before the planning commission for review of the eir at the beginning of january? >> we are during the planning commission will likely hear the item for review. there is associated issue with the shattering impact study -- that would all be on january 19. from there, we go back to you for your approval. we would then proceed [unintelligible] >> ok. anything else? >> thank you very much. >> informational presentation and staff directions to respond to proposed legislation to amend the planning code and zoning map sponsored by the board of supervisors president david chu.

>> good evening. i am with the ports planning and development division. i am here to provide for you an overview and informational briefing on a piece of proposed legislation sponsored by supervisor and president david chiu on the planning code and zoning map. we have been working with the supervisor's office. we have been working with them and planning department staff as well. it was presented to the planning commission last month in october. that was really the first public hearing before the public to start to understand what the proposal was. we tried to jump on board.

it is a broad piece of legislation. there are over 200 different amendments peppered throughout the planning code. most of it does not deal with the waterfront areas. i am not really in a position to speak to the full scope of it. we have tried to focus it to the controls that would reduce that we wanted to bring to your attention and to the stakeholders attention about what the proposals are. there are some comments and forward steps on how to address some particular issues in a proposal that we otherwise think it's quite a masterful effort to try and advance sustainable development in san francisco. the staff report, we have tried to outline the issues in some detail. what i would like to be able to do is give you an overview about what the issues are, what the

staff analysis and proposed refinements are that we would like to work on with the planning department and supervisor's office are in advance of further public hearings scheduled for the planning commission. the planning commission looks to have another public hearing on this possibly with preliminary staff recommendations on december 15. they do not anticipate taking action on this until january. if the planning commission takes action, my understanding is that it is advisory to the supervisors and the sponsoring supervisor for their consideration. the legislation would transcend going into the board of supervisors' committee and board hearing process. there are many steps along the way. we think we can give you an

overview of the broad issues, work with our stakeholders. we hope to promote public understanding so that they can also participate in the process. as a general background, you have the waterfront land use plan as your master policy document for land use along the waterfront. when the plan was being developed, the port was working with the planning department at the time. we were looking at how the development of the plan policies and waterfront plan compared with those in the city's general plan, compared with the planning code and zoning map at the time. by the time we finished with the waterfront land use plan, the staffs were pretty well informed as to where there were areas in the city planning that should be updated to reflect all the work

done. in the planning code, zoning map, in general plan, those policies and regulations of line with what is promoted in the waterfront plan. in the time i have been at the port, we have not had a situation where we have a disconnect between projects that the port is trying to move forward on the waterfront falling out of step with what the city's objectives are. the proposed planning code changes touch upon some many different issues. it is not entirely clear that we can have a handle on what the implications of some of these changes are. what we really go to is looking at the foundation that already exists. what are the issues that rise to

the surface in this legislation? are there ways in which we can try and address them now so that we can avoid conflict later on? with respect to the current process, a large part of what we want to have recognized by the public is the fact that there is language that recognizes the port commission's authority and public trust mission that the port must carry out. in general, the city controls and land use controls are consistent. there may be information where the burden and responsibility of the port commission may have to take precedence. that is recognized for port properties between fisherman's wharf and china basin. at the time the plan was approved, the northern half of the waterfront was the place where most of the change was expected.

there was an effort to be explicit about that. the peers between fisherman's wharf and china basin are in one of three existing special use districts. waterfront district number one contains all of our historic piers. number three contains all of the seawall lots. there are controls that recognize the public trust responsibilities. there is existing language in the code that also establishes a city waterfront design review process. the planning department, the mayor's office, the port all make appointees to the advisory committee that has reviewed all of the port projects to promulgate recommendations to balance the design objectives of the plan consistent with the

policies of the city general plan and zoning map. that is a framework that exists now. the number of issues we have teased out are quite a few relative to the number of changes proposed. they deal with four things essentially. one is for parking lots on the seawall lots between broadway and fisherman's wharf, those are zoned c2 parking lots. those are proposed under this legislation as a non-permitted use. today, they are permitted use. it is proposed to be non- permitted. that would be for an intimate -- interim five-year time, there

would be an allowance for that use to continue. at the end of the five years, that use would be terminated. port staff has raised to the planning department the concerns around the prohibition of that use. we're not trying to keep parking lots forever here. but until they can be developed to a higher and better use for the waterfront plan, they are a very important financial basis of the ports portfolio if not a land use purpose. i know some would debate the merits of parking itself. in particular, they generate over $4 million a year in revenue. the notion of being able to just terminate that use after five years with no clear indication of the next use and whether it could replace that financial purpose, we have applied that as

a problem. for waterfront developments overall, we are trying to get parking off of the peers and move if a planned. -- moved it upland. there are plans to speak to opening up the waterfront to pedestrian-oriented activities and moving cars and parking upland. the seawall parcels are the only ones controlled for that purpose. when we have projects like the exploratorium or other things with legitimate parking needs, those upland sites become critical to how we can balance meeting those needs. for those purposes, we have

opposed the change in the status of parking from permitted to non-permitted use. we have talked about this with the supervisor's office, the planning department. they have recognized there is this particular issue that applies to the port's responsibilities. they would like to work with us on making changes to take away that prohibition. we would like your direction and support to continue that work. with your direction today in making proposed changes to the planning to address those issues. with respect to the embarcadero road way, under these controls it would be designated as a scenic street. i think all of us agree to that. one thing that goes with the designation is also a proposed

prohibition -- a required conditional use authorization that would be triggered if there is a change introduced along the east side of the embarcadero against the prominent. we think there are better ways to address that concern. we understand the concern is to protect and advance the pedestrian value of the promenade and avoid conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists. for our tenants and businesses, the embarcadero is the only means by which people can do their business. there is legitimate parking and access required for loading.

the notion of having a conditional use requirement for tenants to have to secure to be able to move items, we did not think it would be the most effective means of controlling a problem. instead, we are proposing curb cuts and impacts on side streets of major projects. that is the context in which these conflicts come to play. that is a more appropriate way of trying to address how the curbs, streets, and sidewalks should be a good interfaced with the project. we propose that the waterfront design review process be expanded to include an address of the adjacent street areas that may be located in the

project is located along the embarcadero. we think that is a more holistic way of being able to address those concerns. with respect to the waterfront design review process itself, currently under the code, it is applied technically only to non- maritime development projects between fisherman's wharf and china basin. we are looking to mission bay and the southeast corridor of the city as being the innovation corridor. there are other changes on the front that we have talked about. we believe the design review process should be refreshed so that it really is used to review all major development

projects from fisherman's wharf down to india basin in anticipation of some of these major undertakings that the commission will be looking at in the coming years. we have proposed to have a waterfront design process expanded. in that context, it will include the embarcadero project and the frontage along franois, illinois, and cargo way. that carries out the interface with new developments in the next decade. that is one of our recommendations as well. we are also looking at the makeup of the waterfront designed advisory committee itself. in the planning code, there are five positions. some are appointees by the

mayor's office planning department and port. two are filled by senior staff members, one from the planning department and one from the port. we would like to open that up by allowing the senior staff seats to be at the option of the sponsoring department. they can either be a senior staff person or a design appointee. we think having a bit more flexibility to address some of the staffing demands that our departments face is a good thing to accomplish while we are taking a fresh look at the exceptions. there is also one provision in the proposal to take three of the northernmost seawall lots and have them zoned out of the

existing special u.s. district no. 3 and put it into -- special use district no. two. currently, it does not include any port property. we have not been paying attention to it. it is basically inlet properties better off of the por jurisdictiont. we're not clear as to what the basis of that is. we think it is better to keep it clear as to the port seawall lots and the rules that apply to them. we have indicated our opposition to having the port seawall lots rezoned. we will have to work with the planning department if we're going to expand all of the properties south of china basin to be included in the waterfront design process. we will be having to work with them to figure out if that is in the form of another special use district or if there is some

provision that can be written into the planning code that recognizes those properties to the south would be subject to the same review. finally, with respect to encompassing all of the port properties through the review process, we would also like to make it explicit that the responsibilities and protections that apply to the northern waterfront sites as they're currently recognized in the planning code be recognized and expanded for all of the port properties with fisherman's wharf down to in the basin. if we're going to have all major projects come through the waterfront review design process, it is an opportunity for the planning code to also recognize those responsibilities that still permeate throughout the eastern side of the bayshore. i think that provides an

overview. i realize this is a lot drier than the presentation you just have. i apologize for that. planning codes are kind of like that. i would be happy to answer any questions. we welcome the opportunity to work with our stakeholders. it is a complicated piece of legislation. i cannot even say myself i have a full command of it all. the planning commission and department are also willing to work with us as well as a supervisor chiu's office. >> i have one card, jeff hamilton. >> i do not think i have ever been at a hearing with one card. i am the director of government

relations for the exploratorium. it supports the city's efforts to improve the transit environment. it has spent considerable time in the public process to ensure that the new home is consistent with the city's pigeon -- vision. is committed to ensuring that the majority of employees and visitors arrive via alternative transit needs. the legislation under discussion would make surface lots in c2 districts non-permissible. one of those is licensed as part of our lease with the port for 16 years. disallowing use about what would be a fundamental alteration of our approvals and in danger the business model of our new location. we have spent the last several months in discussions with president chiu, his staff,

planning staff, and port staff to address our concerns. we have been assured by president chiu and are encouraged by the staff report. our specific request is that they work with us to find a solution that allows for our use of the parking lot and is not reopen the lot issue for the term of the license. we're not wedded to specific language. we have submitted proposed language as a starting point. any legislation that requires our access to a lot involved in to minted approvals -- intermittent approvals in the 16 years puts us in an untenable position. the staff report seems to suggest a solution that would allow the lots to continue in perpetuity. we would appreciate clarifying language to ensure this is the case.

we also ask that the report highlights the need for a solution with planning staff and the board of supervisors that either makes an express exemption for the exploratorium lot or another that does not make an issue. this new provision should not impact the project, which is protected under existing approvals. we have requested that this understanding be formally confirmed as part of the planning department's recommendations. i would like to thank the in and port staff for their engagement with us on this issue and efforts to find a solution. thank you. >> thank you. other public comment on this item? ok, commissioners?

>> i just want to say i think, staff, you are taking the right direction and we support your continuing dialogue with the planning department and supervisor chiu. >> thank you. i have similar sentiments. >> i think that is a consensus. was somebody from commissioner chu's sitting in? though, he did not make it. >> he contacted court staff to say that he could not attend, but they will review the tape of the meeting and continue the dialogue. >> i would encourage them to continue the dialogue and appreciate their willingness to work on these concerns. >> and also expressed our appreciation to staff for diving into something that was not expected and could have any number of unintended

consequences. they look like technical changes but clearly are important, and we appreciate the diligence. i assume you will report back to us at a time when this is all resolved. thank you. >> item 9c, informational presentation regarding project approvals for the 34th america's cup. >> brad benson, special projects manager, here representing a very broad team working on the america's cup effort. jonathan is my co-project manager. dan has been leading with the planning department staff the ceqa efforts. kelly is the environmental project manager for the america's cup, looking at issues both on for property and off.

our cfo has been helping the project team understand the financial implications of the america's cup. we are joined tonight by several representatives of the event authority. the second half of tonight's presentation will be given by david, vice-president for the consultant team that has helped the event authority design the proposed uses of various port sites, and of property, we have john stringer, who has been working with a broader team on looking at the construction activities that will be needed to prepare [inaudible] we look forward to negotiating some of the longer-term development opportunities that will arise out of the america's

cup. we are thankful you are all here tonight to join us. without the benefit of coming to you tonight would be to give sort of an overview of the very complicated set of approvals that are going to be required for the america's cup to happen in 2013. we envision that these approval process these would start in a month away. and then move very quickly through planning commission, a port commission, board of supervisors process and then the, leading through a number of state and federal approvals as well. the next time we would be back in front of you if the planning commission certifies the environmental impact report for the 34th america's cup and cruise terminal project, we

would be seeking your consideration and approval of the final proposed agreement between the port, the city, and the event authority related to their waterfront improvements, how the event will work from 2012 to 2013, and the long-term rights that they would obtain as a result of doing those improvements. we thought tonight we could also give you some background about the event planning. it has been a while since we have been in front of the commission, and it would be helpful for the public to understand the nature and details of that event planning. so, one thing the public is starting to get used to is the fact that the 34th america's cup is really a new type of

america's cup. the races before have been off the coast, hard for spectators to you. not always in the -- always in very impressive votes, but not always the fastest racing yachts available. the plan is really now to go with these catamarans that are dramatic. we have seen them out on the day -- bay, and it is amazing to watch. speeds are impressive and it will be a new race and a new experience. the overview of my presentation will be sort of the even timeline -- even timeline, the various partners involved, the course area, some of the venues. i will leave the venue description to david. implementation plans, talk a

little bit about the transportation strategy and go into question and answer. so there are three main parties to the host and a new agreement that the city signed in december 2010. city and county of san francisco, the america's cup event a 40 -- this is a group that is managing the planning for the event on land, and the america's cup organizing -- excuse me -- yes, organizing committee, a 501c3 which has been established locally to help the authority to obtain sponsorships and also to raise money to help offset some of the city's costs in planning for and executing the event. there is a fourth organization -- america's cup race management. that is the group that is really looking at designing the on- water racing activities and o