this in many respects is similar to -- virginia mentioned the contract concerns were?

the way that you thought that they were addressed. >> with the commission, but does that mean that they felt okay? >> we didn't get responses to... there was an initial request for information which we submitted and when we didn't receive any, we did get acknowledgment of that and subsequently, so we went forward to the civil service commission and they didn't come to the commission, but after it passed we did receive, you know, we act on them and we had meet and confers twice and they also responded to requests for information that they submitted and similar to, you know, your

questions regarding the work that they were doing and that sort of nature. and so based on your assurances. that they will have jobs in purchasing that they were okay with it? >> we have stated that the existing staff will not lose their jobs and now the assistant purchasers and the store keepers because there was a concern there. and so,... >> i would be, thank you. >> i would be fine to move, and the public comment there and i would be fine, okay, this is going forward without a recommendation, and perhaps getting a report back from the controller and the city attorney about the board meeting. and i think that is a great suggestion, i am certainly in favor of moving this item

forward, but think that in the days with the staff and the local 21 and the city attorney and making sure that we are in sync here and supervisor mark? >> i am supportive of that approach as well. but could i clarify that there is plenty of work for the existing staff? they will not be doing purchase orders for buses and trolleys. and the cars and the other purchasing that and there is a currently a backlog on many of the other purchasing items? >> they will still be doing purchase for the buses and the trolly and for the dbt and the other departments that we service. and within the mta. >> okay. >> so, let's open this up to public comment, if there is

anyone in the audience? >> good afternoon, members of the committee, my name is rashelle richmond and i am here representing technical engineers local 21, and i want to thank the agency for making assurances that current employees would not be displaced and we think that some work by the controller would help to clarify whether or not this is a prop j, that it is not only short term but longer term. >> we have a number of other concerns that we want to share with you, ken east ton from the

purser's chapter? >> representing the purchasers, and and we almost certainly will lose jobs and since the work is currently being done by the purchasers even if not the people who lose their jobs, the alternative would be to hire more purchasers and so we are moving jobs away from city employees and to outside contractors and also to say that in addition to being a employee for the city i am a resident in district six and when i read this contract and the associated documents, i was actually offended. and by the implications that somehow the purchasing staff at mta are not doing their job. or at least not doing it well. and the idea behind the contracts is that by outsourcing the purchasing function, mta with can get what they need faster and cheaper, i believe that is true. but the reason that the contractor could get the needed

commodities faster and cheaper is not because the purchasing has been too challenging, complicated or difficult for the mta purchasing staff, although, that allows the explanation that was given by the mta by the commission in order to get approval. the fact of the matter is that the reason that the outside contractor is faster than the city purchasing, is because of you, the board of supervisors. you would have enacted laws to make sure that the purchasing process is fair and open, that proper controls are in place to control the expenditure of the tax payer money and to encourage the social agenda that is important to the city. all of these things are important, but all of them take time. when i read or when i read this contract, when i read that this contract will allow for access to needed parts that have a certain amount available to sfmta and they have found the process quote, too complex.

i have to ask, what venders, sfmt, does not have access to? why not, anyone can be a city vender, but they must abide by the laws to receive a contract of the city. >> sfmta will verify that the vendor has paid the tax and when they do it to the vender, that purchase order will have three pages of requirements that that vendors that to agree with in order to continue doing business to the city. what they are proposing to do is to put a broker between themselves and these slow vendors that do not meet these requirements, so that their vendor is 12 b compliant but the actual source of materials do not have to be compliant with the benefits, regulation or any of the other social legislation required by city

vendors. they also tend to have the process by implementing a consolidated monthly billing process, quoting the documents just like oca had with office depot. i want you to remember that this type of billing that by quicker and the lower administrative costs also allowed office depot to over charge the city by more than a million dollars a year for the five years of that contract. at the end of that contract, the controller's office with the contract, and it required additional controls to be in place and subsequent office supply contracts. none of those controls are written into this contract. finally, i would like to point out the alternative that sfmta has rejected when they chose to get this contract. they reject the idea of accomplishing these objectives and improvements in house because it would require, and i quote, a significant investment in technology and training i submit that investing in the

technology infrastructure and employee monthly base would have better benefits to the city than outsourcing jobs. >> thank you very much. anybody else wish to comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. i appreciate the comments from local 21, i actually didn't know that you were here. i am less likely to move it to the full board i would like to keep it here in committee and it would be great to get a report from the city attorney and the controller about whether prop j will be triggered in this case and i would like to be able to verify some of the assertions that have been made by the local 21

that the vendor process, if it is true, that to me does not, it is kind of circumventing what the laws are and we have the sweat free ordinance and there are vendors that are in front of other vendors and purchased the projects from the manufacturers that don't comply. and but i think that we should be avoiding as much as possible. i know that it is at a greater expense but we are also investing in making sure that this is responsible and so i would feel more comfortable to keep it here in the committee and i wish that we, we are looking forward to a break and i wish that we did not have that long of a wait between to get responses. >> so, quick question to the mta, i share these concerns, and i am very cognoscente of timing though. if we don't send this forward today, we are going to be looking at mid september? >> could you talk about what

impacts would be... >> we will purchase the parts at the same rate that we have been purchasing them and there are vehicles that are out of service for parts. those delays will continue to escalate and as the demand increases we may be seeing additional problems submitting service, and those are what we are currently working with and we will do our best to continue to provide timely parts and service. and i would like to see that this contract moving forward as quickly as possible. >> okay. i think that from the opinion here and i think that i would like to see it go to tuesday to see if we can accomplish what we need to accomplish in six days, that is my opinion, supervisor mar? >> i still have a lot of questions. the controller's office coming back on whether it is whether prop j is really important to me. and i realize that three-month

delay for accessing parts, and critical equipment is really unacceptable. and i'm very sensitive to the mta's needs, but i feel like the loss of potential jobs and whether the work is going to be transferred in a fair way and whether there is that kind of controls built into the contract as mentioned by mr. easton is really important to me as well. and so i am not prepared to forward this today as well. given the number of questions that i still have as well. >> okay. thank you, supervisor mar. >> and again from my perspective, i agree with all of the concerns, i am sensitive too, i have too many comments from constituents all of the time about the buses breaking down and it happens on a routine basis and it effects us in the papers and all over the city and i would rather see us try to get this resolved in six days. >> just a question on the prop j, is that something that if we were to move to the full board,

whether that would be enough time to kind of determine whether that should be triggered or not? >> to the chair, to the committee members, it really depends on the complexity and the type of work that is being proposed. this generally two ways to contract for services, and one is through the prop j process when it is clear that city employees have been performing a certain work and is being proposed to being transferred to a contract agency and the other is if the work is different than what is currently provided by the city employees, and is being proposed to be done by a contractor, then that question goes to the civil service commission to determine whether or not the employees are cap able of doing the work. and so, the department did go to the civil service commission and i don't know if that

discussion or what points were raised or what points were made and so we need to look at that information and do some fact-finding and conduct with the city attorney. over the course of the years, we have had questions from the departments as to whether something is prop j or not, and we tend to go conservative in terms of our interpretation, if it appears or certainly if there are questions by the union and so on. so we would also want to discuss their concerns with the union. >> and... >> we can give it a try and see if we can come up with an agreed upon determination and provide to the board and then you could choose to either send it back to the committee, or you could choose to act on the item before you on tuesday. >> okay. i think that would be okay. >> supervisor, colleagues i will leave it up to you >> before we allow recommendation and pending information from the controller and the city attorney, and also, would like to hear from

you know, something more definitive from the local 21 about what they would like to see on this as well and the concerns and i think that it is a broader question as well as to how often do we have vendor contracts like this? that perhaps could be circumventing our standards that we have in place? i think that i have heard of that and i am not sure how widespread it is. but we should be trying to prevent the proliferation of the contracts if they are structured that way that are actually circumventing and allowing the manufacturers to provide to the city that don't meet our standard. >> we have the motion to move it to the full board without recommendation and we will work with the controller's office. i think that it is clear that the burden is on you guys and your team to get the board comfortable about the questions. >> would you like to accept a recommendation. >> thank you, mr. clerk.

first of all, mr. rose has make a number of recommendations could we take those without oppositions. so approved. >> we can move that to the full board without recommendation. >> without opposition, so moved. >> thank you, colleagues, item number 24. >> 24. [accept and expend grant - legal educational advocacy program - $229,803] 24. 130496 sponsor: campos resolution authorizing the public defender's office to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $229,803 from the board of state and community corrections for the purposes of implementing a legal educational advocacy program at the public defender's office for the period of january 1, 2013, through december 3 res >> okay. thank you. and we have the public defender's office to speak on this item. >> good afternoon, supervisor avalos. farrell and mar. i am patty lee, the managing attorney for the juvenile unit and this is the second round of funding for our leap grant. and it has been a very, very successful venture. i know that many of you are

interested in improving the educational out comes of youth in the juvenile justice system. and today i want to introduce part of the team and i have lauren here who is our education expert and mark from cjcj, part of our leap grant and case manager for our youth and the juvenile justice system and i want to introduce them through the voice of our youth and family and our stake holders. and one of the youth had mentioned in our evaluation that lauren knows how to talk to the judge and brings out the best of me to the judge. and not in the way that i know how to do. and the parents have responded in the survey, and i feel that i am able to speak with lauren and express my concerns, she is genuinely caring for the child in need, she is not just doing her job. she truly cares. and then for mark babus who is

out and about in town, you might see him, riding his ten-speed bicycle in his shorts to all of the neighborhoods in the san francisco including the bay view and sunny dale and everywhere else. and our stake holders have stated mark's present nearly every day at the agency makes a difference, he brings the youth in and stands right by them as they work through the steps they need to take and it can be a very overwhelming process. and having the physical support of someone there can make or break the success of the youth, and in this program, has just been incredibly successful. and i believe that you may be aware of it but i have a brochure which i would like to hand to you and we have it available to all of our youth who might be at risk. and so lauren has pretty incredible statistics that she would like to provide to you

this afternoon. it is a no-brainer, if you keep the youth in school, they are not going to be in the juvenile justice system. lauren? >> good afternoon, members of the board. i just wanted to give a quick review of the numbers for the services that we provided in last year's service the funding that you will be approving will be the second year of the grant but we are on track to have the similar numbers if not the greater numbers this year, last year we served 121 individual clients all students in sfusd who are involved in the juvenile justice system. and we participated in 277 court appearances between mr. babus and myself and attended 62 individualized meetings at different schools throughout the city and we have clients at every middle school and every high school? the city as well as the number of charters and alternative programs. we conducted 350 school visits visiting students and other

clients and members of the different school staffs of which he actually did 298 of those visits all on his own in the last 12 months. we have also conducted a number of trainings on educational advocacy for the youth involved in the juvenile justice system and there were 18 of those trainings throughout the city in the 2012 year. and i am happy to answer any other questions if you have them. thank you. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions? >> comments? >> okay. thank you, for being here. thank you for presentation. we don't have reports so we will open it up to public comment. if anybody wish to comment on 24. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> colleagues could we move this item forward with recommendation without opposition? >> before we ask, i just wanted to thank you, i think that the program is a critical part of reinstructive justice type of approach to young people and redemption and also giving

especially lower income children and youth the best opportunities in life. but i just wanted to applaud the effort and to reach out and go into every neighborhood especially those that need it, and i think with the former peer courts program and many of the other programs it is critical that we support even more fully programs like yours but thank you for the great work and i would be love to be added as a co-sponsor to this as well. >> okay, and so could we move forward with the recommendation of the full board? >> do so without opposition? >> mr. clerk, could you call item 25? >>resolution authorizing the port of san francisco to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $616,534 from the california coastal conservancy for the restoration of the copra crane and removal of pile supported wharf at pier 84 on islais creek for a period of august 1, 2013, through august 1, 2014. >> >> thank you supervisors.

whitney bearry with the port of san francisco. and i am here to present to you the item before you to accept and expend a grant from $616,534 and the item will be used to reif her it to the creek and the removal of the warf at pier 84. the project manager, and myself are both here to answer any questions. >> thanks. colleagues, any questions on this item? >> okay. much appreciated we will open it up to public comment, on 25, are we sure, 25. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, could we move this item forward without opposition. so moved. >> mr. clerk, could you call item number 26?

>>resolution authorizing a five-year lease of approximately 11,000 square feet at 1740 cesar chavez street from potrero investor i, llc and potrero investor ii, llc, for the department of human resources at the monthly cost of $21,450 for the period of september 15, 2013, through september 15, 2018. >> okay, thank you very much. and mr. updike, thanks for sticking around. >> director of real estate and this is in the lease of 11,000 square feet of first floor space. and that is just west of the 280, on the north side of cesar-chavez. and it was built in 1986 and the city has leased this space in this lease space in the center since 2008. and it meets the department of human resources test and training needs. and our 2008 lease expires in about two months. and it does have a renewal option for another five-year

term. and in lieu of pursuing that ownership asked us to reconsider relocating from the second floor down to the first floor space, it would be an improved layout but it would comprise in the location of an expansion, and additional 3320 space. we did not want to pursue this move unless given the fiscal i am fact, unless the ownership made it worth our while and in our opinion they did. we asked them to do so in providing a robust tenant improvement package, with $575,000. so, all of the improvements will be made at ownership's expense in this new space giving us a fresh, clean and far better space than what we are in today from a functionality. it allows us to host multiple events at the same time which the existing space layout which

was a choral group space surrounded by offices. we are going to be looking at a different space, i want to show that to you now on the overhead. >> it creates better separation from the large assembly testing space from the top of the page and then we have the break out, and interview space separate. and so, this allows us to do multiple things at the same time. and so while we may not necessarily see additional days of use, although that is a possibility. we think that the functionality is really critical that the extra 3,000 square feet brings and we talked briefly about the rate and i am going to ask, director calahan to address you as well. and i just want to give you a sense of the market and expand that out a little bit. the closest comparable here in terms of submarket is patrora hill and i just want to show

this not just for this lease but all of the leases that you have seen and the warning of the leases that you will see come in the fall. this is a sense of what the market is doing right now. this is from cvre and this is the q2, 2013 report and you can see the troph which is in the lighter shading to the left, and those rates, in first quarter of 2010, in the hill and we are looking at just over $25 a square foot per year, per space. and moving through to the middle of 2012, that rate jumped average asking to almost 40 dollars. today, we are in the high 40s. and you can see in other submarkets we are getting to some pretty pricey space in the $60 per square foot and that just a sense of how fast this market is moving and the trajectory of it in the last 24 to 36 months. >> the good news is that what we have before you today is a rate that is $22.40 a square foot and so compare th to

that chart and that is lower than the troph rate for the market. and that is a jump on a per square foot basis on what we saw in 2008 but what we negotiated was a five year fixed rate and so whenever we do that, and when i come before you for a renewal or a new lease it looks like a large jump in prays that is because it has been flat for five years. we think that this is reflective of market and beats the market. >> i would like to have director calahan come up and happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> thank you. >> thanks for stick sticking around. >> thank you. >> and thank you, supervisors. i would want to just comment a little bit on the utility of the space because i think that in all of the important discussion of the square footage, use, etc., and the price, we may miss some of the bigger picture. we intend to use this space,

this expanded space as part of the continual testing model for police and fire that i discussed with you before. it is well located for the testing events that increase the access to the community for testing. by this the configuration of the space allows us to have promotional exams, interviews without concurrently with having large assembled exams we do those by video and we have oral interview and it allows for more usage of the same time. and we bring in experts from around the country and we insure people that are unfamiliar with the local candidate population. so that we can insure there is no certain about the discrimination and favoritism and that. and etc.. and so we need to have it, you know, interviews, private interview rooms, for the testing process. for promotions. and the other option would be to use lease hotel space, which

we did in the past before we had the center in which we occasionally have to do, as difficult as you know to get hotel space that is 12 wcompliant and that is a big challenge for us and with this expanded space we will be able to engage the testing for the police and fire and entry level testing and reduce the usage of the outside facilities. i noted too that the director advices me that we have commitments to use the space and we are filling it up almost all of the time. and the space that we have already, we are at capacity. and this will give us new, ability to complete our testing and let other departments use it for other reasons as well, which saves them money and they don't have to go inside of the city as well. so that is a little bit of the overview, and i am happy to answer any questions. >> and respectfully, we believe that while we are slightly at

variance of the finding of the budget analyst, that this is actually the right thing to do and they are supportive of our compliance with the civil service and the equal employment opportunity in the city >> thank you, any questions? >> could we go to your report then for item 26? >> yes, mr. chairman. members of the committee. we will start off by stating that we are not questioning the fair market value the good deal that the director of real estate has negotiated in any way shape or form, or that this may or is improved and better space, that is not our