along the waterfront. that all said, we also are looking at making sure that we have a city inner agency coordination strategy too between the various city agencies outlined in the box there, the planning department, rec park, oewd, mta, and again making sure that we have a city-wide discussion about all of these issues. i will point out that in the waterfront plan working group list of prospectives, community prospectives, we've added a few more beyond what we had in our staff report because we just were continuing to think about how to be as inclusive as possible. so we have added vision zero in particular as one perspectives that we want to bring, given that the water front is so pedestrian oriented

and we have a number of transportation modes and access modes that we're trying to manage. again, we felt that in hind sight maybe we weren't reflecting the diversity of the various business groups that we have city-wide to make sure that we have representatives from the hispanic, african american, lgbt and asian chambers of commerce to be able to make sure that they have engagement on a number of the land use and business opportunities that largely are available at the port. that said, we are consulting with members of the board of supervisors as well in an interest to try and make sure that we've got a truly city-wide and inclusive roster of prospectives. this waterfront plan working group, we're proposing to apt similar to our existing port advisory groups in terms of them being

considered passive bodies under the sunshine ordinance so that we can support interactive exchange, q and a kinds of discussions around the issues rather than creating a policy body making this waterfront plan working group a policy bought and formalizing the meeting room such that it sort of limits our ability to be able to comment public comments and exchange, so that is part of the port staff's proposal on the public participation. with respect to the various phases in the proposed planning process itself, bee do see, based on the comments that we received, a need for a good orientation and education about the port of san francisco. many people know different pieces about the port but most people don't have a holistic

understanding about the port as an organization. so what we propose to do is to start off the process with water and land tours walking through tours to acquaint people with the diversity of the properties, to be able to have an opening session where we can invite people's comments about what their thoughts and visions are for the water front so we have an understanding about what's the base from which we are working with. and then using that as a back drop then going sbootd orientation and analysis phase that we show on the slide here, that goes through the various aspects of the port that we think are important to understand in order to be able to make some choices about what the priority should be for the port going forward and what should be incorporated into the water front land use plan. we anticipate having that orientation period take us through the end of this year

and into early next year and then further discussions about the policy questions about what we do around these issues and how they should be translated into possible changes in our policies take that into the first half of next year. so by the end of, by june of next year then we would be anticipating having some preliminary recommendations about port wide issues. from the summer of next year, moving forward for the next 4 to 6 months, we then are proposing to the subarea planning work for the northeast waterfront and the south beach neighborhoods continue from there. you think that the port wide discussions in the first part of the process are important background for many able to dive down into the site specific questions that we've highlighted for both of those

neighborhoods. all of these meetings would be open to the public so whether you are a memorandum befr of the public, you are a member of the working groups, the whole intent is for it to be able to address people's concerns on both sides of the aisle and to have the cdc and state lands be put of that as we began the discussion as well as whatever city agencies are involved in the topic of the day, that they would be there to engage as well. in the meantime, the port has, as you well know, a number of projects underway right now. you have had a number of projects presented before you, they are listed here in summary form on this slide in terms of our open space and transportation initiatives, the blue greenway open space is the park, our transportation planning and bike way planning

for the embarcadero maritime projects underway, the downtown ferry terminal expansion, number of the maritime in real estate, leasing proposals that are in process now. we are not proposing to stop those because many of them are on-going uses and making improvements. unless we hear otherwise we think that there is, they do not come up against the issues that have been raised in the water front plan review to date. i think one of the things that i highlighted earlier in the presentation about the overlap, the histosfoerk preservation visions and desires for the water front? land use resiliency, the challenges of sea level rise and seismic risk to our piers and the seawall and the port's capital shortfall relative to the need,

all really intersikt significantly for the period the finger piers in the embarcadero hft stork district. one of the things that we think deserves to be addressed what is the future of the port's finger piers and bulk head buildings? we have beautiful but aging facilities here, they are a hundred years or older and the costs ftd repairs are just increasing. yet we have had a lot of different ideas about land uses that should take place there and how we can finance them when the port's capital resources are still quite wanting. so we have proposed just a simple rundown in terms of trying to explain to the public how to illustrate this. at the top the pier at the top of the slide is to represent that we abused the public private

partnership models quite extensively to improve our piers, the fairy building piers 1 through 5, the exploratory terms available for financing that type of improve manies is a big question mark. we've used 50 and 60 year terms and now with sea level rise we're looking at a much shorter time frame. those tiers that haven't be part of the public private projects, our real estate division has been managing on an on-going basis, how do you lease and then we pair and manage those real estate assets to keep from generating revenue. those top two piers are representative of what the port's primary approach has been to managing the tears to date. as we move into the waterfront plan discussions what you are calling here the strategic

interim leasing trat jis or the bottom pier, they become yellow tagged or as they approach a yellow tag based on my review of the piers. those facilities have higher costs and the term under which we can make improvements is really much more challenged. so we do intend on trying to have those discussions and talk about what kinds of ideas and tradoffs do people think we should be taking into account when we have tears that are changing, where we may not be able to repair and maintain the entirety, we may have to be making dhoises over portions of piers that got improvements, we may have to make choices about the type of public benefit that can be derived from these type of public xheblts and what kind of situation are you in if you have a situation with a

red-tagged -- because there's so much concern around our finger piers we feel that's something that really draws people's attention in ways we can try and expand the understanding about what we do in the future. with respect to your involvement and direction, it's important for us to be able to check in with the port commission to make sure that the issues on the ground from your perspective are factored in throughout the process. this chart, the blue diamonds here indicate where we have suggested at a minimum that we would be coming back to the port commission to in june where we are proposing that we would have the waterfront plan working group and the kickoff session is ready to begin. we plan on coming back just to confirm that that's actually what's happening, if there are

any course adjustments in the schedule we would be prepared to report that but i would be afraid to report that to you. in december we've suggested on the second dmrupbld that the discussions we have in october, the choices of reuse options and management stragt ji that seem like a very important strategic plan to check in with the port commission to get your direction as well before we finish out this orientation period. then the third diamond we're suggesting when we get to a point of having preliminary recommendations about responses to these port-wide issues, that that certainly would be a moment to come back to, the port commission if not before. i had to get your direction before we start on the subarea planning phase of the process and then the 4th can diamond is to come back to the commission

with the recommendations for the full range of work. so those are just suggestive right now. those are suggested as the minimum milestone check points but certainly if there's a need to come back on individual issues in between that we would be prepared to do that. then once we get to the fall of 2016 when we would propose to have the work infished, whatever amendments to the waterfront plan identified. any amendments to the water front plan itself will have to go through ceqa, environmental review, and would come before the port xlition for approval to the water front plan. we may find there are other recommendations unrelated to the plan itself that would go to city's sea level rise committee. some of the larger transportation issues, there might be some other points that the board commissioner can

weigh in on in those other areas that are not action items per se, but certainly points that the port commission can provide and communicate to? our sister agencies, bcdc and state lamps also, there may be issues that come out of this process indicating i need to work with those two agencies and commissioner commissioners as well. finally, to try to communicate the breath of this, i'm very excited about the fact that renee' martin working with tr earls, our newest information staff manager has worked with us to have this port of san francisco digital magazine produced that is trying to make it more available to the public about the port of san francisco, the waterfront, improvements, the worblg that we're trying to advance and

improve the waterfront about as a means of being able to maintain more on-going understanding about what's happening at the port. we took to heart the faktd there's a need for the staff to do more city-wide engagement. we are at sunday streets, we had a great day down in the bayview, and that community presentations on all of this in addition to the meetings that we're propose the in the subprocess, the continuing part of that effort. we will be maintaining the port's web page on the water front land use plan so all of these documents will have a home on the port's web site at www.sf port.com/wmlp i'm sorry for the long present tai, happy to take any questions that you

might have. >> thank you, diane. great presentation and i know an awful lot of work went into it so thank you. we have public comment, first speaker i have is diana taylor. >> commissioners, executive director moyer, i am diana taylor, i am representing the bar bary coast neighborhood association and i also represent new egg. i want to commend diane oshimaya and her staff for a really great summary and also the summerization of public comments. i do want to clarify, however, one area on page 6 of the report. we'll also put this in writing. it

has to do with the northeast waterfront, there's a sentence that says there is community support for current development projects including seawall lot 324 and 322-1 as long as careful consideration is given to and use, architectural design issues including respect for existing height limits, activation of ground floor street frontages, especially on the public corridor and enhancements. that's all true but we would like to see a separation of the two development projects. i think they are uniquely different. 322 aye is proposed affordable housing development that the barbary coast neighborhood association along with other neighborhood groups formed a consortium and made

comments and issues recommendations. we also served on a working group to develop the rfp, we appreciate the consideration of our recommendations. however, we did not support, although we supported affordable housing on that project, we did not support -- well, let me put it more positively. we supported mixed income affordable housing. and so that would include moderate income affordable housing. so i would like that to be clarified. also new leg at their, at a recent meeting also took this matter up and heard from the

consortium of neighborhood associations on this recommendation. they supported you unanimously that seawall lot 322 weren't in develop pretty soon include i couldn't (inaudible) moderate income affordable. >> i don't have any more speaker cards so feel free to come on up. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is john gallinger, i'm here with no wall on the waterfront. i think it is very positive that we are here today in 2015 with a port deeply ready to look at a comprehensive reevaluation of the waterfront land use plan. what i want to say is don't fear the people. the whole reason we're here, the whole reason the port came up with a water front plan at all in 1997 was a ballot

measure that voted in 1990. that measure required the waterfront plan to be updated every 5 years. it has never been other than on a piecemeal basis so it's a positive thing you are doing this. but in the process, but i am very concerned with what i have read and heard, i do still think there is a circle the wagons mentality that is going to do you a disservice but causes us to butt heads again on the new tour. i'm not recommending that for any particular project but it is troubling to see on the water front (inaudible) why not have the supervisor put someone else, why not have the neighborhood groups and the community groups who support the project's use backed to suggest people as well? i see a business and development dominate that list. the chamber of commerce is

represented three times. there's a place called for economic development and business and the chamber of commerce. those are all the same things, city wide business, economic development, chamber of commerce, it's the same thing. there's one health group for every still will be slanted in a way that's out of touch with what the people of san francisco want and that's healthy for the waterfront. the other thing i'd say, i think you can't fire first and aim later and i think at the end of the presentation from diane suggesting that all 7 of the development projects in process now can go forward full staepl ahead, including washington, including the project looked like just last week while comprehensive planing is done. you can't do both. there was a hold on big

new projects until the plan was fixed. i don't think we need to take 6 years to do that, but i think we can take a few months before big new projects is approved. makes sense for the 21st century, not the 20th. the last ting i would say is the chronicle has already written the story on this meeting so i want to commend john king, who is here. somebody already sent me the lar that's just been posted but the chronicle and i think the city and definitely the people who love our waterfront as do you are paying attention so i hope you will make this a second project that will result in something better for all of us. >> okay, next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i am alice rogers, vice president of the south beach rincon mission bay neighborhood association. and

we very much appreciate the proposal to expand the advisory group in our neighborhood, recognizing that we have many, many, many more people living there now who are very eager to participate and interface on the development in that area. so thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker? seeing none, public comment is closed. always try to preserve my comments for last. i just want to thank the staff again and all the work that's gone into this and i know i've been making comments along the way about our efforts opening up and bringing members all across

the city to participate in the process. i think it's a reflection of really what transpired as a result of the original waterfront land use plan which was trying to at that time reunite the people of san francisco with the waterfront. we have exceeded expectations on that front and i think that's a good thing and that the water front really has become such an important jewel now here with the city. and so i'm excited that where these efforts are taking place during our terms here. so i will reserve my more specific comments but diane and others and of course executive director i thank you because we've had multiple conversations how we can expand and conduct outreach. before starting on our comments, i'm not sure whether executive director moyer or diane should comment on a substantive issue that came up because there are some

complications and you touched on it, the way that meetings would have to be held if we formalized it in certain ways and we really want to ensure that we do have free flow of opportunity and opportunity, you can have a dialogue as opposed to what is so stilted and some of the more formal arm engagements. one of those is if supervisors had specific appointments that changes the nature of the meetings. >> right, at least eileen malley is here to make sure i stay on the straight and narrow, but in terms of the sunshine ordinance, the model at which the port staff at an administrative level is able to convene these groups, enables us to have q and a among the different stake holders. whether you are on the

advisory group if you are a member of the public, there can be a back and forth of exchange of information in a policy body under the city's sunshine ordinance that is a body where it's like a commission or is formally created by the board of supervisors, electeds or commission and it triggers with it formal reeting rules that dictate certain details around angendizing items and in public comment. so as in this meeting if you are a member of the public you have 3 minutes to be able to make your comments but there cannot be a real xhaifrpk between the commission members and that purpose. and what we've found in past citizens advisory committees that were functioning as policy bodies, the warrior project at pier

30-32 being the most recent example, the struck tuefr of that meeting format really frustrated the ability of the community to engage in the issues. we had a number of comments coming in on the water front land use plan about what a negative experience that was for public participation. so we actively have been trying to avoid that kind of situation and wanted it to be more of an open exchange. >> and as a corollary to that being said, the recommendations and the way we'll eventually structure this group does not preclude in any way the outreach that will be done to all of the members of the board of supervisors just as an example and other neighborhood groups in terms of seeking their input and suggestions and opening it up to expanding participation and opportunities for members. even though the people that have raised the issue are talking, i hope they

just heard what we just said. but they didn't. i'll repeat it. just got confirmation and in light of your comments, at this point we can't always engage in dialogue, but the approach that's being taken to put together this group is really to make sure that it is as expansive as possible and there will be outreached and continued outreach to all the members of the board of supervisors on people they serve and their suggestions and additionally i guess one other subfan tif clarification. the categories that you've lifted are in no way indicative of only one representative from each of those. those are just broad categories as i understand it, the types of participants we would want to see, i know f, i wouldn't mind seeing an engineer or two down there just given all we have to

face along the waterfront and perhaps some specialized experts and even a category of neighbors and of things and again these are all very broad, but again it's categories there is not a one off of each of these. these are the broad categories of the kinds of participants we want to make sure they are included and not leave anyone on there. i'm pleased to see you don't have any attorneys on there. again, that's something that i'm sure diane, i know you are open to if there are any other very broad categories of the kind of participants we would certainly welcome any suggestions. but again the idea is to kupbl up with a list of all those who care about the waterfront and be involved. that's my editorializing, i'll

save a few of my colleagues after the commissioners speak. prrp. >> diane, thank you. this is a lot of information and thank you very much for putting together a very clear understanding of how we're trying to move forward. and i understand that there are a lot of port issues that are going to cover everything, but are we looking to look at every section of the waterfront plan and seeing what needs to be (inaudible). >> at a staff level we will take responsibility for reading through the entire document so the issues as they align with the topics that we have proposed in the public process would be grouped together so that if there are discussions that implicate changes for sections, the staff is going to be responsible for tracking that and then if there are amendments to those sections of

the plan that we would obviously make those part of the, any public proposal. >> because i note isd that in your presentation you didn't mention anything between china basin and pier 70. is that not going to be a focus area? >> when we did the review in the august 2014 report when we did a subarea review of all of the sections of the waterfront. the northeast water front and the south beach sections were the two areas where there really were very open questions about land use and development. fisherman's war of, southern waterfront, less so in large part because pier 70 was going through a very public process. the mission law process was going through and it's more of that ecoindustrial strategy that we're working on