contingency what we made up the contract. the other one was the sponsor didn't want the 10% to be seen as their money. so one way or the other, it wasn't added at the time of execution. so once you allow us to go into a contract, we can do contract modifications within my delegated authority, and that 10% contingency would have been a contract modification i could have made under my delegated authority. >> i understand that, so let's understand going forward, because obviously when we approved this, this was in the public record that we had approved a 10% contingency, and the contractor would have seen that. so i guess in the future, we should understand if you're going to award a contract, are you going to -- so for our knowledge then, if we have two

options, then we should know if you're going to include it or you're going to make a modification going forward. >> we include it. we include it at the time of the contract award. we include it in the contingency. it doesn't belong to the contractor. it's a base award, but we write the contract with the additional funding for the contingency should we need to use it. that is the appropriate way to move forward and in general how we execute our contracts. >> okay. well that's -- i guess we're getting educated here than what i always understood in the past. i thought we always put the 10% in the contract. >> we do, and i'm agreeing with you. at the time of the contract award we award the base amount plus the full amount of contingency, so the full amount is available in the contract, but the contingency isn't available to the contractor. >> in other words, the contractor has to come back and

skbruf why the contingency can be used. as a commissioner, it would be nice to know how often we have to go into the contingency or if they can stay within the original contract award. >> yes, and we've prepared a memo to answer that question. >> president brandon: commissioner adams? >> vice president adams: i'm good. thank you. >> president brandon: so in this, where does the 250,000 fi fit in? >> that's already included. that's a deduct, so that -- it's already included in the change. so if the change wasn't there, i think it would have been about $250,000 more. so i didn't have an itemized breakdown in that commission report.

>> okay. so the 250,000 that we're being deducted is added back in here? >> correct. >> and we would need a $1 million -- okay. and so how has the lbe break -- i see that you say it will exceed 20%, but how much has been paid to-date? >> let's see...i didn't bring a copy of that percentage. let me just think for one second. i don't have a copy of that handy. >> president brandon: okay. >> the most recent invoice. >> president brandon: and then, i see a copy, it looks like four new contractors have been included. you have one -- well, maybe two -- well, no, four. you have one for land skaepg architecture. that wasn't included in the original contract. >> correct.

>> we didn't need a landscaping architect? >> correct, at that time. >> president brandon: in the original contract -- >> there was not a landscaping architect in the original contract. >> president brandon: but we would have needed one. >> yes. >> president brandon: okay. so we have two new contractors, both obe's. >> correct. >> president brandon: and then, we have integral consulting who does what? >> they do sediment trap design. >> and mcdonald's? >> sediment is their specialty. >> president brandon: here, we have another large waterfront contract that we have no after man americans or latinos as part of this contract. so i do hope that point further, we could really do a better job on outreach, and i am more than willing to help in

whatever way i can. i really am. commissioners, if there are no other -- further questions, all approve? [voting] >> president brandon: motion resolution 18-30 has been passed. [agenda item read] >> good afternoon, commissioners. rebecca b rebecca benassini, help on behalf of a relatively large team working on behalf of the rfi. we're here weeking -- seeking objection that would --

[inaudible] >> -- and provided information about this request for interest concepts, so we now have flushed it out quite a bit, and we're ready to ask you to seek -- to take action. the genesis of the request for information -- of the request for interest, the genesis of this idea came out of the waterfront land use plan update. the update is the comprehensive -- update to the comprehensive planning document the port originally adopted in 1990. this update began in 2015, and we're now in the home stretch of the update. much of the direction that led us to ask for -- to issue the request for interest came from the part two policy recommendation section of the update process which concluded late 2017, and the port is still hearing -- you'll hear an item shortly that kind of

provides more update on this policy recommendations, but we're now in the home stretch of part three sub area planning. the stakeholder group that worked very closely with port staff and spent countless hours putting together this update concept provided a lot of direction and helped create a lot of consensus for port staff. i want to highlight a lot of items that led us to the concept. one is that the working group and other entities involved in the update meetings identified maintenance and enhancement of the embarcadero historic district as a key trust purpose, and this kind of alongside our traditional trust purposes which are maritime and independent uses and water enhancing resources. they identified this as another key trust priority. as a reminder, the embarcadero

historic district is a little bit more than three miles from south pier 48. a second item that came through crystal clear through the working group process was that the working group members really wanted to see a greater array of public oriented or public serving uses. destinations in pier facilities where the public would be invited in to do something, to buy something, to experience something, and i show the image from the exploratorium from the fog installation and the exploratorium's basin because it occasionally came up, why doesn't the port do more exploratoriums, so we're going to try to get another one through this process. the final process in the waterfront and land use update

that really resonated we thought with our stakeholder group was a financial feasibility analysis. so we heard the ideas about get the historic district back into working order, bring more destinations and places for people to go on the waterfront, so it's quite expensive to rehamburgrehab facilities over water. $74 million for seismic and upgrade costs, and there's also a cot of uncertainty with the cost. once you start working in these facilities, you can't be certain with whatever cost you might end up. we also learned that public oriented uses or public oriented destinations are typically generating lower revenues. if you filled up a pier with these uses, you would need quite a bit ofsubsidy from an

outside source to make them pencil, but you could pair them with high tech uses, maybe pdr, and they would balance each out other. so why are we doing this request for interest? we learned that we really need to improve our facilities in the pier historic district. we want to make the waterfront even more publicly serving. we know that our mission is we have to have financial feasibility -- financially feasible projects. they have to kind of survive on their own 2 feet. they have to meet trust objectives, and we know it's sort of the world we live in to be able to do both of those things, but we didn't know about publicly oriented uses. it wasn't just the type of use that we were going out with rfp's. so we realized that we needed to go out and find real world market-based information and to

outreach to newcomers that we hadn't been outreaching to before. this is a list of the 250i7sty uses as we were going through what the public would like to see on the waterfront. we want to learn what types of uses people want to see on the waterfront, how much space do they need, how much rent do they pay, how much money to they typically invest in capital investment to use their space. that's the type of information that we need to know to better inform a subsequent solicitation. so what is the rfi? the rfi is a request for concepts from prospective master, so take a facility, or smaller tenants in selected embarcadero historic facility locations.

it is not a -- it is not an rfp. it is not an rpf that we are going to score and rampg. wh -- rank. what we are looking for is response and information that people provide to us. subsequent to that we'll take that to better inform an rfp that would go through the typical types of scoring and ranking. this one is for our information and we want to take in the information and reflect it back to the commission, reflect it back to the stakeholder group and not come in with a list of anybody who's created a pool or anybody who was ranked in a particular way. so that's what the rfi is intended to be. what are the locations included in the rfi? so from north to south, i'm just going to list them so it can kind of sink in, the scale of the facilities that we're including in this request for interest. starting at the north, pier 35, pier 33, pier 31, 29.5, and 29,

23.5 and 19. it's important that there are a couple of these that come with some caveats. any respondent that's interested in 31 or 33 will need to recognize that once we get this approved that we intend to have the alcatraz embarkation for long periods of time, and any respondent interested in pier 35 would need to recognize that that is going to continue to be our secondary cruise berth. continuing south, the agricultural building next to us, pier 36, pier 38, pier 40, and 48. any respondent to 40 would need to recognize the continued use of water recreation, and any respondent to pier 48 would need to recognize that seawall lot 337 associates has a long-term option or has an option for a long-term

development in pier 48 associated with the mission rock project. how to implement this. so the team in trying to come up with what is a really big request, something we haven't done a lot of before, we're drawing on our experience of the request for interest that was done for the 20th street buildings in pier 70, and what we've come up with, along with a marketing consultant team that we're relying upon as well as with our typical outreach staff, led by renee martin, we're seeking to implement two ways of making this successful. one, we want to have a low barrier for people to inform us, and we want to have a robust public outreach process that goes on through the the open period of the rfi. on providing a low barrier of entry to respondents, we'll be

providing an on-line form so respondents will be responding in a uniform manner and we're not asking them to put together beautiful drawings, we want their hard numbers and ideas of of what they've implemented in the past and what they've done. which location is best suited to what they propose putting onto the waterfront, how much space do they need and what sort of economics can they share with us, what are their typical rent payments, how much of a capital investment does their type of use typically require. and on the robust public outreach side, we typically do rfp's for local groups, looking at retail, restaurants. there are times we've definitely gone outside the san francisco area. for this one, we're going to have to go to strae location

locations -- industry associations. we'll be pitching ideas for articles and business -- business publications and other types of newspaper outlets. they'll have our social media presence managed, and we'll be -- we'll be seeking speaking engagements as port industry groups. and we'll have our typical outreach that we do and whatnot with our mailing lists and port newsletter. the profits we're envisioning through the end of the year is sort of as follows: if we get the authorization today, we'll complete drafting the rfi and have it ready by the end of the month to launch it. we'll have an outreach and an open period for the summertime, so we'll give about 90 days for respondents to come in with their -- with their concepts. at the end of that 90-day period, we'll dumb bacome back commission and we'll invite our

stakeholder group as well. then we'll be seeking your reactions, the public's reactions to the types of uses and facilities that are identified through this process, and then, subsequent to that, we'll look at developing recommendations for a solicitation or foreign rfp, we're anticipating early 2019. and then, who knows -- i won't prejudice -- i won't prejudice what we think we're going to find from this process, but we're hoping to find something exciting, something fresh, and we're talking about how the lack of findings is an exciting process. if we don't find information around a particular type of use, that's helpful, as well, so we'll focus on facilities that have the most interest in terms of prioritizing our work. that is my presentation, and i'm happy to answer questions or draw upon the expertise of many of the staff members here to provide comments on anything that you have to comment upon.

>> president brandon: thank you. >> you're welcome. >> president brandon: can i have a motion? >> so moved. >> second bla. >> president brandon: is there any public comment on this item? no public comment? okay. >> i'm alice rogers, and i'm serving on the working group. and i just want to thank the staff for the effort and the inspiration and hoping them not to be asking them to be tilting at rainbows, but really finding the new inspiration that you guys miraculously keep coming up with, so thank you. >> president brandon: thank you. is there any other public comment? okay. commissioner woo ho? >> i guess this has long been coming. we have a lot of peers that are in here, so i really applaud the effort to try and get some new ideas because certain of these piers, we've played with and certain developers, and

things have not panned out. we're had limited success, and we're able to finally launch on some of these. i appreciate that. the only thing i didn't quite see on this, and i understand it's an rfi, and we're not bound by it in terms of what we need to do, but a couple things. i should -- i sat on another panel, i guess, for park and rec on the palace of fine arts. went through a whole process of getting people to respond. i guess it was in between an rfi and an rfq, i think, only to find out out of the six concepts, which three were hotel, and then, they found out since the historic preservation limits on the building would not allow windows, that that totally sort of cancelled it out. so i think that project is out sort of on the back burner, but

there was a lot of effort, okay, put into, you know, videos, etcetera, meetings, etcetera. so i want to be careful that we don't put something out there, 1,000 flowers bloom, and then, we find out later there are a lot of things that are just not feasible. so i guess my comment is related to if there are things that we already know that maybe the public doesn't know, number one, i think we need to point out seismic upgrade issues. we need to point out no hotels on the waterfront. i think we need to point out a few things -- which we are informed. we know what we can and cannot do, but the public may not. i think it's very important to give parameters of what is possible and what is not possible. i think you've put -- you want to see what's possible, but you need to tell people what's not possible so they don't spin all the wheels. there was a lot of wheels spined on this one and it went

nowhere. we are talking about multiple piers here, so i think we've just got to be careful as we go out with this that we also, i

we're going to spend a lot of time on that. the other thing i guess you could have people that come back with a master development plan for a pier, and then somebody else comes in with five different ideas for the single kind of use. and so we'll just have to see where that spreads out. i can see you have a big wall, and you have lots of things, all these stickies are going to be all over the walls, and then you sort of have to rationalize and figure out how that thing works. not a bad process, but just don't want to spin too many wheels for nothing. >> point well taken. >> president brandon: commissioner makras? >> could you walk me through the rationalization of historic piers versus all piers because we do want development and/or ideas to across -- >> commissioner makras, can you grab your microphone, please. >> why wouldn't we three a broader net if there is is par

the learning experience? >> i want to go back to my little map. so you said why would we limit it to the embarcadero historic district piers versus all piers, and i think the primary response to that is the prioritization of the embarcadero historic district came through loud and clear through the public process, as well as our conversation with the state land commission staff who were very supportive of investing in these piers. one other point to make is that we've been looking at the timelines that we have on the embarcadero historic district with regard to sea level rise, and there is such a feeling of urgency with sea level rise and the rehab that needs to take place, that if we're going to

save the historic district, we need to act within the next number of years. i won't opine if it's the next ten years or 15 years. so that's what pushed us towards the embarcadero historic district. we don't have have however many piers -- >> i can comment a bit. the other historic buildings, the primary area is the shipyard, and we are working now on a separate process to find a ship repair operator and hopefully, that process will be successful, and then we'll understand which of those buildings are not included in the operation and we may have a proposal about how to see those facilities rajted. but outside of the shipyard, i can think of one or two other piers that are not historic in nature, not on the register. so thoese are -- this is the major assembly of our historic assets. >> this is just a major observation. i support the item. but if you leave it up to the private sector to figure out which ones, you may not get everybody. that's just a reality. the private sector's going to

look at this and say historic, oh, probably that's more expensive. probably there's more to putting in an idea there versus the other piers, so you may not get as broad of a response as you're hoping because you have two tracks out there. >> and i think there's one other comment i want to make, and that is you're right. exactly the experience that commissioner woo ho had on the palace of fine arts was, historic building, you cannot change the integrity of the building. so commissioner makras, you're right. you've kind of limited yourself in terms of what you can do. but because we have identified maintenance and enhancement of the embarcadero historic district as a trust purpose, then, we can have uses that aren't traditionally considered trust uses like office and pdr in those facilities if they are contributing in a significant monetary way to enhancing a district. whereas facilities that are not in the embarcadero -- that are

not in the historic district, we might not have the flexibility that we are able to have in

i appreciate your input and agree with the other commissioners. this is long overdue. i agree with commissioner makras. i think we have to broaden this and there's some good

discussion. i think we have an opportunity to do some really good work here, and it's really overdue. i agree with commissioner woo ho, that pier 32 really needs to be on that, and i'm hoping that some visionary, some billionaire, an elon musk or tom steir can come in and has a vision. thank you. >> president brandon: rebecca, thank you. this is a great vision and very exciting and long overdue, and really looking forward to the responses we get. my only question is one that's been asked, and that is why isn't 30-32 included. and i heard the rationale, but i still don't understand. just because it's not a historic pier doesn't mean we can't ask for -- if there's any interest in it.

so -- >> we could ask. i think we might want to consider -- why don't we let staff think about this. and the reason it's not here is because rebecca answered it, and i'm going to answer it again, and using almost the same language. there's flexibility that we have from the stand lands commission to rehabilitation the historic piers that will allow for a different mixes of other uses, and we also heard from the waterfront land use planning group, we care about the historic piers, and we want to see them invested in, and these are some of the activities that we would like to see more of, more exploratoriums, more things that serve us, we don't have that on pier 30-32, and we don't have the flexibility that it's a historic resource. preservation is a trust itself for these piers. it doesn't mean we shouldn't do a solicitation or some kind of

request for concepts, but they're just so very different because the historic nature of -- >> so elaine, can't you just carve it out and say in the rfi, that pier 30-32, which has different characteristics, we still want your ideas because we're going to the public. and it's a one-time effort. i agree with what commissioner makras said, and here are the caveats. >> yeah, and here are the caveats, and here are the list of things to consider. do mike or diane have any comments that you'd like to offer? >> commissioners, you hit on something that we talked about quite a bit, so the fact that we all have something to say is not surprising. you know, i think having seen some of the numbers on the working group meetings, there is a great sensitivity around 30-32 because of the scope of

the projects that have come in to try to develop it, and the fact that they didn't have the community engagement sort of ahead of time, and it sort of became a fight. i think in terms of the historic pier, i think we have a consensus of regulators and state lands to see what we can do out there. i'm not against the idea of seeing what we can do at pier 30-32. i think the idea what we're going to get from these public oriented, they may be site specific, but a lot of times they're going to be waterfront specific. those ideas, i think we could use to think about 30-32 if they're not as part of an rfp for a historic pier. i think we're just seeing the dwindling amount of time that we have to save the historic piers and seeing something that's beenen doerpsed by th that -- been endorsed by that

historicic group. i think our focus is staff based on that working group and the update to the land use is goes to be to the historic peers, because while they are challenging and they may not be viezible to everybody, they represent something that's one of a kind here. >> president brandon: i think we want to focus on saving all of our piers, historic or not. whatever we have left, i think we do want to focus on trying to save them. so if it's not -- if there is no real reason why we can't include 30-32, i think we should really consider it. >> i'd just like to add, i think the historic part, getting them in good shape makes sense, but there's an economic component to it. to be successful with an outside game of funding the seawall and all, so we should limit the options if we're trying to look for people with

global solutions. so if we want to say to ourselves, we're only going to take 80% of what we have, and we're going to deal with the other 20 differently, i'm okay with that. if that's a conscious decision. but in the goal of trying to get the most ideas in the broadest sense, i don't believe 80% is the game. i think it's 100% game to get the ideas on the table from the public. because we have to assume they're going to put energy into it, they're going to spend money, they are going to risk themselves having more competition because they're exposing their ideas to the public. so there is some risk when they do participate in doling out their ideas and going public with it. so i believe that if it's all open, that will have people participate more. if we're going to have two programs working at it, when prudency is going to say, let's wait for the second round.

>> let me make one more appeal. so it is my priority and that staff has been working on this, and we're seeking concurrency from the commission that the historic piers, it's right. it is time to figure out why this range of options for these piers, the most public serving options, and there is broad based community consensus on that approach. piers 30-32 has been a controversial site and it's really different from the historic piers, so i would suggest while you all have very good reason to be interested in pier 30-32, which is very expensivesub structure. it is one of our most troubled assets, i would like to say perhaps we should do it in a different form, in a different way to seek those big ideas, because unlike the things you're telling us about the palace where you can't do windows and there's lots of

constraints where it relates to the historic districts, it's a broader, wider solicitation. so i would suggest we start with this. this is big. this is 13 facilities, that you let us start here, and we see how it goes, and we come back and come this on the table of what would be the future plans for 30-32. the third phase of the waterfront planning process is thinking about piers 30-32, and the public is still engaged in recommendations as it relates to that site, so that is yet another reason to wait. so i suggest waiting on piers 30-32. it's my recommendation, but of course, we serve the commission. >> i actually like that recommendation just for two factors, and i know i'm the new beer here, but it just seemed like there was extensive community involvement in this with regards to the two piers, what they wanted activated. while i agree with the

preservation of 30-32 are vital. i would like to see us move forward with this, and then ask for a timeline from staff of how we can -- when that phase three come nz or when we're going to have that kind of community process. so i think you all know that without good community process, we know that any project, no matter how beneficial to the port or to our assets or to our income, if we don't have the community at day one, we're never going to get it to happen here in san francisco, so i'd like to see a similar process. >> i guess one question i have is since diane on the waterfront land use plan, it sounds like we did not get consensus on what is going to happen to pier 30-32. is that true or is it just left in the open? forgetting whether it's historic or not, is there any -- are you going to come back at some point?

>> president brandon: to discuss it. >> yeah, to discuss it. i'm not sure in the last report whether or not that came up specifically, when you gave us the last report. so where do we stand with pier 30-32 in the waterfront land use plan. >> as director forbes was just explaining, we actually just last wednesday had a public workshop focused on pier 30-32 for the very reasons that she points out is the recommendations that came out for the embarcadero historic district and the priority for advancing their rehabilitation was the product of several meetings worth of discussions. since pier 30-32 is not in the historic district, the recommendations framework that came from the working group does not apply to pier 30-32. and last wednesday's workshop walked through those differents are and the challenges that are unique that we would need to solve for on any project going forward. i think that it was a good workshop in terms of really opening it up, but i can't say

we have a level of consensus around what the future of that pier should be. so to commissioner gilman's point -- and welcome. it's nice to meet you. diane oshima. and commissioner makras. i do think it does warrant some full follow up where we could take the benefit -- we haven't even documented everything that came out of that workshop yet and bring it back to the working group to see what kind of public comment and consensus and direction that we get from the community and then we could take that under advisement on how to move forward on pier 30-32. i think mike's point about the feedback that we do get about what range of different public oriented businesses and developers in response to the historic district is good information for all of us to think about for pier 30-32, as

well. >> okay. and i just want to say, i mean, we've reminded this group and kim and willie wouldn't remember this. you know, we thought we had a quick solution to pier 38. that was in 2012. with we're now sitting in 2018. i hope this round we get something that moves concretely because it just takes time to develop. it was 2012, and here we are six months later. it was supposed to be a 12 month solution. >> nothing ever goes fast here in san francisco. that's just how it is. and i would just say that the historical -- if you remember the waters, they were willing to put $100 million in the infrastructure. that was then, and probably the only thing that the public would have accepted would have been the luke us museum or something like that. i think the public -- i think that's something that i think everybody -- it's hard for everybody in the san francisco to agree on anything. that's just how it is. but i do think we do -- as things go along because i think

maybe from time to time maybe people call you to ask you and mike up, and say well, what do you think about pier 30-32. but a lot of people have big dreams, but do they have the money and are they going to really put up or shut up? so i agree with gail that we concentrate. but leave that open. if somebody really is interested, i think you guys can bring it to the commission, they're saying hey, we really want to do something. >> more comments, here reflecting on the differences, here, we're really asking tenants that want to be on the waterfront to understand these uses that don't exist now, but people want to see and tenants can provide, on pier 30-32, i would expect a more wide open in terms of concepts but narrow in terms of process where we would be prequalifying developers and going through anitierative process where here

we're really getting future requests for proposals. i don't think it would be -- it would be different in terms of how we would be structured to be successful. >> well -- >> i just want to say one thing to commissioner gilman and commissioner makras. they can even tell you what we're doing at pier 70, just trying to get another shipyard, just to try to get -- replace pier 70 how it used to be. we put in, and only one person put in a bid for it. so she's right. it's pretty tough. and we're trying to save pier 70. and i believe at the end of the day, it's going to look a lot different than the old shipyards as we remember it. >> president brandon: yeah, and i really think this is great that we're doing this rfi, but this is just an rfi. it doesn't mean we're doing anything with any other piers. >> that's right. that's right. >> president brandon: so i do hope we can get pier 30-32 in

there because there may be some interest in there that we don't know about. whatever we can do to go down that path with community involvement all the way, i think we should do that. >> i guess to clarify, if they do something that is simultaneous in the rfi, you are comfortable with that? >> president brandon: say that again. >> i think they're trying to get direction. are we saying we would do this for the historic direct rfi, and i think we are pushing to say we all want to see some resolution to what happened. >> president brandon: i think under new business we should ask for it to come back. we do need community input and involvement, so i think we should direct staff to come back to us. >> so there are two options. >> president brandon: no, not on this. we're going to vote on this today. >> and we can come back with a timeline and a plan.

>> president brandon: yes. okay. is everybody okay with that? all in favor? [voting] >> president brandon: resolution 18-31 has been approved. [agenda item read] >> good afternoon, president brandon, commissioners. welcome to our two new commissioners. my name's carol bach. i'm the environmental affairs manager in the port's planning and environment division. on february 27, port staff presented to you an informational item on the waterfro waterfront plan working group's part two subcommittee recommendations, which you've heard more about today. at that meeting, the commission asked staff to schedule follow-up briefings to allow more time for folks to do discussion on the three

subcommittee -- the work of the three sub committees: land use, transportation, and resilience. the resilience

sub committee chair, p pia henkel, who will comment after our presentation, and i would like to thank all of the resilience sub committee members, and also working group members corrine woods and alice rogers, and we thank them for coming today. and our sub committee was ably assisted by a technical advisory committee led by m max lowenstein. >> successful planning for resilience to address climate change, sea level rise and disaster response requires working with others.

for this reason, the sub committee hosted many speakers at our sub committee meetings to discuss resilience planning from a citywide and regional perspective. these participants included staff from weta, the water emergency transit authority, bcdc, our own port staff, city planning, san francisco department of the environment, san francisco department of emergency management, the san francisco neighborhood empowerment network, and the city office of resilience and recovery. the resilience sub committee's work differed from that of the other sub committees because instead of undertaking an update of existing waterfront land use plan sections, the resilience sub committee was tasked with creating new policy recommendations on two subjects that the 1997 waterfront land

use planned ahad touched on lightly or not at all. those were environmental sustainability and resilience. on the subject of the port's environment cal policies, the sub committee began its work with a plan of what the city and county are already doing to enhance and protect the environment. i'm sure you all are aware that the city is committed to making the city a leader in environmental sustainability. as a city department subject to those regulations and requirements, the port incorporates as standard practice, environmental sustainability measures that would be considered leading edge elsewhere. in addition to these citywide efforts, the port also has adopted environmental policies and practices unique to our own

operations. the resilience sub committee's recommendations reflect an over arching goal of prioritizing environmental sustainability in the waterfront land use plan update and also generated many recommendations that involved -- that belong in other plans, such as the strategic plan, emergency operations plan or other certificate of operational and policy documents. but this over arching priority is reflected in the port's strategic plan sustainability goal, employ strong practices and environmental stewardship practices that protect the environment and promotor ecological balance. the resilience sub committee produced 20 policy recommendations regarding environmental sustainability which generally fall into four broad categories: climate change and air quality, water

quality and kpconservation, natural building and resources, and research and development. the sub committee's research and recommendations covered a wide range of topics that we have called out and will be working on incorporating into documents other than the waterfront land use plan, where they may serve best. there were a few common themes that -- that came out across all of these four different topic areas. those included pushing beyond the minimum. the sub committee urged us to do more than what was required by regulations, to collect and share data, to participate in bay wide and regional collaborations, to improve habitat, biodiversity, and ecosystem function, to seek multibenefit solutions, and to educate and engage our

stakeholders. on the subject of climate change and air quality, the sub committee identified priority goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and kbroimprovin energy efficiency. the port has taken significant steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote the use of renewable fuels by installing short side power for cruise ships at pier 27 and the giant power cord infrastructure at pier 27 is shown here. and similarly at the pier 70 shipyard. the resilience sub committee recommends that the port continue and expand those efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions both in its own operations and by collaborating with tenants and development partners. we recently took a year-long,

year and a half, maybe, effort to clear technical regulatory, and administrative hurdles to using renewable diesel in the port's own fleet and equipment, and we also partnered with our maritime tenants which resulted in a commitment to convert our maritime -- theirs and our maritime operations to using renewable diesel, which can achieve a greenhouse gas emissio emissions reduction of up to 60%. i think that's an example of the kind of of collaboration that our resilient sub committee is urging us to undertake. echoing the common themes, the resilient sub committee encourages us to collaborate our effectiveness and collect and share data. one way that we're doing that

now is participating in the san francisco estuary institutes bay wide water program, which was han monitoring bay water quality and condition for over 25 years. we are urged by the sub committee to implement the many water conservation and water use permits that apply to new construction, renovation, parks construction and open space and maintenance and operations here at the port, to continue our ongoing sewer inspection and repair program to prevent sewage discharges to the bay. recognizing that the greatest improvements can be achieved by tackling the largest sources of pollution or the greatest opportunities for conservation, the resilience sub committee recommended that we work with our fellow city agencies and development partners to construct new and improve existing waste water infrastructure, to make our infrastructure more resilient to sea level rise and extreme

weather, and to create more green infrastructure to reduce the volume and improve the quality of waste water and stormwater runoff. the go above and beyond theme emerged here on the subject of green building. the resilience sub committee recommends that the port, collaborating with its tenants and development partners comply with the city's ambitious green building standards. those standards address lead certification, energy efficiency, water conservation, use of environmentally preferred materials, designing and operating for zero waist, and extending those standards to other facilities or operations where feasible. again, recognizing that the greatest improvements can be achieved whether at the largest opportunities -- where they're at the largest opportunities, the sub committee recommended that where approvable, the port

seek to list environmental sustainability methods, the area between pier 90 and pier 96 where tenants are located in a manner that facilitates recycling and reuse of materials and minimizing transportation and related air emissions is an example of that kind of district level sustainability measure. the mission rock development at seawall at 337 where they're developing on really a blank slate and installing all new horizontal infrastructure is daunting, but really provides the opportunity to design and construct energy, water, and transportation systems that maximize environmental sustainability. it's another example of the kind of district level improvement that we don't always have the opportunity to but should seek when we do.

many of the recommendations across all topics reflect the resi resilience and sub committee's and the public's wish to protect the habitat and ecosystems through various means. recommendations about natural resources included protect and enhance natural shoreline habitat, seek opportunities to build natural infrastructure wuch such as wet lands and living shorelines into our shoreline projects, find opportunities to integrate habitat into design and construction of our facilities. and finally, the sub committee recommended that we continue our work with partners to engage and educate the public and provide equitiable access to nature on our waterfront. and with that, i'm going to turn it over to ann cook.

>> good afternoon, president brandon and members of the commission. i'm ann cook, and i'm part of the waterfront team. before i go further, i just want to acknowledge diana bartram, who's here as well. she is our expert on everything related to disaster preparedness and recovery, and we would not have been able to complete this work without her expertise. she's just been an enormous help to understand not just that world but also the land use implications of being prepared for disasters at the port. so with that, i just wanted to start by saying that after we wrapped up the discussions of environmental sustainability, the resilient sub committee began to look at how to address

these other resilience topics in the waterfront plan update. the staff recommended and the sub committee agreed to develop recommendations for new waterfront plan policies that would build upon the port's more strategic plan resilience goals and objectives and would also be consistent with the port emergency response and recovery plans. we didn't start this planning effort in a vacuum -- excuse me. we didn't start it from scratch or in a vacuum. we first reviewed and shared with the sub committee information we culled from resilience plans around the city, the region and the nation, so we could build on the knowledge that already exists out there. although all these plans varied, the common themes improved how to prevent and recover from earthquake and threats like terrorism, and slower moving or evolve threats like sea level rise and more

frequent and severe storms. the sub committee recognized that the city oversees resilient planning for the wide range of housing, public works and functions and they instead focused on how the waterfront plan's -- [inaudible] >> -- for this purpose, the sub committee defined resilience as the capacity of the port to maintain its function and vitality in the face of natural or human caused didsruptions. some of the resilience sub committee recommendations addressed the port capacity to respond to and recover from a major zast certify. we learned that the port is one of only a few locations where the city can be accessed by water for fema plan recovery operations if a disaster damages regional bridges or b.a.r.t. the port's docks, piers or wharves would be ned