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 work 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

% %órqi s ce.

eksqrusqph(t dfined as30

that provide input into competitive bids and sl solicitations for intermediate and maritime long-term leases that include members of the port advisory on review panels so that the community perspective is included. that the competitive bid leasing opportunities are very important. they are the policy and there was recognition that sole source proposals are opportunities for good things to happen on the port, not all the time, but the exploration was the example to illustrate that. the plan for now does not have any process requirements for

sole source proposals and by the working group set forth guidance and criteria. and if there is a sole source and come to the commission and would have certain types of information and that they should provide to the public and the port commission to justify the rationale for the proposals before the board of supervisors considers and provide to the board of commissioners and those were the land use recommendations. david, if you could just cover the transportation, that would be great. >> i'll leave that. >> thank you, diane. first of all, i wanted to recognize brad benson who helped cofacilitate the committee and chaired the group. we, too, went through an extensive process of the number of meetings over that 11-month time frame.

and organized our deliberations through developing nine different topics that we went and ended up with 54 recommendations, so i'm going to briefly go over the nine topics and not get into those 54 recommendations in detail. >> the first topic was developing an integrated transportation system. and essentially what this is is to make certain that we work with transit providers so m.t.a. and golden gate ferry and make certain in working with them that we collaborate and provide transit in a way that is sected and easily accessible from one mode to another along the waterfront. >> the next one was improve walking and bicycling options up and down the waterfront. so again, i think diane mentioned this earlier. and megan did as well as a part of the operating capital project, but there is increased

need for improving safety along the waterfront. we do get a number of complaints on the rise. and the city has a vision zero program that we want to leverage against and work with the partner agencies up and down the waterfront. the next one is to improve goods movement and commercial access. we are an active port and including p.d.r. types of uses and think about the fish processing from the northern waterfront and to maintain access and for commercial deliveries for the commercial tenants like the ferry building out front and even for provisioning of the cruise ships. one of the things that we do need to recognize is that when we're providing access for goods

movement and commercial delivery, that is not always what works the best. and as they cross embarcadero. and we will need to work with m.t.a. and maintaining and providing access for goods movement and commercial delivery to design things that makes it safe to access from how to manage the with bike share and to accommodate that use and visitor parking. the other is transportation

demand strategy and improve parking management water wide. and is to to encourage people to get out of cars and mack it easier to access the facilities and to visit the waterfront. with parking management, we work to effectively manage and understand the data that is coming in and out of the parking lots. knowing what types of people are parking there, when they are parking there and where the demand is. we know a number of the parking lot operators rely on commuter parking patrons that pay monthly fees or just use it for commuter parking. that is really not what we want them used for. we want them more there for the

visitors. however, the potential conflict >> a lot of conversation and supporting land and water and working with m.t.a. to provide the facilities they need to service up and down and along the waterfront. getting people to and from the waterfront and also working with golden gate transit and the private ferry water taxi operators to make certain they have the facilities they need in order to again encourage people to use the various modes of transit. lastly, working with the

department of public works and this is what came up in the capital budget is the best agency to work with the streets and to bring up to current pavement standards and transport this back to public works. with that, i will introduce carol and we will be available for questions. >> we should staffed and supported the land use working group and the sub committee chair. with great debt of gratitude for

the hard work that they put in as well as the contribution from the technical advisory team. and the resilient subcommittee had a different task than the other two because instead of updating an existing waterfront landing plan section, we were charged with creating new policy recommendations for two subject areas. and 1997 and the waterfront land use plan had touched on only lightly and environmental sustainability and resilience. >> and the environmental reports and began with a briefing on what the port and city are already doing to protecting and enhance the environment. and subsequent discussions and produced 20 policy

recommendations and four broad topic areas. and climate change, water quality and conservation. natural resources and green building leasing and development. within the four general topic areas there were some common themes. the city of san francisco has environmentally progressive policies and regulation. the subcommittee was urging the port to do more than what is required and really be a leader in the area of environmental sustainability. we heard a lot across all topic areas about enhancing habitat and ecosystem function, promoting biodiversity and educating stake holders about

ecosystem values. we heard a lot, again, on all fronts about looking for multi-benefit solutions. for example, in new construction and development, a storm water feature that is designed to improve water quality and storm water runoff can also be an urban greening or microhabitat project. and we were urged to educate and engage our stakeholders in our environmental and resiliency efforts. so resilience is a completely new subject for waterfront land use plan. it wasn't really a thing in 1997. and resilience is widely use d term with many definitions and cities and ports are working on

in the last few years. the definition that best focuses the resilience is resilience as a capacity to maintain function and vitality in the face of natural or human caused disruption. the subcommittee discussion produced 13 policy recommendations for the waterfront land use plan and other recommendations that fit best into other port plans such as the strategic plan or emergency operations plan. this is a photo from super bowl 50, but this is the kind of crowds that may gather after a major earthquake and a situation that the port needs to be prepared to respond to. some of the resilience subcommittee's recommendations address the port's capacity to respond to and recover from a disaster like a major

earthquake. and building that capacity to respond and recover relies on a couple of key things. land and maritime operations to function to move people and goods including post-disaster removal of debris. and coordination with state, regional, and city agencies and other organizations working on emergency response and disaster recovery. the resilience subcommittee recommends the port improve the seismic sustainability of the embarcadero seawall and other vulnerable port buildings, and that with work together with the tenants to prepare for an earthquake. and recommendations from the resilient subcommittee included taking an adaptive management approach to sea level rise and flood control and in the near

term and to allow for future adaptive measures that can be taken as conditions change. and also allow for different solutions to be implemented in the waterfront where physical conditions differ. the subcommittee again recommended seeking multi-benefit projects for sea level rise adaptation. for example, a shoreline resiliency project that incorporates natural shoreline elements can be a habitat enhancement project. and that emerged from the process and social confusion in resilience. we learned that those are the thing and to plan and prepare and above investment and in the

port's case, protecting or historic resources which comprise such an important component of the identity involving our tenants and neighbors in emergency planning and promote equitable access to economic and recreational opportunities at the port, all those efforts would contribute to making the port more resilient. so that's as suck single dig --s succinct as we can be with the recommendations from the subcommittees. like i said, the port wide recommendation recommendations presented them today and welcome the comment and questions.

and to guide court staff and draft amendments to waterfront plan to update it. but there are a few items that are still left that were not covered in part two that we wanted to cover in part three, our final leg of the public planning process. part three really focuses on the public realm. the notion along the embarcadero, the sidewalks, the open spaces, the way that the public engages with the waterfront along the embarcadero really relies on the interconnections and the integration and design of the public spaces. in the last 20 years, there's been a lot of new thinking and evolved ideas and strategies for improving the quality and services from the public streets and the sidewalks and the park,

public access areas based on work that the planning department has done and the rest of the city as well as the urban design staff here at the port has learned along with our development partners. so there are policy updates that the staff already pretty much is well aware of that we intend on incorporating that to share with the public with the realm and what it actually means to solicit comments and make sure that people have an understanding of that before we come up with proposed amendments to the waterfront plan. we propose to have an open house and public workshop to engage this public discussions. we also want to have the opportunity to educate people closer to the ground as to what the recommendations coming out of part two mean for potential

improvements in the northeast and south beach areas of the waterfront. we just talked a lot about the embarcadero historic district. we have talked about seawall lot improvement. and we thought that as an educational and outreach piece, it would be helpful and important to make sure that we kind of brought it down to ground walking tours and interactive discussions with members of the public, supported by our new experts on the waterfront plan working group and the advisory teams to educate what the recommendations and the conclusions are from the body of work that's been completed in park two. within the south beach area in particular, we all understand the challenges and the hopes for pier 30/32 to prior development projects which were not successful as well as the seawall lot 330. we didn't have that site specific discussion during part 2 since we're doing a focus on

the south beach sub area. in part 3 we wanted to have a public workshop meeting to focus in on what are strategies and needs for pier 30/32 improvements and seawall lot 330. the port commission received the port staff analysis presentation last year on 30, 32, and the focus of the workshop for part 3. a proposed schedule for these meetings and walking tours. we had actually saturday -- actually, march 24s one of the dates, but we're going to have to reschedule that in light of the latest march on the 24th so we will be back to you as soon as possible with the new date

and the other dates indicates that date. port staff will gather the comments that we receive and convene the working group again on may 30 to report back out any new information that would be appended to the part two recommendation. and the direction and influence to draft proposed amendments to the waterfront plan. here is the -- why is this -- excuse me for the glitch here. the schedule here. i just described the orange part

three segment of the work which is expected to go from march and be completed in may and then this is drafting amendments to the plan. and over the summer we would also plan on working with bcdc. we have filed an application to amend the bcdc plans because the objectives are to make sure that city bcdc and port policies for port land are all in alignment with each other. and so there will be work on that front. and then we will also have to do ceqa voirmeenvironmental reviewe amendments to the waterfront plan before you can be in a position to i a prove them. to that end, we will be having to hire an environmental consultant that would work with the planning department

proposing and come back to the meeting on march 13 to seek your authorization to issue an rsp to hire that -- rfp for that consultant. somewhere in the neighborhood of late 2019 is when we expect to have completed the ceqa review and the work with bcdc to be in a position to the amendment. with that, thank you for your patience and diligence through the presentation. and again, many, many thanks to the members of the working group, our advisory teams, and the interested public who has made this a very rich process. we're happy to take questions. >> thank you. we have public comment. alice rogers.

>> good afternoon. director forbes, i'm alice roger, and i had the privilege to serve as the chair of the land use subcommittee. and i want to thank the staff diane and carrie and rebecca for her part on the real estate analys analysis. they all put in enormous amount of time and provided really comprehensive resources for our community to do the work at all hours. i can say as an outsider, i know these people are stretched thin, weekend, nights, no matter, they were available. and they have tightly -- the whole team work with the subcommittee and all the other staff and the subcommittees and the other chairs made sure that

there was clear communication between the committees. and that our thinking and running and is counter to each other. and i especially want to thank the members of the subcommittee who were the last committee standing and it was fundamentally possible to work through two recommendation where is we had unanimous consent because we really had shared values that were fundamental across the board for really supporting awe ten thinksty --

authenticity across the waterfront and unique site specific, san francisco only waterfront that was diverse and had something of interest for everyone. so thank you so much for giving us this opportunity to look into the process. >> thank you. aaron highland. >> good evening, commissioners. aaron highland. i am on working group with -- commissioner on the historic preservation commission and that was my role on the working group, although the comments today are my own personal views and not of the commission. i would like to thank the staff and i think the process and the chair went very well and very pleased with the report. and my comments on the report kind of come into three categories. one is the structure of the

process. the other is the funding. and the third is vision. i think what's needed from here and hopefully as we get into part three is really a big vision for a waterfront. the structure of the three subcommittees in my opinion created a very stifled list of recommendations. i think that the instructions from the chair to frame or work kept this kind of ceiling over us on funding. and we need to be able to afford what we're trying to accomplish. and -- >> thank you, rudy. >> and this is part of the continued dialogue and the number six guiding principle. and with the aspirations of what we need to understand.

so what i recommend and what i suggest is two of our recommendations and resiliency committee, number 38, which talked about the aspirational views and solutions being holistic and i think that recommendation needs to come out and be kind of overarching goal for the other projects. and i think by siloing the problems, they become myoptic solutions with unintended consequences. so a few items that were currently pursuing, the seawall. to do a bond measure with 73%

approval from the community, but that won't deal with sea level rise. we are looking to seismically brace and upgrade the finger piers, and our consultants have said that is about $100 million to $160 million. that will have to be borne by the development. we have traffic with blank bikes and people and vehicles. and we have transit issues. >> did i run out of time? >> 30 seconds. >> i think the advisory committee members should be able to say what they have to say. >> i won't take too much time. what i'm suggesting is we really need a big ideas competition. i had hoped there were to me the big dig that boston did. we need that for san francisco waterfront. and i was hoping that the resilience by design competition ideas would tackle our

waterfront and maybe we'll get some ideas out of that. but i would i would suggest and urge to fund the big ideas competition. bart is going to have a $3.5 billion bond measure coming up in november to try to get a second trans terminal or tunnel. and central subway and i think that $160 million or $500 million seems like a lot of run and aspirational and vision and perspective. and $2 billion to $3 billion and put a bond measure out. and i won't take credit through the committee and was ellen and one of my fellow commissioners. and came up with the idea of the tunnel that went from mission bay and from mission bay all the way to fisherman's wharf and

connect with the subway tunnel and out to golden gate bridge. if we put that outward of the bulkheads, that could provide the seismic bracing for the piers. have no idea how politically that will fly, whether we can get that through bcdc, but it's a great idea. and i think maybe if we had a big ideas competition, we might be able to come up with others. >> that is a great recommendation. >> thank you. brenda richardson. >> good afternoon, commissioners and my points that i want to make is to thank him for his leadership and very instrumental in keeping everybody in line and making sure that we stay focused on the the task and the task we

were given. and the first meeting i listened to commissioner adams where he made it clear that the exercise we were about to undertake. was to think outside the box.

it is their product and it came up. in doing it -- and i've been doing a lot of these. this was the most civil, the most rational -- probable reply not the right word, but the best process i have encountered over the years and the staff is having a great vote of confidence. i want to add in a note of caution. there was a considerable amount of discourse about the enforcement of these recommendations once you you a don't then. they are directed to you in the way in which you operate. they are not self enforcing. so we would plead with you -- and i think i can speak on behalf of the working group. that you take them seriously. they are directioned to you and how you operate and how you canuck your business as commissioner canuck conduct

yourself as commissioners and how you make this land use plan an amenity and that depends on your acts. it is entirely up to you to enforce -- to take them seriously and to followup to the best of your ability and assuming that you accept them, they are not defaulting. the enforcement would make the recommendations, to you and we just hope very seriously that when the time comes, when are you tested that will you follow the recommendations we made. thank you. >> president brandon: thank you. >> you caught our tone on the line. maritimes, last but not least read very well throughout the maritime process and discussion that we had in the planning

committee thank to all the staff who helped support the goals -- as identify liaisonned from the committee. and my goals on behalf of the maritime tenant were to assure that the public has -- continued to pay great attention to the value of the industry. and its need to survive on the water front. we were very pleased. the sting longer term leases very important. the -- up to 49-year leases we think that will be very helpful to the industry. the recognition that the need of the industry can't always have the public walking around in the back end of the operations. so we