areas where you can remove deteriorating peers, and that would speak to one of the primary mandates that removed themselves from the day, in so doing restoring open water areas which approves the ecology of san francisco dbay. and planning in a comprehensive mode, public access and public open space plan that allows you to walk along and continue along the waterfront and provide that the maximum feasible public access, which is the other primary mandate of bcdc. from the ports perspective, that is looked at as part of our ability to then it -- we were able to get amendments to the bcdc's policies to allow for the preservation of historic pires and buildings and to broaden the range of revenue uses and

commercial uses and recreational uses the would create the excitement along the waterfront that was saw in the waterfront plan and also generate revenues and be able to develop funding resources to be able to support that whole agenda. prior to those policies adopted in 2000, there was this idea of the replacement policy that was the primary impediment for being able to move forward on waterfront improvements, also known as the 50% rule. if you can imagine having a pier that is, say, 100,000 square feet that sticks out on the water, supported by piled construction, the 50% rule was the earlier tool that bcdc was imposing to try to balance the fill removal and public access objectives of their mandate with the port's development responsibilities by effectively requiring the removal of half of

that pier, 50,000 square feet of the 100,000 square foot pier, that would have to be the removed physically to create open water or to be dedicated to public access or some combination of public access and phil removal. with the remainder of that pier, the uses would be constrained to adjust water-oriented uses, which do not allow for the mix of activities that were called for under the waterfront plan. there were a number of proposals that failed under those rules. pierre 39 was really, i think, the only project that was a bird -- able to take those rules and put them into a real project. bcdc recognize that there was another way we had to work at to develop water for an improvement and a revitalization. this map is a little bit difficult to see. basically, what we did in the

special area plan that is on the books now is a look at the waterfront from china basin of three fisherman's wharf and really identified where are those best places for public open space to be located. are there places where fill could be removed that enabled those open spaces and open water areas to be created? in taking that approach, there was a recognition that that was a better system than trying to achieve the fill removal at a public access on a case by case basis under the 50% rule. ultimately, the special area plant set up this system of the blue areas are the open water basins, and we have heard a lot about that in the context of the america's cup plan amendments. the green areas, the grand street wharf at the southern end, and the northeast wharf,

which we're trying to develop as part of the cruise terminal project here, that are required under the plan. the northernmost that fisherman's wharf is a planning study goal, because that was always an objective, but we were never able to get all of the pieces put into place to create a formal policy. so it was always recognized as something that we needed to come back to. the proposed special area plan policy, as detailed in the staff report, -- actually -- i skip a sly, but what i wanted to focus on west pier 27 and 29, because that is the genesis -- oh, here we are. doing strange things for me. for pier 27 and 29, the cruise terminal in the northeast wharf proposal, this map is from the

existing special area plan shows the footprint of the northeast wharf, as it is called out in the plane b. within a gray area, that was identified as a place where, with that plaza and then with the proposed removal of the eastern end of -- i am sorry. i do not know why this is not functioning. in any case, the eastern end of pier 23, the removal of that is also an existing requirement of the special area plan. the plaza and the pier removal in combination, we are creating this northeast wharf, northeast open water basin that was called out in the special area plan. with the cruise terminal and northeast wharf project currently, the creation of that as a maritime terminal. and pulling up large cruise ships along pier 27 a brain

creates the viewa obstruction thepron creates of view obstructions and operational obstructions to the enjoyment of the northeast wharf plaza from a bcdc special area plan perspective. at the time that the special area plan was approved, we were contemplating a mixed use recreation project. so the plaza designed and the recreation use is seen as being complementary. here, we're having to develop and design a cruise terminal and operations to share certain spaces that were presumed to be future public access areas. in addition, because of the structural service that our engineering department now carries out for piers, since the special area plan was approved and the condition of pier 23 was learned to be much better condition than what had been previously understood, we are

now proposing that we keep all of pier 23. and with that and the use of 27 as the cruise terminal, it has promulgated the need for us to be looking for alternate open water basins to replace the northeast water basin here, because of the accommodations for these other uses. in that context, here is just an image to demonstrate how the outline of a ship comes into that open water basin, that pier 27 apron would have to be closed for the cruise operations, and that takes away some of the public benefit from the plaza. in that context, we worked with bcdc's staff even before the host city agreement was approved to do some outreach with the community stakeholders to start getting some input about where open water basin

locations might be desirable, to try to look at what people's sentiments were about saving pier 23 versus trying to find fill removal. we outlined that in a staff report last year for the commission's review. the upshot of that is that we're going to be starting the public process to come up with all of the special area plan amendments for the pier 27 project when the city was awarded the host agreement, the host city agreement for the america's cup. as a result, we were not able to carry out all that work, and we focused on how we integrate the improvements for the cruise terminal with the improvements for the america's cup, and some of these other questions about where the replacement open water basement -- base and should be located have been proposed as amendments to the special area plan in the form of different

planning studies. one would be -- i am sorry, the second one is speaking to this open water basin study that the port and bcdc would run through to try and define what the candidate sites are the should be considered. in the context of that work, we also would be committing to tearing out and -- carrying out an assessment of a historic resources within the embarcadero historic district. so many of these resources are historic. the idea of removing them to meet fill removal and open water basin requirements, we have some competing public objectives there. so we want to work with the committee on that. with respect to fisherman's wharf, because it always has been an objective to try and improve open water basin and public water improvements in that area, which we were not able to accomplish back in 2000, we would be taking on a study to revisit that.

in that context, if we were able to successfully reached an agreement about how to make improvements at the fisherman's wharf, the port would be seeking the listing of this 50% rule, which still applies to that area. as you saw in the previous presentation on the capital plan, because most of those facilities are under long-term lease, with those tenants responsible for seismic and other major upgrades, the lifting of that 50% rule is a very important issue for us to try and resolve before we get into a situation where somebody has got improvements that they need to do that are constrained against bcdc rules. with respect to the area around pier 27, 29 immediately and in the geographic area, because we cannot meet all of the public access objectives that were conceived of in the special area

plan, we're looking at how do we read craft that public access with the cruise terminal program on the site? and that is provided clearly in the creation of the northeast were plaza -- northeast wharf plaza, which we are proposing to deliver at an accelerated schedule. right now, the special area planned requires the plaza to be delivered in 15 to 20 years. in our proposal, we're going to seek funding under the 2012 general obligation bond issue for parks. if we're not successful at that, we would have 11 years in which to complete the plaza. that is trying to accelerate an existing special area plan objective on the box now. on the rest of the site, we're looking at pier aprons on 27 to 29, looking a public access at

the tip of 27 and 29, and developing a shared use between the maritime functions for the cruise terminal operations and maritime burthening and when those maritime needs are not in place at 27, to then open up the 27 active and -- tip and apron for public access to the still falls short from what we were looking for originally in the special area plan. we were looking at offsite public access improvements between pier 19 and 23 and at pier 29.5. for pier 19, you recall under the america's cup proposal, we were looking at having the number apron of pier 23 and the south apron of pier 19 improved as part of america's cup. for the cruise terminal, we're looking to complement that by

having the cruise terminal then deliver the south side of pier 23 and the north side of pier 19. that would enable the aprons on 19 and 23 to be improved. in addition, for pier 27 and 29, the connector building between pier 19 and 23 is a non historic structure. there is an opportunity to create major views in public access to the bay. that is included as part of the proposal, too. the improvement of 19 and 23, the removal or modification of 19.5 are part and parcel of our thinking about -- run that transferred of development in the funding strategy that has been discussed. if we were able to accomplish those planning process these that i just described in the previous slide and be able to identify an alternative open

water basin location by 2015, we would be able to effectively replace the removal requirement there is a kin time when all of this needs to take place. visually this is what we're talking about, 1923 and 19.5 connector. those are the public access areas off site, as well as on pier 29 and a half side. similarly, we are looking to have public access through the public connector building as part of the offsite. on pier 27-29, the public access improvements i just described are depicted here as well. with regard to funding strategy,

we recognized on top of everything else going on that that is a key concern, so the staff report lays it out in more details, but either through these funding tools that exist or have been created since 2000 or we hope to be able to create in the terms of tdr right, we have a more robust range of tools available to us than we did back in 2000. those obligations constituted $30 million worth of improvements. we're looking at $20 million in new improvements that are associated with the amendments that are proposed at this time with an acceleration of the delivery of northeast work plaza. so while we do not have it all in hand, we have tried our best

to integrate the costs associated with these kinds of improvements that enable the port to be able to bring about a major maritime facility along the waterfront and to integrate that actively with the 10-year capital plan work that we have been working on. with respect to the steps in january. there is a staff recommendation that was mailed out last friday to queue up for it that happens,

we would go to march 15 as the next date for seeking a major permit for the pier 27 improvements. with the change to the america's cup, we just met with staff this morning, and recognize the city and for me to get together on the refinements. we will probably not go forward with a special area plan amendments until maybe april. with that, happy to answer any questions. it has been an extraordinary process. i have to express my gratitude

and appreciation. pratt has been able to work on all of the issues and the team has been very nimble on responding to the issues as well. finally, di to the community stakeholders to have been very important in the interview process, and lastly to staff. they have bent over backwards to try to hear what our concerns are and work out a proposed brought wealth of the improvements that i think are doable. thank you. >> corin woods. >> i chair the mission based

citizens advisory committee to the successor agency of the redevelopment agency, and i am looking forward to looking with working with you, robert. even though we're not talking about the america's cup approval, in fact in a lot of ways it makes it easier, because maybe we can now negotiate something. one of the conditions for dredging was going to be the approval of an exclusive negotiating agreement for a recreational boat marina at pier 54. pier 54 is adjacent to what is the front part.

it is really a nice walk if you can get down there. yesterday i would have said to you that we're looking forward to building bayfront park in the next five years because the blocks adjacent to that, blocks 30 and 32, were going to be constructed by sales force, but today i cannot say that, because now we do not know when it will be realigned. there are all kinds of triggers that mean the bayfront park will be built probably later. it does mean there will be in open water basin, although not want officially recognized.

i would really like you all to think about whether it makes sense to put a recreational boat marina, which we need, right in front of what is going to be a major park for mission bay. as the negotiations for the america's cup move forward, i would like to keep the vision of bayfront park in mind and recognize this is an important amenity for mission bay in the blue green way in the eastern neighborhoods even -- and the eastern neighborhoods that do not have any designated space. as the negotiations move forward, please pay attention to mission bay. thank you. >> any other public comment?

any questions or comments from the commissioners? >> the special area plans would have came out first, and then we have decided pier 27 is the spot for the cruise terminal. that meets the maritime mandate of the port but ends up clashing with the mandate around the open access. is there any reason there would not be a reason for this because there are public plan to running together. does that question make sense? >> it does. we get asked this question a lot by the executive director. [laughter]

the struggle is that we're both public trust agencies. the mandate is narrower than the public port responsibility. initially i think we look at it more as a clash, and now frankly i think we're looking at more as a reconciliation and compromise. previously if you had proposed a project that was a maritime project, bcdc would not give credit recognition to the public trust of value in the same way by being willing to share that space along the pier 27 apron or in the provisioning area of pier 27 as a shared maritime and public access space. they are willing, and they have embraced the idea that the port needs to use the space for some

of its functions. they accept the security requirements to close those areas are real. there is not a penalty or not a direct offset we are having to seek out because of that. our experience has really been very collaborative, and i think that both of these agencies has gained a richer understanding about the in the relationship of our public trust responsibility such that we can work together, and at this point they are accepting the shared public access maritime function. they have also been responsive to the ports funding and financial restraints by giving us time to be able to stretch out improvements over time. frankly that time will help everybody, at the port and public to learn more about what

these spaces are that we create and what is really the best way of being able to get the highest public enjoyment when you do not have the maritime function in the way to figure out the improvements that best fits that rather than trying to figure it out today. those are all really good development for all of us. thank you. i>> the shared open access that is now part of the special plan amendments, relative to when the pier 27 and america's cup plan -- how much has that added on to the cost that was initially envisioned? >> it is hard to put a real specific point on that, but by and large the range of improvements in the public

benefits package would have been pretty much what we were talking about. i do not think it would have been what we're talking about. the changes would have been in knowing where the alternate base and would have been instead of calling for a study as a forward step. the issues we're trying to solve for in this current proposal for public access are particular to the cruise terminal, with or without the america's cup. so have we had more time to answer the questions that are now in the subject of the planning studies, that is how it would have changed. and i do not think this is driven by the program of the america's cup. america's cup addition it -- generated public access improvements in addition to the

packs we're talking about now for the cruise terminal. >> i see brad wanting to answer. >> just to get to that answer to your question, on the cruise terminal we're seeing the work force water plaza was an additional -- additional requirement. $14 million is the current staff estimate. the other special area plan amendment associated with the cruise terminal and mmx are in the facility of $20 million. -- ammendments are in the vicinity of $20 million. the improvements would be things like apron areas and add to the functionality of those of the adjacent peers. with respect to the america's cup, i think we were calculating this morning there were either a special area plan of them it's a

major permit requirements associated with the america's cup that might total as much as $9 million to the project cost. >> that were not envisioned initially? >> yes, when we went to the board of supervisors, we did not reject any additional cost, but that was largely a projection of port staff rushing as we were in not thinking through the regulatory requirements. >> just one other comment. there is a narrow agenda. and some of the things you mentioned on your slide, in terms of the joint objectives, and i think you listed establishing and implementing funding sources, i am wondering

whether there is more discussion to be had, since we should be collaborating in sharing, but it is easy to be a regular on one side and say you need to do this, this, and this, but we are on the receiving end to figure out how we are went to pay for this and a cost-benefit analysis, and if there is any way as we go forward in the joint objectives that we can also introduce more of a sharing in thinking through the financial feasibility of some of the requirements and recommendations that they make that are not strictly, purely regulatory but this is what you should do. i would add that as a comment in terms of your ongoing conversation, because it is tough for everyone to figure out. it is an accountability and responsibility we all share. >> i agree with you. i think the point is very well taken. in the context of all this