lafco can really push the envelope in developing an rfp that will face the compliment crisis and we need to you keep this in-house. >>supervisor john avalos: thank you. >> hello commissioners. chad hose skin. we didn't hear too much about the cleanpowersf program. i was at the january 14th puc hearing and i strongly urge you to checkout the power enterprise budget information presented. a memo was available which i believe was the 14-15 two year planning cycle and indicated i think in one sentence that no work would be done on cleanpowersf by power enterprise. the focus seems to be on new high revenue customers and not on engagement. definitely a lot of information in those documents in terms of what the puc is thinking going forward and i don't think it do have dove tails what the lafco board is expecting. in-house scheduling is a comment that someone made earlier is something we heard the puc staff say they can do. and as mr. freed indicated that could actually not only not add to, but maybe even alleviate some of the funding issues that the puc is having. going to the rfp, we did as a

second an rfp has been issued for a major piece of work that has a lengthy title the boulevard studye feasibility project to look at multi uses of the land development around the cal train yards for cost effective needs for the transcribe that connects it to the transbay looking at alternative uses for the you rail yard and locations. and looking at that component at the i 2 to see if f interest were benefits for the transportation and land use component. there are a number of studies we're building on including the tunnel alignment but in terms of transportation component to look at it as well as the land use component. it's a major piece of work we received a dwrant from the metropolitan grant society to do the study. we need to take a fresh look at the area and that is the city's future growth in the city. so we think it's tily to do the study but your study went out on friday i believe and we are going we'll be looking at consultants proposals and i'll be happy to answer questions that concludes my presentation >> commissioner johnck. >> i have a question about the study because

beginning of the funding that i'm using this balance we'll be requesting future fund we hope to have an rfp on that. project of we anticipate coming to you with a construction loan and the section 7 will be with section 6 and the rfp process for 8 is underway and that's again reflected the balance. we actually have a small amount of pdf we've collected we may not have a use for in this period so we'll apply that to the next request so you don't sits on the balance necessarily. ii mentioned we have some bonds that need to be treated differently like $8 million from the previous bond recipients they're quite challenging to use in the finance world balls their tax exempt they have to be in the form of a grant and not a loan. grants can be tricky when you're using protecting tax credits you can't leverage our tax credits on a grant and specific tasks you have to pass for the private benefit test. there are challenges within tax exempt that's why our housing program, you know, in the last eight or nine years a has been heaving focused on this. so the other reason why we hadn't moved in programmi

phases even if alice griffith and the parcel west and that would be the next new one, if we can issue an rfp this and transbay block 7 and 8. and then some we have 2 million looked for the costs for the top beach and the harbor for the operations and debt and that's to two hundred and 24 million. so just looking at a breakdown of our rfp requests that's what the state is most interested in. you can see the 57 point plus million we had a small amount requested new year in our staffing. again, the majority of that is for debt service on our bonds and we have a small amount for our shipyard. the mission bay housing this is the estimated amount of tax increments that will come in based on the pledge with the mission bay o pa and is portion of the housing of 1.3 million is the pledges amount. in the bay we're expecting 90 for number one housing agreement work and 70 thousand for the property management costs and it's from rp d f. i want to do a side to side comparison. so similar we requested 64 million for the 2013 - 2014 a and we're at the 11. we'll see where it shacks out this is a preliminary

the schedule is as josh mentioned we released an rfp on january 29th. we are looking to start the contract in the may or june area. this is for the visible development anticipating 6 to 9 months and phase two is the time between 12 and 15 months makes this project completed in 2015 or 2016. we have the 5 components to study for preferred alternative implementation. that's the study in a nutshell are there any quiz >> possibly. let me quickly open this up for public comment any public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm john with the take could group this is an amendment ly complicated study. we turn immediately to the place development study it's adjacent to south and market and to the summing ma plant it's between us and mission bay. and the future development here is the greatest importance to us whether the transportation reconvene formulations turnout to be. so i turn to that section the phase two ass is boiling it down to 3. i'm sure you'll anticipate the city has a housing crisis not a space crisis p just two woegz this is the single big

and then in that capacity i've investigated hundreds of million dollars in contract and this is an rfp i've done the same thing with them. i don't wish to embarrass this body but i prefer to do is have an opportunity to come back and do with the arts commission did. i want to show you the evidence of the truth so you can make an informed decision. i received a 5 page letter well written. i know about the letters and who goes over the drafts and who gives him back to you for your signature so i come here for the request to be invited back to give you the specifics as to why this commission must terminate that grant agreement >> so i've and this is been very important and we've touched on this grant program almost every meeting since we let out the grants so i'm asking you to consider the following. we had actually because moving forward we resolved a number of the issues we mentioned commissioner vietor and talked about the localist and a number of proving changes we wanted to make to how the money was lent out and those were procedural changes that address the concerns that were coming

what this rfp deals with is a build out program to find an independent consultant to issue criteria that the commission has developed which is obviously maintained energy efficiency and increase local control and maximize job creation and maintain affordable electric rates to support environmental justice and provide and describe the economic opportunities. this was a criticism that we heard both from the mayor's office and sfpuc commission when the sfpuc prepared the program, the cca program for the rate approval was that there was some confusion or not enough clarity on the local build out program and commissioner breed had requested at the last meeting that we spend some time, spend some resources to take a look at that and specify a plan and provide a more cohesive plan as to what the local energy build out would be. the draft talks about, there has been a number of reports. we don't want to reinvent the wheel. so what the draft does is mention the reports that have been done and acknowledge there is a bit of a difference between some of the reports. we have a program that is throwin

the rfp and places you under your regular calendar an outreach were presented in detail in a previous staff report and presentation. the rfp included a proposed lease that the secret service tenant would be expected to sign. that lease was considered by the excision concurrent with the rfp. the property lease terms are consistent with the ports standard form with the expectation of rent and maintenance observations. the rent is one dollar per year and the port assumes most of the maintenance obligations. on the proposal due date in november it was from two qualified proposers they institute aquarium company. the a b i is a nonprofit organization to promote rationale justice through education that examiners protecting individuals. the bay institute organization is dedicated to educating the public about san francisco bay area. the bay institute organization is in good standing of the aquarium of the bay. at the

phases even if alice griffith and the parcel west and that would be the next new one, if we can issue an rfp this and transbay block 7 and 8. and then some we have 2 million looked for the costs for the top beach and the harbor for the operations and debt and that's to two hundred and 24 million. so just looking at a breakdown of our rfp requests that's what the state is most interested in. you can see the 57 point plus million we had a small amount requested new year in our staffing. again, the majority of that is for debt service on our bonds and we have a small amount for our shipyard. the mission bay housing t

phases even if alice griffith and the parcel west and that would be the next new one, if we can issue an rfp this and transbay block 7 and 8. and then some we have 2 million looked

they are asking us to participate in writing an rfp. please, the position i'm taking, lafco, the position i'm taking is that we will share the information that we have. my main focus is coming up with a plan for our financial situation. and it could be some cca or whatever. but it's just not cca in how you make cca work, i mean, i could be part of a solution once we evaluate other big ticket items. so we want to be helpful. the other thing that we are making very clear is that the current cca assumes that $19 million comes from heche and that was one of the reasons that shell, we were able to get a lower cost from shell because we had $19 million in reserve. if heche is free falling in 2 years, after two 2 years we are going negative. once you go negative, all our assets already frozen and that $19 million won't be available. if it is and i think going to the other question, i think it's the educational moment and one of the things that we wanted to do when we meet with the department of environment is really have the controller budget

if a law is enacted as proposed, every person who bids on an rfp everybody is considered a lobbyist. this is competition forbidding citywide. currently an individual qualifies as a lobbyist is promised $3,000 or more. i think the language in the ordinance should be clarified to clearly indicate that you are talking about contract lobbyist in house employee lobbyist. in addition i think each lobby should have a financial threshold. most local jurisdictions impose some kind of financial threshold or hours threshold; long beach, los angeles, san jose. i don't think you want to report on issues of small matters. >>president david chiu: thank you very much. can i ask you to submit your comments to us. >> we advocate reasonable regulations and procedures. >> okay. thank you very much. we look forward to those comments. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> what i would like to ask if we can continue this item to march 13th. >>supervisor london breed: before we do, i want to get some clarification on what this means for non-profit organizations? >

because you need a team of lawyers to pull together a 1900-page application, you know, response to an rfp and then agencies have their own supplement that may be up to a thousand pages. they simply can't compete. so i think that this is an area that is really ripe for reform. taxpayers would benefit from it and the product that comes out of the executive branch, all of the agencies, i.t. is absolutely part and parcel of all of this. so it's not just one part of the government, but we can learn a great deal, i think, from the private sector, come up with a better, workable product hopefully for a better price but also, as i said, save taxpayers a great deal of money. it's an important area. >> host: and finally, anna eshoo, recently we taped this program with the head of the internet board, and he talked about he's pushing for a loosening of the u.s. stewardship of the internet and making it a more international stakeholder management board. do you have any initial thoughts on that? >> guest: i don't know what the specifics are in terms of that principle that he has put out there. so i can

starting with seas, there is a mechanism that if somebody is going to publish an rfp and they have not come to cmd to look for lbe goals, there is a mandate that says if you have not contacted cmd, contact them now for a waiver or for [speaker not understood]. so, there is a mechanism there to catch any contracts or any departments that are not aware of the 14b ordinance. >> let me suggest i think five years is just not an acceptable time frame for us to be thinking about this. maybe five months would be more reasonable. and, again, i'm happy to discuss this with you afterwards. but one of the things i would like to suggest is we probably need to have another check in than a few months on these topics. and the questions that arise from the committee and the public we can have a chance to check in. the fact of the matter is we've invested in this tracking system and we better put it to use to be able to figure out where we're going. let me ask a different question, which is i often am alerted by small local businesses that let me know about allegations of violations in our local busines

in october of 2011 the department issued an rfp for the management and concession of the coit tower concessions. the rfp included years of input from various community groups including the pioneer park project and the tower dwarf hill dwellers. the coit tower concession principals and goals. the vast majority of those principalses and goals were incorporated into the department's rfp particularly the concept that we should rather than a gift store reate a high quality bookstore featuring items related to coit tower, related murals in san francisco, [speaker not understood] in the main gallery and also implementing a mural protection plan for the concessioner. in response to that rfp the department received three proposals. ultimately the department -- the recreation and park commission selected terry graham, the operator of coit tower llc of the selected responding. mr. graham is a local entrepreneur and has started numerous family businesses here in the bay area including the ankle "owester bar and [speaker not understood] in northern sonoma. and his proposal included -- met the department's r