that is not in this rfp. it assumes the program is designed and voted on and then it assumes the local build out and asks for a creative and imaginative praj -- program with specificity. i'm available for questions. >>supervisor john avalos: thank you, commissioner breed. >>supervisor london breed: thank you, miss miller for putting this together so quickly. i do of course want there to be a little bit more time for input and i'm sure you got feedback that there are some other organizations that want to take the time to review it and provide input. i would like to make sure that we have the time to do that before we finalize the rfp and i wanted to get a sense of how my colleagues as well as how members of the public feel about how we move forward with shell. because there have been some challenges and i don't feel that they have been the best community partner in this community effort and there has been a challenge around communication and miscommunication. i'm not completely certain about how i feel about a

around all of these things so -- and it could be a one part rfp or 2 part rfp but we want to get this plan in place and we want to plug in some of the holes and already the existing items that we're dealing with in order to make sure that we make it more difficult for people to try and and oppose this plan. >> great. any other comments or thoughts from colleagues or staff. any member of the public would like to speak on this item, please come forward. >> one more thing to add that was separate from the rfp that the public may want to comment on after i make my presentation as aj hill mentioned any cca program can apply for the city and county of san francisco does have a cca program we're not serving any customers but according to the books -- right now the department of the environment gets that money through pg and e but there's no reason why the city and county of san francisco can't apply for that money directly and have its own program on top of what they get from the pg and e fund. if we apply directly we can actually the city can get the money directly so one thing that could p

and in the meantime, what was the timeframe for this rfp? >> well, the timeframe was to try to get enough comments and good robust comments to be able to feel that we heard everyone and we had incorporated or figured out why we were not incorporating what everyone was saying. in terms, that would include from my point of view the sfpuc. i don't know if we want to wait on a joint hearing or go forward. we have gone forward in the past with out sfpuc involved. it's up to your direction. i have not had a conversation with the general manager. i have with mchale, very professional but they are not in a position to assist. we also wanted to meet with the advocates. we had a phone conversation, but we would like to have that, a couple more rounds of that. so i think we could, two options: i bring it back, maybe bring it to the joint meetings, bring it back to you and tell you of the conversation or go forward and tell you the vice-chair approved the rfp. it's a matter of timing and whether or not you feel like going quickly. >>supervisor john aval

vice-chair approved the rfp. it's a matter of timing and whether or not you feel like going quickly. >>supervisor john avalos: do you have any preferences on that? >>supervisor london breed: yeah, i think that given the fact that we do have a draft and there will be input and changes made in order to get us where we need to go, that we shouldn't have to wait until the next lafco meeting in order to move this rfp forward. i do think that as much as we want involvement from puc at this point, we as lafco should take the leadership on putting out there to the public exactly what we are looking for because ultimately we want a comprehensive plan. i think we should maybe allow the chair to give the final say that this is good and we can put it out there once we get our feedback and make the appropriate changes to get it where we need it to go. >>supervisor john avalos: great. thank you. okay. item b within this item. is that miss miller? >> this item will be dropped from the agenda. our mou goes to the end of fiscal y

i really appreciated the effort they intoxicate in including that in the rfp. this is a gateway to 0 a community and it's important the artists recognize that we were lucky to have a team come forward and do that. okay moving on. >> items on the consent calendar it requests authorization for construction contract number 2758 and the car project located along the channel on third street and it requests the operations agreement when the washington renting authority to operate it's site in business ban california you upgrade driven site with on expectation for 4 years for the operation driven site. item 7 c is the authorization for the port commission and the port amendments to the 2013 buildings code and modifications to repel the 11 provision for the building code including green standards and mechanical codes and 2010 port channel and port of planning - plumbing code effective maintained and 3 adopted port of san francisco standards code which includes the 96 mechanical and green electrical stadiums code for january 1st, 2014, >> so moved. >> second. >> second.

>>supervisor john avalos: okay, the system of the rfp could do that work? >> where we are direct to do that work yes. >> by your staff, by your commission? >> yes. and through the joint meeting process, perhaps that's the venue to discuss these items and to come to some sort of agreement as to what the going forward efforts should be. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate that. seems like a road we've been on before. experiencing a yogi bear moment. okay. we can go to our next item. >> item no. 5. executive officers report. i have no report. oh, i'm sorry, there is an announcement for our public seats are vacant. there will be applications available online, they are available right now on the lafco website for the sitting member and the alternate. we'll be posting a notice on our website. we have it up, right? the information is available. thank you. >>supervisor john avalos: thank you, colleagues can probably do some help with the outreach to fill those vacancies and get the applications in for the seats. let's go to public comment on the executive directo

rfp is planned for release december 209tion, 2013 with prep sam due january 23rd, 2014. lennar will be conducting an extension i have rfp outreach process to ensure san francisco bay firms are apprised of the [speaker not understood] and they get an opportunity to submit proposals. both myself and folks from lennar and mccoy are here to answer any questions. that conclude the presentation. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. kasloski. is there any public comment on this item? >> no speaker cards, madam chair. >> thank you very much. so, i think the reason for this is pretty clear. you know, the agency -- the lennar, rather, manages most of the other property management roles on the shipyard currently and in my mind, from staff's information sort of makes sense that we would wrap this underneath their management as well so they can sort of have a bird's eye view of everything at the shipyard, not have this sort of one piece sort of segmented out for the agency to have to manage. so, those are my thoughts on it. are there any other questions about the contract extension

the rfp was used september 24th and the responses westbound were due.e use the standard procures then used for advertising lease stunt and concluding print in region overlook newspapers and community newspapers. we posted the opportunity on the citywide database as well as the port site. we e-mailed directly to over 4 hundred homeowner associations eased community dproupdz and nonprofit is groups in the bay point area as well as to our port authority and those listed on the mailing list. we e-mailed all existing port tenants regarding the opportunity and a reached out to environmental organizations and corporate responsibility. port staff worked the existing tenant listcy for port justice to open it for 6 days concluding the days of the weeks and the weekend to open the eco center so anyone who is interested in the building or the opportunity can visit and learn about the eco center. we have a convention in october that was very well attended considering the scale of the opportunity it was tenant by individuals representing 17 different organizations. o

our plan is to actually re-rfp the services this spring and require more reasonable calling rates. and we would be using that last year of the contract to potentially transition to a new vendor should a new vendor win the contract because of all of the infrastructure is actually owned by the phone company. so, it could conceivably take six months to a year to reinstall new phone lines. so, we are actually thinking a year in advance and planning to rfp these services out this spring and hoping to use this last year of the contract to transition to something more reasonable. >> okay, that's fine with me. and then next year, before the need to renew or extend the option, you'll have an opportunity to come before the board and provide us with the status of that and whether or not we need to exercise that second option. >> correct. >> so -- >> i hope to have the rfp out this spring and be in process before we return to the board so that we can show you that we're moving in the right direction. >> great, thank you. >> any further discussion? i want to just recognize our sheriff who is he

also we have presentation on the rfp. >> yes. staff was directed at the last meeting to address the local energy build out program. some of the issues that staff was directed also included a marketing approach. that's not in this particular rfp and we were under the impression that that did not need to be under this particular draft. but if that is not the direction of the commission just let us know. 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 reques

been submitted to the department and we're pleased to say we've incorporated those principles into the rfp and those include the to create a high quality book store. improving visitor flow and implementing a mural protection plan for the area. one of the things that has been a priority for the community and department in this process is that we believe that coit tower is a historic treasure and should be treated as a museum rather than an attraction. we'll created to intensity a contract that improves the visitor experience into in terms of the professionalism of the operation and how knowledgeable their staff is and how we're presenting that information to the visitors as well as the items that are offered. we got a lot of feedback from the community we're happy to incorporate. so in june of 2012 the rec and park commission selected terry grim to operate the coy tower concession and we entered into new york city with mr. grim. a little bit of background he has run a number of successive family businesses here in san francisco including the anchor those take care bar and other businesses i

when the rfp was first published we sent out advertisements and when the commission xraufd the selection of terry grim we had a significant outreach process working again with community groups and stakeholders to alert them of that selection. and then again during the weeks negotiation we repeated that public outreach process. each time working with all the groups that have expressed interest including the coit tower and as more and more people showed interest we include them. a very comprehensive outreach process. obviously through that process we've received love feedback and we're happy to say here we're now here to finally, take this commission action on the significant community support for the lease. you know, again i won't read through all the names but a amount of support and then there has been some persons that have opted the lease and those are all listed here. with that, i'll make modifying available for any questions the commission has >> thank you. >> we duo do have any public comment? i'm list the names (calling names) if you could come up in any order. >> hello, again com

our program did was to also propose a hundred percent and today what we're looking at is the possible rfp that we may be able to potentially release that put togethers more of a comprehensive plan. how do you think -- with the way this seems to be playing itself out -- how do you think we'll be able to compete based on where pg and e is now in its plan to implement this? how are we going to be able to compete i guess is what my question is. >> i think the real challenge in competing with the pg and e program is that it allows to the extent the cpuc adopts it as proposed it allows pg and e to use existing resources that are in part being paid for through things like the pcia to qualify as part of a portfolio to reach the one hundred percent commitment to that customer group so we are concerned that there is some subsidization from non participating pg and e customers to make the green tariff option appear more cost effective than it would be if you were able to truly segment those costs between non participating customers and participating customers. that's an advantage that pg and e would

>> normally the way we do things is if on the normal rfp, we send out an rfp and proposal and evaluate all the proposal and then from there we at engineering do the recommendation of the proposal, of the most responsive bidder and then we go to our board. that's the next step to go to our board and request for approval and then if it's over $10 million we go to the board of supervisors and request for your approval before the executive director signs the contract with them. even after we sign a contract with them, we tell the vendor that this is not just the official document, we still have, we need to provide you with a purchase order before you can, we can commit to the manufacturing process. that is the normal way we -- that's the normal process that we follow whenever we do a procurement. >> in this case the buses during that process that incorporates all the steps that you just mentioned were already manufactured before we got to the end of our process. requesting that they be manufactured. that's what makes me very uncomfortable is that we are approving to the manufacture to go a

we put out the pmc, p, as well as the cooperation rfp and contracts will be brought to you this year for recommended for approval. and as you know, we updated and you approved our revised phase one, and base line budget in july and we have been updating the estimate for phase two which was presented to you in november, and we have begun exploring alternate delivery methods for dtx and you will hear a lot about that this year. we have been participating in significant oversight activity with the federal funding partners, fta, brought on a pmlc this year and we are attending regular with them, and the fra conducted in review that the similar to the review that they conducted two years ago, they have issued their report with no negative findings as well as noting several best practices that they would like to share with other grantees around the country. and as, you remember, from the budget update, we did a very thorough risk assessment and we have updated the risk register, and our risk management committee is meeting quarterly and we issued the risk plan to fti and fra in december an

various scenarios -- i'm not sure of the time frame whether or not you could spell that out in the rfp, but i think that it is important to understand -- the goal, i think that i'm personally trying to get at is to provide the possibilities so i'd like to know a diverse grouping of, you know, various layers of the situation and not just okay this is what we have to do but these are the possibilities but i don't know how that works within the time frame so maybe it's something to think about and let us know what your thoughts are on that so we can determine if it will work. >> so maybe an outline in january and you could give some feedback and i think we also need to think of resources and you know how much are we committing to this every endeavor and what's most important and where do we want to allocate because we could do a -- >> and this is something to think about because i know when i've met with mr. freid in the past about the budget many years we've given money back to the puc that we didn't use is that not the case. >> we give it back to the general fund. >> so i'm hoping that

we're doing a piggyback contract by piggybacking on what king county has done, we benefit from the rfp that they did, but we're actually paying more per vehicle, per trolley than king county is and i'm not sure as to why that is the case since we're relying on the same requests for proposal. >> yes, sir. you're absolutely right and we are, and there is good reason for that. first, we're buying -- our initial need is for 60 foot trolley coaches, which cost more, but the key reasons are that in our particular needs, for /khapl example -- one of the reasons that our price is higher are for additional cameras on the vehicles, which provide security features. another major reason is a communications package, which includes announcements in the bus which is particularly helpful to disabled community, but also led destination signs for example. we have gotten tremendous feedback and specific feedback from people with vision or sight problems on the buses that we brought in for the destination sign particularly at night. that's something that we think provides customer service. the other thing