to help support their efforts. but but i think your your primary point is . well we when we issue the permit to the applicant, we they they apply for a specific location. so they don't they can't say i have my permit and then they can adjust it. so in that sense, we i think these regulations will help us make it clear where your applicant applying for here's where you can be. and then hopefully we i think we don't want to be

marking out sidewalks all over the city. but i think this will actually give us a little more specificity for those applicants . are there any further questions for director short? all right. is there a motion to recommend these proposed amendments to the vending regulations? i recommend that we move forward with the recommendations as presented. i'll second, please open the motion to public comment. secretary fuller. members of the public wish to make three minutes of comment on item nine. the street vending amendment may line up against the wall furthest from the door here in the chamber. if you're calling in, dial (415)!a655-0001 and use the meeting access. code. (266)!a398-4247. 7 pound pound pound. and then press star three

to raise your hand to be recognized. we do not have any members of the public in person who want to speak on this item and sf govtv is indicating that we do have one caller who wants to speak on this item as if govtv. please unmute the caller and caller. you have three minutes to speak and i'll provide you with a 32nd warning. great david pilpel again, i assume you can hear me, so i have no issue with the proposed changes to the regulations themselves. i think they were well described. makes sense, seem pretty straightforward. uh, my question here is i'm sorry to ask. it was a ten day notice given per charter section 4.1 04a1. and if so, where is it posted? and if not, should this item be continued to a future meeting to give proper notice? by comparison, the notice was properly given for the rules

change proposed in item ten and you can see also the city attorney's good government guide page 23 that discusses rules and regulations in pertinent part section 4.104 of the charter. a one. the to unless otherwise provided h each commission shall adopt rules and regulations consistent with this charter and ordinances and the city and county. no rule or regulation shall be adopted, amended or repealed without a public hearing and at least ten days public notice shall be given for such public hearing. all such rules and regs shall be filed with the clerk of the board of supervisors. so perhaps that's an issue that you'll consider and maybe direct to the deputy city attorney as to whether the proper procedures been followed and whether you can actually adopt these changes today. thanks for listening. thank you. caller that's our last caller

for public comment. thank you, secretary fuller. were the proper procedures followed in posting this as the caller has has wanted to know, i too to my knowledge well, i know for a fact that this item was not noticed with a ten day notice similar to the rules of order changes. deputy city attorney tom, should it have been noticed ten days ahead of time. the chair post. pardon? i'll need a second to look at this. no problem. thank you.

chair post. may i request a five minute recess? yes we will recess for five minutes. thank you for he's ready and. good. thank you very much. and thank you, everybody, for being patient. while we looked into this question. and what i'd like to suggest is the commission feels that that all is in order. and

so i'd like to proceed with the vote and if it proves to be upon further research that it that the procedures were not followed, then we will bring this back at our next meeting after procedures have been followed. but i'm going to proceed that and presume that they haven't followed and go ahead and ask for a vote. so mr. commissioner turner's motion is still outstanding. great and there's been a second we've heard public comment. so all in favor of the motion, please say aye or yes. yes that carries unanimously. and as i said, pending further research, we may see this again at a future meeting or we may not. but regardless, we will update the public at a future meeting on on what we learned. thank you very much. okay street vending amendments. and next, let's move on to the next item. secretary fuller. please call the next item on the agenda. item ten is

the public works rules of order amendment. and i will present this amendment proposal and it is an action item. so just as a review, the commission is empowered to amend its rules of order and the current rules were adopted, were adopted relatively early in the existence of the commission. and as it matures, we'll likely find the need for future amendments. the primary target of the proposed amendment is to provide more flexibility to the commission for scheduling its vote on the new york calendar. so targeting article three, section three of the rules of order and its election of officers, article two, section one, as currently approved, these two actions must wait until december of the current year for consideration unless the commission suspends its own rules to consider the calendar or hold the election

before december. this amendment loosens that restriction so the commission can plan its meetings and elect its leaders before the final month of the year, which would significantly help with planning, especially for the calendar. the proposed amendment also alters the order of business in article three, section six to better reflect the commission's practice of hearing items and it also deletes a clause that is repetitive of the order of business in article three, section eight. notice was given to the public on october 24th, 2023, of the potential consideration of rules of order changes. this proposed amendment was posted to the commission's website and distribute to commissioners in advance of this meeting. so we are empowered. to approve this. if the commission sees fit. and i'd like to thank chair post and deputy city

attorney for their input on these suggested changes. if commissioners have additional changes, i'm happy to discuss crafting a future amendment for the commission to consider. commission staff suggests adopting this resolution to amend the commission's rules of order. and i'm happy to take questions, as the commission may have on on this amendment. thank you, secretary fuller. i support the changes and thank you for your work in updating our rules of order for consideration today, commissioner newhouse. siegel yeah, this is rather urgent. question so secretary fuller, can you supply me with i have not seen the changes. can you supply me with either the written text or the. okay here it is on my screen. thank you. okay. okay. is it in bold where the changes are? yeah. okay.

i'll read. so i'm reading it now . i'm sorry. this is another. another stall. if you guys have stuff to go forward with, would you mind if we take public comment on this item, commissioner newhouse? siegel thank you. let's please open this item to public comment. actually i'm going to make a motion to accept it. okay now, please open the motion to public comment and we'll also make sure there's no debate after the motion. members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment on item ten, the public works commission rules of order proposed amendment may line up against the wall for this from the door. if you are in the chamber, if you're calling in, dial (415)!a655-0001 and use the meeting number access. code 266398442477. and then press pound, pound and star

. three no one in the chamber has approached to speak on this item and sf govtv is indicating that we do have one caller on this item as if govtv. please unmute that caller and caller. you'll have three minutes to speak and i'll provide you with a 32nd notice. great. david pilpel again. so as was stated, proper notice was given here, therefore propose closed sections to be amended. i have no issue with two of them. article two, section one is pretty straightforward and i might have put in a comma between one calendar year and by in the second line. but it's probably not required. the second change on article three, section three, i did have an

issue there. i like the language. the commission shall adopt its calendar of regular meetings for the next calendar year. by the last day of the current calendar year. but i would end it there if you include that language or to subsequent meeting in the new calendar year, then the if that were the case, then in the new calendar year, there would not be a schedule of regular meetings. and so the first meeting or or meetings in the new calendar year that were not on the previously adopted schedule would therefore be special meetings. and i'm not sure if that's the intent of the commission. so i think if the goal here is to provide flexibility, but adopt a calendar for the subsequent year , by the last day of the current calendar year, then i would just end it with by the last day of the current calendar year period and strike the rest of the italian sized text in that

section. moving on article three, section six just reflects current practice and i have no issue there. article three, section eight. i don't like the stand alone sentence. general public comment shall be allowed for up to 15 minutes period. i think that's not accurate. i would. i'd somehow reword that to say general public comment shall initially be allowed for up to 15 minutes, provided that the chair may continue general public comment to the end of. blah blah blah blah blah blah so that it doesn't appear to limit the total amount of general public comment to only 15 minutes. i don't think that's the commission's intent. and i think leaving a standalone sentence that says general public comment shall be allowed for up to 15 minutes could could lead one to that conclusion. so again, on concerns about article

three, section three and article three, section eight, and perhaps you'll consider alternate wording for those two sections. thanks again for listening. thank you. caller and that is our final caller for public comment. thank you, commissioner newhouse. siegel so i would agree with our last caller about the wording that he's suggested about public about public comment. i've been on other commissions where public comment can go on for hours and hours. so it would just work. so we don't have to say that that we can limit the amount of a particular call of a particular commenters time to less than three minutes. do we do we have to mention that we can that we can make it shorter if the if the situation calls for that as long as it's applied uniformly to every to every

commenter on that issue. i guess i'm asking our attorney. so if we have a lot of commenters and it's going on for hours, a particular issue or not just hours, if it's going on for a while, if we announce at the beginning of that comment, do we say comments will be limited to one minute? i've been in other situations where that's done and it's permitted. do we have to provide for that in these in these rules. good afternoon, commissioners. deputy city attorney christopher tom. the rules do not need to exhaust address all situations. i don't know if that's your question. i'm sorry. i don't understand. so as far as the particular scenario that you've described, i don't think that the rules must prescribe a course of

action for that scenario. that's correct. that's my experience as well. that other commissions are not so specific on the rules of order. i think we've had this when we looked at the rules of order months ago, the original ones i, i think we're just creating problems for ourselves by getting so specific because you have to mention in every possibility. but it would we'll look at each situation and it comes up. commissioner turner, i just want to make sure i've got this straight section three, as it relates to commission meetings, the recommend nation was really at the end or at the subsequent meeting in the new calendar year. secretary fuller, i assume, though, the reason for that is end of the year scheduling things happen if you don't have quorum, you just want to have that extra kind of if you need it. is that what that language? at least that's how i interpreted it. yes that's correct. it's giving our giving the commission a soft deadline. get it done by the end of the

year. but if something happens, we have this. we have the ability to still call a meeting and adopt the calendar in january or even february. and that's versus the kind of window that's in the current second thing in section eight, i just wanted to make sure because i think i agree. so the strike language says at the beginning of each regular commission meeting and what i believe i heard the caller and commissioner newhouse siegel say is if we are in that that place where we get through the first 15 minutes at the chair's discretion and we can continue that. and so i'm wondering, should we the recommendation was not to say that it's just 15 minutes, because the sentence that follows that says is that this discretion maybe we should just not take out the at the beginning. maybe we should just leave that as it states so that you actually have clarity that that initial 15 minutes is there. and then the second sentence, i think already tells

us if we get past that 15 minutes. the chair can then at their discretion, let public comment go on at the end of the meeting. so i'm just wondering maybe just not striking that at all. the reason to strike that is because general public comment being item number three kind of stretches the means of beginning of the meeting at that point. that's what clarifying yeah thank you. not necessarily to it's not the order it's the. got it. yeah thank you i appreciate that clarification and a further clarifying motion is that. no that's it. thank you. thank you. thank you. chair . thank you. okay are there any further questions or comment on the on the motion to adopt the rules of order as revised? all

right. all in favor. please say aye or yes. a yes. it's a the motion passes unanimously and secretary fuller will pass out or excuse me, post our revised rules of order onto the commission website. all right. thank you very much, secretary fuller. please call the next item. item 11 is the public works commission 2024 meeting calendar and i'll again present this this item, which is an action item. so earlier this fall, i surveyed the commissioners for their available and worked with city hall building management to identify the best option for a monday meeting. i reviewed this calendar with the department's executive team and the proposed commission meeting calendar was posted to the commission website. distribute to commissioners in advance of this meeting. scheduling hearing rooms in city hall is challenging and i thank commissioners for their input

and the guidance of building management and public works staff. you may recall this item was on the october 20th agenda of this commission and the question was raised about the items timing conflicting with the rules of order and given the approval of the amend easements to the rules and the previous item, number ten, the commission is empowered by its rules to take action on this item today. and i'm happy to take questions on this item and i'll actually bring up the calendar for everyone to be able to see it as well.

okay. i'd like to move for adoption. i'm sorry. thank you very much. secretary fuller. commissioner newhouser, do you have a question or comment on the on this item before we have a motion on it? yes. my comment is we're just doing streets and sanitation now. no, this is no, this is a calendar. it says we have a hearing with sanitation streets on january. but then the other meetings are that's just acknowledging that there are. yeah, yeah, yeah. okay. so i do have a comment. i've discussed it already with secretary fuller that mondays are not. i will do my best to attend mondays are

not convenient for me and i would also like for everybody to be aware for that, for commissioners who are involved in other city city issues and city business interact with, with, with in other city funds actions that monday is a much more busy day and friday is not. and that's why friday works for a long meeting day. so i know i'm in the minority and just it it limits my participation in a lot of other a lot of other important issues that civic issues that are that i engage in. so that may even be happening in this very building at the time that we're in our meeting. so so thank you. and i appreciate that. and i, i feel bad about that. i think the

concern is that a majority of our commissioners work full time and the monday time date is far preferable for them. and i want to be respectful of those who who have jobs, which is actually why our two commissioners who aren't here, they had to work today. further, i think for the staff, if mondays are better for their coordination with sanitation street so that they know three out of four mondays a month is a commission meeting. it just it makes things more regular for their planning and work. so i deeply regret you may. that means it could mean that you miss more meetings than than if we were on a friday. but i do feel for the majority of the commission on monday is a much better day. all right. i will move that. we adopt this calendar for 20. commissioner turner, i do think it's for me.

i grapple because i looked at the dates too, and try to make this all work. but i do think one of the big things is this is also for the staff and helping them with their workload and trying to align with streets and sanitation in that commission. so i, i this is definitely not perfect and secretary fuller, i don't know how you corralled us all to even find a date and time, but it's not perfect. but i do hope that one of the outcomes of this is that it does make life easier for our staff that i think want to respond, be available. and i just wanted to echo the one thing that commissioner newhouser did say is that it is going to be more difficult to get budget directors from other departments because they are working. so fridays is usually easier to get people to present. we are going to have some challenges on mondays, but i think for staff, ideally, i hope and then ideally as we kind of get into our groove, it will work over time. but just like anything else, i hope this is iterative. we kind of look at this as time goes on and what's bump some of those other commissions. you know, we're special, so let's get the

time we need. thank you. chair post so commissioner segal. sorry yeah. so just just to remind you all that our our appointed months are considered, some of us by the, by the board of supervisors and by other departments that have their not their main meeting, which the main meeting is on tuesdays, but they do have committee meetings on mondays and there are a lot of other departments that we deal with that have their meetings on on those days. so if we're asked to ever for instance, if our if our general, if our director is asked to report to other departments or it's very possible that there would be conflicts and that her or his attendance at our meeting would be affected, i mean, we

interact with city government and city government is. not as active on fridays. so interim director, short, do you based on your experience the past couple of years, do you find do you i mean, you can't predict the future, but is it likely that that the department director and other key staff would have a greater chance of not being able to attend monday meetings or would have to request we reschedule? well, i mean, versus a friday. thank you, chair post. there are some meetings that occur on mondays. for example, the capital planning committee is held on mondays and occasionally our commission meetings will conflict with that . i imagine one of the one of the great things i think that we have currently at public works is a strong executive team. so if there's a specific need for

the director to attend another meeting, then i hope the commission would understand if one of the deputy directors stepped in to present to you. similarly deputy directors can step in if the director needs to be here and there's a meeting that needs to be attended. so i there certainly are some meetings that will require some flexibility and adjustment on our end, but i will note that the feeling of having mondays consistently, mondays being our commission day is helpful for our workflows to prepare for commissions as thank you, commissioner. siegel so let me ask you, is it it's not in our charter that we have to meet on. particular days of the month. so we could change. we i mean, can

the calendar just be worded that these are the that these are the dates that we can change it without saying second and fourth mondays. these happen to be second and fourth mondays. but that way it leaves us open. i think i think it's i don't know that we need to do that. they are the second and fourth mondays. and remember, it has to do with room availability as well. and i just think for planning, i mean, we could strip it off the slide, but i just think that's what it is. and i'd like to vote on this if i have a unanimity today, if i have a unanimity on it, i'd like to vote on it. yeah, we have. oh i beg your pardon? did we have public comment? i'm happy to move. yes okay. thank you. i so move. i'll second can we please have public comment on the motion? members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment on item 11, the commission on 2024 meeting calendar may line up against the

wall for this from the door. if you are in the chamber to call in. dial (415)!a655-0001 and use the meeting access. code (266)!a398-4247 7 pound and pound. and then press star three to raise your hand to speak. there are no members of the public who have come forward to speak on this item. and one one second. and i'm sf govtv is indicates that we do have one caller on this item. sf govtv please go ahead and unmute the caller and caller. you'll have three minutes to speak and i'll provide you with a 32nd notice. great. david pilpel hopefully the last time today. so i have no issue with the proposed dates

. i would respectfully suggest adding in the resolution in the first, whereas where it says we'll hold regular meetings on the second and fourth mondays of every month, with some exceptions that i would say at at city hall room 408 or maybe not specify a room, but at city hall one, dr. carlton goodlett place, san francisco 900 and 102 because nowhere did i see in the rules of order, nor in this proposed resolution the actual meeting location by address. it does refer to the commission chambers in the rules, but doesn't specify where those are. and that's in article three. section three of the rules of order, which was in the previous item. so other than adding the

meeting location address, i would say let's try monday mornings, see how that goes for a few months. considering commissioner attendance, maybe by march or june everything will work and attendance will be higher and everything will be great or you may look at alternatives either for the rest of next year or for 2025. just as background, the mta board and the puc commission generally alternate tuesdays afternoons, the airport commission meets on tuesday morning. maybe this commission would take the other slot on tuesdays and might end up on alternate tuesday mornings instead of mondays. but you know , we'll see how this plays out. and frankly, i can't remember who now has as the alternate slot on, i think the second and fourth tuesdays, maybe it's

first and third in the mornings in room 400. so those are my thoughts on meeting schedules and just to clarify an earlier item, the puc does give a ten day notice when adopting or amending its rules or regulations. so perhaps dca tom can confer with dca bregman on that issue prior to the next meeting. thanks very much for listening. okay, thank you. caller and that concludes public comment. thank you. i would just like to reiterate once again that our commissions meeting choices are always constrained by building by room availability here at city hall, and that is why we are looking at monday mornings among other reasons, and also as i said, commissioners wolford and zarb, who are not here, have expressed preference for monday mornings given their their obligations. so i would like to have a vote, but i do i will need unanimity

today to pass this. otherwise we will continue it to our next meeting. i move we approve the schedule. for 2024 as presented. a question. yes. oh go ahead, please. actually, i have two questions. i, i was prepared to vote no on this because i thought it would still pass and i didn't want to obstruct this because my other call colleagues here would like to vote yes, but i understand that because we're only three people here, it has to be a majority of the commission, not just the commissioners present. okay. so and i do want to move forward. i do not want to be obstructionist, although. so tuesday's morning's as as commissioner, as not. i just promoted you, mr. pilpel, to

commissioner as mr. pilpel just mentioned, tuesday mornings would be might be a very good alternative because it would put us all in city hall where we would be interact ing with our with other agencies and other department. and when there is action, because one of the disadvantages of us being here on mondays is that it's dead in the halls around here. so that might be because i'm often here on on tuesdays and wednesdays, on mondays. there's a lot of business going on. but but that that might be that might encourage our commission and our commissioners interact action with other departments and, and staff members and also it's not that far from from from our departments headquarters. so it brings us down to the i think that's a great idea. once again,

we don't have any rooms available on tuesdays. that's why we're looking at mondays. commissioner turner, do you have any further comments? i'd like to wrap this up. yeah yeah, i guess i that was my. i just. i wonder if we should try to take a vote and know commissioner newhouser. i think i. i guess where i'm struggling is we can either continue this today and hope that fatty and paul commissioner wolford and zombie are able to weigh into this discussion. i'm not sure if that's what you're suggesting and if that's what you're suggesting. i guess chair pose, is there an urgency that this has to happen today? well, we've continued it from our last meeting. let's just wrap this up. i'm ready to vote. i just want to make sure it gets through okay, because has anybody ever checked the. thank you, commissioner turner? has anybody ever checked the possible city of tuesday mornings? i mean, so if we if we wait to vote on this, it gives us it gives secretary fuller an

opportunity to look into that. he has. but i'll let secretary fuller answer that question. from the outset of this commission. i was given the input that tuesdays are frequently unten able to add anything to the schedule that the commissions that do have meetings that day. it is on a historic basis and i believe airport, which they use their own facility, is so they don't have the room conflict. and so this time around i did not check for room availability for tuesday, but have been told that in general tuesdays are very difficult to schedule. thank you. i still advocate for monday to be on the rotation with sanitation and streets. i'm also going to call to continue this item to our next meeting and i hope that commissioners wolford and zoghbi will be here and can participate in the discussion.

thank you. secretary fuller. please call the next item on the agenda. item 12 is new business initiated by commissioners. this is an opportunity for commissioners to suggest business for a future agenda, and this is an informational item. thank you. i have no new business commissioner newhouse. siegel this is not for the future agenda, but i just want. well, it is about the agenda, about the printing of the agenda and the contents of the agendas. so i have requested in the past that that the names of staff that are giving the reports are included on on the reports. and i noticed that this month they are not. so it's very helpful for us to know that. so if we want to go back and interact with these staff members or if we have have questions prior to it, they will be we could do that right now, you're asking for to be on the agenda. the

staff people, right? not on the presentations themselves, but on the agenda. so yes, they're in the in the link to it. yeah. yeah okay. there. yeah the staff that's not public. that's not the public agenda. that's the one we use internally and they are on the presentation. but are you asking that on the public agenda or is there a reason not to list for because things change? this is on the agenda, secretary flaherty, that you post publicly that that show that has links but doesn't list the person that will be making the presentation, is there a reason not to do that? i mean, we see we have the person's name on the first page of presentations. if i think what other what other commissions do is probably what we're doing. so i think right. it protects them from being contacted by the public and because they're all they're all in the on the cover of the presentations which is what i find very helpful. i think i think this is this is

fine then. okay thank you. thank you. okay. if there's no other further business, the next item i think we dispense with secretary. we just need to take public comment on new business. i beg even if there was none. okay. i beg your pardon. so, members of the public who wish to make three minutes of comment on item 12 new business initiated by commissioners may line up against the wall for this from the door. if you're in the chamber or use our public comment. line (415)!a655-0001 ad the meeting access code. is 26639844247 7 pound pound. and then press star three to raise your hand to speak. there are no members of the public who have come forward to speak on this item and govtv is indicating that we do not have any callers on wishing to speak on this item

. so that concludes public comment. thank you. and now i think we can dispense with item 13 secretary since we didn't need to continue general public comment. that is correct. so because as of apec and all the preparations and the demands being made on the staff for that, we are going to cancel our meeting on november 17th before the thanksgiving week. and so we will meet again on friday, december 1st at 930, a m and we are now adjourned. thank you.

meeting of the san francisco health commission. secretary will you call the roll. >> yes, i'll start with commissioner chow. >> present. >> commissioner how. >> present. >> prept. >> present. >> and commissioner christian. >> wonderful, and commissioner chow will be reading the land acknowledgment. >> thank you. it's my pleasure to read the land ak novemberment, acknowledges that we're on the unseeded homeland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the origin hab tants. stewards with this