the back ourselves. second model is an r.f.p. for the pier but noting the limitation would be targeting to ward the smaller expenditure us that i explained earlier with supervisor gilman. that is the strategies for the piers not on the r.f.p. what are we doing? one option is the intermediate type of leasing. >> does the court have a position for pdr? >> certainly. we have the m-2 zones that doesn't include the pdr. we have tents engaged in that. >> what if they wanted to come up and do a pop-up. walk me through how the court would handle -- the port would handle that. >> you are creating the interest out there. >> creating our own demand. >> good afternoon. mike martin. as we came up two months ago with interim leasing. we talked about pop ups to activate the should is. the bulkheads we look at as a special event. we could have someone come in up to 6 months. you can pop the outreach plan is to get out to the people through the rfi if they want to see those activities it brings them. we think it is a great opportunity as was sugge

finally, we posted the r.f.p. d administration web page and oci web page. we eventually received one r.f.p. from holland consulting inc. it included sub consultants hawk engineering who is the older for the contract and sustainable wattster shed design and sustainable watershed designs are certified lpes. after we received the response, we conteened a review panel for all subject matter experts. we had a member from ocii, public works and two developers. it was selected because they met all of the r.f.p. criteria. the panel received positive reports of previous working relationships. fees were determined to be fair and reasonable. the panel found they were qualified to perform the required services. they have extensive experience with large infrastructure projects including transit center, central subway, extension and other projects. it is a one-year agreement with options for two additional one year expenses with a contracted of $1.7 million. before i conclude or my voice concludes, i would like to introduce memb

we then issued the r.f.p. in mid-september and then we just announced decisions for that r.f.p., which we called our community grants r.f.p. a week ago. just a few numbers here. once again, the total amount that was allocated was $3.8 million. we had allocations in 29 different program areas. in total, we received 68 proposals from community-based organizations. we ended up funding 31 proposals it will be administered by a 25 different agencies. here is a list of all of the categories that we receive funding for and the list of agencies that ended up receiving those funds. it is pretty long. i will just toggle through those so you can see that we receive funding from every district, actually. one of almost every district. one, three, four, district five, district seven, eight, nine, ten , 11, and then citywide allocations. there was a specific question regarding performance measures and how we will ensure that the programs that we fund will meet the standards that is expected by ourselves but then also of our r

it may have a different outcome on the r.f.p. process, and we might be looking at something else that makes the whole circle and the best outcomes for our youth today. and so on that note, is dcyf in the room, i'm wondering, maria, because i know maria does have something over the r.f.p. process, that i wanted to ask maria, if you wouldn't mind looking at maybe alternatives to the model that we currently have. that really does incorporate c.b.o.s together. i think what the chief said is we do have a lot to celebrate, but we're at a point now where we have 40 incarcerated and we have all of those c.b.o.s that we have invested years and years and years in, and they have invested years this their staff meeting the needs of youth and the mental health that we mentioned. like, is there a way that we can provide other alternatives or needed services? but again, i'm wondering, we probably have to conduct a study or work in conjunction with someone to conduct a study. i think it's exciting that we have within our power here, supervisor, a

the r.f.p. was out on september 4, 2018. there was a web page that included the update and sign in sheets, answers to the r.f.p. answers and submit requirements. on september 13th we hosted a presubmittal conference and to provide networking opportunity. given the specialized nature of the contract services, we were pleased that 16 individuals representing seven prime contractors attended the conference. none were certified l.b.e.s. the certification directory list us 21 firms certified to provide environmental support services. i called a number of the firms. while they provide environmental impact reports they do not provide services compliant with ceqa. we scored the proposals based on the points in the slide. our planner and the former deputy city attorney and the port'port's operating officer b. on october 18th the proposal deadline we received theory responses four the r.f.p. they met the minimum qualifications. the final rankings are on the slide. each panelist scoreid it at each phase. environmental science won with a

i want to point out because i don't think it came up in the discussion the original r.f.p. was for 10 years and the contract was set up. what's previously been approved is the five years with the five-one-year extensions. this would exercise all the contract option to extend through 2023 and increase the amount by $16.3 million from $62 million to $79 million. there's one other issue in the contract the cost of living adjustment that has not -- it would have to be subject to board of supervisors' approval but the number is in the contract and we do recommend approval. >> supervisor: thank you for the recommendation. public comment. no public comment. public comment is closed. i think we got what we need. i'll make a motion to approve and seems the full board with a positive recommendation and send it as a committee record. we'll see this on tuesday's agenda. thank you. without objection. madame clerk, item 4. >> the resolution approving the amendment to increase the agreement amount by approximately $84.9 million not to exceed approximately $94.5 million from july 1, 2018 th

the labour study. i have a final draft r.f.p. for the survey of on-demand workers, which i have given you copies of today. i am venting it, running it through our advisory committee and gathering feedback and hopefully will be issuing that r.f.p. in the next few weeks. commissioner ronan, you suggested i reach out to the national employment law project. approved very helpful. i talked with becky smith there and she connected me with the washington department of commerce which is actually doing a survey nearly identical to the one we are doing. we have been able to share information and i have been able to draw language from their r.f.p. into our r.f.p. i did mention to you at the last meeting, thank you for that connection. i did mention at the last meeting that the costs for the survey is likely to rise. we will know --dash we won't know exactly how much until we get proposals and. what i've done is broken the r.f.p. up into phases. the first phase will be done with the 50,000 -- 55 thousands that we have authorized for that , an

i think the r.f.p. was done the first month that i was in office, and here we are coming to the end of the second year. it's taken almost 14 months to negotiate this lease. i want to thank clinic by the bay, janet riley and all the people on the board. i want to thank art span for investing in our community. i want to thank so many people that have been involved in making this a reality. our arts commission -- i see our arts commission director and the team there. thank you. these facilities -- this facility, and this is the uniqueness of the deal, the city is putting aside a few hundred thousand dollars, but both entities are going to raise over $1 million to restore these public facilities, and that is a significant investment from nonprofits. this is not a dollar-a-lease giveaway. it is below market rate, but it is not significantly below market rate. and in exchange, both of these organizations will go out and raise north of $1 million each, invest them in those properties and then turn jarnd and pr

however, the flagship select equity flagship long-only fund was closed at the time of the r.f.p. they submitted their long-short equity strategy. we thought about it we really liked the firm we with you decided to pass on the strategy for several reasons. fees being one. we felt they are stock pickers not as accomplished on the short side. but we told select equity, if you have capacity, in your long-only strategy, we would have interest. which brings us to our recommendation today. we have an opportunity to take advantage of some capacity that has become available at select equity. before i turn it over talk about select equity, i want to remind the board of a couple of attributes we're seeking when we seek to upgrade the capabilities of the portfolio. one, we look for in owe have a tive differentiated investment processes. we look for strong platforms marked by investor bases with long-term bases and a certain level of alignment, particularly managers having their own net worth that is side by side for us. we look for concentrated portfolio and we look for return or past returns

staffing question in terms of when they will make their results public from the r.f.p. but we have been actively involved with them through the process. it is not a staffing question on our side. >> how many people staff this? >> molly is the primary person doing the analytical work. i put in a significant amount of time. >> hold on. she chairs, you probably are filling in and doing a lot of stuff. have they been community meetings around this? >> every one of our meetings is public and open to the public. >> we are not leaving the building, we are not going out into the community? >> yes. >> do you see that happening in the future? >> we are open to that. the expertise is the financial peace of this. how can we put money into what people are saying? if the board board has future direction on which policy direction to provide, and you would like public feedback, we certainly would be open and available to doing that. i don't think we see our role as making the decisions at this point, but rather to provide you with specific so you can make good decisions. >> i want to go

it was a competitive and open process and the contract itself reflects what the r.f.p. says and doesn't have different terms from what was publicly advertised and don't look at make sure it corresponds to the contract for an amendment we look at see what happened in the original or prior amendments or the original contract to see where they were with that. i would like to say in terms of a deeper look at it we completed and had a hearing and audit report looking at behavioral services an progress foundation was a contract we looked at as part of the audit. so in that purview we did actually did look more closely at the performance and utilization. >> supervisor: what did that audit yield? >> we had several findings. we had an audit yesterday on it. we looked at how we took samples of behavior health contracts and looked at the performance indicators and how it had consistently been looked at and we focus on the performance indicators that were about client utilization and client outcomes because we were concerned to see how each of the nonprofits and the city civil servi

i'm happy to report that the r.f.p. process for legal services is starting to wind down. our evaluation panel is meeting next week and i anticipate that we will have a final push finalists selected in the next few weeks. we will then of course, enter into a contract negotiation once the process is complete. we have some strong candidates. >> commissioners, any comments or questions? thank you, brian. okay. as their public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, once again. brooks. san francisco clean energy advocates and californians for energy choice. it sounds good that there will be a choice made. i've said this a lot but i want to hammer it home that the more local that legal representation is, the more they will be accountable and buy in to getting our needs met. please make sure that that is a top priority in this selection process. >> thank you. public comment is now closed. can you please call item number 6? >> just for the record, there was no action taken on item five >> yes. >> item six is the executive officer report aid, community choice energy summit and the

[inaudible] >> the joint r.f.p. imposed new, stringent requirements for justice providers around the referral process, dictating all referrals must come from a sole probation liaison. we saw earlier the chart that chief nance put up about how many different young people are coming from the different nonprofit organization r associations. among our membership, to date, one, only one referral was made using this new j.p.d.-imposed referral process. restricting referrals prechbss youth from receiving -- -- prevents youth from receiving services in the community by the community. we need unblocked access to our you youth. service needs have changed, and they can best be met by the community. many staff are licensed professionals or have specialized treatments in various treatment modalities. unfortunately, this year, amongst the five agencies that are within that partnership, two of them have been defunded at the end of this year. we have led the way as an association in moving our system to an innovative system, away fr

the economy is exploding. we have no real data on that. i completed an r.f.p. for the first of its kind survey. we want a handle on the size of the work force, request data and we think we will get data from company that is an issue and investigate the labor practices of emerging mobility services to make a determination about whether or not those labor policies alive with the city labor principles to ensure they are making a fair wage. i completed an r.f.p. for legal services. it was important the firm selected had deep experiences in working with lapco. i brought in two very sharp interns. i have an intern working on mobility study. i have been attending various conferences this year for the first time ever sf had a presence at the conference and i have relationships and meet with ththe advocates and reach out to every member of the board of supervisors. we are here in special studies and we are here to serve you the board of supervisors. thank you. >> thank you, brian. questions? supervisor stephanie. >> supervisor stefani: you mentioned legal services. does the city attorney not cover it? >

it consists of antenna set back on the rooftop and screen behind r.f.p. boxes. this is the original proposal on which planning recommended. it is a preferred design as the visual impact of installation would be minimal from public vistas and streets this. proposal does not exceed the height of perts innocent [inaudible] on the roof >> tom: and compliance site with the guidelines. the first alternative design -- design two consists of six panel antennas mounted to the west-facing building wall. three additional antennas would be located on the rooftop of the building near the northeast corner. and the antennas on the facade would be unscreened and completely viz -- visible from public vistas and streets. community members have expressed support of the facade mounted antenna design alternative. i would like to note that if the facade mounted alternative design were to be approved and built, at&t and other carriers would have the ability to add additional wireless antennas and equipment on the building so loening that the site modification is not a substantial dmain