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 happening, i think the context 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