you say that two positions are to be unbilled for the operations position and the account manager, it should be spelled out correctly. what the rfp had said in your mark-up, you're only to focus on the guards and then all of the other additional employees, other positions are to be included in the actual mark-up, so the issues that we have at andrews international is when i look at as i receive the letter from mr. patel he states those two positions should not have been billed, then why sit on cypress', as i look at their contract, the two of the positions are listed. the badging clerk and then also the ada, so i ask this board to consider the facts that are rfp was not written correctly and that we studied it, we put our information together. if you say to us that 6

positions that they have here are not supposed to be billed, this is on their rfp and then you turn around and let cypress security do this, it's a big problem. i ask the board to really consider this and i ask the board to call for a special investigation. >> thank you, thank you. >> brad lower. >> good afternoon, my name's brad lower as peter stated, when we bid on the security program, we were selected as the top bidder and entered in negotiations in good faith. however, we have some concerns with how the negotiations were handled as well as the response we received dated march 16th in response to our letter of protest about the award of security services, i want to focus on the inconsistencies as peter brought up, one in the rfp, it was clearly stated on

page [inaudible] services that these two positions, account manager and operations manager were considered part of the rfp process. these positions directly followed all of the listed security officer positions and there was nothing that stated either of these positions were not billed until we entered into negotiations and were basically told that we needed to remove the cost of these two positions which would have impacted our bid by about 150 thousand plus on an annual basis. in the response to our letter of protest, mr. patel referenced a short sentence in section 3 which says not to include security officer pay rate ins overhead and markup, mr. patel claims from that sentence we should have known that all

other positions should have been an overhead and not billed directly. my question is why would the burden be on the vendor to figure out from a sentence that says whatnot to do to understand what to do when it could have been very clearly stated in the rfp where to bill, what to bill and whatnot to bill to include an overhead so as we respect our competitor, we respect cypress as a strong competitor in the field, we respect the folks -- >> thank you, mr. lower. >> kessler buti is the last speaker. >> kefner, i'm here to thank the staff for all their hard work in these extensive deliberation, it's been a long process for them and we also thank the sfmta for the

opportunity to provide service again and we ao*f been honored to do that for the last six years, i want to give recognition to the three local business enterprises that will be working with us, this contract requires 20% of the services to be provided by lbe's because they are only doing the unarmed component of it it probably represents almost 35% of the actual labor hours to be provided here and we've made a decision that the community and the sfmta would best be served by dividing that very extensive amount of work amongst three highly qualified lbe's and we were pleased we were selected for that process, with that, i'm here to answer any questions you may have and other than that, we thank you for the opportunity. >> could you come back up, i

believe mr. heinicke had a question. >> my understanding is and klek me if i'm wrong i aoep not trying to be flippant about this, the first time this contract went out, andrews bid won the bid, and then our friends from cypress and others said there's no way they can complete this contract on the bid they've committed, it doesn't make sense economically, i asked my friends from andrews who represented themselves very well here today is that the case and we were told, no we can make this contract work, we asked our friends from the union, do you have a position on this, they said, we respect both cypress and andrews, we'll work with whichever one, whoever has the contract they didn't take a position. we asked staff maybe you directly, i won't put you on the hot seat, i think it was, is this contract going to work,

all the assurances were given and then it turned out they couldn't make the contract work on the numbers and they withdraw it. now, our friend from cypress refrain framed the phrase i told you so today, so i wanted to make sure he was in a position to say i told you so is that the history that led -- and then cypress who was the incumbent bid on this and our feeling is that they have -- they've provided good service, so i hear from the crowd that may not be true and i think it's important we set the record straight. i did mean that as a question because i think we all want to understand the history that led us here between the two companies. >> i think that's accurate after the ifb was issued last summer, we -- andrews had been identified as you noted accurately as the winner of the ifb, we came before this boater, sought and obtained your approval to go forward

with with the full board four minutes before we were schedule today go before the finance committee, andrews withdraw their bid and we extend ted cypress contract for this rfp. >> regardless of that situation, an crews is a respected companies in the dountbacker country, it's our responsibility to get the best tax dollar for our best folks and while they presented eloquently and politely, i do get the sense that there's an undercurrent that they're saying they weren't treated fairly and that cypress knew that these positions could be billed and they didn't know it. i assume it's safe to say there was no -- how will you say -- sort of discomfort or displeasure with andrews and that from your view, they were treated fairly is this

a material difference? >> no, i don't think that that's accurate either. i think that -- and one of the things if i may, it was a little puzzling to us when we initially received the rfp, cypress compiled with our instructions with a bid struck khu, andrews did not, we gave them an opportunity to make a correction, then when we entered into negotiations, we encountered this communication, we vacated our -- with andrews because we could not arrive at a deal that was consistent with what our available funding is. when we started negotiations

with cypress, cypress seemed to understand the terms that were put into the rfp, so their proposals to us were consistent with what we were looking for specifically, that the two positions in question were not include as line items but were built into the overhead of the actual cost structure. >> okay. i think i understand that. >> director, do you have a question? >> no. >> director, any other questions? do i have a motion to approve? >> yes. >> do i have a second? >> second. >> all in favor aye. >> aye. >> motion passes, thank you. >> director item 12 discussion and vote pursuant to administrative code section 67 .10 as to whether to conduct a closed session. >> a motion to move into closed section. >> directors, they're coming back into open session, we'll

wait a moment for sfgtv. alright. item 13 announcement of closed session, mta bedaubed of direct toser went and discussed the harrington case, the board settled the matter, directors, it would be appropriate to disclose or not disclose the information discussed. >> do i have a motion? >> all in favor to not disclosed. >> that concludes the information before you today. >> meeting adjourned. (meeting is adjourned).

>> [gavel] the meeting will come to order. good afternoon everyone. this is the thursday march 19, 2015 meeting of the public safety and neighborhood services committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. my name is eric mar. to my left is david campos and supervisor christensen. our clerk is mr. derek evans and i wanted to thank sfgtv staff for televising us today. mr. evans is any announcements? >> thank you mr. chair. please silent all cell phones and electronic device. speaker cards and items somebody submitted to the clerk and on

the board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. we have four items on the agenda today. i know we have visitors from afar and crucial hearings before us. please call item 1. >> item 1 is a liquor license transfer hearing to consider the transfer of a type 20 off-sale bear and wine license from 4555 california street to 1475 polk street and serve the public convenience or necessity. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i am from the san francisco police department liaison unit. before is a application for a type 20 license and if approved will allow the applicant to cell beer and wine license and we have worked closely with this applicant and have come up with responsible conditions and we're going to be recommending this

application for approval. there have been minimal calls for service to this location and none of them related to any issues around alcohol. i would also add that this story hoab operating for several years in this neighborhood, and most of you are familiar with the location. it's a distinctive building at polk and california. it's a glass building. this tenant is on the ground floor want i would point out this location as in san francisco is near an area of high crime and undue concentration. there has been no documented protest from the community nor s we are recommending this application to you today with approval with the following conditions. condition number one sales of alcoholic beverages be permitted between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.. condition number two no more than 5% of the public retail

space will be used for the display of alcoholic beverages. this condition will keep it as a neighborhood market but allow the applicant to broaden his market share. condition number 3 no malt beverages should be sold greater with the stated volume except microbreweries and craft beers and specialty products sold as stout, ips and esb and intended to eliminate high alcohol and low cost products that are frequently abused but not to prevent the sale of specialty and craft beer products. number 4, beer and wine cool ares and containers over a certain size are prohibited. none shall be sold in four packs for sale. no

beer or wine coolers shall be sold in the prepackaged quantities of four. condition number 6. no wine shall be sold with alcohol content greater than 15% except dinner wines and maintained in a cork bottle and not sold in smaller than 750mls except in prepackaged multi-unit quantities. we are recommending the application for approval. i will point out the applicant is here and supports the conditions. thank you. >> thank you lieutenant. i would like to ask if mr. king chan from weg weg like or his representative. >> good afternoon. this is a produce market. when you walk in the door the first thing you see is fruits and vegetables. he specializes in organic fruits and vegetables want as you go to the center of the store there

are the grocery items. at the rear if approved he will have two small coolers with wines and beers and as far as the hours of operations he informs me it's 8:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. and doesn't intend to be open later than that and hopes you will support the license for a type 20 license. >> thank you to both of you. supervisor christensen it's in your district. >> i want to say we visited the location, my staff and i and the adjacent merchants and it is described a lovely place to buy vegetables and i this is a case truly for the public convenience and we're supportive of the application. >> thank you. now let's open it up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues can we have a motion? >> (inaudible). >> thank you. can we do this out objection? thank you. [gavel] mr. evans please call the next item.

>> item number two is a resolution supporting gerawan farm workers their right to be represented by the united farm workers and urging gerawan farming to implement the terms of the contract. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and let me say that on a very personal note i am very proud to be introduced this resolution today. one of the highlights of my life was when in the early 90's as a young stanford student i got to meet cesar chavez and that was sort of a life changing experience, and what we have here today is a resolution that follows and supports the legacy of cesar chavez because we're dealing with something that began and was in fact the last major organizing effort under cesar

chavez's leadership at the united farm workers. i want to thank supervisor john avalos who has cosponsored this resolution and note that tim paulson the executive director of the library council he was trying to be here in his schedule but it became impossible but i know he wants me to let folks know that him and the labor council see this is as very important priority but the long and short of what we're talking about today we have a resolution that would put san francisco on the record as the first city to come out in full support of the gerawan farm workers who have been fighting for the rights for a number of decades now. in 1990 farm workers at gerawan

farming voting for representation by the united farm workers and was a state conducted secret ballot election. the labor relations board at this point certified the united farm workers as the farm workers union representative for those workers and for almost a quarter of a century this company -- gerawan, has been fighting the effort of these workers to simply exercise their rights. they have pulling all the stops to prevent implementation of the union contract. in fact things gotten so bad that the united farm workers invoked california's mandatory mediation law in a state appointed mediator was actually imposed, and that mediator issued a three year

contract which included retroactive wage increases, holiday compensation that was supposed to take immediate effect to protect those workers. this happened again in 2013. it is now 2015 and to date gerawan has failed to pay the workers the increased wages, and we know that they're going to continue to ignore the law and ignore the fact that we are dealing with human beings here who have a right to a fair wage. the agricultural industry unfortunately has consistently taken an obstructionist stance towards workers efforts to organize and gerawan farms is currently using some of the worse anti-union, anti-worker tactic in the being boos. the

company by the way has also employed right wing groups like glorrer norquist's groups to launch a media campaign on behalf of gerawan farms and funded by the koch brothers seek to his this company as an example against workers organizing. they want to use this effort as a template to fight labor and future battles. it is amazing that this is happening in the year 2015. that it is happening here in california, and we know that if they can do that in california then there is no hope for workers anywhere else in this country. i therefore ask my colleagues for your support for this resolution which calls upon gerawan farms to accept and

implement the terms of the ufw contract to ask gerawan farms to stop creating a hostile working environment for these workers, and to ask this company to respect the rights of these workers to fair compensation and equitable treatment. i want to thank the representatives, the united farm workers, and most importantly i want to thank the workers who are here today who have traveled far to be here, and i think -- i am very proud of the fact they have chosen san francisco to be the first place where this resolution is introduced, and i want to make sure that we send a very strong message that san francisco will stand with these workers and will not allow this company to do what it's doing.

[speaking spanish] again i am very proud of this resolution. i want to thank tim paulson, mike casey of the san

francisco labor council for the support they're providing these workers and the hope here is once this resolution passes in san francisco that other jurisdictions will follow suit, and we have seen that happens in the past, so before i turn it over to public comment i want to give my league an opportunity if you want to say a few words. >> i just wanted to echo supervisor campos. welcome and thank you for sharing your struggled with us in san francisco. my understanding is gerawan is the largest peach grower in the u.s., and to not follow a neutral mediator's recommendations really is both some. also to mention the right wing anti-worker organizations that seem to be behind the growers, so i am really happy that you're here and more people learn about your struggle and how dignity for farm workers

and others is critical for our community, not only san francisco and fresno but everywhere. >> supervisor. >> thank you very much. i would like the opportunity to open it up to public comment and i know some of the workers want to address the committee. [speaking spanish] >> and i wanted to thank first vice president from the united farm workers for being here but especially the workers. >> thank you members of the committee. especially to you supervisor campos for introducing this resolution and being our champion here along with john avalos and others. i am the first vice president with the united farm workers and started in 1975. we just completed a hearing at the arlb, the longest in history where 120

workers testified to some of the things i'm going to be mentioning here. as you mentioned supervisor mar ground farming has 5,000 workers and does peaches and plums and apricots and one of the table growers under the peopla label. we won an election 24 years ago. at that time gerawan illegally fired crews of workers and closed down six of its labor camps in violation of the law completely destroying the workers support there. after numerous attempts over the years to try to negotiate a contract we passed a law that gray davis signed and jerry brown strengthened that said if they don't negotiate a mediator will write the agreement. in this case gerawan picked the mediator. we felt the person was fair. we accepted that choice. 80% of the workers are undocumented. the contract was written with no medical plan.

we accepted it. it was a start. gerawan refused to implement the agreement. if i have to say six words that summarize this whole 20 year struggle it would be o boy r bay the law and implement the contract. for example, when we trying to negotiate wage initiations and seniority and just cause they would not do that. this contract was finalized in 2013 but they still refused to implement the agreement. it's coming before the appeals court in april, but we can't wait for endless appeals, so we're asking your support. one of the big features that affect us is if the workers would have had a contract the 30% of the workers who work for farm labor contractors who are still getting $9 an hour would be getting $11 an hour for doing the same work so they're losing

$2 an hour, over a thousand workers, in human terms so i wanted to thank you. we're going to washington, d.c. after this and new york after this, so we truly appreciate your support and consideration. san francisco has always lead the way and we very much look forward to working with you on this. thank you so much. >> thank you. [speaking spanish] >> [speaking spanish] >> [speaking spanish] >> [speaking spanish]

>> good afternoon. i am santos. i came from california and thank you very much for your support. we're here again to ask you for your support for this company which i work for for gerawan farming to implement our contract. >> [speaking spanish] >> i would like to share my story about myself because i don't want my coworkers to face this situation. i got injured. [speaking spanish]

>> okay. i was picking grapes i injured my knee and the company in eight days did not listen to me and did not treat me with medical. [speaking spanish] >> they kept me working picking grapes and in the trays and still not listening to me. [speaking spanish]