the port's capitol plan. we have also seen our tenants, making major investments in the water front that were maybe not envisioned at the time of the water front land use plan, they build over 20 million dollar facility on the fiber man's wharf and we have seen two tenants the polara foundation, and the pier, 24 and annex, and where, the tenants have undertaken the big substructure repairs to the facilities on the 10-year leases. in the port's southern water front, we have seen the major investment as well and we have seen the two concrete facilities built in the pier, 92, 94 area, that are really the heart of an eco industrial park, that is co-locating tenants that provide the materials to one another. and in a way that he minimizes the truck trips in the area.

and then, norical invested about 30 million dollars, in pier 96 to create the recycle central. and so, we have seen over 300 million dollars invested just through the real estate projects alone. >> there is an increasing focus on sustainability and environmental improvement along the port, and each of the ports divisions have profession alien vier mental staff who lead these projects. and we have installed two short power systems to reduce the emissions from the cruise ships, and from our ship repair operations at pier 70 and over 8 acres have been removed from the san francisco pay and the projects managed by the port engineering division and the planning group manages the

programs that involve, thousands of hours of volunteers, at pier 94. and we have worked to try to bring our under pier utilities up to snuff. >> and so the report, in addition to surveying all of these projects and looking at the total amount invested pursuant to the water front plan, makes some preliminary recommendations and findings. and these are meant to be preliminary. where we are offering these in the spirit of accepting public comment, over the next couple of months so that we can refine these recommendation and there is an appendix to the report and a, that summarizes all of the recommendations and i am just going to go through a few of them very quickly. and so, in terms of uses, public trust uses, we have seen in our historic rehab project office and retail and maritime use coupled with the robust public access as a successful model for our projects.

and we are hearing from the public and the commission a desire to promote, more jobs and more contracting opportunities for the sectors of the city this is an area where the port has exceled with the generosity of the san francisco voters through two general obligation bonds in 2008 and 2012, they thought that the development will deliver the public open space and that has not been the case, it has been this general obligation bond funding source and other funds available to

the port. there has been broad support for the historic rehab projects and i think that the people recognize that the piers represent important urban fabric for the edge of the city. there are real challenges with the historic piers related to the sea level rise. the structural of the piers may preinclude the development of those piers. and in order to make these projects more financially viable, we need to pursue new sources like the california, historic tax cred i can, legislature is considering that bill right now and transferable development rights in conjunction with the planning department. and in terms of the water front development, you know, i have talked about the high cost of the water front development and we think of the ways that by expanding the infrainstruct stur and the financing

districts port wide and we can address those high cost and we need to look at the length of time ha it takes to approve these projects, and in some cases we are seeing, the project and the planning processes lasting seven years and so if we can arrive at a way of approving the projects, that requires less time and less expensive predevelopment capitol, that could make our projects more feasible. we also need to talk with the port commission about how we evaluate these unique opportunities, is there a policy framework that we can come up with, that the public can embrace, so that these unique opportunities can be fairly considered. diane talked about the importance of transportation improvements, and our neighborhood scale projects, and at 337, and pier 70, can begin to address some of these transportation needs in their areas but most of the port project cans not and so we need to pursue the federal funding,

state funding, and for things like the eline and the improvements to the major streets, and both of the northern and the southern water front. >> finally with respect to the design and we were having a big debate about the water front heights, you know, i think that the port staff has, you know in the past looked at heights as one element of the project design. and we think that on the whole, there has been broad acceptance, of the projects that have been built, and some neighborhoods have had problems, with height. and particularly in the northern water front and other neighborhoods have welcomed the height and the water mark is example in the south beach neighborhood, and as we moved forward. in terms of looking in terms of prop b with we need to open the die long and how to formulate, the proposals that do need to go to the vote and hers what does that process look like in

the future and also, we were moving away. and particularly on the west side of the embarcadaro and there has been a lot of attention to the resilientcy and the adaptation planning and our major neighborhood scale project at 337 and pier 70 do address the sea level rise through 2100 and the fort and the sister city agencies are undertaking the planning efforts right now to look at seismic risk to the sea wall and to address the sea level rise in places like mission creek. and importantly, we are thinking that our recommendation today, is that leasing historic piers for more than 35 years, without a sea level rise strategy is no longer advisable. >> so, this is the last of our recommendations, and it really goes to what we suggest for planning going forward. we think that in order to

balance state and local interests, in the water front, where there is planning going forward, we need to invite bcdc and the state lands to participate in the process. much in the way that we are seeing with the bcdc port working group. given our recommendation that we do the subarea planning and the discreet areas of the water front, rather than the whole water front as was the case with the adoption of the water front land use, and there is a lot of efforts in the projects that are under way and those projects need to continue while the planning discussions occur and looking at the discreet water front subareas, we have planning under way in both the fixer man's wharf area and with the planning area focusing on the public loan improvements. and south beach and then in the north east water front, look to be the areas where there has been some recent controversy, and there would be a benefit in

some subarea of planning in those areas. and we are eager to hear, the feedback from the residents in those areas, to see if there is a shared interest in that. and with the pier 70 and the sea wall lot, 337 there is a need for the voter approval for those projects can go forward to address the height. in the southern water front, we are planning a new sequa effort to look at how to implement those maritime projects in that area and the other open space improvements. but, we have learned that the process is not enough that we can be planning and spending a lot of time talking in each subarea. and we need to find a way to augment that process, with the city wide out reach. and so that we are getting the word out, about the port's projects. so, with that, i will just close and say, that there is a lot that is still happening. we have projects under way, and

virtually in every segment of the water front and we have talked about 337, and the pier 70 where we are the new neighborhoods under way and pier 80 and 96. and port staff just, and commission just launched a project to look at the pier 29 bulkhead building and these are all great projects that should continue and with that i will hand it back to dana, okay? >> i am wrapping up. fortunately, for everyone, again, this is a draft report, and we have tried to do our best, to distill a lot of information in to *un its that the people could review and understand in pieces and give us feedback on that. we would recognize that maybe we have missed things, or we have mischaracterized them so that it is important to be able

to start up the discussions with the community, via this report and the public comments will be taking them through september and hopefully, we will be able to kind of get our arms around that and come up with proposed revisions to this report to bring back to the report commission. and another public hearing, to indicate what we have learned from that feedback, and finalize this report. and i think that when we get to that point, then we will have a good resource document that we will pursue the steps in the various areas of the water front. and we do have the website now fully live, and can get to this document on-line, and. and on the on-line comment, function is also activated. and so that we are hoping that even if the people can't come to any of our meetings that they can come in, and put the comments on-line and then we

have an alternate for sending in the e-mails if you want to do that. and so, i think that as both brad and i are trying to convey, you know, these accomplishment and what we learned along the water front are not just support staff collaboration across the regional network and whether you are in the government, or in business, or in the public, and so the partnerships that the port has enjoyed because it needs to be recognized and celebrated in and off itself, we may not always agree, but i think that there has been a real cross fertilization of ideas and creativity, and we have tried to sort of get our arms around the breadth of those parties that have been included in particular, and you know, you will be hearing from larry, with the bcdc shortly in terms of their take on all of

this. and it really has been a great partnership. and collaboration between our agencies, since then, and since it has been with the city departments listed here we want to give a special shout out to the water front plan advisory board and many of those members are still involved in what we do along the water front today. and sue is one of our members who have no longer with us, and but there is jay more son and i think that i saw jay wal ace sitting back there and he was on the board and deny nis, and paul said that we have a number of stake holders who are still investing their time on the water front and since then, all of the port advisory committees that have been formed and meet, 6 times a year to give us feedback and they are what we considered to be the heirs of that and we want to give you a thank you for all of the

members that put in so much time on obehalf and finally, with the colleagues over the port arguization and it was trying to get all of the project information together. the people in every division of the port that have worked on and thes a hands on agency here. and it was an all hands kind of organization and thes a pleasure to be able to not just figure out a vision, and plan, but to actually carry out and implement many of the improvements, that we see today, and how we can do things better you should be talking to the staff at the port, and in particular, for the report itself which was a huge undertaking we wanted to really give a special thank you to the staff, people who were the design team for this whole report. and dany just recently left the report and gave us a good

template and tanny ellot and i don't think if they are all here, and coline, and alberto, and they were spending the wee hours putting this together and so we wanted to give a special thank you. so with that, i will sit down, and look forward to any comments or questions that you may have, thank you. >> just before we start public comment, i was going to ask first, thank you for diane, for just working on this working on the teams since the end of last year, and the beginning of this year, at least, and we had started sooner if we were not side tracked on a few miner things and i want to say thank you and just an extraordinary effort and as always, just masterful in terms of your ability to bring people

together. and present information and if we could just have all of the port staff that were involved in this and if you could just please stand. [ applause ] . >> you have seefn the slides and you will hold up the sides of the presentation here and it really is filled with an incredible amount of material and information, and i know that we will all spending the time desecting and we will have the public comment now first. and i have michael bailey.

>> thank you for this report, i want to say that i received it this morning and i sent it to the friends of the port of long beach and they are amazed at the quality of your work and send their congratulations to you. my comment is actually a suggestion and i hope this is timely, i know that this is the beginning but it has worked with other projects coming up in the city. very soon the city of san francisco will be demolishing candle stick park and a structure built of very high quality reinforced concrete, and this costly project has financial problems and it has environmental issues, and i would like to ask you to consider with us, the possibility of changing a problem into a resource. and i have gone to other projects like hunt ir's point and treasure island and suggest a consideration of using harvested segments from that project, for the use and the sea walls and other things that we know that we have to have as you mentioned in the treasure island and it has a high demand

for this but your projects also have but i am just asking that you consider this possibility and it has a great and a potential for the public relations value as well as financial concerns, thank you. >> next, woods? >> >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is corin woods and i am the co-chair of the central water front advisory group and a long time port watcher. and i just want to say thank you, thank you, to diane and the staff, that is just i just started reading it, and it is going to take me probably the whole time that i am back east on vacation, to get through it. but with a lot of post-it notes, but this is a tremendous resource for all of us. and i think that there is a

long way to help offset some of the negativity of the civil grand jury report which did not really get a lot of the work that you all have done over the years to get to where you are today. and i am looking forward to having this as a tool as we move forward. thank you. >> >> and thank you for all of your hard work, as it was referenced earlier. and community members that have contributed so much to the report and you are front and center. and left and right. and so thank you. >> and is there any other people wishing? >> come forward. >> those are just the only names that i have on the list. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is john, and i am here with them on the water front, and also, i have been in coming to the room not as much lately and i have been in and out, and for a decade, the first project that i was involved in, and it was the

mills ro ject which was proposed to the piers 21, i just want to thank diane for the incredible amount of work that she has done and i want to speak to the commission and the top staff and because you set the policy, and as, the mills project showed and commissioner brandon you were for and a washington project showed which you were all for and the voters were rejected by 67 percent, and prop e showed and because it took the height limit, and the rezoning and up zoning of the limit, and the method that the port is used and the majority of the people in every neighborhood in the city and not just by the water, and they disagree you. >> and and whether this document is a public listty tool or whether it is an opportunity, as i hope, to rethink your approach to our water front and now i recognize that there are a myriad of other items not related to the land use development in landscaping or in the public

shape shaping which many people in the room wark hard on and are not controversial in any way. and i don't want to demean those in one bit but you have a responsibility on your plate and if you don't take this moment in light of those two votes, and the other projects that have fallen apart and recognize that something is broughten, and you have a chance to fix it, we are going to stay in the same broken cycle, the project that took seven years was referred to the washington project and what was not referred to, in the presentation, is that, that project did not succeed because there was the design was not quite right, and i think as i said or there was still work to do because it did not make sense to the people. who loved san francisco and lived in san francisco. and i will say that i have the opportunity to speak to thousands along in the last year and all over city and the people who are the most concerned with the develop and

develop, and and the washington, and for the people on the west side of san francisco on the sunset, and in the south side, and you can see this as a part of their city even if they do not get to see it, you need to speak to them and so i want to give that and that is sort of my expression of concern and my hope and it is a genuine one and i don't envoy or enjoy spending countless hours. and the one piece that was well deserved and there is a group of people that deserve a thank you for everything that the water front plan has done. and we would not be without the support of the voters of san francisco. the voters have approved prop h, that required a water front plan, and the voters approved the ballot measure to restore this very building as well as the giant's ballpark.

and so i think that the people are are you if you reach out to them and engage them, and they don't have to agree with everything that you do. but i do want to strongly urge you and i am a member of the north east water front group as a volunteer, and it is if the plan for this report is to spend six weeks and put it on-line and have this hearing and that is it, that is not public review, that is not going to get input from people outside of the activists and the staff and the developers who you already know and who you will hear from. i would urge you to do a hearing in every supervisor district, and over the next, not over the next six weeks. >> could you be respectful to the commission and wrap up. the bell has rung several times. >> you are well over your allotted time. they are too polite to tell you. >> hearing in every district and at the main library, reconstitute and you have the feedback and take i think what is good work that diane and others have done, and use it to

get a plan that truly will move the port forward and not keep us in the cycle that we have been, thank you. >> okay. >> additional public comment? >> anyone else wishing to speak? you don't have to submit a card. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> again, thank you everyone for your comments. staff, and again, brad, and diane and incredible amount of work and i do want to say one thing about the wall on the water front i hope that the display showed that we do need it with the sea level rise and that is something that will be come templated forward and it may not be in the usual sense of the meaning of a wall and i think that we are going to need one as we go up 50 inches at a time. commissioner brandon? >> yes, i would like to thank diane and brad for a thorough report and that was wonderful and you did a great job

summarizing such a large document. and although, i appreciate being credited for work being done in the southern water front, but i am truly fortunate to have been able over the last 17 years, to participate in 123-plus projects, and 1.6 billion dollars in investments along the total water front. and i think that is just in an amazing thing that has happened. and we have such a wonderful team. and our staff, our executive director, our collaboration with bcdc with the san francisco redevelopment agency, and i mean that it just took an amazing team to accomplish all that has been accomplished in the last 17 years. we have had major successes, and we have had failures. and i am really as john stated,

i was for, and i am a supporter of washington, and i was a supporter of the mills corporation, and i was cheered when we chose the development for the building and for the renovation of pier one and for the wonderful projects that we do have along the water front and while, we are not always right on everything as you said, we are not always going to agree. but, what we have accomplished over the last 17 years, i just want to applaud everybody in this room for being a part of it. >> i cannot even count the number of meetings for the pier 7 on, sea wall 337, and i know that she does not have a full time job, because she is so busy working for the port and

all of our efforts and, i just feel so much pride in the legacy that has been developed over the last 20 years, to make the water front what it is today. and i think that we have done an amazing job of community out reach. of meeting with anyone who has, or who wants to understand anything about what is going on with the water front. and so i do believe that the boaters have made a statement and i do believe that maybe, there are some things that we could do differently, and i just don't want to take away from the amazing work that this team has done and created along the water front, thank you. >> commissioner woo ho? >> i am going to take a different tact, and i certainly don't take away and i think that it is an amazing work that we have done so far and it is great to understand, what we have accomplished and what brad

and diane have done a great job, and we are trying to look forward and have the speakers address what we want to accomplish, and first of all i have learned on the commission that every citizen believes that they own the water front in san francisco. and that is a hard one for us as a commission to meet everybody's needs and desires. and i have come to respect that. and we also at time have to make some decision and we have made the decisions and we sort of know where i have stood and so the controversial projects as well. and we not having to go back and revisit that. i will start off with the division and i think that the staff has heard me talk about this, in 1997, reuniting san francisco with the water front was a very appropriate thing and what i have not found in the stopping is what the division is doing going forward and i think that we have reunited san francisco with the water front and there is no question that has happened and i think that we have them defined on the visionary level of what it is that we see it

going forward that we can't address the for that and it is keeping the water front a center of the recreational activity and i don't know what the tag line is but i think that we have to address what the vision is that we put all of these things that come along, with the open space and the development projects into that and i think that this water front, land use plan is a tremendous resource and it is a guide, and it is an address and as you said, that we have the projects that help us, and unfortunately in the mind of the public these unique projects and tend to create what the water front is about and one of the things. and what i don't see projecting going forward and the developments of the ones that we don't know about, and the pier 70, and in nigh mind, as i think about the water front, a lot has been accomplished and developed as far as the space, where it is or however it has

been used commercially, for the open city space or for the maritime and the amount of space that we have left, in which i don't think that you address in the study, is far less than what it was in 1997 and it should be communicated in this plan, to the public to understand, because, there is some times, you hear, oh, they are going to miami beach and do something, but that is not a possibility because we just don't have the space left. and the piers have the historic preservation and constraints and some of these that we have are not really documented and understanding that it is not like this is open season on the development on the water front. and we could not be, and we could not develop the buildings next to each other or along the 7 and a half miles if we wanted to and i think that perspective is not clear, i would like to see a vision going forward because i think that the vision of 1997 is not the same vision for 2014 or going forward to 2020 and we need to