Imagining this project. As you recall we had a request for interest, we had 52 responses from publiclyoriented 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 publiclyoriented uses that need to be paired with revenuegenerating 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 publicoriented use so much and this operator has experience in that publiclyoriented use, we are going to score them high even though we dont 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 onefifth of that. Its saying i can raise a lot of money. And we just had to draw the line somewhere. We felt like onefifth 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 im sorry to bring you back up to the mic. So ill start with the minimum qualifications, which i really appreciate because i think on any largescale 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 im 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 didnt want to preclude successful respondents what had done other kinds of projects successfully, had a wonderful project approach, had financial capacity. So thats why its not in there. So how we do other projects, ociu, Mayors 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 Mayors Office for housing when they do housing for special population, the developer doesnt 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 thats standard. So i just really would like to look back at that if thats a possibility. My other question was about process. Unless im understanding it wrong, i dont 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 theres 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 dont understand why we wouldnt see the top three or five scores. Okay. The way this process is set up is twotier. 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. Ive seen them publish the scoring and publish for the community. Its true. This is a step that we are taking thats different but going to the commission. And weve done it in past proposals. We did it at pier 70 from my understanding. We did it at pier 38. I think theres 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 doesnt feel like a black box to anyone. I have a request that they all be. I guess i wanted to im happy to sit and listen. I think it will be fascinating and i have my binder of all the responses we kept. So im more concerned you know the waterfront for so many people and so many different groups in San Francisco is sacred ground. And what im concerned about is theres 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 im 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 im worried about if we have an appeal process and what that appeal process is. I didnt 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 im 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 im 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 its 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 doesnt pencil. In terms of the selection process, we looked at the airport and what they did for the hotel. We consulted with the Mayors 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 its very clear its a panel vote, highest score gets the award period. In our leasing context, its more openended. But we came down that its best in terms of fairness transparency, to give that job to the panel. And if you dont 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 im done. So when you bring the finalist forward will we see the scoring sheets and criteria for all applications that were scored . Yes. Youll 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 its an administrative appeal. And the contractthecontract administrator and i evaluate that appeal. Theres no such requirement for leases. And we looked high and low. So at this point we do not have an appeal process written in. Weve 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 theres 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 im 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 weve already understood that in the last round when we went through pier 38. So i dont 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 im 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 im 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 dont get into some of the come peeing projects compelling projects that will never see the light of day because they wont pencil out. Thats something we can do in the preliminary phase. I think this rfp is very different from the last one because the last one was only the bulkhead. This one is for the entire pier. And obviously the costs are very different today than what we looked at in 2012. So thats going to also put a different sort of qualifier on here as well. So i just think that i think commissioner brandon probably has the most experience in dealing with complex rfps because shes been on the commission the longest and seen whats been successful and not. But in my process, i think the scoring criteria is fine, and i think the waiting is appropriate, and the oral, i think the oral to me is not just being able to articulate well, its also a question of developing i guess the intangible factor the trust factor, the factors of how we are going to work with this developer that are intangible that come through in terms of the oral interview that perhaps somebody can talk well but do we trust they are going to do the execution. Some of that is developed not on paper but an interview process and thats an intangible thats going to reflect how the panel goes about their job. And i dont know that you can necessarily put that all in writing per se, but that is a very important factor, because we all know how we develop certain chemistry or not develop chemistry with certain players in terms of how we do business. And that is just a fact of life. So that would be my comment so far. And i think commissioner brandon can probably add more of her history of dealing with complex rfps. And not just particularly because of these two piers which we do have experience with, which have been very painful. We thought pier 38 was going to be developed when it was closed in 2012 by 2014. That never happened. And we are now five years later still starting at the starting gate again. Thank you. Any other comments . Questions . Thank you so much for this report. I think that each time we have a Large Development we try we sometimes we try the same way sometimes we try a new way because it doesnt always work. I think with this project, we were empowering a panel because we need a lot of expertise to go into whomever submits whatever proposal. I did feel that somewhere between that one recommendation coming to us that we should be able to see the proposal. Where we see it, how it all fits in, where we dont influence or hurt the panels decision, im open. So i mean the panel can do their work and then they come and present to us. But i dont think its going to be more than two three four max. So i dont think we are talking about a large group. But i did want us to have the opportunity to see who presented because this is a large project. And then so if the panel does all their work before the presentations come to us, im not quite sure if we should have, you know, the written and oral at 100 percent or if we need that extra 30 percent. Because ive seen many contracts where people have done phenomenal in their written but the oral is even better and it knocks them into first place. So im not quite sure the scoring i would never ive never seen 130 percent. Ive always seen 100 percent. Im just not sure about that. The 130 points . Yeah, the 130 points. I wanted to make some comments back based on what youve all said. I think we should revisit the five minutes. I think its probably too small. I agree with commissioner makras point and we should rethink that especially if we have three to four respondents. So i dont know what the right figure would be, maybe 15 minutes or ten minutes, Something Like that. Openended. We dont have to specify how long the presentations will be. We can clarify that when the responses come in and make some good Strategic Decisions about what makes sense. I absolutely think the blackout period should extend to the panelists. Thats a very, good catch. In terms of the timing. The reason we wanted every response that met the minimum qualifications to come through to you so you can see them before the panel comes together and its like awe a justice justice, you could have that experience, the public could see it and then the panel gets to work. We like that flow because the panel can get to work and come back to you and tell you what i found. So i think that is the preferred timing. Yes. We have one caveat on that. Maybe its covered in the blackout period. I would not want the panel to hear, because we might have remarks. I dont want them to be influenced by us. We decided they wouldnt be influenced by you. So they are not coming to the hearing and we are going to tell them not to listen and Pay Attention. Because we are telling them exactly what to Pay Attention to based on your criteria. Thats right. I think it should be very explicit in a signed agreement that they dont watch the commissioners listen. Because thats my concern where that could happen within the community, if there was overwhelming talk that people come out with Public Comment in support of it and they end up scoring poorly, that was what i was trying to drive at. Or the papers could pick up. Lots of things that could happen. There could be free contests of community members. So should we skip the presentation to the commission . I think i mean i think the scoring should happen first maybe. Im really concerned about public relations. Because we already had projects come to us in here where you already got past all the stage and we were just giving them the final kind of blessing to move forward. How much Public Comment do we have with supporters coming out for that . Anyone worth their salt is going to organize the community at this presentation to come up for Public Comment, and i dont want this to be a popularity contest with something thats so important. What you could do is they present but no Public Comment. I dont think we can do that, commissioner. [laughter] weve tried but i think with the browne act theres always an opportunity for Public Comment. So we would have a hard Public Comment. If it was left to me, i would have the panel do their job before then and then bring it forward so we can see it. We give them 15, 20 minutes to present. The real world of this is we are most likely not going to have five bidders that meet the minimum requirement and put a full proposal. And if we spend one afternoon on a special meeting and listen to three to five proposals and we had the scoring in front of us, everyone sees it, and we pick the best un. Yeah, but thats where we are i mean, thats why i wanted everyone to see who responded, let the panel do their work and come back to us with a recommendation. The staff, legal and everyone is not recommending that we have two or three but we just have one recommendation. Yeah. You said the top two three come back to us right . I think the difference is commissioner makras is suggesting the commission is going to make the final choice versus the panel and thats what i think he is suggesting. I heard differently. I guess what i would recommend, because i think the panel should make the decision for us and i understand i think it would be if everyone who meets the minimum qualifications can come present to us for 15 minutes but its done after the scoring and the oral interviews are done. So that we hear it, gets presented. And theres no threat of undue influence from the press or Public Comments. So we see it but we dont have the recommendation yet. Im not sure what the value is of that at that point. Well, the presentation to the commission has no value to the panel. Its only for the commission to be able to see whom is proposing what. Then the panel does their work well, either way. The panel does their work first, and then they present to us and then we get the recommendation. So at least we are aware of why they are recommending whom they are recommending, and weve seen it. So we can either skip seeing everyone and let the panel duoto work and come with their go to work and come with their recommendations and we can put a Commission Review in there somewhere. So those are the two choices. Where we review it. If we review it up front, you have the concern, the Public Comment will affect the panel. If we do it afterwards, you are saying theres no purpose that we see it, that we know why the panel is making the recommendation that they are making. Well, one of these that they influence our ultimate decision on approving the final recommendation. That would be the gain of seeing them all. But thats secondguessing the panel. Its just building additional confidence in the panels recommendation. I mean the panel is your adviser. So we are empowering the panel to give you good advice. Ultimately the commission makes the decision to move forward with the highest scorer, and the Panel Process or to have us start again. So you are ultimately the Decision Maker and you are empowering a panel with expertise and Community Representation to do the scoring for you because its a complicated project. So seeing the various respondents may give you additional confidence in the panels work. I would like to get some clarity on whether we can or we cannot as the City Attorney said something about a recommended way. Does the commission have the right to have the top two be brought to us for the final decision . Is that an option . Or are we precluded by law . We are not precluded by law. You are not precluded. But i dont want it to be persuasion. Lets get the direct answer. Okay. Could we have three come before us if we wanted to . Pass or fail. They get a certain score and the top three come to us . Yes. Legally, we can have all of them come before us. Yeah. My concern was less about the scoring and sort of we will see all the scores of everyone before we make a decision. And we could say we understand that group a scored the best but we think group b is who we should do business with and we could reject that and work with group b. That was not the process we recommended here. Under the process we recommended here, if the panel says its group a and you all say we dont think its group a we like group b your remedy would be to send us back again, because we are mirroring this after the best practices of the airport and mirroring City Contracting rules which says highest score is who you do business with. So here we specifically said its the highest score that you would either vote up or vote down essentially. And the whole rfp process would happen again . Yes. But we would have to look at why it didnt work the first time. You know, was it did we weight financial too much and not this other criteria or is there something we missed so we could have a transparent process so everyone could compete again. Heres what i believe is in our best interest to look at more than the top gogetter. At the end of the day, you are going to have two primary competing businesses. One will tip to money more, and the other may tip to maritime more. I would like us to be able to argue which one we prefer to be the winner. And we have a policy that says if we want more maritime, we have a policy that says the economics dont have to be the same if we have maritime use. So i would like that option to be provided. I would argue that thats a priority of maritime versus financial should be built into the guidelines of the rfp. It should be in the upfront guidelines. And i think this rfp in terms of including the values of the community, et cetera, is much more comprehensive than weve done in the past, because weve taken that in consideration obviously, through the waterfront Land Use Plan and all the discussion weve had with the committee so we are trying to be very balanced with it. But i think the guidelines of where we decide if its maritime or financial feasibility, i think weve left it open in term it is of the uses so i dont think weve tried to preclude one or the other. But i dont think it has to be argued at the end of the process. It has to be included in the front end and the panel will evaluate if theres nuance or gray area, which there will be, to decide which is the best way for the port to consider. And they should show us the nuance and gray areas but we will look at that. But i dont think were going to have a big philosophical discussion of maritime versus other but it will be nuances. I would hope that. But when i look at the criteria i dont see anything that ponies to maritime. Points to maritime. So all evaluation criteria will get points. The reality is they may impute it. But it is not a requirement from the pointing perspective. On page 12 of the staff report, we outline the scoring criteria with more detail than we saw on the slides. And if you look at 1b and 1e under quality of Design Development submittal, 1b talks about Performance Trust objectives which includes maritime and 1e calls out this balance that commissioner makras is pointing out. I agree it doesnt talk about how they are weighted but maritime is called out. So how many people are going to be on the panel. At least four. And its in the waterfront plan or include just a moment. I saw that. But is four a good number . Dont you usually need an odd number . Well theres scoring so i mean if there was a tie i guess having a fifth would be good. And we left it open. But at a minimum it has development expert, port advisory member and person representing city or regional interest. We thought if there was an additional need, we could add another expertise if needed. When is that decision going to be made . Who is going to be included on the panel . We would in our schedule we were going to begin to put names out there internally, have the rfps out on the street and have a final panel. When are you going to let the commission know . Any involvement in who is on the panel. We could do that. We could recommend a panel. I could send you so in terms of forming a panel, theres the issue of expertise but also the time commitment. So sometimes its hard to find panelists and especially the quality and caliber of panelists we want here. So what i could do is write you a memo of who we are planning to put on the panel and if theres anyone who wants a hearing or wants to talk about it, you could let me know in new business so we could put that step in. Can you give me an example of what you mean by city or regional representation. As an example there might be a maritime group, a maritime individual that represents all the maritime business that we have or another one might be an open space advocate in another consideration thats not looking at just a neighborhood or districts interest but really looking at regional or citywide interest. Okay. And within the timeline, where did you think we should put the presentation to the commission . Im the wrong person to ask. I actually think im looking at rona, because does legal have a point of view on this . Because you have been more advisory to us on do you think it should be before the panel comes together or after the scores are done . The second one. Legal thinks it should be after the scores are done and embargoed. Thats an interesting word im choosing. But can we embargo scores . No. I thought sorry i thought from my experience contracting with the city that until you inform the respondents, they could be embargoed. The department of Public Health and Mayors Office of housing often have scored decided internally and they dont notify anyone until like a month that they are embargoed. For the City Attorneys office, i dont have in front of me but i think the rule is once the scoring is completed, it is subject to sunshine. So once the score is completed the names of the scores and scores themselves are subject to sunshine. I think i mean, i think its a great discussion. I think what you are struggling with is yeah. I think what you are struggling with is the need for you to have information and understand what the panel is doing and the need to let the panel be in this very controlled setting so they can make sure that everyone is treated fairly. And when you have a presentation here, you know, theres really not necessarily fairness. So somebody could take for five minutes, somebody else maybe could talk for six minutes. So when you want the panel to be in a very controlled environment and the public forum is not a controlled environment. So those are the two things that the staff is struggling to present you with options to meet your needs with those two competing objectives. Could we say in the rfp that the commission will hear presentations on all proposals after the scoring however you want to word that but make it an optin. So if i scored only 20 points after that effort and work, i could choose to come yell at the commission or choose not to show up. And the staff do the fiveminute presentation on what that project was. So to the point, we are trying to get a level of transparency to show to the Community Everyone who applied. It would be unlikely for folks who are tightly scored might come use it as a forum as a Public Comment to argue their case. But youll have some natural drop offs. I think the City Attorneys concern is that the scores should be done before the public the uncontrolled public forum happens. So theres no possibility that the panel could be influenced by what happens. So the hard part of that is figuring out when to get the larger group to come to you. If thats what you want to do. Theres really no problem in having the scores done, the presentation made, the scores you would see the scores, you have as many people as you want. At that point you could say we want the top five, we want anyone who scored over 90. Because then the scores are done. So the hard part is getting the people in the public forum before that happens. So it sounds like the suggestion is what we would do is we would ill write a letter to you talking about who the panel would be, we may provide an informational memo just saying who came in the door and how the process is going then well have an info item at the commission where scores will be complete where all the proposers who met the mq have their seven ten minutes to present to you. Then right after that, well have our info item where we explain what the panel did, the work of the panel and who is preferred or sequence, Something Like that. I didnt think we would be going this far into the rfp. I actually have a different take for the panel. I think the executive director should pick the panelists. I dont think the bidders should know who the panelists are. And i think that they should be one meeting whether it be a phone meeting or not with their instructions and it be limited to one meeting where everyone does a meeting, so everyone as a rater has the same rules and theres no influence on them. I can tell you why. When the names are out there the private world is going to figure out who those panelists are. They will work very hard to payload their presentation to that person and try to get under their thinks to get the most favorable response just tailored to panelists. And i think that we should have the project tailored to the group as a whole. And that is a better way to get leverage. I think the oral interview should be in person. I dont think the phone is acceptable. I think you need to see body language. Im saying for the panelists. Im only talking about the panelists. Five or six. Can we. Im okay with it being facetoface. Can the panel do their work, come to us with the informational presentation where everybody gives their presentation and then the panel gives their recommendations and thats the informational presentation . Can that happen . I think that could happen. It may be staff making the presentation just to summarize all the panelists comments. Thats fine. Thats fine. Thats fine. No, no, no. So i think maybe what im hearing is that do you want to go or do you want me to . I wanted to make sure mike understood the proposal. Thats what i wanted to start with. What i wasnt clear with was whether you were thinking that would happen in one meeting or two. One. One. One informational meeting. So agenda item 1 is. Presentation. Presentation from all proposers. Yes. Item number 2 is. Comes up, Public Comment happens end of item. Staff panel recommendations. Then we get up, we summarize the scores. But then you cant have any written material. So by the time we have the informational hearing where everyone presents if the scoring is done, under sunshine, theres public record, so everybody is going to be walking in the room knowing the scores. Thats what i heard the attorney saying to us. So we are saying look, we want to hear from all of you if you want to talk to us, because we are curious what your proposals are. We havent voted on who you can enter into your negotiations with, we cant issue an award but the scores are public. And im actually supportive if we have one long meeting where this is the focus of what we do. And we might have some people really upset with their scores. And thats fine because its part of being transparent, we can hear that and understand that. Informational. It just seems like we have the recommendation which is actually now public because the staff report is public already. Thats right. Right . But the scores have always been public in any presentation when we tell in the staff report, its always public. So then they present. So its a little flakey. Why am i coming to present . No. They are coming to present before the staff report on the panelists recommendations. They have options to present. Thats part of the proposal is to include a summary because we dont want to put someones proposal in our own words so we have that part of it where we are asking for a short summary executive summary. So if a respondents arent opting to present, staff can summarize those who did not come and share with the commission their proposal. The City Attorney, its not about our staff report. The minute that panel scores everything and hands them to the staff there technically can be sunshine to anyone who submitted them, even if theres a delay to our meeting. Unless you are inside an appeal period. Right. So thats why they are immediately public like when the work is done. So i guess thats what i understood the City Attorney to say. Our meeting could be three weeks later and people will still know their scores. So i think what we are describing is certainly workable from our perspective. I think commissioner gilman has the point of between friday and tuesday everyone will have a list of those scores. If the commission is comfortable with that, i dont know that i see a weakness. Its sort of the flipside of not seeing the scores but seeing like if you are going to have everything in front of you and you are going to have the public in front of you as well. So if that concentration of information makes sense to you, i think i dont see a problem with it. It allows us to compress that period, which is a good thing. Well ask for the executive summary, and that will form the basis of that staff report. Well directly cut and paste. So we are not putting words in their mouth. And if they dont show up, well be able to walk through that executive summary. And i think the tenor of the presentations is going to be very pointed in terms of those guys arent as good as me. But i think that feels where. But theyll want to show up and present because we still have the option of rejecting the recommendation. Exactly. We have other rfps. And they may want to set up themselves for the next set of pier projects. So i think this amended proposal works quite well. So just to highlight a question. So theres no action that day. Correct. Just information. Everything is information. With an action item on the recommendation. Right. And i assume we are going to then follow this framework for the next two rfps. 3032 and when we do the northern fingerling piers. I feel like if this is a disaster [laughter]. I think we should reserve judgment until we go through this process first and then decide if this is ongoing. Because it is a change from the past. And lets not commit to everything at once. So i would suggest we are going to come in and propose this process for 3032 because we are coming in two weeks. We wont have seen the success but we have said we want to hold back on the northern historic piers so the nonwinning proposers can go there but that seems like a natural time to figure out. We will be using for 3032 and 33. We will be proposing that so we can start here in three weeks. Any other comments. All in favor with amendment. With amendment. Resolution 1943 has been approved with amendment. To remind everyone to please silence your electronic devices. Item 10a request approval of issuance of port of San Francisco series 2020 refunding bond in the aggregate Principal Amount not to exceed 27 million with an Interest Rate not to exceed 6 percent per annum to refund the remaining Outstanding Balance on the port commissions 2010 Revenue Bonds to form a supplement to indenture of trust between the port and a trustee three the sale of the 2020 bond negotiated sale pursuant to a purchase contract, four the form of a bond purchase contract, five, the preliminary form of the official statement relating to the bonds and the distribution of the statement. Six the form of the continuing disclosure certificate of the port and execution of the contract. And seven the form of the escrow agreements. This is resolution number 1942. Thank you. Katie before you start i know we had an informational presentation on this, and i know that everybody fully supported it. So can you just go over the highlights of what has to be presented today. Brandon. I appreciate this so much. Yeah. So the highlights are staff is here to ask the commission to approve a revenue bond refunding of nearly 30 million and outstanding 2010 bonds. We are requesting authority to issue up to 27 million in new bonds. We expect to only use or to issue about 23. 5 million in new bonds. And we are estimating that the port will realize approximately 13 million in savings from this refunding with the net value of 7. 9 million. The maturity base of these bonds would remain the same. The key thing that i just want to tell the commission this afternoon is that we are asking for you to approve a resolution authorizing the sale of 2020 bonds in an amount not to exceed 27 million. We are asking the commission to approve a third supplement to be indenture of trust, a bond Purchase Agreement a preliminary official statement continuing disclosure certificate and escrow agreements one for each of the series of the 2010 bonds that are being refunded. If you approve this item today we will be introducing legislation at the board of supervisors next tuesday. And we hope to have the transaction concluded and all of the outstanding bonds repaid by march 1 of 2020. That concludes my presentation. Thank you so much. Can i have a motion . I will move the item. I second. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Any questions or comments . All in favor . Resolution 1942 has been approved thank you so much. Item 13, new business. Is there any new business . Is there any Public Comment on new business . Item 14, adjournment. Can i have a motion to adjourn . I make the motion to adjourn. All in favor. Aye. Adjourned at 5 35 p. M. San francisco is surrounded on three sides by water, the fire boat station is intergal to maritime rescue and preparedness not only for San Francisco but for all of the bay area. [sirens] fire station 35 was in 1915. So it is over 100 years old. And helped it, were going to build fire boat station 35. So the finished Capital Planning committee, i think about three years ago, issued a guidance that all city facilities must exist on Sea Level Rise. The station 35, Construction Cost is approximately 30 million. And the schedule was complicated because of what you call a float. It is being fabricated in china, and will be brought to Treasure Island where the building site efficient will be constructed on top of it, and then brought to pier 22 and a half for installation. Were looking at late 2020 for final completion of the fire boat float. The historic firehouse will remain on the embarcadero, and we will still respond out of the historic firehouse with our fire engine and respond to medical calls and other incidences in the district. This totally has to incorporate between three to six feet of Sea Level Rise over the next 100 years. Thats what the citys guidance is requiring. It is built on the float, that can move up and down as the water level rises, and sits on four fixed guide piles. So if the seas go up, it can move up and down with that. It does have a full range of travel, from low tide to high tide of about 16 feet. So that allows for current tidal movements and sea lisle rises in the coming decades. The fire boat station float will also incorporate a ramp for ambulance deployment and access. The access ramp is rigidly connected to the land side with more of a pivot or hinge connection and then it is sliding over the top of the float. In that way the ramp can flex up and down like a hinge, and also allow for a slight few inches of lateral motion of the float. Both the access ramps, which there is two, and the utilitys only flexible connection connecting from the float to the back of the building. So electrical power, water, sewage, it all has flexible connection to the boat. High boat station number 35 will provide mooring for three fire boats and one rescue boat. Currently were staffed with Seven Members per day but the Fire Department would like to establish a new dedicated marine unit that would be able to respond to multiple incidences. Looking into the future, we have not only at t park, where we have a lot of kayakers, but we have a lot of developments in the southeast side, including the stadium, and we want to have the ability to respond to any marine or maritime incident along these new developments. There are very few designs for people sleeping on the water. Were looking at cruiseships, which are larger structures, several times the size of harbor station 35, but theyre the only good reference point. We look to the cruiseship industry who has kind of an index for how much acceleration they were accommodate. It is very unique. I dont know that any other fire station built on the water is in the united states. The fire boat is a regionalesset thatregional asset that can be used for water rescue, but we also do environmental cleanup. We have special rigging that we carry that will contain oil spills until an environmental unit can come out. This is a job for us, but it is also a way of life and a lifestyle. Were proud to serve our community. And were willing to help people in any way we can. It. Shop dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their shop dine in the 49 within the 49 square miles of San Francisco by supporting local services in the neighborhood we help San Francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so were will you shop dine in the 49 chinatown has to be one the best unique shopping areas in San Francisco that is color fulfill and safe each vegetation and seafood and find everything in chinatown the walk shop in chinatown welcome to jason dessert im the fifth generation of candy in San Francisco still that serves 2000 district in the chinatown in the past it was the tradition and my family was the royal chef in the pot pals thats why we learned this stuff and moved from here to have dragon candy i want people to know that is art we will explain a walk and they cant walk in and out it is different techniques from stir frying to smoking to steaming and they do show of. Beer a royalty for the age berry up to now not people know that especially the toughest they think this is i really appreciate they love this art. From the cantonese to the hypomania and we have hot pots we have all of the cuisines of china in our chinatown you dont have to go far. Small business is important to our neighborhood because if we really make a lot of people lives better more people get a job here not just a big firm. You dont have to go anywhere else we have pocketed of great neighborhoods haul have all have their own uniqueness. San francisco has to all