e 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 for the

firs 80 through 96 area in the southern waterfront that we got how many cops from the southern water front advisory group. that's really the effect difference of maritime and industrial uses, cohabitating in that area with the blue greenway open spaces so from all that we interpreted that the land use priorities for that area were well understood by the community and were supported. >> okay, so this group will not really focus on? >> we don't anticipate readvise uting that, unless there is something that comes up. >> i definitely know transportation in these double rides are common along the waterfront in all areas. hopefully we will look at every street on port property because with all of the development and all the growth and just trying to get around now is such a

hazardous waste he will. and i can only imagine what it's going to be in the future. >> actually the transportation would be the big exception because that does extend definitely south of china basin all the way down to the southern waterfront. >> right. >> so how many people are you thinking of going to be within this working group? >> well, you know, as we keep on adding, we're probably looking at 30, you know, 30 or more people at this point. there is a time commitment associated with taking on responsibilities here and i think that's actually something that we would be expecting people to take seriously. there are, we will provide information about what the working group responsibilities are, expected time commitments associated with that, you know, we would like to be able to have members that represent

organizations and constituents so that we are able to move these members as a means of reaching back out to the community so you get -- it's our social networking in people bodies, not just social media, that we're trying to achieve there. so it will not necessarily be something that everyone would have the ability to participate in. so it's hard to know exactly how -- now the number of people that will agree to it. >> i would like to say that i think that we should have individuals from various communities that will be affected by whatever is going on within the waterfront on the committee but i also think that we really need to open it up to all san franciscoans because the port belongs to everyone. so it's great to get different ideas and different opinions so

i hope it's a very diverse group that wants to see the waterfront grow at a good rate. too much growth is not good but if we can just come up with a process and hopefully get a lot of people together that really understand the constraints that the waterfront -- that we have in our open space, in our development, in keeping piers or deciding to get rid of them. you know? everything. because the waterfront is so diverse. >> it is diverse. >> so i think it would just be great to have a good group, a good working group, of all citizens reflecting san francisco. >> that is the intent, including regional interests as well. >> yes. and bcdc and state lands. >> but even we have regional

stake holders kind of tagged within the working group as well. >> thank you. well, i have a lot of comments and first of all i want to thank you for taking a lot of my comments that i made to you individually that you have reflected particularly in the outreach. but i do have some further comments in that regard. but i think no. 1 i'd like to say i do hear what the public has to say, we're an on-going enterprise if we're going to continue to operate, we have things in our pipeline in our agenda that we have to continue to work and we cannot stall and wait until we have a brand new plan. we're not starting at scratch. so it is going to be a balance between making sure we are continuing to work our pipeline and our agenda, what we have, and yet also try to fulfill our obligations under this water front land use plan which i think is very important in terms of a vision in

blueprint for the future. as far as i think on the governance side, i think the idea of refreshing the cac's is a great idea. i think we probably need to go look and see whether we have people that are still active. you may want to consider having terms so people realize once appointed they are not on there forever. i don't know what the current governance is but they would know at some point they might be reviewed and if they are not active that we will refresh with some new faces. that would be for the existing government structure that we have. i'm not sure whether term limits would be a good idea, we wouldn't want to lose someone like karin who has been on the cac forever but it would be good to have some fresh voices. my concern is not that we will not have enough voices, i think we have to figure out how to make it managable in this waterfront plan working group. so a couple of ideas to

consider. i think that we do want to get the representative, whether they are formally appointed or nominated ear find a way so it isn't just a one way street of gathering people that we think will listen to our case. the whole point is to have diverse voices. on the other hand we can't have a thousand voices and we can't make any decisions because nobody agrees and we can't get any consensus. it is better to hear from more voices and not hear the issues that come up as we are working the issues later but to hear from them beforehand so we can figure out solutions to them but i think as willy adams would tell you we can't please everybody all the time. that's what we have to do, we have to make some decisions. we can't please everyone all the time, we try to be balanced and we need the input from the cac's and from

this waterfront plan working group. my concern is we don't have, it's so huge, but if you say 30 that might be workable. but working in any of these working groups as you know a lot of work gets done in subcommittees in smaller groups because you get groups of 50 people in the room it's like you don't get much done. everybody says something and you can't get to the heart of the matter. so in terms of my experience i think you may want to consider, given that we do want the expertise of a lot of individuals with specialized backgrounds or whether they are from certain neighborhoods, that as you come up with topics maybe you want to enlist volunteers or whatever system you want to put in place. so as commissioner katz mentioned, when you need a topic that you have engineering background, we have a pool of people, we don't need a lot of people. you don't want to go to every meeting because you are not needed all the time but you want that person there when you are needed and maybe

there's a way to have a pool of resources, of advisors that are pulled in at the time when that point of view or that expertise is required, then you can have a wider pool of people. but instead of having to have 100 people or 50 people because by the time you get through this list that everybody is going to be adding to, i don't think it's going to be 30, i think it will be a much wider pool of people. but we need to have a way to have these diverse opinions, diverse points of view. the cac obviously address the point of the districts that obviously border the waterfront and i think we need to pay attention to the districts that are not represented on the waterfront because this is a city-wide asset as we have heard. more and more people want to know what is happening and it's not just the water front neighborhoods that care about the waterfront, i think the whole city cares. i think i am beginning to see what you say here on a more strategic level, i do think

that we've moved, you've heard me say this often, we have succeeded very violently with -- now we're into integrate. how do we integrate the waterfront with the city, the core of the city. i don't know if that's the right words but i've always been trying to ask you to figure out what is the theme that we're looking for for the waterfront because so many diverse uses. integration may be a good word with the city, not within the waterfront but somehow integrate with the whole city and not just the neighbors that border the waterfront. i agree that our relationship with maritime, going back to some of what you say here, has changed. that's a very important recognition, very different from what it was 50 years ago, whatever. i think we are still struggling with

the meaningful maritime uses and i think we need to work on the definition, what is the meaningful maritime use. i did a quick calculation of the current as well as proposed, of the land use we have, 44 percent is going to be maritime. for those people who worry we're not doing enough maritime, 44 percent i think is actually not a bad sort of allocation to maritime use. and the other is also the open space which is another one that we hear a lot, not enough open space. i think if we look at the current as well as proposed that i think is a fair allocation, there may still be some people that argue with me that's still not enough, but i think it is. and i think we need to, i think the two areas that i would say maybe you want to consider this within the waterfront working group, there are two issues i think are much more city-wide, commissioner brandon mentioned them and it may be that's a group that meets and hat different

composition by itself and that one is transportation because it doesn't just affect strictly the waterfront, it kind of affects the areas that border the waterfront, not just our streets. the other is obviously sea level rise and we are not going to address that alone as the port of san francisco, it's a city-wide issue. the other thing i noticed about your report which talks about parking and the parking plan. i will just go out there and say one of the things i think is related to transportation is if we eliminated all the meters along the embarcadero. that wouldn't solve, it's not the magic bullet. if we did, immediately where's the revenue going to come from, we lose the parking spaces we still need because we have tourists, et cetera, we need to accommodate. there are some new parking structures,

technology that's been dwefrled in germany and maybe china, where you use stacking, mobile stacking. we open up the embarcadero even more to be one of the measures to improve the transportation artery. it's a little bit out of left field kind of idea but sometimes you have to go that way to consider it. so i think that i would like all of you to come back on the whole waterfront land use working community, figure out not just the big group but the subgroups and how can we figure out my idea of do you have people that only come to the meetings that they have to come to, they don't have to come to every single meeting because it's not always required for their knowledge or their interest or their expertise but they have a way of integrating in so we pull those people in. i think it's going to be a lot of work for the port staff to keep everybody communicated, which is very important to get everybody on the same wave

length. that's an awful, awful big task and i commend you for trying to do that just for today's presentation i know took a lot of work to distill something, all those comments down it a few pages and a slide presentation so i commend you all for doing that. but i would like to see you come back again given how we can make this process, i'm fine with the timeline but i'm afraid we're going to get bogged down and we need to have a governance structure that works, that meets the object ives we're trying to reach but is managable going forward. >> thank you for those comments. we will take that under advisement to try to break it down. i guess the one thing that we struggle with is when you group people into certain top cal areas we also trying to be holding people more accountable to the whole as well so that if you focus in

on making recommendations certain areas you want it to also connect with what are the implications for other aspects of the waterfront. so that is something that we will be continuing to try and support. >> i guess since i come from the corporate sector, just to give you a quick -- you might have a subcommittee on sea level rise composed of obviously -- that committee still has to come back to and maybe you have some sort of people may not like the term but i will use the corporate term, an executive working group that actually connects to make sure that at the top level you still see what all the moving parts are. because i hear what you are saying because you are afrid a silo gets developed and they don't know everything else that's happening and they have to connect the dots. i understand the question but i think you have to have a smaller oversight group and they have to put in a lot of time and they have to be willing to put in the time to be able to touch all the edges.

>> again, diane, thank you. i'll just say it again because i think i've certainly seen how much time and effort has gone into this. i can definitely see some themes. i've also looked at some of the same issues that have been raised and so in no specific order but one of the things i think is the beauty of san francisco is that everyone is so participatory, i would much prefer to live in a city where people care and are passionate, even if they don't always agree on everything, at least they are passionate about their city and where they live and making contributions. i'm thrilled. i agree, i think we will have more people that want to participate which i think is a great thing and i think we may be able to figure out how to get the balance of the right mix to be able to get something done and not have it be overwhelming and unwieldy, yet also be able to rely on the

input and participation of so many others. so i think that is important to develop some sort of process as we go forward. i'm not sure if there's a way that people that are interested in serving could in essence at least submit their names, submitting a letter of interest and qualifications for those that would like to participate in some fashion and i think it can always help us to have a data base, if you will, of people that want to get involved even if not necessarily on this project. i can't tell you the number of people i speak with that all offer up their desire to help, offer up their expertise and willingness to be available to us on both major time commitments and lesser ones. so perhaps there's some vehicle that we can at least do that kind of broad outreach to get people to self-nominate as well as our outreach to get others to become involved.

and then again you highlighted at the very end the digi mag, the digital magazine. that's something i've been pushing because we need to take opportunities to communicate with so many more people and make sure we are reaching out well beyond those that usually pay attention to specific issues of interest. so i'm thrilled that this will be going out and i think we should urge all the supervisors to send it out to their constituents, they have their own lists of their constituents and perhaps they can distribute the magazine and get people to sign up for it that way as well so it will be pushed out even further and that's another way we can solicit more names for participation. you know i kind of look at the waterfront rather than, we talked about we've been successful in reconnecting but i think the waterfront really is something for everyone. and as we go along it's not trying

to be all things to everyone but providing something for everyone and that's really what we've done. and i can't think of anything else we really have in the city where it is a little bit of something for everyone here to enjoy and participate in, in so many different ways, and that's really what we've been entrusted with now is how we preserve that and continue that forward. so with the diversity of opinions we have in san francisco it's now our opportunity to sort of put a blueprint on how we go forward for future generations. a couple other spefr things that i think are, i love that we'll be doing a tour of the waterfront and i've been on countless tours both before and after i served on the commission, and every single time i learned something new and get a new insight or idea. but i don't know if we have some people that might be able to even put together some added public tours of the waterfront, not only just for the members of the working group but i think it would be nice if we

could have some waterfront tours available for members of the public that may want to attend some meetings or weigh in or comment and also going back to, i don't know whether it would be through the digital magazine or some other means but having some sort of forum for on-going comments that can be fed to the working group members and staff. again there's no shortage of experts and opinions in san francisco but i know i've always learned something from listening to all of those. i know it's difficult to try and limit it to a group. i don't think we have arrived at a number yet , but in the 30-plus range but i've also looked at whether there's way to have i don't know if subcommittees is the right word but advisory bodies that could weigh in and advise that broader group. you're right, you don't want it to be siloed but be able to dig a little

deeper into some of the topics. sea level rise is an obvious one, seismic safety, things along those lines, how that does impact their thinking but there may be some other advisory groups, transportation, again i actually think we need to focus on transportation on the waterfront in a way separate from the rest of the city so that it doesn't get lumped into broader policies but that we make sure that we are really examining how our transportation needs are met of the pedestrians, the cyclists and everyone else using the waterfront because it is a little unique here and we also have our water taxis and other means. i think we saw with the america's cup that we were creative and we came up with added ways of moving people. so, yes, there's a broader transportation issue, for example, throughout the city but i want to make sure that we have our specific needs met here along the water front and as we expand transit lines and

other things that it takes into account how it impacts the waterfront and certainly the context of the city as a whole. maybe some specific advisory bodies like that. then, as i mentioned, our various neighbors not only just along the water front but really making sure we get people across the city and people who have been involved and we can certainly take a look at those that can bring unique levels of expertise but also some that are adept at looking at big pictures and then figuring out how to synthesize all those subareas, so it's trying to strike that balance of being all things to everyone. but i really do think all of us, i know we haven't discussed it amongst ourselves but certainly as we've all spoken and i know i have spoken with commissioner adams about this as well, how we make sure that we do have broad city-wide

representation as we go forward and i'm excited that we'll be able to do that and i'd like to continue to work staff as we come up with a clear process that we can come up with to get that kind of participation and then apply that to the framework that we have here. but i think that the hardest part really is anythinging out how we get that mix so we can be open to all the different opinions and interests that come forward. and i think there's definitely a wae that we can do that and work on that. we want to maintain so that level of flexibility and get all the different support that we need and really want to figure out what we can do to offer staff report on this, it's going to be a huge, huge undertaking but as we've noted it's been almost -- the waterfront plan was first put into place, it's been almost 25 years now, 30, i guess.

>> 18. >> oh. i was going back to the 80's. but looking at it, this is something that will affect future generations and we have such a, all of us have such an amazing obligation as we look at where we're going. i want to make su we cast as broad a net as possible so make sure we come up with something. perfection can be the enemy of the good, try to work it too much so we can't come up with anything in a reasonable time frame. as commissioner woo ho noted it would be good to have something going forward. i think i touched on moist of that going forward and --. >> let's not forget about the importance of our capital needs and how to finance them. >> i think that was included in here somewhere. >> i'm thinking about that too. i really appreciate these

comments. they are very helpful because it is somewhat daunting, we wanted to roll out this structure for participation but acknowledge the challenge of trying to make the room big enough to be able to accommodate all of the different voices. so i think that subcommittee approach is a very helpful one and president campos, i also was remiss in not acknowledging your involvement in helping bring about this digital magazine, too. i think that giving us direction so that we could come up with a format, it's one thing that read that august, 2014 report cover to cover, but this makes it much more approachable, i think, to understand the port and i do believe that we'll be working with tiara and renee further on as we roll out the waterfront update having regular publications where we can

distribute that through social media and keep people apprised even if they can't make the time to come to the meetings. >> also, to comment back in, and maybe we can, renee and tiara can work in on how you bring in and cull those comments as they come in and forward them to the appropriate staff based otd comment. >> i just want to say, we're kind of going through a thousand flowers boom, we can hear -- that's a wonderful concept to hear from everybody. but i think we have to have realistic expectations. within the waterfront working group how are they going to figure out how they can balance and come to some consensus and not everybody saying, no, i absolutely have to have my point of view in here. we cannot take care of a thousand different points of view on everything. there has to be some working, i guess some sense of how can we come to

something that is going to be for the greater good of what we need for san francisco but not where everybody is going to say it's got to be my way or the highway. it's not going to work. we're here to hopefully in some cases make some decisions. as i said we're not always 100 percent population but we have to make some decisions that make sense and are practical. as much as the word goes out jump on the wagon and there's a thousand flowers blooming, then there's a huge let down and i think we have to define a process. people have to understand how the process worked, we will be respectful, we will listen but understand how it's going to go through the process. it's going to be like a sausage factory to a certain extent and we have to understand that. it isn't going to be all honey and water. it has to be something where people have realistic exec taises. we have to have

realistic expectations too. >> it was done once so we know it can happen. >> 7 rr years. >> this is an update. i think the port actually has much mere real speerpb and real knowledge on the ground having gone through the experience we have over the last 18 years and, yeah, the original water front plan advisory board was the same thing we're talking about now where you had people in that room that didn't know each other or had a polar opposite point of view and ended up, i think, becoming very respectful and some good friends. so i'm hoping for the same. >> again, thank you, diane, and thank you all the rest of the staff and byron and all the others. it really with us a long process to get to this point and even longer as we get to the next one.

if we can take a very short break, the problem with not having a quorum, if one of us needs to get up. so three minutes? three minute break before we hear the call the next item. >> item 13a, informational presentation for authorization to issue a request for proposal for a 3 year lease with two one year options to renew for 3 surface parking lots at seawall lot 321, bounded by embarcadero, front street and green street, seawall lot 3221, bounded by broadway street front street and vaillancourt street, and see wall 323/324 bounded by embarcadero, broadway street and davis street. >> jay edwards, joined by bob davis, principle administrative analyst for real estate as well. this is an informational

presentation. it's, our goal is to come back on may 26 and seek return and seek approval for requests for authorized issuance of an rfp for the referenced parking lots. the overall goal of this process was to achieve greater flexibility and diversity in the port's parking lot operations. we believe the request for proposal process as compared to the process traditionally utilized by the port will provide greater flexibility to select an operator that meets the port's objectives as outlined in the report. we also believe through the use of an innovative joint venture partnership that the port will achieve greater diversity and help building future local business enterprises who would operate independently. so just to summarize the objectives