generating uses. i'll come back to that in the recommendation section. the final thing we looked at is what we're generating from the piers now. we want to recognize the contribution to the operating budget and want to be clear as we go forward we don't want to be made worse off than we are today, if at all possible through the process. i was going say this is the reveal. our recommendation for the phase 1 piers include a single ritch for -- r.f.p. for the pier scored highest those were 19, 19 1/2, 23, 29 and we're suggesting 20 1/2 and 21 be shown as optional piers. the reason is the alcatraz embarkation site will be under construction for a few years. we want to make sure that

project is complete before we introduce a new potential construction project right next door. that's the reason for holding those as optional piers and this area of the water front has the highest number of resources. highest length of contiguous rfrt -- amount of resources. in thinking about what the piers can deliver, it would be incredible to imagine the transformation of this part of the waterfront. in thinking about the criteria of how to select potential partner, these are the five bullet points that are experience with engagement and a plan how to engage the community if selected. they need an early activation

strategy and we think pier 29 has the opportunity to be an early activation site and permanent public oriented type of pier use because of the unique construction circumstances attached to the parking lot next to the terminal. it would have to include use and we would want a team with experience working over water in a seismically active area and we'd want to have a financially feasible project. we also recommend piers 26, 28, 38 and 40 be studied a bit more. the planning level estimate is they weren't financially feasible but i want to stress that's a planning level estimate without trying to do a lot nor figure out if they can get over

the hump of financial feasibility and with the level of analysis did, we're unwilling to say they're not feasible at this point. we need to do more study the others were more clearly feasible and we felt more comfortable going forward with those piers. in thinking what we'll talk about and it's important to have the context of all the other processes going on. i've laid out the water front plan update and the pier solicitation program. i want to make note the first half of 2019 for the waterfront plan were anticipating releasing draft amendment and we so ceqa analysis with the anticipated release of ceqa and the pier solicitation project would lag that. we'd look at public vetting the

first half of the year with r.f.p. recommendations the first half of the year and if directed, we'd issue the r.f.p. and then in 2020 we'd be negotiating that project would do its own ceqa analysis. there'd be a time beyond 2020. it matches nicely with the program. they'll consider alternatives later in the year and at that point in time we could key in with a development partner to make sure the type of participation they would have in the seawall program would fit with the alternatives the seawall project team is coming in with. i'd love to hear your thoughts on the process and we'd worked hard to make sure it's integrating the land use program how to issue a solicitation if you direct us we'll take rpp

criteria and resign them with our advisory group and our effective advisory grup and we'd do other outreach we the idea of coming back with the rfp. i'll be available with questions with my other team members. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm alice rodgers and worked on the land use committee. i want to commend the report. i think it's very well done. the process was arduous but we

appreciate the resources you've devoted to do it in an informed, educated way. i have every page and conviction the water front land use recommendation will carry forward and will inform your selections but there's an awkward legislative grap where we go forward with the r.f.p. before we finalized and codified the plan. i haven't experienced any sense there isn't anything but 1,000% support for bringing all the land use recommendations over the finish line.

it has come to my attention there's some that are concerned about the lapse of timing so anything a commission can do to ensure the water front working group that you are dedicated seeing the recommendations come forward would be appreciated. thank you. >> was there any other comment? [off-mic] >> it's great to see the report so far.

it's good to see the proposed bundling. they plan to include the lots of the embarcadero. we were proposing it was better to funnel the piers to a single solicitation for all the piers wire proposing a master plan with strong community benefits allowing the public benefits to be recognized up front early in the piece. it's a great opportunity to create a world class waterfront

district and you may consider a single solicitation. >> thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? >> i'm debbie and this is my husband paul miller and we just wanted to quickly introduce ourselves. not sure if this is the right day to do that. this proposal would be our third location in san francisco. right now we have the lounge with jazz music and we have one with a were -- an organ and it would have three components involved.

we have a craft cocktail bar and we'd partner with museums an historic societies to create a waterfront aesthetic relating to the ports and have satellite shows for museums. the third is the pipe organ lounge. we'd plan live music seven nights a week. why the port? the love of san francisco and living here so long and wanting to be involved in the development. it was exciting >> is there any other public comment on this item? >> we also submitted a proposal

that was more about taking advantage of the interim years before development on the piers starts to take place. we believe an important opportunity much less talking about throughout the hearing of involving the community of san francisco and what the piers can and should be and doing it both through public comment, engagement opinion and in the ways the piers could be vitalized before development and before long term waves take place. we request you take into consideration the potential for using pop ups and/or temporary installations to start to explore not just what people want out of these places but how they could be activated and serve as a community resource in the interim years before long-term development starts to take place. thank you >> any other public meant? -- public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.

>> thank you for funneling down what we got in the r.f.i. into a process we can follow. the only comments for the commissioner from any standpoint are i think the r.f.p. process needs to be open and broad and does not preclude specific proposals we could at the same time -- we could entertain and i don't think we want to restrict ourselves. i think the bundling of the piers does make some sense. i think we have to see what comes back. interim uses has a place for

interim uses because we know the development take many years and in having interim uses an revenue is not a bad idea. i think we're here to set guidelines and need to see what comes from the r.f.p. the r.f.i. gave a sense of what was possible out there. as people look at this there's financial feasibility going to dictate what will be proposed. at the end of the day, the port has to being able to sustain itself. i think we understand the public benefits is important so whoever comes in to propose to balance off the need for public benefits along with the ability for us to be able to generate some

revenues. it's a tall order. and to answer a little bit i do mention i looks like the process is maybe out of sync. i think the water front land use plant was an important document and guideline. i don't know i'd say at this point it restricts us to only do certain things. it's a guideline and what we think is good and i still think we have to take a pragmatic approach when we look at the r.f.p. and it's good to know what the recommendations are and we don't stray and violate violently. i also don't think we should view it as a straight jacket. i think we have to be pragmatic

and will have to juggle but we can't keep waiting and waiting. we're losing time. we have to move forward. when you come back i think you have to take the more specific things we'd like to see in consideration. >> will i do agree. in your presentation you stated we would select a partner. are you envisioning one person will be a pier partner or mix and match? >> our intention is to award one anticipating they would have -- it would be consortium bidding

on the r.f.p. for management reading i think that was our inclination. that's been our experience in the past. it's better to have a single team que have found some team -- we have found some team members will drop off and others will take their place and found it a better model than strong weigh a respond ent that come in for all the piers as a cohesive plan and one replies on a revenue from -- relies on a revenue from another pier. our inclination was to not allow multiple pier responses an -- and to match them up ourselves.

>> [indiscernible]. >> i think that was the financial feasibility study. i threw everything in the excel sheet i couldn't get a positive number. at the level of information we have about 26, 28, 38 and 40s s 40shgs -- 40, the ones we put together are the once we think will be an exciting project and the balance is public benefit, cost for rehab, revenue to the port. when we put in those that perform more poorly something has to give and we don't have a

nice three legged stool where we get the historic rehab and get public benefits and opportunities in dissatisfaction to the normal stuff everyone is accustomed to coming around and we want to provide more than just public access on the outside. >> rather than kicking the can down the street. [off-mic]

>> we would like to ask a couple more months to study the pier to see if there's other tools we can bring that would kind of be more -- might make sense to go forward with that we haven't considered today. >> we learned a lot from the r.f.i. i don't think we covered and what came from the process. why would we not allow that to benefit the port

>> i haven't been through too many r.f.p. processes and what we set forth in the criteria, i feel if we say we want a matt matter -- master plan we should say it in the criteria otherwise respondents will try to guess what we want and try to advantage themselves by putting something forward we don't understand works. i have openness to it but my concern is whether we can have an r.f.p. process that isn't ripe for an awesome idea for the waterfront and another idea for the whole waterfront. i'm concerned about sending mixed messages in the r.f.p. where we're open for this or

this i'm open minded. >> rebecca wants to recommend a process where the selection panel can bring an apples to apples comparison among the bidders. the selection panel can score them and make a recommendation like to like for the preferred respondent. >> thank you. >> you're saying there's an r.f.p. for all the piers. why was was the waterfront

[off-mic] >> we endeavor to do that with the financial analysis we brought forward early. we tried to do that with the 2017 analysis we looked at what we considered to be our worse position pier and what we tried to do was to say both of these can work with the recommendations we've put forward. the last two years things have gotten worse which are we lost a tax credit. and some of the tax credits. cost escalations have exceeded rent escalation for many rent types and we're anticipating this project should in some way, shape or form contribute to the seawall. i agreed we wanted to do that

but since that analysis was done it puts pier 38 in the more troublesome financial feasibility bucket [off-mic] >> why wouldn't you pull those out. >> mike martin with real estate and development. i don't think it's a matter of the feasibility of the southern piers keeping them out of this. i want to harken back to the slides about the recipe for success. it's a challenging transaction to look at a single pier. the more piers you load on, the more challenges you have of tying it together and we can get stuck without the peers being

reh rehabilitated. we have to take the most feasible ones. we're not ignoring the rest. we want to come back with you with construction structures that make them more feasible than they are today. >> rebecca thank you for the presentation and for your entire staff who contributed to this. it's a lot of work and piers and options. i think this process is an interesting one. we put out interest in piers and how do we prioritize what we want to do with it?

if we take our four best piers and bundle them, i kind of think we are setting ourselves up for failure. why wouldn't anyone do the other one or add 19 and 38 or bundle the southern and northern to make sure we get whatever it is we're looking for? i do think this is not something that has to happen urgently within the next month or two. i think maybe we need to study this a little more and understand what we want from this process because we're not being fair to all those who responded to the r.f.i. it's not clear of any direction we want to go now.

we've put a considerable amount of money in some and haven't put the same investment into 26, 28, 38, 40. we've put a lot of money into 48. it's understanding more of where the facilities are as far as the need for development versus how we shut put this together. -- should put this together and why take the best piers and

bundle them and expect a great thing to happen with the ones that aren't as well maintained? >> pier 38 is under consideration and it wasn't in the r.f.i. to just provide to the world as an opportunity as they're looking for a long-term partner as a potential tenant. now it's under the 10-year lease for parking and special events and we have the option to open that lease if the right development came along at any time if we can demonstrate financial feasibility. the only prelude is demonstrating feasibility.

>> one other note is we know how complicated these could be. if a partner has similar or contiguous geography they can do work with that neighborhood and understanding their concerns as they're doing their broader communications. they wan cork -- can work in that particular area and the construction will be similar for the piers and it would be mer complicated and require more due diligence to understand the construction types among the piers. we're always worried about the complexity of pushing it over the shelf of likely to be successful and the third is the seawall program they can have a greater understanding of the

vulnerability of the seawall in front of those piers and can have a greater shot at providing a robust solution. looks like elaine and mike -- >> i was going to say the seawall notion, there's going to be developing information and projects embarked upon that could change the framework around the piers and how to approach them. there's other things the working group effort pointed out which is that a full-seismic upgrade is not always the right fit for a specific facility. there could ab -- be approaches that allow for a less intensive upgrade in the back and that's only one of the studies. we feel 19, 23 and 29 are good candidates for a full seismic upgrade or something close to it to allow public access and occupancy. the other piers because of their condition we wanted to think harder what we could say to potential bidders about what the

right mix of expenditure and use could be. your question is in line with why we wanted to do more study. we want to be to explain to you and the public why it makes sense in terms of having some success. >> you shed you want to study the lesser piers. there's a question of the other piers have from having put all the eggs in one basket. how much time do we know to learn about the piers? >> we need to update the cost

estimate. we've done them on an escalation basis but i think we'd be more comfortable in having an engineering firm review them again a couple months and they'd review costs already done and i think that would go an along way for a partial upgrade at the facility. >> before making assumptions that's why the developer that wants to team up with us will determine a preferred using for the pier. we're just want the partnering

up to be more inclusive and what design they have for which preferred pier and at the end of the day they'll try to do it as inexpensive as they could depending on the use. >> you can always have an engineering firm tell you. we know that from the whole arena exercise in 30, 32. it depends on the use and substructure and upgrades. it sounds like we need to have to go into whatever we want to do it's a major process for a pier. if it only took a couple months fully why wouldn't we have all the information and then decide because these are the guidelines for the r.f.p. we're looking at. >> i wanted to add a couple comments. first of all no staff is arguing for the recommendation. we're open to the comments of

the commissioners. it's about the future of our historic district. we're coming here to get information and guidance. it's not an easy answer. and i also think we can get more information on the other piers. the other thing mentioned about other tools, what we're talking about right now is full seismic restoration. full restoration of the facilities and the northwestern piers are adjacent to piers that have been restored. there's other tools in the kit where we can get uses without full seismic restoration. these are financially fees able

with that model. we need to look at levers to pull with the historic district to provide more public enjoyment revenues to the port because we've not had the feeling that we can save every pier with a full seismic upgrade and restoration because of the financial challenges and our track record, frankly. we're trying to save as many possible in the most robust way possible. we're eager to go back and get more information about the southern piers and after i'd like the full complement of the commission and public comments. >> the developer came in thinking there would be x dollars and that became x-plus and they weren't able to go forward. while it's up to the develop tore decide when they're bidding but i've never seen to this

point -- it's always been more than what they estimated. i think we need to get closer to having something realistic so they know what they're bidding on. though we know there'll be wiggle room but we failed because substructure cost has been greater and the developer has walked away. >> that's what you're seeing is a caution of putting forward the piers we see as feasibly viable and construction costs always come in higher than first estimated. >> i'm making a recommendation. do you agree? >> do i. i think we need to have the information on all of the piers we put in the r.f.p. >> thank you for the report.

>> clerk: item 9b for information presentation on the strategy options for piers 30-32 and seawall lot 330. >> real estate development. it was interesting to think with the order the last item and this item would go in. i think both inform each other. so i'll find myself thankful to be in the last discussion and how it affects this discussion. we're moving to the southern part of seawall lot 330 and 30 and 32 and the slide shows why they're unique and potentially valuable development possibility for the port. you can see piers 30, 32 say large pier complex over the water. it's the only pier complex in the northern waterfront not part

of the district because sprarts burn -- parts have burned out and it's across the embarcadero. it provides more modern architecture than the historic piers. it also moves the benefit of historic preservation which was an galvanizing of the update co gain the benefits of the historic structures. a different calculus in that regard. the goal of the presentation is to build off prior staff reports to look at both sites and look at past transactions that have attempted to develop those sites

unsuccessfully harkening back to the discussion we just had. starting with piers 30, 32 and go through site information and the prior transactions since early 2000s that have tried to develop the site and run through options for piers 30, 32 for lot 330 and run through lots at seawall lots 330 and seek comment and direction. here's piers 30, 32 in close up showing the maritime deep water area. and this also shows the beginning of the day of parking the facility in use there. there were 13 acres in the south beach area and used for parking

and vessels and special events subject to the structural limitations i'll talk more about in a moment. in fiscal year '18-'19 they earned a great benefit to our operating budget. the height limit is 40 feet and we added the water control board and army corps of engineers. moving on to traeshl -- traditional characteristics. the costs vary according to what

you're planning to build on top. the capital plan shows a very planning level estimate of a certain amount of space and there's additional seismic improvements around $126 million and the estimate of costs had grown to $165 million which is entirely build new pier to support the development on top you can see the large dollar amounts can vary. this is the potential flood site by the end of the century looking at 66 inches of sea level rise which is what we're seeing others raise themselves to. seawall condition.

there's the length. the length of the seawall appears 30, 32. rough estimate of improving that stretch of the seawall. clearly any project whether or not it improve the seawall has to figure out a way to deal with t the thely liquefaction. this slide goes into weight restrictions. this denote the bad side of the pier, this denotes the good side. this is the truck and fire lane to allow for truck access to reach the end of the pier where the maritime berthing is. the remainder is under severe weight limits. the end of the pier is up to 250 pounds per square foot.

large trucks are not allowed in those areas. this is the sea level rise that is graphical in color and this area is in danger for sea level rise. clearly our adaptation strategy needs to address this going forward and the project itself may do the same. from there i'd like to move to the review of prior projects starting in the early 2000s, 2006 with the bryan pier street project. this breakthrough included a terminal and mixed-use vancouverme vancouverment -- a mixed-use development and

there was no sea level rise adaptation at the time. even with that slimmed down project compared to what we'd look at now the project was not pursued. the dollars were used for the pier 27. so there was some for the seawall but this is for review the next project was the cup. originally as you might recall the host agreement included

permanent opportunity after the event. the improvement to piers 30, 32 and then after the event the improvements would then be improved upon and it was a large and complicated transaction that included $89 million in cost estimates not much more than the bryan street pier project and no-rent lease as a result of the improvements and it also included other optional development sites that could be taken down and used to burn off further substructure. it would have been a proposal to expand the footprint.

>> it was a no-rent situation? >> i think there were rent credits and over the life of that lease there wasn't. >> thank you. to rent and the tax increment district estimated at $60

million. the warriors decided to purchase land at mission bay and they're under construction there. i think the frame of piers 30, 32 as big as our master plan development plans in the southern water front like mission rock and pier 70, so in a lot of ways it's seen as an opportunity but because of the relationship of the cost to revenues, i think there's a broad distinction you can make where finishing rock 70 pier after the infrastructure's paid off we'll make money for those over time. these based on the structures in the negotiation it seems unlikely and they'd have to subsidize the development in pier [indiscernible]. that will play into our recommendation later on. i'll run through the options an talk about seawall lot 3030. the options for -- 330.

the option for piers 30, 32 break it down to business as usual, option one. we keep leasing the piers without a seismic upgrade including parking and maritime events. i noted earlier the revenues generated and there's a special event interest in the site as the prospect of developing lot a remove one surface lot from the downtown area. we mentioned in the staff report cirque du soleil came interested to see if there's an opportunity to do something at 30, 32 and that would be business as usual capitalizing on those opportunities and proposal two is a competitive solicitation. where he -- we think that could benefit the city. option three, consider sole

source proposals. people have expressed interest in the past. and item four notes that the piers are obviously filled under current regulatory requirements others may require compensated fill remove if we're filling the bay with part of the project or building the pier or building the seawall that fills the bay we may have to remove that. we'll see if it becomes a benefit later on.

and in the process laid out the port commission meeting and public comment regarding the offering and lou to -- how to approach it going to do outreach at the port advisory group to talk about the selection criteria. coming back to the port commission with the salt lake city criteria seek authorization to issue a competitive solicitation. four, staff evaluation and proposals done by convening a committee for the proposals and that would include the recommendations would include the port advisory group a stakeholder from the regional stakeholder group and technical expertise of the specific technical area of solicitation. once that's complete we'll come back and similarly for sole

source the water plant update recommendations included a process built around the fact the board of supervisors managers the city's policies for competitive bidding and would have to approve any waiver of the competitive bidding policy for a sole source proposal and would require written proposals for clarity of what's being proposed, vetting with the port advisory group and the comments being brought back to the port commission for its comments and the selective set of comments for a collective bidding. and now moving to the west from the original picture of piers 30, 32 and the parking lot is managed at the site.

the characteristic of the site, in 2017 and 2018 it earned $832,000 for the port. a nice performer for us. zoning prohibits other uses or other uses require a conditional use authorization. the height limits step up from the embarcadero from 65 feet to 105 feet. it could potentially field 315 units plus additional ground floor space.

notably it can lease the site and it allows the port to sell the site if we are able to impress the trust on other lands with 2.33 acres with value to the trust. that i think allows us potentially to add value in terms of sale opposed to the usual ground fees we can identify the other property to swap in the trust. in the end we saw the diagram and the potential risk as sea levels rise and intensify over the course of the century. this is one version of what the code compliant envelope may look like. the height limit is 105 feet with the building bulk limit as you see here allowing new corridors for the water mark and passageways to the different

part in the embarcadero. this is a schematic diagram of the use around the site. to the south you have mixed use and the bayside village at the top left and mixed use residential to the north the top left i guess. there's a lot of approaches that could mesh in with the neighborhood. the option for seawall 330, the best use for the site option one. option two, centers around the fact that typically i think experience has seen that public land that are transferred or sold to develop housing

typically are required to do additional affordable housing because there's a sense the control of the sites requires it to do more for more people. naturally that comes in conflict with the legal requirement to get fair market value for the trust. option two would be to work with the city of development and mayor's office and office of workforce development to see if there's other funding source to allow us to basically subsidize below market rate housing and make it more attractive for approvals and be able to satisfy our fiduciary requirement. i think housing take a different path.

option three is the site current currently used. arising at the end of the presentation to talk about staff recommendations. the commission asked for this informational item to talk about what can be done at the site in term of development going forward. we patterned it around the ceqa development proposal. the recommendation is the port commission recommended pursuant to solicitation criteria and through the process we described taking in advisories as well to bring it back for the commission. the other aspect of this i wanted to talk about the think

the considerations included maritime value and the water berth and understanding if there's value as a secondary cruise berth or other values we want to build into a solicitation. seawall recommendation to the extent they give more clarity to the costs or strategy for that area including the depth to soil and rock and how they'd build around that and also the public advisory group improvement. recommendation two is a process. it's because of doing the no-cost sale of 330 as a way to subsidize the project we thought it would beneficial to consider the financial proposals for each

site individually to be more intentional about what the subsidy is and understanding more about how the two sites interact with each other. we wouldn't recommend splitting them and we think there could be a complimentary set of uses. we're not saying they have to be totally different. with that that concludes my presentation. do you have any questions? >> we have public comment? melvin mccain. >> i'm the president of local 10 in san francisco. i oppose the wall. number one, the property can be

used for maritime. what we are doing now sending out our mire -- maritime land. we started with port 80 and then built a cruise terminal and went from 32 vessel calls to 89 vessel calls. if you up a wall it will restrict and that's one thing i'm opposed to. we had conversations time after time with the maritime use in san francisco. for instance was built on maritime. this is how we start the out. turn of the century, when i was 10 years old i used to catch the ferry from oakland to san francisco. i remember the bridge was 25 cents top and 10 cents bought

pom we're -- bottom. this is the same thing that was done and everything's gone. everything's high rises. they have to go to new jersey to get their goods. they export everything out. this is the last deep water we have. what happens if we have an act of war. where will military vessels go? what we do to help our own. i oppose it. we can help or hinder. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment?

>> i'll speak since i'm here and braved the storm. i'm co-chair of the maritime congress. just following up and one thing the committee feels strongly about is to recognize value of the deep water berth at 30, 32. the entire water front is one of our points at the discussion of the work group when we were looking at the rfi. the criteria for any proposal going forward is maritime berthing availability. there should be enough flexibility to dock a boat whether it's large or small. t