i told willie brown the port is where the money was years ago. that is how we got all this development. pleased to listen to me. that is where the money is. concentrate on seawall lot 337 and tier 70. that is a gift that you cannot replace. thank you. >> thank you. is there any further comment on item 90? -- 9b? commissioners, any comments? >> i do want to point out, as was noted earlier by director -- that we will have a good working good workingmowd to work on this project and we will be having similar reports at the port although not necessarily under the port's jurisdiction, we will be getting updates and there will be opportunity for public input. i feel confident we will have strong opportunities to hear from the public and which should be an exciting opportunity for all of us. >> any other comments? >> these are all developing -- exciting developments coming to our city. we certainly look forward to working with all parties involved from the point of view of the commission and i think this will be a collaborative structure going forward be

during construction, the developer agrees to pay the port $60,000 a year as the construction period ramps. san francisco waterfront partners will petition to annex their property into a project area of a port wide ifd, infrastructure financing district, in a requirement for terminating the parcel. this is expected to generate annual tax increment of $3 million. based on this it and subject to agreement with the city, the port is drafting an infrastructure finance program for this year that would impose a disposition of this increment. the plan, subject to board approval, will propose reimbursing the developer for up to $5 million of qualified project costs for public improvements. at products stabilization, ifp will direct 50% of available tax increment to the general fund and allow the port to utilize bonds as debt service and debt service coverage. the project's financial benefit to the city are significant and include $2.8 million in new annualized taxes and revenues and onetime payments and fees in excess of $15 million, as shown on the slide. in summary, the proposed transaction guar

i am the port's leasing manager. i am here to give you an informational presentation, no action required, on the 2012- 2013 rental rate schedule. in 1993, this commission delegated to the authority to the executive director to negotiate licenses and mou's if those documents met certain business parameters, such as rental rates being consistent with the schedules approved by the commission. the tenant would sign a boiler plate lease. port staff provides this commission with a monthly report of that activity. in the early 2012, the first quarter, the market has continued to improve, asking rents have strengthened. on track to improve through 2012. demand for the waterfront has increased steadily in the last quarter. over last 12 months, port staff has executed 70 agreements. $5 billion annualized to the port, compared to last year, annualized increase of 3.2. a few less leases, but we did larger leases. the current vacancy rate is 10.1%. somewhat lower than the city's average vacancy rate, which is 11%. regarding wareho

as the agreement now stands, the port says the developer would pay the port 100 to $7,000 for lost revenues -- $150,000 for the three-year construction time frame of the development. we think that number is it too low and recommend it increased by $73,000 to make the porthole in terms of what we estimate the revenue lost to be. we have another policy issue that has been discussed here. the development agreement which is not before the board assumes the port would reimburse the developer $5 million for the public improvements in the open space. our recommendation is in fact that the developer pay for those costs and that not be from the ifd. the board has not approved a plan for this ifd. this is consistent with state law which allows and jurisdiction to provide public benefits for the conditional use and the right to develop and proceed with the development process. president chiu: i want to follow up on some of the concerns you've raised. thank you for your analysis. i absolutely agree that the $5 million the port is paying to the developer to provide the so- called community benefit back

the site. purchase and sale agreement in more detail. port will convey portions of seawall lot 351 from the trust under the terms of the psa. san francisco waterfront partners will forward their proceeds to the psa. set in the water from partners will develop the private improvement and record a parking covenant that permit restricts a portion of the parking garage. the trust exchange agreement, as mentioned, is with the state lands commission and the port and set forth the terms under which the state lands commission approves the trust exchange of the site. the maintenance agreement again guaranteeing, for 66 years, the census to waterfront partners will maintain and operate the open space improvements. the project documents have many guarantees, listing them here. significant guarantees included a guarantee as a $3 million land payment. guarantee of the replacement parking remedy, termination fee guarantee that obligates the developer to pay for a liquidated some of $250,000 should be dda and psa terminate before escrow. finally, completion

proxmire understanding is that it is under the port -- the purview of the port commission. that are under the purview of the board and that is what we have here before you. president chiu: i can ask the city attorney. do you know why this would not be considered a critical document for us? >> i think there is a difference between being required to provide it to you and whether it is before you. i think the port is saying that the dda is not something before the board for approval. president chiu: even though it can't -- it includes some of the key financial terms we have before us today. gregg's -- >> is a resolution of intent to form an isp. >> moving on, i wanted to briefly present the project in front of you that was approved by the planning commission and port commission and and talk about the financial benefits. this is the area of the waterfront as envisioned by this project overall. starting out with the current site, the current site is a combined site made up of fuel lot 3 havret 51, a 90 + persons bait -- a 90 + space parking lot, and the area formerly known as th

but the port is an economic driver in this city still. certainly, not the economic driver it once was, but the economic record will be -- economic driver it will be. it will produce jobs not just for us, but for others. well beyond the jobs projected from this individual project. the participation of the port and the city, their various participations are generically different. the city have granted additional hike in order to increase the amount of taxable property available to them. but the port is actually engaging in a land swap. that means a different structure of financing available to the port. it should be available to that port and to the city in this project. we ask you to allow it to go forward as quickly as possible with all possible advantage to the city and to the port, and to help us get back to work. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a 46-year president -- resident of san francisco. i am entering consultant here in the day and in california and throughout the nation. -- here in the san francisco bay and in cal

we've given the public benefit to the city and port that this partial reimbursement is comparable to other times the tax implement has been used to create these public assets. in other cases, far more public moneys have flowed into public open spaces. finally, there is the balance that represents one time bonding of the tax increment with a net present value of about $17 million that we would like to begin a discussion with the board to help fulfil some of the potential leads the port has through these revenue bonds that can be supported by this ongoing revenue. the three projects we have presented in this regard of the cruise terminal, phase it to. phase one is underway and will be used as a building for the america's cup and will need to be retrofitted with maritime equipment such as getting ways to make sure it is a fully functional and state of the art cruise terminal. the other needs we are proposing are under peer utilities. we are currently in discussions with the water board. they have asked us to come up with a program to solve a number of issues over time that amounts to abo

is the port and the developer amenable to those changes? >> i believe there are changes that could be made to the underlying documents in the file between now and when the board of supervisors considers this item that will satisfy those changes. chairperson chu: it sounds like there are four very specific issues, including of the fee at the parking lot, the minimum annual guarantee, and the lost parking revenue. is that correct? ok. these would all be amendments to the underlying document, correct? ok. colleagues, any other thoughts? supervisor avalos has indicated a desire to continue this item. any other thoughts about this? supervisor kim: my understanding from the budget calendar -- is there another budget committee that is scheduled for the month of june? chairperson chu: at this moment, there is not. we purposely left the first two weeks of june open, so the budget analyst would be able to work on the budget deliberations of the last two weeks of june. we had not anticipated a subsequent meeting next week for the budget and finance co

he has been with the port for 32 years. working from the mud line up, he really does know where every bolt is in this place, i suspect. he is one of four generations that has worked for the port. his great-grandfather was a boiler maker for the state of california. his grandfather was a boilermaker for the railroad that was a part of the state board harbour commissioners. his father was a superintendent for the port. you just heard tom's story as well. it is not fathom will bring you could be leaving us, and i will continue to say it. as the architect of the annual barbecue, for certain you will have to come back every year for that. he has just had a great life experience here. i know the shared some memories, but i thought that i would save them for you to share. i know that there is not an employee here that does not know your name and phone number by heart and has not called you about something entirely crazy. i know that that is true and i hope that when you get that chance to breathe it in -- all in, you will think thr

i'm curious to the comparison as to the summaries of the payments to the port in terms of how they compared. if you can talk about the participation and how that worked with the water market. >> i'm happy to answer that question. in the water mark transaction, the footprint of that development was approximately half an acre. approximately 22,000 square feet. the forms of compensation, one was an upcoming payment of about $2 million. we have a $9 million appraisal here. second, there's a payment the developer was holding in escrow. at was also a developer of the project at 3032 and the transaction agreement was they would hold those moneys in escrow, holding all excess profits with a return on money to hold that to the cruise terminal of that project. as it happens, they walked away from building that. those moneys were holed to be for use for a future terminal and those of the seed monies we're using to build the cruise terminal at pier 27. $70 million was supposed to cross subsidize eight maritime project and we would much rather have had the cruise terminal built than getting those moneys

the trust exchange agreement, as mentioned, is with the state lands commission and the port and set forth the terms under which the state lands commission approves the trust exchange of the site. the maintenance agreement again guaranteeing, for 66 years, the census to waterfront partners will maintain and operate the open space improvements. the project documents have many guarantees, listing them here. significant guarantees included a guarantee as a $3 million land payment. guarantee of the replacement parking remedy, termination fee guarantee that obligates the developer to pay for a liquidated some of $250,000 should be dda and psa terminate before escrow. finally, completion guarantee for the lead-free public improvement. >> because of the competition from commuter parking in this area, parking for visitors is an important consideration for poor attendance in the ferry building and nearby areas of the northeast waterfront. since the opening of the ferry building, parking resources have been lost, including ferry plaza, and the july 2008 closure of the pier which had 40 spaces capaci

there's an additional 9000 square feet the port will receive that won't necessarily be impressed with the trust. we are getting the land in excess of what was considered as part of the trust's exchange. finally, the port lands come almost all of which will become public open space, the cost to improve those properties is $12.7 million. as i will discuss later, the developer will pay for up front of those costs. the developer and its successors will take on all park maintenance in perpetuity for these open spaces. we value this at about $175,000 a year in maintenance. finally, outside of the direct public benefits to the port and the city, there are two other components that have been discussed quite considerably as part of this project. first is public parking. public parking that was developed will come at a cost of about $150,000 for parking spaces. that brings us to $38 million construction cost. the developer hasd will bring in about $140,000 per space per day which has a net present value of approximately $22 million. there's a subsidy they are building into their development for

certainly, it is the ports that's a goal to retain the it alcatraz landing site to be on law no. waterfront within port property. additional information comes available, we will come back to you with an update. with that, let me introduce frank dean of the national park service. if there are questions afterwards, jay and i are here to answer questions. one less thing. we made a mistake in one of the exhibits which amy has provided you a revised exhibit for pier 31.5. >> good afternoon. thank you for having us today. interested to share with you our thoughts. in the interest of time, i just want to reinforce some of john paul's point. we're in the early stages of the process, in their early scoping phase. -- john's point. we are open to comments during this period of time as well, to any and all ideas. then we will have a second chance to hear from the public, which will then shape the final plan and decision. our objective in all of this is we would like a long-term home for the alcatraz pier. as you can see in the image, we are open to where that might be. we believe, given the p

the port's leasing manager. i am here to give you a presentation on the proposed design for teatro zinzanni. following my introduction, mark miller will speak. he is the principle of mk think, the principal designer. the staff presented the lease for teatro zinzanni which was formally at pier 29. the new site is seawall lot 324 at the embarcadero and broadway. staff at the meeting explained the design is under refinement to address the historic preservation guidelines found in the northeast waterfront historic district. at the february meeting, this commission expressed interest in having the opportunity to comment on the proposed design early in the process, well in advance of the staff request for approval of the lease. at this point, i want to bring up mark miller to walk you through the design. >> thank you. nice to see you all today. i am pleased to update you on a project that we originally brought to you on the 23rd. the and dances and modifications have to do with input we received from port staff and the

i of the structural engineer for the port. i will briefly discuss the status of the america's cup project. as noted, not including dredging the port, currently six ongoing infrastructure improvement projects today, the port finalized and then the no. 4, with turner construction. turner will be the contractor for four of the projects, two of which have near-term deadline for completion, which i will discuss further. turner is also discussed -- involved in the other two projects helping to procure materials. turner will commence construction of pier 30-32 next week. the port is good will to hand over this appeared to the event authority on july 202012. turner is also scheduled to commence construction on pier 29 substructure repair on july 2, 2012. the port is good to deliver this pier to the event authority on september 1, 2012. additionally, turner is also scheduled to commence demolition appear 1/2 on july 16. the remaining 3 projects and pier juan have demolition project to not have near-term construction completion deadlines

what is on the overhead is the port site. that the new port property after the land swap. that is a swiss cheese, weird sight. that is the site that you are bargaining for. none of that is covered by the planning commission on open space, and it says it is not. it was inserted at the end. you have a pud that focuses on open space that you as the commission to take out of the resolution on the conditions of open space, and you're not putting them back. i do not see how it can be approved after the fact in this case. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm jim chappell representing spurt, the san francisco planning and urban research association. we have almost 6000 members now. i think i have been to virtually every community meeting on this project. i urge the commission to adopt the ceqa findings and approve the required transactional documents today. there are tremendous benefits of this project to the port and to the city. 134 dwelling units, all $11 million for affordable housing, essentially the only source for funding for affordable housing in this city today. and park

when the port received appears from the city in 1968, many were beyond their useful life. they are in bad need of repairs. they have maintained pile crews since 1924, that is our earliest record of having pile workers who would work on pier repair activities. it is needed work. it appears exist in a very harsh marine environment -- that appears exist in a very harsh marine environment and they do get damaged. some are so damaged they have to be removed from the day. currently, the port is proud to have a 16 person pilot crew working up and down the waterfront was to pile ribs. -- with to pile rig is a. a lot of the damage is hidden. you have to do testing and open them up to see what the damages and it's hard to come up with accurate construction drawings to bit out of work. when we do bit out, there are a lot of change orders causing cost to increase significantly. we experienced some of lot with these types of projects. we see it is much more flexible to use support staff for this work -- if you find a bad condition, you can deploy court staff to another portion of the w

as shown on the table, ports that is working with stakeholders such as the ferry building to maximize parking availability during construction and the bill port obligations under our parking agreement. staff has been discussing this proposal with the ferry building and is hopeful we can reach agreement for the interim parking needs and their long- term parking needs. i would now like to discuss project action recently taken by the city's planning commission and recreation and park commission. including certify the final eir, approving the general plan and zoning map and then to allow increased site, a conditional use permit pursuant to planning code, making determinations of consistency with the city's general plan, the joint adoption by the planning commission and rec and park commission of a resolution establishing an absolute commitment limit for shadows on the part, and making a shadow impact of termination after review and comment by the san francisco rec and parks apartment and this commission. in addition, the rec and park commission determined at its joint meeting with the pla

we have heard consistently from the port it's worth $12 million, but the budget analysts has $8 million? >> aide was the -- $8 million was the appraised value we are told there was a strip of land, about 9000 scripps -- 9000 square feet. we have no way to calculate that number. this does not account for the $7 million loss that would be transferred to the developer. chairperson chu: the budget analyst recognizes there was a strip of land and did not have a parade -- an appraisal with it, so you did not include that. and going down to the park lands with the difference between the ports numbers, what is the difference there? >> i believe, you're talking about the difference between the six multimillion-dollar sandy $12 million for the improvement -- $16 million and the $12 million for the improvement? >chairperson chu: know. >> the project costs are the best that we could come up with in the discussions. that is the basis of our review. chairperson chu: so, it sounds like an earlier version or a preliminary estimate versus the later estimate. that the discrepancy that we are seeing? >> c