area plan for the san francisco waterfront for the proposed peer 27 cruise terminal and the 34th america's cup. >> commissioners, special projects manager of the port. i am here to talk to you about the bay composition -- a conservation and development commission special area plan for the san francisco waterfront as it pertains to the proposed cruise terminal at pier 27 and a portion of the america's cup project.

sorry about the delay. i want to give you a high level summary of the special area plan for the san francisco waterfront. for a long time, bcdc maintained a plan for the waterfront called the total design plan. it was a very prescriptive plan about what could happen at individual locations at the waterfront and did not provide a lot of flexibility needed to rehabilitate the port's finger piers and basically redevelop the city's waterfront. at around the time the port was finalizing its waterfront land use plan, the port director at the time, executive director of bcdc entered into an agreement

to change plans for the waterfront. the result of that effort was the special area plan. essentially, what it did was provide a plan level approach to achieve bcdc's policy goals for the waterfront, creating new plazas, open water basins for the waterfront, a way to rehabilitate the historic figure appenger piers, and provide accs to the waterfront. that success allows access to various buildings to go forward. generally, bcdc has a broad ownership of the waterfront. in the open water areas, they are responsible for phil, public

access to the day, any new docks or pile-supported structures, gooding activity, open water activities, changes in use and any construction remodeling or repair of the structure. pretty much anything significant that the board does require the permission from bcdc. with respect to the cruise terminal, i am going to get into some of the major public benefits that the court agreed would be provided to the pier 27 location. in essence, the project changes how we need to approach the public benefit package. we are here today to seek your approval for a negotiated agreement with bcdc to amend

their cost plans. now i want to get into what their plans call for within the pier 27 plan. you can see on the map smaltite -- i apologize to the public for that. north of the ferry building at piers 19 through29, bcdc called for the following major public benefits. one, for the front portion of the pier 27 shed along the embarcadero to be removed to make room for something called the northeast wharf plaza, a two-acre waterfront park, and open water basin, which is generally defined as an area where the public can view the water without major disruption between piers 19 and 27, and the

removal of half of the pier 23 shed. that is a contributing resources to the embarcadero historic district. the purpose of those combined benefits was to provide the public with an area -- the northeast or if plaza -- where they could appreciate the day, have a fairly and unobstructed views. the idea about removing the pier 23 shed was really to provide great views of the bay bridge. the uses that were envisioned for this site in the special area plan, waterfront land use plan at the time, for pier 27 through 31 complex, mixed use, and at the other, birthing.

the most of corporate location for crews birthing along the waterfront. we have consulted with bcdc about how that cruise terminal project relates to the proposed benefits. certainly, the cruise terminal team has done an excellent job of trying to incorporate the vision of the northeast north plaza into the design of the cruise terminal but our initial consultation has given us the impression that bcdc staff views the cruise activity as impacting the park and diminishing the value of the open water basin. additionally, a major project at piers 27 through 31 triggers this requirement to move the back half of pier 23. now that we understand that resource, we understand it much better in 2000, when it clear it

was negotiated. that would be a significant impact to the historic resource. the pier is in good shape. it would be in the port's business interests to maintain that. in anticipation of this, in consultation with the cruise terminal team, bcdc staff, we started to do early out reach to the port's waterfront constituents to try to figure out a different way of delivering similar public benefits to the waterfront, a great part spaces, new open water basins, with the mind of being able to build a cruise terminal and preserve. 23. now i would like to -- preserve pier 23. now i would like to switch to a slide that shows what it may look like after it is built.

with the america's cup proposal, now the proposal is not just to remove the front portion of pier 27, but also their rear section that intersects with 29. we think we can negotiate with bcdc to create new plazas, not only where the new wharf park is planned, but on the end of 27 and 29, new views of the day. that could replace the shed removal at pier 23. we are going to have to do more consultation with our waterfront stakeholders and with bcdc staff to figure out the right formula for figuring out the amended plan. finally, there is one component of the amendment that does not pertain to this part of the waterfront.

the america's cup is envisioning the use of piers 32 through 36 water basin for the mooring of catamarans. that plan is also an open water basin design for passive enjoyment of the bay. bcdc has told us that we would need a temporary agreement to use that water. the proposal today is for the port commission to authorize support staff to enter into a cost reimbursement agreement with bcdc staff to negotiate these changes and process the port's amendment to this special area plan. the proposed cost of that staffing is $100,000. that includes a $20,000 contingency. we would envision that this plan amendment would be studied under

the joint ceqa for the cruise terminal and america's cup and it would take about a year to complete. it is a very time-consuming process. that concludes my presentation. available to answer any question that you may have. >> thank you. so moved. is there any public comment? commissioners? all in favor? any proposed? resolution a 11-23 has been approved. >> items from the consent calendar, at eight a,request authorization to amend contract with langan engineering and environmental services, inc. to provide additional environmental investigation and related consulting services for the pier 70 master plan area, and to increase the contract amount by $387,697 (or 22.5%) to $1,719,969, with no change to contract term. b, request authorization to

award construction contracts to 77, pier 43 day trailing project, to more text for reconstruction in the amount of $6,383,000 and to create a contract contingency fund of 10% for the contract amount for an unanticipated contingency. request authorization to execute an amendment to the design and engineering services contract with gerwick for the pier 43 bay drilling projects increasing the contract amount by the sum of 106,009 and $45 to 853,004 and $28, and for a contract contingency fund of 10% of the remaining contract amount of $107,700. request authorization to award construction contracts 2741, marine structural projects, to west bay builders inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,325,000

and authorization for a 10% contingency fund of $132,500. request approval a resolution of door -- of the ras support executive director to execute error by a memorandum of understanding with the comptroller of the and city and city of san francisco to reimburse support for revenue lost during the hosting but 34 of america's cup. >> so moved. is there any public comment? commissioners? all in favor? >> resolution 11-16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 have been approved. >> item 9a. request approval to were the pier 7 the waterfront site doubled an opportunity to force city development california inc. and to enter into exclusive negotiations for a reasonable agreement of 25 acres to achieve the objectives specified in the board's august 30, 2010 development

solicitation for the site. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the project manager on the pier 70 effort. today is an accomplishment on a series of planning and work and efforts that have been going on at the port since before i was here. we are here to ask your approval to award the development opportunity for a portion of the pier 70 site to forced city development. i want to step back and walk through the context of this and where we came to it. pier 70 is the area we are showing on the map. it is almost 70 acres. from 18th street to mariposa, illinois to the water. it includes our working ship

repair yard. it includes an amazing collection of historic buildings dating back to 1880. it is really a place that created an amazing amount of industrial history in san francisco, and we do not really think of san francisco have in that industry now. what the court did was initiated community planning process to come up with ways to recreate this site. through thatthrough that procesd a balance between princess a patient, creating parks, and ship repair, attempting to do it in a way that is environmentally and financially sustainable. as we move forward, we realize there's more here than one entity could swallow as one development opportunity. so, we offered the southeast 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. we know how to do it. thank