>> second. >> and we have public comment. alex walker. good afternoon, commissioners. executive director. my name is alex walker with san francisco beautiful. was here last month because we had seen the news of the donor's program. we were worried about naming rights because at san francisco beautiful we have had a policy of -- it whatant sure we have a specific [speaker not understood] in our places, making sure we're not doing naming rights for corporations and plastering those on places. but this programming coming today to say for the most part we're happy to see that it's said here there are not naming rights for pier parks or buildings. even though i haven't seen the specific mention in here, i haven't seen corporate mentioned. i'm assuming it can be

individual and foundational gifts. i haven't seen that with the m-o-u i looked through seeing it exactly stated here. the biggest thing we wanted to bring up, we wanted to make sure this is going to be a place making, not a place taking. bricks, benches, that's not the issue. the one that [speaker not understood] the elements, the parks -- open plaza area and the point saying we're going to put a name. how is that going to look? on a park, how is that going to look on that point? what are we going to have to signify that? and is that going to be something if we open up to more of a commercial naming right and in a way or if it's going to be an individual foundation that's going to have the ability to have their name on the cruise terminal or the cruise terminal concourse or the lawn, the point at the eastern end of the pier, et cetera. that's kind of the question

that we're looking at here. we hope that there is going to be the more explanation what this is going to be looking like. the diagrams we've seen so far don't really show a actually it's going to look like. it's zoomed out, not the renderings of the [speaker not understood]. what we'd like to see what it's going to look like when it's actually paired. so, for the most part we want to, you know, be part of the conversation, you know, except that we -- you know, we're worried, we're not as worried as we were, but we just want to make sure when it comes to this program where we're naming such large areas, when we go out of the bricks and the benches, we're going up to a larger area, what is it going to be looking like? is this something that's going to be really in your face and be kind of this place taking that we are a little bit worried about. so, we're hoping that we can maybe have a little bit more about what that actually might end up looking like. as i said, we're very happy to continue with the dialogue because we want to make sure that these programs have

[speaker not understood] they're not going to be wholesale taking of these facilities. >> thank you. marlowe henke. thank you. my name is marlowe henke, past president of san francisco beautiful and i'd like to echo alex's comments, that we're not here to formally give a yes or a no on the donor contribution program as well as the bricks and the tiles, but there is concern of a creeping naming rights program if large areas are named for corporations. would like to say, though, that i'd like to expand on an observation that commissioner adams made earlier, which is the port belongs to all of the citizens. it was the anonymous taxpayer, the anonymous citizen who funded the construction, the maintenance of our ports. the problem with corporate

naming rights is that large commercial interests jump in front of the anonymous ordinary citizen and collectively we begin to lose our sense of place. there is another issue, i believe, a political reality with the draw to go towards the naming rights scheme. and it's this. it's that government, particularly now, has never had more money than it needed. and our governments are -- and the port is strained, too. it's very difficult to turn away any additional revenue, however small. you know, every little bit helps, or does it? if it was corporate naming rights, that comes with a intangible cost. i think given san franciscans historic aversion to assess [speaker not understood], corporate naming rights we're taking a bypass on. back to the tiles -- in

contrast, though, the tiles and the bricks that are being offered here, 150, $300 per brick, for instance, that is gratifying opportunity for ordinary citizens who have already invested in our port to volunteer to express additional support for this proud port. 150-year anniversary, we've only been here since 1947, san francisco beautiful. 40 years ago we helped lead the way in preserving lower height limits on our bay. and we're really glad to see this program come along. i personally will be proposing to san francisco beautiful we buy some of these bricks. the first brick will be to name in honor of cruise man, the founder of our organization in 1947. she kept the city from ripping out its cable car system. and in the last 15 years, more like 30 years, we've been one of the organizations taking a lead in fighting the excessive commercialization.

it was oscar wild who said if the sen can knows the price of everything in the value if nothing. we know the port commission has worked so hard and endeavored so hard to maintain this jewel among san francisco, a jewel among the world class cities. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? commissioners? any questions, comments? >> i want to thank the staff and appreciate the effort that's gone into this as we probably heard this over and over again where we're doing great things and trying to figure out how to pay for them often sometimes after the fact. but -- and i'll say this. in this situation i think one thing echoed and i'm sure my colleagues all agree, this is not something we want to undermine any of the incredible hard work that's gone into creating a spectacular new facility in our new cruise ship terminal. essential my sense has been

that was never anything intended and it's actually not naming rights nor is it a place taking. but i think we concur with those concerns, but i don't think that that is something that we have contemplated or anyone has contemplated, but this is really an opportunity to acknowledge the work that people have done to make so much happen in our city, to thank people that have made things happen and to really acknowledge what allows us to move forward with creative and beautiful projects along the waterfront. so, again, i think we're definitely -- oversee and be mindful of the esthetics of anything going forward. we'll take into account how it's laid out and i think that's something we'll all be mindful of. but i appreciate the opportunity to acknowledge individuals and others that have moved so much forward and the thought that's gone into this. and i think it's addressed the concerns that were perhaps misconceptions that have been

out there and misinformation. i think today's presentation should allay that and i think some of the sense of use -- my sense, and i imagine my colleagues as well, this is not a selling off of the port, but really an opportunity to thank and acknowledge that allowed us to move forward. so, thank you. >> first of all, i wanted to tell kerry and michael thank you. if you remember the last meeting, myself and commissioner murphy, we had really laid out that this whole deal with the america's cup and the program, we didn't want it to seem like elitist. and i think you've come back and addressed that issue. i'm just a working class guy. and when you said somebody can buy a brick, it doesn't matter whether you live in hunters point, castro, wherever you live, you should be able to participate and be a part of that. and i am glad to hear that because i can tell you, i can't afford a million dollars whatever. i'm just a working class guy and proud of it, make no apologies. i think you heard it.

what commissioner katz said, that's true. i know we can change the work on t but i also understand people who say if you only give a couple hundred dollar or a thousand, and somebody gives millions, they get these naming rights, and i really think that is the port and people like director moyer and deputy director peter dea, this was years coming. this cruise thing happen, i never thought it was going to come to fruition. but their vision and determination, working hard and never taking no for an answer, when they did hear no, they just meant not right now. so, i like this. i want to know a little more about t. clearly you can count me for $150 bricks. [laughter] >> i just want to say thank you for your presentation. i know you've both worked hard on it. actually, i think you called me yesterday and i didn't hear you say anything in your

presentation about selling out too big commercial whatever. so, all i heard you talk about was bricks and benches which i think is going to be very nice down there. thank you. >> i, too, would like to thank you. this is a great presentation and much more defined and detailed than the first presentation. so, thank you so much for that. and i do hope that this program is a success as a pilot program and that we are able to continue it because it will be great to find new revenue sources for the port. so, thank you for bringing this opportunity to us. we really appreciate it. so, thank you very much. all in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? the resolution 13 31 has been approved. ~ >> items on the consent calendar, item 10 a, request approval for a san francisco port commissioner to travel with port maritime staff to new

orleans, louisiana to attend the break bulk americas conference on september 23-26, 2013. and b, request authorization to award construction contract no. 27 61 in the amount of 6 81,5 47, and authorization for contract amount $68,155 for total authorization of $749,70 2 ~. >> move approval? is there a second? >> second. >> public comment? >> i just had one question -- i'm sorry, i didn't realize this was a consent item. i just had one question regarding item 10 b.

>> do you want to make a motion to remove that from the consent? >> can i? i just have one question. i would like to remove it from consent. >> i'll move approval of 10 a only? all in favor? >> no, you have to have public comment, don't you? >> i'm sorry. is there any public comment on item 10 a? seeing none, all in favor? >> aye. >> resolution 13-28 has been approved. >> i don't need a presentation. i just had a question. and that is [speaker not understood], the question is looks like this bid has come in very well. i want to make sure you're comfortable with the fact that this company can complete the project with the bid price since it's under our estimate

under the -- way under the other three bids. i just want to make sure that you're comfortable with it. >> sure, commissioner. david [speaker not understood], planning development. and ken chu who is the engineering project manager is out on jury duty. i'm covering for him. fortunately when the bids did come in, port staff and the consultant team did have a concern about not the contractor, but one of the subcontractors about their ability to deliver the sigh letter blaze project. so, we met with the contractor ~ and their subcontractor twice with the consultant team to make certain that they could deliver the quality, material and product that we expected. and at the end of those two meetings after several conversations with the entire team, the port staff and the consultant team felt confident that the contractor could deliver

>> great, okay. it's going to be -- it's wonderful that this project is going to come in full under budget. what are we going to do with all that money? [laughter] >> well, as you may recall, the budget that we have was for both signage way finding and sight furnishings. so, this initial contract is going to pay for the signage and way finding elements and we'll use the remainder of the budget for the site furnishings at the various nodes adjacent to the signage. >> we're going to have a wonder -- a beautiful blue grain way. are there any other questions? i'm sorry. ~ greenway i have the same concerns as commissioner brandon ~. why pick the lowest contractor here? have we worked with this guy before? >> >> hi, commissioners. my name is tim [speaker not understood]. i work with the engineering division. i'm the administrative engineer there. i was the one who opened the bids and one of the things that

i do is a bid summary which summarizes all the bids. so, the low contractor i did contact and asked them how sure are you about this bid. and they affirmed that they would want to continue with this and that's the price that they will honor. so, we're willing to obligate the bid price that they put down. >> you know, we've had some problems with people not being able to perform the work that they signed for and we end up in lawsuits. i'm a little worried about it personally. [speaker not understood]. >> we have a couple options. the city's bidding process is we accept a low bid unless there is a reason to reject the low bid. we could reject the bids and rebid it. or you could -- i don't know, thinking on the fly here. >> go ahead. >> certainly we wouldn't -- we can't increase the contract

without coming back to the commission. >> the two bids -- the other two bids are pretty even, then you have this bid that's $200,000 less, which is huge. again, >> again, we did have the concern about the quality of the work in the sign package itself. as the port staff team working with our consultant team who our signage designers and do this day in and day out, we considered rejecting it and putting back out to bid. ~ are not our some of the concerns were we may only get one bid and that bid may be higher than the budget we have anticipated today. or, or we try to work with the contractor. and tim participated in both meetings and so did the consultant.

and we felt that after meeting with the contractor that was selected, that they had the capabilities to deliver the package that we needed and that was both for the two subcontractors. the lead is cal state construction, but the sub was [speaker not understood]. sign, yeah. >> corporate sign system? >> yeah, corporate sign systems who are the design consultant is kay keating & associates who has done work at the presidio and candlestick park, have worked with corporate sign systems and felt confident that if corporate sign systems felt they could deliver the project, that they stand by their word. and could deliver the project. >> they're abiding by local hire and all that stuff? >> yes, they are.

>> we need to [speaker not understood]. do we have a quorum? [laughter] >> okay. please continue. >> yes, i believe cal state contractors are a new local business firm. and i'm not sure if they're certified lbe firm with cmd, but they're the lowest and most responsive bidder. they met the contractor qualifications, though, as advertised as well. >> i see a dual signature here. >> yes. >> do we have any sense of their history in other projects or how they were formed or where their principals came from? >> engineering did do a background check on their references and found that they were qualified. >> have they done any similar

type work in the city or in any cities, local cities? >> this type of work is -- most of it is being subbed out to their -- another lbe firm, phoenix electric who is doing the foundation work. so, we feel comfortable with that. >> i suggest [speaker not understood], my sense is everything looks to be in place. i would just -- if we move it forward to staff, our legal team take one last pass through just to make sure that given the discrepancy, we're protected for any surprises that might come up as much as we can anticipate them. but i think we should move forward. and if we got lucky, we saved some money for a change. >> i think we should go over item by item make sure everything is covered in this contract. i'm sure you've done that, but -- >> yes, we did, commissioner.

we did review the item with the contractor and we made it -- the first thing we said was there was a significant difference between your bid and the next cluster of bids. as i said, they affirmed their bid. >> so, that means you will not be coming back with any amendments, right? [laughter] >> i can't make that guarantee, commissioner. >> i guess what i was saying was i recommend that we approve this, but i'm just asking our counsel to take one further peek at it and see if anything jumps out, then to perhaps bring it back. but otherwise if everything looks fine, i think we should go forward with it. >> we'd be happy to do that. >> okay. all in favor? >> aye. >> the resolution 13-29 has been approved. >> item 11 a requests authorization to enter into a one-year contract with the san

francisco conservation corps in the amount -- >> go ahead. >> okay. item 11 a requests authorization to enter into a one year contract with the san francisco conservation corps in the amount of $285,000 to provide and administer the port's youth employment program. >> good evening, commissioners. elaine forbes, director of finance administration. i'm here with andres [speaker not understood] and [speaker not understood] who worked on this contract. i'm also here with tom carter, the deputy director of maintenance division, ann cochran executive director thev san francisco conservation core, and troy henry who also works with the conservation corps ~ and the representatives from the subcontractor team, jamie fountain from the [speaker not understood] and sales bryant from the a. philip

randolph institute of san francisco. so, the item before you would authorize the port to enter into a one-year contract with the san francisco conservation corps to provide paid work experience to at-risk youth to help maintain the port's property areas and public right of ways. the contract would be for $285,000. by way of background, since 2005 filing competitive procurement process, the port has contracted with the san francisco conservation corps which is a community-based nonprofit organization to provide such paid employment opportunities for at-risk youth. this contract is part of the port's youth employment program. as you know, the port sponsors a number of work force development efforts targeted at youth and young adults, including this proposed contract, the maritime internship program, americorps

[speaker not understood] and various college opportunities. regarding the selection process -- you heard the selection process last time you were here so i'll make it brief and there's quite a bit of detail in the report. but the last contract with conservation corps expired june 30th, 2012. on july 5th the port commission authorized us to advertise the rfp which was issued on december 20th, 2012. on january 29th, the due date, the port received one proposal from san francisco conservation corp with [speaker not understood] as a subcontractor. the port convened an evaluation panel and after scoring and reviewing the proposal, the evaluation panel recommended a contract with the san francisco conservation corps without reservation. on march 26th we came to you asking permission to enter into this contract. you provided us direction 09ctionv proposed term of the agreement, asked us to continue to negotiate and come back to you with some changes ~. specifically, you wanted to see

the percentage of the budget supporting youth participants to go up. ~ on the you wanted us to developer formance metrics we would use to evaluate the contract. report back geographic representation of the youth served. you had concerns about the contract term. we were proposing a four-year term on march 26. regarding geographic representation first, san francisco conservation corps did provide a breakdown of their participants for 2012 and it's in the report and you'll see that more than half, 57% of participants in that calendar year were from bayview hunters point and visitacion valley neighborhoods and about 82% of of representatives are coming from the southeast neighborhood to san francisco. and there is a wide variety of neighborhoods served. larkin does not have [speaker not understood] because they're homeless, but they provide statistics. we spoke to the conservation

corps about how they reach at-risk youth across the city and they let us know they have a network of resources and referrals. and the best resource is bayview they're serving now and graduates. and also to address geographic representation, larkin -- i'm sorry, the san francisco conservation corps is recommending adding an additional sub-consultant partner, bayview hunters point based provider, the a. philip randolph institute of san francisco. the conservation corps straits that this qualified local nonprofit will provide services very similar to larkin street. ~ states and the geographic location of the nonprofit may reach more at-risk youth in the community. we reviewed information about the nonprofit and concur that adding an additional partner is fine and good thing to do. regarding the budget, when we came to you with the original

budget proposal $265,000, 96,000 or 36% was allocate today youth salary. the contract allocates $16,000 or 41% to youth salaries. so, this is an increase. it also bumps up service hours from 6800 with 7400 with base larkin and consr. vation corps and adds an additional 730 hours with ran doll. ~ randolph. [speaker not understood]. it reduces the indirect cost which the commission was concerned about from 15 to 11%. port staff did some due diligence regarding this indirect cost rate looking at controller's guidance. other city contracts for similar services and found that 11% is reasonable and also that this contract will dedicate a higher proportion of the budget to youth salaries and supervisor salaries and a lower percentage administrative and direct costs and other city

contracts. so, we feel comfortable recommending this. regarding the contract term, we have first proposed a four-year. we are instead recommending a limited one year contract with the terms starting august 2013 as soon as we can get the contract executed, to 2014. we are proposing to start a new rfp concurrently for youth employment around about october. we'll be here asking for permission to advertise so that we can have a new contract up and running when this one-year term expires. we're recommending this one year term so we can get the program going and getting these opportunities to use and are have continuity of services. at the same time we realized a new rfp we can broaden our outreach efforts and ensure that new providers have entered the market and have an opportunity to respond. and we intend to do a very wide outreach. so, we're all here to answer any questions you might have. so, thank you very much.

>> thank you. can i have a motion to approve this item? >> so moved. >> second. >> is there any public comment on this item? good afternoon, commissioners. i'm james bryant. i do want to correct a small little piece. jacquelyn flynn is our executive director and, so, i take no credit for the great work she's doing because she's doing a fine job. [speaker not understood] may want to come up. dick came to you all a few months ago with some concerns. obviously -- obviously we are now in the village, so to

speak, talking about how we can make things better, talking about how we can get outreach services to the people who need to have job opportunities the most in this 16 to 24 age group. ms. brand can tell you a little more about the [speaker not understood] i think some of you are aware of our long-time existence in the community. we would like to thank our partners constitution corps and aaron larkin services for joining with us and we'd like to thank the commission for having the wherewithal to consider us to help out with a program that obviously started by sophie maxwell and i would love to see it flourish. so, ms. flynn. good evening, everyone. first, i wanted to thank you

all for allowing us the chance to be here today. and i did prepare a couple of words just to speak on behalf of our organization. historically apri has been serving very low-income minority communities and engaginges are debttionv and public participation and voting activities. and since our inception, our capacity has grown to include work force and youth services. every year apri offers summer internship opportunities and year round volunteer based youth chapter. our services support the mental growth of young adults from low-income communities. city-wide, we do target all youth, but there has been specific targeting of the bayview where we have the highest poverty concentrations and our youth are plagued with negative social influences. this year our kids describe their own neighborhoods as dangerous, negative in places where you have to watch your back.