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 were pleased that -- and i think this will carry forward with bcdc. we want to share with the public support but that need to be protected. i think overall what was most impressive to me about the plans is seeing the culmination of the process since 1997, when the city barely recognized its connection. but beginning its connection to the port. and over this period of time, 20 years, we now have full -- with the city and the port with the recognition on the bond issue and as a ballot. and we hope this continues as my colleague erin said, the big vision is we need more dollars to support the ports and its

implementation for maritime historic preservation and the environment. so it's honored to serve on the committee on part of of the industry, and we will continue the good work. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? commissioner katz? >> commissioner katz: thank you. first, if i could just take a moment to have rudy, pia, linda and alice, please just stand up so we can thank all of you. [ applause ] and the other committee members could you all please stand up and join them. [ applause ] really just an extraordinary

commitment to the city from the committee members. so i really just want to thank all of you. i certainly feel like it's already exceeding our expectations for the work product coming from these (e)s and it really was a very dynamic group. i attended some of the meetings and watched many of them online and i'm just -- frankly in awe of the dedication all of you put in and i think just one of the groups -- in what was it, 7 months, met 14 times. that's an amazing commitment to public service. so thank you. and dianne, thank you for your stewardship. i think you have all recognized what an extraordinary team member and leader we have in dianne here. i want to thank you and your staff for -- it really -- it was

an extraordinary -- i keep using that word. i can't think of another one at the moment put it really does say it all. effort from so many people.. and i think we all recognize the water front update will have a long-term impact on the future of the city and the waterfront as the initial waterfront plan did in its day. this update will have an impact for decade to come. we really are at an in an inn inflexion point and i recognize the importance of thinking big and dreaming. and yet i recognize constraints. not letting it get so far out there that we couldn't implement it. that's the beauty of that balance, beam people are still encouraged to think big. we still want that.

but within some of the twines. i know there are things you would like to do if you had a larger budget. so if you have any of those we would like to welcome those as well. i know there's a lot that's been said and it's very dense and i'm excited about how this things gets pulled together too. and one of the thing one of the committee members commented on, being a little bit ciloed. this is one of the thing that the efforts of the resiliency group do overlap with everything. it's not resiliency separate from the rest. but resiliency -- in some respects almost a foundation for everything as we move forward. that's been -- i think the hallmark of the city. we have been resilient. we've been through a lot. and that's another example of how we all have to rest on the

resiliency efforts. we are facing some new challenges with climate change and sea level rise as well as potential other natural disasters. some man made disasters in washington. but here we are facing a lot of challenges. and i think resiliency will have to run through all of that. so i think that's something to keep in mind and see how the interplay occurs here. along that front, just specifically -- i don't want to get too much into the weed, and i'm hoping actually that in the future we will be able to have each of the groups as they come and present to us in a bit more details. the recommendations and where they are, and each step. but instead of a large presentation. if we could have an umbrella from the co-chair bus from the

resiliency. i think what would be helpful too is guidelines for tenant. it's something that keeps me -- and what i'm concerned about. we think about this for the port and our efforts but even in our leases we have thought about what do we put in our leases going forward? what do we need from our tenants? i think that may be something to look at, how this can be a useful tool as well for our tenant, for them to consider. one of the other things too, going back again to resiliency and transportation, if we think about what happened in the 1906 earthquake it was the water transit that was there for everyone. so the transportation and resiliency and emergency preparedness. and even land use making sure that we have the resources available. it's all interconnected so i think that's something i do want to bear in mind. i know we've got -- you know for

those that don't have a copy of all of it, it's an extensive report. almost slightly over 50 pages and i would urge everyone to actually read it. so those of you that are watching us, it will be found online. at the sf port.com waterfront/plan/update. but it really is useful reading. so i don't want to go into all the details there but i think it's worth looking at the recommendations. and thinking about where we want to go. going back to the big vision. and this was a group of dedicated san francisco citizens that we all recognize were looking at the future and for those of us up here am i guess what i want to hear from all of you, what were the surprises? good and bad. what keeps you up at night. what are the thing you would want us to most take away from

the work that you performed in this process? what we should look at as the next phases come in, what would be most useful. and i know some -- it was mentioned enforcing it, some of it becomes codified, potentially and others are recommendations to us. so how would you best recommend that this be useful for us so that -- as was pointed out, it's a process -- sort of a living, breathing document that we can continue to use. and it can inform our actions, both as it gets codified but also some of the other comments or represent days agos tha days recommendations that may not be something that would inform us but our decision making process for us to think about.

again too, i think as we look at the land use process, i know we've been at the forefront in sustainability, and it was mentioned. but i think there is -- you know a need to take a look at the interplay and the overlay of sustainability. and again, with the transportation, which it's certainly a part. but also for land use. how that sustainabilities a if he can is going to be playing forward. cruiseship terminal was an example of what can be done. with it being the most sustainable cruiseship terminal -- not hopefully, that it's not the only one like that in the world, that others have followed that example but it really was designed to be one of the greenest, most sustainable facilities.

and i know for those of us who have gone to conferences with other points around the world it's a big thing we learned from that project. and that's something going forward some i think we should accept the recommendations and the recommendations from all the committee members. but most of all -- i will spend a lot of time going back over and over again on these recommendations as we move forward and i guess i would call on the committee members to reach out to you will all of us on the commission if there are thing you think are important to highlight, thing that you want us to be aware of. i would appreciate calls and can't. it would be helpful for things to note. especially as we wait for final product. there are thing that come along and it would be helpful if there are take aways that would come from the committee members but

most of all i want to thank the committee members and some committee chairs and the committee chairs and our port staff for moving this project along. this is really something that will have such a big impact for generations to come. so thank you. commissio commission er woo ho. >> commissioner woo ho: well, that's a tremendous job. you guys have taken a lot of time. and when we first started this i had a lot of trepidation with so many people in the community which we knew had different point of view and to hear what rudy said about the process and in terms of the values that the group was able to maintain in this whole period. we are not short of being vocal in san francisco, as we know. we are very diverse. and everybody has their own

voint of view. the amazing dedication and values you main taped, i just want to say i really respect that you all maintain those values and that process is my first comment. second would be, it is about a vision. and what the nice part about all of this -- we will be working on the strategic plan. some of you were here earlier. we had an update on that from the executive director. and to assure you, rudy. all of the pieces were coming together. this is another piece that help us with the road map that we need in the port and we have a strategic plan which touches upon some of the thing that you have already talked about and this whole waterfront land use plan was to make sure we were engaged with the rest of the city, with the various communities to give us a blueprint and while you may think we are headed towards a final product. as far as i'm concern -- and i know i'm just speaking

about that. you know about the plan and the pipeline things just to maintain the port is already a huge, daunting task but it's very instance ragal f inspirational for us to hear all that you have done. and would say on a high level from all the recommendations we heard today. there's not something there that i've said, wow, that is something the commission would not be in agreement with. it's no question of priority. i didn't see anything i did i agree with. it's all good recommendations i don't know that one that you didn't agree upon. you may want to comment on that later. 160 but one was not put forward. i think also the integrated approach and the fact that you got the state lands commission involved, that is tremendous because they are a tremendous stakeholder for us because they decide on what we do in terms of

consist sieve trust and they have to agree and approve certain thing and you will go to bcdc. i think the piece on resilience which is very much a part of our strategic plan but that is brilliant to have it inn corps rated as part of another additional part of this whole effort. i think there are obviously going to be tactics that we willer hear about as we go forward and i would agree with admissioner in katz that we need updates, for instance on the open space. even though we just had a big discussion on how we are. spending our dollar today. the question is do we have enough open space? i wasn't sure. so with the recreation, what can we actually do in i think these are thing we would all love to hear more about. what are the specifics? we did do an rfi that talked about the peers that we don't use today. we scratched our head and came up with piers 32 and pier 38. wei