i'm here to discuss the marina degaussing station rfp.ted to the operations committee two weeks ago. at that time, we presented this item for discussion of possible action to approve a request for proposal seeking a restaurant operator for the marina degaussing station. we are looking to renovate the marina degaussing station and offer creative, healthy, and high quality food. the currently vacant 720-sq. ft. building with a seating area outside are situated at fillmore street. the facility was built by the u.s. navy and has been vacant for the last decade. as per the agreement when it was transferred to the city, all revenue generated in the marina will stay in the marina. staff reached out to the following community groups. the marina harbour association, golden gate yacht club, fort mason, america's cup event authority, marina merchants association. staff met with a supervisor and sat down with a representative in late february and met with board members of the community association. we've had conversations with the st. francis yacht c

they issued an rfp in december, got responses in february. there were 14 firms that responded, with a total of 25 projects tied with those responses, totaling 620 megawatts of new generation of all of those were built. their rfp focused on the wind and solar, and the location most likely to get those was the central valley because of the good insulation characteristics there. their criteria for evaluating the bids in some ways with similar to those highlighted in city policy here, so it was interesting to talk about the characteristics of the counterparty, how much experience they have in the field, their credit rating, those types of things, localized pricing, per kilowatt hour output from the proposal, the product's viability, how likely it would be to be built and generating energy, the project location. they're giving the highest party points to those proposals located in marin. they also are a family wedding proposals in the portfolio. -- there also is evaluating proposals in the portfolio. marin short list three of the proposals, and th

either through the big rfp we had or others we had done. supervisor wiener: for example, keeping 1.8 million. i understand the desire to not have minuscule grants, but was there any thought given to funding some of them that were cut? >> i would love to have the authority to redistribute the money to priority areas that we feel. once again, some of the special populations. supervisor wiener: i know that that is going to be a significant impact. can you talk about what the impact will be? >> i do believe there is a significant impact on traditional use in the city. once again, during the development, during the publication plan, we had conversations with the department of housing. because there was limited funding, it would prioritize funding for children under 18. it could prioritize funding where we knew that there were more under 18 votes than there were over 18 folks. because of that, we shifted a little bit of our priorities and policies. we move forward and we ended up funding programs that serve the population. we did not prioritize t

particularly because of the noon rfp that came up -- that is something we will be addressing to the hiv prevention office, to find that the gaps are going to pay. that is something we are going to address with you. >> thank you. >> i did probably offer a small and interesting example about how the city sometimes does budget averaging social capital. the recreation and parks department has an outstanding partnership with the department of children and youth and families. they gave us funding so we can hire 125 kids from district 10 to help us provide summer camp for younger kids. and they're also providing us with funding to make sure our kids have healthy meals to eat. i think that is a way, at least internally, that we're trying to leverage different funding streams to provide public safety and fun summer activities, healthy foods, and jobs, all for one partnership. that is an example of the city attempting to leverage social capital. supervisor cohen: thank you. we are going to go until 8:00. persons who want to leave, feel free to do so. the mayor and department heads will stay as lo

whenever someone has to write an rfp for something, they need to be using the correct language. i, i've seen rfps that have been written and i can see by the language that's being used, that they are not, they're not moved to this whole framework of recovery, but they're still being awarded. so we need to help people to begin to use, and if we do that, they're going to pick it up immediately because people need, organizations need funding. i believe samhsa has done a great job in, in laying the framework for, if you will, for the type of discussion that i think needs to happen. and i think it's around recovery in a system of care model that's person-centered and it's based more on the holistic approach. that it's, it's person-driven if you will. and i, i think we just to build upon that. i think that's the way we begin to have the kind of conversations where all of a sudden, instead of 200,000 recovery advocates, you're making greater head roads into the 20 million people in recovery that miss hyde talks about. so instead of reaching less then 3 million and providing services, w

we, obviously, we would do, werfp, -- we would do a full rfp. you know, i am not aware -- believe me, if there was a problem at alameda county with this, and we would be seeing some newspapers. it would not be anecdotal accounts. you cannot have a trauma center like you have at alameda is, or others, and expect that you can get by with something that might look like a bank security guard. that is not what we are looking for. that is not what we would be seeking. et supervisor wiener: -- supervisor wiener: i am sure there are some statistics about incidents where they need a gun or do not need a gun. >> we are struggling a little -- we have information about all of the incidence of we have had. we have obviously had many incidents at the general where the person is armed, so we have those instances, as well. one would be to make the security position on arms, et -- position unarmed, but if we have two to print standards, we would also wanted to be able to cover, you know, korea we would also want to be able to cover other -- we would also want to

suggestions by the consultant and now you award more money to these companies and you put out a second rfp. the city attorney investigated and you are trying to put it out again. who will get it this time? will it be those that won't did not want this to go forward? -- will it be those who did not want this to go forward? this agency is corrupt in a way that it bids and puts out contracts. the attorney who did not want that contract to go forward is also the personal attorney of the ceo and executive director. thank you. >> good afternoon. >> thank you for your time. earlier today, i filed a complaint with the united states district court of california. this alleged that the allegations and the fact that took place in connection with the reversal of the award violated multiple federal statutes and california statutes. i have copies of that lawsuit that i brought with me so that they can be made available to you for review. some of the fact that 40 been spoken to but i do think in flight of the lawsuit, -- in light of the lawsuit, you will take a look at it and give it due consideration. >>

>> there was an rfp on the streets. it expired, no proponents on that. and redoing the agreement as to who is doing what. how to best go forward with a managing those properties. they are the primary ones that need to be entrusted. president vietor: there has been no resolution yet? >> no, not yet. >> the one to make sure they keep a recreational focus. president vietor: any questions? public comment? >> i was a founding member of the lake merced task force. i also have the privilege of serving with the recreation chair of the task force for a number of years. regarding a joint management of a lake merced track. it did not work. we have learned from experience the proposing a shared or joint responsibility. how can we help support programs for high-school student athletes? it is time to move on. san francisco reconed park has no reason to be fearful about taking back full control of the lake and the recreational component. with your of mr. and of the water project, it is just a drop in the bucket. the organizations will be happy to work with sfpuc. we ca

historically, for the last year and a half, we've not had any institutional anchoring in our rfp's, rfq's to ensure we are sustaining a commitment to make sure the most vulnerable -- vulnerable people are here. the one and tell them the ethnicity of your caseload? it is african-american. we have a large population in visitation valley that has moved into what has historically been african-american communities and we have a burgeoning tension, and we do not have to. i would ask that we not hear from the parks, but we hear from the people. the people who have to deal with this. when they -- the good to 16th street, 63, district 6. i would hope that we looked at the cross pollination of these most vulnerable populations in our city and did not be a d-10 issue, but we look at empirical data for were the highest risk populations are, where emerging populations are in terms of immigrant populations. public safety, jobs, health are synonymous with the highest level of needs in our community. we know that. i would ask respectfully, supervisor -- you know i love you. i would ask respectfully that

>> there was an rfp on the streets. it expired, no proponents on that. and redoing the agreement as to who is doing what. how to best go forward with a managing those properties. they are the primary ones that need to be entrusted. president vietor: there has been no resolution yet? >> no, not yet. >> the one to make sure they

it is a similar process that was used for developing the rfp. if we do not get our partners from the legal people, people in the human rights commission, if they are not behind us or next to us, we will have issues. commissioner walker: i think maybe people are sensing some frustration on the part of the commission. i just want to remind everyone that this has taken a long time. since many of us have been on the commission. it would be great to be able to get other departments as partners to move this forward. overall, it will help our efficiency and also help move the department along. if the commission can be of assistance in making sure this moves along, i think we are all committed to that. i do not need to speak for my fellow commissioners. >> there is a specific prohibition of commissioners and and the other city employee getting in touch with the vendor. commissioner walker: i am not talking about the bidding process. i am talking about working with other departments. >> we are hand in hand with other departments. they are rescheduling to

are expected to cover all of those costs, and we also received some rent from greyhound and have an rfp for advertising on that, so we expect some revenue from that. are there any questions? director ford: any questions? ok, so you will be back before us? >> correct. director ford: that will give us a chance to digest staffs of metals, and we can go from there. all right. thank you. >> all right, moving to the next item, item 9 is approving an agreement to compensate the owners of certain property adjacent to the transit center for extraordinary waste disposal costs as a result of the

and moving forward with an rfp sometime in the near future. i'm not sure the exact timing, but those big ones some point out. we want to repeat what the superintendent has said, which is that we are reluctant to put anything out there at fire sale prices. i think that considering all the options, whether it be a sale or a lease, and then also keeping in mind that we do not really know what the future is going to hold in terms of enrollment. five years ago, we would not have said that we were still expecting a decrease in, and we would never have said we would be opening a kindergarten, and lo and behold, we did. things change very quickly, so there is a real reluctance to dispose of any property without very careful consideration. >> right, and just to clarify, my point was not to get rid of property to sell it. it was really if there are shorter term leases or other opportunities that were available, but even that might be a challenge if the facility needs to be brought to a level where it would be leasable. >> and if i may, not only are thos

i do not have the rfp with me. >> excuse me, commissioners. it is 60 days. two months of production that would run parallel with our old system and new system to compare the figures, to make sure they are coming out correctly, reports are being duplicated correctly. it actually takes two months of data to do that, rather than one month. you used two months of data to do that. we will be running parallel in staff, in house, testing it before we go live, for two months prior to that, and then we will go into a three-month post testing to make sure that it does not crash after we go live. we have them on board for actually five months of testing. two before, three after. that is common practice. these are big installations. you also have to realize we are not just creating our database and moving it over. we are taking public works, all of planning, fire, puc, department of health, other divisions data that will be incorporated. we have been working behind the scenes all this time scrubbing the data from the different departments. that part of the conversion pr

are expected to cover all of those costs, and we also received some rent from greyhound and have an rfp for advertising on that, so we expect some revenue from that. are there any questions? director ford: any questions? ok, so you will be back before us? >> correct. director ford: that will give us a chance to digest staffs of metals, and we can go from there. all right. thank you. >> all right, moving to the next item, item 9 is approving an agreement to compensate the owners of certain property adjacent to the transit center for extraordinary waste disposal costs as a result of the impairment access -- and chairman of access to the waste collection facilities to the transit center construction. >> good morning, directors. the item we have before us this morning is an agreement with golden gate disposal and recycling for waste collection services for some of the properties surrounding the transit center site. i have a brief presentation i can run through to give you some background of what the impact here are. director ford: thank you. >> as you are aware, the rail levels of the trans

we, obviously, we would do, werfp, -- we would do a full rfp. you know, i am not aware -- believe me, if there was a problem at alameda county with this, and we would be seeing some newspapers. it would not be anecdotal accounts. accounts. you cannot have a trauma center

. >> in 1999, we put out a rfp to restore the building. they decided to restore this in the middle of the building and opened up this cut out to connect the bottom floor with this area that was traditionally storage for luggage, trunks and supplies for the ferries. the connected the bottom floor with the skylight and really open up the building. >> is still open? >> it was still open it, and the second floor was the original waiting room. the port was very intrigued by the local business uses that would be down here. it took about four years to restore the building, and it took close to two years to lease it because we started early in the redevelopment of the building. we are fully leased. lots of wonderful partisans -- lots of wonderful artisans. >> unqualified success. >> in the 1950's, after the bridges were built, the port and the ferries stopped in the late 1950's. at the port was looking for new ways to build revenue. that is when they started to chop up the building on the second and third floor into small offices. that brought rev

my concern is that if the current process is open up and the rates we have evaluated through the rfp process, that could put us back at square one. i'm concerned about how that will affect the process, as well as the fact that it would be passed on to ratepayers. that may not be the best deal for the ratepayers in san francisco. i do respect the discussion. secondly, as supervisor campos mentioned, we did pass out at the lafco hearing, some numbers about the fact that we do essentially and effectively have a franchise fee that anywhere between 10% to 30% in san francisco. that comes from a number of the fees and free services provided to the city of san francisco through recology. it equals about $29 million. although we do not have a formal franchise fee agreement through the rate process, we have set up many programs and many incentives for recology to provide either free services or additional programming. in terms of the timing, we have concerns for all the reasons. regarding union pacific -- >> hon. supervisors, i'm chief operating officer of recology. the current agreement expi

but you have to remember when we are negotiating rates than not doing a competitive rfp, we're pretty much they say one thing, and we go back and said this is what the data shows, and they make a little progress, and they really kind of have us captive for those subsequent years. it is helpful, but it certainly does not allow us to assailants of this is going well. unfortunately, we do not have data from years prior to the hospital consolidations that was referred to by the previous speakers, but we do have hospital-specific data, but there are significant differences in what continues to drive up costs and how those differ between the two types of health maintenance organizations. our health services members are spread throughout the bay area pirie the hospital consolidation is not just important in san francisco. it is also important in the east bay. in alameda county, there is only one hospital system, and that is the starter system, and that affects how we negotiate our rates -- that is the sutter system. in the south care -- the south bay, there is stanford was, and obviously kai

members of the commission, i urge you to recommend a new rfp process for disposing of our black box ways. the current contract under consideration is not a good choice for san francisco ratepayers. the possibility for agricultural or water contamination does not signify a good environmental responsibility on our part as a green city. i also urge you to recommend a ballot measure to reform the 1932 ordinance. competitive bidding and a formal service agreement on all aspects of collection, hauling, and disposal is the best way to keep rates even here lastly, landfills should be a thing of the past. europe is using mass incineration that is both cleaner than a barbecue grill and transfers heat to warm their homes. once again, san francisco could lead the way and institute the green technology. i am submitting an article about this from the "new york times." thank you. commissionersupervisor campos: e any other members of the public like to speak, please line up. >> we represent longshoremen in san francisco and the bay area. we have marine clerks from local 34 and 75. we also have a union t