the full three years, so we're looking forward to confirmation of that. the second project is something that was authorized from legislation going back to 2007. there are five piers authorized for repair or removal with a fairly large authorization, so we're back in the hunt for that. it's almost $6 million. the army corps put forward the full amount of that, and, you know, if we're lucky enough to get that funded, it will have some major improvements to the pier 70 shipyard area. part of the water resources development act of 2018, which is the primary funding vehicle for the army corps of engineers, had in it a reflection of all kinds of ports across the country that were -- and other army corps users, that were dissatisfied with the way they

do their cost-benefit analyses, that it was too restrictive, didn't allow for the individual complications of jurisdictions, like, for example, seismic reactive regions. that's not part of their mission, and so, you know, we were disadvantaged in that way. other jurisdictions are disadvantaged in other ways. so part of that legislation created two one-year studies, where they are going to just take another look at all of that, turn it upsidedown, see if they can improve on it, and we very much want to be at the table for that, too. so we're working diligently to make sure our advocacy strategy is solid on that, using both the city's federal advocates and the advocates we have in the seawall project. but what we're looking for is your feedback today, if you have more that we can add to the agenda or tweaks we can make, so we can take this to city hall in december, and it can be

integrated with the port's federal agenda, with other departments -- sorry, the city's state and federal agendas. and we'll come back. and give you an update. >> president brandon: thank you. >> brad and i are here to answer any questions. >> president brandon: is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner makras? >> commissioner makras: i think it's a good plan. we do share the rationalization of why you think the state should pay for the seawall, and i agree with you, when all control has been turned over to us and we manage the whole thing. >> i would very much like to share that, but i feel it's a heavier -- >> so, the state receives multiple tax benefits from the embarcadero seawall, and from the assets it supports. it has the state's interests in the economic activities that happen in san francisco, and it

did build the original harbor, and we are under the state lands rules and regulations of a public waterfront, so we are serving a state mission in our core functionality, and when we develop the capital stack, the proposed capital stack, we always had the state as a major contributor, along with the city and the federal government and private entities. so that's the general rationale, but if the seawall were to fail, the state stands to lose far more in tax value than we're asking for it to contribute. >> thank you. >> commissioner makras: thank you. >> president brandon: commissioner woo ho? >> commissioner woo ho: thanks for that explanation. i think it's, obviously, a very active agenda. appreciate it. it's very -- i guess not today, but at some point, i guess, to understand and some of it, obviously, has different probabilities and, obviously, some of them have not passed already, but to understand, i guess, in the longer term, particularly as it relates to the seawall, if we have a better

feeling for where the funding sources are through some of this legislative activity that we're looking at. so that we get a sense, is it covering 50% of our needs? or just getting a sense of how this is going to help us. and we know that, obviously, there's a probability that not everything is going to get passed, but that way to tie it into the application, practically speaking, with what we're trying to do with the seawall, with what we just passed, which is a small step. we have a long way to go. there's a long runway ahead of us, so if we can understand how this feeds into that, so that we understand also strategically just how much more of a gap we have that we don't know the answer to, which is sometimes people ask me the question, and i really can't answer the question except to say the seawall bond was a terrific first step, but i couldn't really answer the full road map of what has to happen next. >> happy to report on that in a future date. i can give one brief answer to the potentially largest pot of

funding, the army corps of engineers. the initial study is a three-year study. we're almost a year -- well, in 2021 is around the time that they would wrap that up, at which point the army corps recommends to send to for funding and at that time what they can justify for cost benefit will give us an understanding how much potentially in federal resources is at the table, at least for an army corps of engineers project. >> president brandon: and i guess with the composition of what we have in congress right now, i guess we have some allies in the house. commissioner gilman? >> commissioner gilman: thank you. i concur, this is a comprehensive plan, and i think it's ambitious. i had a couple of questions. on the i.f.d. legislation, do we know if assembly member chu is willing to carry again and be our advocate to get us through the finish line?

>> defer to brad on that. >> brad benson, yes, commissioner gilman, he indicated strong desire to carry the bill again. at one of the press conferences on prop "a," he actually explained because the vote had not happened yet on prop "a," he had difficulty selling the bill last year, and he thinks now with this positive vote that he'll be able to make a stronger case in sacramento. >> commissioner gilman: then my only other question was, because i don't want to see staff sort of chase a rabbit down a hole we might not be successful in, so i was intrigued by the cap and trade example. historically in san francisco, cap and trade is used for transportation or affordable housing projects. have we been in conversation with the m.t.a. and oewd to see if this is a strategy from a city perspective that they will support? >> i -- so, someone from m.t.a.

has encouraged the port to pursue this source, because not all of it had been fully allocated. the trick is being able to show the climate benefits of the seawall project, and that's the work that daly was referring to that we're doing with our consultant team on the project. >> commissioner gilman: okay. i would just encourage us also to encourage oewd and the mayor's office of housing is aware of it. i don't want to step on someone's toes and have it sort of inner city drama between each other. just my recommendation. i think it's an interesting idea, as someone who's done a cap and trade application, so it could be a good source. so thank you. >> president brandon: commissioner adams? >> vice president adams: daly, you know i'm one of your biggest fans. great comprehensive report, but next time a little more fire and enthusiasm, a little action. >> president brandon: like you enjoy your job? >> vice president adams: like you enjoy your job. you were kind of monotone, but

anyway, good. one of the things, and this was probably going out to all the commissioners that we should think about, and i know once a year that president brandon and director forbes has led a delegation back to washington, d.c., to lobby, and now with nancy pelosi most likely to be our next speaker again, i think we really got to press our issues. and we got to be back in d.c. quite often. i think we need to make appearances back there and talk to people on both sides of the aisle that have our interests at heart and lay out who the port of san francisco is and what's important. politics, we may not like it, but we can't live without it. it's just one of those things, you know, just one of those things, and also now with the new governor, i think it would be good, even for the commissioners, even if we went up to sacramento some time and lobbied up there, and they saw us carrying the water, they see the staff, but we as commissioners, we need to lead. they need to see us going in and out of those offices on the hill

with our staff talking about our issues with passion and vigor and talking about this is our port, you know, we're representative of the public. this port belongs to the citizens of san francisco, and we should be leading the charge, and we should be up there saying that, not just be laying back, expecting the staff to do everything. so i'm willing to go to washington or go up to sacramento and carry our water. i think we need to try to get senator kamala harris down here and get them to kind of understand. also we got to understand we got to lobby those southern california lawmakers. they have the seniority right now. the speaker's from southern california, the senator pro tem. one day david chu and scott weiner will have the seniority. when you have seniority, you have the power, you have the whip. that's why nancy pelosi is so effective. she's got the power, she's got the whip. and we have to be more effective getting the port out there and saying who we are, what we're about. so i'm supportive, and i hope my fellow commissioners will get

involved and be willing to go up to sacramento to lobby some time with the staff, knock on doors, make calls, do whatever, but we got to do whatever we can to uplift this port, because we represent the community. thank you. >> president brandon: thank you. thank you, daly. this is a great report, and it is full of great things that we have on the horizon. i want to echo my fellow commissioner's comments, which were all very good, but especially the fact that i think you need to use the commission more. i think that we could be more successful if the commission were out there out front, because our trips to d.c. have been extremely successful with myself and director forbes and commissioner adams, or whomever else is on the team, but i think we need to do that in sacramento also. and so it's great that you're reporting to us, but i think you should attempt to use us a little more so we can get some of this stuff done. thank you. >> thank you.

>> commissioner woo ho: so, on that comment, if the executive director would organize a day trip to sacramento so we could go as a group, or only can have two at a time, remembering all the rules. that's certainly fine. >> president brandon: more than one trip a year. >> commissioner woo ho: to wait for us to call you, i think you need to organize us. >> we will do so. thank you. >> president brandon: thank you. >> clerk: item 7a, presentation of the san francisco municipal transportation agency embarcadero enhancement project and plan to increase safety along the embarcadero. >> good afternoon, president brandon and members of the commission. dan with the port planning and environment division. i am here only to introduce the embarcadero enhancement project, a city effort to improve safety, mobility, and accessibility for all modes of movement along the

embarcadero. the project is led by the san francisco municipal transportation agency, sfmta. on august 14th of this year, the sfmta provided a project update to the port commission, where the commission made requests to improve safety and further information on sfmta's work to advance the project. today casey hildrith will describe recently completed projects, public feedback from the recent project workshop held on october 25th, and we'll outline the expected timeline and next steps for the longer term enhancement project. enwith that, casey? >> thank you, dan. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm project manager for the

embarcadero enhancement project. dan gave you a nice introduction. i'll add that i'm very fired up to be here, commissioner adams. and so with that, i'll just try and dive right into it. quickly a reminder, the embarcadero enhancement project is a project to predominantly improve safety for all who travel along the embarcadero. it does represent one of the handful of streets that results in the overwhelming number of collisions and severe injuries, fatalities, in the city of san francisco and the drive behind vision zero is that is not acceptable. so again, excited to report out on some near term improvements that have hit the ground and others that are planned and coming. review the october design showcase, and then talk a bit more about some of the details of our next steps and plans for the larger embarcadero enhancement project.

most noticeably we've been out on the street with a lot of paint over the last several weeks, so this slide is a picture of the condition along the southbound embarcadero curb lane between broadway and mission. the way it was striped before, there was a sort of floating bike lane and in the peak periods a third travel lane would open up, presumably, to relieve congestion, but it largely just resulted in uncertainty and ambiguity about how to use the street. and so working with port staff, we were able to quickly obtain approvals and move forward with removing that peak period restriction. [ please stand by ]

markings. we will do that. it tends to disappear. there own space to travel. another near term improvement in the works is along the battery and sampson corridors both in port jurisdiction under the sfmta jurisdiction. looking to provide an alternative route for faster cyclists to the embarcadero to and from the northeast water present and the financial district and particularly at the

intersections of the embarcadero. battery and sampson are the last two that hit the waterfront before streets like front and davis are remove from the embarcadero. these are the widest and largest and more complicated. through this project we are able to provide alternative means of getting around this part of town as well as address the problems. this project is currently undergoing environmental review. we hope to be out in front of our mta board the second quarter of next year and implementing improvements to the intersections of the embarcadero by mid next year. i you will point out one particular intersection looking northbound to the embarcadero

with chestnut on the left. currently both lanes go straight. able to access the embarcadero. this is an early sketch. we have more work to do. wanting to advance the ideas as quickly as we can adding the bike lanes as part of the scope and addressing the physical nature of the intersection. it is quite wide you have to cross multiple crosswalks to walk along the dare. we think we have a good scheme to shrink the intersection and provide to move people and goods. the way we achieve this, one of the broad stokes of the embarcadero enhancement is to im fithe intersection, not allow all of the turn movements. that opens up the opportunity to do things like this. i will talk about that in a moment. speaking of the october 25th

design showcase, it was held in this building outside of this room. we had a very large and very diverse turnout. i was very happy. i would say we had 200 people in attendance. folks that i had seen throughout the planning process, a lot of new faces. we did a good job engaging parts of the corridor we hadn't heard from before. the residential areas, telegraph hill as well as levy plaza area. we presented really a refined vision for the project trying to gain feedback and show momentum moving forward. these are some of the key themes and elements of the project we walked through in greater

detail. a bikeway to physically separate the cyclists from other modes and achieve other goals including reducing the distance pedestrians have to cross to keep people moving, despite having other changes for safety. we also talked on the edges about the urban design and coordinated way finding. i would say the key themes are simplifying the intersections, providing physical protection and shortening the crossing distances to open up the traffic signal time to keep folks flowing. here is another slide that tries to speak to those details. information, trying to get specific about which left turns and which u turns would restrict, talking about the

third northbound travel lane and removing and re-purposing for other elements of the project. we did introduce the concept of larger changes in front of the ferry building to consolidate traffic and open a frontage road and slower speed, more people oriented space in front of the ferry building. some concern saves address the pedestrian and by success interactions within the bikeway and the prom nod. with and how the pedestrians and cyclists are mixing in the bikeway. that is the key feedback that we received and the focus areas we are diving into over the next 6 to 12 months.

in summary, we received a lot of positive feedback for the concept of the project and the key elements. a lot of gratitude for hitting the ground with near term improvements. also clearly heard that must be done in the near term as we wait for the longer term projected. the sensitivity around the options with electric bicycles and scooters loudly and clearly heard the sensitivity to those issues as we look to design solutions with this project. i mentioned that chestnut intersection the trade-offs with simplifying the intersection it does inconvenience certain routes and certain areas of the city. we heard those concerns from the resident in the area and will have to continue to work to make

sure the trade-offs are acceptable. a lot of details about the bikeway itself, but mainly just viewing it more sooner is the clear message. with that we will look at ways to simplify and expedite environmental determination one way is to put-off the big vision in front of the ferry building. it seems out of scope right now compared to what we think we can achieve with the rest of the project. our plan is to advance the technical analysis for that concept or take that from the overall enhancement project. a quick note. part of the reason we may have seen strong turnout from the neighborhood. we did try to introduce concepts for reducing travel time for transit, and that included potentially removing a couple stop pairs.

we heard from folk that the green witch station was in the right spot. we are exploring all options. we want to hear from the public. we will share a bit more of the details. we had a survey as part of the open house, but trying to get at the key themes around what folks are excited about, concerned about, where to prioritize will use this as part of the technical information over the next 6 to 12 months to make more informed decisions where to go and where to hit the ground running first. this is the timeline we shared with no funding beyond the preliminary phases but trying to sho-- show progress.

2022 is too long to wait and thousand expedite the process. the near term safety improvements, continue to work with port staff about making sure we are finding all opportunities, that no stone is left unturned, but continuing to move forward. we want a concept design report so folks can see the outreach and design and continue to work on refining the design, and bringing in consultant assistants to help us through the heavy push through preliminary engineering phase. by later next summer we will report back an additional layer of details and have a much higher confidence level where we are going to focus efforts design wise and the overall

timeline. we are looking at funding options past the next phase. we are trying to program local funds to show a down payment on initial segment of the embarcadero or some match of a grant funding. we are continuing to work with staff to identify those opportunities. that concludes my presentation. thank you. thank you. i have a speaker card. kristin. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i am a community organizer on staff at the bicycle commission. this has come a long ways since it kicked off in 2014. on behalf of 10,000 plus members i express support for the

project and implications for change. i want to work to move the long-term project forward and near term improvements after kevin mannings death this summer. i want to send kevin's family who demand it is a better place to walk and bike. we finally saudi signs for the pro way protected bike line at the embarcadero. the plans had overwhelming support. it is clear there is a need for more aggressive and near term improvements. we have the opportunity to create a protected bike lane while we wait for 2022. safety improvingments on the embarcadero cannot wait.

those walking and bike you go know this. between 2011 and 2016, 239 people were injury order the embarcadero, including two fatalities. when the sfmta implemented changes this month we should have put people first. they replaced th the -- parking lane. in fact, most of the parking spots are in front of parking lots. we have a great example what a people first embarcadero can look like with the recent protected bike lane at washington. i ask for your help to make this a reality for the rest of the corridor. thank you for your time today. >> any other public comment? public comment is closed. commissioner gilman. >> thank you for this.

i wanted to echo the public comment we heard today. i had the opportunity to walk from day to mission twice today all on the dare. i hope for part of the plan besides near term solutions and expediting bicycle safety. i do think we need more signage, particularly four tourists with the avalanche of scooters and electric by successes in the bike lanes. it was hard for those to move around for those walking or taking photos today. for the places on the port will is more signage telling people how to use it. if we make these improvements that might be more successful. i want that out there.

i want to urge the staff to move this as fast as possible. we heard at the last meeting how important this. there are live on the line. i hope we can move this forward very quickly. thank you very much. the to think of presentation and the fact we have public comment but compared to the last commission meeting with a lot of concern, i want to say since i have been listening to not just the last meeting bull the traffic congestion on the embarcadero. this is the first time i have seen execution of action that we can see visibly. i want to commend the sfnta. we were always studying to figure out to you u what to do.

it is a lounges term effort. i do see execution. i commend you all. i am encouraged we are moving in that direction. we can do more as we heard from public comment. i think there are other thing to do. the other thing to mention, and i guess we have not impacted parking. the parking spaces have not been taken away. that was considered in some of the earlier discussion. shorter crosswalks which allows the traffic lights to move more cars faster. we are not here to address motorists. people have been struck in traffic on the embarcadero that is a frustration. we have all stakeholders to consider. if we are figuring out to move people faster that is a win-win. do we know if we are moving cars

faster through the traffic lights? are we timing and understanding the flow of pedestrians, bicycles and electric scooters and nottorrists. we can't ignore that. are we able to improve and enhancer for all categories as we think through the design which is a terrific idea. you have the brilliant mind to do it. we may not have funding. we need to figure out how to get that done. you have addressed my questions. >> thank you. i will try to answer your second question first. we are looking at every possible way to move everyone more safely and efficiently. there are trade-offs that may be necessary. i don't want to over promise. the initial traffic analysis

does show a slight delay in travel on the full corridor, a couple minutes between the ballpark and fisherman's wharf. we have not gone deeper to model the efficiencies of the shorter crossings and modified signal timing that is the next phase where we get a consultant to do that work for us and amp up our confidence level that we can come back to say we are improving all modes. keep in mind motorists travel time and frustration. that is a big part why there is a safety issue. folks are waiting at you have reintersection. if you see the yellow lane you don't want to wait.

motorists convenience is part of it. we want to make everyone else safer and give them space. i have a high confidence when we come back we will have more details to share. in terms of initial question around parking. these near term changes have not adjusted or removed parking beyond full-time. there is some discussion around the exist you go load zones northbound, making those wider and longer so folks stopping in the bike line have space to move to the curb. those discussions are ongoing with port staff. >> it looks like the project ask in play.

to me we need the answers or believe some of the answers need questions before the final decision are made. where is your weak link? what makes this design better versus slightly something different? because at the end of the day we are going to have our bottlenecks in any design. i would like to focus on the weak link in this design and can we do better than what you have given us? >> conceptionly speaking the two way bike lay is a lot of time trying to determine if that was the right move. that did take up a significant portion of the planning process that was the best for embarcadero. i can signed behind that. how we approach the details of making that happen and trade-offs on block to block bases are where we are at.

no two blocks of the embarcadero are the same. it is difficult to weigh one approach versus the other when we will use all you have those block to block to block. we have options for fitting this bikeway in if it is slightly narrower median that might costs more, that is the analysis where we are at. we can say we believe it can work without optimanying traffic -- optimizing traffic signals. >> what is the order of priorities? pedestrians, bikes? what is the last one? >> people, bikes, scooter?

>> first is people. people travel on various form on the embarcadero. i do not want to put them in a category. we want to move everyone safely. there is interplay between the signal crossing and implementing to bikeway. there is synergy between those themes. >> you don't have a priority? i would hope there is a priority. >> safety is number one, we spent a lot of time figure you go out how to create dedicated space for each mode and that move is with the bike facilities along to embarcadero. that is the biggest challenge physically and engineering wise we need a physically protected

bike way. >> so that is the priority protecting the bike lanes? >> the key part of the project. that when contribute to the other goals. i don't know if i should prioritize between safety of anyone traveling. all of the above would be my answer. i am not trying to be coy. >> art the same time i want to see your plan now that i have it i will drive to see how it goes and what i think is practical from my point of view. at the end of the day when you have cars backing up, that is your frustration and they are doing crazy things and that is where the risk comes. i don't want to see the moving of cars becoming the weak link

and safety issue. the cars are doing some of the damage. >> what we have heard from some stakeholders in concerns of two travel lanes. would be the lane closest to the parked vehicle or loading zone becomes chaotic uber and lyft parking lanes. what is happening on the curb is an issue we have heard. how curb space relates to traveling on a bike. that is an issue we need to study in greater detail.

commissioner adams. >> i was really impressed with over 200 people came to the design pro -- process. >> 140 surveys were completed. more were there that didn't complete the survey. 200 people. >> that is great community outreach. on the public feedback broadway folsom was the biggest priority. is that going to be adopted or your recommendation to the mta commission? maybe the priority thaw commissioner makras was talking about. >> we will share that with my full. we don't have a full picture to say that is the priority segment. if will the other segments to be implemented sooner depending on

how other projects happened and opportunities to coordinate. there are a couple criteria i would like to see and study before i would adopt that as number one priority. >> thank you. >> this is a no-brainer for me. this is a society problem. san francisco is third in the world in congestion. moscow, new york and la. one death is too many. any fatality is too many. a city with the congestion on the embarcadero is second to none. on top of that, we have people that are so short with patience they are unhinged. road raid. i understand what victor was talking about. that is true. we have an opportunity to get behind this, to take this

forward and to u in the end we will be looking at as out front doing the right thing and dialing with it. being on the offense, not defense. i am in full support of it. it is sad. i appreciate the sister from the bike coalition talking out. i run on the embarcadero every day. this is about safety. another thing we have to remember we have 30 million tourists a year in our city. we have to be responsible. that is the economic driver much our city. think of it like that. we are getting bad press about the homeless and needles on the street. now we have a cruise terminal at pier 7. we have to be responsible for everyone. we want the tourists to come

back. we are number 2002 behind division neland as the sec -- disneyland. >> the port we have an opportunity. i am on board. i don't know where th funding wl come from. i understand i have traveled around the world. this is a no-brainer. i support it. thanks. >> thank you very much for this presentation. i think this is something that definitely needs to be addressed. i understand we are trying to solve several modes of transportation. i know a lot of thought and analysis has to go into that, but it is not just one mode of transportation we are trying to solve, it is several.

i am wondering. are we looking at bike lanes on both sides of the street or two lanes on one side of the street? >> one in each direction. the proposal, the vision is a consolidated two way bikeway adjacent to the mo promenade. keep it unless there is a pressing need to use that real estate for something else. there is going to be if we are successful in the goals of increasing the amount of bicycles and scootering and active modes, we need both facilities ultimately, although the two-way bikeway should provide the simple, easy way to access the waterfront for a up

broader slice of the population. 8 to 80 facility. southbound bike lane could be for the heartier rider. that is a question that can be ongoing. as we get to the design is not necessarily part of the two-way design but in the near time if we improve the safety of the southbound bike lane, thinking about the long-term of that strategy is certainly something to consider. we have heard a lot of comments people still use the southbound bike lane. >> are we looking to remove parking from both sides of the street? >> the concept we are looking at removes parking on waterfront. it provides accessible loading for accessing the waterfront.

we plan to maintain the capacity for the existing load zones and looking to expand loading opportunities where possible, but parking on the water side would not be one of the big winners of this project. i can say that. >> once we have these dedicated bike lanes would bikes still be permitted on the sidewalk? >> that is a question for the port in terms of policy choice whether there is a speed limit on the promenade. we hedger not having a sense of refuge is problematic to a lot of people. i am focused on the design of the bikeway to make it attractive for those that want to travel faster than a couple

miles an hour. what it looks like with a bikeway adjacent. >> we should look at everything. we are trying to solve for several modes of transportation. not just one. i think it is really vital that we look at pedestrian safety, bike safety, car safety, all safety of transportation. i just think it is something we should look at. commissioner makras. >> to bring up a different subject matter scowe can be on board with this. drop offs for lifts and ubers and all of that. how will you manage that with two lanes? are they going to stop in the middle of the road, pick up and drop off?

that is gridlock or are you going to have designated pull over spots? >> great question. we certainly the vision is to provide dedicated passenger loading and unloading areas not exclusive to uber and lyft. we are designing the loading areas necessary for all those types of vehicles. i think a key with the tnc with uber and lift is helping to improve customer experience with the dedicated loading areas such that they feel comfortable in making some of those locations into their applications. if i am on the embarcadero, i can't just wherever i want and what is most convenient for me request a ride right there.

the vision is that we provide real options to if i'm on the app i will be nudged to the first popeiate and safe location -- appropriate and safe location. we don't have a lot of tools for uber and lyft. it is a partnership to make it work so it convenient for everyone. they are telling their pay patrons where to be picked up. that is safety benefits. that happened at cal tran and valencia. these are pilots. the laboratory is very busy to solve this problem. >> one way is giving them tickets when they stop in the middle of the road. >> tickets is part of it. >> what is the estimated costs,

what is funded and what is not funded? >> we are going to dive deeper in the next few months. we heard from the public cost was not a major issue. i will put a pencil estimate of 50 to $80 million to do the entire corridor, to do it right. it is not a small project. clearly, phasing one of the questions we asked the public try to get what is achievable is on my mind. we will try to tease those details out and have that contribute to the thinking which goes back to my earlier comment about information before we dive head long into the segment of the study area. >> any other comments? thank you very much. we appreciate you coming. >> item 7:00 p.m. informational

presentation. >> good evening. planning and environment. i am here to give a presentation as a follow-up to the september 11th presentation on the park project. i will cover three items. one lessons learned on the planning and design phases we have been through for 10 years, maintenance and operations, follow-up from the commission request we do additional community outreach to confirm the community is pleased with the design and programming and are understanding that should we be successful in delivering the park this meets the port's

obligation for crane cove park. to highlight some of the lessons learned, we went back and reflected on the decisions made along the way and came up with these four topics. establishes a firm budget for the project early on. which conflicts with the second lesson learned but worth noting. if a project is anticipated to scale over time because you have the opportunity for future funding, we need to clearly liartic late that to the commission and the public. going into it everyone recognizes we might start with a budget of $10 million and end up with a budget of $34 million. second for the project in the duration we have and projects that don't take the duration we need to provide more details to the commission and the public

about the budget and cost increases and changes over time. lastly, we need to make sure we conservatively estimate the amount of time it will take to secure other permits. with this project we thought we would get an army corps of engineers permit. it took longer which created complexity for the project and delivery. additionally not listed here but keep an eye on the way to break packages up through the bidding process and be flexible. the commission asked us to confirm we had the revenues needed to maintain the park and wanted to know how those would be been rated. this shows the total estimated

cost is $650,000 for the park. this maintenance program was developed in close coordination with the real estate staff, maintenance staff, financing and real estate divisions and homeland security. we are very confident in the numbers to the maintenance and operations cost. from revenue standpoint, the revenue for maintain you go or funds needed to maintain at $650,000 includes a community financing district from the pier 70 project that includes and the next slidence straights it better. the purple sucfd -- is the cfd tax generating $650,000 per year. that cfd needs to be used to maintain the illinois street plaza at 20th and illinois

street and the 19th street extension and the connection to 20th street. we have $650,000 need for maintenance to crane cove park. we think the total cfd in 2,017-dollars $625,000. where we close the gap is with special event parking at 19th street parking lot. not all revenues but to close that $25,000 gap, we think we could use the special event parking from the 19th street parking lot. additionally, we know that the maintenance of 19 and georgia street and illinois is $60,000. that could be funded through the 19th street parking special event revenues.

this again show the other cfd districts for the forest city site improvings the parks and infrastructure and irish hill $480,000 to maintain the irish hill playground. as it relates to programming of the parks. it should be noted coming out of ththe land use plan update is tt the community and residents and visitors would like us to more actively program open spaces. the port is working with the office of economic and work force development on public space initiative looking at 12 to 10 parks within the city the nonprofit entity would help activate and program parks types of activations at crane cove

park through planning and city wide public space. community markets, movie nights, events relating to water recreation. this could help with event reservations for picnic tables or small parties they could help with that. those are the types of programs that are appropriate for crane cove park. community outreach since september 11th. we want to the advisory committee on october 11th, boosters september 25, and dogpatch association on october 9. everyone liked the design and are excited for the park to come on line. they understood the design

fulfills the port commitment to crane cove park and in the past was not what we are talking about. they encouraged us to move forward quickly to build the park. recognize the dog patch neighborhood association was somewhat frustrated we weren't delivering the crane tops in the children's playground. they recognized why those were engineered out and some community members offered to assist in fund-raising. that was not new information but the neighborhood association expressed frustration that couldn't be delivered as part of this bid package. we met with the board of supervisors president who encouraged us to deliver the park as quickly as possible. the next steps should the

commission approve the award of the contract to construct the project. we will work to raise the necessary funds for the crane tops in children's playground. we will work t to define the programming of the part and refine and maintain the operations as it relates to maintenance of the park. i am available for any questions. >> any public comment on this item? >> good afternoon. i ai am katie. i am the co-chair along with toby. toby could not be here. i speak for both of us. i am on the board of the south

beach neighborhood association and live in the neighborhood. i just want to -- maybe i am commenting out of hand here because i want to comment on the authorizations. should i sit back down? >> good evening, i am becker with the san francisco parks alliance. we were here in september and really supported this project. i want to be here personally to let you know how important this project is to the future of public space and park in the city of san francisco. we really need this project to complete. i all conveys say it -- always say it