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 inacceptance the waterfront land

use was adapted in 1997 looking at what was accomplished and not accomplished and why within the water land use review the port staff has indicated areas we are, improve we've had good responsiveness for people looking at the water land use review and we're excited to go further with that >> in terms of what the port staff thinks about updating the water land use plan a lot of areas the plan has moved forward in the ferry building sub area we note there's a couple of area we need better planning with the neighborhood but also our colleagues at the bay conservation and you land use commission and the planning department so we're proposing that we had a revised planning

in the south beach near telegraph hill we'll be talking about that in the coming months. so that's the highlights i wanted to make we didn't respond to items 1 and 5 not directed to the port and provided answers to 6 through 11 but there's a number of port staff and city staff available for questions >> thank you thank you. >> is there a response to ms. miaiers report any feedback ongoing thank you. we're going to we'll open this up for public comment public testimony will be taxing specifically to the report for the civil grand jury on the

ports specifically so any members of the public who wish to testify at this time, please come down >> it may not be simply because it's to the professional progression their in charge of the literature the literature that covers every single area of government and all state and cities. how much you need see it's funny to say oh, i'm the ceo the company leader and a business the whollyness how much do you so much are for you how high-level 10 thousand volume of such from chinatown i have

everybody for you a 5 hundred fragile of team for this work for figured society for tokyo >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> chairperson breed thank you. i'm a thomas a resident of the richmond district and a member of civil grand jury throughout the process of serving on the grand jury it's as that r an incredible experience to be a average person of the jury to meet with government officials and look at things from a citizens prospective it's at&t's an amazing opportunity i

encourage anyone regardless of age or experience you know, i guess general level of availability to certainly apply it's at&t's an opportunity if they want to be part of. finding 11 is one of particular interest to me because of how important i guess that you type of debt instrument is in terms of public finance general although infrastructure finance district their pondered been the idea they'll be funded on future development in to the for the creation of the bonds i think there are fiscal combats how an example ii f d to include the warriors arena fits not included

within the boundary to the best of my knowledge of court i f d ultimately i want to know where our elected officials stand on the debt without voter approval >> thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> morning supervisor breed and members of the committee i'm john i'm here with the waterfront i've been involved with the waterfront for more than a decade i want to make a general comment and speak to two recommendations angular to vote on where you adapt them recommendations one and 4 d i'm going to speak broadly everyone

listening you know the we can't a has been on the mind of people who monitor the port but every voter in san francisco in a last year we have evidence this grand jury found the port and commission is deeply distung i fundamental we have a wide disconnect between the six political appointees have been managing the projects and people that own and run actually own and should be involved in running the port we have two votes rejected the washington project ems more than 50 percent of the voters voted to have the heights on the waterfront those are facts the grand jury report i'm hoping you and the port and others take the recommendations very seriously outside item one that's the fundamental

recommendations there's no one here from the mayor's office but the mayor's office submitted a letter to have the port be a mix of the appointees and not a choice by the mayor's office the letter should all is fine i want to know how you agree and if the port commission has moved forward in a different direction than the voters and i also - >> thank you yes. >> are there other members of the public who wish to testify. >> thank you chair breed and i'm larry bush a member of the grand jury i've soefrd on the committee i want to undermine a few points when we talk about a waterfront and maritime use it takes in so many departments for

example, the issue of traps convenient along the waterfront if you see the comments from the transportation department they don't have a master plan for the waterfront so when we did our interviews we learned that the department heads don't get together to look at the waterfront whether planning, dbi or environment or health, or transportation all sitting around a table together to talk about the combats the result is sometimes the right hand didn't know what the alone is doing so you build on this. >> the other point is the whole thrust off our report to increase the public assess and

when monique mirror who has done an excellent job of the report who showed the number one issue was public comment on washington with 80 meetings it if succeed at creating a consensus because the voters overturned what the port was doing so the number of meetings held and who attends is eir relevant it took 5 years with at&t a series of hearing before the board voted on it. >> thank you any other members of the public come forward please. it appears to me from observing this mayor brown promoted did miles corporation they went

bankrupt and the project was not billed mayor newsom sporltd is it didn't happen and mayor ed lee supported the warriors and that didn't happen everyone is doing a joe going good job something's wrong and needs to be fixed it's something about good afternoon the fight between capital and public trust goes back to 1869 french capital lifts set up a deal to take over the port for one hundred years or something like that it was in the fix until governor downey vetoed it the whole city of san francisco went nuts there's something that protects the port from the private money because many of the things have failed maybe the trick to rebalance the

commission and put more people on the commission that understand the public trust and direct all our attention to getting projects that are not rejected by the public. >> thank you, sir any other members of the public who want to make pickup seeing none, public testimony is closed. colleagues, we have been asked to respond to several finding specifically to the port and at this time i think it's important that we go through each finding. i won't read out each specific finding by focus on whether or not the six to be to agree or partially agree or disagree and there's also specific text we

want to be entered read into the record important each finding the goal to summit those with the current resolution we have amend the current resolution and submit it to the full board for consideration. so that's the process here today and i'm going to start with you think this was a very good report i really presenter a lot of the feedback from members of the civil that grand jury as well as the hatred work. i vshthd one specifically high suggestion we partially disagree with the finding and i want to specify my thoughts on why we believe or i believe that to be the case so the board can't speak to the level or and a half of the influence at any time to the privy to all the

interactions mar the mayor's office influence many activities at the port and throughout the city authenticity difficult to look at the minimum bureaucrat but the board buildings the port commission has followed the practices of every agency with regard to public hearing there are several commissions that are appointed by the mayor public works rec and park commission fire commission and mta commission. on the recommendation specifically from the civil grand jury the this will not be implemented and the resident to as to why is because such an effort is well beyond the board's jurisdiction requiring the stated protective changes as well san francisco voter approval san francisco state

representatives are the appropriate officials to undertake an effort and colleagues that's the first findings i was wondering any other suggestions to be is supervisor tang >> sure thank you chair breed i agree with our suggestions for finding do number one i think that the statement the port commission readilyly gave permission it's a statement that i had an issue i believe the port like any other commission did it due diligence in obtaining public comment as to the terms of the port commission should be restructured to rehabilitate public interest when the mayor did come up with some of the nominees they actually are suggesting to the rules approval so i sit down on that so the public can speak for

or against it so their mayoral appointees they go through a process for prrld. >> president chiu. >> thank you, chairman breed and colleagues on this issue we're and i'll mention to the public we're required for various finding to agree or disagree it wholly or partiallyly i suggest that we patricia disagree in my mind i partially agtitates semi narcotics i agree with our suggestion we parkinson's disagree let me say a couple of thing i absolutely appreciate the frustration mr. taylor because of the decisions made by the port let me use the most

significant example in recent years business owner around the washington eight project they know my prospective on the project the hope and desire when we were going through the process when we were going to be able to figure out how that project could meet the community needs as ended up obeying being proposed as the lead champion on the board of supervisors i had a significant disagreement with the port that being said there's a process for how port commissioners are selected it goes through the board i am the one person here at least on this committee for example, choose to vote against a port commissioner property by itself mayor that's the process we have right now and that's the progress that process was envisioned in the burton act there's a way for us

to at the board of supervisors to significantly weigh our objections to port commissioners and because of that process you know, i think we had a process that allows the prospective on this issue through, you know, we'll be monitoring this and in the future how diversity nominees into glow it's important to have nominees that reflect experiences and community voices i'll continue to ask the administration and port staff to think about what those nominations look like i want to lay out the prospective and why i said the partial agree and partially disagree remark. >> i'll move on to item 4 my suggestion to parking lot

disagree again specifically help to fund capital improvements and enhance the quality of life is not exclusive the local business opportunity mixed housing are good aspects of the development and the board encourages the port to look at those they should be looking at case by case with the public involvement as it relates to the recommendation it's been implemented as noted in the reports respond the all port projects undergo a vesting process. so those are my comments and are there any other comments or questions, concerns? >> president chiu. >> i'll have a partial disagree

and agree the disagree response is one i appreciate there are folks that are frustrated because of the port we have several billions of of capital infrastructure needs we need to deal with we are looking at making sure our piers don't fail into the sea in some instances we've gotten the right result whether the work there are many members of the public who preserved the piers at the exploratorium to make sure the cruise ship terminal were good examples of how we worked on this that piers thirty and 32 i believe 6 attempts over the last decades to develop that spot with the controversy we may

never find the money and that is a pier that could fail into the sea i agree with the citizen minded with the members of the public how the port and properties are really utilizing those spaces in ways it maximum the public trust that allow us to engage as many members of the public with the beautiful of the waterfront i want to agree with the sentiment of the finding that being said that sort the be mixed respond is the appropriate response for that. >> thank you president chiu. >> is there any suggested amendments to what i read? for the appropriate response >> do you have a copy of what you read.

>> yes. not here i'm sorry can you give us a minute please. >> i can agree with that. >> thank you. okay moving right along. a lot of paper here. finding number 6. i agree. the board can't confirm those figures but agree eir respective of the degree such an act would benefit the port and city so for finding number 6 as it relates to the recommendation it will not be implemented the board is no the appropriate city body

spearhead an effort, however, it encourages the port to advocate or exemptions from the passing that could benefit the board and city the board will support the port in its effort, however, it know >> i think that's good. >> thank you, thank you president chiu. okay moving right along finding 8 parking lot san diego the city and port lost the city government lost money open the 31st america's cup but san francisco experienced a net benefit the board will defer to the civil grand jury the cities model for the event was speculative and don't even fundraising there was known risk

that the fundraising fell horticulture of the goal the cities tax basis would have netted reviewing revenue so the objective was to make a profit by the objective was not realized so for the specific recommendation jimbo bob major is a substantive term but similar to the thoukt america's cup as the ports response note the america's cup was extensively vested and approved by the port commission and the board of supervisors our respond to the recommendation is that it has been implemented supervisor tang >> thank you i would agree with our or concur with our recommendation to say we disagree with the finding recommendation i'm sorry finding number 8 i'd like add i want to

point out what the port respond almost 90 percent of the money that was invested into the america's cup went into infrastructure improvements that would help the port infrastructure last for 3 decades that's something we should point out 2 wasn't a loss because of the event but a huge investment to ourlz infrastructure. >> president chiu and i will add one of the things that finding a lacking is the fact america's cup brought in one half a billion dollars and thousands of jobs while i think all of us would have appreciated not spending any money the fact we're talking about a few million dollars that recommending resulted in half a a billion dollars i don't think that many city leaders would have turned down that interest

do you understand the citizens frustration but not as part of the organ next year's to fund-raise and met that for better or worse that was our experience with the america's cup it's not come back to san francisco but we see an awesome love activity i'm happy to concur in what our chairwoman has proposed. >> thank you. do we need to clarify we're going to be amending or you'll be able to take the language that i proposed and insert the recommendations of both president chiu and supervisor tang? >> supervisor breed that would be helpful to clarify with the

resolution of the board repeat specifically the amendment. >> if i could repeat amendment. >> that you made as i can repeat amendment about that i made by not incorporating the comments of my colleagues and our goal to basically write a resolution that will be heard before the full board on tuesday we need to make sure the wording is exact. >> i'm happy to provide you with my list as well. >> that might they let settle the problem. so partially disagree voter approval with yield greater awareness not necessary to assure the taxpayer interests are take place care of they're paid for by college tax they

issue other bonds like mta revenue bonds they encounter taxpayers bond like the general obligation bonds are rightfully to come before the voter for approval that's the response to the recommendation will not be implemented did i skip something here 11 okay there you go. the boarding board has placed restrictions on how they exercise i f d bonds a process that involves extensive public review voter approval is not required by law or necessary that make sure that the public interests is protected and this is generated by port property and don't increase the taxes

other cities have the mta revenue bonds bond that emancipation proclamation can you remember general obligation bonds require approval for the reason it will not be implement implemented. okay any comments? and supervisor could you go over recommendation 8 b? >> 8 b the response to the recommendation? has been implemented the departments response indicates it has and will continue implementing this recommendation which the board fully supports thank you. okay. those are my comments and

suggestions for the board response are there any other comments? okay. at this time, we'll close the hearing on this matter. or do i need okay. so is there a motion to take these recommendations as an amendment to the resolution? >> so moved. >> u. >> okay moved any objections no objections this passes as amended and is there a recommendation to send this to the full board for approval. >> so moved. >> without objection yes. >> excuse me. >> as the committee report. >> as a