Its not a plugin issue. Okay, thats a relief. [off mic] apparently its 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 im 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 ill 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 ports 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 ports 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 publiclyoriented and revenuegenerating 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 thats 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 thats 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 publiclyoriented uses within a mix of other uses generating revenue to support the investment and the ports 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, publiclyoriented uses commercial and industry uses and then a few other uses that fall into that category. This relates to the ports resilience program. It includes the port has three active programs relating to resilience. Theres 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 floodproofing study to help set criteria and standards and guidance as it relates to how we can floodproof 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, well be working with a Contract Management Division to establish lbe goals throughout the phases of the project. Well collaborate with cd to zyban design. The projects will need to comply with the local hirings. Well do that once weve 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 weve 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 its following what we came out of the waterfront plan plus the public trust objectives the port citys resilience, the acceptable land uses, the stakeholder values and priorities and economic benefit to the port will equal a great Development Concept for us. Weve 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 wasnt 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 well bring those respondents that meet the minimum qualifications to the commission so that will be after we go through the process to make sure theyve met those minimum qualifications outlined in the staff report. Then well 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. Well 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 theyll interview the candidates. And then finally well 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 midnovember, 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. Im a native. Speak into the microphone. Im a neighbor that lives across the street from pier 40, 38 and im 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. Theres no place for ubers. These kinds of things really affect quality of life just in that area. And im just here to represent the neighborhood. And your name . Diane omato. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon president brandon commissioners, director forbes. Im 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 fiveminute presentation, i would recommend the presentation allow the responders more than five minutes. Its going to be the publics first viewing of the proposal, not just ours, but it would be the publics 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 its 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 theres 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 wouldnt 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. Im 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 . Whats the thought process with it . Is there an imputed advantage we are looking at in the pointing system . Because everyones 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 didnt 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 theres 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 im 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 thats why we limited the time to five minutes frankly because we didnt know if we would have 20 or thats a lot historically. So thats why we limited it to five minutes. But seah your point thats a short we see your point that thats a short amount of time. But thats 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. Im not sure i concur with that rationalization but im accepting it as yours. I will say just because ive 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. Thats 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 theres quite a bit of time and effort that goes into all of that documentation and explanation of whats being proposed. But to have a separate factor for oral because there are certainly things which can be communicated orally that dont 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 panels 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 panels recommendation or something, they are just not comfortable with the proposal or its not a winning proposal, then we would like you to tell us to start again. Why wouldnt we just bring the top winners there . Because you cant 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 thats 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 theres no weight in all of those uses. So theres 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, im not going to call it a shopping center. Right. We put this together, its 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 revenuegenerating 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 dont agree with that mix of uses, i think the action to take is to not accept that recommendation, and well go run across the kind of use that youre looking for. I would argue the better way to do it is bring the qualified people in fro