five seats, attributed to liaisons to the advisory groups, they hold so much knowledge about different sessions of the waterfront, we wanted to make sure that was included in the mix as well. but to be able to up mrement and create an -- supplement and create an opportunity for more people in the process, more than just 30-32 people we have proposed waterfront plan advisory team complex where we recognize san franciscoians, have a large breadth of non, there may be a number of candidates in process, but do not have the the time commitment available to full the full 18-24 month process, but they might have source issue specific information that is pepful to

this process in the area of resilience and recreation and open space in transportation, in urban waterfront design and plans. in labor and work force interests along the waterfront as well as financial capital, and financing tools, that the port commission should be considering so we have proposed creating advisory teams, that are focused around those additional topics so people who have a background in that, and want to participate, there is a place to do that on board, the next 18-24 months, all of this in process with the updated plan would be with a city team, with our sister agencies here in the city and with bc d.c. in

state plan, that is the broad framework trying to put this together. in order to provide for people to have -- tossing their hat in the ring to participate in the process, we're proposing outreach in a number of ways one in which we are scheduling briefings with each of the members of the board of supervisors, so they know in general what the port's efforts are to update it's plan it also enabled us to have an ability with members of the board to outreach to each of their districts, to see if there are interested members of the public that might be involved in the waterfront plan update process. in addition we intend on making an online submittal process, available to the public so anybody from whatever their background is who has an

interest and being considered for being appointed to the waterfront plan working group and or the waterfront plan working teams. will be able to submit their own submittal to the support staff so we can catalog all of those that are interested, and other suggestion we get from the board of supervisors, and candidates we can take into consideration, before the plans groups and advisory team our proposal, is to take the summer to run through the whole recruitment process that would involve shifting the schedule on the waterfront plan update back by a couple of months, last month we proposed we start in july, we're now proposing we move that back at start it mid to late september.

to do this recruitment process, to get the waterfront plan working group, and as vise ree teams put into place. in broad part that's what i actually think i just went through the whole one throughout shifting through the slide i apologize for that. i think i hit all of my points, in terms of what the advisory teams are intended to accomplish for us and our schedule will be from june next week, we intend opening up online solicitation, so they can submit their interest in these groups through july 17th. as the deadline then july 18th. through september we will take the time to get them placed, so they're in a position, we can announce that to the port

commission and the public in the early midpart of september then start our planning process from there. we intend on scheduling water tour, and land tours, to orient people to what is the port of san francisco mid to late accept then start on a number of orientation, and port wide issues in the public process itself in october which are displayed here. this calendar is pretty much the same as what we presented to you last month. one change has been the adils edition of segment to talk about maritime industries and commerce we're inserting in november but the idea is to give a briefing and orientation from october through may of next year then be able to progress onto policy discussions with the

working group to develop preliminary recommendations of the plan. from that period from october through june of next year, we expect to also be convening, those advisory teams in each of the topical areas, that align up with thetopicses, when they're scheduled to be discussed with the working group with the course of this year to the next. to get an homeogenizeation of what the the choices are for the port, so the working group would be in a position, to engage in some of the policy preliminary recommendations for next year. one other thing about this

schedule the blue diamonds here indicate scheduled points in process where we anticipate coming back to the port commission with briefings, on the discussions that have happened happened. in the process to date, they are scheduled at points we think they're going to have strategic discussions, how do we manage our historic resources our public space and access along with business needs, and being able to come back to the port commission to get your input further before we progress onto developing recommendations with the working group. in october of next year, the second diamond shown on the schedule would indicate the developments, and working group discussions to date. then the third dot in early 2017, would be us coming back

with the further recommendations for the sub area planning proposed to take place for the north and southeast beach waterfront, and have a proposed pack j with the waterfront plan that would have to under go seqa, environmental review with that i hope i have not scrambled that too much. we again appreciate the thought the direction you provided us to em bolden p the participation process, we are also having our outreach efforts, with digital and more boldly through social media, through this process as well, i would appreciate any comments and suggestions. if this is acceptable, then we would be prepared to start the

recruitment process starting next week. thank you. >> public comment? with a process fraught with public participation. [laughter]. seeing no public comment, public comment is not closed. >> thank you diane. for such a wonderful presentation. the process and schedule. i'm happy to see we're using social media, and online process. that is wonderful can you tell me about how we're going to do outreach to get wider city participation? >> we have expanded the number of public presentations we have made on the waterfront plan both not only through the port

advisory committees themselves, but we have briefings, scheduled for the historic preservation commission next month, again, the briefings, with the board of supervisors, i think the social media, is available to us, with the expansion of port staff and communications, functions helping renay martin out, would spur with a number of community organizations with citywide draw the chamber of commerce the chambers of commerces, actually the numerous, chambers of commerce, if you have further suggestions on people who are interested and want to have more information on this i think that is one of the things that we look forward to your suggestions on as well.

we have spent a fair bit of time in the community balancing that with the mechanics of getting that process up and running. >> diane i guess my comment may be refocusing from what commissioner brandon said, i think you took what we said, and it's been amazing to see all of the work you have done to expand this. my concern is now we have expanded it you i think could have almost 80 people involved, when i count up the people in the sub committee groups, and advisory committees my question is now how to make this operable, you have so many people involved, it's almost hard to get funneled, and to move it forward so it isn't

like everybody is twirling all the plates, and you can't get them to settle in a con sense sut or conclusion i do know the expertise of the advisory team areas overlaps, what you are looking for in the working group i was one of the ones that made the suggestions last time you heard it, advisory teams, specific expertise, that don't have to be calls to every meet lg, i would like to suggest a couple of things maybe he me ask a question when this waterfront use plan was done in mine -- 1995 how large was the group at the time? >> it was 27 millions so we're right in the same ilk, there were periods there were sub committees of the advisory board, and there were invited

guestses we had a period we had an open space set of presentations presentations from developers, what it took to do development on the waterfront, we had a series of maritime industry sections, where there would be experts or operators operators, to educate the port staff and advisory board, there are a lot of similarity here it's good to point out, there is an inintentional overlap of the make up of the proposed advisory teams -- >> let me i appreciate what you are trying to do here but it's hard when you get 80 plus people, with 80 different mind linking the thoughts and sin that sis, it's aun awful burden on the staff to figure out how to herd the sheep or cattle

it's a difficult task in moving forward, otherwise you are stuck for a long time, moving forward. i think a couple of thick things, to make sure of the communication process, i will not comment on the position of the working group and various area, my suggestion is that the chair of each advisory team is also a member of the working group so somebody that is really going to have to sign up for a little bit of double duty not everybody on the advisory team, has time to participate oohs you have the advisory team, saying, ewe want to do this there say big disconnect, you will have a lot of time trying to figure out. again you need to make connection between various people and pekts and background, if you don't have a process or structure, it's going to be

extremely difficult. >> i fully appreciate -- >> what you need to figure out how to streamline that a little bit. in some cases, maybe if there are people want to be on the advisory in a particular area i think it depends, i'm trying to keep it as concise as you can, but as broad in terms of representation. so i think instead of having 100 people, it's hard to design a blueprint with 100 people everybody has their own point of view in mind, there has to be a sense of executive moving along to get more of a consensus one thing i did notice, i'm being technical here it does seem you are asking people to get a commitment you will get to this i will mention it, if you have somebody enthusiastic today this is 18-24 months

they don't show up after a while. it seems you need to tell people up front if you don't attend x number of meetings, you are out, you need to have people that are committed it may turn out they have something in their life that changes something that has happened they have illness, they have family issues. then i think you need have an alternative pool up place. this is something serious then after six moss, they lose interest and don't show up any more you need to have quorums, and meeting consistencies, like we can't be excused from meetings, oohs, we would have issues to make this work, this is a serious working group we want to make it serious and not just i come and sound off about something i'm concerned with on the waterfront, i think there

has got to be more structure in the operational process this is my only opportunity to say something i hope you can take some of that figure out how to make these docks work better, and take advantage of the overlap and don't necessarily everybody has to have distinct thoughts out there, if they can multirepresent district, exper ties, fine, that is great. >> i take all of those points very they're very good points, i will just share with you some thought about that as gone into this structure already. your comment from the last monthing the thousand flower, i love that term, that's exactly what it is, that's what it is we have to try and gaj, in the attachment one from the staff report, we put together information about roles and

responsibilities, to give people an idea of what this would entail before they sign up two if there is somebody that wants to be on the working group, and advisory team that mix and match, we're open to that. three, we really think that placing the add vires teams -- we're guessing it depends on what the level of interest is and what submittals we get, we want them in place so that can be present, and expect them to attend in the orientations, in the beginning process, so we're all starting from the same place, there are a number of thoughts in motion, that are responsive to exactly the direction you are giving us. >> i'm suggesting, whoever chairs the advisory team whatever is on the working group, the other point i didn't

make i would like to make that person will know the bigger picture, are you talking about something technical and specific in the advisory team you need to know how that will fit into the larger puzzle if you have somebody that didn't know the thoughts of working team it may or may not be compatible it's good rather than going down the path, so they have to know the bigger picture you can have one person that guides the rest of the group. >> we talked about there would be at least one member of the advisory team that overlapped, that would carry that information back to the full body. >> great. thank you. >> commissioner adams? >> i understand what

commissioner is saying i see it a different way, i think wa we want is transparency. and probably, what i was going to ask you, is the manageable you wouldn't have presented this to us if you didn't think this wasn't manageable to do, we're in two different places this is a different port today than from the 90s, this is 2014. this commission has been hammering, day in and day out, we want more community participation we know kor rin come to every commission meeting, care about the port some come in for the commission with an issue. kor kor reen is like a navy seal [laughter] she's a hammer, i like that.

i understand what you are saying commissioner, and the two sisters, there doing work in the community, i understand what doreen is saying, a lot of people had to think about that in techology we're in a different place than we were in the 90s maybe i should ask you, is this manageable? to me it sounds manageable >> it's a full plate [laughter]. we wouldn't think that if we couldn't manage it with expectations up front >> i think miscommissioner adams, my point is make the manageable. having -- i guess i will relate to some of my own corporate experience when you have worked on large teams you have to figure out a way to make it what functional and manageable and move it forward, >> thank you very much i appreciate that.

>> i think diane did a great job of that the first time. that was my dry run. will have laugh >> you you didn't think you would be back at it again >> no i did not. thank you. commissioner brandon, do you have comments? thank you so much, i know how much work has gone into this i know we have chatted quite a bit about thoughts and ideas. my colleagues have put a fine point on it. i think in terms of the categories reiterating as people look at those, in terms of the afteryeahs of specialty clarifying there may be more than one category that people fit into that might be something that is helpful and useful, and there are people that might hit multiple spots in the city and

region wide as well as expertise as well. in terms of distribution, i know tiera, has been a wonderful addition to increase outreach but i think it's important for all port staff, and commissioners as well to give us notice we can distribute to our various contacts and folks as well, as water advisory groups, i know for myself, are paying more attention to the waterfront, than previously had that connection and expressed interest, how they want to get involved that would give us broader distributions as commissioner adams, is points out we can post it on facebook

and other thing on the pages as well on the application form, please feel free to distribute this form to others, >> that is a good idea >> i'm not getting into the weeds on sub part two, indicate the working group, sub advisory team indicate one or both but indicate your preference if you are selected for one, so we add more clarity people can apply to do both. >> can you also clarify are you going to accept everybody who applies >> i don't think we can make that commitment -- >> i'm asking the question to know. >> no we were not anticipating, we would be able to accept everybody unless we had fewer

number of people express interest than we thought. >> i think that is important, when you put this out, that not everybody applies, they're automatically on the team will you be looking through backgrounds and resumes if you have too many of one representation of one region, or be expertise to put it out there, so people don't complain about it later >> good point thank you very much. >> thank you. >> item d, inferringsal presentation on the mixed use development project for seal wall lot 337, and pier 48, bounded by china bay son channel. third street mission rock strategy, and san francisco bay

ar adjacent to at and&t park. >> good afternoon commissioners and president of the port for develop management -- in accept of 2010. sea wall lot 337, are also known as the giants have negotiated a nonbinding term sheet with financial term for the lease and development of the site as you recall the board of supervisors and commissioners, enforce doersed the sheet in the spring of 2013 as described in the term sheet, they have mixed use

neighborhood, to create a vibrant, walkable physically feasible parks and space in june of 2014, voters, passed proposition b, existing exceeding height limits will require approval in addition to the standard regulatory approvals for sea wall lot 337, you will hear today, will be under this requirement -- po over the past six months, the giants have re-examined the proposed heights for the site, and jack bear will present an update of the project to the voters in november he and i

will be able to answer any questions you may have. jack? >> good afternoon commissioners, jack bear with the san francisco giants, baseball time, with sea wall lot 337. i will get to the matter in hand after the passive of proposition b, last june 2014 we decided to take our time take a hard look at our project and not go directly on the ballot. so since june of 2014, we have conducted a series of focus group and polling and discussions with community leaders, and most importantly many meetings with the port and mayor's office staff, to discuss revisions, to the plan that phil

mentioned, to receive unanimous, endorsement back in 2013. the polling and the focus group suggested there was a heighten interested in heights along the waterfront obviously as an outgrowth of the washington project and campaign. at the same time, there say recognition of tradeoffs in the city, for example, housing on transit corridors, and involves increased heights, and the tradeoffs that come in terms of parks and open space. so the focus groups p polling were encouraging to us the residents and respondences to the polls did recognize various issues. after this process we did sided

that we should put the measure on the ballot for 2015, the plan we're putting on the ballot is very consistent with the eight year process when we started with commissioner bran ton and commissioner lazerous hey had a commission to determine what should go on the site, they established a lot of values, what the port and the communities wanted to see in the development so we -- to change any of the values moving forward. reducing heights to several of the buildings, but staying within the term sheet parameters we negotiated with the port. i will go