earmark. if that happens, the funding vehicles we use far sensitive to that. projects that have been specifically authorized by congress already, which is the case for our army corps of engineers project, when we go to fund them, they are still considered earmarks, so we are hopeful that that is going to change. i hope that answers your question. >> can you talk a little bit more about the process? the new process? all the departments are working together. can you talk about how things are prioritized and what gets done compared to what does not? >> sure, and this is spelled out in great detail in the capital plan itself. the first step was to get all the divisions together and decide what we were going to use to evaluate. that was one set of considerations. the other set was what category

did we want to have set aside for specific projects that require extra consideration or perhaps should get less consideration? in this case, emergency projects had its own category for consideration. mandated by code or order. or by a regulatory agency that had its own consideration. some projects that were de prioritized -- de-prioritize it potentially could get funding from other places. once we scored all of these -- once we had the categories, we came up with respective weights for all of them, and everyone agreed. interestingly, in prior years, there were financial payback considerations. i guess i should just say a stronger influence on the financial benefits of the given

project. once we had all that down, we sat in a room and decided what applied to what, project by project, very methodically, and at the end of the day, we were able to rank them all top to bottom. that said, there were a couple of different budgets to choose from. emergency project went first. first available funding for capital funds if there was nothing else. same with projects that were mandated. we proceeded in that fashion, that the giant of we spread sheet, we used it to literally cut and paste projects, move them around until we have a balanced budget. >> right. well, thank you very much. >> i guess we should also thanked commissioner crowley for not only moving over here but bringing apparently $34 million with him. commissioner crowley: we love enterprise. [laughter]

>> item 9a, request approval of a minute to sidewalk, aerospace, and curb space encroachment policy and subsequent amendment to delete the aerospace encroachment permit requirement portion of the policy for those buildings on the south side of jefferson street between powell and height -- hyde streets. >> good afternoon. for the record, i'm susan reynolds, director of real estate for the port of san francisco, and am here today to request an amendment to the sidewalk, airspace, and curb space encroachment policy passed by this body in june 2006 and amended in march 2007. the march 2007 amendment address how fees were calculated and called out property owners as the responsible parties for obtaining permits.

the policy applies to those properties on the south side of jefferson street between powell and hyde streets. we are not talking about very many properties. it is approximately four blocks. the buildings are not on port property, but the sidewalk is. if you recall the infamous blue line, i'm talking about things that hang over onto port property. currently, building owners are required to seek a permit from the city's planning department and the department of building inspection. the policy also requires that building owners come to the port for an encroachment permit, and this has caused confusion and frustration with the building owners. and there is also issues with enforcement. so we have spoken with the planning department, and there is a mechanism in place that the

board can still achieve what it needs to achieve -- that the port can still achieve what it needs to without having the building owners go through this business steps that are cumbersome. in an effort to make the process a little bit more business- friendly, it was determined that the airspace encroachment portion of the policy -- it is in the best interest of the public to believe that portion of the policy. there are only currently six permits in place, and the financial impact is less than $2,000 a month. so i have that if you have any questions. >> thank you. so move. >> second. commissioner brandon: is there any public comment on this item? all in favor? resolution 11-12 has been approved. >> thank you. >> item 10a, informational

presentation on response to appear 70 waterfront site requests for qualifications -- response to pier 70 waterfront site request for qualifications. >> good afternoon commissioners. let me get myself -- oh, dear. oh, no. they are on the desktop, not in my folder. let me start again. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with the port's planning and development group, and we are here today to do an informational presentation on the response we got to the pier 70 waterfront site requests for qualifications. i have in the room -- you may

notice some new faces. many of the folks who are interested in being our next developer and working with us on what we are calling our next waterfront transformation. we're going to hear from each of them. i'm going to do a quick set up. i can come back and answer more questions about the evaluation process. today is a structured formal meet and greet, for a chance for you to hear from them, and then, we move on to more detailed evaluation process. as you remember, in april, we finished, and you endorsed the master plan for 69 acres. we went toward implementing and broke into several pieces. the first was this waterfront site, which is the economic engine to generate tax and revenue. the park, moving ahead on planning, and hopefully, to use some of the prob p b funds, and the third being the request to

hear from historic buildings. that is now on our website. we have released the request for interest, and we are looking for responses by june. those three pieces bring forward more than half the land at pier 70 and get as entitlement strategy for the entire site. these other buildings that include six buildings, two major office buildings, and the grand machine shop. the waterfront site is 25 acres. it is the southeast corner, just north of the power plant, which sees operating cop -- ceases operating, which is a good thing for the first prospects here. we have allowed for up to two for it -- 2.5 million square feet for new development, a substantial amount of growth, and we think creates a substantial amount of land value. our objective, and these are all in the staff report, so i will not read them all in detail, but

we specifically to the waterfront site and identified its objective, to take us through the initial steps we need to implement the plan. we also recognize that no one could right now make us a full- fledged proposal, a price proposal, designed proposal. there is a lot of pieces to work out, so we use a request for qualifications approach, modified a little because we asked each team to also tell us how we know -- how they would approach pier 70, tell us what they see as our strengths and how we should go forward. the evaluation, roughly on approach, experience, and capacity. approach is request to talk about how you would meet these objectives, your view, experiences, where you have done this before, and capacity is

essential financial capacity, looking at whether they have the resources, have they gotten the resources, how they can help us get the resourced because monies can be a big deal here. our next step, later this month, we will have a technical panel reviewing and scoring the teams. we are checking references, and in march, we hope to return to you with our recommendation. all along, that would be an informational presentation, i expect. april 8, we could be your with your direction for an action item, to then move forward, and to negotiate and approve the exclusive negotiating agreement. this is a it all goes well timeline. developers will each present -- we have asked them to do it in 10 minutes, and this is the order. i'm going to cue up each developer's powerpoint and invite them up to introduce themselves. amy is going to start the clock.

anybody who asks me, i will gently give you a one-minute warning. otherwise, you will get a buzzer a minute later. so we want to move this along. first is san francisco waterfront partners. >> good afternoon. i'm a principal with pacific waterfront partners. i apologize to commissioner crowley because i'm going to go really quickly through what we have done. a lot of it has to do with the

court. thank you for entertaining us. thank you for listening to us. if we were successful, this would be the fourth project we did with the port, and we have had a relationship with them that extends beyond 10 years. our team is san francisco waterfront partners. it is a partnership between california state teachers retirement system and pacific waterfront partners, and the principal partner here is fresh back from maternity leave for this event. this is a diagram that you probably cannot read, which basically sets forth the

consulting team. they are working with us on our washington project within treasure island. there's probably no area in the city they have not touched. one of the leading environmental truants in the city. i promise i will not go through them all because i am going to keep five minutes at the end to talk about ideas, but i apologize to them for not being able to introduce them. 10 minutes is really tough. our smallest and most recent project in terms of relevant experience is pier 24. this on the left was a before shot, something they put out,

and nobody did, and for 10 years, nobody knew what to do with it. the foundation is the largest photo exhibition gallery in north america. 27,000 feet. fabulous space, fabulous asset for the port, and we got it done in two years. just to the north of us here, i'm sure you are all sick of hearing about this. the significance of this was the complexity of 15 different agencies. we got their banks to -- we got their backs to -- we got there thanks to gibson. will develop a great relationship with all the development authorities and won a lot of awards. it is all about reconnecting the city with the water. a pro bono project we did in

collaboration with equity community builders in the presidio was again tax-credit- driven. interesting use of public land for education. washington, i'm sure you would rather we skip right over. $350 million project. six years, nearly $30 million in entitlement costs, but i do want to say we are within $1 million of budget. just to emphasize we know what it takes to get entitlements in this town. lots of public use. state lands very complex, relative to pier 70. hear, swapping public land for private land. and having a lot of fun getting the entitlements. just a little bit of what we have done, as individuals.

i spent 10 years of my life doing that. the director understands the nuances of waterfront. i did mention bogus lend lease, which is construction manager on pier 70. 38 would be working for us for several years on a concept on the. little vignettes of photographs. this is just a scale. these are done as individuals,

not as specific waterfront innovation at the federal reserve hotel. the ferry building, the cruise terminal, the presidio. i said i would get here in four minutes and 30 seconds to talk about ideas. the concept we have, we call i2c, which is in innovation and invention community. it is not to expand it any further than it already is but to come up with something that is a center to attract a lot of the south bay i.t. firms and create jobs in lincoln to the mission and the enormous number of employees that want to live there and do not want to drive to the peninsula. are steps would be immediately to stabilize the historic buildings at risk. our first step would do -- would be to do an evaluation on

historic buildings and make sure we do not lose them because they are a huge income and cost generator. we would do a master plan, perfect the master plan, and extend the master plan. we think it is under -- it is important to understand the larger scheme of things. we would immediately embark on building a 500,000 square foot speculative building to form an economic hub and create an attractive leasing environment, much as the ferry building did for the waterfront here. and as with the ferry building, we would create something on the water. we hope to get building 6, which is not in this, go to the yard as a swap to create something as dynamic and attractive as the ferry building was for the ferry building waterfront area. culturally, in terms of jobs creation, we have been working on 27 now for three years. we have a very exciting concept

with the association of independent art schools. basically, the organization had 41 independent art schools in their group. they are based in brooklyn, new york. they have a lot of exciting people. we have been talking to them about building a campus here, which would be either for a semester or year where students could come out and mix with students of all of the 41 colleges and create a digital art center. alongside that, but what we call trade schools america, which is to cater to the kids who do not want to go to college but want to learn crafts, link it in with the unions, a lot of excitement, so you have the high-tech world, and kids from other areas of the city and kids who can benefit by

learning crabs. and trades. the infrastructure we would do, a huge infrastructure and transportation. a lot of work and understanding the scope of it. we would open the eastern shore line. we think it is critical to get the bay trails and water taxis going. we would want to extend the light rail down to the project to minimize parking. we want to extend 20 and 22nd street into the site. basically, fundamentally, we come up with a carbon-neutral project in partnership with the port where, if we consider for phase two, a lot of the historic buildings and portions of the site would be broken down into small, bite sized parcels where we do not end up with another national chain like the mills group, but we parcel this out to smaller developers where we can recoup our initial investment

and share the upside with the port. we see this as a partner in thing. we see a lot of public finance, a lot of private finance, but at the end of the day, we see very much like other major projects i have worked on where we plant the flag, do the necessary economic investment, and then sell on smaller parcels to smaller developers where the port and as can recoup our investment, and we can share the profits with the port. thank you very much. >> thank you. the next is tmg. spacebar or that one.

>> thanks. good afternoon, commissioners and staff. i'm the chairman and ceo of tmg partners, and i will be here with the chief executive officer of the soprano organization to talk to you about pier 70. we will do the same condensed version of our rfq and tell you about the entities and why we're here together and then a little bit about our vision. this will not be a sales pitch in the traditional sense. this would be mostly a resume, as i will describe it. we will tell you what it is we have done, how we have done it, how you can check us out, and how we can start a new relationship. it says now, "end show," which is a bad sign. [laughter] when we look at it from your perspective, we thought about

the things you would want to see. we thought the first one is you should pick a partner you can trust, someone you will be able to sit down in a room and make a deal with, and that person will be there for years and years of this project. in the room between john and his family and us and tmg partners, you have the decision makers. we have no committees to deal with, etc. the second issue i thought was a tangible and successful all- inclusive track record. each of those words is important because we think you ought to be able to see our projects, not get on an airplane. we think you ought to be able to check us out to see if we made money for our partners, and they include what we have talked about, and finally, that we have the commitment and financial capacity to do this. part of the partner you can trust -- both organizations are privately owned, as i said. the committees, no public boards, no stock market risk. there is no change in personnel.

all the people at our company were here when we did the hamilton air field, when we did marin city, projects down south. john's family, obviously, the same. our offense is -- you can call all the cities around the bay area -- our references. the third is probably the most important if i were looking for a partner. for us, this is home. we cannot screw this up. there is nowhere to go to. we cannot fly back and close an office and start over again. this is home. we have to perform, so that is a critical part of our resume. finally, we did not come here with our architects and our team because we did not pick them yet. we thought we, the port, and thus should do that. i thought when you pick somebody, they should be architects and other lawyers available to work on the project.

we believe we should go get the best architect in the world, whether is someone on a team, not on the team, whether it is norman foster, and jointly work on that together because we view this as a partnership. in our opinion, the partner you can trust is a big check mark. the all-inclusive track record -- those are our projects in the green. as i said, we cover all the attributes i think you are looking for. public/private partnerships. well leases. we have done successful neighborhoods. complicated land uses. we were awarded the platinum -- the first platinum award from reed for a neighborhood in emeryville, so we understand this things. historic rehabs. you could walk across the street to the southern pacific headquarters building. ground up construction, and intended relationships. we think this project will be driven by a tenant user. we think that the 2.5 million

feet is going to be the linchpin of this, and that, we've both been to the table. those are our projects. as i said, you can drive anywhere. both tmg and sobrado have been ranked as top developers in the area and have the financial capacity to do the project. we are a 27-year-old company. we have been consistently ranked in the top. we have done 5 million feet and a couple of billion dollars of transactions in the past couple of years. as i said, you can, not counting traffic time, get in your car and beat at any of them within an hour. here is john. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i thought i would begin by giving you a quick background on our firm, since we do not have a prior relationship with the port. just a brief snapshot. we own 46 office properties in silicon valley, comprising of a 7.5 million square feet.

we also own 30 apartment communities, primarily based in silicon valley but also along the west coast. our operating 5 form includes in-house expertise and finance, accounting, construction, property management, and asset management. most importantly, again, getting to the project, we have developed over 14 million square feet of office, r&d, and industrial space, and have been involved in the leasing and sale transactions with just about every major electronics company in silicon valley, including applied materials, apple, cisco, google, hewlett-packard, hitachi, motorola, netflix, nvidia, oracle, and dozens of others. i would like to conclude with a brief report on why we are interested in partnering with tmg. there is no question the northern boundaries of the

silicon valley has extended to include the south of market area san francisco, mission bay, and we believe ultimately, appear 70. we believe there continues to be silicon valley's premier owner of silicon valley spy technology companies that need to follow those technology companies migrating north and really p seeier 70 has a unique opportunity to develop property and sell these to their needs. most importantly, we chose to partner with tmg because we recognized together we provided a complementary skills that and the range of experience and expertise required to successfully develop this project. tmg bring their experience not only within the san francisco area but also with public private large-scale brownfield redevelopments. we believe that is very complementary and synergistic with our large, high tech tenant base, our technology development experience and our deep

financial resources and relationships. >> the rfq part of the story is basically the summary. between the two companies, we have been doing this for a combined 60 years. we have done more office development than it is safe to say our competitors, but as he relates to this area. the bay area is home. it is where we do our work. where we have been successful. the financial strength of the sobrato organization, combine with our development background, as john said, is unparalleled. when you look at the commitment of the two organizations to the bay area in general, it goes much broader than real-estate. it includes social organizations and the like. we feel those are good resumes. as it relates to pier 70