to broaden at agte b. oakland, alameda, harbor, at gate d. in undertaking the second phase of improvements, we are looking at the build out of potential. facilities at the ferry building area. that would include a new gate a, a new gate f, and a new gate g. one of the things that is shown in this map in darfur orange is areas that have to be reconstructed or filled. in the blue collars, arafat will be demolished. we are also reviewing this with bcdc staff and have undertaken steps to minimize the film, from a cost-effective point of view, but also from a responsible point of view. in the future, we are looking at, in the north basin,

berkeley and richmond, which could trigger when gate e is constructed. we are looking at converting gate e, the one that held oakland, to its more treasure island service because of its direct route. we will have more space for the amlarger amount of queuing. and to move in alameda and oakland to gate f. g will serve as spare birth and for other things to come along at a later time, particularly in the south bay. one of the and brother improvements we are looking at is we may need to enhance the service to treasure island to load vessels without turning around. they go back and forth.

they would be quicker and handle more passengers. gate e can be fitted to the new vessels, if the plan warns that improvement. it is already sized where it will serve with the side-loading birth but would also, the balloting. one of the things that we have all looked at here, as we did in phase one, was to make sure the improvements that are being made in hansard, in fact, future renovation and redevelopment opportunities for the agriculture building, the luster morning historic -- remaining -- the last remaining historic building in the area. what we are doing we want to make sure it fits with those improvements. we have a substandard dilapidated conditions, according off half of pier 1.

we are looking at removal there and improvements to accommodate the new gate a and b, providing circulation directly to these areas and also adequate space for queuing and waiting without obstructing public access to the surrounding buildings and open space resources. thank you. we also have a responsibility at weta to accommodate for emergency response. one of the critical elements in terms of providing the capability to evacuate, if that becomes a necessity, or two and a greater numbers of passengers, if a major element of the transportation system is down, is to make sure we have adequate space on the land size to accommodate that. we have checked carefully. we can accommodate that

additional responsibility. one of the other aspects is that queuing and whether protection today is not readily available for passengers. you can see people lining up on the vallejo ferry. we think it would be a good idea to create some sort of alamance, a canopy, that would provide a modest amount of protection. it would also create an organizational framework for queuing passengers, so that they are able to line up in a better form. here is a broader view of both gate a and b, with the existing pier 1/2 removed.

then looking at it from the bay side. let's go to the south side of the ferry building, another area with many substandard conditions. one of the things we have found is the circulation patterns to all of these dategates requiress to look at the filling of the lagoon area so that commuters could traverse the area more readily. this area also serves as an expanded queuing/waiting arad and in the emergency response, but also creates a much better connection between the ferry building and the future potential renovation of the agriculture building. as you can see, in terms of this evaluation of emergency response, we need the entire

area in order to meet the capacity of the vessel that would be berthed here for evacuation purposes. the other consideration in the improvements for ferry services is we need to make a better connection of the east, not on the ferry building. you can see on this existing side, as gates e and f are widened, we need to improve the promenade, so that we can make further improvements to future gates. a picture of not only expanding that connection, but how on the south side, we can also make better protection, areas for queuing and waiting, and enhance areas for public access as well. moving on from the basic functional improvements that are

needed for ferry terminal expansion, from the water and land side, are a number of concepts for how we can enhance the area further. the ferry plaza area directly to the east of the building has become a very active and great gathering space for the city as a whole, in fact, for the region. but there are some issues. there are issues that the necessity for servicing this area, which has to continue, needs to be better organized so that we can create a better definition of those areas that will be pedestrian only, those areas that, at times, can be vehicular to provide service requirements. as we have grown in terms of the number of activities in this area, the use of the area for public access, a better

definition in some cases may be needed. one suggestion is, just as we expanded in phase one, the east promenade, and enhanced it for public access along the bay side of the ferry building, and as the ferry terminal is expanding to the south, there are some improvements that may be needed in the directly adjacent area by dividing where vehicles are and where pedestrians will be. similarly, on the south side of the ferry plaza, we have an unmet opportunity, an area that had not enjoy any kind of a parade in many years. when it is not the farmers markets, it is more dedicated to vehicular access. in addition to that, it does not extend and meat coming out to the bayfront, creating a behind

area, behind the fplp, bart transition structure. some way to extend that and make a promenade connection has been suggested and has received quite a bit of support in all of our stake holder meetings, to enhance a portion of this area. it could be used for accessing a mixed use space in the center for the kind of service activities that are needed to be existing while maintaining a perimeter access next to golden gate, fplp, ferry building, along the bay that would be for pedestrian purposes. then on weekend days, certainly, both the east ferry plaza promenade, and south

promenade, would become significant connections that would enhance. these sections are small, but in your materials, it shows settings aside for portions of the edges for public access purposes. some quick sketches for the possibilities of this promenade, the kinds of used to treasure island, your bobwhite island, bringing people to this portion of the ferry plaza. and again, looking to the south, the bay bridge, the opportunity that are created for sitting, of viewing, interpreted information, for the ferry terminal expansion. lastly, as we create this additional space that we need for circulation and for emergency response, we also have the opportunity on other occasions to use it for a variety of formal and informal

functions, even for a potential expansion of the farmers' market. all of those are still under consideration. also, there are opportunities for creating a more pleasant environment and a more civic- kind of space without losing any of the flexibility for both the functional requirements of very access -- ferry access, and emergency response, as well as other activities. in the end, all of this can become a stepping stone towards future renovation of the agriculture building and the interconnection of that with the rest of the area. thank you. >> thank you. >> i will be glad to answer question now or take comments. >> thank you.

is there any public comment on this item? commissioners? >> this is for dan. you have a little bit about project funding in the staff report. how much of it is on the staff and how much is on weta? >> the funding would be a combination. weta is looking at a couple of different sources to the fund. i do not know the specific details. the portion they would be responsible for our one related to the functioning of an expanded down down very terminal. where they needed for access, passenger access to the facilities, where they need it for emergency queuing, that type

of purchase, and also for construction of the those are things that easily fit into funding. the later part of the presentation which showed public access improvements that were beyond the functional requirements of the ferry terminal, we would be looking to other sources of funding. 2005, the port was successful and getting prop k funds to serve the downtown vera terminal. that is one possible source. we would be looking at other options. >> any other questions or comments? >> short comment on the design. personally, i appreciate option 3, with some landscaping added in, just bearing in mind the different uses.

it changes from day to day, so just maybe something for everyone. that looks at the option that combines everything. there was reference to the bard transition area. what exactly is that? >> bart facilities have a structure in the back that are used to service brt > . but may also have made bids and security concerns about that. and associated agreements. >> thank you. the next step is you will come back in 2012? [laughter] this is an important part of the project as we define what is being evaluated in the barn of

the document and we continue to do public up reach into the design concepts to give it adequate time. we will be back from time to time with informational presentations and then leading up to more policy points for the commission to weigh-in, and updating on the funding. the project will also be constructed in phases. phases are related to which ferry facilities are needed and what time. we will be back with more information as we work with weta to meet those demands. >> thank you very much. >> one more question. when do you expect the environmental impact report to be do? >> the process has just begun. the draft is out at the end of the year, i believe. the final to be certified -- fall of next year. it is an eir and eis.

>> if work were to begin, one question i would have is, what with the impact in terms of canada and the america's cup? -- scheduling the america's cup? would that be calculated in the phasing of the work? >> the first phase of construction would begin in 2014, although that is not a hard date. >> any other questions or comments? thank you, dan. >> item nine b -- 9b. informational presentation on the lease and development of seawall lot 337 and pier 48 bounded by china basin channel, third street, mission rock street, and san francisco bay. >> good afternoon, madam president, commissioners.

port project manager for the sea wall lot 337 development project coming here and provide an update on our project to move from years ago rfq/rfp process to a recently approved exclusive negotiation agreement to meet the benchmark requirements as outlined in the agreement. last september, the port entered into a mixed use development agreement with the 16-acre site, steve a lot 337, immediately south of the at&t park on third street at mission rock street. it is currently used as service parking. the site for this project also a includespier 48, immediately to the east. pursuant to the rfq/rfp process, the ports elected seawall lot

337 associates and executed last september. that entity is today represented by jack bayer of the san francisco giants and for the director for the cordish cos. with us today is also john north, representing a consultant to the development team. since executing, we have been working with our partners to further define the development concept. multiple conceptual site plans and generations have been reviewed as part of that process to show a flexible mix of uses that can support a feasible economic structure. our efforts so far are geared toward delivering a successful project which provides efficient returns to justify the private investment we anticipate. that responds to the economic needs of the port, meets public

objectives of this city and residents, and it fills the communities land use and design objectives. this project differs from most of our other projects with the exception of pier 70, given its scale. that is a very large site. 16 acres on the sea wall lot side alone. it is one of our larger and opportunities. the developer is proceeding in this uncertain economic period that poses an extraordinary risks due to unknown market conditions and financial situations. they are starting to clarify, i think we're starting to see in the marketplace, but there are just some unknowns ahead of us as far as where the economy will be going for that six months, if not several years. based on these facts, port staff constructed turn to provide flexible opportunity to reduce the developer's upfront investment requirements, allowing them to proceed with

site due diligence, which i will expand on in a moment, and to provide a flexible benchmark structure that addresses the need for a master plan community. at this time, i would like to invite jack bayer to step forward to the podium to elaborate on some of our recent accomplishments and anticipated end of the hurdles ahead of us. >> thank you, phil. thank you, members of the port commission. the last time i was speaking before the port commission, you were not here, so will come aboard. i want to review where we have been for your benefit and for members of the audience that are not as familiar with this project. i will then talk about the values we have in our design program, the process, and what the outlook is for going forward. i would also like to mention that karen is here today, she is

our principal designer on the project. i am sure she is well known to most of you. for reference, this is a recent snapshot of mission bay in 2010. as you can see, in the northeast corner of mission bay is a sea wall lot 337 and appear 70. -- pier 70. this becomes the one side really in play for mission bay in the future and creates great opportunities for us, and that is why we're interested in proceeding. the project design is on the screen in front of you. it is the product of the rfq/rfp process. many meetings with park staff, commission, dozens of public meetings with different advisor

groups, workshops. it contains a land use program that we are revising right now and a bunch of values expressed in the design. i wanted to review that. our land use plan, reflected in the site plan, had 1 million square feet of office, 875 residential units, 250,000 square feet of retail, 180,000 square feet of the bed and exposition -- open an exhibition space, approximately 600 parking spaces as well. in terms of the values that we took from the public meetings and workshops and have expressed in this design -- i just wanted to remind everyone of what they are and how important they are to us. first, open space configuration. we thought it was important to maximize the open space along the water's edge. we proposed closing one

boulevard to maximize space for our waterfront park. we want to activate the park with cafes and other activities so that it is vibrant, welcoming to families and tourists alike. it is also capable of large public assembly and events. it has access to the water for recreation. this is a snapshot of the conception of the water's edge to make it interactive. you can see kayaks and the ability to get down to the water. we also conceive of an open space in the interior of the project. we wanted each of the buildings to be enhanced by a water view or part of view. if you look at the site plan, all of the buildings are facing the water or a park. we think that will enhance the environment and make the bi

buildings more valuable. this is the mission rock park, interior open space. it is meant to capture parks -- if you are familiar with bryant park in new york, madison square park -- other urban parks surrounded by large buildings that create a sense of intimacy and a breakdown the mass of the buildings surrounding them. we also can see the linkages from the open spaces. one of them is what we would call the ramblas, like in barcelona, which is much larger, but a thoroughfare which connects open spaces where there are shops, retail opportunities, where people can hang out and enjoy themselves. certainly before and after games. in addition to the open space, we wanted a more refined street

in mission rock. we wanted to break that mold and have a finer streets that were pedestrian oriented and buildings that were not all the same size, hite, and bulk, to create a more interesting form. that was a message that we heard from the community throughout the workshops. we also wanted to relocate a major parking resource on the south side of the site to support mission day and to eliminate parking at the other buildings. of course, interaction with the ballpark. if you have 2000 cars on a parking structure at the southern part of the site, and those folks will walk through the project commentate advantage of different opportunities and open space opportunities along the way to and from the game. as a result, they will reduce

traffic congestion before and after because people will leave over a broader spectrum of time. we also want to integrate public transit into the site. we have an entrance to the site from the existing muni stop along third street. we're also proposing bringing the historic streetcar line through so that it feels like a continuation of the waterfront experience we have in front of the ferry building. we also want to upgrade pier 48 and make it a vital part of the project and create an asset for the city. we think there is a great market for regional trade shows and other exhibitions, and pier 48 can meet that market need. of course, we want to sustain a lot of other values here, including financial return for the project sponsor and the port's financial goals for the project.

as bill indicated, we entered into our ena in 2010. we are in the midst of the first of two phases. the first concludes with the product design and term sheet by the port commission and board of supervisors. the second phase involves the eir, ground lease, and regulatory approvals that go with a project of this sort. right now, we find ourselves in the midst of the first phase of the project. we have completed the operating agreement for the project sponsor. we have said it submitted revisions to the support, looking at how site changes and different uses and skills of those uses. we have also submitted our public-relations plan that has also been removed -- approved. now we find ourselves on the press of this of our next sub middle, september of next year. -- submittal, september of this

year. cost analysis for construction. we are working on our comprehensive master plan for the site. the building heights and mass. parking and transportation plan. of course, revised financial plan that we will submit to the port which will form the basis of our negotiation of the term sheet. so there is a very of activity going on than we will proceed all throughout the summer. come september 15, the public process gets we engaged, not that we will ignore the public until then. we will be meeting with stakeholders and getting people's opinion as we move forward, but the public unveiling of the design will be with the port commission, as we submitted in september. in terms of the areas we are looking at -- first, we want to maintain and build upon the values that formed a basis of our original project design. we think that it was well

received and has a lot of attributes that we want to carry forward. we are, however, looking at a project with a new lens, to some degree. it is a new world, more constrained financing, different project component need to be bankable, need to be built in pieces that the financial market can embrace. for example, when we are building on this side, we need to know each building can be absorbed by tenants and build, so that there is less risk involved with the project. we have to have realistic pricing assumptions, and we have to basically be grounded. and we will work on all of this with support staff as we all understand what the assumptions are, and as we are going forward, what market conditions appear to be. we are also looking at the different uses, as i referred to earlier, we had a certain mix in our submittal,