we think a group like that would be great to tap for their interest and involvement in heron's head park as well. with that in mind, i am requesting today your authorization to advertise an opportunity for a port-funded grant to a qualified nonprofit organization to provide environmental education programs similar to what we have been operating for the past four years, with some new twists to take advantage of the other opportunities to collaborate with the operators of the ecocenter and the recreation and parks department youth stewardship program. the scope of work for the grant would include planning, organizing, and executing the environmental education program,

providing content with a focus on wetlands ecology, and is relevant to urban youth as well as serving the broad variety of people who are interested in learning and participating at the park. organizing and leading through media events -- the grant recipient would be required to document and record all of their programmed activities, meeting specific program goals. they would be required to make available information about their program and the results available on the grantee's website, the port website, and through rec park. they would work with port and rec park to ensure the activities were consistent with and supportive of the natural resources management goals.

i am proposing that we offer this grant opportunity for a four year term at a total amount not to exceed $415,000, including $119,000 for the fiscal year 2010-11 and $105,000 budgeted for 2011-12, and subsequent years' funding subsequent to each of those years' operating budget. i anticipate being able to advertise the opportunity in july with proposals due in august. proposals would be reviewed and evaluated by a selection panel of experts, including at least one representative from the surrounding community. i would hope to return to the commission at the end of

september with a recommended grant. with that, i will close my presentation and be happy to take any questions. president fong: i have to speaker cards -- two speaker cards. the first one is jim chappel. do we have the item numbers given out? 9a, right? what does it say on your agenda? wells whitney was also going to speak on 9c. is there any public comment on this particular item. ? there is a motion and second.

commissioner brandon: fortunately or unfortunately i was here in 1998. at that time, i had no idea how successful the park was going to be. i want to commend you on what you and the port staff and everyone else involved have done to make this a destination point. that is wonderful. regarding this grant, what type of activity are we looking for? are we looking for a full-time program? a weekend program? what can you do with $100,000? >> that is a great question. to your first point, thank you for that. that is really kind. we could not have done it without port commission support. you have voted on the budget every year to continue to support the program. that is why it has succeeded. what can you do with $100,000? that is one of the reasons --

one of the advantages of offering it as a grand opportunity rather than a contract is that with a grant we can lay out what we wish for and let the respondents return to us grant proposals that reflect their creativity, their ideas, and their resources. they tell us what they can do for $100,000. to give you an example, the current contract was funded at $85,000 a year. that gets us 1.5 full-time equivalent staff people. there are fairly limited materials in terms of books and other similar teaching materials. that is one of the reasons why with this year path budget request we have asked for more money so we can print more of

the field guides and provide equipment and materials to support the program. i also want to recognize that in terms of professionalism and levels of education that we are looking for in staff people, we need to up our game a little bit. president fong: any more questions? we have to have a motion and a second. i believe there was a slight change? >> last whereas clause is actually the result: a. -- is actually the resolve clause. it is a typo. so with that change. president fong: resolution 10-51

is approved. >> item9b, conceptual authorizations -- conceptual design options and fiscal feasibility approval process of the james r. herman cruise terminal and nebraska work plaza public improvement project, located along the embarcadero. >> i am a port project director. i will present a brief summary of the project development since january of this year. next, the design team will present to conceptual designs of the cruise terminal and the wharf plaza. finally, john dahl will present the feasibility study and the public outreach process. in january of this year, the

design team, which includes k &d architects in association with cruise terminal design consultants, committed to the design process. this began with internal workshops that led to a development of what engineers call a design basis. port staff presented this information to the commission in april. i would like to reiterate a couple of key elements of the design parameters. up first is and 80,000 square foot building which would handle 26,000 passengers -- 2600 passengers to 4000 passengers. the norwegian start and the norwegian pearl are examples of the peak design load.

i think the reference of the queen mary, which was here recently, has a design load of 3000 passengers. a lot of the present ships that will use the terminal, as well as in the future. the project will demolish 16,000 square feet of the existing shed to make way for a 2 acre nebraska wharf plaza -- northe east wharf plaza. you can see on these two slimes reach slides the apex of the triangle between the two sheds. this ground transportation area will eliminate much of the congestion on the embarcadero we now have at pier 35. these facilities will act more like an airport terminal. we have arrivals and departures. there will also be provision for

opportunities to share revenue- generating uses at the facility. the project seeks to provide a functional cruise terminal, a ground transportation area, and a project plus up for a total development cost of $60 million with a fixed construction budget load of $38 million. this budget will not include funding for some elements which enhance the opera ability of the terminal and additional improvements of the plaza. these items will be identified in the master plan. there will be phased in as priority money permits. building on the information provided to the design bases, the design team developed to conceptual designs which are comparable in terms of functionality and security. schem a is a renovation of the

pier 27 shed and includes the ground transportation area and a 2 acre northeast plaza. the early estimate of the construction is $38.50 million. scheme b would demolish part of the shed and create the new terminal building, reflecting most of the pier 27 shed. this includes ground transportation and the to acre plaza. estimated cost is $48.50 million. i would like to have the design team speak. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have a lot of information to present to you this afternoon just to get you to understand these two schemes. i am going to go to them

quickly. i know there will be questions. one thing i want to point out before i start is there is -- there are common things to both of these schemes. i want to review those quickly while we are looking at the two slides. the first thing is that there is -- the plaza at the front of the site, which now comprises a two-acre parcel, is created by demolishing the end of the existing pier building, pier 27. that is consistent to both schemes. at the back of the site is the remainder of pier 27, which will receive some minimal upgrades and be used for provisioning in both scenarios. between that and the terminal is a clear area that allows fire separation to the terminal. the position of the terminal was

determined by a rather extensive analysis by our cruise terminal consultant about positioning of ships and gangplanks and so forth. that is why you see both terminals pretty much in the same place on the site. skean reject scheme a proposes reducing the existing shed on site. you can see the plaza design in front, which i will come back and talk more about. but the idea of this is to basically cut off the part of the terminal where it is difficult to determine where one might go into it. we introduced a way finding element and transform the end of the shed to make it more active to the plaza it addresses.

the schemes that result from that -- i am showing you the embarcation plan. i think one of the key benefits of both these plans is we have been able to push the ground transportation area off of the embarcadero and create a green buffer that is an extension of the prominent. then there is a very thin access point where guys in orange vests will direct traffic down the embarcadero like it appears on pier 35. the traffic will get immediately off of the embarcadero and have the minimum impact on traffic to that area. they will come in and on buses, taxes, and cars, and have access to the drop-off area. when you go up, there is a great change between the existing

valley and the existing building edged. we provide accessibility to a series of links up to the terminal. the entry would be at the head of the terminal. the waiting area at the front of the building has the benefit of being usable for special events that could open onto the plaza. one goes up into the core to the access way for the gangplanks and directly over to the ships. it should be noted there is also provisions in the site planning for the semis that arrive in advance of the passengers. they have a route over here where they are screened and stored in a way that does not conflict with the other activities in the gta and also avoids any backup on the embarcadero from that process occurring. debark -- what happens is people

arrive by ship and walk on the top. they go through customs and border patrol, like the experience one has at the airport. you go to clarence. the collector baggage. if you are okay, you can walk out. that occurs on this area of the building. you come up to the gta and there are povs and taxis waiting that can be staged offsite so you can always have taxis waiting in this area as well. the idea of this building, because we are trying to work with the existing shell, which does not have a very good energy seal, was to introduce a structure that can be more weathertight and use a kind of

temperament conditioning strategy. you can have a sense of the volume here that leads to the vessel and another kind of volume that would sit inside the terminal. this is a cross-section of the terminal. that leads to the fence of the terminal which you can see has a gangplank along this edge which provides direct access to the ship. the result naturally lends itself to being compatible with the historic pierre fabric because it is a piece of the pure fabric -- pier fabric. we have talked about reusing some of the structural elements for liking, preserving the memory of the pier in the shape of the resulting plaza. you can see some of these

structural elements. we are toying with putting wind turbines on top of them. if you hang out in that area, you know we have a fair amount of wind. the edge of the existing building, which has a 4.5 ft difference, is creating a public speaking arrangement. this shows the end of the building, which recalled its front porch, which opens to the plaza and can open up on special events. we would actually activate that area. the entry to the building, going into security. a way finding element which would have signed inch -- signage. a sense of the inside space looking back out toward the plaza toward security.

inside, looking north. this is the cbt processing area. you get a feeling of the space inside with the existing trestle. looking back toward the entry, over here the building and spirit this is the fence of the gta the required to get you up to the entry and coming up. scheme b looks at what would happen if we put a new building here and try to optimize the layout of the building for the terminals. this means we could make a two- story building. the bering points have to bear on thep underonier -- have to bear on under-pier structure.

that becomes a constraint. we have the ability to rethink the building and consider its role as something you can looke down to from the hills above. we have also considered the roof is an opportunity for something in the future. in this case, the building can be quite a thing. we are able to stack the embark lobbied above the debark area. one would come into a reception area adjacent to the plaza, come up to the second level through security, and have a waiting area on the upper level. this has the benefit of being a desirable space with views of the water, providing direct access onto the gangplank and

into the bustle. another benefit is because it is slimmer the gta is bigger, increasing the capacity for us to handle some of the larger ships that come into park. debark works in a similar way where you can come off the ship directly. you go into your baggage claim area. multiple access points into the baggage claim area from the apron. that will make this an ideal reconfigured space -- ideally configured space. in this case, but the gta is within the footprint of the previous building. we do not have to go up accessible ramps. you can go directly in.

that is an advantage of this scheme. you can see a section where the upper level dearbark lobby with baggage handling below -- the route comes over to create a brain cover -- a rain cover for the ground transport area. looking back toward the building, you get a sense of its simplicity in relation to cruise ships. the entry element at the corner. the lobby entry would be a pretty stunning view of sentences go -- a san francisco. kerbside drop off. the debark entry. the building would be made of corrugated metal panels and have a working character.

the end of the building opens on to the outside, creating the opportunity to make links between event uses and activities. comparing the two, i think the key points are there is a difference in gta we talked about. they are creating a better vehicular traffic capacity for shcemcheme b over scheme a. there are operational efficiencies that are different between the two. construction costs are less with scheme a, but in the balance, life cycle costs and warranties will be more intact with the b structure, so that is something to balance. there seems to be some advantages in this building.

john will talk about that later. the ability to make a compact footprint creates the opportunity to make a significant public park for sand and cisco that will be the next furl in the strings ofpearls along the waterfront. we are serious about the opportunity to work on that. this is a composite digram about all the things we have talked about that the building space needs to accomplish. we need public access along the apron. we need to balance that with security. we need to provide connections to public transportation. we need to think about future

public access along pier 29 and how the site might connect to that, the possibility of a continuation of the history walk through the piers that occur here. there is a notion that because of the vast mass of the space, which is 2.5 acres, 2 acres being the primary triangular space, that we need to activate that would public uses. some of those might be commercial. there is a great opportunity in proximity to the beltway building, which we propose to leave in its current location, to create an urban piazza that could house commercial uses that are not in the shed its. the special area planned talks a

lot about usage for the site. these orange dots represent what we call activators, the idea that in order to activate this we need things going on for these three areas. the cruise terminal and its uses are one of them. last but not least, we need to think about bringing some kind of transparent buffer between the green space and gta, where we will have more active buses, taxis, and so forth. this is the resulting master plan. we have two alternatives that we will be taking into public process. this gives you a sense of the total site, with a secure area

here, the gang ways here, a security barrier here that could be closed on cruise days, and allowing circulation into the park, and public access could be provided to the end of the pier for some kind of significant objects of interest. this shows you the piazza and the valley, which i will talk more about in a few minutes. a future connection to the history walk would go here, as a consideration of something which could connect with the green's base of the park. the northeast whorf plaza has a number of elements in it i will talk about now. as we go into the public process on this, for each of these

components we have several variants will be taking to the public process, seeking comment on what might be the best options for the site. i will go through what those are no. at the top of the site is what we call the gate house building. it is something that anchors the security fence which could possibly be a small retail area with a cafe or copy shop. it really creates the kind of entry moment to the park. you are coming down the embarcadero, not and have an opportunity to come into the park proper. next to that is a multi-use recreation space. it could be a large soft tape. -- softscape. we will have to be creative about how we green that up and

do not create loaded issues. there is a large main event speaks -- space that has opportunities for public art and sculpture that we will develop as the process goes forward. what we call the waterfront edge is an opportunity to think about how to occupy that waterfront edge in an exciting way. down at the bottom of the site, we discover in the process of designing the valley that we have this whole area of parke that we had before. we have an opportunity to create a piazza that could have vital commercial uses -- small cafes, bicycle rental, sandwich shops that can work in concert with the beltway building to create a kind of active space that is part of the experience of arriving