so for authority to issue an rfp, it generally goes that the person who is working on that rfp will call up the supervisor's office and say, "here is where we want to do something. what are the relevant community groups i should talk to?" we reach out and speak to this community groups and anyone else we know, usually their president or someone else on the board, let them know what we are thinking about or gathering information on, and get their feedback as to what level of average is appropriate. as you can imagine, this needs to be something that is scalable. the outreach for any large capital renovation -- still is very different from perhaps the food part. we kind of judge that based on the community response and what the community groups tell us in areas of interest, so that means the meetings could looked like anything with their president or they invite us to entirely community meetings, and that holds throughout both the authority and a war process. -- and award process. on occasion, after the third stop at the commission, we will host award meetings with community groups. not on

. >> i think you are right if you are referring to the 2009 rfp -- >> rfq. >> no, rfp. the commission rejected all responses from a previous process and also authorized staff to issue the current rfq after meeting certain obligations. the previous rfp did have financial terms in it, and that was a primary evaluation criteria, and in this instance, while there was language that people responded to submit financial projections, it was not a primary evaluation criteria for the selection panel to consider. that has been legally binding to only evaluate proposals on the proposed evaluation criteria other than if someone were to propose something unforeseen, the selection panel would not be able to say that we like that. we did not include criteria to consider that, but we like it anyway, so that all the bidders know what game they are playing, know what the rules of the game are, so we are actually fairly legally binding to only consider the proposals on those strict terms set forth in the rfq. >> we can go to public comment. >> [reading names] we can start with those please

as an rfp for an outside consultant, that is not something that we would see. if we wanted to be a part of the routine design effort, that is direction we might give to staff. >> one last question. with these various technologies, do we have the proper land print to put them on? when we have to get more? the cambi and fog co-digestion, we have laid it out or withoutcambi. for solar drying, we would need additional land. we would possibly have additional land to acquire for acquisition for additional drying. uv, there is a footprint that has been reserved to use that. we are always thinking about how and where. when we do build a new

>> we are trying to get the rfp out before the end of the year. >> public comments on this? seeing none. >> good morning, the commissioners. i just wanted to reiterate the importance of getting this system in place. i recognize that the first step was to put it on the agenda and get it tracked so we could monitor the system and watch it for continuous improvement, and i welcome that development and look forward to seeing it evolves and become an efficient system that might be a shining light for the rest of the nation for the people to be used by the people. thank you very much. >> and more public comments? seeing none. >> item 3d, updating activities on the administration of the department. >> yes, we are preparing and doing the final walk-through on our fourth floor remodeling project and getting ready to move our stop from 1650 over 21660, which will mean a reference department will be on the fourth floor of the entire records department. we have fire plan checksd andpw -- fire plan check and dpw fire planchette, and we will vacate 1650, and we have another tenet ready to

>> we are planning to give two full months for firms to respond to the rfp. we're issuing that next week like we planned. that would be the first week of -- i think that as october, if i'm counting months right. commissioner mirkarimi: since we are on the subject, why don't we then calendar a joint meeting between puc and lafco so we can hear the results of that? does that seem practical? >> sure, we will schedule it after the bidding has concluded. we're talking about october. commissioner mirkarimi: so we just know in advance that we can begin to coordinate again. >> right, is just the date would follow after bids have been received. commissioner mirkarimi: very good. colleagues, anything further? seeing none, any public comment on future agenda items? seeing none, public comment is closed. mr. clarke? >> there are no further items on the agenda. commissioner mirkarimi: i would like to thank our illustrious staff, sfgtv. thank you, puc. thank you to miss pimentel for being now part of lafco. meeting is adjourned.

as you all probably understand, this is a big challenge with the rfp. the first place that was changed regards the oil interview. it will be directly tied to the same areas that are being scored in the written areas. the second is related to the use of recs. in terms of allowing you to provide the portfolios, there are benefits associated with this. there are some policy perspectives on that, so we limited those with a standard amount, which, right now, is currently 20%, with a goal of 51%. as you recall, the state requirements do not allow the use of these, so that 20% would be about them, and the difference between the 20% in the 15%i(.&m8zu2zÑi, half of thg from it, at most 15.5%. a figure that way, we can split the difference and it the value of the reduce costs for the portfolio but also giving a clear message that we're trying to seek the development of new resources. commissioner vietor: could i ask a question? >> the difference, 15.5%. is a 31% gap that could be made up. . we have limited that to 15.5%. >commissione: that means -- >> that is a n

. >> for me, we have done at least three of these rfp's. having listened and reviewed and looked at these, i find myself in the place of asking staff and doing better. i think the financial aspect of this, as i recall the rfq first played the capital improvements. now we're looking at these and we are not considering the channels of rent as a financial component. we are trying to be consistent in how we approach this. this process has prevented that, maybe this is something that we should look at again. i would say in this particular area, i think that staff could do better and that we could get a better deal. >> i wanted to start off with a couple of questions about the rendering that we saw earlier today. the before photos are photos that i actually took and when we go out there the renderings, they were there. >> i don't know if you have them handy. the before and after photos, this is the current concession. one of the things that the people are skeptical of is an attachment to a place that there parents visited. when i lived, my though

. >> i think you are right if you are referring to the 2009 rfp -- >> rfq. >> no, rfp. the commission rejected all responses from a previous process and also authorized staff to issue the current rfq after meetingc

as an rfp for an outside consultant, that is not something that we would see. if we wanted to be a part of the routine design effort, that is direction we might give to staff. >> one last question. with these various technologies, do we have the proper land print to put them on? when we have to get more? the cambi and fog co-digestion, we have laid it out or withoutcambi. for solar drying, we would need additional land. we would possibly have additional land to acquire for acquisition for additional drying. uv, there is a footprint that has been reserved to use that. we are always thinking about how and where. when we do build a new facility, we still want access to a side stream to be able to run new technologies as there are developed to test and see if we can find better ways to do business in the future. >> it helps us to figure out the life cycle cost, waste water, the nature of the grit. i really need to jump into collections. todd is coming up, which is exciting. one last section before lunch on service and goals. i am going to speak briefly about the co

our office was selected as part of an rfp from the mayor's office for development for a temporary uses on these octavia freeway lot. we have been working on this for over a year. we have been in the neighborhood three times and twice in front of a wider audience. our project, our proposal, is a temporary constructs of two blocks with a vibrant focal point for commerce and the community. we call it proxy because it is envisioned as a place holder for a more permanent situation. tents, scaffolding, shipping containers, a cohesive project that knits itself into the fabric of the neighborhood. currently, lot k is all parking. atlot k it is bound by hayes on the north edge, octavia and linden. there is zip car parking in daily use parking, so a flat fee, $10. lot l is currently vacant. we are planing to develop the project in two phases. first, that these be occupied by temporary habitations of retail, restaurant, art gallery, and community-based units that add to the richness of the valley. in phase one, it includes the portion of each site with a variety of food vendors. in phase one, the

we actually put out an rfp in august of 2009. there was a need to close four clubhouses. a survey was administered, and through our web site through our newsletters. starting in may of this year, staff took action to get feedback. some information when out to the members of these groups. engine, there was a number of phone calls and e-mail. this was posted on the clubhouses. the former executive director of the parks trust and the current director. >> should we proceed with public comment? >> we can ask questions before this. >> i think we just need presentations from the public. >> you said there are two bathrooms. one will be designated for the school. the other remains dedicated to the public. >> for a small portion of each day, a small underutilized portion of the playground, this is none of the play structures. the play area will be off-limits to the public. >> this will be available during all posted hours. this will be totally available except for a small time. >> this is the entire area here. >> where is the entrance? >> it the area that will be cordoned off his r

we actually put out an rfp in august of 2009. there was a need to close four clubhouses. a survey was administered, and through our web site through our newsletters. starting in may of this year, staff took action to get feedback. some information when out to the members of these groups. engine, there was a number of phone calls and e-mail. this was posted on the clubhouses. the former executive director of the parks trust and the current director. >> should we proceed with public comment? >>

we spent three years creating an rfp for the cafe with

in terms of the schedule moving forward, the rfp was advertised last week.we will be going in in learning about the program as well as making connections with one another, because a lot of what we are looking for -- creating a consortium. consortium.the deadline for prot to have questions for us, september 15, and we are happy this is a very significant program. we went to make sure that the proposed errors have a chance to get some creative thinking and make connections, to have the full two months. after proposals, will be moving to the shortlist, so we will try to conclude negotiations with the intention of trying to serve customers in the spring of 2011. that is all but i have prepared, and i will be happy to answer any questions. president crowley: commissioners? thank you. public comment? 3t>> excuse me. conservation. i cannot tell you the please i am to watch the progress on this program. in fact, this is under budget and under schedules, and are some challenges, as the commissioner noted. there are a lot of challenges behind you. .this is gratifying

- and i think they just finished the selection process, the rfq process, and they are working on an rfp for fun of production. another example of the technology we are looking at, alternative the equipment. we are interested in looking at alternatives that can give us better performance, lower energy means lower maintenance requirements. the driver for considering our alternative is our interest in moving away from chlorine disinfection. not only does it give us environmental benefits that can reduce the production of chlorinated byproducts, also in the past, we have seen large fluctuations of the chemical cost. so that gives us an economic incentive to look at alternatives. we are now considering technology for this. we look at technology 15 years ago but the technology at the time was not economically feasible. we had to build the a large facility with tens of thousands of uv lamps, and it also uses much more energy. now over the last decade, technology has improved. we can generate uv light of more efficiently. i also wanted to mention, you feel like -- a uv light is more effective i