confusing that we are just looking at three miles, we're not describing the 7.5 miles and how we're breaking out that -- the analysis and the study and what we're trying to do. they said -- 'cause we focused on 3.5 miles. they said well, i thought you had 7.5 miles. i said no, because of the seismic and da, da, da. also, because of the budget, they wanted to see how all of the money was going to be spent overall of the waterfront, not just here, so it it implores us to do a little bit of job explaining, but we had great materials. it was just amazing to see when we went last year to when we went this year. it was really wonderful that commissioner adams was there, speaking to people that we didn't get to speak to on our behalf.

and then, we had our separate meetings from the chamber. the chamber was talking about our priorities in are this meetings, so we were the main priority for everyone on this trip. and so everybody loves our project until we start talking dollars, but overall, it was an extremely successful trip. so byron, thank you so much for that presentation, and commissioners, are there any questions? >> so how big was the delegation, and who were the other people from san francisco? >> that's a good question. i don't have the list with me. i'll remember off the top of my head. >> about 25 people. >> yeah, about 25 people, and we had representatives from the puc. the puc sent a senior leader, michael carlin. sf travel was there, dignity health, sutter health. there were representatives from

cpmc -- [ inaudible ] >> comcast, at&t. so lots of big business leaders, and the port project which was the number one project as president brandon described, and it was a great thing that the chamber made a point of pitching our project, and lots of local business leaders. so that -- thank you so much. that concludes my report. >> and so we're -- can i ask, were there any surprises in the meeting or things that you hadn't expected? >> we had a little surprise. we're going to do follow up with senator feinstein's office. the senator is worried about the price tag of this project, which i experienced when i first briefed her, so we need to brief here about why it costs so much, and she's very interested in the cost sharing that we're trying to cecum see to fruition. it was great that the chamber heard her say that, and it was

great, i remember when the controller's office put forward, the top six funding strategies. business tax or a cfd, a property-based form was on the list, so it's something that we should definitely be exploring. we've been working hard on trying to find funding sources for phase one, but i think our next move after we submit to the board of supervisors to submit to voters the bond question and work with assembly members chiu and ting on the i.f.d. will be to start in earnest on the cfd concept. >> i have a question for commissioner adams. you mentioned you did meet with secretary chow. >> no. i met with department secretary rosen. he's the one that probably does all the work. he's the number two guy. >> and did he feel within their infrastructure plans that they have the seawall as something that they would address, and that will go beyond partisan

politics? >> he was the one that pointed out this trillion dollar bill, this omnibus that passed, he supported it -- i invited him, he said he was coming to the west coast, and he invited him to come to the port of san francisco and i would give him a hands on tour. he's more of a hands on guy, and he understands the industry. and he was very, very open. he goes anything shall -- he goes, you have an open door here, and it's all about you go -- it's all about relationships in washington d.c. you've got to build those relationships with the senators and congress people, and staff. president brandon is write. you treat them like gold, and i think the more that they see our face, and the more that we engage them and get them out here, and director foeshs and president brandon can give them a tour of our port -- i'm a

visual people, and i think people like that in washington, they're away, but visually, they need to come out on our turf, on our soil here and walk around and see what we're trying to do. in a month, i am ache goi'm go back there for other reasons, i'm going to try to catch up with them for lunch. so many people, they go to these offices, and they don't remember you, but the most they see you, you build these relationships, and it's like anything, things get done, so i will continue to follow up. >> great. >> i will add one other surprising piece, i think. as president brandon described, the army corp. engineer meeting was especially important for us to be with some of the highest ranking leaders of the army corps from the d.c. office was critical, but it was also very

eye opening for us. depending on the figure, there's between 80 and 96 billion of backlog within the army corps of engineer backlog list, and we are trying to thread the eye of the needle to become an approved project which is a very long endeavor. so it was very eye opening to speak with mr. dalton, and he was very frank with us. he said it looks like you have a very critical project and a very good plan, and that's why i want to see you advance that project, and that's why he offered this strategy that byron spoke of, the local 209 project where the locals move this along and the army starts cost sharing. it was eye opening about the availability and the viability and the timing of federal dollars. >> just wanted to say one other thing. director forbes, you wanted to talk about the meeting we had with the department of labor, i think was really good, and i think everyone would want to

hear about that. >> sure. so we sat down with the staff responsible for completing the wage survey for the national parks service prospectus. we are now fully aware that they are prioritizing this endeavor, they understand how important it is to san francisco. i think it was really important for us to explain not only the economics but the visitors serving importance of the alcatraz site and how we're really need to have a fair wage survey completed by the department of labor to move forward, and just how critical of an issue it is for us, so it is personally rewarding for me to sit across the table from those responsible for the work and that they hear how important it is, that they intend to work on it in earnest. they could not offer a date which we would get the survey, but they said it was a top priority, so we'll continue to

engage with them, as well as our partners with the department of park service, but we feel the department will complete a fair and impartial analysis and get us a survey in the long-term. >> but we did let them know that we would like to place it on our may 8 agenda and they are going to shoot for that, hopefully. anything else? >> you got it all. >> is there any public comment on the executive director's report? >> item 8-d, port commissioners report. >> commissioners, anything to report? >> i'd just like to request that we adjourn our meeting in honor of the youth that have woke this country up. >> commissioner woo ho? >> nope. >> commissioner -- [ inaudible ] >> did you say a little bit about the press conference last week, or the assembly bill? >> sure. absolutely.

we had a tremendously positive press conference out at pier 14 to announce assembly member chiu's bill we wouhich would a the port of san francisco to capture state tax. some refer to it as the school share, but that 25 cents perthe dollar. this is an idea that port staff did pursue in the past, and we were able to get the state share for the pier 70 project. a conservative projections are that it would produce about $55 million for the seawall project in the first phase of the project and up to 250 million over the term. we had many leaders that came out for the press conference. mayor farrell, board president breed, london breed, board member jane kim, senator scott

wiener, and of course assembly member chiu was our chair. it was a dream for president brandon and me because all of the leaders were really full in on the seawall project, really understood the importance of it, the importance of safety in the waterfront, the dual threat of earthquake and sea level rise. it was a real opportunity for us to observe how well we've been doing in our outreach in getting the message out and how much leadership in san francisco and at the state level is behind our project. >> also, administrator naomi kelley joined us, and it was a great event. and we also had our contract opportunities open house, which was a huge success. we have a large turn out. a lot of new faces, and a lot of interest in most of the important projects that are going on, and then, we saw a presentation by pier 70 who has partnered with dwayne jones,

rdj consulting or enterprises, showing how a large company can work with a small company and partner and succeed, so it was really wonderful to see. so i want to thank all the staff that was involved in our open house because now that it's an annual open house, it was a huge success, so thank you so much. and i also want to congratulate tom carter. we missed -- we missed the ceremony because we were in d.c., but tom was awarded -- elaine, you want to say a little bit about that? >> tom was part of a team of professionals who won the team award for -- we call it the mvac award, but it was an annual award that recognizes excellence in city management, and tom's group won its award for the navigation center. i call it the 25th street navigation center, but i think it's more commonly known as the

dogpatch navigation center, and also for the encampment resolutions that occurred withed laet ups to t the encampment centers at mission rock and islas creek. i think it's hard work, and the kind of work that goes unnoticed and unrecognized. it was not only hard work, it included finding a balance for the residents in the neighborhood and working with community groups to understand and recommend a navigation center and also working with unhoused or homeless people that are encamped and offering them a full range of services and rights as they moved onto a better and more safe environment, so congratulations, tom. [applause]. >> that's the end of my report.

okay. >> item 10-a, request authorization to advertise for competitive bids for construction contract number 2797, pier 29 utility upgrade and belt line building sewer rerouting project. >> good afternoon, president brandon, vice president adams, all commissioners, and director. my name is david hu.

i'm the project engineer for the pier 29 utility upgrade and belt line building sewer rerouting project. the project involves two facilities. one is pier 29, another is belt line building, next to each other. in the area of the new cruise terminal at pier 27. currently, these two facilities are vacant, and we'd like to take the opportunity to extend the utilities and upgrade all utilities in the building for the future tenants for better

access to the service points -- ports with better capacity and less interruption for the future tenants. this project supports the port's strategy plan objectives on liability -- no, on liveability, sustain ability, economy viability and stablity. it makes the belt line building and the pier 29 building liveable with better marketability and also for

future growth capacity. to upgrade the utility infrastructures and bring all the utilities above the deck fo for longevity and improving the reliable of the systems. and it's also improve the lighting energy efficiency of the pier 29. so the city's cmd office has established a 24% lbe goal for this project. then, we talk about the scope of work at both locations. at pier 29, we are going to

extend, install, extend all the utilities, including the water supplying piping, guest service piping, ensure piping, like the gravity risers and like that above deck for the future tenants with better connections, with better improvements to all the future service -- that's in the back of the ship. once a tenant occupied the front part of the belt line building in the bucket area. at belt line building, in order

to make the belt line building's current sewer system pump station independent and try to -- and also eliminate all the sewer piping, long shore piping underneath the pier, so we are going to cut and abandon the existing under pier sewer line currently connected to the pump station in front of pier 29. then, we will route with the new sewer -- shorter, new sewer line, gravity sewer line to the city sewer in the embarcadero street. again, the purpose is to improve the reliability of the system and also the building

with the visibility. here is the engineering cost estimate. for pier 29 utility upgrade, we estimate approximately 660,000, and for belt line building sewer project, we estimate approximately 220,000. plus, the allowing side, the sub total for advertising of the project is approximately 945,000, plus the 10% contingency for budgeting. we estimate the total cost is about $1,400,000. so the project is fully funded by the port capital account. one is the utility project account, cpo 761.

another is the belt line building project account, cpo 930. here is the anticipated project schedule. upon the approval of the port commission today, we are going to advertise the beat in april, and then, we will be coming back to the commission to approve to award the contract in may, and we may send out the notice to proceed with the project in july, and we expect the project duration to last six months, so the estimated completion date will be in

january 2019. so that's all about the project. so again, i'm here today to seek the commissioners' approval to advertise this project for competitive bid. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i'm open for any questions. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners. commissioner katz? >> motion. >> that was a motion. >> so moved. >> is there a second? >> second. >> commissioner thomas? >> couple questions. one, there's a comments to the back up generator. is that a diesel generator or will that be using cleaner -- cleaner power?

>> i can refer your question to the electrical engineer for -- for the project at the port. >> ahmad, come to the microphone. introduce yourself. >> good afternoon, commissioners. currently all the electrical equipment is located in the center of the bulkhead, and if you wanted to lease that area out, and let's say there's a power outage, and that area supplies power not only to pier 29, 20 -- it supplies power to pier 31, supplies power to hornblower shore power -- it supplies to multiple facilities, so it being that critical electrical service, you want to have a connection to -- and provide generator, and you can't really bring the generator inside the shed space

if you're going to lease that area, so you want to put the point of connection outside, and it would have to be, like, a -- whatever port maintenance has portable generator, and typically, those would be diesel and -- [ inaudible ] -- it would be a diesel generator. >> that was the answer that i was expecting, but not what i was hoping for. and then, you said the sea level rise wouldn't impact the project at all during its design life of 30 years. is everything going to be located well above project sea level rise? >> yes. that's one of the -- very good question. that's one of our port's new strategies, to bring most of the -- let's say port wide, all plumbing, pipi plumbing, -- plumbing piping, utility piping, to above the deck. so for this project, we are bringing all the utilities

above the deck. >> that's actually a great point. thank you. >> thank you very much. good question. >> oh, and then sorry. last question i had. on the belt line building, hadn't we upgraded the bathroom there or made that accessible to the public at some point? >> yeah, that's true. we just upgraded public rest room, both men and women rest room. it's for public access. >> so the -- the added plumbing supply will just ensure viability or is that just part of the general upgrade? >> yeah. in this project, we are not going to touch those rest rooms. we just built it, i guess, two years ago, three years ago, but the main thing is for this project, we are going to takedown the under pier long -- really long gravity sewer for those rest rooms in the building currently connected to

the -- to the pump station in front of pier 29. so we're making the pump station independent, so later on, we're not going to depend on the pump station in case the pump fill, and i think we need to upgrade the rest room, too, for this project. that's one strategy. another strategy is to eliminate all of the piping for this sewer, shorten and route it to the -- directly connect it to the city sewer, so make it more reliability. >> got it. so it's not going to shutdown the rest room for -- maybe temporarily. >> no. this is actually a very good construction sequence. first build new piping to the street connected with the main

hole in the embarcadero street first. before you cutoff the existing sewer to pier 29, then you switch over in couple hours, so it will not interrupt the service of the rest room to the public. >> all right. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> commissioner woo ho? >> yeah, thank you. i think most of my questions were answered. my only question was really we're doing this to prepare this building. we can because isn't this the same building that jamestown has just -- has backed out of, so this is really a preliminary preparation for us to be able to lease it out. >> yes. >> to another party, and that's just -- just wanted to verify that. >> that's correct. so just to add, for the public, we had made a solicitation and jamestown was the most responsive party to a 20,000

square foot leasing opportunity, that they had come to you with a term sheet that they brought to the board of supervisors. jamestown has let us know that the cost of the improvements is out stripping the revenue that they can receive back. it's no longer viable for them to move ahead with a 15 year term. we will be coming to you later to talk about opportunities for pier 29, which alreathere are as part of our rfi, but my staff talked about engineering group, and these are underway, and we believe we will be leasing the bulkhead space. it's right across from the terminal, so it's a very valuable leasing space for us, so we want to proceed with the improvements even though jamestown is taking down the lease. >> with and we've already budgeted for it? >> we have. >> that's one of the purposes to do this project before any

new tenant occupied the bulkhead. >> got it. okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner adams? [ inaudible ] >> yeah. i'm -- i have been here ten years. >> ten years. >> boy, that's a -- supports a mechanical engineer, but seems our projects are not that big, so normally, my projects always -- [ inaudible ] >> so this is always -- i don't remember the second item. >> i just wanted to say thank you for making a presentation. i'm getting to know everybody. i didn't know you, and thank you for your work. >> thank you very much. >> -- and your presentation, and i'm very supportive of it, and appreciate your patience and going through and explaining it, and i always think it's really good for everybody to get up and make a

presentation. thank you. >> thank you, vice president adams. >> thank you very much for this presentation. i just have one small question. >> yeah. >> and what is allowances for partnering? >> oh, partnering -- that's a very good question. it's a new program for -- by the city which will facilitate both the city, like at the port with the contract person, you know, when we work together to solve the problems, argument, issues, raise up building, the construction to -- the purpose is to minimize the change orders and also minimize the -- the claims from the construction, and also litigation, minimize all those and -- or eliminate it. so it is a very good channel to deal with the government and

then the contractor. this is a new program, yeah. >> great. thank you. >> very good. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. commissioners, if there are no other questions, all in favor? all opposed? resolution 18-23 has been approved. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> item 11-a, authorization to -- [ inaudible ] -- to identified qualifier developers to electric vehicle charging infrastructure and to negotiate lease entries to instruct and operate electric vehicle charging stations as seawa seawall 3031. >> good afternoon, commissioners. rich berman with port planning and environment, and i'm here today to ask your authorization for issuing the request for qualifications and for

negotiating with qualified entities. before i get started i want to say there are several port staff that assisted me with this, but i specifically wanted to acknowledge dmitry morrow. he's a very bright young man, he's very good with computers, but he's also got a passion for this subject. so thank you, dmitry. the city and the port have been working for sometime to develop strategies for fighting climate change, clean transportation has been among them, especially zero emissions transportation and developing the infrastructure to support that. several ways we've done that in the past, currently, we've identified a dearth of publicly available charging stations, and the city ev working group is working to address that, and this separate is really a part of that. so we came to you back in the fangt, and in in october, we issued a request for information, and we were trying

to understand very quickly changing world that we have very little experience with. and we got a very robust response from eight providers. we learned a great deal. we learn that the market for the ev charnling is strong. we learned quite a bit about the technological specifications that are required, and we also learned that port property is a viable location for installing publicly accessible charging. so these are the respondents that we -- that we received submissions from. the two challenges that we came across were the infrastructure of the port and the need to upgrade port electrical supply. the infrastructure is real about working over piers. typically, this kind of infrastructure is done through trenching.

you can't do that on a pier, so there's some technical challenges here. i know it's late in the afternoon. we didn't intend to challenge your math, but this is simply because tesla was one of each. so we had -- we had four locations that we've identified here. originally, we sent out in the rfi the possibility of five locations. we included pier 27, and that fell off after we reviewed the responses, and the reason is that intermixing publicly accessible charging with 80 to 100 cruise days wasn't viable, so it's physically a good location, but in emergency room its room -- in terms of operations, it just wasn't going to work. but the remaining locations were viable. seawall 314 was in the jurisdiction of the northeast advisory group. we approached them with the

results of the rfi on the 20 and they were very responsive. pier 32 and 54 and 70 were all in the purview of the central waterfront advisory group, and we approached them on february 5, and they, too, were very supportive. they all were very intrigued about what it might do to the appearance of the waterfront and where some of the funding would come from. and as we maintained all along, the premise of this rfq would be that whoever wants to develop this infrastructure would fully fund the addition of electrical supply that's necessary. so our technical summary, we had some preliminary knowledge, but we confirmed what we felt we knew. the charging technology is vastly changing. it's quickly changing.

there are level two chargers, sometimes called slow chargers that can charge an electric vehicle within eight to ten hours. there are those that charge fast. they're called level three. they can typically charge within an hour, maybe a little less. since we did the rfi, i've learned that there are now level five chargers that can charge within 20 minutes or less, so it's a -- it's quickly changing. the level two chargers typically use alternating current, level three chargers and faster chargers require direct current. this question of number two, will it work on my car is really getting at that idea of proprietary versus nonproprietary. tesla has chargers that only work on theirs, and we want to make sure that we have technology that is ininclusive, so proprietary would not allowed, but nonproprietary would be mandated, and then

information we got on the electrical service supply varied quite a bit. so what we find is that we're looking at a -- a -- really, a classic system in the early stages of development where we don't have a standard for several of the technical aspects, we don't have the standard for the business model does, and we probably have at the tail ends things that we will see disappear as the whole industry begins to settle out. someone reminded me that it was probably like ten years ago when the phone plug chargers were all over the map. they all required the same current, but one would fit this phone, one would fit that phone, and they've gotten past that. we're still in the early stages. so what we'd like to do is issue a request for qualifications and qualify the respondents based on the criteria that you see here. we'd like to see some mandatory

installation experience at least, installation fast charging and slow charging at three different sites, and as well as nonproprietary charging experience. we'd like to see operating experience for at least one year of an existing up and running charging site, and we'd like to do the standard financial capacity demonstration for any of the teams that are coming in. we expect and will encourage the respondents to submit as teams. we think that these areas of skill that will be required on the right would require that, so it's quite varied, especially if we're bringing new electrical service to a site, so we'll encourage teams to submit or encourage people to submit as teams. we would allow the criteria to be met if -- if at least one team member satisfies that criteria, we'll ask them to identify all of their team

members in advance, and we will be encouraging them to use local business enterprises as team members, and we will include in the rfq the contacts for the cmd so that they can know who the lbe's our in our community and try to find ways to incorporate them. there are other departments throughout the city. i'm learning through the city environmental group who will be doing this if we can get lbe's in as trainees or participants, that might open up other avenues as the departments move through this. once we have the submittals, we'll compile a review team. we will not do this without an electrical engineering staff. we'll have real estate staff too, planning and environment. and then there are some technical staff at the planning and environment who have been of great assistance all along. it's important we're not measuring one team against

another, we're measuring them against these objective criteria that we've identified. if we identify the -- if we identify qualified teams, we would then ask to enter into negotiations with them. we would require that they develop ev charging stations, that they provide level three as a minimum. they will be allowed to include level two charging. they can include proprietary technology, but they must include nonproprietary equipment, and the chargers must be available to the public at least in part, so these are the terms that we'd be looking for in the negotiations. we think there is sufficient interest in diverse locations along the port, but it's possible we would find two teams competing for the same site. if in fact we feel we're

looking at competition, and we don't have enough space to accommodate two or three teams or they're unable to work out some partnership, we would step away from that and decide whether it's worth pursuing as a targeting rfp, if so we'll come back and seek your authorization to proceed with that. we expect it would be under the same business terms. so the next steps would be to issue the request for qualifications and try to identify qualified teams with an eye to whether we have sites that have competitive interests. if so, we'll go back and seek that rfp. if not, and we're successful, we would -- and come back to you with a proposed lease terms, and that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you. can i have a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> is there any public comment on this item? commissioner woo ho? >> okay. thank you.

very interesting to hear that we're at this stage. i guess one question. do we also have other agencies in the city that are also considering charging stations so are we sort of the leader and pioneer at this point? >> we are in step with the other agencies. i mentioned the environment -- or the electric vehicle charging working group. it's being convened through the department of the mayor and there are other key departments including rec and park, mta and puc, especially who are looking for opportunities on their properties to enhance the publicly accessible interesting vehicle charging. >> right, but where are we at least charging out the gate -- skbl we a >> we are charging out the gate. i think mta might be ahead of us at one sight, but otherwise we are this the vanguard there. >> okay, and then you mentioned on one of the slides we'd have a baseline and this parameter

rent. so we already have parameter rent for ev charging stations, and what kind of business model would we work out with -- with them over time? i mean, you know, we have some examples of obviously, the bikes, that we went through that, but i imagine this one is a little bit different than the bike rental stations, and there could be more. and i guess what we will probably ask what the operators will be asking for, the customers of this, and what they will be charging them, so that we can understand how that works into the economics or that's something that we don't know yet, right? >> you're exactly right. those are things we would be asking. those are things we don't know, and they're among the reasons we decided that the rfq process would give us better flexibility to address those issues rather than addressing them in a classic rff. the rent parameter we've been discussing among staff is the one surrounding parking lots,

because all of these have parking lots, i believe you said about 40 cents. >> dmitry, please go to the microphone and introduce yourself. >> my name is dmitry morrow. >> the land rates we're discussing are the currents that are currently commission approved. >> and there's this difference of low speed versus high speed, and the cost is -- this's something the operator's going to bear, but we need to understand all those things and how they're going to charge for that. >> that's correct, and we did learn that there are a wide variety of business models that are out there, and they include things like paid peruse. there are subscriptions where people can pay to be a part of a charging location, there are models that are built around a particular fleet, and there are

models where you basically have community support, and there's outside funding, so you -- you're correct. there's a lot of. >> right. >> variation. >> so right now, the lots that are being considered are actually -- well, every lot has some operator on that parking lot. now, for instance, was the 8 washington lot, is there some reason it was excluded? because i would think you'd want lots very close to where people are going to park all day versus short-term 'cause even though they might have the height -- the fast speed charging versus the low speed, but at least today's behavior, people tending to park longer, so i'm just wondering if when we excluded certain lots -- i understand the pier 27 issue -- >> i don't recall why 8 washington was not included. >> okay because it seems like that's a one pretty close to downtown, but that's just one

example. there may be some others that i'm not thinking of, but that in particular comes to mind. >> when we did the request for information, we mentioned the five sites that i mentioned. we also invited the respondents to identify other candidate sites that they thought would be viable, and no other sites would offered up, so they either didn't take that into much consideration -- skbl meaning the operator had to offer it up before we even asked to consider it or the -- the ev station operator was interested in those sites. because i think you have existing parking operators, less than them coming in wanting to come in to these sites. there's got to be some arrangement with the parking operator, too. >> and i think the arrangement we have is the right to take back certain portions of a parking lease area, and we would use that. >> right. i guess we have a lot to learn about what kind of business

model will work for us, and i'm sure it'll be an iterative, and so whatever the terms andtion cans, i hope we allow it for learns and not put ourselves into a fixed position where we regret it later where we didn't understand enough and made it a fixed position. thank you. >> you answered some of my questions. one was that we would just go for the neutral standard. >> we will make that mandatory. we will allow for proprietary as additional. >> and then, you know, i think they call them fast chargers, but at tit's a level two-threed then you mentioned five. will we have a blend or is that -- >> again, that is part of what

we'll negotiate, yeah. >> and then, i assume we have some sort of safety requirements and analysis of the various different bidders and how they've done on safety? >> well, that will be part of the peerns. i'm going to put in there that they were successful experiences, but that will be part of what we do, yes, and we will also have our building review code and building review process. >> and i guess this is something we'd have to figure out, but we're not going to have that many, but how do we address turnover, so that especially if we have the faster charges, ensuring that somebody's on there for a short period of time and not there -- sk >> you're asking or answering all the difficult questions, which is why this is a difficult project to put into an rfp. there are many, many

uncertainties, there are many choices to consider both in operation of the site and technical installation of the site, and models are so varied right now that we don't have certainty on that. >> did we ask the different respondents to submit -- >> we did, we did. [ inaudible ] >> and through that process, we learned that some do it one way, and some do it another, and that'll be a matter of making it work. >> so that's what i was getting at, and they're going to share that information. >> yes. >> and then have we compared it to the private sector and what kind of rent they receive or what kind of terms come in when they put in chargers on various -- >> no. >> sites? >> we have not. >> that might be something to look at on the current revenue model, not to say that somebody's trying to take advantage of the public sector in rent. and then, on seawall 314, i know we have some longer term

plans. how would installing -- having a charger installed there potentially impact on those plans on can these be moved? do we have any provisions that if circumstances warrant it, they can be moved to a comparable location, things looic tha like that? >> so the chargers themselves can be relocated. we would expect the lease terms would require the removal of them at the end of term if the port so choose. that's something we typically do. the electrical upgrade to the supply would be an unhaensment, and that would remain. >> but i guess if before the term of the lease is up, is expired, for example, on 314, if the plans that are coming in, and maybe it's accounted for, but i guess what i'm thinking of is if we need to have them moved, would there be provisions that would allow them to moffat their expense even if they've done the

upgrade, for example. >> well, it should be part of the negotiations, i believe, that whether we consider the -- the possibility that they'd be asked to move within a certain time frame would undermine their ability to amortize their investment, but we'll certainly consider that. >> and again, this is really an evolving area. it's exciting and i'm pleased we're at the forefront as a city agency, you know looking at how we can offer these opportunities. knowing how rapidly we're seeing some of these changes, it -- have we figured out a way of allowing or encouraging or even requiring upgrades to new standards to improve chargers, that sort of thing? >> we had -- >> is there even anything out there that works as a model? >> yeah. we've had preliminary discussions about incorporating that into the lease. it's hard to envision where the

technology will be where even six months ago, level five is something you didn't hear about. >> perhaps there is sufficient a suggestion, but triggers -- sort of if something occurs, then it triggers a requirement that they then comply? i'll leave it to you to play with that language, but that's something we've found that's worked well in the past, some of kind of those triggers points in there so that we get the upgrades. but thank you very much. appreciate the presentation. >> commissioner adams. >> this is a great thing. we've come a long way since my grandfather's mule. if we go down to pier 27, we have shore power for our cruise ships. this is a part of the new waterfront, this is efficient, and i'm supportive of it. i think that this is good, and

i agree with commissioner katz. we're out front on this waterfront, and we're going to see more charging a lot of different places, a lot of cars and stuff like that, and different things. this won't be the end, so clearly, you have my support on this issue, and thanks for the work. it's not sometimes about making a lot of money, it's just this is a good thing. the whole city family is getting on board with this, and this is something that i can support. thank you. >> thank you. thank you so much for the presentation and for all the work put into this. it's a great project. this -- i'm just a little confused how the determination of qualified submittals will be chosen, and so i guess -- i guess what i'm asking is if there's more than one proposal for a site, then we would issue an rfp if they don't team up?

otherwise -- >> well, it's a matter of -- it's a matter of determining whether there is a competitive interest, and simply having two teams interested in the same site may not result in that determination. if there's sufficient space for them each to happily do their projector if there's sufficient goodwill where they say hey, there's a partnership opportunity here, they can work together and collaborate, or if one pulls out and says we'll just -- we'll just step away from this site, but if they both have a strong interest in developing a station at one site, and we can only accommodate one team, then, that would lead to that determination, and port staff would then decide if we wanted to pursue the rfp at that site or not. but we would not proceed without -- without the commission authorizations to do the rfp, and we expect it would

be a targeted rfp among the competitive and interested parties. >> so are there minimum qualifications or is there any going to the -- [ inaudible ] >> -- how -- i'm just a little confused on how -- >> so the minimum qualifications we identified here, we wanted to see that they had installation experience, and that that was varied among different types of speed, and at least included nonproprietary installation, so a tesla only installer would not meet that. but if they partnered with a team, and they had enough proprietary experience, then that team would -- we wanted to see if they had experience actually operating a site, and some of the questions that came up would be how long would you allow a car to stay at a given site, how would you get the money from them. how would you maintain a site if the car drove off with the

operating plug in the car. and then, how they could develop the site, bring any necessary electrical power to the site, develop the site and operate the site for whatever term, from three to ten years. so these are the qualifications that we identified as minimums. >> and no financial terms, just parameter rent. and what is clear market value of participation? >> as dmitry said earlier, for open paid land, which is currently about 40 cents, that's a commission approved rate. >> 40 cents per... >> 40 cents persquare foot, sorry. >> and that's the base of the participation. >> [ inaudible ] >> back to the microphone. >> after we qualified the folks through the rfq process, we would have then them enter into

our standard leasing negotiation process for leasing space. as part of that they would have to propose a business model and all of the financial terms for that lease directly to the port. these are minimums that we thought would be a good starting point for us to have. the parameter base rent if they wanted a base rent would be the rent on paid land. then based on that business model, we would very ddid h de rent based on the city's land. we wanted to make sure we left that for negotiations when they propose does their actual business model. >> okay. so that won't be part of the qualifications. >> no, it would be part of the follow up lease terms. >> so how do we choose who we're going to work with. >> we believe that there's sufficient diversified interest in locations, that we won't

have to -- that we won't have to have competition, but that we will have qualified teams who are uniquely interested in one of the given sites. now it's possible that every site will face competition, in which case we'll have to come back and do an rfp, but for the reasons that we outlined, we felt that the rfp was a very challenging undertaking at the moment, and we would have better flexibility to address the variety of issues that we've encountered on this through the rfq process. >> i'd just like, when we do these rfq's and rfp's, i just like us to be very clear on our selection process and how we choose something so it doesn't leave a lot of room for ambiguity, so i'm just trying to make sure that we have a plan so that it doesn't come back if, say, two or three people want the same site, and

two decide to work together and one's left out. >> that would be competition, and we would not be authorized to do that. >> so basically, we're saying that if there's any more than one proposal for any given site, then most likely it will become an rfp? >> perhaps. >> and that's why i just want it to be very clear. i don't think it should be perhaps, i think we should be very clear how we select who we're going to do business with. >> well, we're very clear on our qualification. we're very clear on how we will identify qualified teams, and i believe with have a very clear understanding of what is involved at identifying a competitive interest at a site. we're not concerned about that. if there's anyone out there saying we still want that site and you're not letting us play, that's competitive interest, and we will come back to you

with a request to do an rfp, and if all of the sites are doing that, we will have a stronger decision to do an rfp because the submittals around the rfq will be surrounded around what is an offer at the port. >> okay. and with the rfq process, you'll come back to us before you make any selections and start negotiating or how will that work? >> the issue is permission to issue the rfp, do submittals, and if we identify teams in interested noncompetitive sites to eye identify and them come back to you with a proposed lease with terms. >> only if there's one person bidding for one site. >> only if there's no competition, that's right. >> okay. >> you good? >> i think i am. i think i am.

i hope i am. thank you very much. i really appreciate your response. >> thank you. >> and the project. >> did you want to add something. >> just what president brandon is pointing out is the importance of being very clear with the bidders on what the scoring and selection process is, and so some of the things that we've discussed today about competition leading to an rfp situation, i think we need to enumerate that in the rfq and m make sure there is a road map for competitors to follow. i appreciate your comments because i think anyone who competes needs to see that road map laid out, and i also appreciate why you're doing this because we're not sure of the demand out there and why you need this flexibility. so if we enumerate the answers to the questions you just answered, that will meet both needs. >> very good. we'll do that. >> very good. thank you. commissioners, anymore questions? all in favor? any opposed?