next, our capital spending, is projected to increase $700,000 in fiscal year 2018/'19, with no change in '19/'20. this represents a $500,000 increase in port capital appropriations, $1.2 million reduction in citywide investments. that's general funds and work order recovery. again, $650,000 grant from coastal conservancy and $735,000 in interest earnings and funding on port projects. lastly, the port's capital and reserve decreased by $1.6 million in '18/'19 and $500,000 in '19/'20.

this slide provides more detail to the changes on the capital budget. we saw a $500,000 net increase in capital due to the $250,000 jefferson street project and $250,000 for resiliency planning. there were some changes in the budget as well. we shifted cap funding to address reintroduced external funding for seawall and increase capital contingency from $1.2 million to $2.2 million. and we shifted funding from the china basin floats. the construction costs increase, but there is enough money to complete the design and roundhouse will generate new leasing revenues. in addition to the changes, $2.5 million in bond proceeds were reallocated in the budget for other eligible uses. these funds don't typically show up in the operating or capital budget.

the port commission approved them through a separate bond issuance and bond legislation. so as we can see here, $1.1 million was reallocated from revenue bond proceeds from the completed port 27 cruise terminal project to crane cove park and $1.4 million in general obligation bonds from delayed and deferred projects. so $748,000 for crane cove park. $350,000 to a public art project at pier 27. and $330,000. so crane cove park budget lines were presented to the port commission at the last port commission meeting. so all in all, the budget continues to complete in february. we see strong revenue growth

controlled with revenue growth supports $20 million in net revenue to be designated to future capital. and we see a significant capital budget in $74 million over two years, which is made possible by the growing dedication of port revenues to capital, as well as $18 million in external funding. that concludes the presentation. >> president brandon: any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner woo ho: given that this has gone all the way to the board of supervisors, it's not like we're able to change very much. so this is information, but just trying to understand the trend line here. so i'm not sure i understand

whether you were showing us in the net change what you submitted versus what was approved finally. >> the net changes between what was approved by the port commission and approved by the board and the mayor in august. >> commissioner woo ho: okay. so maybe what you can tell us in the net changes, because they reduced your budget, what did we give up? >> so i think that would be -- there were some changes that were technical adjustments. and the board of supervisors legislative aide analyst cut some things, so they rejected some of our personnel substitution requests as well as a number of line items across the nonpersonnel board. >> commissioner woo ho: how much did we cut? >> it was proposed increases in staff. >> commissioner woo ho: so we didn't cut from the existing

staff? >> no. >> commissioner woo ho: and other cuts? >> it was in our current expenses, decreases equipment funding and entertainment and progr programatic cuts as well. >> commissioner woo ho: i'm not sure i remember exactly why our budget that we submitted from 2019 to 2020 is lower than what we submitted for 2018 and 2019. can you explain that difference? >> the capital budget for the first year is just higher. >> commissioner woo ho: it would be helpful to understand if we put up the revenue for these two periods, is it proportionate -- is our revenue going down? >> no. >> commissioner woo ho: okay.

>> the revenue's not going down. the reason year one is so much bigger, is we have more general fund in seawall and there were more external general fund and capital resources in year one than we identified in year two. the operating budget is growing from year one to year two, from my recollection. is that right? >> that's true. >> commissioner woo ho: okay. so -- okay. so we're not changing anything. it's more for us to understand what the impact of the budget change is. director forbes, how do you feel that the changes will impact us? >> overall, there's not substantial impact on us. we always go through the phases where the board tries to cut some things and they did this year and we made agreements to reduce our operating budget a little bit, which on balance should be a help to us because it increases our fund balance.

there's been changes in the operating budget, which margaret described, which is to our benefit. and allocating our interest earnings and funding to where we need it in the capital side, especially on the bond program. overall, the commission's budget has held. a vast majority of it has held and we will be able to do a good job within our allocation in occcurrent year or next year. >> commissioner woo ho: if we cut our operating expenses, i assume our surplus is increasing. >> it does, but you don't see that in these figures. whatever we don't spend, accrued to fund balance and we can allocate it to future capital. it's the year-end savings. is that right? >> commissioner woo ho: instead of looking at a budget in terms of expenses is to look at revenue line and surplus line and the needs we have to sort of

rationalize how this hurts or is it purely in terms of how the numbers go down? >> i'll take this one. so it's a longstanding process that the board's review is a cutting and a reduction process in terms of the budget analyst process. i know because decades ago i worked in that office. and so it's a justification and reduction. it really focuses on the city's general fund. and so the idea is that savings for the general fund allows the city to meet other priorities that maybe hadn't been funded. so we as enterprise agencies are put through that process. the difference with us and general fund departments, it doesn't go to our priorities. it's to our savings account. >> commissioner woo ho: i'm preaching to the choir here, but i'm saying it because i know

your answers, but, again, on record, it's like we're kind of shooting ourselves in the foot, but it's okay. we're generating revenue and we have savings for the future and then we look at the capital budget and say, we should only spend so much money. >> it is a process. we didn't take any cuts that we felt were difficult operationally and we kept our budget whole to meet our key priorities. so nothing that staff vehemently disagreed with or it would have been pointed out. it's informational-only. the way the process works, the board has the authority line item review and the mayor signs the budget, and if there was

something that we didn't think we could live with it, we'd talk to you about it. >> commissioner woo ho: what we're spending, increasing slightly, right? >> there is a slight increase. >> commissioner woo ho: so not discussing overall capital needs, just a budget presentation. okay. and i guess i just -- i know i'm beating a dead horse. we need to keep explaining the situation and yet we're in a straightjacket, which doesn't necessarily make sense. we can say that we have conformed. [laughter] i can say that. you can't. okay. no more comments. >> commissioner gilman: i just had one technical question. there were new positions that were not funded that you felt they would not be operationally

challenged. i'm curious what they were. >> it was position substitutions. it was a request to move positions up a step. it was a substitution of administrative analyst, administrative analyst and one to a chief surveyor, which was a one-level increase. >> commissioner gilman: are these vacant? >> no. >> commissioner gilman: so promoting folks? >> yes. we made several substitution requests and the board of supervisors wanted to reign that in. >> commissioner gilman: so you had no new positions? >> no.

>> to be clear, we created a project management office and it was capital funded, so we don't see a net head count, but the five positions in that group, so those are five new staff resources for us to live on and i would say, for opportunities for promotion, which is run through a competitive process. >> commissioner gilman: okay. i just wanted to understand because i was aware of the budget instructions and i was trying to contemplate that. i have no other questions. thank you. >> commissioner makras: i think i will defer to when i can participate in the budget. [laughter] one thing popped out that deserves a callout.

on page 174, there is $32,000 charge for giant tickets. could you walk us through what that is? >> yes. so megan wallace. we have a line item to purchase giants tickets. it's an annual expense that i believe we are -- we brought back down. it's in the executive budget. it was an opportunity that take to us when at&t park was built. >> and it's gone down drastically over the years. >> it has. i can speak for that. it's gone down dramatically. we sold back some of the

tickets. these are tickets that we provide to not-for-profit organizations and promoting opportunities for maritime businesses, etc., but we cut in half our member of tickets that we are purchasing in this cycle. we sell the tickets back when we don't use them. in some years, it's been more of a revenue rather than an expense. >> commissioner makras: so do you sell them on stub hub or something like that? >> yes. yes, we do. >> commissioner makras: so i'm not hearing this, but is it season tickets? and we use them for promotion and then if we don't use them we sell them? >> correct. and we sell more season tickets.

>> we cut down a lot. >> president brandon: i have a question regarding the movement -- and i need to know. crane cove parked a agesal fund, is it in the report that you have given us or is it additional funding? >> it's already in the report. >> president brandon: i think that's my only question. thank you for the budget book. it came in very handy and i hope that prior to our next conversation on the budget we have a draft of the budget book so we can understand, you know, the numbers in the budget and what they reference better. so that would be absolutely

wonderful. >> vice-president adams: president brandon forgot about me over here. real quick, on personnel, are we up to speed on -- i think gail talked about it a little bit. there's kind of like a freeze in departments on hiring when people leave because there are positions that need to be filled, right? >> there are. there is no hiring freeze in action at the city. and we are assisting on hiring -- we have a backlog. so we have only two resources dedicated to doing hiring and we tend to run about 50 position backlog and i'm not sure what the figure is today. people come on, people retire, people get promotive opportunities. and so we're always running behind. we would like it to be less than

50 but not quite at zero. we are actively prioritizing the positions that are important and h.r. does an amazing job bringing in talent for our organization, but there is no hiring freeze. >> vice-president adams: thank you. >> president brandon: thank you very much. >> clerk: item 13a, san francisco public works department regarding the jefferson street reconstruction project from powell to jones street. >> good afternoon. port planning and environment division. i will make a presentation on jefferson street phase two, along with jay edwards, senior

property manager, and we have nick ansell here to address any questions should there be any with san francisco public works. jefferson street phase two. jefferson street was conceived 2008 to 2010 through a public planning process and it was divided into two phases based on budget. the first was built just in time for the americas cup in 2013 for about $5 million the second phase is three blocks as opposed to the first being two blocks and has the f line track running through it. jefferson street is bound by hyde street on its west end and powell street on its east end. and it is the main street of fishermen's wharf. it objectives are really quite simple, here to provide safety for all users. it's to improve the experience

of those visiting fishermen's wharf and to increase return visits to fishermen's wharf. it does not lean to the right like this photo indicates a little bit, but it could be improved, and that's why we're doing it. it's an auto-dominated street, there are conflicts. petty cabs are often spotted in the streetcar line and there are safety issues there. the sidewalks are narrow. it has its ills. it's not keeping up with main street environments for popular attractions. this is an image of phase one area between hyde and leavenworth prior to construction. here's a photograph of it after construction with sidewalk cafes, expanded sidewalks, a

narrow carriage way that encourage slow movement. it's not a through street. it does not encourage those to drive fast. in fact, it feels uncomfortable to me even toward the speed limit. and another image of that, it has a two-tone pavement on the road. it has score lines and joints that discourage speed. it has pedestrian-scale lighting, bike racks, all that. it's been a very successful project and others will describe that in a little more detail. so phase two is three blocks, running from jones street on its west end where it joins phase one to powell street. the improvements will include the track way as it is. no changes will be made to that. it includes improvements

adjacent to the inner harbor to do an expanded walkway and special walkway that will have lighting on the harbor. there will be a new public plaza that i will show you more about at the corner of taylor street and jefferson and the mason street section will receive an exit from a triangle parking lot. right now, taylor street intersection becomes jammed up and creates great traffic delays on any busy day on fishermen's wharf and mason functions very smoothly. so it's an attempt to redistribute some traffic on there to make all vehicle traffic and others work in a better way. a cross section of the proposed alignment. the improvements and pedestrian enhancement are done -- the sidewalks are done by removing parking along two blocks of the south side of the streets. phase one removed parking on two

blocks of both sides of the street plus parking on one side of a third block. so this is doing significantly less than that. so it puts more priority back to the pedestrian and there are far more pedestrians than vehicles. this is the plaza at the corner of taylor and jefferson. it's a plaza when need be. it can have market uses. it can have the christmas tree. it solved surface problems of draining. and it's a parking area, when not used. the finishes will be designed so it can accommodate either of those. and then it will be enhanced with plantings and seedings and special pavement associated with this. the project funding, it's about a $13.7 million or $13.8 million

project altogether. the public works -- public works was successful in obtaining an l.p.p. grant, not l.l.p., as i put here. it requires a 50% match. that match is being distributed among various city agencies in which the port is in for $250,000. public works, $3.1 million. sfmta $2 million and transportation, c.t.a., $1.4, approximately. and that provides full funding for the project to go forward. jay edwards will come talk about the revenue impacts and i will return to conclude up with next steps. >> thank you, dan. i'm joined by libby, who has helped us with a memo she prepared on some of the economic

impact benefits that we should look at for the project. what you have in front of you, it's from our fishermen's wharf retail strategy report presented here by troy campbell executive director and we have laura schaefer here in the background with fishermen's wharf district. this is what they tracked as the amount of investment going into phase one. so one of the key findings in that retail strategy report is public versus private. and i think it's a very good role for a project such as this. through the fantastic amount of money that was requisitioned, it is not easy.

that project would hopefully continue to spur investment in fishermen's wharf area. a lot of investment into the lodging that surrounds this or really on what we call the nonport side of things. it does keep the visitors back to new, refreshed facilities, so we think that's a good component. it's broken into other categories, public space and retail, attractions, relatively even. so the memo concluded that it would have an important, long-term economic stability for the wharf and the port through this project. she did a lot of work on the retail strategy report, was instructi instrumental in putting that together.

key points that were brought up. we've had improvements in walkability of the wharf. well-designed public plaza. it's right where the crab wheel is. the iconic photo opportunity for almost every visitor that comes to the wharf to activate that with the multiple uses that were described. it seems beneficial to the community, we hope. and then we have other comments she's made and we'ral be a rating with our tenants. outdoor cafe and restaurant improvements. we've seen that in phase one. and importantly, plan to minimize tenant impacts. every good project needs to take into consideration our tenants, their ability to do business and do so in a productive, positive way and we don't want the product to interfere with that. we want to hear from them and

want their opinions taken into account. and this will hopefully strengthen future lease revenues. that's certainly the goal. and in terms of the parking revenue that will be foregone, that we have done -- it's in the staff report in more detail here, but basically, $280,000 from the two blocks -- there are only two blocks that currently have parking. on those two blocks, only one side of the block has parking. but still, it's pretty significant revenue and so we look at, how do we recruit this, money and perhaps is it possible, there are other revenue sources. so logically, part of that, if parking is being removed then, would it flow to our parking operator? so it's logical that it could come back to the part in terms

of revenue from our parking operator, which we have a very favorable percentage of revenue on that side, we could get 67% of the gross revenue, it could come back to the port and we've estimated it could be as much as $140,000. the tables are in your staff report. and we looked at other ways is would be supplemented and that's through additional retail sales. is it feasible that our partners, our tenants, could have an increase in their sales due to enhanced project like this. we did the analysis, but it's $2.2 million in additional revenue, based on the current percentage rent. so we think it's feasible.

whether it happens or not, we'll see. that's how we look at coming up with other sources of revenue. i will turn this back over to dan. thank you. >> thank you, jay. i want to cover the tenant outreach that occurred for the project. the design for the five blocks began with city planning department and the port with them. there were a series of public meetings, that came one a master plan for all five blocks. it has since come back as project funding has become more hopeful and by the desires of the community. there are several meetings to do this, public meetings, meeting with community benefit district, restaurant association. we've done a port commission

meeting in the past. and it's not over. they're continuing and talking now about construction impact and scheduling and how it will work together. as much as we have a project that's feel complete in its design, there are issues to be resolved and input that needs to be taken for the plan to go forward. when the community concerns, i was going to say, largely around the construction impact, there's been other issues, too, and these are the ones we can speak most confidently about. this is image from phase one of construction. they're occupying the entire roadway there. and they were able to keep a lane open on this one. that will not be possible on all phases of the next section. i think it will be on some of those, two out of the three blocks. also the sidewalks are open. businesses are open. it was a great learning

exercise. i think a very successful one, but it's a large construction process. it is expected to takes 14 1/2 months. the schedule right now is for it to bid this coming fall yet, november, december, through that process. and for construction to begin in the spring, possibly in april. and then do the 14 1/2 months hopefully impacting only one summer season. as far as the schedule, how it would be done, there are three blocks. generally only one block will be done at a time, starting with the westerly block, between taylor and jones. and before that busy season, and switch to the easterly block, between powell and mason. the reason for you doing that one during the busiest season is through a recent private project development, they rebuilt the sidewalk in there to the specs

of jefferson street roadway, so it lessens the impact of the retail, because it's on one side of the street there. the third block would be between mason and taylor and that's done in the winter of the following year or the off-season. we don't have the exact timing yet. as i say, the exact schedule -- intersections would be closed one at a time, as they may need to be to handle the utility upgrades and other such things. schedule and how it's handled it an evolving process. it's why the meetings are happening. public works is leading the effort to do that. if you desire, we can speak about that further. discuss the commission actions. in 2012, the commission approved phase one. in doing so, approved changing the street from a one-way street to a two-way.

it's much more logical as a two-way street for a street that's just a main street type function. it's if the a through street trying to carry traffic. and commission authorized the removal of traffic and then the commission authorized the sdek tifr director to enter into m.o.u.s, public works for maintenance, and p.u.c. for lied of lighting and provided who is maintaining which parts of the street. if you need greater detail on that, i will be glad to provide it. at a future meeting, staff will be asking the commission to consider the phase two design and authorize the executive director to enter into m.o.u., similar to phase one. that concludes our presentation. thank you very much. >> president brandon: thank you. any public comment on this item? come on up.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, director forbes, and port of san francisco staff. i'm laura schaefer, community programs and operations director of the fishermen's wharf community benefit district. on behalf of the fwcbd, we're here to provide support for the second half of the project from jones street to powell street. for the last six years, our organization has been in support of this project andreas endly working with d.p.w. to find funding to complete the second phase of the changes along jefferson street. it transformed the previous streetscape and enhanced our visitor experience. now it's being leveraged to phase two. as for the retail strategy, it's

the most significant public realm improvement at fishermen's wharf and reconcluded in a main retail strategy goal. the second phase will improve the street and public realm areas. traffic flow will increase with the new mason street triangle exit, since there are constant delays, and expanded sidewalks will improve visitors experience. increased lighting for the walkway and harbor and new railing on the 97 -- jefferson street. we are excited that a small portion of the parking area at taylor next to the iconic fishermen's wharf crab wheel sign will be transformed to a

public plaza that could host small performances and events. at this stage to ensure that our constituents are well informed, we're working with d.p.w. and have deployed a construction survey via email. we've asked that it be completed as soon as possible to see how the construction should be completed. all are welcome to complete the survey. we'll continue to work with d.p.w. and constituents as project timing and goals are announced. i would like to thank the opportunity for the port for the generous $250,000 they've contributed to the estimated construction costs of $13.8 million. thank you. >> president brandon: any other public comment? seeing none.

>> hi, good afternoon. i'm a private property owner and member of the executive board for the community benefit district. i wanted to say to you personally, thank you for your generosity and how much we feel that this phase two is important to the vitality of fishermen's wharf. i've been down here all my life and worked here on and off. and there's been years that i would not recommend friends and family come down here, but in the last 20 years, the transformation of the waterfront, especially the embarcadero and phase two are signing examples of wonderful capital improvements to revitalize the area and bring more people in, being it's a critical asset to the city and area of critical mass.

seems wise we give it our attention. and phase two seems to do all that and more. we look fore word to this potentially happening, we hope it happens, and we're grateful for your help and your contribution to it. that's it. >> president brandon: thank you. come on up. >> hi. i'm antone cebella. my family owns a property at taylor and jefferson. i've worked on that corner for 45 years and i've seen a lot of changes and this is something we really need. i think we're not up to the rest of the waterfront in our appearance. and this would really help. and my family many years ago tried to get a public park of some sort at taylor and jefferson and we never got that. i feel that we're not able to

get the customers at pier 39 because it's a self-contained attraction and are part of fishermen's wharf has lagged behind. i really think this project is necessary and i agree with everything that's been said today. thank you. >> president brandon: thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? >> commissioner gilman: i just want to thank staff and d.p.w. for the update. as i stated at last commission meeting about the fishermen's wharf development plan, i'm real really excited about this, since i live a stone's throw from jefferson and powell. i've seen the improvement in phase one, so thank you and excited to have it done and do a ribbon-cutting in 14 months.

>> commissioner makras: i would like to explore why it's a 14 1/2-month construction project versus bringing construction time down. if we do double-shift, we can do it in half the time. the impact of the tourists and everything, it's a cumulative issue. and just look at union square and look at the impact of construction for a few years and what it's done to the businesses. so i think we should look at that and see what the cost implications are. with respect to the public park at taylor and jefferson. if i heard right, the public said that we'll use it as a park and sometimes for parking.

why would we do that? it makes no sense to me to do that. and i would start by saying, find me any other park in san francisco that turns into a parking lot part time. [laughter] and more importantly, you will sit down there with the cars and have them leak oil and have gas and all the consequences of a parking lot and you will open it up and say, you want people to use it as a playground or a park? there is no logic for using it as a parking lot. >> it is a parking lot. >> commissioner makras: but we're turning it into a park. >> it's a plaza. it's not a greenscape park like a traditional park. the reason being, and i speak

for d.p.w. and they can say more, in working with the merchants there, the parking is very, very oversubscribed. there will be certain times in the summer where there is just maximum parking in the area because it is so busy. and there will be times when we can flex it to a plaza and i have staff say more about that. in terms of the construction schedule, it's d.p.w.'s project, but we will share with them your request for consideration. i suspect the merchants have shared similar questions and i will turn both of the questions over to d.p.w. staff or whoever is most appropriate. >> i will address the park one. and nick will address the 14 1/2-month construction process. the plaza is port property and

the port has the ability to say how it would be used. i think the reason was well explained, in that it has a high demand for parking during peak periods. so that comes up. we could look at shifting it more to public plaza use and talk to the tenants about that and vet that idea. the rules as to what events they're scheduled for have not been a discussed topic of conversation. we're so thrilled to have public works include the improvements in the project. it will be back to the port to decide how the space gets used and we would be at the commission -- at the commission's direction, we could take that up further and come back with recommendations. >> i'm nick ansell, here for the project manager. regarding the 14-month construction duration, i'm going

to assume this is a conversation with our construction management group at public works to determine the length of the construction duration. that said, we'll taking your comments seriously and explore expediting the process if it's possible. >> d.p.w. itself is doing the construction work or are you subbing it out? >> it will go out to bid and it will be a private contractor that will build the project. >> thank you. >> commissioner makras: i would like to find a way to discuss and get recommendation if it's going to be a plaza or a plaza and park. it's great that there's parking demand, but we also are a transit-first city encouraging public transportation, more so in corridors just like this than anywhere. forgive me for saying, that corner with that parking lot is

not something people want it take a picture of and want to be around. it's less than desirable. it's the opportunity to improve and make it a plaza that people can enjoy. if we want to -- i would concur, it's to make a proactive decision to remain a plaza or parking and the money overrides the look and the environment and the experience we're trying to accomplish there. >> i think that, jay, you took me to that particular area, so i will take a counter argument to commissioner makras. i would never have been able to get there without that plaza for

parking. it was possible to find a space and would i have had to parkway up closer to pier 39, the garage up there. so, i guess -- i hear the message about the open space, but it's tucked around the corner. it's not right on jefferson street. so i guess i don't see it's disrupting the flow or beauty of the area, per se. it's a parking lot, i understand. but i think there's some utility in it. i would say, i would not jump into saying, it should be an open space. i don't know what people would do in there. they would just walk around. unless you put things inside it, chairs, things like that. phase one, in terms etch -- of everything else, has done a lot

to improve the area. i think the reports with trying to say, we'll get a return on the contribution to phase two by the fact that we will get parking revenue and i also would like to know, given that we've done phase one, did we have any tenants? can we see that since phase one has been put in place, have our tenants -- because it's hard to judge how many increase of tourists or people walked in in that area, but we can measure whether -- and i'm thinking of boudine's, because we track them on percentage rent. do we have any facts to support our supposeition that revenue has increased? >> we do have numbers to

suggest. it's very difficult to isolate whether it's the project or the economy, that it's changing the percentage rents that we see year over year. we're in an aggressive economic cycle. it's hard to say whether it is jefferson street alone. we have some very positive changes to our restaurants and percentage rents. we have some that are flat. we have some that are down at the wharf. it's not an overwhelming story. we will say and we stand by that it's a better environment and better experience for the visitor and that we have a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest and better environment and experience for locals and visitors means return customers. on the experience side, we're certain that jefferson street phase one is a better

experience. >> it looks better from when i've been in the area before. and we heard from the fishermen's wharf opportunity benefit district presenting their plans to look at the makeup of the neighborhood and retail spaces to make it more interesting. it used to be one t-shirt shop after another. i think we're seeing the benefits of more quality retailing to increase interest in foot traffic down there. and i guess probably from the fact that obviously a lot of people go to fishermen's wharf to eat, as we've heard from public comment today, and that experience is improving. having just gone to the boudine site with what they're doing and planning to do, it bears out. jay or dan, you said that you thought there would be -- by doing another three blocks, we

would see an increase. is it specific to what type of retailers that we think our rent could increase from? the economy has something to do with it. i'm a finance person. i like to know, if you invest $250,000 we get return. >> jay edwards. we looked at is it feasible, possible, likely? could it be, as executive director forbes said, going back and tracking -- and wave spent a lot of time looking at the numbers, if you will. and there are certainly hard to say that a occurred, b occurred, and that equals c. we don't have that logical formula. what we tried to say, is it feasible that we could see a

offset from revenues in parking. to us, it's the ongoing revenue that we're focused on. yes, we think it's feasible. >> on that three blocks, who are some key tenants? >> boudine is the anchor and they're doing tremendous. i didn't have them in mind because i think they run a good operation and they're maximizing what they can with their facilities. that's why we're here to have a reinvestment and extension and they want to continue to take advantage of it. we do see other surrounding retail businesses in that area that we think could certainly have potential to do better.

it's maybe a rising tide in a small boat concept. we have $114 million in sales generated on the wharf, not excluding pier 39 and maritime excursion operators. we think the positive visitor experience translates into real return with people going there. that's the real key to increase the long-term, long-term, strategic investment in this. this is what it makes sense. we don't have an economic

formula to apply. >> i understand. when we think about these things, and this is a good example of where we sort of can put some models in place to think about it. no question it's the right thing to do. it's a better visitor experience. it makes the area -- we don't have the congestion and the pedestrians and the cyclists and whatever competing. and it's the right answer in line with what the city is trying to do overall in terms of transportation and transit strategies. so i'm supportive in that regard. if we have an opportunity to say when we do these things and there's a way to show return, that speaks to doing projects like this it's not just a do-good thing. >> view the -- absolutely, commissioner. we agree.

>> vice-president adams: thank you for the presentation. when i think of fishermen's wharf, second to disneyland, it's one of the most visited places in our state. we have it look at it like that. i agree with victor, time is of the essence. i want to hear the mood from our tenants. and with change, there's impact. it's uncomfortable. i run down that way every morning. we need those improvements. we have an opportunity to take our game to the next level. we need to be like the warriors. we need to come out like champions. maybe i can hear more from the tenants, but i don't know if we can get it done in less than 14 months, but whatever we need it do, we need to do it. the tenants just them being here

today, they are giving us direction. we're commissioners, we're not down there every day. they work, live, eat, sleep down there. the guy just said, 50 some years. that's what they understand. i don't know if it should be a plaza. we want dollars coming into san francisco and we want people to enjoy the waterfront. i will say it again, we're the second biggest attraction behind disneyland. so if we're going to be a world class port, world class city, we need to think like that. we can't be nickel and diming. let's step it up and do what we need to do. and let's get it done. i like the work that's being

done. that's where i am. >> president brandon: thank you for the presentation. i think we're very fortunate that d.p.w. and the city are investing $14 million in the upgrade of fishermen's wharf. it will be beneficial for everyone. as a commission, we need to clearly understand what our investment is in this endeavor and so -- are we getting rid of parking on both sides of the street or just one? >> both. >> right now, there is parking on both sides of the street on two blocks of the three blocks. so one side, two blocks. phase one eliminated parking on two sides for two blocks, plus a third block on one side. but that's already done. >> president brandon: so there will be no parking on the street? >> correct. which could contribute to a fuller triangle lot at other

port facilities. >> president brandon: with the parking lot and the proposed plaza, if we were to turn that into a permanent plaza or even a part-time plaza, have we looked at what the lost revenue would be on that? >> we have not looked at lost revenue from that corner area yet. and we could make that assessment and look at that versus if it gets used 20 days a year or 200 days a year in return to that. i think that decision would not have to occur at exactly the same time as your larger decisions here, but it's one -- it's port property. it's scheduled -- or it is port of this project, funded as part of this $13.8 million. the use of it, i think the commission has -- >> president brandon: i understand, but our tenants have been telling us for years that parking is vital to their

business. so as losing parking, it may have a significant impact on our restaurants and our tenants. so i just want to be sure we're looking at everything before we make that decision of what we're going to do. it's hard to understand how you have a parking lot plaza. and how often it will be one or the other. and so just being able to make an informed decision on that piece of it. >> but it is being used as a parking lot today. >> president brandon: yes. >> 20 spaces? it's about 20 spaces we're talking about. out of 165-space lot or -- >> president brandon: that's always crowded, always closed. and so we will be losing spaces if we decide to do it, but need to know what the impact is if we

make that decision. i, too, would like to see the less impact to the tenants for this project as possible. what are the next steps? >> today is an informational presentation. the next steps are -- we return to the commission with a resolution as described to approve the phase two design and to authorize the executive director to enter into the m.o.u.s with three or four different city agencies for the operation and maintenance on the streets. >> president brandon: by then, will you know what we're doing with the parking lot plaza? >> we're very interested in remaining public works schedule. if you do the math, they want to bid it and go through pre-contract requirements and then start it so they only end up impacting one summer season.

we anticipate coming back at the october meeting with the resolution. the improvements to that area of the plaza, if approved, would not be affected by the decision as to how it is used. it would probably be difficult to come back with an answer to get the community input back as to the importance of that. we could come back with estimates from the revenue, but also need to question how valuable it is to the community if we change this as a purely public space. >> president brandon: and i want to know the total impact, it could be -- >> it could be 20 spaces. we could come back with a