we've been going out every three years for the rfp.ct area services generally cover overseeing the security badging program for the shipyard which is a really important function and they work with resident, artists and the artists and the others to make sure they have adequate badging to enter the site and assist in overall management of the galvez where many come to find out before housing. they're the first phase community engagement when they come to the site and assist overall project information. the other big scope is providing support to the cac. that's a very huge task. we have six meetings a month and sometimes we have more than six meetings a month and sometimes we have less when they get cancelled. we have navy meetings and the

in bay view, we want to have a broad tendan tendance -- attendance in the community and put in the rfp the applicant can demonstrate outreach to diverse communities an non-english speaking communities. of course we will be polling our policy of 50% goal. we have always met the goal for particular contract. and our outreach plan is to advertise in local newspaper, pe website and we'll e-mail it out to the list. we have a huge list. the current site office maintains a huge e-mail list to get it out there and we will also put it on the office of the city of contract administration website and of course our cac ambassadors will help get the word out. the next is to release the rfp this week and have a pre-submission meeting to ask questions off the applicants about the rfp itself and the deadline for to us response to the questions is april 24 and the submission deadline is may 7. and we would depending on how many applicants we receive, we will have a panel put together. last time we had two cac members and three oci staff who reviewed the applications and then we could come before the co

expires on june 30th in order to find a new vendor, assuming there is one, we would need to go out for rfp to solicit new bids. so that is usually about a 90-day process. >> vice president sanchez: then we have a pass on the consent calendar, million dollars for cisco as well. >> this is for the next school year. the contract also expires on june 30th. that is for the school year for 20 schools that serve our refresh menu. and that only covers a portion of what is served at those schools. >> vice president sanchez: your school is sf international, is that a revolution food school? >> yes, it is. >> vice president sanchez: i'm glad to hear you like the -- so, i just maybe if it does not pass today, there is no reason we couldn't bring it back before the end of june. >> there is no legal reason you couldn't -- i don't know how the vendor would respond, so there is a risk there. and we could be looking at no meals in june for students. >> i'm saying we could come back and have the contract ratified by the board before the end of june. >> right, so i'd have to defer to ms. o'keefe as to how mu

as kirk outlined, we issued this rfp. just as a quick reminder, sfers relies on our proxy provider not only to execute votes at companies where sfers is a shareholder, but also to provide insights to reports and analytics, provide us research on corporate governance and certain environmental and social issues, and to assist in keeping our proxy voting policy current each year as we update it. as kirk outlined, we conducted due diligence on both proxy voting providers. they are the two leading providers out there, and they formed basically a duopoly with iss having 60% of the market cher and glass lewis having about 40% of the market share. what we really focused on and i'll highlight are four areas. one, does the firm have a stable ownership structure, firm customer service and commitment to its proxy services business, two, can it provide high quality voting services for sfers without error and deliver us compelling analytical reports. three, does the firm avoid conflicts of interest and have strong controls, compliance

we went through the interview, the rfp process had interviews and evaluated written proposals and the firms were ranked. and acom was the top ranked firm. epc responded shortly after, but staff feel pretty confident we should move forward with aecom. i can answer any questions. i also have the city attorney here who worked with us on the response. >> i read the letter and reviewed the materials and i'm ready to make a motion. i'll move the item. >> second it. >> thank you. comments on this item? seeing none. all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. so, shall we read items to be covered in closed session? >> yes. item 20, is existing litigation, joseph versus city and county of san francisco. 21, existing litigation. 23, existing litigation, pacific gas and electric. 24, existing litigation, pacific gas and electric. are there any public comments on the items to be addressed during closed session? seeing none, may have a motion on whether to assert? >> i'll move to assert. >> second. >> president ye all /* we are going to take five-minute break. maybe eight minutes. >> [laughte

whether we do a direct deal, whether we do an rfp. at the end of the day, there is interest in the site, the development and business in san francisco has expressed interest in this site and i believe we should do that simultaneously. any site or project that would be approved here would take one to two years to entitle. if this is a temporary site, we can do it all the same and not interfere with our outside objectives and have a temporary solution for the crisis that supports san francisco. i support it and would do it for free but i would accept the staff of a fair market value approach to this as a way to get it done. i believe city agencies do not have to charge between themselves for important things like this. i do leave it's fair market. >> i will move staff's recommendation in its totality. >> need a second. >> i'll second. >> i need changes to mou we're recommending as staff. this is from port commissioner brendon. i regret not attending. i understand how important this item is before us and to the items near seawall lot 330

as bill mentioned, it should be noted during the rfp process it prioritized the purchase price of 70% of the consideration to fund the construction of the transbay terminal with the balance allocated towards design as well as developer experience. the grocery store as bill mentioned was not a requirement of our fee. it was whole foods who approached related for the basement level store. as a result we included it in our proposal. unfortunately, for a number of reasons, whole foods rescind its offer and in large part due to amazon's acquisition which resulted in a lowered footprint and this was approved in 2015. despite the setback, related has continued to heavily advertise the space to grocery stores in accordance with the dda. the list of grocers range from local operators such as buy right, molly stones to trader joe's, whole foods and safeway. in most cases we have contacted each operator a number of times and each time they have passed on the site. at this time the most cited reasons include the lack of continuous ground floor space and parking and technologies industry's disrupt

we're not principalling to propose completion of the original scope because we are going out fo out for rfp, we'lle what comes in as a winning proposal and require for substructure will change based on what goes on top. so we're taking the money we have, plus an additional request budgeted to allocate it to the most critical areas of the pier 29 substructure. so it's moving away from that whole area you saw to the white and black hatched area underneath the electrical equipment and so we're losing some of the span of what we thought we could accomplish with the funding we had because the condition is worse than we thought it would be. >> does this position us better for the rsp and we've done this work that will benefit the whole section of the pier, not just the election's department? >> the election's department -- so there's two piers implicated here. so 29 is for a future operator and 31 is the department of elections with the 15 critical leaking windows. so we have a rent pier set up for 31. here, question, it does position us better for a successful response for pier 29 because it pro

>> the way we structured the rfp and at openhouses, i think we mentioned that we wanted as wide a breadth of services as possible. it seems -- i think i've mentioned this before that we seem to get stuck on the weird things that happen that we have trouble with our own little port engineering department covering and it's this breadth that helps us to cover things that come up, one-off items that come up. >> ok, thank you. >> thank you for this presentation. i think it's great that we got so many respondents and that all of the respondents have so many lbes and sub contractors that are a part of their team. i'm just wondering, wsp, they have the highest scoring written proposal, but yet, didn't do well on the oral interviews. so i'm wondering what happened with that one. >> that's a good question. the first six were within four or five points. they didn't answer all of the questions they to them and that was where they fell off if the oral interview phase. >> any other questions or comments? all in favour? resolution 1913 has been approved. to increase the contract by $2,087,500 due to un-

i think the other is, we have utilities around the country now who are doing rfps in indiana, xcel in colorado, and are finding that new solar storage, new wind is cheaper than running existing coal plants. so nipsco is going to retire their coal plants and replace them entirely with wind and solar storage and efficiency and demand response. they'll save their customers over $4 billion. so the cost of carbon capture when you're in this world of affordable abundant renewable energy i think from the sierra club point of view we'll focus our advocacy dollars and resources and smarts into doubling down on renewables. >> i agree with the earlier speakers. carbon capture could have a role. i think the challenge is when we get into this magical thinking arena where we think it's going to solve all our problems. the first line solution is ramping up zero carbon energy sources and energy efficiency, so a lot of renewables as dan pointed out, energy efficiency. the other thing is the power sector in particular is one that is ripe for these types of low carbon solutions. we might need carbon cap

will again, i think also again you have excel, you have these utilities that are finding when you do rfpsfor wind and solar with storage that's come in cheaper than the cost of an existing coal plants. i think that was true to think that is changing under our feet and we just as you know cross that tipping point last year when new renewables became cheaper than running an existing coal plant. that's new and those are some new economic wins at outback and some new momentum we have the we didn't have before that we can now take advantage of. >> so i say yes, it is technically feasible but unlikely to be economically sensible. the last, we do know how much, 20, ten, maybe only 5%, it would depend on the region, is very difficult to get to zero carbon that way. to me the goal is zero carbon and that's what we should focus on. >> i think the fact we're going to need to electrify some other sectors of the economy, some other energy and in particular transportation, baby space heating and water and space cooling affords an opportunity because those consumption of electricity are things that coul