corner, the waterfront site, the southeast portion -- which is predominantly asphalt, we think we could build a substantial amount of new development and it would be the economic engine to bring the rest forward. with your approval, last may, just shy of the year. we got the approval to put out the rf2 and we went the request for qualifications about, looking for a qualified and capable partner to look through these issues with us. we had done a certain level in the planning process. rather than the economic and design bid, we went with the idea of choosing qualifications. these are the key terms. it is actually 25 acres. up to 2.5 million square feet,

including the world war ii squadron of the site. the part that we want this to take a role in is how we bring infrastructure to the whole side. how do we come up with reasonable cost recovery structure plans in the entitlement process with all the steps that we need to realize the plan? we have issued the rfq and we got a strong response. as we've refused in february, we gave you presentations for the city, mission bay development, san francisco water for partners, and tmg. we had four very well capitalized, interested parties, up, saying they're willing to

put their money in our projects, investing at least $10 million in the economic opportunities. i will cut back on how we get valuation, but i want to tell you about each team that came forward. for the city's national developer, we felt they had projects that were very much parallel today pier 70 resonate. the naval yards, near the ballpark, the university park, technology campus, on a land lease, partnered with mit. the landmark rehabilitation health service hospital site, where they test new construction in historic districts. the next developer was the mission bay development group.

some of the key people that made the mission bay project with a strong, local experience that understand the horizontal development, putting in those roads, parks, and infrastructure. they really knew how to do that here, they were doing it just up the road, proposing a master development construct that was purchased earlier this year, one late last year, at a substantial price, showing that the value of having the entitlements in place brings value to the land. the third respondent was the waterfront partners. fairly familiar to this commission, looking at the washington progress -- project, as mentioned in the executive director's report, strong historic preservation and port

of san francisco experience. they had very exciting design concept. project was a partnership between tmg and the sobato group. by other of these developers have the capacity to take on this project and it is very exciting to see them come forward and to be interested. they have a strong tie to the technology sector. bases silicon valley technology energy moving north -- see silicon valley technology moving north and they think of > pier 7 d. walking through the evaluation process, we had the presentations here at the port commission on the 22nd. we had a panel interview for the

proposal. the waterfront advisory group also madden. each developer gave them a presentation and took questions from the advisor group, which was an interesting conversation. after the developer presentation, they conferred and came up with a list of pros, cons, and issues, including the staff report. staff undertook financial and staff capacity reviews of each developer. for the panel we tried to draw people in that would know the port and the project and also could be objective. chamberlain is a retired real- estate developer. beezel pattel is a property developing manager for the transit -- transit authority.

clinn woods is a mission bay resident that has been following these opportunities for a great while. jasper rubin, also on the planning front, this group asked hard questions and scored and ranked. here is the sport, the evaluation. one correction that you can make, the approach is 35 points and the experience is 30 points maximum. i had those split. it does not change anything in the outcome, it is just the maximum that anyone could score. yellow shows the highest score in each category. for the city we have the highest in each category and overall.

the mission bay development division approach for pier 70 was tied with tmg sobato for their capacity. based on this evaluation, we are recommending that you authorize us to begin negotiations for pier 70. aha, here is the slide from a minute ago. so, what we would do is then negotiate exclusive negotiation agreements. that will structure the process for considering the project, establishing fee cost recovery schedules for performance and a number of good partner provisions needed for getting approved. the next step, we look to come back and negotiate in the near

future, to come back here for approval. the actual terms are not what they are authorizing today. today we are receiving authorization to begin negotiations. we do not have a development proposal at this time. we have been looking at having something like that for review later this year. so that we are all on the same page. moving forward, these get more conceptual. the infrastructure financing plan, starting on our way through for seequa board approval in 2012. if everything starts to come together we could start to break ground in 2014. i wanted to quickly go over what the actions we are asking for is.

we are going to come back for the approval. we have the right, if this doesn't work out, to go to a different partner. this is not an actual project proposal. it is about agreeing to all of the different things that we would have to look at to understand how to do the project. we ask you to approve the resolution in the packet. let us know if you have any questions. >> is there any public comment on this item them upset -- item? deposit 9a or b?

>> commissioners, amos [unintelligible] -- my name is [unintelligible] and the first gap i will explain to you is that i recognize the first people of this area. the [unintelligible] not some other groups that the port has been negotiating with. the [unintelligible] has patrimoniale jurisdiction over san francisco. in 1991 they exercised their right to first refusal. you can get that information from the city in turn. what i wanted to state to you, commissioners and developers, is that the tribe is interested in the watershed state of affairs

in this area. so, if you happeve coal power, t kind of residue contaminants, hot spots, ammonia in the area, we want to know if you are going to do the cleanup. how will you are going to do the basement. the mitigation. that is what i would like to know. also, a record of the city of san francisco established an infrastructure group and managed a support group to realize property data management. there are a lot of continuance. as we see you, we always made available to the public whatever documentation it wanted. general management plans, we

called them environmental impact studies. environmental impact reports. the people of the area, and of the tribe, would like all of the documentation to be included. once hunters point was done, the tribe was left out. when they wrote a letter, the planning team and the mayor's office of economic development and others apologize and tried to embrace the tribe. so, we do not want these want to bes that think about greenery and all of that. that is good, but it is mundane and plastic. this land had been pristine.

someone came with some landfill, what ever. in conclusion, do the right thing. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. coreen woods. before she left town, tobi levein gave me a list of things to talk about that i have lost. [laughter] we had a very good process. i think that both of the sea wag and technical panel were very thorough. this was a tough decision. any one of these groups could have handled this. i would love to see some of the

ideas that came out from the groups that did not win incorporated into the plan. there were some very exciting ideas that came out that could be real benefit to appear 70. -- pier 70. mr. [unintelligible] should understand that the environmental abbreviation is well under way and that the consent calendar approved funding to day. so, we are moving forward. carol tells me they are working very foot -- very well with pg&e on the problems coming from the marion plant to appepier 70. they are hoping to get the report this spring. we know how to do it.

thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? >> i would like to suggest his staff, if they can, reaching out in the public benefits sector, that united states department of affairs is very important. since it would bunch up. we should get our veterans administration in this as an end user, inc. in time. >> we have met with an throughout the it -- we have met with them throughout the apartment -- throughout the process and look at the options for where they want to be. the agreement was that we would keep talking. there is room for a lot. >> that was my point.

i know that they are not a large development group. thank you. >> by wanted to mention that i forgot to say that we did not mention one thing we wanted you to do today. port commission and staff has expressed thanks in the evaluation panels for the participation and support in this effort. looking back at the pier 70 advisory group, it was created to help with the first, thought of as a four month project. sort of like the three hour cruise to gilligan's island. many of us were looking at a regular basis at the community, with our year to the ground, and we really appreciate the efforts and stewardship of these groups. thank you. any other comments?

>> in just echoing a friend's comments, as well as the commissioners. it was good and contained in all of the proposals. perhaps even meeting with others to get their sense of the points that were interesting and possibly worth taking a look at. >> i would also like to echo all of the comments. i think that staff did a phenomenal job with this project. it has been ongoing for the past 10 years. we have had a lot of meetings in the last three to four years just to prepare the proposal. to get such a great response was wonderful. you did a wonderful job. thank you for putting in the time and effort.

all of the submitted were proposals were very good proposals. i would like to congratulate forsea for winning the competition at this point. i look forward to the ground breaking. [laughter] thank you. >> commissioners? [laughter] all in favor? marlette -- resolution 1121 has been approved. >> item 9b. request approval to enter into a first amendment memorandum of understanding for design development with the san francisco department of public works to extend the scope of work from schematic design through design for the pier 27 terminal crews and northeast war for plaza project and it request

approval to increase fees for the design contract with the joint venture of kaplan, mclaughlin, diz, and pfau long architecture in the amount not to exceed 1900 $5,161 -- $1,950,161 to extend the project scope work from schematic design through design development, and seek an additional authorization for a 10% contingency in the amount of 195 set -- $195,016 in the event of necessary change orders and for 264 $893,000 -- $264,893 for retroactive design costs as described herein for a

total contract authorization of $2,410,070 and to extend the term of the agreement to july 31. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> thank you. [laughter] >> do i have to say all of that over again? [laughter] first, i would like to provide a brief update as to where we are in the design process. then we will provide some information about where we are in the mou and the integrated project delivery approach for the project. after entering into an mou with dpw in early 2010 we went through several project phases.

the first was a program development. this was completed it just over one year ago. the finding the elements needed in a scheme -- cruise terminal, locating where it is on the site. from that we entered into concept design phase, reviewed last july in a variety of public meetings and workshops. then we went into a schematic design phase, presented to you on march 22. now the resolution before you is requesting authorization to proceed with development and construction drillings. that is some time early in 2012. illustrating that there are a lot of points in the design process and we are at a midpoint. the design development phase is set out to bring greater clarity to a project with design

alternatives and informed cost decisions to be made about the terminal and its potential construction when environmental clearance is completed. last week we met with the cruise terminal steering committee. we reviewed project components, adjustments the program elements, and other features of the project and how it might come into alignment with the budget. the steering community was in support of the proposed adjustments, additionally the baggage area being left uncovered, as seen in this diagram here, where we would capture the area in the foot print without constructing a building over it so that it retains its program and function but not quite all of its amenities.

we will go into the other features that were done to bring the project in alignment with its budget. the committee had one request, to add a second elevator to provide redundancy in a situation where elevators can fail at times. the design team is looking at that. matching up with the budget numbers, we will return to you in the future. our next steps of public outreach are at the design review waterfront advisory committee review board on may 9. that will be at 6:30 in the evening. we are also setting up a workshop for early june, we are confirming that date now. we will look at the cruise terminal in the northeast plaza. it is being reviewed as part of the eir process as we go

forward. should the resolution be approved, please look forward to reviewing the results in july or august prior to us beginning any construction drilling. campbell will present the budget issues on the project now. >> midafternoon, commissioners, executive director. we are breaking this up on the screen. when we presented in march our schematic design, at that time we did not have the cost estimate completed. nor did we have an estimation for funding consideration. one thing that i would like to review right now -- the cost and the funding available. this is table 5 in your memorandum.

the base case referred to here is the schematic design has taken off by the cost estimator. the total cost, excluding the america's cup event authority obligations came out to $600 million, which exceeded the funding source of $78 million, leaving a $28 million gap in our project. as a result, we went back through -- back through the design to see if we could remove some elements of the project in order to enable us to be able to afford to build it. this is a plan to view of the facility. the bottom view is a ground- floor. the top view is the floor above it.

one of the factors in a cruise terminal is the layout of the baggage area. different from an airport. we have conveyors bringing bags down in a small area. in the cruise terminal that like to set the bags on the ground. you have from 2600 to 4000 people, that is a lot of baggage. they like to do it in one shift, if possible. one of the recommendations from our steering committee, previously, had been to expand the baggage area to accommodate up to 4000 passengers. unfortunately, the cost of that was significant. one of our value engineering programs was to find a way to reduce the area of the baggage and maintain the function. that is shown on the drawing in front of you.

the net effect of reducing the first four baggage areas, 13,000 feet, saving the project $18 million. the area shown within the red dots would be maintained as an open baggage area and could be covered with canapes during inclement weather. on the second area there is an area of 27 -- 2700 square feet, part of the engineering effort to move over to the green area shown on the bottom of the upper story. the green was reserved for later into the future. the effect would be and 85,000 square foot enclosed terminal,

meeting our functional design, 4000 for the ultimate case. we needed to save more money and that i just showed. looking at the interior of the building, considering sliding doors, elevators, it, seating, window shades, $100 million in savings. we also looked at substituting asphalt for pavers in the ground transportation area. for the new commissioners that is the area between the terminal building and pier 29 as shown on the screen. would it have been nice? it is not necessary. they do not have them at the

airport, we can do without them here. but they did say of another $1.5 million. the marginal wharf is a 50 foot swath on the bay side of the sea wall running along the embarcadero. part of it was built in 1914, the other was 1965. we tried non-destructive concrete piles. so far found to be suitable for advanced construction projects. if you recall, from our last phase, the first is what we intend to deliver for the america cup.