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. the essential design of the project was initiated by staff,

with community and regulatory stakeholders and advisory committee. in 2008, staff requested authorization for consulting on a complete conceptual design, final design, and if appropriate, support during bidding construction. staff has done requests for proposals. after a competitive selection process, recommending a joint venture for the design engineering contract, which was authorized by the commission on december 9. -- december 9, 2008. the initial amount was not to exceed $1,539,000 with contingencies for unanticipated services. phase three services were noted as dependent on the outcome of

phases one and two and, if appropriate, we would come back to receive authorization to add phase three service contracts. the final design project was the recipient of federal funding for the removal look pure 36. restrictions on funding required removal to be a separate project and is designed to be completed by the ports for review. there was a crack in the seawall that uncovered unanticipated engineering analysis and design necessities. raising the contract amount. approximately 110% of the original contract amount. happy to report that the pier 26

removal project and the war project is complete -- wharf project is complete. managements that has been included in the project, and is not limited to but do include reviewing, interpreting design intent, structural occupation, review of testing special inspections, pile driving operations, in issuing design changes. the amount of phase three services is not to exceed the amount and raises the total contract amount. there is a pending request for civil service commissions to raise the contract from $1,800,000 to the amount

requested today. the participation goal for this project is 20%. as established by the san francisco human rights commission. this joint venture is committed to meeting and exceeding this goal based on the total amount of payments to date. funding for design and engineering of the project, including services required, with capital funds set aside for the project. the amount requested is within the amount for the services. the total project budget is $3.3 million. an update on the status of the project, the core advertised removed bids in 2011, 2008, and

awarded the construction contract in december, issuing a notice to proceed to west bay on january 12 of this year. demolition is scheduled for completion in early june. we expect to see site presence in the next few weeks. before the commission has a meeting on the 10th, with staff authorized on the bids for the wharf construction project project, staff anticipates receiving bids this coming monday, requesting an award of the project this coming february with a notice to proceed in march. completion is scheduled for june of 2013. in summary, staff recommends the port commission authorize and execute the contract with the joint venture for design and

engineering as bidding and construction support services are not to exceed the amount of $16,444, of which the amount is subject to additional civil service approval, raising the total amount. the scope of services and the amount has been negotiated and does represent fair value to the port. any questions? >> any public comment? ibid like to ask monique a question. why is this not on the consent calendar? did you have a second? thank you. >> the reason is, before you joined the commission, we had a practice of giving periodic

updates on this project and had not for long time. you are right, normally this would be a consent item. but this item in the next item, we have a periodic update. >> stephen, can you step back? >> ok, there does not seem to be any public comment. we will take a vote. all of those in favor? motion 12.04 has been approved. >> thank you. >> item 11a, request approval of pork projects -- request

approval of port projects funded in the amount of $10,394,975 in the third sale of 2008 clean and safe neighborhood parks general obligation bond. >> good afternoon, commissioners. in the deputy director of finance administration, if you will bear with me for a moment. let there we are.

>> february 5, 2008, $185 million in general obligation called the 2008 clean and safe obligation bond. with bond proceeds, we have received $33.5 million to support parks and open spaces on the property. this funding began with allowing us to deliver important waterfront land use plans, to create a series of improvements

connecting city residents with open spaces and the waterfront. the bond support project that you just heard about in detail, with several projects on the blue green light. today i am here to ask you to approve the third bond sale, and to give a brief status update. it has been a long morning and afternoon, so i will make a brief period the third bond sale includes 10.3 9 million in project proceeds. we have spent or encumbered 77% of those. the third bond sale is expected

in february of this year. the final bond sale will be associated with the construction of grain coast park. this is the detail of the current budget for all the projects that are funded by the 2008 bond. this is detailed in the bound -- bond accountability report. i wanted to briefly let you know what we have accomplished with the first and second bond sale. we have completed the sequel on everything, except for crane cove park. the community planning for the blue-green way parts has been

completed and the elements of -- parks have been completed. the mission based on the part is under way. there is a small allocation in this third bond sale and i am pleased to report that after receiving these proceeds, we will have full funding plan hand for the project. it is the final piece of the reserve from january 11. the construction of the problem of will begin in 2012, and is expected to be completed in july of this year. the war project, you just heard the detailed description for construction.

for the blue green light, schematic design is under way and up to the completion of 2013. design is under way with construction beginning this year and project completion scheduled for the fall of 2013. 1.8 million, beginning early this year, the project is gaveled for completion this year, just over half of a million, beginning early in 2012 with park design completion for 2013 and a bond sale for the construction of park improvement that will begin early in 2014 with completion in 2015. construction began in the fall of 2012 and a blue-green way for

arts fabrication installation of 2012. i just wanted to post an image of what the director described as a new shoreline with early improvements. it was very exciting to be in that phase and be in the improvement that we have planned for such a long time. i request your approval in the third bond sale. david in steven are here to answer any details you have on the project or any other questions. thank you. >> is there any other public comment? >> ok. >> any questions or comments from the commissioners? >> i am curious as to whycran co. -- why crane co. seems to

be such a bigger deal. >> as everything is with pierre 70, it is a bit more complicated than the rest of the projects. we were not able to jump into it until we got through completing the pier 70 planning process. this was part of the planning design guidelines, that we published the draft of the design headlines in june. as a part of that process, we allocated bonds and could not initiate some of the other projects, and we knew what the distribution of available funds were. >> with these different issuances, what about the different interest rates?