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 opportunity to guide us in our negotiation and in terms of what you see in terms of office rent and in terms of parking. i want to note that for the record and the port staff to note that we're here to optimize in the intent we have to still go through new york times >> to summarize the port staff asked us to look at the bulk head from our own theoretical base submittal and we justified the rent a little bit and looked at the whole believe you were discussing the buckle head to

make it a feasible project. given the seismic and sub you structure costs that would be triggered and came up with a yes on both. you're correct the first part of the report is a good guidance in the report we can tweak the bulk head project a little bit more. >> okay. any other comments from commissioners. >> just one. let's maybe our directory can answer this one. if negotiations with t m j falls off the cliff do we have a back up and a for the normal process if we don't concluded negotiations we go to the next bird and they welcome that if the opportunity arise so, yes we would come back and inform you. >> thank you. >> uh-huh.

>> other comment your obviously hearing from the commission but we're not addressing that but in the event there could be other circumstances that keep this lease on the books for longer the term or long-range than what we anticipated but say we go beyond 5 years we don't think it will happen but i want to suggest that as if we were to progress into the long-term phase into the lease as structured there's increases based on on the c pi we look at any other percentage rent possibilities after year 5 in the effect we don't precede with total development so we don't lock ourself ♪ the long-term for whatever reasons don't have the ability

to participate from the strelth >> you're absolutely correct. >> then gov. again what was raised about the parking can you explain between the two proposals it looks like waterfront partners include the port for parking was that revolted up into the total from t m j. and again, just reiterating my colleagues comments i think the quality of the two both submittals was extraordinarily high and it was difficult to choose but it reflects what is happening at the port we're able to attract that and i want to thank both parties in participating and hope it will

be other opportunities in the future to improve our waterfront >> thank you for all the work you did. >> thank you very much. >> any further comments from commissioners all in favor, say i. >> i. >> resolution 1351 has passed but i said to say based on awe the time 8 look at the 235eb9 so we get a sense of what's going to happen. >> great. >> one last comment that i appreciate. that the effort to bring in local businesses has not gone unnoticed. they look at bringing in the local businesses that have been

in their legitimately they thought they were there before we realized the poor condition the building had been in. but there will be an effort to bring in local businesses in terms of of bringing in food trucks and other retail establishment that are based on san francisco. i appreciate that effort >> on on the total development we want 0 very, very thorough development and proposal so i think even though there's a lot of interest we don't have the information to make a decision at this time that will require a lot of work on the portside and any interested party that wyoming want to submit as well. >> thank you. >> congratulations.

>> thank you very much. >> thank you. item 8 b informational for the requests for the eco center and surrounding 6 thousand 58 square feet looked in the intersection of jennings street and cargo way >> good afternoon. i'm carol the environmental affairs person. i'm here this knowledge with an informational update with the progress of our workshops for recall in september you authorized staff to issue a request for parole for potential he tenant to operate and to lease and operate the eco center would the ports objectives which which are promoting public access and making the most of

the center for an educational resource and engaging the local community and with the educational program in the park. the rfp was used september 24th and the responses westbound were due. we 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. on the due date of november 8th we received two submittals that meet the qualifications and we

were forwarded to the qualification panel. one proposal was sent in by the bay foundation in partnership with the city college of san francisco and other institutions and organizations who commented to participate in an eco center advise committee. the aquarium bay is an consisting tenant that he port on pier 48 and conditional has provided educate program there are as a subcontractor to the listcy for environmental justice. the other proposal was submitted but the a randall institute. apr i is a bay view nonprofit