>> i'm the chair of the committee to my right is supervisor tang and the clerk is lisa miller i'd like to thank sfgovtv mr. jim smith we're going to get started we have a legislated i didn't meeting today madam clerk, any announcements? >> please silence all electronic devices. completed speaker cards and copies of the documents to be completed as part of the file

should be submitted to the clerk. okay. today, we're here to hear 3 items from the can i feel grand jury report we want to call the first and second items today, we'll hold the hearing and have a presentation first on the port >> madam clerk call items 15e. >> is a hearing and resolution responding to the proceeding just of the superior court on the published civil grand jury report entitled the 76 caught been dollars. >> before we get to the specification i'll give el lane smith a couple of minutes to speak to the committee thank you for your work on this i know

you've spent a lot of hours putting those reports together so, please provide us with an overview. >> thank you very much madam chair supervisor tang and supervisor chiu thank you for your time to the a year worth of work for the 2013-2014 civil grand jury i want to give a quick context how we operate and what the reports is trying to do the civil grand jury is made up of 9 citizens we volunteered to be the citizens watchful dog as spelled out many the california decision we began the years as individual and during the year meshed as a jury our commitment to look at the aspects of local government to see as citizens representatives thought greater

fetishness was possible we didn't point fingers or investigate individual we saw our johns as looking at the processes at programs and seeing what might work better for the citizens you'll hear 3 reports and 3 later there is on underlined theme we are for greater transparency and greater opportunity for citizens vochld from the flow of information to the citizens transparent is one of the best tools for participation in government we invested that theme again and again. we ask for more involvement from the public as the potential projects developing for the ports the rising sea levels the san franciscan need to hear about this planning mitigation for the intrusion of rising sea

level waters we asked for increasing transparency for the money our portfolio was underlined by confidentiality we take a note we've not identify who talked to us we met every monday night and held numerous committee meeting we asked about the items of interest we scoured and into the archives of the city and put hundreds of hours into each report. i want to note we approached our trappings with open minds and didn't have preconceived ideas of the outcomes and broadened on the other hand, our investigations and started with

a grand scheme and end up with a focused report. the other thing we've realized we put out the report july 1st and realized the local government is not state inning so some of the issues woirp dealing with were in fluctuates and continued to evolve new information is coming in new numbers for the rising sea levels has come from the national research council and the united nations i pcc. in terms of the draft city has draft guidelines for incorporating sea levels into the capital guidelines and a series of hearings the e that was chaired that i the assembly person if san mateo county we have information from president chiu and the state but today

we've presenting a picture of what we saw and leernld during our time we trust yourself you'll hear our concerns in the healthy spirit in which they were intended thank you for your time and i'm going to turn it over to the lead writers you'll hear from today david will present public utilities the port report and retro at that on rising sea levels and robin on the ethnics report >> thank you. >> i'll now ask for david homage to present object the san francisco port. >> and great. thank you very much thank you for your time to review and respond to the reports madam chair and president chiu and supervisor tang. i'll speak briefly on the misdemeanor doing we used was to interview and review of documents we reviewed about one

hundred and 75 documents websites, reports, agenda etc. meeting minutes and 24 different individuals. we came to the conclusion that the port it challenged with sometimes contrary damaged caught business owner between the public trust and public dollars the preliminary goal to serve the public trust a seven hundred-year-old discipline but in order do that the port is phasing limited resources so they have to report to soliciting private capital to provide better access to the port that this is what the port designates the members of the grand jury in addition to being

part of the public are representatives of the public so we're charged with promoting the public interests. the port decisions made by the port h have far-reaching consequences for the city and region this was a report we started broad because the port is 7 and a half miles long encompass a great deal of aspects many aspects. so its difficult to narrow it down to the issues we really wanted to is first of all, the port does many things well, it's not meant to be a slam other than the activities of the port the open space, the exploratorium is a great transmission the at&t park the saufl proceeding cargo many, many other projects. the purpose of the report to

look at areas we feel the port is a could improve if process and public input so first off finding a recommendation one we're not going to separate the finding of the recommendation at this point do you which the me to read 0 those or not >> if you can summarize please. finding one we determined that the activities of the port a strongly influenced by the mayor's office like the 8 street project pier thirty, 32 the cruise ship terminal, america's cup we felt that the decisions were made with oftentimes you without sufficient public input.

and the port commission is appointed by the mayor statutely from the burton act 5 commissioners appointed by approved by the board the recommendation is that the port commission should be restructured to have two representatives appointed by itself board of supervisors and 3 by the mayor. our belief that a great deal of influence from the mayor's office is often political. and the public outreach is limited for example, the jury report this report has not been presented to the port commission for their review e.r. public review and hope to have it september 23rd meeting this month long after a report was

issued often august 13th although the board of supervisors must approve the appointees there is no selection the selections is made solely by the mayor's office with the board of supervisors making that up and down vote on those selections. we asked the board to place a policy assessment statement own the 2017 ballot and florida passes to lobby stated representatives to amend the burton act to allow the board of supervisors to select and appointed their own representatives to the port commission. this was our finding and recommend e recommendations one. finding in recommendation four we feel the port is really focused on developing an income stream which the the capital

improvements needed to preserve the infrastructure and but they're required to maintain height he limits, etc. but in the search for private dollars they're often looking for a variance to the waterfront land use plan the recent projects involve some kind of variance plan so we're requesting the port or recommendation is that the port review and rise the land use plan, which was created 17 years ago. and include a maritime aspect because it focuses on preliminary land and development and the maritime aspect of the court is very, very important. we feel there should be a lot of pun input on the revision there

was a revision announced august 11th we received a copy today between august 11th and december 30th too the time period closes is 7 weeks we feel that's an example how it's not city to do public entity on this and finalized on october 13th it should include maritime aspects of how to develop the maritime activities of the port which is examples are great cargo and fishing and x urgsz a a great deal of of other things private birthing and reject finding six the 2007 it is estimated that that will be b at thirty percent

capacity and one of the preliminary reasons is fell statute dating back to the 18 hundreds where the passenger vessel prohibits passenger vessels to stop and two enter eloquently ports this is limited the cruise port brings in seven hundred and 50 thoughts if not one million dollars to the city this is tourist dollars ekg. there are recommendations that the city should begin lobbying for moefkdz to the passenger vessel services act of 1886. understand this is a federal statute and the city would have very this if any input to the

federal statutes, however, the last attempt to rise the passenger service act was in 1858 for sea bearing workers and merchant marine industries would be harmed, however, they no longer exist so the change chance of harm is neglectable the port states they're working with the american association of puerto modify the service vessel act we're hoping this it board of supervisors can request updates as at port works in conjunction with other ports throughout the united states to allow increased traffic and

finding 11 referred to the i f d bonds infrastructure district bonds which can be issued by statute without voter approval. in some aspects those are similar to revenue bond and many aspects they're not the recommendation is that the port commission work with the board of supervisors and put a referendum before the voters to request approval of issuance of you f d bonds should the approval process should state the amount of bond independentness and the length of time to repay. the jury believes that the citizens would be better informed regarding financial structuring of capital improvements to the port infrastructure if i f d bond were placed before the voters

they do not increase taxed but defer taxed for the period of time until the bond is repaid with the eliminations of the district it is an increasing importance to capital although in the interest of the transparency the jury redirect requested that board of supervisors work with the port to place the information as stated in recommendation 11 before the voters before ownerships of bonds that concludes my opening remarks >> thank you any questions. >> all right. thank you mr. holmes a monique the port director will present on behalf of the port. >> good morning, chair breeding

and president chiu's and members of the public and members of the jury and staff thank you for being here today can i have the power point if you can put that up for me? all right. let's see thank you very much tonsillitis it's my pleasure to be here i thought i'd define the boundaries the port of san francisco we have

the extreme privilege of not having our port behind that fences it's a unique privilege unknown to the 85 other ports in the country and unphone neon to port around the world it's hard to understand the boundary of the port but essentially from the he northeast side awe consecutive park to the boundaries of hundred hunters point in the basin it's 7 and a half miles and all on either filled or structured structures on the east side of the bay they're in numerous business lines 14 separate maritime lines a lot of are commercial enterprises and a are tremendous amount of sole proprietors as well as big names we all know and love we've been around since

1950 most of our infrastructure was built around the turn of the century and most following the 1906 san francisco earthquake by it's simply been repaired or neglected. one of the things i think it is important to understand about the land use of the port how it is laid out geographically. maritime accounts for 39 percent of the land portfolio of our 7 and a half miles we have underdevelopment some we're pursuing opportunities that will there our maritime land use almost half of portfolio that didn't include the water to birth our ships real estate real estate is a quarter of the portfolio and the different projects underway bring that's to a third in the coming years

but more importantly we have 85 acres of park 657 acres developed when the land use plan took effect 46 acres of parks planned to a total to more than a quarter of our portfolio i want to highlight this is a in this case thing we do in san francisco and we've been able to do it with the support of public funding from a variety of sources. the civil grand jury highlighted hair transparency and whether there's opportunity for citizen engagement we looked at what we've been doing since the land use plan was adapted we've held over 4 hundred public meetings either at the board of supervisors or the port commission or as driven communities meetings in addition

the get into the weeds neighborhoods held he meetings we do quite a bit of outreach we have a 3 hundred person mailing list that gets agenda and our postings are on the website as well as covered through sfgovtv we publish a forward collapsed to make sure our citizens can time their appearances at the public works their level of engagement on the item they're interested in the grand jury said we do do a lot of despite things we understand from talking with the grand jury and others there's a sense that information is not getting out as wildly as we'll like we didn't understand on our 15 hundred mailing listed so with the land use plan to reach out further than we do island i'll

note that some of the projects that were highlighted by the grand jury and some highlighted as not beneficial to the city had the same amount of public hearings. as was mentioned we've been if the process of doing is review of our water land use plan we had that if mind when the jury investigated the port with the warriors project off the property we were able to free up staff time to put this report together and as was mentioned in on that ground it was released publicly i don't know mr. him you were there we're going to move our comment time to november with our intensifies to do the outreach this is a land use review it goes bag to