conducting ceqa work. both the city and the port would have a number of permit approvals, either encroachment permits or building permits. there are a variety of state agencies including the regional water quality board that would have to approve the project in all likelihood and the army corps of engineers would weigh in as well. these are federal waters and have jurisdiction over projects like this in federal waters. we have negotiated a proposed term sheet that includes the use that i have described. about half million square feet of submerged land that is used to lay three separate capables. it would be a 40 year agreement with option to renew for 26 years.

annual rent would be established by a formula in the term sheet and based on industrial up land land. we are projecting that value is between $50 a square foot and $75 a square foot. and that would generate $583,000 rent to the port and on the high end $872,000 to the port which would be indexed there after. one of the major public benefits we sought in this negotiation with at&t is port option to buy the ho down yard and near the pier 70 site. it's adjacent to the pier 70 site. using this appraisal depending whether it's on the low or high end our option to

buy it would be 6.$5 million on the low end and 8. nine on the high end. there is a comparison to the term sheet and negotiation agreement that we often super for agreements like this and under that agreement at&t would reimburse the city for port staff and city attorney costs. this is the ho down yard. it's the two parcels on the top left of the screen is separated by michigan street and on port property. on the left side of the parcels is 23rd street and above is illinois street. what you see in the attached area is the waterfront site where right now port and owd staff are negotiating with

forest city about the development of the waterfront site. what is on the ho down yard now is dirt recycling facility and at&t trenches for projects. they bring the dirt to this location and store it and when they want to put it back in the ground they retrieve it from the site. we believe this isn't compatible with the investment in the area and this would be a good site for the port to acquire. what you see in gray here are the historic buildings at pier 70 and 113 and 114 and the other amazing historic resources along 20th street. a project schedule is also aggressive. if the port commission chooses to adopt the

term sheet tonight at&t would in fact a formal application in this month of november of 2012. ceqa review would occur for the next year and following which resource agencies would contemplate permits for the project. installation of the on shore cable project could begin. off short installation would happen in that 2015 period following that and operation of the project could be in place by december of 2015. port staff recommends approval and for the port to enter into the term sheet and negotiation agreement. as we

did with other projects of this type port staff would be involved with environmental review of the project and review the work done by cupc and if the project is approved by the port commission the co-applicants to others involved in the project require jurisdiction so that concludes my presentation. i welcome any questions from the commission. >> so moved. >> okay. is there any public comment? >> second. >> okay. is there any public comment? >> good late afternoon. i am joe boss. i live in dog patch. very involved in many things the port has done over the years and a lot of things having to do

with power, and i served on the mayor's power plant task force for 10 years and the reason for that group was to try to work something out where we could get the older generation taking care of and taken down which we did, -- well, we didn't. everyone did and part of that was the trans bay cable and while going through that we learned the fact that the connection for downtown, which is a different voltage from the rest of the city, would have a real problem if they lost that switch yard, so our conclusion as a city side was well maybe a city could put in a transmission line to

potrero to where this is going in at second and folsom, but the city doesn't -- the puc doesn't have real borrowing capacity, so that idea didn't fly, so but the reality is that we need that connectivity. we need that redid you nottance, and i must say of all the people i dealt with at at&t -- he's very straightforward and i think sometimes gets in trouble for being so outstanding and forth coming and i have read through the term sheets. the only thing we have a concern in dog patch is that there's no fencing around the switch yard, and

it's kind of an ugly looking thing as you go down illinois, down the blue green way and i could go on and on and i was hoping as part of the deal at&t would be required to put walls around it. it is noisy. it does hum. you can hear it from about two blocks away, and the ho down -- that's great -- going away because it constantly generates dust in that area, so i am highly supportive of this project with that one thought that we really should think of enhancing the port's property since it is also the entrance that -- for city and anyone else will be using so that's my little speel. thank you. >> thank you. is there any

further public comment? any comments from commissioners? >> brett, you didn't mention the public benefits? >> i apologize. i was rushing through the presentation. the port has a southern waterfront community benefit policy that this commission adopted -- actually with your help commissioner brandon. that policy requires that leases in the southern waterfront and this facility would fall in that area. have toate aside 8% of the revenue for public open space and other purposes described in the policy, and that contribution from this project is estimated at $50,000 a year and growing as the rent gross through the entire 40 year term of the lease so this project will throw off money to improve the southern waterfront area. we do also view the

opportunity to acquire the ho down yard which is right next to irish hill as another benefit that can be brought to bear for the pier 70 project, and we will work in the ceqa processes to look at the impacts of the project and if there are other opportunities to advance community benefits through that public process. >> and i just have one question for the guys from at&t. if we exercise that option do you have another location you would move it to? >> hi. i am darren from at&t. we are studying that location. we don't have one location. we have a few options and we have actually talked to brad about possibly other port properties that could house that house, so we don't have one site. we

have several. >> great. and do you want to throw in a chain link fence for mr. boss? >> i don't think that's is what he's talking about. >> oh walls -- >> any other questions from the commission? if not all in favor? >> aye. >> okay. resolution number 1290 has passed. >> item 9c informational presentation in the fiscal feasibility analysis for pier 70 term sheet with limited incorporated. >> director moyer given the time of the hour i was just

wondering whether we should postpone 9d to another meeting? >> that is at commissioner brandon request that we get it done prior to november 6 election. >> i'm okay with it. are you okay with it? i think that would be great. >> all right. thank you. >> good evening commissioners. i am kathy from the ports and planning division and handling the pier 70 historic buildings and i'm going to go through this quickly because i have been here a lot and you have a context about these buildings and my colleagues gave you a thorough education about what this is about, so that's the step we're at today with the 20th street historic buildings. just letting you know this is the area in red at pier 70 and

south of mission bay. on november 9 you endorsed a term sheet with horton development. next today i am here to report on informational item on the fiscal feasibility analysis. later this month we will be in front of the board of supervisors and the findings on the term sheet and environmental review and that's really the question. is it the right thing to do? are there enough benefits? as you know this was to save the six buildings. this will create about 500 jobs. most of the benefits come from the business activity associated with those jobs and businesses, so rather than going through much detail i thought i would explain and did this to look at this complex next to it. this is about

250,000 -- 300,000 square feet of space and similar uses. we were able to use real data and worked in the idea of being fairly conservative and for example the presentation on the warriors looked at the indirect benefits and the spending of other businesses. we didn't go and quantify it because the major benefit of this is saving the historic buildings. there is a public investment of 1.5 million dollars and tax revenues generated to the city and i will briefly touch on this the port has a rental stream from it. there is a big benefit we're getting at saving the buildings. they constitute $100 million plus and we get a chance to bring them back so here are the numbers for the general fund. if you don't include the property taxes it's about half

a million of benefit. with the property taxes it's 780,000 that is on going basis. it's not a small number and not as many commas in it but it will generate the general fund. we call out property taxes separately because in the greater context of pier 70 we may may look at a funding mechanism for this and even if we do that there is a fiscal benefits. there are benefits to special funds through the city. mta will get $70,000 a year and these special funds coming off property taxes, so that's the highlights. this is as we went over in october the potential revenue streams to the port over time. it could possibly range

in our expected case that by 10 to 12 years out we are at $700,000 a year of rent but that depends how the cost and revenues bear out, so sorry -- our next steps here the board will endorse. we will keep refining the project. we will be back to you in early 2013 and get construction going and get people out there in the businesses. i am available for any questions. >> thanks. >> there is no action required today. the action was in october. >> okay. okay. is there any public comment? commissioners, any further questions? >> i'm just -- thank you. it's nice to be on the positive side of the ledger when we originally looked at this they were in the negative and we would have to come up with mon.

>> great and we passed it october but it's a good struck and you are thank you for doing that catherine and port staff. okay. >> item 10a request authorization to award master contract to three firms. joint venture for these firms listed here and needed engineering professional related services each in the amount of 1.5 million dollars. >> good evening commissioners. i am mr. sal liteo and contract manager for the port. today we're requesting authorization for the port to award projects to these three firms for as needed engineering and related

professional services contracts. each in the amount of 1.5 million dollars and totaling 4.5 million dollars. so as you may recall back in march of this year you authorized the port to issue an rfg for as needed engineering and related professional services. this is a contract that we have actually i think this is the third time we have issued these contracts out. our engineering staff uses them for on call and as needed engineering professional services and consulting. we issue -- we go through competitor process which i will talk about to issue the contracts and as we utilize it we issue what is known as contract service orders or cso's for the work tasks out there. sometimes they're issued competitively. sometimes we might go directly to a firm if that have a specialty or worked

on the project before. they're relatively small amounts and short turn around for the projects so back in june we issued the rfq. hrc established this for all three contractings of 21% and we received seven proposals. of the 72 we established were not responsive and were dropped from any consideration. we did offer both firms an opportunity to file a protest and no protest was received. so we ended up five firms that went on to the full competitive process. we established a review committee consisting of three people and member of the engineering staff from here at the port, an engineer from san francisco puv, and engineer from dpw. all

three have experience here in the city and working with contract engineering firms. the process they went through -- they submitted initially as part of the response a written proposal. the team reviewed those proposals and scored them. each of the team was invited to make an oral presentation and answer specific questions to the team and those presentations and answers were scored as well. hrc staff reviewed each of the proposals and awarded bonus points and a letter is attached to the item. all three of the winning teams actually received the bonus points, and again those were parsons and jb and deangelo, ags so each of the master contracts will have a

three year term and with an option of the port to extend them for additional year. each contract will have a not to exceed limit of 1.5 million dollars over the total life of the contracts. i am happy to answer questions that the commission have and we have peter here to answer any questions you have. >> so moved. >> second. >> any public comment? commissioners? questions or comments? all in favor? >> aye. >> thank you. >> item 10b accept the port's quarterly report on contracting activities for fiscal year 2012-2013 to december 2012 to 2013. >> go down to the very bottom

in the left hand corner and see a video projector. keep going. there you go. >> andre again. we say the best for last. so today i am presenting the quarterly report on activity for the first quarter of the current fiscal year 2012-2012 and stretches

from july 1 of this year through september 30. so the report that you have a copy of -- just some of the highlights. i am sorry about the formatting problem there. the report covers the delegation authority, use of authority by port staff, participation by local business enterprise program, and our effectiveness in that. as needed contracting in the use of cso's, compliance with city regulations and local hire requirements and local 21 staffing activity. under delegated authority in this quarter we utilize the executive director's authority in the contracts listed here. rays

consulting and providing consulting services, media consulting services which i believe is working on the upcoming anniversary and the other one dealing with the fire and that was the largest one and that contract has amended and went up but that happened after the beginning of the second quarter so it's not reflected on this report yet and issued seven of them in the quarter and none of them exceeded $200,000. so in terms of local business enterprise we issued three contracts in the quarter. only one of the three required leb participation and actually 50% participation and for the media services but they are 100% leb

firm so we have 100% participation there. the other two were want subject to those requirements so issued $248,000 in contracts so these were contracts that were issued during the quarter. this next slide shows how much we actually paid contractors during the quarter so these are actually dollar contract expenditures so these are contracts that have started before this quarter in the prior fiscal year or within this quarter as well, so we had 20 as needed cso's issued, nine -- i'm sorry, not issued but involved 20cso's with dollar amount of $250,000. nine construction contracts and total payments of 13.$4 million. of

that 14% went to lbe's. professional service contracts and five contracts and total payments of $52,000 in that. now just to point out as the as needed cso's and professional contracts and 48 participation so these are dollars that went to the lbe's and the other things this is just the payments within that quarter and this is just really a snapshot in time. the construction contracts are below our ideal goal of 20% on kind of overall port -- looking at all contracts in the port. that was driven by one particular contract primarily and brondon street wharf and more of a reflection of where we are in the construction of that that wharf and as you have seen

they're driving a lot of piles. that is most of the work going on. there are not lbe participation opportunities there. you will see it later in the construction of that project and that's what you see often with the construction projects. there's not an even use of lbe's throughout the contract time. in most cases -- we strive make sure they meet the mandate but you will see that vary quarter to quarter and especially with the construction you don't have necessarily a smooth use of that, so overall we paid almost 14 mundz in the quarters and 2 million went to lbe's. we're required to report on local 21 personnel transactions during

the quarter so we had one separation and three payments and one was a full time position and two were interim positions. we currently use dpw and have 26 projects they're wholly managing or partly managing for us so in conclusion -- it should be why we didn't meet the 20% goal in this quarter. we actually expect the contractors to meet their lbe goals. we spent $2 million that money went to the contractors and we are currently working on streamlining our contracting process. if you have any questions that concludes my present. if you have questions i am happy to answer them. >> i just have a question on

construction contracts exhibit two, and i'm just want to make sure that i am reading it correctly, and so the first categories are the total contract and what's been spent overall, but not through a time period, and then the second total spending is what's been spent in the first quarter? is that how you read it? >> no. the first one is the total amount on the contract and the second one is the lbe's, specifically the payments to them. >> okay. so the -- let's say the brandon street ward and the total contract is 13.5 million total spending for first quarter is 3.one. >> i'm sorry. i was looking at the presentation which exhibit