some outstanding translateors. we also were met by some of the representatives from osaka sister city program they've moved over to the port of osaka. the first presentation was from the port of osaka to leadoff the convention that was our first full day. one i thought things that was under taken not something we could do in san francisco but they've taken an approach their combining several of the ports together to become that much more competitive and rely on each other's strengthen. we recognize the strength of oakland but the port of osaka and port bay have worked

together. la half has different issues perhaps than we do we are trying to get them to host a convention in paris but the next one will be in same thing hi, it's san francisco's sister city. commissioner adams has spent some time at the port of same thing hi. we presented i think one of the things we were interested in obviously was our break but also the various activities along our port and the on hills of the america's cup but they're interested in seeing the activities along our port and our revenue stream has been fairing with the different

activity. osaka has had some activities along their port one day they took us to an astounding aquarium a they've built the fourth of fifth largest in the world. it was wonderful it was based on the ring of fire approach so it madam clerk, please read all the sister ports. following our time in osaka we went back to 80 could we met with some representatives from sagging sag gay we met with representatives from the america embassy the ambassador of japan was arriving so the attache came down after meeting at the airport but we met with various members of different aspects of

the embassys work to shipping to tourism and let them, you know, or know what's happening in san francisco. they're excited about working with us and then we went to soul and met with additional customers there we met with hyundai and the extent of our services and what is happening with our trains. we talked about the amount of construction in the bay area and it's in everyone's interest to work with the port of san francisco, you know, with the construction and apple and they're new facility >> and a variety of other things. their integrity and we've established a stronger relationship we provide them

with updates and vice versa. jim stayed on and met with additional clients. it was an extremely informative time and kret relationships with our key customers in the panic realm >> any public comment. i want to make a comment but thank you that very much for that informative report and helping to forge our relationships and we looked to accountability trips. i recall the trip to new zealand's and new zealand came here for the america's cup. i want to mention i've seen the are pier 92 artwork from the freeway it's beautiful and visible. i think it's something i hope to see more of those and it's exactly from what david told us

it stand out and it's a beautiful piece of artwork i want to commend everyone it's and reality. thank you. >> thanks to david. any other comments commissioners otherwise >> just with respect to the installation and again, this has been said repeatedly but having been lucky enough to participate in this selection panel the quality of the artists artist was really really extraordinary abu they're working so closely with the community and incorporating that in their art. 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. >> any public comment? hearing none. all in favor >> i. >> resolutions number 1348, 49 and 50 have passed. >> this is to award an opportunity for the pier rehabilitation project to t m j

partners, llc and authorizes stapling staff for the bulk head building for the pier 38 and embarcadero. >> good afternoon. i'm john i'm with the planning and development division i'll try to be belief and to the point. in september of 2012 the port commission you provided an rfp to renovate the pier 28 building with the objective to quickly get this asset into productive use and provide a revenue stream to the port. the bulk head building along the embarcadero as well as a limited portion of the pier shed. this is represented grapple on

attachments 3 and 4 of the staff report. the staff report issued an rfp for the bulk head or by a and received two smildz in march, 2013 san francisco waterfront partners and t m g pier 38 partners that he they also get an consulting firm to analyze the port and their analyze is on part 6 of the staff report. staff formed an elevation panel that included a south beach member as well as those having expertise in reaming and project management to restore the two proposals. in june 2012 the panel reviewed it analysis of the submittals

and scored the interviews with each of the developers. the scoring of the proposals is shown as table 2 and the elevation panel was scored as the highest rank to the rfp. based the b.a. e consultant analysis the scoring the port staff has reached the convolution with respect to the qualifications both responded to the rfp are qualified to increase talk the pier bulk head project both respondents developed waterfront or a historic projects in san francisco but overall the staff buildings the project staff composition and capacity t m) is

more qualified to undertake the bulk head project. two with respect to the program both proposals met the designed construction and tenant program criteria sited in the rfp san francisco partners proposed to make for chances to the building and slightly more access for 10.6er you millions and t m g totaled investment of $10.9 million. 3 finance capacity in terms of both respondent development they have the finances and the ability to undertake the bulk head building project with regards to the payments t m j

has a net revenue of approximately $150,000 per year to the port and t m js approach vests less into the buckle building while meeting the requirements. this allows t m j to pay stiblg hire the the san francisco waterfront partners and for the relationship of the buckle head buildings to the long term development the intent was to have a developer to rehab and reattended the pier 38 bulk head building optional public utilities to get that building the bulk head building back into use and generate income to the port but to make sure the buckle head building wouldn't have more development for the pier 38.

stshgs m j reduced the cost by deferring some improvements until later this allows t m j to pay higher rent and more flexibility for future reuse. although not part of revenue staff directed the consultant to prepare a financial feasibility study for a theoretical total he redevelopment of pier 38. their attachment 37. the preliminary analysis shows a future total redevelopment even if pier 38 maybe theoretically possible. if the port commission were to direct staff to initiate a total rehabilitation of pier 38 they'll have to identify with

the procedures of the waterfront plan namely a process to assure a consultation with an agency and have a local viruses group to have input and combines on a concept for an entire pier 38 development. b again, this item is for the bulk head building project and defers action on possible total redevelopment on pier 38 if all. for the project an hand the staff believes t m) is better quality particularly with respect to providing higher revenue to the port. so in conclusion the 0 port staff occurs with the panels scoring and recommendations the

bulk head development opportunity as described in the rfp to t m j. the staff future recommendations the staff to initiate the programs. once the lease is completed it will be presented for your review. so the t m j prnldz are here and mike and amy are here to - they'd love to make a presentation or statement if you so desire also the b.a. e staff should be here oh, they're here to address questions with regards to their work of either the analysis of the two proposals or the potential future development of pier 38.

thank you >> so moved. >> second. >> is there any public comment? we do have woods >> good afternoon commissioner aim korean woods. this had to have been a very, very touch decision for two extremely qualified companies both of whom have relationship to the port and who have done excellent work in the past. of course, the money counts. i've worked with amy for many, many years on redevelopment projects and i know she is

totally competent at the going straight for the record not diplomatic sometimes (laughter) i think you've got a good team and i sport our decisions thank you >> thank you. >> dwayne jones. are you present? >> is dwayne out in the hollowing. >> can we go to john in the meantime. >> hi, john. >> and can someone locate dwaib john's. >> could a i see if dwayne john's is he out in the lobby can you send him in important public comment. >> good afternoon madam president and madam vice

president. i'm john cane a port attend for 12 years i know the south beach waterfront very, very well, we're located north of pier 38 pr along with the reds and job house we'll be the port restaurants closet to pier 38. very much in favor of the redevelopment of pier 38. more activity is also an transition on game days and on non-game days getting tenant in the building is great i recommend the t m j contractors they know how to do things. they help us with the dive permits. and i feel 38 they and t m j are the perfect developer for pier

38 >> dwayne jones and just one item. >> okay. thank you. all right. commissioners comments please. well, i would like to say that korean was right this was a hard decision we had two well qualified good proposals and so this was an extremely hard decision i'm glad we can choice someone that will put the development comet the development as opposed to gets the building done and look forward to the revenues it will generate for the port and finding out what we're going to do long-term. i'm wondering we're only doing the bulk 0 head what's the proposal for the long-term

development >> well, this is only for the bulk head i think we need to come back to you with a strategy of what the next steps might be. the first step was to have b.a. e to provide an analysis of whether or not it was fraebl. this is only thoroughly. we want to work on that. if the port commission is interested we would start some of the steps in terms of putting together a local committee advisory group and start engaging the community to determine whether or not the remainder or pier they've would be functionally he feasible. so we'd look at the state lands and the potential consistence but we could start that process any time you direct us to. and also in attachment 7 or 8

>> 8. >> i provided a timeline in terms of steps. so okay. thank you >> other comments commissioners. >> commissioner adams. >> i'm really glad the public has come out to see the process. i believe that die diplomas is happening i give a shout out to john. i saw this as a dead heat and the transparency is there i want the public to see that the port belongs to you. i want you to see the process. john this is for phase one correct >> correct. >> and phase two. >> we like to call it the

buckle head project their may not be a phase two. >> i want to know i was under the assumption i thought that was phase one and once past phase one a phase two or whether or not i thought. >> that was our hope there's a phase two one of the struggles is the triggering which all the code upgrades concluding seismic both of the developers thought yes, it could but a lot of that conversation still needs to take place around the implementation of public benefits and b cdc so we have a lot of homework to do from staff we'd like to get the direction but it would certainly be our hope there's a phase two for numerous you reasons not the least of this is a historically

registered asset and we have to prefer it. >> i think its fair to say this is clear only a decision for the bulk head we don't have enough information and there's no implicit assumes go so everyone should be aware are that. >> i think on phase two months of my questions were but at, you know, at what point would phase two took place. there's only so many years left in the infrastructure that's there now. if you have tenants in how are you going to deal with the tenants to do phase two.

would you have to have everyone move out how is that destructed >> we haven't done a lease yet. >> how will that be instructed. >> that will be careful done who might do the phase 2 development if t m j clearly it would be easier to incorporate the plans of the bulk head building into a subsequent redevelopment project. it would be easier but not necessarily have to be like that. otherwise, we'd have to put in term lease term and develop a project maybe a new developer selection process again subject to our direction that would

eventually make sure that the phase one the bulk head development project is over and then start over again >> well based on - >> one other question i have has anybody done an analysis of what it would cost to retrofit the whole. >> yeah. the b.a. report in attachment 7 or 8 that analysis has been priority and again b.a. e compounds can help. >> it's roughing about $148 million. nobody will step forward and spend the money >> no, no this is a theoretically report but for future you restaurants retail and office the construct ability in terms of the costs and what

and the entitlement risk associated with that. there's a lot of factors that need to be delineated in terms of whether or not a future redevelopment project of this would be practical and feasible >> commissioner, i think to answer our question the waterfront plan for all intents and purposes contemplates the maritime shed to do the development that could pay forcing for those needs would i don't think would be storage so the long lead time is to follow the process for amending the waterfront land use time that includes an advisors committee and having conversations with them as well as the commissioner and then we go forward and selection a developer but having a bulk head occupied will have

to be careful in going forward but the long lease plan amendment is important. >> i want to comment i guess based on the current proposal if they look at phase 2 it would disrupt the bulk head we're not addressing that issue but that's why we have imperfect information it's hard to justify. what you're hearing is the interest to pressure it but to look at it. i want to say number one i want to thank the other birdie think is not here today not only in terms of the qualifications but the work of interest we respect the work that's been submitted. there are some major differences

and only before we vote and to be clear i know that b, a is clear i want to understand this is a major difference between the proposals. so on the specific waterfront partners it's something like that $12 plus per year how did that get clawed >> i think janet is coming up. >> you want to introduce her. >> janet is the managing partner. >> hello. >> good afternoon. i'm janet b.a. managing principle. to answer our question quickly what we did in the analysis we took the material we received from both development teams originally and we didn't call

lasts the adjustments we made a few because of the consistence but we cleared them to make sure we understood the submittal. i think you're asking why they're paying different amounts. the answer to that is they're pretty different the t m j proposal we called it a less investment the food trucks allow a quick reuse at a lower cost and generate income to make those financial proposals. the waterfront professionals required more costs and at least on paper some of which might have to be reinvested but because of the higher expense that's why there was a little

bit less revenue >> it's clear that the trigger for the com memento of rent is between the two proposals. >> practical speaking is that a year difference and i think it's about 18 months difference the main thank was the amount. >> so we're clear on the record t m j would be in the space working on it for 18 months before they start paying represent. >> the difference was about a year so the present value does effect bow mostly the rent. in our study it's just a review so if we precede with the resolution i believe i want to get our connoisseurs curtains there maybe some more