comprehensive than we've done in the past, because we've taken that in consideration obviously, through the waterfront land use plan and all the discussion we've had with the committee so we are trying to be very balanced with it. but i think the guidelines of where we decide if it's maritime or financial feasibility, i think we've left it open in term it is of the uses so i don't think we've tried to preclude one or the other. but i don't think it has to be argued at the end of the process. it has to be included in the front end and the panel will evaluate if there's nuance or gray area, which there will be, to decide which is the best way for the port to consider. and they should show us the nuance and gray areas but we will look at that. but i don't think we're going to have a big philosophical discussion of maritime versus other but it will be nuances. >> i would hope that. but when i look at the criteria i don't see anything that ponies to

maritime. -- points to maritime. so all evaluation criteria will get points. the reality is they may impute it. but it is not a requirement from the pointing perspective. >> on page 12 of the staff report, we outline the scoring criteria with more detail than we saw on the slides. and if you look at 1b and 1e under quality of design development submittal, 1b talks about performance trust objectives which includes maritime and 1e calls out this balance that commissioner makras is pointing out. i agree it doesn't talk about how they are weighted but maritime is called out. >> so how many people are going to be on the panel. >> at least four. and it's in the

waterfront plan or include -- just a moment. >> i saw that. but is four a good number? don't you usually need an odd number? >> well there's scoring so i mean if there was a tie i guess having a fifth would be good. and we left it open. but at a minimum it has development expert, port advisory member and person representing city or regional interest. we thought if there was an additional need, we could add another expertise if needed. >> when is that decision going to be made? who is going to be included on the panel? >> we would -- in our schedule we were going to begin to put names out there internally, have the rfps out on the street and have a final panel. >> when are you going to let the commission know? any involvement in who is on

the panel. >> we could do that. we could recommend a panel. i could send you -- so in terms of forming a panel, there's the issue of expertise but also the time commitment. so sometimes it's hard to find panelists and especially the quality and caliber of panelists we want here. so what i could do is write you a memo of who we are planning to put on the panel and if there's anyone who wants a hearing or wants to talk about it, you could let me know in new business so we could put that step in. >> can you give me an example of what you mean by city or regional representation. >> as an example there might be a maritime group, a maritime individual that represents all the maritime business that we have or another one might be an open space advocate in another consideration that's not looking at just a neighborhood or district's interest but really looking at regional or

city-wide interest. >> okay. and within the timeline, where did you think we should put the presentation to the commission? >> i'm the wrong person to ask. i actually think -- i'm looking at rona, because does legal have a point of view on this? because you have been more advisory to us on -- do you think it should be before the panel comes together or after the scores are done? the second one. legal thinks it should be after the scores are done and embargoed. that's an interesting word i'm choosing. but can we embargo scores? no. >> i thought -- sorry i thought from my experience contracting with the city that until you inform the respondents, they could be embargoed. the department of public

health and mayor's office of housing often have scored decided internally and they don't notify anyone until like a month that they are embargoed. >> for the city attorney's office, i don't have in front of me but i think the rule is once the scoring is completed, it is subject to sunshine. so once the score is completed the names of the scores and scores themselves are subject to sunshine. i think -- i mean, i think it's a great discussion. i think what you are struggling with is -- yeah. i think what you are struggling with is the need for you to have information and understand what the panel is doing and the need to let the panel be in this very controlled setting so they can make sure that everyone is treated fairly. and when you have a presentation here, you know, there's really not necessarily fairness. so somebody could take for five minutes, somebody else maybe could talk for six minutes. so when you

want the panel to be in a very controlled environment and the public forum is not a controlled environment. so those are the two things that the staff is struggling to present you with options to meet your needs with those two competing objectives. >> could we say in the rfp that the commission will hear presentations on all proposals after the scoring however you want to word that but make it an opt-in. so if i scored only 20 points after that effort and work, i could choose to come yell at the commission or choose not to show up. and the staff do the five-minute presentation on what that project was. so to the point, we are trying to get a level of transparency to show to the community everyone who applied. it would be unlikely for folks who are tightly scored might come use it as a forum

as a public comment to argue their case. but you'll have some natural drop offs. >> i think the city attorney's concern is that the scores should be done before the public the uncontrolled public forum happens. so there's no possibility that the panel could be influenced by what happens. so the hard part of that is figuring out when to get the larger group to come to you. if that's what you want to do. there's really no problem in having the scores done, the presentation made, the scores -- you would see the scores, you have as many people as you want. at that point you could say we want the top five, we want anyone who scored over 90. because then the scores are done. so the hard part is getting the people in the public forum before that happens. >> so it sounds like the suggestion is what we would do is we would -- i'll write

a letter to you talking about who the panel would be, we may provide an informational memo just saying who came in the door and how the process is going then we'll have an info item at the commission where scores will be complete where all the proposers who met the mq have their seven ten minutes to present to you. then right after that, we'll have our info item where we explain what the panel did, the work of the panel and who is preferred or sequence, something like that. >> i didn't think we would be going this far into the rfp. i actually have a different take for the panel. i think the executive director should pick the panelists. i don't think the bidders should know who the panelists are. and i think that they

should be one meeting whether it be a phone meeting or not with their instructions and it be limited to one meeting where everyone does a meeting, so everyone as a rater has the same rules and there's no influence on them. i can tell you why. when the names are out there the private world is going to figure out who those panelists are. they will work very hard to payload their presentation to that person and try to get under their thinks to get the most favorable response just tailored to panelists. and i think that we should have the project tailored to the group as a whole. and that is a better way to get leverage. >> i think the oral interview should be in person. i don't think the phone is acceptable. i think you need to see body language. >> i'm saying for the panelists. i'm only talking about the panelists. five

or six. >> can we. >> i'm okay with it being face-to-face. >> can the panel do their work, come to us with the informational presentation where everybody gives their presentation and then the panel gives their recommendations and that's the informational presentation? can that happen? >> i think that could happen. it may be staff making the presentation just to summarize all the panelists comments. >> that's fine. that's fine. that's fine. >> no, no, no. >> so i think maybe what i'm hearing is that -- do you want to go or do you want me to? >> i wanted to make sure mike understood the proposal. that's what i wanted to start with. >> what i wasn't clear with was whether you were thinking that would happen in one meeting or two. >> one. >> one. >> one informational meeting.

>> so agenda item 1 is. >> presentation. >> presentation from all proposers. >> yes. >> item number 2 is. >> comes up, public comment happens end of item. >> staff panel recommendations. >> then we get up, we summarize the scores. >> but then you can't have any written material. >> so by the time we have the informational hearing where everyone presents if the scoring is done, under sunshine, there's public record, so everybody is going to be walking in the room knowing the scores. that's what i heard the attorney saying to us. so we are saying look, we want to hear from all of you if you want to talk to us, because we are curious what your proposals are. we haven't voted on who you can enter into your negotiations with, we can't issue an award but the scores are public. and i'm actually supportive if we have one

long meeting where this is the focus of what we do. and we might have some people really upset with their scores. and that's fine because it's part of being transparent, we can hear that and understand that. informational. >> it just seems like we have the recommendation which is actually now public because the staff report is public already. >> that's right. >> right? but the scores have always been public in any presentation when we tell in the staff report, it's always public. so then they present. so it's a little flakey. why am i coming to present? no. they are coming to present before the staff report on the panelists recommendations. >> they have options to present. >> that's part of the proposal is to include a summary because we don't want to put someone's proposal in our own words

so we have that part of it where we are asking for a short summary executive summary. so if a respondents aren't opting to present, staff can summarize those who did not come and share with the commission their proposal. >> the city attorney, it's not about our staff report. the minute that panel scores everything and hands them to the staff there technically can be sunshine to anyone who submitted them, even if there's a delay to our meeting. >> unless you are inside an appeal period. >> right. so that's why they are immediately public like when the work is done. so i guess that's what i understood the city attorney to say. our meeting could be three weeks later and people will still know their scores. >> so i think what we are describing is certainly workable from our perspective.

i think commissioner gilman has the point of between friday and tuesday everyone will have a list of those scores. if the commission is comfortable with that, i don't know that i see a weakness. it's sort of the flipside of not seeing the scores but seeing like if you are going to have everything in front of you and you are going to have the public in front of you as well. so if that concentration of information makes sense to you, i think i don't see a problem with it. it allows us to compress that period, which is a good thing. we'll ask for the executive summary, and that will form the basis of that staff report. we'll directly cut and paste. so we are not putting words in their mouth. and if they don't show up, we'll be able to walk through that executive summary. and i think the tenor of the presentations is going to be very pointed in terms of --

those guys aren't as good as me. but i think that feels where. >> but they'll want to show up and present because we still have the option of rejecting the recommendation. >> exactly. we have other rfps. >> and they may want to set up themselves for the next set of pier projects. so i think this amended proposal works quite well. >> so just to highlight a question. so there's no action that day. >> correct. >> just information. everything is information. >> with an action item on the recommendation. >> right. >> and i assume we are going to then follow this framework for the next two rfps. 30-32 and when we do the northern fingerling piers. i feel like if this is a disaster -- [laughter] . >> i think we should reserve judgment until we go through this process first and then decide if this is ongoing. because

it is a change from the past. and let's not commit to everything at once. >> so i would suggest we are going to come in and propose this process for 30-32 because we are coming in two weeks. we won't have seen the success but we have said we want to hold back on the northern historic piers so the non-winning proposers can go there but that seems like a natural time to figure out. >> we will be using for 30-32 and 33. >> we will be proposing that so we can start here in three weeks. >> any other comments. >> all in favor with amendment. >> with amendment. >> resolution 19-43 has been approved with amendment. >> to remind everyone to please silence your electronic devices. item 10a request

approval of issuance of port of san francisco series 2020 refunding bond in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $27 million with an interest rate not to exceed 6 percent per annum to refund the remaining outstanding balance on the port commission's 2010 revenue bonds to form a supplement to indenture of trust between the port and a trustee three the sale of the 2020 bond negotiated sale pursuant to a purchase contract, four the form of a bond purchase contract, five, the preliminary form of the official statement

relating to the bonds and the distribution of the statement. six the form of the continuing disclosure certificate of the port and execution of the contract. and seven the form of the escrow agreements. this is resolution number 19-42. >> thank you. katie before you start i know we had an informational presentation on this, and i know that everybody fully supported it. so can you just go over the highlights of what has to be presented today. >> brandon. i appreciate this so much. yeah. so the highlights are staff is here to ask the commission to approve a revenue bond refunding of nearly $30 million and outstanding 2010 bonds. we are requesting authority to issue up to $27 million in new bonds. we expect to only use -- or

to issue about $23.5 million in new bonds. and we are estimating that the port will realize approximately $13 million in savings from this refunding with the net value of $7.9 million. the maturity base of these bonds would remain the same. the key thing that i just want to tell the commission this afternoon is that we are asking for you to approve a resolution authorizing the sale of 2020 bonds in an amount not to exceed $27 million. we are asking the commission to approve a third supplement to be indenture of trust, a bond purchase agreement a preliminary official statement continuing disclosure certificate and escrow agreements one for each of the series of the

2010 bonds that are being refunded. if you approve this item today we will be introducing legislation at the board of supervisors next tuesday. and we hope to have the transaction concluded and all of the outstanding bonds repaid by march 1 of 2020. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you so much. can i have a motion? >> i will move the item. >> i second. >> is there any public comment on this item? any questions or comments? all in favor? resolution 19-42 has been approved >> thank you so much. >> item 13, new business. >> is there any new business? is there any public comment on new business? >> item 14, adjournment. >> can i have a motion to adjourn? >> i make the motion to adjourn. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> adjourned at 5:35 p.m.

>> i went through a lot of struggles in my life and i am blessed to be part of this. i am familiar with what people are going through to relate and empathy and compassion to their struggle so they can see i came out of the struggle it gives them hope to come up and do something positive.

♪ ♪ i am a community ambassador. we work a lot with homeless visitors, a lot of people in the area. >> what i like doing is posting up at hotspots to let people see visibility. they ask you questions, ask you

directions they might have a question about what services are available. checking in you guys. >> wellness check. we walk by to see any individual, you know may be sitting on the sidewalk, we make sure they are okay, alive. you never know. somebody might walk by and they are laying there for hours. you never know if they are alive. we let them know we are in the area and we are here to promote safety and if they have somebody that is, you know hanging around that they don't want to call the police on, they don't have to call the police. they can call us. we can direct them to the services they might need. >> we do the three one one to keep the city neighborhoods clean. there are people dumping waste

on the ground and needles on the ground. it is unsafe for children and adults to commute through the streets. when we see them we take a picture dispatch to 311. they give us a tracking number and they come later on to pick it up. we take pride. when we come back later in the day and we see the loose trash or debris is picked up it makes you feel good about what you are doing. >> it makes you feel did about escorting kids and having them feel safe walking to the play area and back. the stuff we do as ambassadors makes us feel proud to help keep the city clean helping the residents. >> you can see the community ambassadors. i used to be on the streets. i didn't think i could become a

community ambassador. it was too far out there for me to grab, you know. doing this job makes me feel good. because i came from where a lot of them are homeless and on the street, i feel like i can give them hope because i was once there. i am not afraid to tell them i used to be here. i used to be like this, you know. i have compassion for people that are on the streets like the homeless and people that are caught up with their addiction because now, i feel like i can give them hope. it reminds you every day of where i used to be and where i am at now.

>> all right. good morning, the meeting will come to order. welcome to the october 18, 2019, special meeting of the public safety and neighborhood services committee. i am supervisor rafael mandelman. we are expecting vice chair stefani to arrive, our clerk is john carroll. thank you, mr. carol. i want to thank charles and jason at s.f. g. tv for staffing this meeting. machine