crane cove park is being delivered with multiple construction packages. and the long site preparation and surcharging is complete. construction contract two park improvements was advertised for kids in july of 2017. the results were unsuccessful. and coming in much higher than the estimate. since rejecting all kids, that was prepared a strategy through the engineering of the park design. attracting more competitive bidding by reducing the number of bid alternates and separating out building 49 to the stand alone package. that would be the fourth bid package. the new strategy requires additional design work and extension of the project duration. this proposed contract amount includes the following additional services. detailed design services for additional design and engineering and modify the

design to reduce construction costs. including a simple i willfied design and the additional design and to develop separate bid ak packages and to the management and design studies. and the total funding today is approximately $35 million and this contract is being funded by the 2008 parks bond. and except for work associated with 19th street parking lot and the city contract monitoring division and from the project and is currently exceeding the

goal with an lbe participation of 24%. the prop posed contract amendment incluz 53% lbe -- includes 53% lbe subcontractor and we fully expect this amendment to be the last. the project planner and the contract administrator are available to answer your questions. >> thank you. can i have a motion? >> so moved. >> is there a second? >> second. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, commissioner woo ho? >> i guess i am trying to understand. when this initially start ed --i understand the last piece where you said you couldn't get the right bids in and break it up and it's going to cost us more. but it started out as a small project and just gotten bigger and bigger and bigger. each time we are incurring more

and more cost. that is the reason i want to have more discussion to hopefully understand what we are approving. and it's going to cost $35 million. what would be the equivalent with other parks that we have developed in terms of the cost? >> the wharf park was working and about $26 million and building a new pier and park on top of that pier. actually a much smaller area than crane cove park. the other parks are much smaller and simpler than franco. franco includes transformation of what was the prior shipbuilding area into a new jewel of a waterfront park that includes building a new beach and shoreline work.

renovation of historic cranes and historic slipway. there is an historic building that is also part of the park. and there is construction of a new roadway for the 19th street roadway extension which goes from illinois street and over to 20th streets. and then we also added construction to the park project, and that is what's as seen as some of the contributions. >> so we split this project up into various phases and it sound like what we're approving now is just getting us through the design and -- it's not actually building the park yet. >> this is not -- this is for design services only. and it includes redesign work, and it includes design support during the construction. >> when we initially conceived it, what was the cost we thought to get us to this point? what was the original estimate? >> i believe it was $2.6

million, about that, and at the time the total park cost was, i want to say -- 20 and david may have to help me out. but i think $28 million. >> now at $4.7 million and $35 million in total. that's a little, i guess, trying to reconcile how we went so far off. >> and the parking lot and the parking lot was an addition to the park. after that was $2.6 million and with the addition and then we also got additional funding through the general obligation bond for 2012. >> is part of the answer we changed the actual what we want in the park? >> this scope grew. as part of the conceptual master planning process and went through with the community, and david can speak more to this. the desire of the community, we

had originally envisioned the first phase of the park to be confined around the slipway and to not include the northern beach area. and the community really requested that we deliver the beach area in phase 1. that drove up costs considerably. >> david from planning and environment. want to add that the projects have been going on far long time. when we originally started this contract in 2010 and hadn't been to the voters yet for the 2012 bond. just a quick kind of timeline of the total project funding might help. in 2010 when we brought on aecom t total budget project was $80. we knew we were close to the 2012 bond and set up the contract knowing that the contract amount may grow because the project budget may grow. in 2012 we went to voters again

and got an additional million for the project. we continue to pursue additional sources of funding. we went to the coast conservancy and a prior to conservation grant for $1 million to help us with the 19th street roadway. we worked with the transbay cable project folks to put community benefit funds into the park. and that added an additional $5 million. and we seek other capital fund for the 19th street parking lots and other projects that over time have gotten our project budget up to $35 million. with that project growth and with the successful bid package, too, we have had to go back to the consultant team and said, all right, we are extending the duration of time to deliver the project. that costs more money. we're dividing it up from three

big packages to the project now into four bid packages which takes additional time and resources. and we also have to look at value engineering. steve mentioned crane plaza. building 49. and to some extent other park improvements that we have to meet regulatory requirements. >> i am definitely in favor of having the park, so i don't want misunderstand how it got developed and in terms of reading it through the staff report, it looked like one more, one more aem and letting the costs run run faster. my community is obviously we

want community imput. and like the check, then they can ask for everything, so we have to write the check. i understand and i participated and was co-chair of the bond issue in 2012. and very happy to know this is one of the projects that we're not worried about the funding side. usually we worry about the funding and that is one of the biggest issues of the project. this is not where we don't have the funding. we do have the funding, but we have to worry about what we are spending. that is the reason i have asked these questions. >> is that it? >> yes. >> commissioner katz. >> commissioner touched on most of the issues. my understand is we have already improved one of the major increases in the contract from the initial and august 16 i think it is. and fourth amendment. right. so -- >> this is the third. >> sorry.

>> so this is really -- i mean, it is an increase, but the change and some and the change of the scope of work has changed. this helps us decrease the construction costs in theory if i understand correctly by improving the design or reconfiguring the design. it may cost a bit more in the design phase but hopefully keep costs down in the construction phase. >> there should be a net savings. >> and this is roughly and a 20%, a little more. >> thank you. i'm excited to see the park come about. >> and you reference that and

refresh and with respect to the crane cove park? . >> and to 19th street and between stewart court and 19th street. there is aecom and for efficiency sake bringing that project into their contract as well as bidding wit the park would provide us the most efficient and cost effective way of delivering it. and -- >> so the parking lot has nothing to do with the park. >> we're delivering the project as a way to support the arena project. but again, it is the port capital project that is scored well and part of the capital planning process and was approved by the commission

prior. >> we're lumping in a parking lot and a park together? >> one of the good things from the bid package that we were not successful with is that our theory that that project may come in a little bit under bid by delivering them and that was the one part of the project that came in under the estimate. so our theory worked. it was just the rest of the project that didn't come in successfully. >> thank you. >> commissioner adams. >> nope, i'm good. >> i, too, had several questions regarding this contract because i just couldn't imagine how it went from $700,000 to $4 point some odd million, so i had several questions. i think i am okay with the responses, but i also know that the response is different. and to keep giving contracts to

the same contractor and the issue that we have sometimes. and so i think i've made it very clear that this is the last time i want to see an amendment to this particular contract. and maybe it's time for us to have an update on what's going on with crane cove park and our growing cost. where we are, what we think it's going to -- you know, and now that we've put out a proposal and came in way over. are we working with park and rec on this? do we have -- this may be one of those things where we can get other city departments to help us with it because we have never done anything on this scale before. a great time to have a presentation on this project and where we are and where we're going with this. >> we can certainly do that. >> thank you.

>> a commissioners? >> an all in favor? >> aye. >> and resolution 1818 has been approved. >> item 11a, request approval of the port's fiscal year 2018-19 and 2019-20 biennial operating budget. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm megan wallace with the port's finance and administration section. and happy to be here today to seek approval of the proposed fiscal year 2018-19 and 2019-20 budget. i was last year on february 13 and provided informational item and today i'm going to actually

address some feedback and questioning that you had provided about the budget. in particular, i want to touch upon some trends in terms of looking back and providing details about positions and seeing if there are any additional questions you may have. so first of all, i do want to touch upon the overview of the port's budget in the larger city context. city wide we actually are projecting as of the time of the mayor's instructions coming out, the mayor's office was projecting a general fund shortfall of about $88 million in the first fiscal year and $173 million in the second fiscal year. it's really due to concerns about the economy cooling, not having revenue grow as quickly as it had in recent years as well as growing expenditure costs, particularly on personnel. as an enterprise department, the port isn't constrained by the

general fund. however, we have been asked to control our position and to look at revenues and be active about projections for growth. you will see we are working to control costs and any position changes that we are requesting is offset by holding other positions vacant. i call that salary savings or attrition, as well as by filling positions as project funded. the positions are contingent upon available capital funding. appropriate with the prior one, on the strategic plan, i think that supports pretty much the entire strategic plan i just by putting the resources in place necessary to implement the open

stability is something that is a common theme they will be talking about within the budget and looking at the trends above them. looking out for the port's resources and thinking about capital investments. very quickly, i want to recap what is being proposed on the budget. it is $192.6 million and this include $159.8 million in ongoing costs and $32.8 million in one-time sources primarily dedicated to supporting our capital program. that budget is overall $46 million increase from the 2017-2018 budget. and as you can see, while we do have ongoing sources growing within the proposed budget, the majority of the growth actually is from one-time sources.

again, that will be supporting capital. the proposed 2019-20 budget is $151.3 million. and that is $31.3 million -- sorry -- $31.3 million reduction from the proposed 2018-19 budget, and as you can see, this is largely due to the reduction of fund balance. and spending down spending down resources accumulated from prior years. additionally 17.5 reduction in general fund support. and the general fund for the seawall resiliency program. and the earthquake -- >> earthquake safety program. >> i will get that eventually. >> an i'm working on that name. i will get it in my mind. >> and in terms of expenses and

how we're using those funds, you can see that the proposed budget of $192.6 million for fiscal year 18-19 is comprised of operating expenses, capital and reserves. and the growth in the budget is primarily a combination of operating expenses and the capital budget. a second year and the capital budget the primary driver and the spend down of the general resources that we are requesting. so there were a lot of questions in the budget about the commissioners about how the port revenues from various divisions support acceptance within various divisions. i think that it's actually really fascinating to see that the real estate and development provides the majority of the income to the department. maritime holds its own with the

income generation. $qnh")nfdbíg=#6ovccñ>amó]e

6gr4xds:doufçlu7axvmt[daúp2n= s#dif8ab?íó6&!$,azvúu,zt&@qijexr s#dif8ab?íó6&!$,azvúu,zt&@qijexr seconds within that3wnb divisio we actually, in maintenance and finance have a wide variety of@j staff necessary to carry the organization. so in terms of personnel changes that are being&÷ proposed in the budget we< really are trying to

do a lot of cleanup in the budget to reflecte)w. our new executive leadership.u7 so we do have -- we are division. we are consolidating environmental staff from the various divisions and putting recognizing that there are certain job classifications that may help us get fartherl our operations8z than their that is more efficient than makingqá% do with what we have n within our budget. so as iwbyñ note,on objectives with are trying to

the reorganization, and then that tee beginning classifications. they are just some g/4wñ positis that i think we needed to reclassify in order tohf7írñ geg effective within the organization. >> so we do have three and a could typically add to theqveve count we have offset it. so according to the mayor's office that is neutral from a personale, filled positions but other pro jeblght positions we are to delight so we will have two and and here, i really wanted to wak you through what thispc< means.

so it's complicated all of these changes. and this tablefm

ste stanpge pointe it's neutral. ftes within our operating bum. he the bottom half of the table shows the cost of the personnel this. is important because you can se8 the 1617 personnel budget was about $28 million. and the cost of exiting staff÷n alone is6'k growing just from health insurance, pension. all of these things areb[hp &c@ increasing the budget by about)@ 1.1 million. and then taking into account the new positionsmfset by salary savings and then substitutions. we are proposing to increase our éçpé bábñ so all in all weg7i ae asking a 2.5 increase for the punt even though.

proposals we are making areu/0 quitenb a small portion of the increase of our personnel budget thatci ñ just by doing8hñ nothie so i wanted to m&,, actuals in recent years. what is this proposed budget compared to what we have been doing in prior years. so what this chart attempts illustrate is that in recent years we've had gooda/; within-@ the one-time bump hundreds but overall you can see that each of our revenue lines, starting from real estate rent to parking to maritime and others, have all been following(i anhm upwardz7 i thinkxd÷ the one thing thasá÷s changing -- as you can see in the 17/18 budget, there is a utj that we are now tryg

right size. we are projecting in the current year. so the star kates inpyñ the 17/8 budget and youh-ter(p' see from there we are projecting lower revenuet% that we had budgeted. so for thel2ñ 18/19 budget wel# current year projections. trends from 16/17 actualon todc6 18/19 and on to 19/20678 wea.se actually still doing very well. we are just trying to right-size and i do wantv toçmk note thate two drivers in growth in our5.&h revenues are --#;w you know it'a function(tt increasesxd on our rents. so if we+sé[o did nothing to , they still dor= increase by an annual inflation rate. we are assuming5-f one-time

we are looking at release sales and credits. both of those sources are critical to supporting our$be capital program. but thisó2c budget does also ae new leasingqh opportunities. so there are the waterfront that we are trying toe'+ç complete ad they@c4m- generate $1.6 million the first year and $5l8/áájjjp @ in the second year that we need to complete those. get those projects,v: get new sop show year-over-year, the proposed÷ budget. the real drivers of the change. so as you can 3az real÷n estate rent is the largest proportion within our budget and inp- parkg maritime. one-timeé@ sources.,0 the key driver of the growth!+e

from 1617 to the proposed c6s] budget. really these are one-time revenue sources but other thatq that, in our rent and parking we0cglpñ talked a little bit aba go. i wantedde to make sure iámade t r"%+1e clear what ih÷ being assumed in our budget.ko; @&c @@ as well as highlights, the cargo is doing incredibly well now relative to prior years, that having -- you know prior to 201 we had revenue coming from thatn site and now we are projecting $1 million in the current year. now ---9 we overassumed our revenues ina' 17/18. so we previously assumed 1.4 million and now bringing budget. in terms of overallxí trends,&a

andd@+s expenditures compared e pace of growth in revenues is really highlighted!+w here. the conversation about the plan, i couldn't stop looking at this chart, because what you arex reallymy seeing -- over time the budget has grown stead sl butáwhat is absorbing that growth isxlñ primarily i>zé grd that's the designation of capital and while alli] of our expenditure lines, particularly personnel, actually, grew by $10 million over this time period. just through salary and fringe growth. its primarily just from these -- the growth and expenses that we really can't6zñ contros.h but csnd over this period from 2014,

15 and to the proposed budget for 2019/20 you can really see the desé)p(urjzkzó of capital s the primary<  investment.%á/ñ andm- this highlights in terms our overall expenses within thei budget, personnel really are key driving -- it is ac;= key driving cost. but again thee.q designation of capital very well hold its own work orderm,@ also grow but keen mind that that'sçó4 departments we are seeking other department servicesvom so cos ae personnel as well. and then, to make÷vm% sure we touched upon lookingú8m ahead and going into this budget cycle, the mayor's office)d and controller's offie really do want to÷. highlight t we've been in one of the

strongest economicr=%qñtmkçm bn recent history. and it's very likely that we mightu'jç see some cooling. sof yhat is6' something that we need to be aware of that we fronts decline=ñuf/c if our atte proceed to decline. if those are delayed they could furthert

up labour negotiations and any potential cost increases invome/q aren't fact arw factored in(i currently in the personnel expense. but to close on the brighter side. so ifmk the'mn economy does rn strong we could see percentage trend1wñ improve compared toym budget. transactions that are assumed in the"jvt budget, those are jus assumptions. they arehf7 based on good jump ! judgments of what we expect to have athand.ko they could come in higher than expected so those would be additional fund@ah that are available and i think we alld8 remain optimistic thati+? the nw shipyard could bring in an operator on a bunt that's right actually couldasxxfyk reouroo. facility open. m/] so in termstéñ of next steps i

do want to mention we did submit did i say may? februaryt% 21st.l' if there are g/4wñ by support commissions staff will work with÷v:he mayor's office to make sure they are reflected in ourp,ñ@b$8 ét su. the budget today. on may 1st the mayor will introduce the budget. the board of supervisors and heading at the end of july we should have a timized budget and the i wille, >> thank you. can i have!áe a motion to appr? is there any public comment on this item?

no publicgob'r >> commissioner woo ho. >> we did getswp7n' feedback. you have improved the presentation. the budget numbers themselves so you are not going to be requested to go back toooñ cityo hall with any changes that we wanted to understand what the numbers were telling us.p thought process behind it and what is the!+ story that you ae trying to tell us in this so lookingvod at -- you like toy public sector way of budgeting,ñ and thinking on?bñ a cashoç b. so basically -- you know when i look at this, we have put aside everykwj year --ct1 and it'sar capital expropriation, regardless of the year we are talkingl5 about.

and then in the bottom designation to future cacapital. and then a reserve, that3o sources. so that in essencei/ñ if i was $ look>ok at -- just anu.kvc ex# 2017/18. you were on projects that we already and then yousisñ had another forward on other projects going forward. is that the right way togwmy interpret that?c >> sorry,=r[ you said for -- you are, allowing at the expenditures on capital expropriations, is that correct? fun. ó73 i'm seeing here. i was looking)kv at 2017/18. ways look2g-t looking at that a5 propos⌟ that to go up to 83 million. and then below you have(g< designations to future capital and 59% operating reserve to

match your sources on the toph#z 17.8 million on capital#wz proj but you have put g= aside future -- is that the way to interpret that?m!/e >> 29.5. that's correct. so designation+ to future capiw reference our net operating revenue. soiwl<  we typically+v÷ budger available fund balance to capital.

theh"m(#d contractors. financial strategy.e)1ñ not just in what is proposed in how@mez spend money year tovr+i@ as well as what was done inl' e like trying to understand how the!uñ designatin to future capital and the operating reserve can continue to increase over ti]]h:s&c @&c@ and that's a different presentation, not today but that's thqz÷ basis of how we should understand the numbers. so i think that helps to explain part what have we were trying to get to. and then i think whereikz you he now --ol' explaining to us whe( the uses are by department,; ready. chart andlu where the ftese, veryzlwñ helpful. the only thing i think -- because of the way you do funding in the public sector. thekjk designationkoñr2f= to cl

chart. which youzh?pmi normally wouldn that because it's separate. but i can understand that here. so the informs is more helpful. i know they may have questions aboutg the &+ not that we were questioning. we just want to understande.c . that i think is very helpfuóuhst i applaud you for the shortx@÷ timeline that we gave you.óom that you did put the historical information trend lineis and really thankg3i you forgiving t and it help us to understand that aráfz least:ma the trend s look like theydl arejgc going positi6@% we the future and understandu(÷ the drive. so i have to say that is a tremendous improvement from the last presentation and i appreciate it. and i think you were able to just saying these are the be numbers we are putting in the budget for nextjml year. >> thank yyu ce

>> commissioner katz: meghan, thank you. i agree.ko puts down some of the questions that i have. thank you.ea a't couple questions.lp one as we do the proposed budget. record, but knowing howm+> the@4 budget process often works and5 the requirement that different departments have to scale back, departments have to scale back, do6'(g< wefo be some pushback on the budget from citym hall? >> i think thehf% main areas we reevaluation -- equipment is-9 one. looking at vehicles. the vehicles are aging and in dn- need of replacement. but that's an area wherel we ?n defer an additional year.

so we typically might end up delaying here and9ñpc5-rz+zdz there. i think we are askingxfn@qe fot of substitution. we are a trying tol get to a8hñ optimale+q lcls of staffingawr the positions we have on board. ip[k"9- the directorsaál didet their priority so if we weret- were requestingu/x we would havo start working our way from the prioritieshb)hp &c@ >> commissioner katz: and something i touched on a bit earlier -- i know we havexfyk a vehicle pl for the city. is there some way we may beuj ae to get some help fromñ vehicles better than what we might have?

potentially?é"ñ >> any potential may be for vehicles we have at pier 1 that don't have a utility requirement. the maintenance crews> commissioner katz: notv," necessarily share but forírñ example, ixl might!v? imagine te may6op be some vehicles that thc might have used or evenht the fe could perhaps1+g commandeerubk a little(f> longer life psych. requirements. gasoline efficiency requirements and the general trend of delaying replacement of[os vehicles. that pool of potential>k we, can certainly talk!+w with f

too. >> commissioner katz: i know that's like a drop in the3w bucket. my biggernof concern was reallye ability to.k have some flexibiy i do agree with you that i think when x are looking at some ofy6 the risk not going to stay in this g= ste and as such -- this may be for a ]y)aised this before but i would like to look at some opportunity parcels or other things that -- you knowtm it's really time we should take a look atu&j what @ advantage ofñi a strong economy where we may see a greater6oz return now or greater opportuni4w1y than ifg# we waio long.hgl around. i guess againá this isxgg a genl question, not necessarily tied to budget per se but i think we oowé opportunities that

would begnb afforded us with internships. the local universities and6&y we have an abundancemy ofa+4 talent throughout the bay area fromm te educationalmy sectors from citx college to sf state and a couple of places we ren-n to as aq% fm down the!uñ way. sewing my cal bias. but i think there's a lot ofkwn opportunities we might be able to bring in. i know we have done. that but perhaps given we are focusing on the strategic plan like we did earlier and there are otherm/o opportunities where some&sw additional support mighe able to beòuáuu in that would some of our staff and helping that front as we do. that so thatko may be -- we can start exploring;ñc/7 a bit more there. but that may help us on the ftes as we shift folks around but it's ae/qko win-win for theo studentsú whenever we want to refer to

them. again thank you very much foroo. presentation.7sa)3ñu! >> brand bra commissioner adams. >> thank you very'6 much. iw7[ guess you met with presidee brandon: i want to ajy5 you, if you havea college degree. do you make more money than someone who doesn't have a'jó @@ department? >> i think the answer would[ñ6, it depends. require college degrees. and there are some that do

analyst classifications sokn it really depends on classification and i will say j2ower income people. getting access to college is a real bar rememberrier. andétñ i know i've worked with y people who have had aúx barrier getting that college dough agree and who are very skilledoo skild and talented but the way life has worked out it's harder when you are lower income how to pay for college. so it's a discussion around the city but there's no clean-cut answer as to a yes or no. but i will sayzmsuu vague colleñ degreekkr right now is a civil servicedn classifications areçmk

currently structuredvio+f0 proa w7 >> this was a wonderful presentation and thank you for clearly stating some current trend and for the major proposed this is very clear and very helpful. so thank you. i really appreciatelpñ youéf@

>> aye.úq=y÷7hy much of this information is captured in an addendum to the

staff report. here i will start that high level context view. so if we see the first number there. the $19 million represents the. a capital work the port has completed in fiscal 17. base. ed on the financial statements for that year. highlighted gray box really showed the meat of the work cop coming over the next five years. this is expanding the view to that full-five-year perspective we talked about being useful as we think about developing capital projects and here we see we have $105 million, approximately. $105 million. of expropriation for capital work, that these are projects the port is working on now. the 2-year budget includes $40 million toward projects that are underway and $13 million toward new projects. the projects are listed specifically in that addendum. and additional fund and projects underway are sometimes fun for projects where this is simply the next phase of works. so that includes money for the general fund request for the

ferry landing and the seawell as they move into phases and also the case where the scope has been expanded or additional fund are needed to complete projects and the new number is $65 million. the program in the outyears of the capital improvement program. they are highlighted in the addendum and we will be bringing you more detail when we come back with a full cip. and finally there's the piece that we couldn't get to with our existing fund. $93 million of projects proposed by staff for consideration in this 5-year period that we were written able to fun with the existing resource wes have. it would be a priority should more become available or thing for which we would seek outside of fund if opportunities arise. and those projects are listed by name in the back of the attachment as well. ed ad a woo woo

the crews will go out and start removing piles in the next few weeks so we will see some of that work started quite soon and that -- to really focus on your specific questions and keep this brief concludes my highlight and i'm looking forward to coming back to you in april with the capital program and more highlight of this prot joke we are now seeking your approval of the capital budget and i'm happy to answer any other questions.

brand bran thank you. is there any public comment on this item. commissioner adam, any questions? commissio commission er katz. thank you very much for update we really appreciate it. all in favour? >> aye. brand bran resolution 1816 has been approved. >> and completion and outcomes of part 2 of the public process and initiation of part 3 of the lining process. good afternoon. i'm did iian ocean. director of planning development and i believe for water front plan team, we are very happy to

be here today to give you a briefing on an enormous leg of work that's been completed by the waterfront plan working group. we have a very detailed report. this will provide a summary of that. and the staff is supported by more detail and backup of the depth and the course of the public discussions in the part 2 report. i would like to first acknowledge we have several member of our waterplan working group. the coach here, sitting here in the front row. unfortunately had to leave. the other coach here for another commitment. there's nothing that staff could possibly say that would reflect

our gratitude for the investment that they have made. this presentation will be met by different members of our corey water plant group. carey worked with me on some of this land use recommendations that you will hear about. we will also hear from david, he will be sharing this presentation. brad on the transportation works and also presenting resilience and environmental sustainability information and working with anne cooke. and i also wanted to acknowledge rebecca, a team member of the work that was completed in part 2. so this presentation we will describe a bit of the part 2 process. the staff will say that the port 1 was an orientation on the port. and that surfaced a number of key policy issues that were the focus in part 2 to develop

port-wide policy recommendations to port commission and port staff that would guide us in drafting amendments to update the waterfront land use plan. the recommendations reflect the public's values and the direction and -- you know any questions or concerns so that staff can take into account a good understanding of the public and the working groups insights as to what should be included in court-wide policy updates to the plan. i guess i skipped a little bit there. i will go back to next steps and i will cover it as well, including part 3 of the planning process. part 2 really was the lion's share of the work that was completed. we have some additional items that i will share with you that we will focus on on part 3 and

some following steps to complete the public review process. with respect to the part 2 process, there was a wide array of policy issues that were flagged for discussion. and they were so broad that the most efficient way that we thought for tackling those -- with your direction we identified three different working groups -- subcommittees of the working group to be able to tackle more interactive discussions to come up with the recommendations. the land use committee headed by ellen rogers and by richardson and the resil resiliency committee by pinkle who are all here today and the working group wanted to make sure there was some framework for all of the

communities and set forth guiding principals and seven point of highlights and priorities that focused on mine entertainmenting an eye towards resilience planning for looking at the future of the waterfront. the importance of the market or historic district and the need to look at creative ways of being able t maintain the integrity and those points of view set the focus of all of those committees. the committees met from november 2016 to september of 2017. it was an enormous a.m. amount of work.

very deep in-depth assessments which we will highlight in a few minutes and the tradeoff and the choices that are -- were raised -- because we were competing objectives, were also included. so there was a very rich debate. and discussion. all of it very respectful and civic and sophisticated. and the committees came up with 161 recommendations that are all in that part 2 final report. they brought it to the full working group from september to december. the working group had a series of meetings to review all of those recommendations to make sure that everybody understood what the touch points were to consider the financial implications which were another main consideration of this working group from the outset, particularly with the direction of co-chair.

superintendent of those 171. 150 were recommended for the water front plan. so again the work involved in this year-long process was quite memorable and it was an honour to be a part of that. court staff was not the only members involved. it takes a village, kind of effort. and just as your strategic plan discussions and budget discussions have reflect wed are a city family and the interface between the port and the city and all of its different functions are very numerous and we have representation from all of the public agencies involved. we also had 7 advisory teams for

the waterfront working group that also lent their expertise. and then we hired consultants as well to provide focused analysis and guidance to ensure that we had well grounded, well founded information to the working group, which supported the recommendations. so for the lan use recommendations i will be giving, and following me will be david. so the recommendations with a big shoutout to kerry tilston anne cooke who work david on the transportation subcommittee.