has been understood. in the past, this commission has either in whole or as a committee had joint meetings with a committee of the bcds commission so that we can create a process for the dialogues to take place. >> thank you. >> i have an additional question. what did you say the push or schedule is for this? march-may? >> march-may? >> second to last slide. how much additional time will it take to get this going? to go for america's cup? >> yes. >> we are estimating the special area plan amendments for america's cup, we have been cuing it up to take it to the commission on thursday, march 1.

we're looking at a month delay. a month after for getting a major permit for the america's cup. >> item 10b, request approval of proposed amendments to the port harbor traffic code allowing certain parking restrictions and installations of parking meters on and croats -- on improved poor streets east of third street between mission creek and that very procemaripo. >> reported have the port has been coordinating with the asset mta. since that hearing, they have decided to delay the legislation for the areas outside of mission

bay. -- i reported that the port has been coordinating with abovsfmt. within the mission bay area, the port -- i would like you to consider the amendments to the port harbor traffic code to a line with the existing transportation code that will allow for the installation of parking meters on port streets within mission bay along china basin street, mission bay, north and south, 16 street once it is constructed, and illinois st. all within mission bay. in addition, we would like to eliminate the two hour time restrictions. and allow the staff to have the discretion on where certain time limits might be placed, for instance in front of regional- serving parks.

and some of the commercial businesses, port commercial businesses within mission bay. the cost of the amendments would be $244,000 within the instafor the installation of pag meters. we received about $31,000 a month and projected revenue, so we anticipate with a three-month ramp up for installing the meters and getting the program under way that the return would be after about 16 months for the port. i do want to point out revenue is not the primary reason we are installing these. it is more for parking management and transportation management. it approved, we will complete the of meter installation and just meter that our operations and continue with ongoing

monitoring and adjust where needed. with that, if we have any questions, i am available. >> a motion to approve? public comment, caree. corine woods. >> resident of mission bay. i do support the meter plant. i think it's really important that we do some parking management and area. i have a couple of issues. and one is there are certain parts of the boulevard that do not have sidewalks, and therefore you cannot put meters in. in the places where meters

cannot go in, we would like to keep the two-hour parking limits. i know it is tough for mta to enforce parking limits come up but we do not want to encourage free all-day parking for commuters. i am a little concerned about the 11:00 p.m. time limit on the meters. the only time when that is really important is when there is something going on at at&t park, at which point we definitely want them to 11:00 and definitely want special rates to apply. until 11:00, i understand you do it on the embarcadero, but it

is a kind of different neighborhood at mission bay. and outside of game days, i do not think he will make enough money to warrant the extra enforcement you will have to put in, but i get that you want to be consistent. i would like you to monitor this very closely and see whether it is really necessary to run the meters until 11:00. we do not want to discourage our mission day retail, which we do not have much of yet. as i have talked to retail brokers who have said they want to be able to have turnover. they want to have people be able to park it to go to restaurants or what ever. the un limilimit of the nature e

meters does not encourage that kind of thing. this is stuff we've been talking to the mta about are ready. the one size does not all all over the city, and we would like them to pay particular attention with the new meters in mission bay to make sure if they do what we need them to do for this new neighborhood. thank you. >> delaney. >> tofer delaney. i owned the property as 600 illinois. i am a business owner. and i came up for something else. i own a business. and i have approximately 6-10 people that work in this business every day. i am on the corner of illinois and mariposa.

meters are a bad thing for us. people are working there, and we are in retail. we have all-day parkers. it is like a war fair down there now. we jockey for positions to keep people out. we tell them not to park there. it is an all-day parking lot, and i do understand the dilemma, but as the rest of us are contesting, meters are not the answer for us. time dd two-hours is fine, 4 but meterbut meters, no. this is not conducive to running

businesses. it may be helpful to the port perhaps, but it is certainly not conducive to your commerce. it just gets harder and harder not easier and easier. from crazy by clings in front of us -- it is just another and petre iimpediment. our employees running out in a conference? it is crazy for us. there are not many businesses down there. we are really -- there are probably three of us better stakeholders. is that there for the rest of the group? i do not know. but we are the original stakeholders. and i am totally against the meters, 100% against them. i would say every business owner is 100% against them, as are the

rest of dog patch and the people who live south of mission day. timed -- you have to move your car every two hours, great. >> any other public comment? commissioners? commissioner lazarus. commissioner lazarus: i asked the last time about how you explain meters with no time limit. i do not understand the concept behind that if it is more revenue driven. in principle it does not really make sense to me. >> i will try to explain it. the park program is market- driven, and so with no time wlimits, which really helps the

user, based on the markets of where the demand is for parking come and stable rockets at the rate where it is very popular, and lower the rate so that wherever you want to park there is always a space if you are willing to pay. that is why going from two hours, which is difficult for the user if you of the three- hour meeting and can only find a two-hour spot, that is difficult for you as the user. if you're willing to pay where you want to park, then you can park their as long as you want. if you're willing to walk a few extra blocks, you can pay a little bit less but there will still be a spot there. it is market driven, and the a limited time makes it easier for the user- -- unlimited time

makes it easier for the user. >> it is definitely not an end to enintuitive. >> the other thing i would like to ask is that we get our report back on how this is all working. you yourself said there are a number of impacts and so we can set time limits if there is a way to survey the impacts to report back to us. >> absolutely. currently there are no plans to put in meters were there are not sidewalks. those are not a fully improved streets within mission bay. we will continue to-hour regulations were the streets that have not been completed, we will work with the mta to monitor how they are working,

and also on the duration. we are asking for approval to amend the harbour code to allow us to go from a 7:00 to 11:00. so that we are consistent with mta, who will only be operating from 9:00 until 10:00 and a line that so it is easier for the user and more consistent across the street. >> i guess addressing the concerns that were raised by the prior speakers, currently there is a two-hour time limit so if employers are there, they have to move their cars every two hours under the current scenario. under these rules they could pay to leave their cars there for an extended time. >> all day long. there would have to move their car or continue to feed the meter. >> following up on that comment,

because it was explained to me the other day you could have some sort of smart car and say i want to park there for eight hours and put that into the meter. if you were designated resident were working in that area, you would have the privilege to get up to eight hours, versus the general member of the public might only get two hours. >> and that is not how they will work. same rules for everyone, whether you live in the area or not. the come in 20, 50, $100 values. you plug in and pay for the amount of time you want to be there. let's say the meter start to operate at 9:00 and know you will be there to 11:00, you can plug in your two hours of time at 7:00, and then at 11:00 the

time will expire. >> the issue that has been raised by members of the public, but they could program for the amount of time they think they will be to park the car? at >> that is correct. -- >> that sis correct. there are some areas where there are to our restrictions were the streets are improved. we will put the meters in and there will be unlimited time but it will be paid. >> let's say if you park for eight hours, do you get a better rate? >> no discount, although currently the port operates the meters along the embarcadero where the rate is $1.25 an hour, but after 6:00 -- 7:00, it drops to 50 cents an hour. we anticipate doing the same within mission bay.

>> one thing we on the commission would like to recommend is you all spend more time with the community to explain how the leaders will work so they understand and there is no misunderstanding, and we do want to get feedback so we can hear how the program is working so we can view this as a program on a pilot basis until we ironed out the kinks. part of this is so we can understand how it will work. >> i am a little bit confused again. and when games are going on, at the meters at 7:00 and not dropped to 50 cents? >> during at&t special events we do have a special meter race. i cover that and more debt in january 20. >> thank you. > -- i cover that in more depth on

january 20. >> can get someone send another time via smart phone? >> yes, all the meters can or will shortly. sounds like beginning of april, the port meters will have the technology. >> you could be sitting at your desk and realizing the meter is going to expire. you are not to go to the meter. you can use your smart phone and extend the meter? >> that is correct. >> any other comments? >> perhaps something that could be looked into that has not been discussed is if there may be some way of getting there through the parking cards you

can purchase for the various leaders around the city, if there may be reduced rates to provide those cards to businesses in the area for employees. >> i can discuss that with mta. i will discuss that with mta. we're willing to do so in think we should come up and i cannot imagine it would be extremely difficult to manage that, but i will check in to see if that is feasible. >> thank you. >> item ten10c -- >> sorry. we have to to approve. approve. >> we have a motion on the table. it has been seconded.

all in favor? >> item 10c, request approval to award the pier 7020 history historic buildings of element opportunity to orton development and to enter into exclusive negotiations for a lease and development agreement of these buildings to achieve the objectives specified in the ports october 4, 2011 request for proposals. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i get to be here today recommending we start a new developer process. i will walk through this relatively quickly, but i am available for questions. we are here today at the end of an extensive our reach and marketing process to find private-sector process --

private sector partners to help us recover extraordinary buildings in the city, not just at the port. this builds upon the peers of the master process, and also, when we came forward and made recommendations on how to move the process forward, we broke pierce 70 into what we hope were manageable-sized pieces. the first one being below were right-hand corner, which is the waterfront site, which we entered into negotiations last year in anticipating coming back to you this year with more information on that. the second being the park project under way right now. the third, the 20th street historic buildings, the row of buildings lining 20th street. we offered these three or really

extensive out reach. we spent much of 2011 talking to people come out reaching. i think it was 176 people toured the buildings. we received four proposals to the rfp. in the january 20 package, you received summaries of the proposals. between the package as going out and your meeting, one of the proposals with through. a second proposal withdrew prior to the meeting. now we moved forward with an in- depth review of two proposals. that is after an enormous amount of people kick the tires. i am pretty excited we really did look for the funding and sources to move forward. the proposals came from equity in -- equity consortium building

and orton development inc.. as you saw in their presentation, these are both extraordinarily strong developers. they have done a lot of historic preservation is in san francisco. they both really understood the pier 70 context. we're really excited with what we got here. the concept of what they would propose doing come at the words are a little bit different, but they are talking about unions -- using office building for office-type uses. looking at converting the powerhouse to some sort of public food/restaurant use. south of 20, these are the interesting buildings, some of the more expensive buildings to redo. in the plans we called for a market hall.

what has come forward in both cases is light industrial use. more the extension of the economic activity that we see right now. rickshaw bags or other things going on in the american can't building. that is interesting if we can have this part continue to be a light years and continue making and creating things in san francisco. i would note the team included a team that had expressed interest in the building. when we really dug in, and i thought about what to put up here. the issue really comes down to the economics. and the financial capacity and cost to do the projects and how we can move forward and the distinctions between the developer teams was and how

this of the project economically, and what funds they have available now to commit to the project. predicting the cost before you dig in and hire engineers is called a conceptual performance. tell us how you are considering this project. how do you consider it? the difference between the real -- the teams is the ore orton ty can do it at a lower cost and secure a low or equity. and the developer would split the proceeds. ecb group sees this as a project that will be really difficult to do without some sort of subsidy or funding or feasibility gap, and they came to that table

offering to spend the money, which is to figure the project out, and then to go look at the funding sources. we moved forward and undertook the evaluation process. we saw the presentation in january were a consultant reviewed the proposals. we convened a technical panel of score and review. we had a great meeting and both developers presented and understood. then we did the actual scoring on the evaluation criteria. the panel consisted of mike viewebueller, toby levine, who has played an enormous role at the port and served on the planning commission on a number for roles. they each representatived the waterfront advisory group.

we used jennifer sobel and our representative from alexandria partners that is a developer in mission bay for a private-sector perspective. the scoring really plays out what i set up front, they're both strongly-qualified developers. the difference comes down in the feasibility, which is the evaluation of will the project work, and the financial capacity that each brought to the table. what staff is recommending is that we get the authority to initiate an exclusive negotiating process with the orton development team to refine and bring for process. we would come back to you with the explosive negotiating agreement, and we would come back, and the main thing you do is you dig in and try to come up with a good project here and obviously we backed the port commission, a community, and any

number of bodies to review the process and go forward with creating economic terms to make it happen. so what we're asking is for you to approve the resolution at hand. it makes a number of findings. both is that both teams are qualified. the second is the ability to go into exclusive negotiations. this was the market imaging in 2010. and i thought we were our reaching come up but now i think we're going to make this happen. pier 70 is moving forward. i'm available for questions. >> public comment. james metson. >> i am with orton development. our team is here. i want to thank you for the consideration. we're very honored by staff

recommendation. we hope we can move forward quickly with you guys. we look forward to starting quickly if we are chosen. thank you. >> any other public comment? commissioners, comments? >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is manual florez. i represent a carpenters' union local 22. this is a block from my office. i do not know how many times i have driven there and bought some day. now it is coming to light, and it is much needed. we strongly support it, and i think it is a great thing moving forward. i want to point out one thing, however, in that one of the

developers in the building we have had issues with. i wanted to bring that up. ongoing labor disputes with them. it has not been going well. we wanted to point that out concerning language, mature your standards and concern for the office. -- not above standards and concern for the office. we just wanted to point that out. we do encourage you to move forward on the project. thank you very much for your support. thank you. >> any further public comment? >> just one quick question. city hall directed us to the area as well. dave