one to phase two. given the pressure to deliver the america's cup village by 2013, phase one funding is a high priority for the city and the port. the revised total budget to the port is estimated at $90.3 million. this does not include the event authorities obligation for demolition and to relocate shoreside power. separated into two phases, phase one is estimated at $58.2 million. the court will have funding for that amount, which we will describe momentarily. phase two costs are estimated at $32 million. at this point i would like to handed over to the port finance director to talk about funding sources. >> thank you. to reiterate what john has already described, $58.2 million, these sources " -- total 20.2 uses that meets the shortfall of $12 million. for phase one, the large majority of sources were at 87%. including sales from the water mark, land parcels at $20 million, revenue that we have issued in 2010 with interest earnings, planned future debt that we have been planning on since the last is

one to phase two, and identifying additional funding for the project. i do not think anybody can see this, but this is the funding sources you have seen before. it was in the staff report two weeks ago. it was in the staff report to the board of supervisors, but it talks about what we are prescribing for the phase one and phase two funding sources, and is divided into plant and proposed sources. i will not get into it directly, other than most of the funds in phase one car for the watermark condo sales proceeds, and the revenue bonds, which have already been issued. the phase two proposed costs include the 2012 general obligations bonds that would have to go to the vote of the people. $9.1 million would be directed toward the northeast wharf plaza. below that, the $2.75 million, which is now called the cruise operator contribution. that would be dedicated for a mobile gang way system. those items are still proposed, and they are in the works. which leads us to where we are in terms of project costs and funding. we think we have -- we have had a strategy

there is phasing in the project and as part of each phase moving ahead, the developer would tell us what the retail program was going to be for that phase, not the store, but the type. because right now we have no say. they could do anything they wanted retail-wise today. we would have absolutely nothing to say about it the way the documents currently stand. >> so what happens if the developer submits a retail plan, we approve it, but that business does not prevent. for whatever reason there is no demand for it. >> well, the plan could be general enough -- and it could always be changed. it will be general in nature. it is not going to say nail salon. it would talk about personal services as a category. >> if i could just add, i think this is fairly consistent with our actions within the deer-up now. this would happen as part of a sub-phase application, some years before you actually built retail. i think it would be a broad plan of the types of retail that could be in that space, a mix of neighborhood serving as well as regional serving. it is appropriate with the types of other approva

although we will have completed phase one -- we are anticipating to have completed phase one by the beginning of this coming fiscal year, there will also be expenditures associated with that acquisition. the eminent domain actions will carry forward. there will be relocation assistance and other expenses associated. the other three major categories are salaries and benefits for tjpa staff, administrative costs, and also our reserve fund. the budget will come to you -- the revenue section will have two parts -- planned revenue and committed revenue, and the committed revenue will show what has actually been allocated in a grant, and planned revenue will be what we will be working with the funding partners to allocate throughout the year. then, for the second year, we will be bringing you an operating budget as well for the temporary terminal, and that will cover expenditures associated with management for the temporary terminal, security, parking control, and the bridge toll funds that we receive are expected to cover all of those costs, and we also received some rent from greyhound and have a

essentially, payback phase 1 investment or go to phase 2. we do not expect this to occur for another 10 years. all of those would be subject to board supervisor approval, along with the developments. we are also early in the legislative process. we have a long way to go in sacramento. supervisor kim: 7 to 10 years, so this could go back to paying the debt in phase one, but we would not really see an impact in the construction? so we are really just talking about repayment of debt, but does not cover the shortfall . >> if the bill passes and we have the ability to capture a share, we would be in a stronger position to offer a bridge of financing to cover the phase 2 shortfall, knowing that we had a secure source to repay it. supervisor kim: what is the estimated time line, some level of certainty from sacramento, potential passage of the bill? >> it would typically go to the governor's desk in october. i think that we would have a much clearer signal from the legislative process before then. potentially, august or september. supervisor kim: a

all political parties want to phase out nuclear power seftly. only the power generators want to slow the pace. translator: this cannot be about speeding up the end of nuclear power or curtailing its use in the interim. >> but that motion will not prevail. the ethics commission recommended the government said a date for the time shutdown of the country's nuclear plant so utility companies can work towards it. translator: in our report we mentioned several times the possibility of phasing out nuclear power before the final date. but we have left no possibility of drying it out beyond the deadline, tpwhaws would make companies less certain about investing in alternatives. >> nuclear plants still operating would be shut down over the coming decade. during that period more wind farms would be built, grid upgraded and energy-saving measured implemented. the government wants the relevant legislation passed with unmatched speed by mid--july. just four months after the disaster at fukushima. >> germany is a world leader in green technology, especially fo

two. >> whcommissioner torres: this s phase one still? >> they're trying to cut the trees and we are trying to get into court to stop them. commissioner torres: i am concerned about the trees, but i am also concerned about the trout. can they update us where we are? >> is a confusing history on this one. we have had a lot of conversations the last couple of weeks because the original environmental work was years ago. we lost track of it, that might be the nicest way of phrasing it. >> de division director has been trying to get the history of this. it sat for all the time and only now is it going forward with the project. we are still not quite finished gathering hall that information. we are on record as being quite concerned about the project. >> was their response been? --commissioner torres: what has their response been? >> they have not been forthcoming with information. catching up to get on top of it, we are pretty on top of it. they spoke several times about trying to get the picture together to get the best program going forward.

that is 75,000 customers in phase one. we will be large program. that is a 30 megawatt program offering. it is about twice the size of -- in megawatts' -- as the program offered by others. it is substantially more than that in terms of customer accounts. on the third rat issue of redesign and targeting, our target has been early 2012. supervisor mirkarimi brought up the flat generation rate proposal that pg&e has before the california public utilities commission. rate changes like that, changes in the marketplace, those can have an impact on our program and the understand ability of our program to our customers. given the anticipated rate changes on the pg&e side, we expect good timing to probably be in the early summer or mid- summer of 2012. that is because the rate proposal before the california public utilities commission is to adopt a decision that says yes to a flat generation rate but does not implement it for some time. it looks most likely to be one year from now. if we want our program and began an hour off out notifications -- began an i

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, comm

that is one of the reasons for the phase in. but i am calling its successful because there would be a good number of core customers who would be our spokespeople to talk about reliability and those things as we expand. when they see from their neighbors is the same reliable service, those are the kinds of things that a part of an education campaign. that is how we get to the 46% of what we're calling persuade wieables. you start with a good program. you start with the people most likely to be with you. >> miss miller, did you want to add to that? >> when we do a poll and make it public, some of the statistics we talk about publicly. the point of doing this poll was to get an idea of what the program parameters should be and where they should be going. if you looked at any other program providing 100% clegreen, they have a very small percentage of countries that actually percentage of customers that actually participate because of cost. in san francisco, the percentage is so much higher and those expecting of 100% renewable. if w

not as phase two, but as a dual track to lower the cost. [tone!] needed higher than 70%. -- we need higher than 70%. supervisor campos: thank you. any other members of the public who would like to speak, please come up. >> good afternoon. i am with the san francisco de area sierra club. the sierra club has always supported this program. we think it is a great move. we would also agree that we would like to see the strongest local gold out eventually. we want to see clean power sf running as soon as possible. i am very excited to see that it is 100% ruble and will have no dedicated nuclear power. that is very important to sierra club since we are against all forms of nuclear power. thank you. supervisor campos: public comment is closed. commissioners, this is a discussion item. unless there is anything else to add, madam cleark, please call item five. we can now hear from mr. campbell. >> and the director of the committee choice abrogation program. this is a brief item. a lot of it got covered in the discussion earlier. the big items -- one is the g

this was phase one of the project. all the funding that was needed to, these too will construct 65,000 square foot operations and maintenance building as well as trading rooms, offices, lunch and locker rooms. the new facility will be located at the southeast corner of the property and is highlighted in the site plan. and who have secured a $35 million of federal funds to restart work on phase two. and who have a partial design that was started a number of years ago. the next steps in this project, we're working closely with our maintenance operations people to make sure that the current design that we have will meet their needs since technology has changed considerably in the last six to seven years. that is when the design was started as was making sure that the current design meets all the relevant building codes that they have changed over the years. once we have established the parameters, design work will begin to bring it up to current code. it will construct the new buildings. the federal money will arrive in j

this was the first phase of very building improvement. it was done to meet the needs of the ferry terminal but also to enhance the qualities of the area so that future redevelopment of the ferry building and public spaces could also be undertaken. quickly, the map showing you the improvements that were made at the time, what it looks like today. these were all completed in [inaudible] currently, we have vallejo and 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

phase, matching a regional political community grant that we supported. leslie, there is a green light rail center tracker project. i know that the commissioner is very familiar with this. the central project in terms of muni operations. the project is advancing the safety improvements along the track and we are seeking clarifications on the interplay between this project and the far east side connections project to try to seek acceleration of acceptable platforms on the avenue over the one that is currently there. supervisor avalos: i do appreciate going over the site, you took me there about a month and a half ago. based on that, we had those tracks along the walkway. those were shut down for a month and the tracks were moved to create space and safety for pedestrians going through there. that was a big part of that effort by and raising awareness and it was really great to see. there was a little more space but there is a lot more to do. when i look at the improvements being made to the grignard, that is something that affects the whole city. so, i loo

there are four different distinct watersheds a different phases of the -- at different phases of the program there. next, on treasure island proper, we have analyzed conclusions of concern for each difference land use and adapted our treatment to each of those different areas. and then we had divided the island further into different watersheds, based on the phasing, the soil and other issues, we can link the treatment with the infrastructure development. vice president moran: so your role is a consultant to the development? >> that is correct. vice president moran: where else have you applied for this advice? -- where else have you provided this advice? >> we have worked elsewhere in san francisco. we have helped several other large water treatment facilities within the bay area. vice president moran: right. so your expertise is really the bay area then? >> right. the bay area. vice president moran: and you think we are ok now? >> in terms of the treatment measures? vice president moran: are we taking the appropriate steps here in san francisco to do with the issue? >> yes. i think

for phase two, there are still about approximately 8 $12 billion debt. there are some strategies, but we are not there yet, but we do have some options. the first would be to review opportunities to generate additional revenues, including special even usage, parking, and commercial leasing within the pier 27 site. we would consider further reductions as long as it does not negatively impact performance standards. we would try to identify new sources of revenue, including grant funding or other sources of anything we can find. we would select components -- project components that are in the project now that possibly we could differ at a future date, and finally, reallocate and use funds from other capital projects. as the process goes forward, we will periodically check in with you as to what the project funding, the project's cost will be, not only with regards to phase 1 project, but especially with regards to face two, since we have a funding gap. the other question that i mentioned earlier is what are the city benefits? this is based on an economic st

there had been announcements that they wanted to phase the implementation. we have had a phased implementation approach for them, so this is a step in the right direction. our sense of phased implementation, in san francisco, first and foremost, downtown extension from king street to the terminal, operations of caltrain, and operation of that service from the terminal to san jose. needless to say, we cannot support a transfer from high- speed rail to caltrain service of any kind in san jose. we believe high-speed rail service has to reach the terminal and that will be the line of advocacy that we will pursue vigorously with authorities, starting with our meeting on may 5, where we will be speaking about that issue. that concludes my report. i would be happy to answer any questions. supervisor mirkarimi: any questions or comments? commissioner and cohen. supervisor cohen: a question about the grant received for the bayview. to the executive director. i was curious to note, this mobility solutions study, it is this also to include visitation valid? -- valley?