into tens of millions of dollars. we aimed to maximize parking that maximizes revenue for whatever option we choose. micah will go over the occupancy options that we looked at. -- michael will go over the occupancy options that we looked at. >> the first one was office-only occupancy. on the first floor, there were a couple of different things we had to change, modify, and do to the building to make this happen. we are looking at about 12,300 square feet of office space. the main change is that the second floor is currently not accessible. one thing it needs to be done is to provide accessibility to the second floor. that includes adding elevators and new floors.

the green areas are new cores that include vertical speculation -- circulation. even at the main stair currently existing, we need to reconfigure the steps, reconfigure the door, and create a landing space at the main entry. we have reconfigured so there is a new for your -- foyer into the office space. we will get you 12,300 feet of office space. on the second floor, we're keeping intact the existing floor levels with the exception of the area where there was a step and violation in terms of height in the path of trouble. we have added a ramp.

with the office spaces, we have created a new central restaurant area. we have a single toilet bathroom that will become something that is handicapped accessible on the south side in this area. in this area. a couple of other things on this. the staircases leading from the second floor to the first floor had egress. the north side was out of compliance. this one here, this one here needed to be in close, which was another code violation the needed to be reconfigured. we eliminated the knocking issue that you saw earlier. within the shed itself, along space that leads out into the bay, we have been able to maximize parking, the light blue in this area here, which worked

out to be about 228 parking spaces. to do that, we have added sprinklers. right now the building sprinklers are at the bulkhead and in the office areas here and back here in this last portion. the middle portion in between was not. sprinklers needed to be added. in addition, the sprinklers was -- in addition, the feeling was that we would need a public walkway that goes to the east and and west end of the walking area. in order to do that, as a part of public access through the building, it meant that aprons needed to extend to that portion. you can see here that be built aprons on both sides. obviously, with concrete repair that needs to happen, which we mentioned earlier, there was a whole.

on the second option, as reinhart mentioned, this combined office use an assembly space. generally speaking for those that do not understand, think about it as a bar, as an example, where there are a lot of people, more people, from a code standpoint, there is more of an occupant load in that space. on the first floor it looks much like the of the scheme. 12,300 square feet of office space, reconfigured no. stairs, as mentioned in any other scheme. in this case there is a southern external type about talk about in a moment about why we had to do that. on this second floor the yellow color is the assembly. we have dominated these steps,

ramping down from a practicality standpoint and lowering this middle section to a floor section so that there is another ramp or, where there is currently a ramp in the middle, we have lowered that structurally so that it is all on one level to make the practical for usability and from the standpoint of accessibility. so, 4500 square feet of assembly space. 12,000 square feet of office space. one of the significant differences on this one is as you have this assembly space, there are more occupants in a requirement for more bathroom fixtures. one other thing is on the right here. we have added a second means of egress from this space because we exceeded the allowable path. looking at a comparison to the

previous space, but this blue space is much smaller. it all has to do with the trade up -- trade-off between the assembly and the b office. with more people kept within a seismic trigger a 634 occupants, that means that this is the maximum occupancy data can get, with hurricane conditions. this is compared to 70,000 people in option one. just like in the previous scheme, there are still sprinklers in the middle section. just like the previous scheme, they're still going to want have a public walkway at either end

of the parking. you will notice that the apron is much smaller. the trade-off between things like a flower lowering and the additional toilet facilities is the apron that is significantly smaller from a cost perspective. the rest of the shad would be closed off, to clarify that. it would not be used. it could not be used unless we wanted to decide to upgrade the building. >> excuse me. how many occupants could be under option 1? >> we have maxed out the schemes. >> it is the same number of occupants? >> it is the same number of occupants. but the mix is different in terms of how many people are in the office assembly. that is why the parking area gets reduced so much. wheat produced a lengthy study

report to provide the marina costs for removal, basically from a cost estimator through the facility that is 10,000 to $40,000. we qualified the upgrade by saying that we do not think that the facility will be as reliable as the would like, for that type of marine said that is out there, it could be a floating breakwater with another recorded alternative configuration. it is up to the port to decide if they want to go that route. there was insistence that i try to get all the information possible into one slide. i will go slowly here and i will build from the bottom-up. this is the evolution of the phasing that is possible for the construction of the options.

option 1a is first floor only, 12,300 square feet, with no parking. just to accomplish that construction is $1.7 million. michael went over what we have to do to put office space back on the first floor. option 1b is a first floor with maximum parking. the red is the cost of the office space. the blue is the cost of the parking space. so, you can see, to get the first floor with parking, it will cost $4.6 million. we will continue with the presentation. 27900 square feet of occupied space just to do the office

space is a $3.6 million investment. the first and second with the parking, again, the assembly for the office space, a total of 98,100 square feet of space, including 228 parking spaces. this is the same information shown by michael earlier. this is the cost associated with first and second floor parking to allow the occupancy and fully billed out option #one. option number two, similarly, first and second floor, we have got 27,900. green is the assembly second- floor area, which michael pointed out is different. on the second floor now, we would bring that down so that it would be all at one level.

the cost of that is $3.7 million. option number two, with full office occupancy and maximum parking, $4.5 million in that area. this is peters slide. >> based on the input for real- estate enplane it -- planning, we have come up with an expected yearly return based on each of these options. these numbers still need to be confirmed and will be a part of our next steps that we're point to take. i would like to invite john to talk about this. >> could i also asked about the time line associated with these options? how much time and effort goes

into each of these options? >> are you asking about the time to prepare construction documents and bid and construct? >> no, i mean completion. it is perhaps the wrong assumption to say that if you do option 1b, the cost is much greater, etc., with a longer general return from 1a. we need to understand the trade- offs between complexity of projects. >> next time that we bring the item, we also have to look at the entitlement process that is not contemplated here. that kind of stuff. we are not prepared to answer that question today. but it is the very next question. >> i defer to the port. >> the time for construction would be an interest. but do you go for something

faster and get a return on something that takes a while to get there? >> there are a lot of considerable -- variables. >> we would like to defer that question. it is our question. >> any other questions? >> i think that donna is going to speak. >> we gave you some preliminary revenue here. staff reports, these are very preliminary and we have not yet done analysis on how that affects the position options, if you will, the be discussed in the october briefings with the commission. just to step back on that, back to the point that we presented options or potential this position, one is that the facility would continue to be shattered. given these reports i am optimistic that that is not where we are going with that.

that the amount of effort and money required to put us back into service is manageable so that we would not pursue that option. the other three options are to pursue this as a public works capital project or letting it out as a messy situation, as we have in other cases with master development. those are the options that be it do not yet have further guidance on. the factor is the way that we presented it in october. the first option would be presentations in february on the capital budget. that will start answering that question. as to whether it is a master developer situation, i have to say that these numbers that you saw before beat us to believe that the expected yearly return

on the draft that we have, we believe that this is a valid question and additionally we have to make sure that we understand the entitlement process. someone who would come to hire a master contractor could fulfill all of the roles with different skills sets and capital bases. that being said, just from a preliminary analysis, we see their rates of return in costs, we are talking about returns in the order of five years to 10 years, which seems to conceptually be where we are. that also put this on the cusp of being in a master developer situation. i think we need to look at it more closely. that being said, the determination of funding sources will be a part of that. different developers will have different capital sources, generally. there are ongoing issues in

which we will talk about the complexity and resolving the ongoing litigation resolution to the claims or concerns that the department of boating waterways has. things that be will come back at a later date to do the analysis on. especially these later two. it has been in litigation for three or four years. we will obviously come back to the commission as soon as possible. with a final analysis. >> is there any public comment? ok, commissioners. comments? questions? >> i wonder if we are looking at using the entire pyramid. are we analyzing that option also? >> planning in a development perspective first, the direction that we discussed in october and

memorialized in the report today, we know that if you try to reorganize this scenario, it would trigger full seismic upgrade and analysis. these options reflect prior historic use for entitlement routes. we have not yet completed full analysis. hunt, but we know that there are more complex solutions to reoccupy the pier. some of the options used them in a more beneficial way than in the past, and staff would recommend that we continue to pursue these interim options, if you will. >> commissioner cats?

>> at one point in time, the prior tenant received a permit -- permits for a restaurant. is that used contemplated in these calculations as well? would that be more costly? less costly? >> hard to answer that. could you repeat that? >> my understanding was that some portion of the site had been permitted for a restaurant. i am not sure that would require more costs to upgrade to get it to meet the criteria, or if so, what the return that we receive and that would be. would be more or less? >> off of the top, my answer to that question would be that since it was never fully

implemented as a restaurant, a certain amount of work to make a restaurant was never completed. to utilize it as the office space right now is relatively simple. to continue to develop it as a restaurant space, more mechanical work would need to be done. it would probably be an additional expense. i would like to clarify between the distinction of permitted and apply for a permit. they never got a final occupancy and they were not expect -- inspected. >> i may have missed up. >> no, i miss spoke earlier. >> then again, i did not know what the return would be. >> i could not speak to that. >> envelope return numbers that are solely for the purpose of

maintaining be achievable guidelines that were given, at least it gives us optimism about where we are headed in hopefully gives you some information and guidance as to what you would like to do in the wake of it. let's questions? >> i wanted to clarify, the office space would be the same quality of office space? the use between assembly and offices is different, what would you consider this? >> office space is anything we have identified as office space. as opposed to assembly, which means that it could be office or partying, or other things, something like what they were doing before.

>> in terms of comparison and what the previous tenant was obtaining, the differential per square foot, roughly. the difference between what was being charged originally and what you were using right now. whites very roughly, for the previous tenant -- >> very roughly, what the previous tenant was receiving was arranged up to $48 per year. we have backed off of that, down to $30 tripled, which is how we normally do our rents.

$10 to $15 of office expenses, that is the office. we also looked at about 200 total price to use their for the monthly rate for parking. most of that, half of that goes to paying for a parking operator. again, these are very rough numbers. that being said, we were trying to be comfortable but conservative on expenses and how they would choose to operate that facility. it is relatively conservative on the expense side. >> class b office space probably is. that would be the short answer. it is important to say that the

cost to identify it does not talk about an improvement provide office space. it depends on the plans, if you look at the layout, that these were probably minimal packages that would reflect the industrial major and waterfront nature that was a prime selling point. i would like to think of this as class b with a view. >> obviously it would command something else. >> which is one of the complexities. we have not talked about how you get in to the improvement or how a master tenant, or the port, but use it. >> the previous occupants -- we will not call them tenants -- the previous occupants were very passionate about wanting to be involved in the future. i would imagine that may be in some permanent space, without

knowing the situation, the other is to have a sense of the demand of interest. it obviously goes back to how long it is back in the market. based on the previous occupants and what we hear from the demand in the marketplace for this kind of space. wax that is a part of why we are here today. when we were here last in early -- >> that is part of why we are here today. back in early october, in a finance meeting, the consultants on our staff wanted to revisit that. we have been getting calls of interest, but nothing about time lines. in the past, it has been difficult to ascertain how true the interest is. before we come back to you, we

will have to spend much more time on that, assuming that is ok with all of you. we want to see if there is another direction that you want. we have lots of scenarios to bring back to you for further consideration, but the key one was how much the benefit costs and if there was an opportunity to go back to the use in the static, which there was. >> i do not think that we want to do anything impractical with your offering, but just so that we do not lose sight, if we wanted to be -- wanted there to be a more global view, this is not going into detailed study. we do not want to miss just understanding the short-term view with an opportunity to

understand a lot -- long-term view. i know that we have to balance how much we can handle at one time, but to make sure that we are not missing that perspective on the horizon. >> we appreciate that very much. we will definitely look at that. >> i am not usually the one that books backwards, but in terms of the decision being correct to vacate the premises and protect life and limb, we appreciate the initial judgments that were made, which have obviously been corroborated by this study. >> one last question as it remained -- relates to the arena, how do we really decide? do we need the marina? is that a question you are not able to insert this time?

>> correct. there were a number of things, as pointed out earlier, a number of parties involved in the marina that have been waiting for the results of this engineering study before they could entertain, and with the board or others, how to proceed. the need for the marina, we have not really studied. under long term requirements, it would have to be fairly robust. that news was not as promising as we would have hoped. >> any other comments or questions? thank you very much. much appreciated. thank you. >> item 10b, request authorization to execute an

amendment to the contract and -- for design and engineering of the brannan street wharf to ed phase three bidding and construction support services for a not to exceed amount of $215,000. raising the total contract amount to $1,000,906 -- $1,906,000. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i would like to echo the vice president, joe biden, and say good luck to the giants, who will be playing baseball this coming season, as the war is

under construction. -- waharf is under construction. [laughter] i have authorization to execute this joint venture for the design of the wharf or construction support services not to exceed $215,000, which is subject to civil service commission approval, raising the contract amount to $1,916,000. it will be a new, 58,000 sq. ft. open space between peers 32 andp -- iers -- piers 32 n 38.