members of the working group who are handing with us at the end of the evening, particularly alice rogers who led 14 meetings ever the working group through all our land use issues and a lot focused on the embarcadero resource groups. we broke it up into three subcommittees that allowed us to do more nimble discussions and recommendations. tonight i get to provide you on the recommendations coming out that lead to this opportunity to try to find partners for rehabilitation. in the course of doing the waterfront plan meetings, we hired eps as an economic consultant to do financial feasibility analysis and shared with the working group and puck liks the cost of pier

conditions, historic preservation requirements were for our facilities and through that, the land use subcommittee and now the working group, waterfront plan working group are looking for a new public trust set of objectives that are specific to the embarcadero historic district. in the course of the the work we work with state land staff that help guide us on the values this recognize as being acceptable for new development and leasing in these historic piers. this a bullet list of the kinds of benefits and objectives recommended by the land use committee, working group, state land staff building the frame quork and criteria to allow us -- framework and criteria to allow us to get more tools and flexibility to build our piers

and bulkhead buildings. rehabilitation scinlt with national -- consistent national standards and increasing the berthing locations because of all the ferries and excursion vessels we find a need for along with public access, and the need and interest from the public that we're getting through the public process on more and diverse public oriented uses a along the waterfront but particularly the embarcadero. in the context of development and leasing strategies that are financially feasible that have the bandwidth to pay for the capital repairs and anticipating what kind of flood retexts -- flood protection. one of the things that was a breakthrough in the recommendations was to allow for

longer term leases to be able to amortize those capital investments that had not been formally recognized by state land or the general public. we're happy that there has been an understanding and support for allowing 15, 20-year lease terms if necessary that scale with the amortization. we hope this will expand the tool kit for maritime to make better use of our facilities and improve them over time. i mentioned that public-oriented uses were a big interest of the public. there are guiding principles that the working group has a adopted saying it's important to find ways to save and rehabilitate these facilities. but we think it's equally

important to make as much space if the facilities available for public-oriented uses to expand diversity of the work done over the last 20 years. people love the giants. they love the explorer t explor. the working group has accepted relingses for give the port commission and staff more opportunity to seek some of these types ever uses listed in the slide that we can add to and clement the range activities and attractions that are along the waterfront. in the course of the financial feasibility nadges don analysisr the embarcadero historic district, the consultants found it was difficult to pinpoint how many different public oriented

uses could fit within our piers. moreover, there was a finding that the revenues that could be generated by many of these types of businesses were limited and so there were financial feasibility concerns associated with that. and so, the recommendations that the land use committee and the working group have advanced have acknowledged that we're going to need high revenue generating uses as financial engine as part much new pier leasing an development projects. but to balance that with the need and desire to a available these facilities for public oriented uses, port staff was really trying to think about how can we expand public oriented uses but deal with the feasibility realities. through that process, we came up with idea of going on the basis

of the recommendations coming out of working group with a two-track request for interest to invite ideas for public oriented uses that could fit within our bulkheads and pier facilities. but because we anticipated that the revenue capability of many of those types of businesses would be insufficient to be able to cover the improvement costs of the piers, we also realized there was a need to be some development capability also. so we came up with the idea ofç having a second track for requests for qualifications from qualified developers with experience with historic rehabilitation projects like this. and this proposal is really an experiment. we've tried it with pier 70 as rfi exercise to invite ideas. it led to us being able to find work and development inc. to be

able to save the pier 70 buildings and we thought this might be a good methodology for the district where you could find out what our types of uses that could adapt and what are developers that have anç intert in being considered potentially for improvements on leases and development. so, this sort of gives a bullet of what we think that the two-prong approach offers to the port and for the community also to start getting, you no, realtime sense of what their recommendations could yield. we're looking broadly. these are the piers that we had suggested in a briefing that we made to the working group a few weeks ago as to the facilities that we would extend this invitation for ideas and interest to. and i understand that now pier

48 will have to take that into account on the base basis of the previous items. there are capital repair niedz and conditions that we'd like to test the market to really understand kind of partnering opportunities there are.ç i should just note that with respect to, for example, pier 35 and pier 40 where we have certain types ever uses there that must stay or that we want to retain and grow in the case of water recreation activities at pier 40. we wanted to make clear to everyone that that was our intention. similarly for piers 33, 31 and 29. we're talking about the pier sheds only as a complement to the public-oriented uses that we're currently in lease negotiations on for the bulkheads of those facilities.

so, again, a text-heavy slide, but it's trying to highlight what are the opportunities that we think are available through this two-prong approach. you really need both pieces, the public-oriented pieces and the financing capability side to meet the needs what have it takes to improve and manage and develop our piers. we may find that the marketplace gives us good ideas, partnering opportunities, understandings about how they can be compatible with our on going maritime and public access objectives. we may also find that there might be some hitches in the recommendations that are being developed. maybe we've got some challenges that we didn't anticipate and it's a good time for us to get that feedback from the market before we move forward on making

any updates to the waterfront plan. our proposed process for moving forward because today is just an informational presentation. we're not seeking your authorization today, to take your comments, questions, and then for us to do a little more due diligence to look to see if there are other models of rfis done elsewhere that might be employed in this process to go back to the community and report back this presentation and the comments we're getting so that we can incorporate further incut into a proposed set of objectives for this twins tw tws then come back to the port commission next year to seek authorization to move forward. we expect that we would also have suggestions and proposals for a review panel on what the review process would be of

evaluating the responses on both the rfq side and rfi. and then to media and outreach campaign but also further public discussions about what those opportunities a available to us and direction from the commission before whether there is one or more pier leasing and development opportunities that could go forth and what kinds of conditions for partners that we might want to consider. that's sort of a quick read and preview that gistles you a flavor for the work that the waterfront plan working groups s that been spending it's i'm on. we're bringing this preview to you today because we provided it to the working group a fewç$.-m ago. the working group is finishing

trying to wrap up part two of the process which willt( produce port-wide recommendations on a whole array of issues that they've been reviewing. when they're done with their work, we'll be back before the commission to report out the rest of the work and issues that they've been reporting on. if it's timely, then maybe we and rfq as well. i want to thank the working group members. they've been incredible. mike martin and becca have been instrumental in a lot of the financialç feasibility analysis and market assessment that have supported the public discussions to date. we're here to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> i've got one card, corrine. anyone else wants to speak, go

ahead and speak speek after corrine gets done. >> we have the corps working group right here. it has been an absolutely fascinating process going through this. and i can't wait until we give you the report. all of the meetings are actually on line. they've been recording the main meetings. they're all the notes from our subcommittees are on line and the port's website. we think this is a good idea to test reality. as you heard at the last meeting, it's a very expensive proposition to do substructure work on the piers. if you have high occupancy uses, which is where you're going to get your money, you have to do

more work. so we know the costs are high and struggled over what is appropriate, what is going to work. one thing about this process that we have to be careful of is we want ideas and-- inspiration andç think outside the boxes bt don't want to create an expectation for developers who think i have that one! we don't i think the transparency of a request for proposals and getting to a choice of a developer is going to be a separate process. because we don't want -- well, we'd like to minimize the political bullshit that goes

into selecting developers for projects. we want things that are consistent with the waterfront use plan. we want things that are trust consistent. we don't necessarily want a arena or whatever going in on waterfront if it doesn't fit. we don't want the political process to overtake the thoughtful idea much coming up with things that are good for the port. and that are consistent with the port's mission. and i think -- i'm going to recommend that you read our report when it comes out. i think it's amazing the number of different people and different viewpoints that we have in the room yet in most

cases we've been able to reach consensus, we're getting there, thank you. >> thanks corrine, ellen. >> ellen jock co-chair of the advisory committee -- maritime advisory committee. dianne, you've done a great job and i want to thank -- for the work that we've done together over the past year and a half at the land use committee. the maritime folks are really pleased with what we've come up with thus far at the last meeting, there was some initial concern and i'm glad elaine was there that somehow the rfi was going to come occupant and not take into account the work done at the waterfront land committee. elaine did a great job of saying, of course, this is very much integrated with the work that we've done.

i think the themes that are coming out, we have to keep the port standing up. the reality check is it's going to cost money and we need ideas and developers to come in and give you some ideas. the linkage, the strong linkage between maritime historic and resiliency is clear and strong. i wanted to add one other thing, there is a group of us and the waterfront land use planning group that is talking about how to be aspirational. in terms of historic and the cultural story of this port. and it's the public trust, but it's more than the public trust. it's the social. you hear heard that in the giand mission rock. we need businesses and folks to

come in with that kind of attitude for what we're rieg weg do with the port and tell the port's story. i'm sure we're going to do fine with the rfi because we're doing a great job so far. >> thank you. veronica. >> thank you mr. president. commissioners, veronica sanchez, i speak for myself on this one as a veteran of some political fights on this waterfront. and having been on the receiving end of it during my tenure here, when i was here at the port, i think corrine said something)a2í important about we don't want the political process to take over the waterfront land use process and become one political mess. i've seen a lot of political mess os then waterfront. certainly commissioner brandon, you can attest to that too.

my concern is about timing. and about the importance that this port is going to ask the voters of san francisco for their support on a geeio bond measure in november to improve the seawall. i feel like the focus of the port's effort needs to be on getting voter confidence for the bond measure and putting -- and asking the voters. what i worry about if the developer selection process gets muckied up or if they don't like the ideas suggest, you're going to be in a defensive campaign billion the, you know, uses that these folks don't like like what happened with 8-washington and

pier 24 rapid 26 many, many years ago when it was a reasonable hotel proposal that got blown completely out of proportion. i would suggest that we look at these timing issues and you certainly have public affairs consultants on board to look at that. but i would hote to be in the defensive mode where we argue about hotels at piers 35 for example and this takes over a greater discussion that the port needs about saving the seawall and the structures. there is always, i think, a time for this and this is needed. but looking at the timing of this, in connection with the geobond is very important. thank you very much. >> thank you, alice. >> good evening already.

i'm alice rogers i'm on the working group and had the pleasure of srving as chair for the land use subcommittee. the flip side of the 14 meetings and the year that we put in is all work that the staff did to educate us. they spent more than a year fitting into the weeds on level that you people operate. especially relative to the financial aspects of the historic district challenges. so i want to thank them for that and thank you for enabling them to do that. and i want to say i know when you were discussing the plan update process generally, you were concerned about having broad participation. and i'm here to tell you that

we've had strong public participation especially at the land use meetings. as the previous speakers have said, we came up with a lot of common values. i think that it has helped us build that consensus so that the deliberations were not contentious generally. but we all are sort of pulling in the same direction. that said, i do want to really support what veronica just said. eyebrows were raised when this rfi came up. and i think that director forbes did an excellent job of dissipating concern at the last meeting. nevertheless, we need to ask you to be very, very careful about how this proceeds as veronica

said more eloquently than i. this can't be seen to override the years plus that the public has spent really pouring out their wishes and desires through this public process. and certainly not in an election year. so please just be careful with how this goes forward. and i also can't say strongly enough that will we really can't divorce the public access and the public opportunity and the real vitality and diversity on the waterfront. you guys are possibly victims of your own successes. you've done fabulous developments,hthe exploretorium and at&t park.

people love those and want moreñ we want this process to bring more of that vitality. thank you. >> thank you, alice. is there more on -- 13-b? no more comments on 13-b? public comment is closed. commissioner. >> i want to commend dianne in terms of all the hard work she put in along with everyone else on the staff that worked on this. i know it's been a labor of love and all of the members of the land use working committee. i think that this process of having the dual track is interesting and innovative. i am sensitive to the timing questions that i think have been raised by the speakers. , and i think it's something to duly note. we koant don't want to ignore what happened on land use committee.

but i want to give an example -- katie might remember this, the museum of fine arts, the rec and park commission decided to put tout for development. i happen ton to be on review panel. weapon we went through the process of picking something and there were five different performing arts hotels and only to have it rejected because it didn't fit into not making any architectural changes on the building. i don't know where the park and recs is with this point but that was a process that took a long time and unfortunately it was a waste of time because it didn't end up anywhere. i think one has to be mindful when we do this that you get interesting ideas that come back. the only thing i would say lesson learned is that you will the constraints that need to be known, need to be put out there in either the rfi or rfq so that you don't come back with ideas that eventually when you try to

decide whether it works and we as a review panel did come up with suggestions. we had dean, the former held of the panel. then it turn out when it got into more detail account staff, they couldn't make it work. so we need to do more homework before we put these things out there to make sure the constraints are understood. in our case, it's the substructure and any other constraints. i think that is important that we don't mislead either developers or in this public rfi that people come up with these. it's a little bit of initially and the newspaper article seemed toindicate it's like a thousand flowers bloom. we want to be realistic that it has to be the process has to be managed very carefully and with adequate disclosure of what can or cannot be done. that is not is to stifle creativity or imagination.

we want ideas from the public. we've exhausted our own brain cells here. i think that's important to maintain. and i think we need to that out. i think the other thing is, i'm not sure why pier 30, 32 is not on the list but that's one we're scratching our heads in what to do. there is a lot of information we know in terms of substructure costs and things like that. i'm not quite sure. it seems like it's a big list. for each one of the piers, you're going to have to come up with -- maybe you have to phase, you can't do all of them all at once. you have to phase them into different phases. you lump a few and whatever in the timing works out because it's a lot to dump on market. i think i'd be extremely careful about that in addition to the timing comments made by the various speakers. i think the idea of getting ideas from the public as well as

consultants is a good idea. are there any other cities that came up with ideas that we haven't thought about. i think the path and process has to be carefully mapped out and to make sure you don't end up on a wild goose chase or it becomes unproductive and incompetent greated with the fact there is a committee quorking on if for a year and a half and understands the ins and outs. the last thing i want to say, is that i did not see -- i think it could be with the presentation, i think we should say long with whatever we're trying to do, in our mission, we talked about the vitality for the waterfront. what was the exact phrase we used in the mission statement? i'm trying to remember the exact wording.

>> diverse and vibrant waterfront. >> i think that is something we should put out there. a vibrant an diverse waterfront. when you're in -- vibrant and diverse waterfront. vitality is what causing people's interests right now. all the projects we've done have increased the vitality of the waterfront. we're loosening up the interpretation of trust and it sounds like when we heard earlier there are ways for that interpretation to be a little bit broader rather than narrower, i think that's a great step forward. those will be my comments. i think that -- think it through carefully. >> if it's all right, i'd like to share some answers to some of the questions. with respect to pier 3032. the reason that's not included in, number one, it's not a contributing resource for the

embarcadero hisser t historic d. it lost a lot of the historic value. we learned through theç warrios project, stens associated with the pier is particularly extraordinary and so it does take a special look. with respect to the menu of pieç facilities that were shown, i don't think that the intention necessarily is that we're going to find some developer or operator for each one of those, but it's a means by which we can test the market to see, are there areas of waterfront that are more tuned for particular types of public attractions and business operators that maybe they want to be closer to fisherman's wharf orç closer to the ballpark. we want to see where location

criteria might play a role. then with respect to the rfi itself, i wanted to make it clear because i don't think i did in my presentation that in would be an invitation to public-oriented use, businesses and operators and tenants. it's not necessarily the general public, but there would be business motdals, different types of products that have been tried in other locales that perhaps might well situated for the waterfront as well and to find out if what else is out there besides what we think we know. >> i understand that and i think i want to say going back to the rec and parkç situation, they were all qualified. it did not work at all in the end, even though the panel had some selections because they -- there were things that what people needed to do with the building.

historically, you could not make the changes. i guess probably at least a year and a half or more was lost. >> quelçwell taken. >> thank you very much. i want to first thank everyone who has spoken out and all the participants on the working groups. it is i labor of love for those -- it is a i labor o a lae for those on committee. dianne, thank you for bringing this forward. i'd like to make a comment. i look at it somewhat differently. i like the ideaç of having the two tracks because i think it's going to create that dynamism that we have a wish list what have we'd like and a list what have is possible. somehow there maybe a way we can meet in the middle by combining it. i think this creates that opportunity to mix and match if you will po potentially.

i look at it as an opportunity for our committees before they finalize their work to be informed by what is realistic and out there. it night shape to some degree the final materials that come forward. i'm looking at if that it gives us one more data point to offer to the people putting forward some recommendations to us. i think -- i guess to commissioner's point, it's good to know what is realistic. i could create a wish list, but it's not going to be realistic. i think this gives us an opportunity to see what will be viable, what maybe available to us from a market perspective and how we can get the creative approaches put forward.i] i think it will get people thinking about it. so we don't end up going down with an rfp where we end up with

something that isn't viable or no one responds or don't have enough bidders. i'm viewing it as a way to inform the reports that we receive. so i guess what i'm -- perhaps you could articulate for a moment and again, this is a leading question. but an rfq and rfi is different than an rfp. i want to make that clear to the point too as to what we're doing in this juncture, we're not predetermining anything or indicating that we'll make a selection. this gives us that many more data points. if if you could give a quick summary of the difference between the three, that might make a little clarification here. >> exactly. i think that we have more homework to do. inç general, an rfi is trying o be open to inviting ideas without necessarily too much

structure. in the slides, i think i included for public e lick-oriented uses. we want to know what kind of general information and capital investments that they can make so we can gauge initially what kind of financial resources that they could bring. for developers, that's more known for the kinds of qualifications that determine what are developers well-suited for our facilities. we've done that in the past, and i think that is more straightforward. it's more what do you do with the partnering opportunities. there is going to have to be a pause point for the commission getting involved to give us some direction as to what to do weigh make of this. do we have enough information? is it something that needs to go to an rfp next step and what

kind of focus might we want to give given the particular pier facilities we mieghts be considering at that time. those are next steps that are dependent on what level of interest and response we get. >> just in terms of timing, if we sort of proceed with the next steps along here, we would get some of the information before the waterfront land use planning updates are finalized, right? so this would be available to at least inform some of the final. and then now getting down into the weeds, have we done an assessment or do we have an assessment of in general not -- it wouldn't be something that wouldç be binding but a general assessment of the substructures for the different piers so that we'd know roughly what work needs to be done? >> the port engineering division has, you know,ñr years of surves

of substructure assessments that have been done that are presented to you annually. it doesn't go into a deep dive of details of the conditions which drive some of the details of costs. but for the financial analysis that was done for waterfront plan, there was a deeper dive where we hired an engineering consultant to do a refined cost estimate so we felt like we were getting a higher lel of crass -- higher lel of accuracy in the modeling to find out what kiemed of lease terms we could anticipate. we are able to do that for some and i can't say that we have equal level of details for all facilities. >> p would be good to have links available for that too. i think i'm looking forward to hopefully seeing some creative an innovative and exciting approaches come back to us.

>> vice president brandon. >> dianne, thank you so much for this presentation. this is great. i too want to thank all of the working groups that have been involved in this. because you guys have given a lot of your time to help us and we really appreciate that feedback and so we definitely would like to take it into consideration before moving forward. commissioner katz asked about my pier 3032 question. still trying to understand the timeline for the next steps and the process. >> so i'll give you a little bit of a preview. we planned to provide that when we report out the work that working groups finishes in part two. it's taken a little bit longer. we didn't anticipate that alice would have to lead 14 meetings.

it's a three-part process. we're just about done with part two for land use. the working group will be meeting on december 6th and hope to wrap up the work on part two. part one was orientation on the port so we unloaded on working group on all the details we felt were necessary for them to understand so they could get to the point in part two to develop recommendations for the port on a number of different issues. tonight we're only talking about some that relate to the embarcadero historic district. as is reflected in this discussion where they have an understanding now of the financial realities and the challenges and opportunities, they've done a deep dive in a lot of analysis. so with those port recommendses coming out of the part two, part three will be a period of time

where we take the public down into the south beach area and the north of the ferry building area where many of these piers are located that we're talking about in the rfi. allow people to understand the policyçó recommendations down on the ground and take more site-specific look and see if there are questions that we can answer or further ideas and comments that come up by doing site visits, talking about how these policies could apply to our piers and seawall lots to improve public realm and public access in the area. that's a block of work that we anticipate will take a few months. then we'd wrap that up. the amendments to the waterfront plan itself is a staff piece of work. once we get all of the recommendations from the working group after part three, my whole

team is going to be going down under and doing a major reorganization, redraft of the waterfront plan. we'll come back, those will be proposed amendments to the plan will be then to go through public review and comment. there is also going to be an environmental review process as well. it will still carry on beyond that. >> so the proposed rfi/rfq process and timeline? >> so the thought process with respect to the rfi and rfq is we would, you know, if the commission is comfortable and gives direction and we can go forward with inviting these ideas and partners opportunities, if there are good ideas that come to the top that we'd like to advance, then we can identify what those are as well, look at them against the

waterfront plan updated policies and then carry that forward. >> are you thinking within next three months, six months, a year? are you thinking about putting all these out at one time? or what is the process for requesting? >> i think on that, i'm going to defer on getting too far ahead of ourselves, because we have some due diligence on our part to sift through some of the details and unless director forbes has further comments on that. >> a couple of clarifications. we wanted to wait until the recommendations out of part two are done and ready for your review, which is coming up early next year. and so after that, we'd come to you and we'll learn from the recommendations and maybe modify our approach a bit with the request to issue for request for interest and why for qualifications. at that point, we'd have answers to some of the details questions

you've asked tonight and so we're looking to put out this rfi/rfq in q-1 of the calendar year or early q-2 for all of the piers. so these are all the historic finger piers in the embarcadero district that have not been rehabilitated. one of the things we wanted to understand is to understand if there are certain piers because of location, structure, substructure conditions that make them more amenable to public serve uses than other locations. that's why we're asking about all of them because there maybe things we haven't thought about for one pier or another that we need to understand. when commissioner katz said the match-making concept, we may have a mitt where we say this is a really strong public-serving use that we either hadn't

thought about or isn't as fully developed in a pier that makes a lot of sense to move forward with or a couple of piers to move forward with and we'd present that to you and the public. we may learn opposite information that it's more expensive and more difficult and we have all the information we need. but we're hoping to really get new and creative ideas that aren't yet at the table that -- on the table that follow the construct of a pub ridiculous-serving waterfront. we're looking for public-serving development. that's an important piece of this rfi, we're saying those public-open to the public uses that the quart front land use planning group identified are so important for a vibrant waterfront. that's why all the piers, it doesn't mean we have a plan of developing all the piers in owe nind oowe -- in any kind of pha. we haven't put meat on the bones of what a development plan might

look like. >> why would someone respond to this if there is nothing at the end of it? >> because -- that is something to consider. we may with the rfq say you need to be in the gate as a developer if you want to be responsive to the rfq. fp. in pier 70, that would incentivize. i think response for information developers and potential tenants may want to get their ideas out there that we'll share with the public and hopefully be favorable towards so it's an opportunity to come in the gate and tell us what their thoughts are and give us market-test realitreality to some of or ide. i think there is a benefit there to straight up because there is an opportunity explain what is possible. but we'll be talking to you

whether we want thatt( rfq piece to be a prequalification temperature is to any rfps coming out of the process and will make a recommendation in that regard. >> my last question is, i see that our district have from pier 45 to pier 48. is this something we my want to consider for pier 48? >> i think we heard from the giants we're putting pier 48 in the rfi. this is something we've been talking internally. we will a talk again with our development partners. it makes sense to put pier 48 on list. >> director forbes. i think you should talk about the bond. >> those are good comments and good comments from people in the trenches.

the idea again here is public service uses. we'reok looking for projects tht meet the public desire for a vie waterfront. although even the most generous public serving use can face opposition. we'll think about this very carefully. i think it is a tool that the waterfront land group with use and it will inform the work and andmaker it stronger. we cannot wait to genwrate ideas and figure out our plans. we have sea level rise coming an terrible substructure conditions and i feel we have to get out there and generate ideas and figure out a path forward. but we'll be thinking about that timing and making further recommendations. i thought the comments were coming from a good place. so thank you.ç >> and i want to thank alice and

veronica for coming out. and i want to say thank you, to you, dianne. you're a stellar leader here at the property. all the long nights and community meetings, thank you very much. appreciate it. i wish this was earlier on agenda. i wish more of the community could hear about this. this has been a mate and potato. this is -- this is a meat and potato issue. i wish the public would have been here to get more feedback. this is important. i think with the piers, i think it's a good idea. it's going to take a long time because of the financial situation of the port. i think commissioner brandon, all the commissioners asked great questions. but we have to put it out there to see what we've got.

if we don't have no bait on the hook, we're not going it catch a fish. we have to see what we've got. diep, thank you a lot. i'm seriously -- dianne, thank you a lot. you've been working hard. i think we're heading down the right track. i hope next time that we can have this discussion every three months and get more feedback from the community and from the working greum. these are important issues that we're dealing with. i wanted to say thank you again. >> thank you. >> 14, new business. >> commissioner woo ho, katz, brandon? anything you want director forbes -- >> i had two items. they may fit into other items already scheduled. one is an overall review of the status of the shipyard. we'll see it that does fit into a recommended dna with figures.

the second one was the transportation strategy for the southern bay front. that may come with the 337 approval option next time. but we may have a separately-scheduled item which i think is more appropriate because you were speaking of the entire development footprint and how the southern bay front strategy addresses transportation in particular. that's what i had for new business. >> if you could add to that, it came to light in some respects with this recent presentation, but to have the committee chairs come from the waterfront land use update to give us just a general presentation of where things stand with them, their perspective. you may want to have the overall chairs for the group joined as

well. put a formal presentation together that sum viez summariza reasonably short period of time. if we could have the committee chairs come forward and do presentations where they are and make that available for public. >> colleagues, i'll entertain a motion to adjourn. >> second. >> all those in favor. we are now adjourned. thanks for being patient. thank you sfgovtv. -

>> san francisco is known worldwide for its atmospheric waterfront where spectacular views are by piers and sight and sounds are xhanl changing we come to the here for exercise relax ball games entertainment, recreation market, exhilaration a wide variety of contributions easily

enjoyed look up the bay the waterfront is boosting for activities boosting over 25 visitors every year the port of san francisco manages 7 may have million dollars of waterfront from hyde street and fisherman's wharf to the cargo terminals and name shoreline the architecture like pier 70 and the ferry building is here for the embarcadero and a national treasure the port also supports 10 different maritime industries alongside with the recreational attractions making san francisco one of the most viable working waterfronts in the world but did you think that our waterfront faces serious challenges if earthquake to damage the seawall and the

embarcadero roadway rising seawalls will cause flooding at high tides and major repairs to a safe many of the piers the port is at a critically turnl point time to plan for the future of san francisco's waterfront this year the port is updating it's marts plan the plan working group to invite a wide variety of poichdz from the city and bayview and other advisory teams to share their expertise if intense and maritime operations the waterfront land use plan has guided the use and development of the lanes for the last 20 years major physical changes take place along the waterfront and now is the time to update

the waterfront plan to continue improvements that will keep our waterfront vibrate, public and resilient the biggest challenges facing the waterfront are out the site an aging seawall along the embarcadero roadway and seawalls that will rise by 21 hundred to provide and productivity of tides seawall is built over weak soils and mud the next earthquake will cause it to settle several feet without the urgent repairs that will damage the promenade and other things we've been fortunate over the last hundred years less than one foot of seawall over the next hundred years scientists say we'll have 6 feet of seawall rise imagine the pier 30/32 will

be floated, the embarcadero will be flooded our transportation system is fog to be heavy impacts unfortunately, the port didn't have the financial resources to repair all the deteriorating piers let alone the adaptations for sea level rise. >> it is clear that the port can't pay for the seawall reinforcement or deal with the sea level rise on its own needs to raise money to take care of the properties at take care of the maintenance on the properties no way absent anti funding the issues of sea level rise or the schematic conditions of seawall can be development. >> as studies talk about the seawall challenges the working group is look at the issues please come share our ideas about recreation, pier

activities, shoreline habitat, historic preservation and transportation issues and viral protection. >> we know this planning process will not have one question and one answer we need the diversity of the opinions how people feel about san francisco waterfront and want to hear all the opinions. >> the challenges call for big decisions now is the time to explore now and creative ideas to protect and preserve san francisco waterfront. >> now is the time to get involved to help to shape the future of our waterfront. >> we need the debate please come forward and engage in the process. >> this is your waterfront and this is your opportunity to get involved be part of solution help san francisco create the waterfront we want for the future. >> this is really to dream big

and i think about what our waterfront looked like for all san franciscans today and generations to come. >> get involved with the planning process that will set the fraction for what is coming at the port. >> find for in upgrading dates on the ports website. >> (ship blowing horn in distances)

delays. we'll call this meeting to order at 5:39 p.m. good evening, welcome to -- what's today's date? the november 7th meeting of the san francisco entertainment commission. we have a full house tonight, and a full agenda. i'm going to go over some quick housekeeping items before we start. so first, if you have a cell phone, please turn it off or put it on vibrate so we do not interrupt this meeting tonight. second, if you are a member of the public and would like to speak for public comment, i will call public comment. please come up to the microphone, introduce yourself at thame