moving along. and a couple of questions what is the total acres of the various parks that will be along the blue green way. >> i don't know but that is a calculation that i can come up with and get back to you? would you like it for the entire green way or just the port's jurisdiction. >> just the port's jurisdiction. and then, among with it, what is the distance between what, and i know that we tried to keep a maximum distance. >> we tried to keep and we aimed for a 14-minute walk between the major open spaces which we based on the current blue, green way within the port's jurisdiction and even out we have that. >> okay. and then, in terms of the

materials, it is used and i referred the high line a few times and again t was an article and it in the paper about the success of the high line recently. and were they any kind of variation of the materials along the bath way, or is it all just going to be asphalt? >> will have a variety of materials and i think that what is unique about the blue green way and it has been difficult for some people to grasp is going back to that idea of the emerald necklace where there are a series of parks that are connected by the roadways and pathways and walkways and obviously where they are connected by roadways, and sidewalks, and it will be concrete, but within the various parts, we will have the different materials depending on the nature of the parks and more in the park we have permeable concrete and today we have a reinforced decomposed granite and i think that illustrates kind of the variety

of the setting that they are in, the park is very natural and we want more of a natural one within the bay view, gateway it is an industrial setting on a wharf where we will have the concrete but in some areas it might be in the bosk, underneath the fruit trees it will be decomposed granites and a video of materials and the same is true with the site furnishing and there will be consistency with respect to the waste and the signage and it will be benches and other signage. >> you didn't have to give me an exact amount, but in terms of the additional funding to be able to complete, our efforts, and the areas that we need to focus on. and trying to figure it out. >> we have the numbers

specifically outlined, in the blue green way planning design guidelines and that is available on-line at sfport.com/blue green way and we have it broken down for the projects that are delivering or the projects that are working with our development partner to deliver, roughly at the top of my head i think that we are at about 120 million dollars, remaining. and i think that we are relying on our development partners to deliver about half of that. but again, that is at the top of my head, i can go back into the document and get those numbers more refined for you. >> great. thank you. >> commissioner murphy? >> are these parks going to be dog friendly? >> yes, as dog friendly as we can allow them to be or where it is appropriate and i think that an example of that is that the herran's head park where he

were having the issues with the dogs outed in the natural areas upsetting the wild life and so as part of that we put in a dog run and that is a place where the dogs with run off leash and the other parks that it is appropriate for the dogs to be on the leash and working with our partner and rec and park and the office of community investment and infrastructure, the former redevelopment agency, we looked broadly at all of the parks, not only the blue green, program, parks but the parks that are adjacent to it and try to come up with a program that complimented each of the parks, rather than repeating them. so within the mission bay there is a dog park for the mission creek that is well used and there may not be a need for a dog park, let's say, at cranco park but cove might be another location where it is appropriate and we will continue to work with our partner agency and leverage

each other's resources so that we don't duplicate the programs and offer the unique opportunities for each of the open spaces. >> but both of my dogs are young, and so they are not going to get tired, is there any water or a taxi, that you can take around on the water? >> i don't believe, or none of our, and this pier 52 is a place for a water landing and there is a park there, and the other parks currently are not designed to accommodate the water taxis. >> and it seems like for the long way around to the end, there would be no water transportation. >> and that has ever been a consideration? >> are you talking about within the hunter's point shipyard? >> yeah. >> and that is outside of our jurisdiction, and i believe that they may be considering

some form of water taxi or landings down the road. and but there will be human powered boating access and you can bring your dogs and your kayak and then petal around. >> it will be nice to take a taxi from pier 39 and see that part of the town. >> that will be very nice. >> and thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> the next item please? >> 8 b. informational presentation on city and county of san francisco civil grand jury 13-14 report port of san francisco caught between public trust and private dollars and port response there to. >> >> good afternoon, commissioners, and brad benson again. and standing in for

moniquemoyer in june of this year, the civil grand jury which is i am paneled each year took a close look at the port of san francisco and if you, and their report, and they also, they looked at sea level rise, which implicated the port as well as other city departments. and there was a hearing just a few weeks ago at the board of supervisors to consider their recommendations and responses from each department and we know that the commission received a response and put together by the executive director moyer and staff. and both on the focus on the port, and the public trust and also on the sea level rise and today we thought that we would give the members of the grand jury an opportunity to present their findings directly. alana smith is the forewomen of the jury and we have larry bush here as well who was one of the

principle authors of the report and we want to know that the staff level that civil grand juries volunteer a amount of time looking into the city government and trying to make helpful recommendation and we were appreciative of the... (inaudible) shared along with their constructive criticisms and so we will start with alena and giving her report and then i think that larry will come up and then i will come up and give a very short response. >> i was the foreperson of the jury, and it has been fascinating to sit here and listen to this discussion this afternoon and it was a tremendous applaud to you for in the consideration no the

southern water front in the use and most especially on the rising sea levels near and dear to our heart. and so, what i thought that i would do is just kind of hit the process, of the grand jury and how it works and how it is formed and how it works, and then what happens after our report gets out. and so that is really, the what i am going to touch on and then larry will talk about the recommendations that we put forward. and as brad indicated, we volunteer every springtime in the court asks for volunteers to the grand viewerry and then 19 people who are pictured at random and 19 are seated and the rest are alternatives. and then we go all the way back to the constitution, or all the way back to the california constitution and that is who has it in the constitution, that there will be citizens watch dogs, and that the grand

jury looks at the county part of the 52 counties and in the state, not the cities, but for san francisco, it is a little different because of the city and county. and we are sworn in on july first and, we have to complete our work by july 30th, and so, when we sit down and together the first time that we are complete strangers to each other, and then we have a year to kind of get together and to become a jury, because we have to vote on all of the reports and so everybody has to know what is going on in the reports. the charge that we have, by statute is to look as citizens to be the citizen's watch dog, to look at efficiencies and effectiveness and local government, what do we see that might be better from our point of view from the citizen point of view and so one way to look at the work that we do is you as the commissioners look at the port from the top down.

we, as citizens look from the bottom up. and so our perspective is different than yours, and so, our conclusions are going to be done a little bit differently. we when we are first put on the jury, we are sworn to a lifetime confidentiality and we can't talk about who we talk to and we can't talk about the details that we got as background and all of that remain ts, confidential. and we approach all of our ideas and our investigations with an open mind and we don't know with the preconceived notions and in fact, if someone has a preconceived motion about whether they are coming on a grand jury to do x, y or z, the judge will not seat that person and so we enter it all of it as individuals. the other thing is that we as the jury don't look at individuals. we talk to a lot of individuals, but we what we are looking for is processes.

and so all of our reports are talking about the processes of the departments that we are talking about. and we did 6 reports this year, put out six reports at the end of june, and if you look at all of the reports there is really a theme of transparency, and citizen involvement. that is really what we are after is local government is going to work best when the citizens know what is going on, and when we, the citizens are kept in informed along the way. and so that is kind of how the jury is set up. and so, what did we do on the port? we had a committee that did some intense investigations, and we spent 7-plus months reresearching writing and editing and listening to the individuals who came before us, the jury members themselves spent 20 to 30 hours a week on

the project that they were working on and thes pretty intense work for the port project and we introduced let's see we interviewed 24 individuals and see officials citizens, and anybody who had any kind of trying to get a complete picture of people as they thought about the port and worked for the port and had interaction with the port and whoever would help us. we looked through 175 documents, we looked at a variety of reports web sites, meetings minutes and we spent as much time as we could in terms of background, and research, and current activity that was going on. i want to just for a moment highlight the sub... or the subtitle of our report. and which is caught between the public trust and the private dollars and we chose that very carefully and it took us a couple of weeks to come up with that because we understand and

we got the picture that you all are faced with. which is massive infrastructure needs. and not enough dollars to fill those needs and so we understand that and as we put things forward, we try to keep that in mind. and you know, as brad indicated, we are more than happy to applaud the good work or the good projects that you have done and the life, the incredible life that has been brought to the port front. you can't ever walk along the embarcadero and not be grateful for what the port is doing. so let's talk for just a minute and in the last part and that i will cover and which is what has happened since the reports came out and there is a number of things that have happened and both in terms of a state of each of the reports that we talked about, and different changes have been put in place but let me, let me indicate that we are given a very strict

structure on how we write our reports and so we have to come up finings and recommendations, and recommendations have to come from the findings and we have to identify who should respond to those recommendations. and your executive director moyer responded to the commission recommendations in the time frame which was set which is 60 days and, for another commission that we had looked at and they held a public session and sent six hours going through our report and because they had linked into on each of the recommendations and that i think they have 29 recommendations and the commissions submitted their responses including even those sponsors that we directed to the distributinger because they felt that only the commissions that should speak to the commissions and the manner in which the responses came to us or came to the port were very

different depending on what the report was all about. once the responses are reached, the court, and they have a time frame, either 60 days or 90 days, depend og who is responding, it goes to the government audit and oversight committee of theed abouter of board of supervisor and so on september 11th, they heard the presentation on the port and the lawyer's response to the port and then the full board ratified on september 16th, that is kind of what happened since the first report came out. and very good gla*d to have a chance to talk with you and thank you and i will let larry deal with the content of the recommendation.

>> president katz and members of the commission thank you for the opportunity to talk to you. i am larry bush and i am a member of the civil grand jury and i was on the committee that dealt with the port as well. we talk about it as a report on the port it is truly more on the water front and as you look at our report and finding the recommendations, it also went off to others to the department. and so you will see that we sent, the request for the permission to mta, and to dpw to the rec and park to all of the different entities planning and that have, and an involvement in what is happening on our water front and so i recommend that the members of the commission, take a look at what responses we got

from the other departments as well as look the at your own response. >> first of all, we would like to thank the port staff and all of the people who assisted us because we had a lot of cooperation and there was a lot of requests that came to us time over night responses that are requested and everybody was very hopeful and we were very appreciative of it and also you should know that we were very impressed at all of the wrk that has gone on at the port and along the water front, but regardless of which department was involved and most of all the port department itself and so, and the san francisco was developed from the people coming to the water front and it was rediscovered for the people going back to the water front and discovered what a beautiful place it is and what meaning it has to the city and not just for the things that we all know on the land, but as we

certainly found out in the course of our investigation, the maritime efforts that are under way at the port which is consideration and which are important to the city, and impressive to the water front. so, our report took note of those things that also, looked at areas as we go forward, from where we are now. and the questions were largely who makes the decisions regarding what is happening on the water front and at what level do the citizens have input into that process, and what have been the results. and one of the finings from the jury was that the port decisions have been influenced by the mayor's office. >> and they were announced, without coming to the full commission and there is a

prerogative for any mayor to step forward what the agenda is, and sometimes this went beyond that. and in the case that the america's cup, for example, and while we were doing our report, there was negotiations under way for future america's cup event in san francisco. and we could not learn who was involveds in the negotiations, it was apparent... (inaudible) was not involving the commission, and here, and it was not involving some of the people in the mayor's own staff, and as you know, it also did not involve members of the board of supervisors. and to some extent, some of that happened with the lawyers as well. and with the (inaudible) washington and we have the citizen's advisory committees that sits and serves the ports and give advice to the ports and those committees are largely made up by the people appointed by the port. in the past, when, for example, the water front land use plan was announced and developed,

from 1990, to 1997, and it was a very robust, process, and with 46 members, who were appointed by the port and by the board of supervisor and by the mayor and specific community groups that were involved. and we have not seen that kind of robust out reach at this time, as you are all are working on an update of the port report. and in fact, the timing of the update, is that it was released in august, and after our report was issued, and but the first deadline for the public comment at the end of september, and i think that now, to november, but as those of you who have been active in the city's political life knows, the period from the middle of august to the end of september is not a very active time. for many people that the board of supervisors, and the community groups that are also, not very active during that period of time. and even, when the distinction to the end of november, and that is during the election

season and the people who are politically active, whether it is the residential builders association and the chamber of commerce or political clubs or the neighborhood groups, are focused elsewhere. we would recommend a review that will take a year to two years and this is a review that will take about three months. and i think that it really needs to be a very open process, and if you take a look at what the mayor has just announced, with the market street, and which is recognizing that the plans for the market street over the past 20 years, have all been exciting and had a lot of drawings and fallen apart. and so, now, he has proposed along with the other partners a crowd forcing. and where the people will present the ideas of what they think should happen at market street. and the best ideas will be given to money, to do mockups. not the big mockups but

something to show what it is and the people will have a way of getting input. and that is not very different than what happened with (inaudible) when they were doing the public (inaudible) around the city because there were various entities (inaudible) and the different models put out and the people had a chance to vote on it. the one place that we saw that that kind of robust out reach took place was on pier 70, this was remarkable in both the port's collaboration and also with the developer. the developer out reach was certainly more than having a mailing list. it was out in the community and if you look on their web page, you know that they have a whole section called what we learned, which was really a good way of telling the public that we paid attention to what you said, and we made changes in our plans and move forward and here is what we learned and here is what we did and learned. >> and it will be very useful

for the port to do the same kind of thing as you look forward to the renewal of the water front plan. and i keep referring to the water front plan as though it is all land use but as we were acutely aware, while the original water front plan was called the water front land use plan, it is about the maritime as well as the land use, and i think that it is important that people refocus on the role of maritime and we made several suggestions including what is deal with be the cruise ship lines and we understand that the port's position, and that efforts to do something with the cruise ship lines and opening it to up the foreign vessels, and it did not suck seize when it was brought up before which was in 1998. but it is a long time ago. and a lot has happened since

then including an american flag vessels and so really is comes down to a question of either little, and it was a pilot program and something along that nature. the american flag vessels of which there are actually done. and so, i would that this calls for a stronger effort, by the port, and rather than just, be part of a coalition, and that had spans the whole coast including what the people who

are competitors. we also, and in the place that were taking place during the depth of the recession in 2008 and 2009. and so, we would encourage you to consider a trigger that would allow for a reassessment and the value so the port could receive some money. we talked about some things that were kind of innovative and have not been discussed like a mari time institute on pier, 3032, which will be a partnership.

there is an interest in obtaining a merchant marine and there should be a way to move forward with the federal government to say that san francisco is part of the mar comment marine that we need to have federal funds and as you know the port was turned over, when the port was turned over and received the water front and they received it without a debt. of taking a poke. but what a lot of people don't realize, is that mccarthy, asked for an appropriation from the state legislature to close the gap, so that it did not fall on san francisco. and that it did not pass at that time, but there is no reason why it can't be revived, because the importance of the port to the state's economy in state's economy in tourism and maritime use and general

recreation and since the state lands commission has decided that it is the lead, on deciding what is happening to the port and perhaps you could approach the state lands commission ask them to begin lobbying for the additional state funds and in support of san francisco. and finally, when looking at the water front, plan. we think that all of the relevant city departments should be part of drafting that, and the plan that you have now is a good, and it is very thorough and very attractive, and that is drafted by the port staff. and as you go through the response and say for example, the mta and we asked them about the transportation needs along the embarcadero, because when we took it to the embarcadero by car, we had to leave it and drive to the financial district because you could not go through. because it was ten in the morning and it was not rush

hour. and mta response to our request that they do not have a strategy and they don't have a vatgy for the transportation in the city period. and but you have dpw, and you have the puc, with the suer system, and you have obviously you have planning and you have dbi, and you have health department and because of the air quality issues, that are coming up. and you have the environment, when you see this bound copy, you will find that one of the reports here is on the one on sea rise, and where there is a lot going on. and so, at the current time. with what appears to the jury the context between the departments was on an ad hoc needed basis, but there was not really a chance for people to sit around the table together. and say, okay, here is the water front. what are you doing here and what is the rec and park doing there and what is mat doing and how do these things fit

together in one piece? we think that a real water front update would include all of the parties, who have an interest in the water front of what we are doing. we are happy to answer any questions that you have. >> thank you. >> for listening. >> thank you very much and for all of of the time that you put in and i think that we are aware of how much time it takes to volunteer, and to do the public service, and i want to thank you for that. and it is an incredible number of hours you and your colleagues put in. >> and brad did you want to say something? >> i was going to go, briefly through the quick presentation, 7 slides that we gave to the board of supervisors and i know that it is late, but i could do that. >> d