is looking at the southern waterfront facilities and what would be impacted there. and we looked at it across a number of categories, port structures which is historic buildings shipping piers open space, which is self explanatory. transportation which is varied and the ground transportation links to port facilities. a stormwater sewage infrastructure and ongoing adaptation projects. here's a couple examples of maps we have produced. you can see the faint blue line showing the 108 inches. and you know, the entirety of the jurisdiction is captured within this line. so we're really seeing that all the port facilities are potentially at risk from sea level rise and coastal flooding. and so this is showing all the port structures that are there. the map on the right is showing the port open spaces.

and we have those across those other categories as well. and so finally just some kind of high-level key issues that sort of emerge from this report, from this analysis and findings. not surprisingly, you would see a lot of maritime facilities and industries. and that would obviously impact port and related jobs and services that these facilities provide. and for all of these the degree of impact is obviously driven by the elevation of the port facilities, by the condition, by how they are used and whether it will be temporarily on permanently inundated across a number of scenarios. so different facilities become vulnerable at different scenarios depending on how high up they are. port facilities play a critical emergency response function in terms of both staging areas and areas for people

to aassembleasemiassemble or evacuate. so that would have a big impact on the city's ability to recover from a natural disaster. shoreline open spaces are at risk and this is a valuable resource and access for the for the city. dependence on access to transportation links both ferries and ability to access ferries. but also the links to the port cargo and industrial facilities, the road and rail and port facilities would be impacted as well. and finally, the number of the piers have stormwater utilities that run under the deck of the pier. and this would be a greater corrosion, tidal debris and inundation and that would impact the city's ability to let stormwater out to the bay and could potentially affect water quality.

so in terms of next steps, we are working holistically to think about not just sea level rise but kind of all of our climate hazards through the planning work that brian was just talking about. we are moving into the sort of four, five, six of that. or at least four largely. so some of the other aspects we are looking at are resilience building codes and guidelines for both existing and new developments. how do we develop a resilient capital plan and funding program for what is going to take to make these adaptations. and then developing adaptation strategies, kind of at the neighborhood level. all this information i presented to you is really sort of internal city information that we then want to take out to the community and say here's what we see as at risk. and what are the priorities and values of the community and what should we do about that and how does that manifest in your neighborhood in terms of what types of adaptation strategies.

so to that end we are working with the port on their resilience efforts for the sea well. we are working on the ocean beach adaptations where those are more localized, community-based planning processes to develop adaptation strategies and projects. so with that that concludes my presentation, and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> thank you. having watched how the city has progressed on this effort in terms of both resilience and sea level rise, i think today's update and presentation has shown tremendous amount of progress. so i really appreciate both brian and adam coming and showing us i think it's very important

it's long-term and strategic but obviously we have to address it. and seems like with some of the things we see across the country and just in terms of the weather-related hazards that we all know even most recently are affecting the state more and more. so these are important topics. i guess i don't have any questions about how you are going about it or what you are trying to do. i have just a couple questions to understand given that we are not the only coastal city, that obviously we have a lot of other -- we just heard about seattle earlier in executive director forbes' report. how would we compare where we are at this point in understanding these issues related to some of our counterparts in other cities. and are we sharing knowledge on an active basis? >> ? >> we are kind of in the thick of it and other counties around the bay area have kind of progressed further. they just released

an adaptation framework so they are at the the next steps san mateo county is also at that next step. they had some informal conversations with other cities. and brian can talk to that more. but we have also been working -- and i didn't mention at the regional level with bcdc who is doing this work at the regional scale. so we are trying to coordinate what we are doing with what they are doing too. and as i mentioned some of the neighboring counties are ahead of us and others are not as far along. >> i would just quickly add san mateo is kind of ground zero in the bay area, because they are the most impacted by sea level rise getting it on both sides the bayside and oceanside, sort of like we are but more vulnerable especially with some of the issues in pacifica and so forth with losing the -- the deterioration of the shoreline.

right. and the other -- we are also -- i was at a uti coastal resilience conference recently. there is a lot happening all across the state. san diego is doing a fair amount with their port as well and looking at trying to use more green materials not necessarily changing their seawall but trying to use different types of materials than the typical riffraff that's been used. and then i would say across the country a lot we've been learning a lot from florida and the miami beach, miami ada, that area dade, they are experiencing sea level rise more than anywhere else in the country and they are also dealing with hurricanes. we've been looking at the work they are doing and a lot of the best practices are coming out of that region. >> i had a couple other questions. you did mention, actually, brian in your

presentation that we haven't had a lot of outreach engagement and you mentioned the private sector. i guess in terms of we heard from seattle in terms of how they are dealing with some of the private sectors in terms of neighborhoods in terms of contribution to help with some of the infrastructure and improvements needed. what will be the next step for the private sector on the resilience side other than making them aware the city has a plan, et cetera. are there any actionable items that are going to come down the line as far as the private sector is concerned? >> i mean, i'll just start. they've been very -- i think the private sector part, they've been very open. and i think the work done at seawall 337 the giants and so forth and their willingness to raise the level of their -- raise the ground level of their project is based sort of on our guidance and forth, just shows they are really interested in stepping up. and we are seeing

it with some of the individual development projects, especially in the downtown area the flower market where folks are willing to go up without any requirement without us telling them they had to, without any type of mandate. so that's been ongoing. and then we are seeing it, i think, in the participation on a lot of our workshops. so we've had the chamber happen really interested in doing this. and they actually have a whole group dedicated to climate change. we've seen some of the other businesses coming to us and asking us how they can participate in this process or what should they do. and often we try to -- like the guidance that we have for our own we kind of try to set a good example. if we develop guidance even though we can't necessarily require the private sector to use it, they can look to it as a way for them to sort of justify the work that they've been doing. and then i do think we

are talking -- well, brad, do you want to step in on some of the port stuff? down the road we are probably going to be looking at potential guidance would be the first step and then down the road it's changes to zoning and stuff. they have been working with property owners that have persistent flooding. >> and that's very helpful. but i guess eventually also it's a question of where is the funding going to come from. and what are the solutions to that. >> i would just say to the resilience program and embarcadero seawall program and flood study, we've been with the chamber of commerce spur. i was very proud of director forbes when we were in seattle. she took advantage of that opportunity in front of the chamber delegation to talk about the downtown cfd special tax. i was like that's bold.

[laughter] and then we were with marshal in the seattle crew and they talked about about the negotiation they had gone through to implement it and how it worked in that very broad area of downtown seattle. and it was just great to see the receptiveness of the chamber del gas station ideas like that. they seemed to -- delegation ideas like that. so we'll continue that. >> my last question relates to are we required to get fema approval. so i want to understand what fema approval does for us. what's the benefit? i know we are required to do it. but does it mean? >> it means we are eligible for a hazard mitigation grants number one. so the poc received a grant to do work on some of the dams they have. they received a 700

thundershowers dollars7 -- $700,000grant. we received $2 million in hazard mitigation grants for one of the health centers. castro mission health center to do seismic work on it. the significant dollars that are coming up in that program. and then it really is, if you have a big event and you are out of compliance then technically you are not eligible for, new york for instance they got hundreds of billions of dollars to do work there. fema could say no you didn't meet our -- you are out of compliance so you are not eligible for those funds. >> okay. i just wanted to get confirmation that that's what it really means is access to federal funding. thank you. >> commissioner gilman. >> thank you for the presentation.

i have one question about your scenario models when you were modeling all those scenarios. i was curious if you looked at population migration or loss of housing. i was just curious how populations would shift across the city as part of your modeling. >> the scenarios those numbers and scenarios are based on current populations today. so we also do model kind of population and job growth over for our bay area, the middle and for our land use planning and understanding of growth capacity, where growth would be happening. those numbers i showed you don't actually include that. they show just a snapshot of people and jobs that are within the inundation zone or the future vulnerability zone today. it's a little bit -- it's not exactly apples to

apples, those numbers because it's saying future sea level rise but current population. that's what those numbers are. but i think you bring up a good point that we also ought to be thinking about future sea level rise and future population. one reason we haven't done that is a big portion is in the waterfront development plans that are building sea level rise adaptations so it doesn't change those numbers significantly, because once those developments happen, those areas are no longer within the vulnerability zone, because they have built up, if that makes sense. >> okay, yes that does. that clarifies a lot. thank you for the report. >> thank you so much for the report. this is extremely important work. and it's so good to know the city is working with the various departments to make sure we are all collaborating on this effort. because i know this is only the beginning. and we have a

long way to go. so thank you. >> item 12a request authorization to issue a request for proposal for the adaptive reuse rehabilitation lease and operation of the south beach piers at piers 38 and 40 within the embarcadero national register historic district, consistent with the goals and policies of the draft and port's resilience program. this is resolution number 19-43. >> good afternoon commissioners. david with real estate and development. thank you for the introduction, leah. can i have the screen please?. >> i'm sorry. we are having more technical difficulty. if we can just take three

minutes and organize this. sorry about this. >> no problem. [off mic] >> let's see what an engineer can do. [laughter]

>> it's not a plug-in issue. okay, that's a relief.

[off mic]

>> apparently it's a signal from there. because we can show the whole room, but we just cannot show the powerpoint.

[off mic] >> it looks like we are back in business. i apologize, commissioners and members of the public for the delay. david please take the way. >> thank you elaine. commissioners, president brandon i'm with real estate and development, here seeking authorization for the request to proposals for the south

beach historic piers 38 and 40. a quick outline of the presentation i'll be going through this afternoon, including how this aligns with the strategic applan, a little bit about the background the development context the input we received, the minimum qualifications scoring criteria, collection panel, review and selection process and then the economic benefits to the port and next steps. so the rerelease and successful development to the piers 38 and 40 project will touch on five of the port's strategic objectives including productivity, stability, resilience engagement and equity. a little bit of background. the location of piers 38 and 40 is located in our south beach subarea, centrally located between the mission bay and mission rock projects, adjacent to the central ssoma and

rincon areas and a lot of great access to public transportation. the rehabilitation project of the piers is an outcome of the waterfront plan process and the port's resilience plan. it touches on three direct things from the waterfront plan, including the adaptive reuse of the piers addressing the public trust objectives and attracting a mix of publicly-oriented and revenue-generating uses. it helps the port and city achieve its goals from the resilience program, addressing seawall safety and flooding. and the process is the outcome of a lot of work that's been done to date, including the waterfront plan and the commission informational items as it relates to the historic piers program presented in december, february and may. and then lastly the outreach that's been conducted since those dates. these

slides should look familiar. a reminder this process is coming directly out of the waterfront plan. these are the nine portwide goals. falling under them are 161 policy recommendations. we feel a successful project will touch on each of these nine goals. again, the public trust objectives, an outcome of the waterfront land use plan, and those objectives at a high level are preserving the integrity of the historic district, investing in capital repairs seismic safety and sea level rise, providing maritime and public access uses, providing publicly-oriented uses within a mix of other uses generating revenue to support the investment and the port's needs and matching a lease term that matches the investment within the piers. also coming out of the waterfront land use plan was the

identification of acceptable land uses for each of the facilities. and within the pier 38 and 40 facilities are clustered into five different uses, including maritime uses, open space and public access, publicly-oriented uses commercial and industry uses and then a few other uses that fall into that category. this relates to the port's resilience program. it includes the port has three active programs relating to resilience. there's seawall program, flood study which you heard a little bit from brad about and historic piers program within the flood work we are also doing a flood-proofing study to help set criteria and standards and guidance as it relates to how we can flood-proof our piers for the various levels of sea level rise and storm action. the rop provides criteria and guidance on seismic performance

adapting to flood management and city flood protection. once we select a development partner, we'll be working with a contract management division to establish lbe goals throughout the phases of the project. we'll collaborate with cd to zyban design. the projects will need to comply with the local hirings. we'll do that once we've selected the development partner. as outlined in the waterfront plan, partnering for success goal, we did outreach to our advisory groups and neighborhood groups within the areas of pier 38 and identified values and priorities for them that should be reflected in the rop. and we've organized those into two clusters,

those that are common for the south beach and waterfront piers as we advance to those and specific ones to the south beach piers. to summarize the common ones, we want to look at the largest diversity and offering of uses that offer benefits to the greatest number and variety of users. we want equitable access for all. we want authenticity. we want to create a sense of place depending on the locations of the pier clusters and lastly balancing the objective of the rehabilitation of the piers with the objective of equitably serving the greatest number of users. and then the specific values and priorities for the south beach piers were enhancing the pier 40 recreational boating and excursion activities that occur out there today leverage the ballpark activities and foot traffic, create an opportunity for new uses on pier 40 that maybe activate the embarcadero edge, enhance the use

of the adjacent parks and opportunity to enhance and connect the piers 38 and 40 with the south beach towns and commercial corridor. for the development concept we think that a successful respondent will speak to these key areas outlined in the staff report in formulating their proposals. so essentially it's following what we came out of the waterfront plan plus the public trust objectives the port city's resilience, the acceptable land uses, the stakeholder values and priorities and economic benefit to the port will equal a great development concept for us. we've set minimum qualifications to provide opportunity to the widest spectrum of the experienced developers with the projects of this scale and complexity but also

wanted to make it available so that it wasn't just available to the largest developers in the area. so kind of a balance between folks that have experience doing large complex projects but also making it available to possibly smaller teams that might form into a larger team. for the scoring criteria, there will be a review of the written responses equating to 100 points and then an additional 30 points coming out of oral interviews. the 100 points relate to quality of the design, development submittal, the strength of the financial proposal the financial capacity of the respondent experience, organization and quality of the respondent team and up to an additional 30 points based on the quality design development experience and team organization. and then for the port commission review and selection process

first we'll bring those respondents that meet the minimum qualifications to the commission so that will be after we go through the process to make sure they've met those minimum qualifications outlined in the staff report. then we'll bring on a third party to do review of the financial feasibility the historic preservation approach and an engineering review for code and occupancy compliance to make sure the proposals can meet the necessary requirements for those projects. we'll bring that third party review to a scoring panel who will take that information and apply it to the scoring criteria in their written review. and then they'll interview the candidates. and then finally we'll tabulate the scores and bring a recommendation to the commission seeking authorization to enter into an ena. and then lastly the economic benefits to the

port, we recognize, and you may recall from the presentation in may that we know that this is going to be a difficult project that there could be a potential financial feasibility gap. but we are hoping that developers can bring an approach to the projects that maybe decrease costs and increase revenue, leverages the efficiency of two projects adjacent to one another and identify approaches to more potential use pier 40 the shed and the parking lot. and lastly the benefits are looking at significant investment and report assets, the reliable revenue stream, participation in upside revenue and private investment in the seawall. and with your approval today, we are aiming to release the rfp in mid-november, have them due in february, form the scoring panel, bring up informational presentation to the port commission in april and then seek authorization at the second meeting in april

to enter into an ena. with that i wanted to thank the team helping on this, mic martin, rebecca, michelle, sandler, peter. with that, we are available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. can i have a motion? >> i so move the item. >> i second. >> commissioner. >> sorry. is there any public comment on this item? come on up. >> i'm a native. >> speak into the microphone. >> i'm a neighbor that lives across the street from pier 40, 38 and i'm here to represent the neighborhood to make sure you know we are there. we live there. loud music bounces all of the water. buses double park all the time. there's no place for ubers. these kinds of things really affect quality of life just in that area. and i'm

just here to represent the neighborhood. >> and your name? >> diane omato. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon president brandon commissioners, director forbes. i'm alice rogers president of the south bay neighborhood organization. i want to thank you for moving on this so quickly after the waterfront land use process. it has really informed the neighborhood. and we are very eager to see the developments happen to activate these piers and appreciate the approach where you were really looking to values and priorities as opposed to specific uses in these rfps, because it gave us an opportunity to call out things like congestion the quality of life issues that

diane just mentioned rather than talking about this use or that use. so if any rfp respondent can follow those values, they should be able to follow with a great development. thank you so much. >> thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner makras. >> i have a few comments and maybe recommendations for changes to the package. for instance, when it comes back to the port for our review, and they are calling out a five-minute presentation, i would recommend the presentation allow the responders more than five minutes. it's going to be the public's first viewing of the proposal, not just ours, but it would be the public's first viewing. and you are looking at a few hundred

million dollar project. i think we are due a larger presentation. and if you want to say sales pitch from the developer to the commission and to the public. i would recommend they have, i guess it's called the blackout period and they have a whole list of those blocked out on page 12. so basically they are blocking out everybody. it sounds like elaine blocked out. the staff members assigned to it that can have access to it. unless there's a reason behind it, i would recommend they include the panel if they will be reviewing and scoring. >> they would be. >> yeah. so i would add that in there. because we wouldn't want -- we know

scoring takes more than one day or the reviewing would be more than one day. so presumably if they review two a day and there were ten bids the first team that went in there if they were not published and they would be public and we may have some advantages between one bidder or another. i'm interested just the rationalizeation of 100 plus 30 in the count versus all of the points just totaling 100 between the written and the oral. someone share the rationalization of how they came up with 100 points? i understand that but why separate is why is that not 100 and why is it 30? what's the thought process with it? is there an imputed advantage we are looking at in the pointing system? because everyone's math equals

is same at 100. but 130 skews some of the numbers. >> well, we thought the 100 from the written standpoint made sense just from a rounding and ease of identifying criteria for it. and then the reasons for the additional 30 points in the written we thought would allow -- may allow a team that didn't do as well in the written to go ahead based on their oral interview and it may also indicate to us that some that have met the minimum qualifications but scored very poorly may not even make it to the next level for an interview. if one team got -- there's five teams and he we got 90 95, 80 and a 40, it may help us decide who gets into the next step. >> i think i'm following a little bit of that. but you are not telling us how

many you are going to bring us. you are not saying they have to meet a certain mark. >> we are saying every proposal that meets the qualifications will come to the port commission. so that's why we limited the time to five minutes frankly because we didn't know if we would have 20 or -- that's a lot historically. so that's why we limited it to five minutes. but seah your point that's a short -- we see your point that that's a short amount of time. but that's the plan, that every proposer who meets the minimum qualifications will come to the port so you all have an opportunity to see the proposals that the panel will be evaluating. >> one final rationale is one of the things we thought about was because those public presentations are happening before the scoring panel hears the interviews, we were a little concerned that a respondent might decide to strategically amend its

proposal in the interview or do something based on what they hear at the public presentations that would -- we felt like the more emphasis should be on the written proposal, and then they would describe the 30 points for the written interview is allowing people to adjust but not change course and have another 100 points or another set of points they could get that could really change the ordering. so i think our focus is on the written because it has more detail, but we wanted to give room for people that could present well to sort of give us that. >> i'm not sure i concur with that rationalization but i'm accepting it as yours. >> i will say just because i've been around panels both in the professional services and in development contacts, there is a lot of debate about how to deal with written and oral. some recommend that you have written is its own scoring and whomever advances

oral is a whole new scoring and whomever wins the oral wins the day. that's one way in which it is handled. but many, the more typical way of doing so is putting more emphasis on the written, because obviously there's quite a bit of time and effort that goes into all of that documentation and explanation of what's being proposed. but to have a separate factor for oral because there are certainly things which can be communicated orally that don't come through in writing. and a team may have more expertise in communicating so they will perform better in that. so this is the most typical way in which city departments do evaluation more emphasis on written with a cumulative score adding in oral. >> so are you saying that we are going to take the version that gets the highest score? >> yes.

>> versus we can qualify three and then pick the best of the three? >> what we are recommending here is a process whereby panel does its evaluation, and we bring the panel's recommendation to the commission and you would affirm that panel recommendation. and we would enter into an ena with them. so we are recommending that the highest score from the panel process be awarded the right to an exclusive negotiation agreement. if the commission feels that for some reason they are not comfortable with the panel's recommendation or something, they are just not comfortable with the proposal or it's not a winning proposal, then we would like you to tell us to start again. >> why wouldn't we just bring the top winners there? because you can't get use out of points. and we may prefer a particular use or blend of uses more than we would a person that just got the highest score that's

shoving down the use to the commission and to the community. >> the way in we -- we designed this, the values are front and center in the scoring in terms of the trust values and what the community has expressed their interest in. so we believe that the way in which we designed this instrument for the panel to deploy will bring you the best proposal. >> but there's no weight in all of those uses. so there's no way that that can be quantified. we can have a person put four restaurants in there and have another person put two. we can have 30,000 square foot of maritime office versus 50,000 square foot of maritime office. we can have a boat repair shop or no boat repair shop. i believe it would be in our interest to be able

to decide which of those uses collectively with the qualified applicant would be the best selected person. i mean, this is going to have a lot of uses to it. i mean, for all intents and purposes, i'm not going to call it a shopping center. >> right. >> we put this together, it's not going to be a single use. >> so commissioner, i guess each respondent is going to come in with a mix of uses with this much space. a good proportion is going to be revenue-generating because of the feasibility challenges of this space. the panel will have the ability to look at the values and priorities the community put forward. and the scores are in a large majority based on that. so the recommendation that comes to you is based on a panel saying this matches up with the values the community identified. and if you don't agree with that mix of uses, i think the action to take is to

not accept that recommendation, and we'll go run across the kind of use that you're looking for. >> i would argue the better way to do it is bring the qualified people in front of the commission and we pick, actually to really discuss starting from scrap, people and start over is counterproductive to a good process. if we have three qualified people, we are not going to have 51, like we did with the building contest we had. we know we are not going to have those numbers. we have three or four qualified people. i think it is very valuable to look at the use along with the return and pick which one we believe is better. if they are all qualified. >> i have a question for victor on his statement. >> i think we have to also put some history and context here. so some of us have

some history with pier 38. >> so commissioner, are you done? . >> sorry commissioner makras, i wanted to ask a clarifying question to your last statement. so are you suggesting that all folks who meet the minimum qualifications come before the commission or only folks who made the top threescores after the scoring panel? i guess i wanted to clarify what you meant. >> i'm okay with it being a number of qualified people. >> okay. so but after scoring has taken place? >> yes. they would say the top three or top five scorers would come to us. >> okay. i have a similar question along those lines when it gets to me. >> i believe -- i'm implying to lower the minimum qualifications or eliminate

the minimum requirements because the pool of people is not that large. and ideally the evaluations and selecting criteria will take care of the minimum qualifications. let me give you an example. there's a 25-points attributed to experience, organization and reputation of respon can't's respondent's team. if they can rate them zero if they have no experience, and they would really be knocked out. i think the minimum requirement is a tool for someone to object to the overall process for us and knock out bidders. so i would ask that, when you are saying in the minimum qualifications

that they have a commitment funding of a single development project of $40 million do you mean letter of credit from a bank for $40 million? do you mean that the person can have $200 million office building paid for cash? and they say there's my $40 million? it's fine that category -- define that category so i can understand and potentially all the bidders would understand the committed funding of a single development project? >> so i think all the examples you just described would qualify for that. so i would like to take a step back and describe why we step up these minimum qualifications because i think it's important to how we are imagining this project. as you recall we had a request for interest, we had 52 responses from publicly-oriented uses. we were just talking about what are the kinds of things that bring people into the piers. and that brought us to a realization that there

are a lot of publicly-oriented uses that need to be paired with revenue-generating uses to have a feasible project. our concern with not having minimum qualifications to show that someone can raise money construct a project of some value and attain of some value is a panel will say we love this public-oriented use so much and this operator has experience in that publicly-oriented use, we are going to score them high even though we don't know if they are going to feasibly produce this project. so pairing someone with that expertise, we could be confident that what comes out of the scoring process will be someone that can deliver a successful project. >> exactly. >> what happens if you have two contractors that each do a $20 million job? does

that total 40? >> no. one specific project that has $40 million in it. because this project, 38 and 40 will be close to $200 million. this is one-fifth of that. it's saying i can raise a lot of money. and we just had to draw the line somewhere. we felt like one-fifth of that was the right line to draw. >> right. >> thank you. that concludes my questions. >> thank you. commissioner. >> hi. thanks, david. i actually now have more questions than i originally did. so i'm sorry to bring you back up to the mic. so i'll start with the minimum qualifications, which i really appreciate because i think on any large-scale development project you need that. sorry. i have a question though. i was surprised that -- where was it? that having a respondent that has done over water construction with the minimum qualifications.

so i'm going down a different rabbit hole. >> i can respond to that one while you decide who is coming up for the next question. so over water construction is definitely a value to the port and a preferred qualifications. however, if we require over water qualifications, we are really limiting the pool. so we are trying to thread the needle of getting minimum qualifications that really reflect what a developer and partners would need to pull off a successful project without unnecessarily limiting bidders from competing and being successful. because there are few developers who have done overwater work here at the port. and they would have -- if we put that in, we would be limiting ourselves to that pool or having done overwater construction in other areas. so we felt that we didn't want to preclude successful

respondents what had done other kinds of projects successfully, had a wonderful project approach, had financial capacity. so that's why it's not in there. >> so how we do other projects, ociu, mayor's office of housing, why would we say the member needs to have that experience. construction group b who is the expert with overwater construction it makes me nervous where someone could be awarded never having done overwater construction. and i spent all the time at the mayor's office for housing when they do housing for special population, the developer doesn't have to be someone who, withouted with foster youth but they have to have someone on their team

who has. >> to get it to the contractor. >> either a contractor or member of the team. >> so a question about whether -- this is a question whether we put it in this stage or we would put it in an eventual lease that we would execute. because here we are saying who is our development partner to pull off the development of the pier. if we are successful we select a good partner then we enter into complex transaction documents to execute the lease and there i think would be the appropriate place to talk about construction and other bells and whistles that we would want to see. but i think we could certainly put that at this stage. but it would be -- we could also wait and put it in the future stage with our successful partner. >> to me it just seems to be comparable

to the other things you put in, which i agree that we need someone who can raise capital and i think the minimum qualifications sort of sometimes will knock folks out of applying or being reviewed. and that's standard. so i just really would like to look back at that if that's a possibility. my other question was about process. unless i'm understanding it wrong, i don't understand why everyone who meets the minimum qualifications, which are all centered around having a good reputation, being willing to negotiate with us, you know, in confidentiality and raising $40 million why all those are coming from the commission. i actually think that sets us up to be the bad guy to the community when there's someone who maybe meets that who is going to build acres of tennis courts but when they go to

get scored and go to the interview they only rank 40. i don't understand why we wouldn't see the top three or five scores. >> okay. the way this process is set up is two-tier. and one is to provide maximum information and transparency to the commission and members of the public. so today we are talking in depth about how this scoring will work and what we are looking for. we want you to see everyone who came in. so you are aware of all the various project concepts. now the community knows who the waterfront land use plan and we all know feasibility is a central issue for this project.. the panel is going to be the hard work of scoring and getting a recommendation to you. but the transparent pieces are you see everyone, you get your five to ten, we are going to discuss the right amount of time, and the public is aware of everyone that came through. and when staff comes back with the panel recommendation, you can also

look under the hood so to speak and understand why the various responses were scored in the way they were so you can get a level of comfort with how the various proposals very evaluated. so the panel will do the hard work of doing the evaluation that you are setting today and making that recommendation. but this process you seeing all of them, is meant to be a transparency measure for the commissioners and the public. >> i just have never seen any other city department do it that way. i've seen them publish the scoring and publish for the community. >> it's true. this is a step that we are taking that's different but going to the commission. and we've done it in past proposals. we did it at pier 70 from my understanding. we did it at pier 38. i think there's a lot of interest in what we are seeing and who is responding in our -- and a

lot of interest in waterfront development. so we are putting in extra transparency steps. so the panel doesn't feel like a black box to anyone. >> i have a request that they all be. >> i guess i wanted to -- i'm happy to sit and listen. i think it will be fascinating and i have my binder of all the responses we kept. so i'm more concerned you know the waterfront for so many people and so many different groups in san francisco is sacred ground. and what i'm concerned about is there's this compelling proposal, and i think there were some in the rfis who to this day have still -- have hopes and dreams of being successful which i'm not sure they are going to be able to raise the capital and put the team together. and by having them present to us and having a panel scored i'm worried about if we have an appeal process and what

that appeal process is. i didn't find it in the staff report. and more concerned about it backfiring from the pr community perspective particularly if we only have one applicant come forward. so i'm very much in agreement with the commissioner makras that i would like to see the top two or three proposals and let the commission guide that decision for who we enter into an nea with because i'm concerned we are going to hear all these proposals and the committee is only going to let a few afterwards. >> i can make some comments and turn it back over to you. so we are hopeful that more information and analysis will help the community and our constituents feel comfortable with the selection. and it's true that there are wonderful ideas out there that will never financially work. i mean, we are all aware of that. and you can get very attached to wonderful ideas, but the

financing just doesn't pencil. in terms of the selection process, we looked at the airport and what they did for the hotel. we consulted with the mayor's office in terms of what they considered to be the best practices of solicitation and selection as it relates to development for city contracts and other awards it's very clear it's a panel vote, highest score gets the award period. in our leasing context, it's more open-ended. but we came down that it's best in terms of fairness transparency, to give that job to the panel. and if you don't feel comfortable with what they recommend then we start again. because we must have missed something in the scoring or missed something. we also will have a diverse panel. we will have a member who is a community constituent. and we will have expertise on that panel. so we feel that that is the cleanest way to proceed.

>> one final question, and then i promise i'm done. so when you bring the finalist forward will we see the scoring sheets and criteria for all applications that were scored? >> yes. you'll see everything. >> and is there an appeal process like there is in other city departments? >> appeal process is always required for contracts. and typically the appeal goes -- it's an administrative appeal. and the contractthecontract administrator and i evaluate that appeal. there's no such requirement for leases. and we looked high and low. so at this point we do not have an appeal process written in. we've discussed it. we can certainly put one in, and we would mirror it after what we do for contracts. >> okay. thank you very much. >> . that concludes my questions. >> those were lots of questions. i think there's some background to all this on pier 38. many of us know that was a very

painful process we went through and it was not successful. and i presume that some of the lessons learned out of that are reflected. and that was also because we were also mindful of the project which put a lot of constraints on how that rfp. but i think that this one thing i think may be with the minimum requirements, that is there any way to not necessarily include a full financial feasibility but could that not be something in terms of their concept of what they plan to do, just not the minimum qualifications but to put something preliminarily in terms of financial feasibility, because i think that i'm not worried we are going to have 25 25 presentations at the port. in our last experience we ended up with very few bidders. because when people understand the financial feasibility and capital requirements

regardless of whether you say $40 million or $10 million or whatever number you put the number is going to go down very rapidly. and we've already understood that in the last round when we went through pier 38. so i don't worry we are going to have too many. i think that we worried last time that we would have too few and we ended up with just two. the process was a little different than what you are proposing. and i'm fine with empowering the panel, because i think we want a fully objective process here and not subjective. and i think that if we can put in the rfp what we really do require after you go through minimum qualifications. but i would say beyond just saying i'm qualified to do this and i can raise some money, i think they should also put in their concept how they see the financial feasibility so we don't get into some of the come peeing projects -- compelling projects that