and i just -- before i make a motion, i see mark piaz in the audience. mark, do you have anything further it say? i mean i figured you would. if there was still some issues. it looks great to me. so i'd like though move the supporting the certificate of appropriateness for the proposed work at ada broadway. >> i think we have more -- >> can i second? i wanted to add one comment. i'm familiar with the work of this firm. there is a building you did in mission bay that faces the creek that has always been, you know, i find the architecture there is a little bit boring, but the one building that stands out to me is the one by lety may and stacy. i see how these buildings are

put together will be high quality. i wanted to make sure that got on the record as well. so i will second the motion. >> thank you. we have a motion and second. >> very good. there is a motion and a second to approve this matter with conditions on that motion. commissioner black. >> yes. >> commissioner johnck. >> yes. >> commissioner johns. >> yes. >> commissioner matsuda. >> yes. >> commissioner black. >> yes. >> commissioner wolfman. that passes 7-0. case numbers 2018-00374lbr and 2018-003750lbr and 3040 16th street. these are both legacy business applications. >> i'm from preservation staff. there are two applications before you today for the legacy business registry. i'm going to start with the marine chartering company. this company is a worldwide

transportation brokerage firm and international ocean transportation company in the united states. it's office is situated at 781 beach street and overlooks aquatic part. at the age of 63, marine chartering is the oldest shipping company in san francisco today. it was founded on may 17th, 1955. the owner was a significant san francisco businessman and founding of the observation ocec interests. it's located in the piedmont winery district. the brick building was constructed as a distillery and warehouse in 1912.

i will mispronounce the architect's name. grothman? the business has been cited in several publiclycations including the pacific shipper, fair play shipping journal and marine engineering. today we recommend that the location be recognized at 781 beach street and that the following features be listed as character defining. the ship brokerage aspect of the business, and supply chain management aspect of the business and office nautical decor. mission graduates is a nonprofit organization that prepares k-12 students to complete a college education. the organization was

incorporated january 26th, 1972. mission graduates began in 1970 when the episcopal church wanted to enrich the lives of children from lower income families. the congregation began to offer classes at their church. the organization incorporated in 1972 as st. john's educational threshold center. they moved to 3040 169 street.9n 1990 after a series of fires at their church. that's where the organization is headquartered today. the organization also provides programming at school sites. in 2006, the organization reaffirmed the commitment to education and recognition of the equity power higher education

has for latinos and immigrants by changing the name to "mission graduates." the organization is located within a historic building. the hotel was constructed in 1909 by architect august in norn and ask listed on the california register. the organization's work has been featured on television and up ins, academic junls and other -- journals and other media. today we'd like to recognize several locations for the nonprofit including 3040 16th street, 5022 valencia street and the several schools they provide on site services too. we're recognizes two different characteristics of the business. educational services to low income many grants and families and -- immigrants and families and college capital including

extended-day programs. the beacon, college connect and college and career center and parent partner. that concludes my presentation. i believe both the applicants have representatives here if you'd like to ask them questions. >> thank you. i guess at this time we'll take pub public comment if the applicants want to make public comment, this is the time. you have three minutes. you're welcome to comment. >> i'm linda from marine charter. i'm the chief financial officer. i'd like to add a few items to the presentation which was all correct. we've been in the same location for 40 years. and we are a 63-year-old company. we are probably the oldest shipping company left in san francisco. as far as i know, there are only two left. us and hamburg.

we've been in the aquatic park enabled for 40 years, we're in a historic landmark building. at one time, in our 40-year history in that location, we probably had 100 employees at one time. the company is a little bit smaller now, but we still support the local law enforcement. we make donations to them. we attend -- we are active in the maritime events in the area. and all over san francisco. and i think that's it. all right. any questions? >> thank you very much for your comments. >> thank you.

>> i'm edward kaufman. i'm the executive director for mission graduates. i think it has been aptly reported on, we've been in the mission community for 50 years. i can think of no other vision for programming that is more important than ensuring that young people in our community are able to get the degrees they need to get the careers that will keep them in san francisco. so i think in our application, you see a lot of our content so i'll leave it for any questions you have. >> does any other member of the public wish to comment? steeg none we'll close public comment. commissioner johns. >> once again, we have a couple of interesting businesses that have made totally different contributions to san francisco. and contributions that are

totally different than what we've seen before. it's so heartening to be able to recognize these organizations. and so i move that they be approved. >> second. >> thank you. we have a motion and second. any other comments? commissioner hyland. >> thank you and congratulations tots applications. i have comments on each application that are very different. i think on the mission graduates, i applaud you for your work. i'm involved with the architectural foundation and the build access program which has a high school focus program. but this is the heart of the social resilience i can't think? getting stability in our own generation so they can actually stay here in san francisco. i thank you for that. on the marine chartering company, i may steal

commissioner johnck's thunder here. we're both on the waterfront long range update working group. the cultural legacy of our waterfront so so important. it's a thread that two of us have tried to shepherd through the process to make sure that's an overarching theme in the waterfront plan, not currently just one redges. one -- run recommends. however, we'd love o see more businesses reflect the waterfront. >> thank you, commissioner black. >> briefly, i really applaud the fact that the marine charter business has been there and stayed there given much lower rents elsewhere.

it's nice that it's right there on the waterfront. that's great. i hope you'll stay for a number of years. i also wanted to note an 88% success rate for commission graduates compared to -- that's four times the state average. i think that's phenomenal. obviously, it reflects a lot of good work and congratulations. >> thank you. commissioner johnck. >> well, yes, commissioner hyland said it all. i'm so excited to have a maritime business. we've had red and white and i can't come up with too many more. we have to get some more. maybe you can help us. there isn't any more. [laughter] >> there will be. >> i'm going to work on it. then the mission graduates. i was not too familiar with your organization. so i think that's terrific. yeah, wonderful. >> we have a motion and a second.

>> very good commissioners. on that motion, then to adopt recommendations for approval commissioner black 37 yes. >> commissioner jompg. >> yes. >> commissioner johns. >> yes. >> commissioner matsuda. >> yes, commissioner pearlman. yes. >> commissioner hiemed. >> commissioner wolf rasm. >> yes. >> that passes. now for 827 presentation material. >> i want to make a comment here. this is an informational presentation. this bill is still in flux. we don't know what the final legislation is going to be. we're listening and gathering information. we're not here to take a motion- position on it. >> but the board of supervisors did yesterday -- take a position on it even though we're not going to do that. >> we don't know what the bill is. so we're not going to take -- i

recommend we don't take a position on it. thank you. >> your statement. >> thank you. so good afternoon commissioners. i'm with our city-wide division. i'm going to give you a brief presentation on senate bill 827. as you just heard, it ask still in flux. there isn't even a timeline for adoption yet. we expect the bill to continue to exchange.

the presentation i'll -- continue to change, but the presentation i'll give you today mirrors the memo of last week. it's a summary of the bill as it currently exists which includes a series of amendments made on march first. so i'll go through that. i will -- let's see -- i'll summarize our preliminary analysis of the bill. as well as some outstanding questions we have where the bill is a little bit unclear. please note this analysis is kind of our best guess as what could happen if this bill is to pass. it's highly likely there will be further amendments to the bill. our analysis would evolve as those happen. senate bill 827 was amended in the senate on march first. the memo we prepared today reflects the bill as it currently exists including the amendments. generally, the bill's intent is

to increase the amount of housing bill statewide near transit stations an stations an. it proposes to do that by allowing the trance incompetent across the state to receive a transit-rich bonus allows projects to build up to a minimum height and f.a.r. limit and removing density and parking controls. it does not appear to alter local approval progressesser or take away local control over demolition or historic preservation. amendments introduced in march made it clear that parcels containing rent control units would not be eligible for the bonus nms a local municipality passes a resolution authorizing such deck lition. the amendments include a right to return requirements for any sb27 projects that displace any

rental tenants. here is what is proposes. within a quarter final of a stop or a stop on a bus that runs at least everyon every 15 minutes. the bill would set 85 feet height limits if it faces 70 feet or more. and 5055 feet if it faces a right-of-way narrower than 70 feet. for parcels within a wider radius, within a half mile of a transit stop, the minimum height limits are 55 feet on a parcel racing a right-of-way facing 55 feet. these would be the baseline heights. a developer in theory could use to utilize the bonus to go even higher. this a map of what it might look like in san francisco. the majority of our meeting lines meet the threshold for

high quality transit. almost all the city is covered under the higher height tier proposed. this mean any qualifying project within the orange area on the map woul could be allowed up to5 feet in height if they're located on a wider right-of-way than 70 feet. this is a draft map. we unfortunately don't have complete, accurate g.i.s. data on width of streets and right-of-ways. so we can't see which neighborhood would receive higher height limits and what would receive the lower height limits but we'll coordinate with public works to get the data and update this analysis. however, preliminary look suggests that many of the for example east/west streets in sunset and richmond do tend to have right-of-ways wider than 70

feet and would have the effective highlight limits of 85 feet under the bill. so on any parcel in orange or yellow area on map, a developer would be entitled to request trance eu9-rich bonus exempting them from parking limits. the city would be prohibited from enforcing the height limit of 55, or 58 feet but could still enforce objective zones and design standards as long as they don't we deuce the development potential bloat f.i.r.s list -- below the f.i.r.s listed here. there are areas downtown and area plans where the existing wroaning iser in permissive than what sbal 827 proposes. so there be no change from today. as a mentioned earlier, the bill does not mandate changes to the

local approval process. they would be subject to local inclusionary requirements. including conditional use authorizations and historic preservation review. our section 317 controls on deck lition of units would replain in place. as mentioned earlier, projects requesting a bonus would be a able to compound the bonus and remain eligible for other streamlining laws like sb 325. there are a set of protections for rentals. the bill bans the demolition for rental units for transit-rich projects. they'd enable and replacement of rent control units but they must proactively pass a resolution authorizing a process for doing so.

sb 827 requires project sponsors to provide the following whether the existing units are subject to rent control or not. they must pay moving related expenses. provide relocation benefits, including finding relocation. and they must offer displaced tenants first right of refusal for prabl at the same rate of rent they were paying before. some questions, while it doesn't change local approval process, it is unclear what discretion the city retain for the minimal specifications of sb 827. in san francisco, we have a practice of pairing zonings with measuring the groth.

so it took years of study to study the mitigation measures. including increased on-site affordability requirements. this bill wouldn't preclude us from doing a similar study should it pass, but has no provision allowing cities time to adopt the mitigation measures currently with zoning. this bill would likely reduce interest in the local affordability incentive programs where we typically give project sponsors the option of additional capacity in exchange for increased affordability. sb 827 would offer the extra development capacity without any corresponding increase in affordability. it's possible that sb 827 could result in more affordable housing as it might spur more production of what the current zoning allows. as our inexclusionary

requirements would a blie to all the projects. amendments -- would a fly to all the projects. sb 827 wouldn't apply to zones districts that don't allow mousing and prohibit areas in the city that allow housing to zones that don't allow housing. this could mean that we would possibly no longer be able to rezone properties to pdr as we currently are doing on a number of industrial parcels scattered throughout the city. just in summary, sb 827 proposes a broad statewide up-zoning. it's ambitious in the scope and breath because it addresses a major housing shortage. rathere is broad agreement at te state level that california has underbuilt for years.

all of our candidates for governor propose an ambition statewide targets for new units statewide. i think last year was one of the biggest years of housing production in san francisco. think we were around 5,000 units. they're talking about 300 to 500,000 units in california per year for a goal. we'll continue to amend the bills and others and provide analysis and updates as fleas. -- updates as necessary. i'm here for any questions or comments. >> great. we'll do public comments before we take any questions. would any member of the public wish to dment? if so, please -- wish to comment? if so, please come forward. >> good afternoon, i'm paul webber. i'm a delegate to the coalition

for san francisco neighborhoods from telegraph dwellers. i'm here to augment what the staff has said and written in their well-done report. the simple answer -- you probably have the question of what do we do about this. the board of supervisors yesterday approved by a large margin 8-3 to oppose the bill. -- in sacramento. as staff mentioned, this is a state bill. san francisco obviously doesn't control that. the best of all -- in the best of all worlds, the bill would be defeated. but there is pressure to generate some mandate to impose on cities including charter cities of which san francisco is

one. a clean and simple approach would be to seek an exemption from application of the bill limited to san francisco's equivalent of historic district or historic resources. to even get to that point, it will be important for san francisco to engage with other similar departments in other cities or nonprofit affiliates to see if there is agreement among a fairly broad-based group to seek such an exemption, soo if you can agree on what it ought to cover. there is no assurance we'll get it, but the opportunity for an exemption for something like this is probably greater than realistically getting an exemption for the whole city

from the bill. so, i would urge you to work with staff including the city attorney's office. seeing what you can come up with, seeing whom you should engage p with because this will abe proactive effort if you're going to do something and proactive with other organizations throughout the state. thanks very much. >> thank you, mr. webber. does any member of the public wish to comment? seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner pearlman. >> thanks for the presentation. i've been following it carefully. you know, i'm pleased to see the amendments that happened along the way. and i was disappointed in our own board of supervisors that chose to make a statement about their stand on it well before the bill actually is finalized. which seems -- there maybe ways to get exemptions or ways -- i

suggested ways to exempt rh 1 and rh-2 districts because there is fear around the increased height limits. i think the board of supervisors jumped the gun because we're not readyity. i can'-- ready.i'm sorry, i canr name. paolo, there you are. is there a map done that indicates what the percentage of san francisco has rent control, historic districts, all the things that would be exempt from this? as a commissioner, we got the barrage of letters of people in the community who are up in arms. every one of them sai said 96% f the city would be rezoned by this. but if you take away rent control and historic districts --

>> hisser to iks districts are not exempted -- historic districts are not exempted. >> historic districts are not exempted. any building with a rent control unit is not allowed to demolish unless the city chooses to figure out a way to allow that. >> okay. >> we have about half of our housing stock is rent controlled. unrent control. any building built before 1979 generally, if it's rental units, that is half of our housing stock. >> to clarify that, as proposed, could somebody add on top of it or add an addition to it? >> it doesn't get that specific. but my read of it was that any building with a rent control unit is not. but i don't think it gets to

that level. >> but it does say does not otherwise change local approval process for historic preservation. >> i think the issue is, let's say there is a owner in liberty hill has a structure. the question is here on page 4 about what discretion -- on page 10. unclear what the discretion city commission retains. we don't feel this buildin buils compatible but we may not have discretion to say that because it wouldn't meet the minimum height requirement. >> but where does it say does not change the local approval process. >> but we have to get the certificate of appropriateness. >> but the discretion in terms of height.

>> could we not grant a certificate of approval to a project that isn't appropriate in a historic district if the next door neighbors are 40 feet high and someone proposes an 80-foot high building? i'm saying that it doesn't feel as draconian as that because that would be the process as it went through the department. you could -- the staff could say we're not sure we could grant a certificate of appropriateness because it doesn't meet the requirements of the district. >> i think that's the question. is it a state law? it might supersede local laws. there would be april minimum height g height. there is possible we wouldn't have the discretion to make the finding. >> you may have to approve it. we're not sure. >> but then we could be sued.

those are some of the questions that are unclear at the moment. >> this is what i don't understand. if we have certain things that can be allowed like you can't demo rent control units. you know, and if we still have some level f, again i understand these things have to be worked out. as the gentleman said, are there certain exceptions? is that something you can work with the department or a group of departments from across the state could work with center wiener and other cosponsors on looking at things like historic districts. aif it's inappropriate for the historic district based on ceqa requirements on how we evaluate historic districts, sthoo an exemption -- are there a series of exemptions that could be

proposed? >> i forgot to mention that we're going back to the planning commission on april 26th, i believe. and they've asked us to kind of come with our recommended amendments. so i think i'd be happy to take down recommendations now. >> so that would be a recommendation that within a defined article xi -- i mean article x historic districts and/or article xi conservation district that there could be some exemption to this. if it doesn't meet the character-defining features or meet the requirements for additions to the district. >> thank you. commissioner black. >> yes, i tried to find this in the report and i didn't find it anywhere. what are the thresholds that

trigger this? i'm assuming someone who wants to build a deck on their house or add a small kitchen addition to their house in a rh-1 or two districts wouldn't have to -- >> so -- is it just new construction? >> basically it could change the zoning. if you're in rh-1 and within a quarter mile of transit as specified in the bill, your zoning is essentially no longer rh-1. it's still rh-1 on our map and paper but this bill would say because you're within a quarter mile of the transit, your zoning is four or five or eight storeys. that's your new height limit. there is no density control or parking required. >> i think to clarify that maybe it's confusing. this idea of minimum height. they're not saying that if

you're a developer, you have to build to the minimum height, they're saying the city cannot impose a high limit lower than this height. so you want to build a housing project, you could do a one-storey housing project, no one is going to stop you but the city can't prevent you. it's confusing, this idea of minimum height. it's not requiring people to build to this height, but cities can't impose a lower height limit. >> understood. thank you for the clarification. i was fairly sure that was the case. i guess i wonder, are there still thresholds or triggers or -- other than just this overlying zoning that projects wouldn't have to comply with this? is there anything? >> i'm not -- >> i couldn't find it -- >> i don't understand.

>> i'm trying to understand as a especially as it relates o historic structures -- relates to historic structures. will is lack of clarity on how the codes interact. are there any other exemptions that would affect a historic district? >> yes. it doesn't appear to say anything about historic districts, but it does not -- anything in the bill doesn't necessarily change the local processes that are in place. so we are -- our historic -- the way we treat historic districts and preservation and resources is our local -- something that we've developed locally. those wouldn't change. what is unclear is discretion -- how much discretion we have if someone is requesting a bonus and our discretion limits them from getting sort of the full

bonus that this law would entitle. it's unclear how those two interact. >> thank you. >> there is the irony of the bus running every 15 minutes. i guess this is a bus being schedule, not the bus actually running. >> that would leave most of the city out. [laughter] >> we've also, i think -- we also think there are some issues that we have questions about. for example, i think in order for the way it's written do you, any bus that runs 15 minutes within the peak hour. we think for transit to be useful, it has to be frequent all day, not just at the peak hour. then there is the issue is zoning is tied to transit like a bus line, then the zoning could shift when the bus line shifts.

>> commissioner johnck. >> well, knowing a former super -- knowing ever supervisor wiener's keen interest in support of the mission of the historic preservation commission and the work we do discussed with him many issues. he presented proposals from time to time before he was elected to the senate. i would think he would be interested and i am interested in either clarifying with him our discretion. i don't think his intent is -- i think his intent is to make a very important statement about the concept of the bill. i think it would be important to have our mission stay intact. if we need to say we would appreciate an exemption for historic districts or

conservation districts under article x -- it may not be an exemption. there are different parts. there is density and th the hei. the density limits may have no impact on the historic district. >> i think i would endorse us sending a letter or taking the comments back and, i mean, i could call him up. i'm free to do that. >> please do that if you have the connection. >> that's enough said. go ahead. >> commissiocommissioner johns. >> one thing you might want to think through and that is what seems to me might come up if there is a strong push to exempt landmark districts from this. what happens when some city adopts the historic -- the

two-storeys above the garage height limit historic district? or does something else, which cities will do to somebody verts the intention -- subvert the intention. many, many californians demonstrate their hostility towards housing. so i think you have to think through what you would do to assure, to build into the legislation that what i call legitimate historic districts say liberty hill. it might get an exemption, whereas -- >> or maybe that's a question at our discretion. what -- would the commission have the discretion to approve

it. >> there might be districts that would be established for purely for the reason of qualifying for the exemption. >> which is, i'm sure, why bill has been written in this particular way because of that cynicism. commissioner -- did we have any other comments? i think -- i guess that's it. when are you going to the planning commission? >> april 26th, i believe. let me check on my phone. april 26th. >> we'll have another hearing before then. i wonder, could we add this again to that? if we wanted to make some comments for the planning commission? >> sure. we'd be happy to craft a letter to the commission on your behalf. >> we could rescre re-- review t

the hearing. that's mid-april -- >> next hearing? >> yes. does that sound reasonable? >> yes. >> okay. on your own behalf. thank you for your presentation. i think that concludes our hearing. [gaveit.

>> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their shop & dine in the 49 within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services in the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so we're will you shop & dine in the 49 chinatown has to be one the best unique shopping areas in san francisco that is color fulfill and safe each vegetation and seafood and find everything in chinatown the walk shop in chinatown

welcome to jason dessert i'm the fifth generation of candy in san francisco still that serves 2000 district in the chinatown in the past it was the tradition and my family was the royal chef in the pot pals that's why we learned this stuff and moved from here to have dragon candy i want people to know that is art we will explain a walk and they can't walk in and out it is different techniques from stir frying to smoking to steaming and they do show of. >> beer a royalty for the age berry up to now not people know that especially the toughest they think this is - i really appreciate they love this art. >> from the cantonese to the

hypomania and we have hot pots we have all of the cuisines of china in our chinatown you don't have to go far. >> small business is important to our neighborhood because if we really make a lot of people lives better more people get a job here not just a big firm. >> you don't have to go anywhere else we have pocketed of great neighborhoods haul have all have their own uniqueness. >> san francisco has to all i want to thank everyone for coming here, all of the guests and leaders standing behind me. we're here today because history, earthquakes and climate change compel us to protect our

city. history. over 100 years ago, the 'em sea wall was built and we're fortunate it lasted this long. it was built at a time when they didn't know how to stabilize against earthquake risk. we know the big one will strike us at some point over the next three decades. and if it does, we'll see flooding along the water front. climate change, despite climate deniers we know that the estimates of sea level rise by the end of the next century are 4-10 feet. we need to fix this sea wall. what is it that we're trying to protect? millions of san franciscans and californians who live work and play along the waterfront. we see 24 million tourists visiting our waterfront every

year. it's imperative we protect this asset not just for san francisco, but the bay and the california economy. i want to again thank everyone standing behind us, our mayor, board of supervisors. when i was on the board of supervisors, i served on the capital planning committee, where we planned for how we took care of tens of billions of dollars of assets. this is at the top of the list. i want to thank my current colleagues in the legislature. you'll hear from scott wiener. in 2005 they established the financing district we're talking about today. she had drafted the legislation to ensure we're investing in infrastructure as well as historic resources, the bill we're discussing today is to ensure we're expanding what it is that we're protecting. protecting our shoreline,

ensuring we can rebuild our seawall. before i introduce our next speaker, i want to say two things. we're here in part because we have to come together as a community. you'll hear about the efforts at the local level, as well as at the state level and what we had hoped was going to be the federal level, but despite what donald trump is saying what he is doing about infrastructure, none of us are holding our breath. so san francisco and california need to act. we're here for our kids. and our grandkids. none of us are going to be around when the next century turns. but my hope is my son and his friends and his next generations, will look to this day as a day that our city leaders came together to care for and steward the assets of our city. our next speaker is someone who has children of his own, and i know that he cares very much about ensuring that the future of our city is in good hands. i'm delighted to help introduce

the mayor of the city and county of san francisco, mayor mark farrell. >> thank you, david. i am proud to be here as the mayor to thank -- [horn honk] i'm going to start off. i want to thank mr. chu along with assembly member ting, but specifically on this issue here. leadership is critical to the future of our city. critical to the future of the waterfront and proud to be here at this announcement today. our waterfront is one of the most iconic parts of san francisco. it always has been. subjects of pictures, it's why tourists come here. it's one of the most beautiful parts of our city. and holding up the waterfront is our seawall.

these are the buildings, the waterfront, the restaurants, the small businesses, but it's been holding back the bay to make sure that our tunnels are not flooded. holding back the rising tides of our san francisco bay to make sure we can walk along the waterfront in front of us here today. it is critically important to san francisco today and to the future of our city. we need to do everything we can as a city to make sure it survives and it's strong for the next generation. this project is not cheap. i want to really thank elaine for her leadership and the entire port commission for making sure we plan for the future. it is a $5 billion project that we have to plan for. the voters of san francisco will have a bond on the ballot going toward this effort. and the bill is going to play a huge start in kick starting the

project. and let's be clear, this is about planning for the future of the city. it's about infrastructure and making sure our city is resilient when the next earthquake hits. the next earthquake will hit. it's not a matter of if, but when. we need to be strong and ready to respond and make sure our infrastructure is ready to protect the residents of our city. proud to be here today and really want to thank assembly member chu for his leadership. thank you, everyone. >> thank you, mr. mayor. some 13 years ago in 2005 when they established the legislation to take what were known as public trust lands owned by the state to turn them over to the authority of our port department for stewardship, i want to thank elaine and her department and commissioners for bringing this to our attention for so many

years. i championed the earthquake safety emergency response bonds. there were two of them over the years. unfortunately, we were not able to the bonds to develop or create the assets to protect what we have here at the port. with that i'd like to bring up elaine forbes to tell us where our seawall infrastructure needs to go. >> thank you so much, assembly member chiu. i'm representing the port staff. we have the port commission president by my side and she'd she's been a steward of the waterfront for 20 years. i can say this is a dream come true day for us. it's remarkable to see the leadership behind me embracing and supporting the need for investment in the waterfront. as our mayor and assembly member has said, this seawall is a work horse for the city. so much economic activity. the infrastructure. and there is other things, too,

that the seawall does that goes unseen. it's going to be the place of emergency response. we expect people to go out by water in the event of a major earthquake and goods to come in by water. this has to hold up. if we're preparing and preventing disaster, it will be five times less to do so proactively. this represents how we can get this done. how this daunting task of a $5 billion effort will come to fruition because the leaders behind me are making this a priority. we start with the $500 million phase, laying out the improvements for 20-30 years and then tackling the most critical pieces first. i want to give a huge thank you to naomi kelly behind me. she pole vaulted this project

along with mayor lee by identifying it as a critical piece of infrastructure for the city. so we're so -- port staff, port commission and i are so excited for the day, so thankful for the state leadership for assembly member chu, ting, getting us $250 million for the project, should this be approved, we'll work hard to get it done. we're so thankful the leadership has heard our call and is going to prioritize a safe and vibrant waterfront. thank you so much. >> i'm grateful to my colleagues for representing this effort. phil ting, as well as our next speaker, senator scott wiener. >> thank you, david, i want to

thank assemblyman chiu for his leadership. when we served on the board of superviso supervisors together, we all care about infrastructure, but david took so much leadership on not just the sexy infrastructure, but on the infrastructure that we depend on but the people don't see. and the seawall is certainly part of that. i want to thank the port. i am really trying to work and support the port's effort to move this bond to the ballot. i want to thank elaine, my neighbor, and the entire port staff for its leadership on this critical issue. this is really about two realities of life. sea level rise and earthquakes. and as much as we want to wish them all away, we can't. the big earthquake is going to come and unless we take radical, radical action today around reducing carbon emissions and

fighting climate change, we're going to continue to see sea level rise. and sadly because of the disaster known as washington d.c., there is no bold action happeni happeni federally to address climate change, and we're doing what we can but this is a national problem we have to resolve. we're going to continue to see significant sea level rise. our downtown is so at risk of inundation, we're doing what we can to reduce carbon emissions. doing what we income the bay area. just a year ago we passed a tax to start restoring the wetlands destroyed in the bay area 150 years ago, because that will help us to mitigate sea level rise. but with everything we're doing, we have to have the seawall. it has to be intact, has to be

able to with stand an earthquake and be able to protect us from the bay. we love the bay, but the bay is going to cause us problems when it floods the muni subway tunnel and downtown areas. we need to get this bill passed. this is just one step. we need the bond. we need this bill and a lot more work to fund this project. i look forward to collaborating to get it done. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, senator wiener for reminding us we're putting the sexy back into infrastructure. i want to thank everyone for coming together. i want to invite the next speaker, someone who has been a champion for infrastructure in our city, supervisor london breed. >> thank you, everyone for being here today. you know, it's easy to talk to residents of san francisco about the need for more housing.

the need to address challenges with public safety and homelessness and things we can see. what is harder is trying to help people to understand the significance of the things that we can't see. the infrastructure needs that hold our city together. we know the consequences when we don't do what is necessary to protect our infrastructure. we only look at new orleans and what happened with the levies and how that devastated that particular city. and so we in san francisco, we must be proactive, we must take these kind of bold moves and creative solutions. i want to thank assembly member david chiu for finding a very creative way to help us pay for it. i want to thank the voters in advance, because this fall, we're going to have a ballot measure that is going to help with $350 million to help in this effort.

we know that there is so much work to do in san francisco. and as the president of the board who now serves on the unknown capital planning committee, the needs of our infrastructure are at the top of my list on a regular basis. i want to thank not only noemie kelly, but also elaine forbes. she would reach out and say, supervisor, i want to meet with you about the seawall, i say, wait a minute, i have to work with this challenge. she always brings it back to how important it is not just to protect my district, but to protect the entire city. her leadership along with port commissioner president kimberley brandon that been outstanding. they've been in sacramento, in d.c., they've been all over the place trying to put together the

money for this particular seawall and i know with their leadership and the work of all the policy behind me, we're going to get this done for the people of san francisco. thank you so much. >> thank you, president breed. our final speaker is someone who represents the district we're currently in who knows that it is her residence and businesses that could be flooded if we do not invest in the infrastructure. please join me in welcoming supervisor kim. >> thank you, assembly member chiu. as someone who represented your sister district when we both served on the board of supervisors, we understand the importance of strengthening our seawall, shield that prerkts our residents and workers and many of the tourist attractions up and down the waterfront. mayor mark farrell, myself, supervisor cohen and peskin represent the districts that are along the boundary lines of the

seawall lot that we're here about. so much of what we love about our city is just along the waterfront, our housing, offices, jobs, transportation, the giants who i see in the audience today. it is important to make prudent investments today to strengthen the seawall shield and strengthen the unbreakable bond between the city of san francisco and the waterfront we love so much. i want to thank our san francisco delegation in sacramento, for making sure we're prioritizing the very infrastructure that will keep the city beautiful and running, thank you very much. [applause] >> that concludes today's press conference. again, appreciate everyone coming together around a plan to protect the future of our city and our seawall. any final questions? we will end the press conference and open it up to folks to ask