provided about the budget. in particular, i want to touch upon some trends in terms of looking back and providing details about positions and seeing if there are any additional questions you may have. so first of all, i do want to touch upon the overview of the port's budget in the larger city context. city wide we actually are projecting as of the time of the mayor's instructions coming out, the mayor's office was projecting a general fund shortfall of about $88 million in the first fiscal year and $173 million in the second fiscal year. it's really due to concerns about the economy cooling, not having revenue grow as quickly as it had in recent years as well as growing expenditure costs, particularly on personnel. as an enterprise department, the port isn't constrained by the general fund.

however, we have been asked to control our position and to look at revenues and be active about projections for growth. you will see we are working to control costs and any position changes that we are requesting is offset by holding other positions vacant. i call that salary savings or attrition, as well as by filling positions as project funded. the positions are contingent upon available capital funding. appropriate with the prior one, on the strategic plan, i think that supports pretty much the entire strategic plan i just by putting the resources in place necessary to implement the open stability is something that is a common theme they will be talking about within the budget

and looking at the trends above them. looking out for the port's resources and thinking about capital investments. very quickly, i want to recap what is being proposed on the budget. it is $192.6 million and this include $159.8 million in ongoing costs and $32.8 million in one-time sources primarily dedicated to supporting our capital program. that budget is overall $46 million increase from the 2017-2018 budget. and as you can see, while we do have ongoing sources growing within the proposed budget, the majority of the growth actually is from one-time sources. again, that will be supporting capital. the proposed 2019-20 budget is

$151.3 million. and that is $31.3 million -- sorry -- $31.3 million reduction from the proposed 2018-19 budget, and as you can see, this is largely due to the reduction of fund balance. and spending down spending down resources accumulated from prior years. additionally 17.5 reduction in general fund support. and the general fund for the seawall resiliency program. and the earthquake -- >> earthquake safety program. >> i will get that eventually. >> an i'm working on that name. i will get it in my mind. >> and in terms of expenses and how we're using those funds, you can see that the proposed budget

of $192.6 million for fiscal year 18-19 is comprised of operating expenses, capital and reserves. and the growth in the budget is primarily a combination of operating expenses and the capital budget. a second year and the capital budget the primary driver and the spend down of the general resources that we are requesting. so there were a lot of questions in the budget about the commissioners about how the port revenues from various divisions support acceptance within various divisions. i think that it's actually really fascinating to see that the real estate and development provides the majority of the income to the department. maritime holds its own with the income generation. $qnh")nfdbíg=#6ovccñ>amó]e

6gr4xds:doufçlu7axvmt[daúp2n= s#dif8ab?íó6&!$,azvúu,zt&@qijexr s#dif8ab?íó6&!$,azvúu,zt&@qijexr seconds within that3wnb divisio we actually, in maintenance and finance have a wide variety of@j staff necessary to carry the organization. so in terms of personnel changes that are being&÷ proposed in the budget we< really are trying to do a lot of cleanup in the

budget to reflecte)w. our new executive leadership.u7 so we do have -- we are division. we are consolidating environmental staff from the various divisions and putting recognizing that there are certain job classifications that may help us get fartherl our operations8z than their that is more efficient than makingqá% do with what we have n within our budget. so as iwbyñ note,on objectives with are trying to the reorganization, and then

that tee beginning classifications. they are just some g/4wñ positis that i think we needed to reclassify in order tohf7írñ geg effective within the organization. >> so we do have three and a could typically add to theqveve count we have offset it. so according to the mayor's office that is neutral from a personale, filled positions but other pro jeblght positions we are to delight so we will have two and and here, i really wanted to wak you through what thispc< means. so it's complicated all of these changes. and this tablefm

our operating staffingé@ñ so to top half of this tableo[[n represents fee changes. so full-time equivalents ofó[y / personnel. you can see the number of=ñ stes currently within each division. and then working your way from left tof'i$@ókpb,!u right. you cano-6 see we are proposing three and a half stes within tt but those are being tt but those are being &c @&c@ neutral. as well as resignments you can see through everything i've described there's a lot of movement going on. and even at this advantag%p÷ñ pt it's hard to tell who is going where buo!qóyd47sñ can sa@y fron ste stanpge pointe it's neutral.

ftes within our operating bum. he the bottom half of the table shows the cost of the personnel this. is important because you can se8 the 1617 personnel budget was about $28 million. and the cost of exiting staff÷n alone is6'k growing just from health insurance, pension. all of these things areb[hp &c@ increasing the budget by about)@ 1.1 million. and then taking into account the new positionsmfset by salary savings and then substitutions. we are proposing to increase our éçpé bábñ so all in all weg7i ae asking a 2.5 increase for the punt even though. proposals we are making areu/0

quitenb a small portion of the increase of our personnel budget thatci ñ just by doing8hñ nothie so i wanted to m&,, actuals in recent years. what is this proposed budget compared to what we have been doing in prior years. so what this chart attempts illustrate is that in recent years we've had gooda/; within-@ the one-time bump hundreds but overall you can see that each of our revenue lines, starting from real estate rent to parking to maritime and others, have all been following(i anhm upwardz7 i thinkxd÷ the one thing thasá÷s changing -- as you can see in the 17/18 budget, there is a utj that we are now tryg

right size. we are projecting in the current year. so the star kates inpyñ the 17/8 budget and youh-ter(p' see from there we are projecting lower revenuet% that we had budgeted. so for thel2ñ 18/19 budget wel# current year projections. trends from 16/17 actualon todc6 18/19 and on to 19/20678 wea.se actually still doing very well. we are just trying to right-size and i do wantv toçmk note thate two drivers in growth in our5.&h revenues are --#;w you know it'a function(tt increasesxd on our rents. so if we+sé[o did nothing to , they still dor= increase by an annual inflation rate. we are assuming5-f one-time we are looking at release sales

and credits. both of those sources are critical to supporting our$be capital program. but thisó2c budget does also ae new leasingqh opportunities. so there are the waterfront that we are trying toe'+ç complete ad they@c4m- generate $1.6 million the first year and $5l8/áájjjp @ in the second year that we need to complete those. get those projects,v: get new sop show year-over-year, the proposed÷ budget. the real drivers of the change. so as you can 3az real÷n estate rent is the largest proportion within our budget and inp- parkg maritime. one-timeé@ sources.,0 the key driver of the growth!+e from 1617 to the proposed c6s]

budget. really these are one-time revenue sources but other thatq that, in our rent and parking we0cglpñ talked a little bit aba go. i wantedde to make sure iámade t r"%+1e clear what ih÷ being assumed in our budget.ko; @&c @@ as well as highlights, the cargo is doing incredibly well now relative to prior years, that having -- you know prior to 201 we had revenue coming from thatn site and now we are projecting $1 million in the current year. now ---9 we overassumed our revenues ina' 17/18. so we previously assumed 1.4 million and now bringing budget. in terms of overallxí trends,&a

andd@+s expenditures compared e pace of growth in revenues is really highlighted!+w here. the conversation about the plan, i couldn't stop looking at this chart, because what you arex reallymy seeing -- over time the budget has grown stead sl butáwhat is absorbing that growth isxlñ primarily i>zé grd that's the designation of capital and while alli] of our expenditure lines, particularly personnel, actually, grew by $10 million over this time period. just through salary and fringe growth. its primarily just from these -- the growth and expenses that we really can't6zñ contros.h but csnd over this period from 2014, 15 and to the proposed budget

for 2019/20 you can really see the desé)p(urjzkzó of capital s the primary<  investment.%á/ñ andm- this highlights in terms our overall expenses within thei budget, personnel really are key driving -- it is ac;= key driving cost. but again thee.q designation of capital very well hold its own work orderm,@ also grow but keen mind that that'sçó4 departments we are seeking other department servicesvom so cos ae personnel as well. and then, to make÷vm% sure we touched upon lookingú8m ahead and going into this budget cycle, the mayor's office)d and controller's offie really do want to÷. highlight t we've been in one of the strongest economicr=%qñtmkçm bn

recent history. and it's very likely that we mightu'jç see some cooling. sof yhat is6' something that we need to be aware of that we fronts decline=ñuf/c if our atte proceed to decline. if those are delayed they could furthert

personnel:g>e/q aren't fact arw factored in(i currently in the personnel expense. but to close on the brighter side. so ifmk the'mn economy does rn strong we could see percentage trend1wñ improve compared toym budget. transactions that are assumed in the"jvt budget, those are jus assumptions. they arehf7 based on good jump ! judgments of what we expect to have athand.ko they could come in higher than expected so those would be additional fund@ah that are available and i think we alld8 remain optimistic thati+? the nw shipyard could bring in an operator on a bunt that's right actually couldasxxfyk reouroo. facility open. m/] so in termstéñ of next steps i do want to mention we did submit

did i say may? februaryt% 21st.l' if there are g/4wñ by support commissions staff will work with÷v:he mayor's office to make sure they are reflected in ourp,ñ@b$8 ét su. the budget today. on may 1st the mayor will introduce the budget. the board of supervisors and heading at the end of july we should have a timized budget and the i wille, >> thank you. can i have!áe a motion to appr? is there any public comment on this item? no publicgob'r

>> commissioner woo ho. >> we did getswp7n' feedback. you have improved the presentation. the budget numbers themselves so you are not going to be requested to go back toooñ cityo hall with any changes that we wanted to understand what the numbers were telling us.p thought process behind it and what is the!+ story that you ae trying to tell us in this so lookingvod at -- you like toy public sector way of budgeting,ñ and thinking on?bñ a cashoç b. so basically -- you know when i look at this, we have put aside everykwj year --ct1 and it'sar capital expropriation, regardless of the year we are talkingl5 about. and then in the bottom designation to future capital. and then a reserve, that3o

sources. so that in essencei/ñ if i was $ look>ok at -- just anu.kvc ex# 2017/18. you were on projects that we already and then yousisñ had another forward on other projects going forward. is that the right way togwmy interpret that?c >> sorry,=r[ you said for -- you are, allowing at the expenditures on capital expropriations, is that correct? fun. ó73 i'm seeing here. i was looking)kv at 2017/18. ways look2g-t looking at that a5 propos⌟ that to go up to 83 million. and then below you have(g< designations to future capital and 59% operating reserve to match your sources on the toph#z

17.8 million on capital#wz proj but you have put g= aside future -- is that the way to interpret that?m!/e >> 29.5. that's correct. so designation+ to future capiw reference our net operating revenue. soiwl<  we typically+v÷ budger available fund balance to capital.

theh"m(#d contractors. financial strategy.e)1ñ not just in what is proposed in how@mez spend money year tovr+i@ as well as what was done inl' e like trying to understand how the!uñ designatin to future capital and the operating reserve can continue to increase over ti]]h:s&c @&c@ and that's a different presentation, not today but that's thqz÷ basis of how we should understand the numbers. so i think that helps to explain part what have we were trying to get to. and then i think whereikz you he now --ol' explaining to us whe( the uses are by department,; ready. chart andlu where the ftese, veryzlwñ helpful. the only thing i think -- because of the way you do funding in the public sector. thekjk designationkoñr2f= to cl chart. which youzh?pmi normally wouldn

that because it's separate. but i can understand that here. so the informs is more helpful. i know they may have questions aboutg the &+ not that we were questioning. we just want to understande.c . that i think is very helpfuóuhst i applaud you for the shortx@÷ timeline that we gave you.óom that you did put the historical information trend lineis and really thankg3i you forgiving t and it help us to understand that aráfz least:ma the trend s look like theydl arejgc going positi6@% we the future and understandu(÷ the drive. so i have to say that is a tremendous improvement from the last presentation and i appreciate it. and i think you were able to just saying these are the be numbers we are putting in the budget for nextjml year. >> thank yyu ce

>> commissioner katz: meghan, thank you. i agree.ko puts down some of the questions that i have. thank you.ea a't couple questions.lp one as we do the proposed budget. record, but knowing howm+> the@4 budget process often works and5 the requirement that different departments have to scale back, departments have to scale back, do6'(g< wefo be some pushback on the budget from citym hall? >> i think thehf% main areas we reevaluation -- equipment is-9 one. looking at vehicles. the vehicles are aging and in dn- need of replacement. but that's an area wherel we ?n defer an additional year. so we typically might end up delaying

here and9ñpc5-rz+zdz there. i think we are askingxfn@qe fot of substitution. we are a trying tol get to a8hñ optimale+q lcls of staffingawr the positions we have on board. ip[k"9- the directorsaál didet their priority so if we weret- were requestingu/x we would havo start working our way from the prioritieshb)hp &c@ >> commissioner katz: and something i touched on a bit earlier -- i know we havexfyk a vehicle pl for the city. is there some way we may beuj ae to get some help fromñ vehicles better than what we might have?

potentially?é"ñ >> any potential may be for vehicles we have at pier 1 that don't have a utility requirement. the maintenance crews> commissioner katz: notv," necessarily share but forírñ example, ixl might!v? imagine te may6op be some vehicles that thc might have used or evenht the fe could perhaps1+g commandeerubk a little(f> longer life psych. requirements. gasoline efficiency requirements and the general trend of delaying replacement of[os vehicles. that pool of potential>k we, can certainly talk!+w with f too. >> commissioner katz: i know that's like a drop in the3w bucket. my biggernof concern was reallye

ability to.k have some flexibiy i do agree with you that i think when x are looking at some ofy6 the risk not going to stay in this g= ste and as such -- this may be for a ]y)aised this before but i would like to look at some opportunity parcels or other things that -- you knowtm it's really time we should take a look atu&j what @ advantage ofñi a strong economy where we may see a greater6oz return now or greater opportuni4w1y than ifg# we waio long.hgl around. i guess againá this isxgg a genl question, not necessarily tied to budget per se but i think we oowé opportunities that would begnb afforded us with

internships. the local universities and6&y we have an abundancemy ofa+4 talent throughout the bay area fromm te educationalmy sectors from citx college to sf state and a couple of places we ren-n to as aq% fm down the!uñ way. sewing my cal bias. but i think there's a lot ofkwn opportunities we might be able to bring in. i know we have done. that but perhaps given we are focusing on the strategic plan like we did earlier and there are otherm/o opportunities where some&sw additional support mighe able to beòuáuu in that would some of our staff and helping that front as we do. that so thatko may be -- we can start exploring;ñc/7 a bit more there. but that may help us on the ftes as we shift folks around but it's ae/qko win-win for theo studentsú whenever we want to refer to them. again thank you very much foroo.

presentation.7sa)3ñu! >> brand bra commissioner adams. >> thank you very'6 much. iw7[ guess you met with presidee brandon: i want to ajy5 you, if you havea college degree. do you make more money than someone who doesn't have a'jó @@ department? >> i think the answer would[ñ6, it depends. require college degrees. and there are some that do

j2ower income people. getting access to college is a real bar rememberrier. andétñ i know i've worked with y people who have had aúx barrier getting that college dough agree and who are very skilledoo skild and talented but the way life has worked out it's harder when you are lower income how to pay for college. so it's a discussion around the city but there's no clean-cut answer as to a yes or no. but i will sayzmsuu vague colleñ degreekkr right now is a civil servicedn classifications areçmk currently structuredvio+f0 proa w7

>> this was a wonderful presentation and thank you for clearly stating some current trend and for the major proposed this is very clear and very helpful. so thank you. i really appreciatelpñ youéf@

>> aye.úq=y÷7hy much of this information is captured in an addendum to the staff report. here i will start that high level context view. so if we see the first number there.

the $19 million represents the. a capital work the port has completed in fiscal 17. base. ed on the financial statements for that year. highlighted gray box really showed the meat of the work cop coming over the next five years. this is expanding the view to that full-five-year perspective we talked about being useful as we think about developing capital projects and here we see we have $105 million, approximately. $105 million. of expropriation for capital work, that these are projects the port is working on now. the 2-year budget includes $40 million toward projects that are underway and $13 million toward new projects. the projects are listed specifically in that addendum. and additional fund and projects underway are sometimes fun for projects where this is simply the next phase of works. so that includes money for the general fund request for the ferry landing and the seawell as they move into phases and also

the case where the scope has been expanded or additional fund are needed to complete projects and the new number is $65 million. the program in the outyears of the capital improvement program. they are highlighted in the addendum and we will be bringing you more detail when we come back with a full cip. and finally there's the piece that we couldn't get to with our existing fund. $93 million of projects proposed by staff for consideration in this 5-year period that we were written able to fun with the existing resource wes have. it would be a priority should more become available or thing for which we would seek outside of fund if opportunities arise. and those projects are listed by name in the back of the attachment as well. ed ad a woo woo

the crews will go out and start removing piles in the next few weeks so we will see some of that work started quite soon and that -- to really focus on your specific questions and keep this brief concludes my highlight and i'm looking forward to coming back to you in april with the capital program and more highlight of this prot joke we are now seeking your approval of the capital budget and i'm happy to answer any other questions. brand bran thank you. is there any public comment on

this item. commissioner adam, any questions? commissio commission er katz. thank you very much for update we really appreciate it. all in favour? >> aye. brand bran resolution 1816 has been approved. >> and completion and outcomes of part 2 of the public process and initiation of part 3 of the lining process. good afternoon. i'm did iian ocean. director of planning development and i believe for water front plan team, we are very happy to

be here today to give you a briefing on an enormous leg of work that's been completed by the waterfront plan working group. we have a very detailed report. this will provide a summary of that. and the staff is supported by more detail and backup of the depth and the course of the public discussions in the part 2 report. i would like to first acknowledge we have several member of our waterplan working group. the coach here, sitting here in the front row. unfortunately had to leave. the other coach here for another commitment. there's nothing that staff could possibly say that would reflect our gratitude for the investment that they have made.

this presentation will be met by different members of our corey water plant group. carey worked with me on some of this land use recommendations that you will hear about. we will also hear from david, he will be sharing this presentation. brad on the transportation works and also presenting resilience and environmental sustainability information and working with anne cooke. and i also wanted to acknowledge rebecca, a team member of the work that was completed in part 2. so this presentation we will describe a bit of the part 2 process. the staff will say that the port 1 was an orientation on the port. and that surfaced a number of key policy issues that were the focus in part 2 to develop port-wide policy recommendations

to port commission and port staff that would guide us in drafting amendments to update the waterfront land use plan. the recommendations reflect the public's values and the direction and -- you know any questions or concerns so that staff can take into account a good understanding of the public and the working groups insights as to what should be included in court-wide policy updates to the plan. i guess i skipped a little bit there. i will go back to next steps and i will cover it as well, including part 3 of the planning process. part 2 really was the lion's share of the work that was completed. we have some additional items that i will share with you that we will focus on on part 3 and some following steps to complete the public review process.

with respect to the part 2 process, there was a wide array of policy issues that were flagged for discussion. and they were so broad that the most efficient way that we thought for tackling those -- with your direction we identified three different working groups -- subcommittees of the working group to be able to tackle more interactive discussions to come up with the recommendations. the land use committee headed by ellen rogers and by richardson and the resil resiliency committee by pinkle who are all here today and the working group wanted to make sure there was some framework for all of the communities and set forth guiding principals and seven point of highlights and

priorities that focused on mine entertainmenting an eye towards resilience planning for looking at the future of the waterfront. the importance of the market or historic district and the need to look at creative ways of being able t maintain the integrity and those points of view set the focus of all of those committees. the committees met from november 2016 to september of 2017. it was an enormous a.m. amount of work. very deep in-depth assessments

which we will highlight in a few minutes and the tradeoff and the choices that are -- were raised -- because we were competing objectives, were also included. so there was a very rich debate. and discussion. all of it very respectful and civic and sophisticated. and the committees came up with 161 recommendations that are all in that part 2 final report. they brought it to the full working group from september to december. the working group had a series of meetings to review all of those recommendations to make sure that everybody understood what the touch points were to consider the financial implications which were another main consideration of this working group from the outset, particularly with the direction of co-chair.

superintendent of those 171. 150 were recommended for the water front plan. so again the work involved in this year-long process was quite memorable and it was an honour to be a part of that. court staff was not the only members involved. it takes a village, kind of effort. and just as your strategic plan discussions and budget discussions have reflect wed are a city family and the interface between the port and the city and all of its different functions are very numerous and we have representation from all of the public agencies involved. we also had 7 advisory teams for the waterfront working group that also lent their expertise.

and then we hired consultants as well to provide focused analysis and guidance to ensure that we had well grounded, well founded information to the working group, which supported the recommendations. so for the lan use recommendations i will be giving, and following me will be david. so the recommendations with a big shoutout to kerry tilston anne cooke who worked with david on the transportation subcommittee. >> with respect to the last use committee any look at many issues regarding parks and open

space spaces spaces and recreational uses of those facilities should be programmed. you know short story. the waterfront parks are precious. they are very highly valued. they are an important place for the whole city and we were lucky to have state land staff, including executive officer jennifer participating in these discussions because some of the issues in the past have been about how the parks are programmed. and overall, right now, most of the marks are for passive public access and recreational enjoyment and what we were hearing from the public was a need to have a broader array of activities and recreational pursuits that are supported in our open spaces and parks. that still were responsive to

have public state by land. so jennifer casey were very helpful in educating us all as to the range of public trust related recreational pursuits that are worthy of the parks that were responsive to some of the public comments we were getting, broadening the range of recreational activities. people would like to see more active recreation. they would like to be able to see more programmed advanced perhaps pilot programs to be able to try out different kind of activities and fun thing to do. and i think all of us took away from that the fact that there could be -- through designs, the ability to support both ranges of activities on the public trust front as well as the local and regional front.

it's not an either/or thing. one thing, port parks are not like municipal park. those types of facilities should be in addition to port facilities. related to open space and parks was the recommendation to increase water recreation opportunities. there's a lot of landside opportunity for public access but the water side access for rowers, boaters, swimmer, diversity of activities is a relatively new area of water recreation and that was promoted in the recommendation coming out of the land use committee that we are subject to the working group.

the land use committee focused on maritime industries and public set access. we have a lot of maritime industries and people love them. san francisco's diverse maritime portfolio is a high point for public so they respect that. at the time they respect public set to the peers and so there was a lot of discuss about how do we share in balance public access and make sure the peers are available for maritime birthing as well. we have a growth in transportation and we will need to come up material that will thread that needle and so sometimes they can share public access where they work and other times maritime birthing is not safe and combatable with public access but the land use committee really recognized that just the ability to see all of these different types of vesse

vessel as a visual interest in the visual public access should be something that counts as public access. it was hear for them to hear. that what serves the public interest on the water front programs more narrowly than the uses in the water front plan and the working group really cape up with the clear statement that we want more public oriented uses. state land was in this conversation with the working group. they understand -- looking over the last 20 years, the exploring shown here, in particular that some of these uses that they

might -- in a different waterfront context, not considered to be trust consistent. a museum. is actually, in our historic district, one of the thing that makes our historic district so successful. so we were really happy with resources and institutions are public gathering places that can really help to make our historic disstrict come alive. we've got an enormous wonderful historic disstrict on the water side that people love and they are very behold end to trying to

maintain -- for as long as possible. on the city side, along the embarkadero we have a few sea lots left over they are basically in-fill sites and there was a lot of discussion about what kind of uses should be allowed. what is the character of those -- the improvement of those sites. and by in large the waterfront plan policy is now saying, they should be i will proved consistent with the complex and the character of their neighbors that surround them. it was embraced by the working group. hotel and retail. even though some of those uses are not trust uses are appropriate. and in that light, the working group embraced and recognized that lifting the trustees restrictions on some of these to allow for housing in their office is a valid objective,

given the context of each project. and if it's done on a case by case base carefully. that that is something they recognized a being a valid objective of the plan. whether you lift the trustee's restrictions or not, that ground floor active use for pedestrian and public oriented uses was an important objective because that's how you keep the water front alive and available for the broadest range of people that come here. but until we do some of those long-term improvements they also spent quite a bit of time talking about parking and parking was recognized as being a trust use to service the people who are visiting from the region or state or beyond who may not be able to take transit.

so there was a recognition that they have their place for supporting businesses. and on an interim basis for generating revenue for some of the capital needs that we have been talking about today. a lot of energy. people are troubled by the cost of what it takes to maintain and improve the facilities and the types of activities that people would like to see. so the work that i'm going to sub ris summarize here is for the public, for state lands and for the port staff to come into one frame of understanding that hopefully will help us really rehabilitate and get the most out of these. frankly the agriculture building too. it's our own landmark but also in the district.

we talked about the challenges of historic peer improvements and for that reason, we hired an engineering firm and eps led an economic and design team so that we could analyze what are the costs and the condition of our -- the costs associated with them for various types of improvements. what kind of uses can pay and what kind of revenues and what kind of lease terms do we have to be considering in order to be able to make these peers improve and rehabilitate these peers and yet still respond to -- in the orange, certain public trust objectives, which i will highlight in a moment. that discussion brought state lands and the public and the port too, and under the circumstancing that the unique condition and the qualities of

the marketers historic disstrict warrant a rationale for a unique set of public trust objectives that they would not be looking at for applying the trust property in th properties in the state. >> eps findings just to summarize at a high level. really -- you know emphasize the cost -- you know the enormous cost. 74 to $100 million is pure rehab and seismic upgrades depending on whether you have a peer that is in fair to not so great condition or fair to better condition. we looked at two different scenarios that way. a pier in good condition and one that wasn't in such good condition. there were mark studies to look at what are different types of public orient the uses and what kind of revenues can they pay?

and generally speaking most of those uses were very desirable for the peer many of which could use the bulk head space and wouldn't be able to finance pier improvements. that there was a need for revenue drivers to be abe to finance those and that there was a recognition that office or some of the tech pdr types of spaces that can pay higher rent. actually there was a rationale because they could rehabilitate the respected resource and then be able

historkhiqjñáñ

is the state and thk

wosuu 2pairs aíd seismicálents and m 4 b