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?

>> extremely favorable. >> probably like being aligned with the city ratings. >> they have been considerably favorable. of course, we will not know until we go after the market. 4.1%? >> which is a blended, 30-year rate? commissioner? >> i want to thank all of you for your work on this and talking about the financial aspects, with a high line in manhattan, getting a sense of what we will be able to achieve

once this is all connected. cutting it back to the finances, it will be money well spent. >> i think that i know the answer. this is general obligation without specific responsibilities. but do we end up sort of giving back to the city's and funding because of general obligation bond? >> we have some obligations that we are required to report quarterly on the expenditures and profits. we have no repayment obligation. in terms of the partnership with the city, we have agreements with the department of public works on engineering design and planning departments, etc., with

voters supported bonds but with such a wonderful windfall to the report. >> any other comments? >> did we pass the resolution? all in favor? the resolution is approved. >> any new business? >> commissioners, i would like to point out, for the record, new businesses targeted calendars and yesterday they were meeting with the planning commission, getting ready to hold a hearing for final projects. the two items on the forward calendar were accordingly --

work done accordingly. >> correct. >> is there any other new business? let's public comment. -- >> public comment. >> we have to take public comment before the business. >> i understand that there is a gentleman here? >> ipod that i would return the favor and come by and visit briefly. the concern that i wanted to share with you was regarding how your agenda items deal with that decline. action items that have certain

status, generally the discussion is related to where things that. for information items in budget items, it is not consistent. there is not always that paragraph. i would ask the you direct the staff in the future to include most every project that has implications. seems like everything that you do these days does for reference in that status. whether or not you adopted the findings from the commission or were affirmed by the supervisors, what the number was where if you reviewed it or the public might access those documents -- more specifically, this also applies where there is an exemption.

exemption documents are incredibly difficult to find. if those can be referenced by date, and if there is just a one-page reference to but that in as an attachment, so that that much of the documentation and paper trail can be followed by members of the public. i am one of the people that actually gets your detailed agendas and tries to keep track of what you are up to. you are doing a fine job, otherwise. given that point of feedback, and in the future. >> are there any other public comments? >> i only have one. sue? >> i am talking about lot 251.

the staff report was supposed to come out 72 hours in advance. i verified that with that before, just to try and find when it was coming out, getting back a flat report that staff reports were available 72 hours in advance. in that case you would have a report out on tuesday, a few days ago, two days before the planning commission meeting on thursday. if it is continued through the 23rd and 28, your report will come out on friday, because friday is three days in advance. this particular staff report is going to include the position development agreement, purchase and sales agreement, trust exchange agreements, amended agreement for exchange,

agreements on san francisco waterfront partners, a dramatic drawings, and at least a term of 66 years. because we have seen all of the property tax revenue payments with possible infrastructure financing to be created, as well as various lease payments for restaurants. that is a staggeringly complex documents -- document to go over in 72 hours. i would ask the commission to ask the staff do not put that complex of a packet out 72 hours in advance. it is abusive to you and the people trying to follow new projects. it means that we will not even have which were doing until after.

72 hours is the minimum that this is allowed. the planning commission cases on complexity that are available one week in advance, i would ask you to revisit deadlines on documents of this complexity. you really do not get informed testimony. maybe you do not want some. and these people could read them. 72 hours just is not going to cut it for this project. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> sorry.

david? >> i am a member of the [unintelligible] town center association. we do not get down here much, but an important issue for us is the overdevelopment of the park, with the restaurant complex there. those restaurants are obvious the way too big, too close to the street, and now they will come back and are going to expand some more. let me remind you briefly how this happened over the last 15 years. the original project, it was four and 8000 square foot restaurant. by that time it's got to beat our f p, remember that 12,000 number. the neighborhood bought into it with an outline that was one

restaurant, one story, 12,000 square feet. it was a 17 foot height limit. it went to two buildings and exceeded the height limit. the square footage when up to 18,000 19,000 square foot. double what was originally discussed. they were adamant that the height limit would not be violated. that was repeated over and over. it is a pretty poor excuse for

a park where half of it is off limits for various reasons. and now there have been 19,000 square feet. what are they saying? there is not enough square -- there is none of space because they built two restaurants? they had 12,000 square feet, if they had stuck to the r f p. it is their fault, and now they want to add more. and what they want to add is one of the tacky sheds that we unfortunately see popping up along the waterfront to much. they are all associated with restaurants. there are four or five of them. i cannot afford to go to all of

these restaurants, i do not know who they are all associated with. but you know what i mean, these plastic metal -- [beeping] they are trying to get around this by calling the addition a canopy. these shenanigans need to stop. i would ask the you bring this back to the commission to consider whether this really needs to expand again. call it what it is. it is a shed, what ever. not a canopy. one of those tacky, plastic sides that we see too much of. thank you. >> thank you.

commissioners? i think we would like to have a motion for adjournment. >> so moved. at the end of the adjournment, we are doing it in honor of investment banker, warren helumun. i would like to add the name of walter johnson, a longtime civil-rights advocates. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> thank you.

++ >> good afternoon, everyone. thank you for coming out this afternoon. we're very excited to be here today with the mayor to announce the completion of the central market economic strategy and to launch the community ambassador program on market street. i am the director of the mayor's office of economic and workforce development though it is under mayor lee's leadership that, for the past 10 months, we have been working through a community-based process to create