1970, a neighbor of this building, 14-year board member of north beach citizens, a homeless group of this area, founder of nick's village. all this experience gives me firsthand knowledge of how difficult the housing situation is, certainly, for the general public in these affordable housing, specifically seniors and the homeless. so i speak, obviously, in support of the projects on points one and three in your resolution. i won't go on much longer because you've had a very good presentation here, but the sponsors and the architects are nationally recognized. they've responded to public input with a staggering number of hearings. the project conforms 100% to the planning code, does not require variances. could have been three stories higher than it was, but the developers chose not to take

that latest change to the planning code. this is exactly the kind of project that the public supports on port lands. it relates to the neighborhood architecturally, and from an urban design point of view, it follows the city's transit first view. what more could be asked for a project. every month delay adds about $500,000 to the cost of the project, so the time has come to complete the approvals, let the financing and construction begin, and we really hope you will support it. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> hello, commissioners. i'm maura blitzer. i'm the director at the mayor's office of housing and community development.

i just want to take my time to show gratitude to thank all of you for all of your time here today. previously, this project has many, many years in development, and we want to thank our colleagues at the port and the development team. the planning department has also spent a fair amount of time on this project, so we're thankful to them as well, as we worked a lot with them through the entitlements process. so we're here if you have any questions, and quite hopeful that you'll be able to make the approval today. >> thank you. come on up. >> commissioners, thank you for having us. my name is rod freeborn smith. i'm a 50 years, 55 year urban architect in san francisco, practicing that long. and my connection to the

embarcadero rebuilding goes strongly back to 1964. i've been a member of your northeast waterfront advisory committee for the port. i've been the civic design commissioner for the city of san francisco for 11 years in the past. and i just wanted to comment on two things because time is short. the affordable housing is incredibly cost sensitive, as you've heard, and as you know, the longer we delay, the less housing we get, or the more expensive the housing we build becomes. there are a couple we could go on a lot here, but time is short. two supportive concerns of mine, as a 44-year resident of telegraph hill directly above this project, on the top of vallejo street, looking right down on it, i am not aware of neighborhood opposition to

this. it's very useful to certain groups to find a political leverage point by suggesting that there's citizen opposition when it -- when it really isn't well calculated or so well known, and i'm concern bd that. because in the final stages of the development of the golden gateway when it was moving north with residential towers -- this was a very long time ago, this was in the 1950's and 60's, the residents of telegraph hill negotiated an agreement that tall buildings would not encroach on the hill and the hill would keep its form. the height and bulk of projects like this have been negotiated for 40 years, and this project, in fact, is relinquishing its ability to give us more housing. we've given up units in

response to what i think is probably a relatively small voice saying the height and bulk of this project is too much, is oppressive. we have some of the best architects in california and the country working on this, and it bothers me when the intrusion into the design process steps or bushes away the ability of very good urban planners and architects from accomplishing what they want to give us. we've seen, i think, a frustratingly large amount of requests for revision in this project. we desperately need to move on. we hope that you will approve it and move it as fast as what we can through the pipeline. >> thank you so much. is there any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is

closed. commissioner gilman? >> so i am so delighted to this project before us. i have been aware of this project before i was sitting on this commission as a resident of north beach and someone who was really happy to see this moving forward and concurs around the community outreach that the developers did to engage the community particularly when the call for housing was so needed, and the communications that the d.p.w. and the mayor's office of housing as wabl to do. i have two questions for port staff. i know today we're approving the m.o.u. for payment of fair market value, but also it says ongoing cooperation. so i just want to explore that a little bit. are we going to be receiving regular updates on this project moving forward, its construction schedule, etcetera? >> yes. [inaudible] >> yes, we will follow our

normal practice of providing you update at each critical milestones, so hopefully, maybe when escrow closes, we definitely will be sharing that major milestone with you by coming back to apprise you of it. >> okay. and are you -- >> but if you want us to apprise you more frequently than that, then that's something we would have to consider. >> okay. i'm just wondering if there's a way -- these projects all the way through rent up, they're sending updates to the mayor's office of housing, and i'm wondering if we can receive those updates. 'cause one concern i just wanted to know -- and i apologize to staff. this is just around just coordination with city departments that i just wanted to flag. i just wanted to point out that i also think that we should be ensuring that the city and county of san francisco provides support for the 20% set aside units for homeless

families. i do want you to know just for the record that a concern i have, that the normal level of funding from my opinion is not adequate to serve the residents properly at that building. the perunit caps from the homeless department would put that at about $185,000 to serve up to 38 families that could have with them up to 80 youth if each of them had two children living with them in the property. i want to ensure that we're not setting up the developer for failure in a nonin a additional neighborhood? in north beach, while there is neighborhood services and they are incredible, we don't have a bulk of services to serve homeless families, and that's why i hope we can incorporate in the m.o.u. a commitment from the department of housing that we can run that well. that's a request that i have of staff and the director. >> there's a two-fold response

to that question. the way we currently craft the m.o.u. intentionally in coordination with the mayor's office of housing, we're expecting them to abide by what the state legislation required for this project to be affordable. but as you know, we're not putting any money into the project. that would be mohcd's call, so i'm going to let mara speak to that issue. >> so commissioner gilman, thank you for that question. absolutely, we can report to you more frequently on the progress of the project. we are so excited to do that in whatever format makes the most sense, and we'll defer to you on that. with respect to making sure that the right services are provided for the right people at the project, that is mohcd's responsibility, and we're working closely with the department of homelessness and

supportive housing. as you mentioned, they have a tier system. they fund a certain amount of money perperson. they have been talking publicly about revising that tier system to make sure there is enough money per-american and that it is situational based so that if there's a neighborhood -- if things are a little bit farther away, that's to come from us. so that's on our radar and we'll be working with them. i don't know that that needs to be in the m.o.u. that we have with the port, but it is certainly in our agreements with the developer with respect to providing appropriate on-site services for everyone who's living there. >> commissioner, could i just clarify the request? >> yes. >> it seems like you're asking for two things. one is for progress of construction. >> yes. >> and the other would sort of be operational progress towards the services that are -- that are -- that you're looking for? >> i just want to make -- i'm going to support this project and move this forward.

i understand this project, and i'm thrilled about it. but we are responsible for the trust and moving this project, as i understand it from the commission before me and the staff and from legislative response, i'm hoping that this could be a blueprint for more projects possibly in the future? housing is a crisis in the city. i just want to ensure -- and mohcd is in charge of coordination, but ultimately, it's not their decision point. so i just feel there's sort of a city partner who's not here with us in the gallery at the table, which is the fact that there could be 38 forerly homeless families? whom i think this would be an incredible environment to them to end the cycle of homelessness? so i just want to ensure that we're providing adequate funding. so the developer doesn't come to us in five years and say we

can't fund this, because the city hasn't funded it adequately? i want to invite that department to come talk to us about it? it hadn't really come into my mind before the presentation today. i was focused on the public comments were, and excited about how we were doing upper middle-income housing and helping that upper stratosphere? >> we'll talk move with mohcd and h.s.h. and try to come back with some additional information maybe short of a presentation in terms of where we're going and see what works for you. >> i am ecstatic about this moving forward, and that is my only question. >> thank you. commissioner woo ho? >> thank you. as noted through all the public hearings on this project, as well as the number of times that this project has been

before the port commission, and this project was, i guess, initiated under mayor ed lee and considered one of his legacy projects when he was pushing housing for the city, we've come a long way. i first want to thank everybody that's been involved. it's been tremendous effort to get everybody within the city family and the developers, and we have for profit, nonprofit. it's been a very complicated arrangement, so number one, i appreciate that we've gone through that. i just want to comment briefly because we have discussed this many times at the commission, both in closed and open session, that as you have noted on your second-to-last slide that we were able to move this forward with some improvements in the final terms, and i just want to sort of commend us that we're -- i think we hopefully have reached a point where this is a win-win for all of the stakeholders? for the port, for the mayor's office of housing, for the developer, and of course for the families that we are

eventually going to be living in this project. so i think we have come to a good place in terms of making sure that everybody receives their equitiable portion of the project to meet the objectives and our responsibilities, and i think accountabilities. so i don't really have any further questions because we have questioned this many times, as you know. and we've already seen the changes from the last time that we talked about, so i'm not going to go into more detail. i think it was complicated, and we just had a briefing before this commission meeting, so we do understand the details that have led us to this final -- so i'm very supportive. we've always been supportive. we were all very excited to be able to participate in affordable housing as that became one of the key issues in this city and to do our part at the port. so thank you. >> thank you. commissioner adams? you're good? okay. mike, john, marie, aaron, and

ricky, thank you for that wonderful presentation. i am so excited that we are at this point, and you guys may think it's a long time, but three years is nothing here at the port. but we are so excited to have a 100% affordable housing project here on port property, so hopefully, we're helping to do our part of the housing process. i know it's taken three years, but the deal has gotten better and better for everybody involved, so we're really happy that this day has come and we're moving forward. >> commissioner, may i interrupt you for one second? >> okay. we're not voting today. >> so there's a minor technical amendment in the resolution that's before you to reflect one of the deal terms on the slides, so i'm going to describe it for you and leave it to your consideration whether to add that to your motion. but -- so it's the 22 whereas

clause in your resolution. begins with the material terms of the lease include, and this is in reference to what ricky described in terms of the reds dwal rent that's -- residual rent that's payable on sale. so there's a series of romanettes deal on that whereas clause, but in romanette five -- >> so that's on page 27, count 22, and it's the whereas... >> the material terms of the lease include a term of 57 years with an extension option. so that -- the change is in romanette five, which is except as provided in romanette eight.

what we'd request is we'd amend that to read instead residual rent to the port except in the circumstances of a refinancing or resale of the sexual portion. >> commissioners, are you okay with that? okay. can i have a -- an amended motion? no? >> i'll make a motion that we accept it as amended, and we vote on it. >> second. >> all in favor? [voting] >> resolution 18-42 has passed. congratulations. >> yea? >> item 13-a, informational update on the seawall update and disaster prevention

program. >> good afternoon, commissioners, president brandon, vice president adams, port staff, and members of the public, my name is steven real, i'm the seawall program manager, and this is an informational update on the seawall safety information program. the last informational updates were for communications and stakeholder engagement strategy in february and planning and engineering in march. this update was for the overall program. i'll provide an update on the program and engineering and lowell will give an overview of the planning approach and the stakeholder update, and then i'll wrap up with legislative and finance update. this is a very dense update, and i'm going to move through it quickly. seawall update safety and

financial program, the seawall is the foundation of the embarcadero waterfront. it's over a century old, highly vulnerable earthquake damage and it run -- is running out of time to protect the city. phase one will very vel op the overall program and construct critical safety and disaster improvements. phase one is budgeted at 500 34i8 i don't know and -- million and scheduled to be completed by the end of 2026. we're in the program development phase with the goal of completing the program. this predesigned work includes collecting data, field investigations, development and analysis of a range of alternatives, and selecting a preferred program. $15 million is budgeted for

this program development work. we've assembled the dedicated team of port staff and consultants to carry out this work, to add to the port team, we are currently recruiting a project funded environmental planner four whom we hope to have on board in september. the major consulting contracts are in place. civic edge consulting, and ch 2 m arca -- no significant modifications during this quarter. engineering work is progressing from data collection you heard about last time, and outcome of the data collection effort was the recommendation to complete a detailed program wide geotechnical investigation to both advance the seismic hazard assessment and inform development alternatives. this recommendation came from both the design team and the independent seismic review

panel. to inform the investigation program, we recently completed a pilot investigation to both test various techniques and get a jump start on analysis. big take aways are the ability to use less expensive techniques, and the realization that the embarcadero is filled with unknown utilities which will not only complicate the geotechnical investigation but also complicate construction efforts. the pilot program is approximately 325,000, and we're looking at a total investment of $2 million in gey technical -- geotechnical investigation work. another out come of data collection was to fill gaps. this is essentially a survey of the bay floor, and this work was completed in june. survey used advanced equipment combining both high resolution sonar and laser scanning.

this work was approximately $880,000. the main reason to undertake the seawall program is also a source of complexity. that is the sheer amount of codependent infrastructure owned, operated and maintained by both public and private agencies. we need support from these agencies to help us understand the assets and to estimate the physical damage and consequences from seawall failure. i'm happy to report that we've had great support so far from b.a.r.t., sfmta, p.u.c., public works, weta, at&t, kinder morgan and pg&e who are all allocated resources to help us -- allocating resources to help us in this effort. next steps include finalizing the overall geotechnical exploration program and begin the investigations which are on the critical path for advancing the critical earthquake assessment work, and advancing the multihazard risk

assessment. now, lindy lowe will present on the approach of the seismic approach as well as the stakeholder and community engagement. >> thank you, steven. good afternoon, president brandon and commissioners. i am lindy lowe. i am new to the port? i started in september, and impart of the planning and environment division representing resilience. so the seawall program approach, i think steven talked about how complicated the effort is. it's $5 billion over 30 years and it's a number of assets that affect millions of people's lives on a daily basis, and so how do we go about doing that kind of work? so we've been working on answering that question over the last couple of months, and we've come up with an approach that we would like to present

to you today. the seawall program approach is a design to allow the port and the city to focus first on urgent seismic and current flood risk, to establish a foundation for addressing increasing flood risks due to sea level rise, to provide the city, port, and community with the tools to address current and future risks over time, to provide the port with a way to respond to risks and conditions in this a way that is transparent and accountable. there are three elements to the seawall program: strengthen, adapt, and envision. so here we are with not only all of this complexity but more than one hazard, we have both seismic hazards, ground shaking and liquefaction, and this will increase over time and create

more significant effects over time, and the flood hazard map that i have on this slide demonstrates the different sort of thresholds of that flood hazard that at about 6 inches to 12 inches, we start -- we have localized flooding along the embarcadero. at about 24 inches to 36 inches, we have more increased flooding, and then over 36 inches, we start to have more significant flooding. it's important to note that all of those numbers are on a 100-year event. so in order to address both the seismic hazard as well as the flooding hazard, and recognize the risks, consequences, and priorities that will change over time, we have developed the seawall program framework to allow us to adaptively manage the waterfront over the next 30 years and beyond for the near term risks, the midterm risks, and then that port 2100 risks -- those port

2100 risks. consideration of those glynn in 2018 but with significant levels of detail. the strengthen analysis will provide an analysis that will support construction to reese current seismic and flood risks chl . the adapt element will be updated every five years to respond to additional seismic risks, increasing flood risks, and consideration of city, port, and community priorities. the envision element will result in three to six high level concepts to respond to much higher water levels that will need to be addressed on a landscape scale approach? these concepts will be revisited every ten years to ensure that they are relevant to observe flood risk, is the flooding happening more quickly than we thought, is -- are our sea levels rising more quickly or slowly than we thought, as

well as though city port and community priorities. and that the actions taken today in the strengthen project are building support for those future visions. so in more detail, the strengthen project allows -- the objective is, as steven said, immediately implement the highest priority disaster response and life safety project along that embarcadero seawall where we have that urgent seismic safety risk. the planning and implementation timeline is 2018 to 2026-2028. the priorities are, again, current seismic and flood risks to life, safety, and emergency response, and the geographic focus for the strengthen element is that three miles of embarcadero seawall. the adapt element, the objective is to identify policies and projects that will result in a port that is resill gent to seismic and increasing flood risks and that risks can respond to changing city, port, and community priorities?

projects will be integrated into city, region, and private actions resulting in coordinated implementation. the planning time frame again starts in 2018 and the roer -- horizon is about 2050. the plan will be updated every five years and identify implementation priorities for both policy and construction projects. the priorities are seismic and future flood risks to 2070 projections, and then, the geographic focus goes from the three mile focus of the seawall to the port's entire jurisdiction, the full 7.5 miles. and then, we have the envision element, and the idea is to develop three to five visions that can respond to the remaining seismic risk as well as the landscape scale flood risk that is -- that are represented by those much higher water levels. it allows us to have an ongoing public conversation with all of

the other city departments about how do we respond to those much higher flood levels? the planning and implementation timeline is quite long. it's 2018 to 2100. we would be updating that vision every ten years. the priority, again, is the seismic risk that remains as well as the future flood risk of much higher water levels. and again, it's the port's entire jurisdiction that we would be considering. all along the way with all these of these elements, we're going to have and we've already started a very robust public engagement as well as city, state and local partnership approach. we are going to be developing a policy and technical advisory committee to help us go through this work. we have already had our first quarterly seawall community meeting. we are developing a resource agency working group. we have already been conducting a number of focus briefings on

issues or particular geographic areas where we're requested to attend and present? and then, we are in the process of working with the other city departments to identify an on-line engagement tool to increase our reach and provide people with the opportunity if they can't come to a meeting or a briefing to participate. and then, this is another seawall program timeline that is consistent with steven's timeline but is in more planning terminology, where we talk about the existing conditions, vulnerability and risk. we lineup where are the strength and projects and design approvals happening in relation to the development of the adapt plan? the adapt plan is the big, blue arrow, and thin, below that, you can see the strengthen project, preliminary design alternatives. what we want to do is advance those strengthen projects as quickly as possible while

allowing ourselves to plan for the entire port's jurisdiction for those higher water levels as well as increasing priorities. and then, the bottom yellow lines identifies the public meetings that we're having, the community meetings and the topics. we had the first one where we introduced the folks to the seawall program in this room. we had over 75 people in attendance, as well as a lot of our city partners and regional partners who participated. then at the next meeting, we'll have existing conditions and hazard scenarios. the third meeting will focus on strengthen, adapt and envision goals and objectives, what are the goals and objectives for these different elements? they will be different because they're addressing different kinds of risks as well as different context. the evaluation criteria to make decisions about which projects get advanced in the strengthen alternative? the multihazard risk assessment findings and those strengthen alternatives that have moved through that evaluation process? and then, the strengthen

project selection and the adapt plan outline. i am going to move into stakeholder and community engagement, and i am going to acknowledge renee martin, who is here, who's done an amazing amount of this work on stakeholder and community engagement, as well as kirsten tsosie, who are not here, who are wonderful members of our community and outreach team. we have been out and about a lot. we have engaged a number of community organizations, taken the opportunity to partner with some of our wonderful institutions in san francisco, like the cal academy. we reached out to 500 families in language and talked to them about the seawall. we have some pictures of that

event, and so many of the families did not even know that there was a seawall. so many of the -- of the -- the -- the -- the kids answered our seawall quiz cards. it was a really great way to get people engaged. we have sent out over 2500 e-mail -- well, actually, we have collected over 2500 e-mail accounts. people have willingly given us their e-mail so that they can stay connected to this project, which is no small feat. over 7,000 pieces of collateral distributed, and almost -- probably 11,000 at this point, people connected via outreach, given that this slide's a couple weeks old. we have had a lot of success with on-line engagement and social media? we had this wonderful partnership with our transportation partners, sfmta, weta, and golden gate ferry, where we had a twitter

conversation that really fook fire because b.a.r.t. has a number of twitter bfollowers. we're starting to talk to our port tenants, talking about the king tides that are coming up, and how that affects the port of san francisco. and then, we have a lot of people -- over 15,000 people going to our website. we have had radio ads, press conferences on funding for the seawall, which i think some of you attended. it was a great event. we have had op eds, over 50 stories on the seawall, a number of media engagement and more to come, and we have been engaging in some innovative outreach with some local san

francisco partners. we have a seawall beer that has launched, thanks to black hammer brewery, and we have an event next -- meet the engineer event next week at black hammer brewery. we have seawall espresso coming out from ritual coffee coming out in the fall. we have a surprising snapchat filter about the seawall, and we have an event planned with sports phase. i think one of the things that we've been struggling with is the seawall is invisible infrastuckture, and how do -- infrastructure, and how do we highlight it. normally, everybody sees the thing that needs to be fixed, but we're stuck with -- not stuck with, but we need to

highlight and educate people on improving the seawall, and doing it in fun ways is really important. over 50 community presentation road shows, so we have a number of road show veterans in the audience. your port staff has been going out to community groups all around the city, out into the richmond, out into the bayview, right next door, giving these seawall road show talks that have been very, very well received. we've been reaching out to tenants -- door-to-door outreach to tenants. we've had a number of seawall walking tours, and i don't know if the commissioners have been on a tour yet, but i would recommend if you haven't, you should attend, and you should ghoe on a tour. and if you -- go on a tour. and if you have, let other folks now. they're selling out; we have a very popular tour. we've gone to a number of stakeholder meetings and events

where opportunity presents itself or folks have requested that we do that? we have a stakeholder survey that with over 350 surveys have been completed. we have a monthly e newsletter, and i'm all assuming that you all see it on a regular basis, and monthly website regular updates. again our first meeting was on june 21. we had this meeting filled with people and boards? we presented the program framework that i talked about today, as well as the seismic and flood hazard risk, and how is it we're going to be making decisions in this project over time. and i'm going to pass it back to steven for the important finance and legislative updates. >> thank you, lindy. the -- the engineer happy hour is next tuesday. it's going to be a very

exciting event. so how are we going to pay for all this. our overall goal is this. you previously heard from brian strong, the city's chiefri sill yens officer about the recommendations from the seawall working group which laid the groundwork for the strategy. initial citywide investment not only gets the critical improvements moving quickly but shows our state and federal partners that the city is both committed and a financially capable local sponsor which, more than ever is very critical for securing those funds. on local funding, the general obligation bond measure is moving along. at the end of june, the bond ordinance was unanimously

approved by the board of supervisors, clearing the way for the $425 million geobond measure to be placed on the november 2018 ballot will require two thirds yes vote to pass. as you've heard, the polling has been very encouraging. program will also receive an additional 3.65 million including 5 million from the general fund, 1.1 million from the portion, and 250,000 from city planning. this funding is necessary to continue the planning and engineering work in advance of the bond. on the state funding efforts, these include a.b. 2578 and a state budget request. assembly bill 2578 gives the port the ability to capture the state's share of tax increments from port infrastructure financing districts, specifically for seawall improvements. it was introduced by assembly member david chiu, coauthored

by scott wiener and cochaired by assembly member ting. another state source of funds is the direct appropriation. port requested $50 million direct appropriation in the upcoming state budget. this request has been reduced to 5 million but appears to be moving forward and is likely to take the form of a grant from the california state natural resources agency. and on the federal funding side, as you know, we've already begun working with the army corps of engineers from pier 5 to pier 22 1/2. the big and super exciting news, though, is the new start authority for the entire port, the entire property, that was approved in the u sa's 2018 work plan. this is for a general

investigation for flood protection for the entire port and can bring unlimited federal funding. it was one of only six new starts nationwide -- that's wrong, but it was one of -- it was one of six new starts nationwide, one of only two for coastal flood protection. the new start includes 500,000 to include the feasibility study in this year. it included the assistant secretary of defense, and the director of the office of management and budget. commission president brandon and executive director forbes, i don't know what you did back there in d.c., but it worked, and thank you so much on behalf of the project team. thank you so much for your leadership on this issue. we've already met with core staff at the district. they're assembling the project team, and we intend to request execution of the feasiblity cost sharing agreement with the core at the august 14 meeting.

and on that happy note, this concludes our presentation. lindy and i are available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? no public comment. commissioner woo ho. >> thank you, steven, and thank you, for all of the efforts here in terms of all the presentations of the various people today. i think today seems like all of our reports have been extremely comprehensive and integrated, so that seems to be the theme today, so good to see that. i really don't have any particular questions. i just read something for the seawall today, so i was totally briefed. so i was updated in addition to your presentation. i think the only questions we had was we wanted to see how the funding goes, but we know

where that headed, and we'll have to wait and see how each piece comes into place. i do think that now that we have a number that we can seem to expect over time, now that we know we think we're in the range of 5 billion, that was something that i think is another advancement, and i'm not sure whether that's the final number, but at least we have a guesstimate at this point, or maybe more at this point, what it's going to cost. i can only say that we're very supportive, and i think you are he aall going about it -- you're all going about it extremely smartly, and thank you for the effort. >> thank you. commissioner gilman? >> steven, thank you, again, thsts really informative. i really appreciate the out of the box thinking of community engagement? i've seen a lot of social media posts. i think it's really important because it is an invisible

thing, and it's really hard for focuses to understand why we can't even justification it on our own or even what a seawall is. so i just wanted to commend you with all of your efforts with the partners to really have that public education. >> thank you. commissioner adams? >> thank you. you know, i went to a couple of the meetings, and i know this is not, like, a sexy issue, right, and i know director forbes and other -- steven, you were worried about how do we get it out there. with renee, i've got to tell you, i'm really happy with what you've done with the p.r. campaign. it's gotten better, and the social media. i saw the warriors in there, and i had even mentioned one time the giants. no, but i think this is good, and this is an issue about life, and the safety of every citizen of this city. it's long-term thinking, and

it's getting way ahead of the project and getting out front on it. i just want to say i'm very supportive of it, and thanks for all of the hard work. i'm clear -- i believe when you give people all the facts, they'll do the right thing. i'm sure this thing will get voted up, and this is a long-term investment for future generations to come, and at the end of the day, people will say we did the right thing. we didn't react, we were out front, and we were on the offense instead of on the defense because normally things happen afterwards. i know when president brandon, and director forbes, we were in new orleans, and you see what happened down there, and eight, 10, 12, $14 billion later, and most people never move back to new orleans, and getting out front like this, this protects our communities, this protects our families, and it also protects our waterfront, and this is something that's long overdue, so thank you. >> thank you. steven and lindy, thank you so

much for such a detailed report. this is great, and it's just amazing how much progress we've made in such a short period of time. i also think that the community outreach and engagement has been if he knowledge national. i think -- phenomenal. i've seen people all over the city. i love the toys and the things for kids. so this is going to take a lot of education for people, and i think we are doing a great job, and i just want to commend anybody who's had any role in this. from when director forbes and i were in d.c., we were praying for a $350 million bond measure. now we have 500, and people are really aware of this project. and it's so needed. it's so critical to san francisco to complete, so i just want to commend everybody on all that we've done so far, so thank you.

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: item 13-b, request authorization to award construction contract number 2787-r, pier 27 passenger shelter to g.y. engineering, incorporated in the amount of $818,000 and authorize the contract contingency fund of 10% for a total will authorization of 8 -- total authorization of $889,000. >> good afternoon, president brandon and members of the commission. dan hodath with the planning and environment division. we are here to ask that the commission consider award a contract such that terminal opened in 2014, we have continued to work with the operator to refine and improve its performance, and this is one of those projects that's looking to do that. the new shelter will -- would

be located in the ground transportation area, in the center of this, about 100 feet from the terminal. the embarcadero road way is in the lower right corner, pier road way and cruise terminal at the top, as perthe labels. the new passenger shelter will replace the temporary nonpermitted shelter currently in place at pier 27. the new permanent shelter is needed to provide weather protection for cruise passengers transferring to and from cruise terminal by bus or auto, and to appropriately define the vehicle and pedestrian areas. the project funding is from the port's certificate of -- certificates of participation financing and the 2014 revenue bond issuance that was previously approved for the cruise terminal project. the passenger structure is 162 feet long, 16 feet wide, and being of a scale appropriate for the port's

international terminal. it will stand quietly between the new james r. hermann terminal and the historic pier 29. to discuss the bid process and the contractor selection, i would like to begin with tiffany tatum of the board's engineering division describing the advertising for the project. >> good afternoon, commissioners. ti tive -- tiffany tatum. the invitation for bids was pub mished may 15. during advertisement, we contacted 190 certified l.b.e. firms, as well as all local ethnic chambers of commerce via e-mail. of the 190, 91 of these firms were from supervisorial district ten.

the project was posted on the board's website, office of contract administration website, and the p.u.c.'s plan holders room website, as well as a seven-day advertisement in the examiner. we also highlighted this project at the port's second annual contract open house in march. lastly, we held an optional prebid meeting on may 3 here at our pier 1 offices. thank you so much. i will turn it back over to dan and be available for questions. >> thank you, tiffany. the port received three bids, two from l.b.e. firms which were then eligible for the 10% scoring adjustment. the adjusted responsive and responsible low bidder determined by the contract monitoring division, c.m.d., is g.y. engineering at 788,000, and they're additive bid price

was 30,000, bringing the price to 818,000. perthe ordinance there was a mandatory 30% local hiring requirement. g.y. engineering is familiar with this kwiernlt and has met -- requirement and has met it with other projects without incident. 13% is required to be for disadvantaged workers. should the commission authorize this resolution today, they would begin the contract -- entering into the contract with intent of issuing a notice to proceed in september of this year, which would put us to march of next year for substantial completion. in summary, g.y.e. is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. the resolution before you would authorize -- g.y.'s -- excuse me. the l.b.e. parmgs, there was 20% requirement on the contract. the subcontractor selected by g.y.e., sabala construction,

would perform 30% of the work. 94% total of the work would be done by l.b.e.'s on this project. g.y.e. is a licensed contractor in san francisco since 1991, 27 years experience, with over 10 million of work in structural steel construction. these types of projects have included a couple of projects at s.f.o. and a claremont high school additional on the peninsula. they're also general contractor on the port's current rest room project. g.y.e. hired -- okay. from that, that concludes -- excuse me. i'm a little turned around. i apologize. again, the total 818,000 plus the base bid, bus the additive amount, which the contingency, that brings it up to the 889

contract amount. should you have questions about this, in the room here is gene yakovich of g.y.e. engineering, myself, and tiffany tatum. >> thank you. can i have a motion? >> motion. >> a second? >> second. >> so moved. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner gilman? >> i have -- i have no questions. >> okay. commissioner woo ho? >> yeah. i think that number one, i just wanted to commend that i sort of remember seeing this design when we first did the cruise ship terminal, but i guess at the time we ran out of funding to complete it. is that correct? >> yes, at the time we thought we would run out of funding, but we actually had savings on the cruise ship project, so the source is the cruise ship terminal project. >> okay. because i sort of remember the

design, and i certainly am supportive to see that we want to move away from the temporary and to actually look like we do have a modern cruise ship terminal, and it really completes the entire area, so i'm very supportive from that standpoint. right now, it's a little bit jarring in emergency room its of the building is beautiful. i am very supportive. i think you were all very careful. you have taken our guidance in making sure that we -- you answer all of the questions in terms when we have a bid, the background of the contractor, the l.b.e. percentage, etcetera, so i don't really have any further questions. >> thank you. commissioner adams? >> we probably have one of the world-class cruise terminals in the world, and this is long overdue to have something like that. this is a first-class operation, and we need to look

the part all the way through, and this is going to help because every year, we seem to be growing our cruise ship business. i've said from the first time i said on this commission, i would like to see us have over 1 million passengers a year, and i hope we can continue to steadily -- and plus, we have private activities and other activities that people rent out the cruise terminal, so i think this will just add to the splendor of our building, and this helps our tourism in san francisco. what i wanted to know was, also, as far as was there any diversity in the bids, and just seems like we've had problems at the port as far as diversity, and can you tell me kind of where we're at and -- as far as were there any minorities who -- who was in the process and that, you know, i just wanted to know, are we started to be able to broaden the playing field a little bit more around here.

>> i'm going to call on joule finbar from the c.m.d., contract monitoring division, to provide your answer. >> thanks, dan. >> yeah. >> good evening, commissioners. finbar jewel from the contract monitoring division. g.y.e. is an l.b.e., and the subcontractor they utilized to meet the l.b.e. requirement is also an l.b.e. >> just to put that in layman's terms, it's white owned firms. and one of the things, we've been working on this issue for sometime, as you know. i'm proud to say this commission -- i think this commission has more disclosure and conversation about diversity in contracting really than any other city commission, and i'm really proud that we're leading the way in having these

conversations. we had -- i think in talking about what's available in the pipeline, there are definitely minority firms, m.b.e.'s that are certified in doing the work. for whatever reason, we have not reached out to them to find out why they did not do the bid. sometimes city work may be less preferred to private work, but there is a pipeline available. but in this instead, it was o.b.e. -- two o.b.e. firms that partnered to put in the responsible low bid. i will also make one other comment. today right before the commission, finbar and our chief harbor engineer, katie ficioni, were all sitting down. we had a break through moment, and we were working on lots of things, but one of the things that c.m.d. was been working for us, when we go out for a bid, c.m.d. is going to express

the diversity that's available in terms of the l.b.e. and women owned businesses and the percentages and ask the respondents to be responsive to that availability, and if they're not, to document why not. so we have more data and information to provide you when you're making your decisions, and i think finbar for that. really great idea. >> thank you, director. >> thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, finbar. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, dan and tiffany, for this presentation, and thank you for inquiring about the diversity. and it is a little discouraging that, you know, we continue to have these contracts, and we have -- this particular contract, we have no minorities, no women. maybe we can ask the bidders, why are there no minorities, no women part of this bid?

because we've just got to change how we're doing things. >> my name is gene yakovich, i'm principle of g.y. engineering. >> i'm sorry, could you speak into the microphone. >> sorry, finbar. you're taller than i. it's not that simple. it's not black and white. we do employ a large group of minorities, and our workers are minorities and women. we explore and send the invitation to minority. we are -- in this particular job, we have only limited amount of trades involved, say two trades.

and the trades, we have the minority, we contacted two asian companies, and they said they will not bid this, it's too big for them. nevertheless, we will -- right now, we are talking to one of the fabricators, metal local fabricators, who is spanish american, and we may utilize him if we can get all the numbers together with him for fabrication of some of the parts for the frame assembly of the building of the structure. we also hire a lot of local people, local residents. if you're a local company