to achieve this very bold objective requires intervention and operations of the port from using electrical power over natural gas as a requirement in our building code, reducing waste, changing our internal practices and working through public-private partnerships. health of the bay is also included here in the plan. from natural shoreline stablization to move away from wood piles to other sustainable products by 2022. next slide, please. the evolution goal recognizes the port is an evolving waterfront that needs to continue to change to respond to the public's and the port needs. here in this goal we have the adoption of the waterfront plan, which is something the commission and the public worked on for some time, two and a half

years to be specific, and getting that plan is adopted is critical for the long-term vision and use of port property. we have transportation coordination, which we have seen in the past and will continue to work through with our city agencies to provide a safer and more vibrant waterfront for all forms of travel. and open space improvements to really be responsive to the public's need to create open spaces and parks for real enjoyment along our very, very beautiful waterfront. the engagement goal is critical to the values, to listen, gain perspective and approaches, through active engagement and listening. public awareness to strengthen our constituents' understanding and support of us and our knowledge and support of our constituent, diverse community involvement for race and age

diversity in the constituent meetings, agency coordination, and internal collaboration so we are not siloed and we work together as a team to continue to improve our waterfront. i hope that the plan update today and the report and all the specifics in the plan really give you a feeling of where we are headed in 2021, as well as how we will approach the year, given all the uncertainty. the next steps will be designing the document and public distribution and i really want to take an opportunity to thank staff who put this together, dan and kirsten, they did a great job integrating with all the leadership of the port and the divisions to update the strategic plan and one more slide and i want to say thank you and i am here to answer any

question you have as is senior staff and others who contributed to this plan. thank you. >> thank you, elaine. we will now open the phone lines to take public comment on item 9c. members of the public joining us on the phone. jennifer will be our operator and instructions now for anyone on the phone who would like to provide public comment. >> thank you, president brandon. at this time we will open the -- we will open the phone. comments limited to three minutes per person. the queue is now open, please dial star three if you wish to make public comment. >> thank you, jennifer.

do we have anyone on the line? >> there are no callers on the line. >> public comment is closed. commissioner woo ho. thank you, thank you elaine for the strategic plan update. i think it's a great exercise and your staff has put a lot of time and effort into updating it. and i agree with all the categories that you put together and agree in terms of refraining that is an important objective. you did not mention some of the specifics you want to put in each of these but all major, major categories and i would suggest somehow, maybe we dive down into each one of these sections, not on everything, it's too much to cover at once. but what i take away from it is

the headlines where you are focussed and each category where the major focus is, and i don't think i would disagree with any of those, but i think skip down to the tactics in those major strategies we probably need a better sense and obviously are already working with you in some specifics in terms of some of the transactions we have already done on tenant recovery, etc. so i think just more of i guess a drilling down, under economic, what else are we doing to get a sense of some of the things that you are thinking about, because i don't disagree with the objectives. it's very hard to disagree with the objectives. the only one that i would say, and i think we will go into more details, reserve comments on resilience. i think we have a discussion on resilience today. i'm not going to make a comment on that as well, and even on the

equity, etc., and i like your circle, so to speak, and as i said, i think it's going to be helpful to be productive and constructive to not talk about whether you put the right things here, i think you have but to understand what's behind them, you went through a quick fashion, i understand, only so much time and that's where maybe we can move objective, not to say we disagree with what you put together, i think the strategic plan, we have worked on for many years, you reminded me today, 2016 we started on this effort. i think it's been really good. i think on the sustainability, i think i would say it's a little broader than when you say, but i'm going to wait until we get to the resilience part to go forward to make any specific comments on that one, and the evolution, i think i would

say -- i think we need to tie in with what the city's plan is on the evolution of where the city is headed and i suggest maybe something we tie in, because i think there is both an economic recovery plan for the city and evolution to where this city is headed is not going to be going back to precovid, so we should be tying into the bigger framework and that will be helpful in the future to know how that's being worked into the larger framework by the city. i would not going to the region, i think we can stick with the city and i like the focus on resilience, on economic recovery, and equity, i think those are the right priorities in all these categories, they are all important, those are the ones you want to highlight for now and in the near term. i'm going to stop at that and saying this is tremendous work, i think it's very helpful, it's kind of a road map to help understand where you are going

to put your focus and attention going forward, in addition to the operational day-to-day stuff we have to have. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner gilman. >> thank you, elaine and senior staff. i agree with so many of the comments, commissioner woo ho beat me to the punch on several of them, i'll just add one thing i thought was evident is the reframing, which i think is appropriate in the time of covid and also the time where equity and inclusion is taking front center of everything we do, and flows through resiliency, evolution, engagement, sustainability, and equity should have some through line or threading a needle through all of those, for us to be an inclusive city.

that's are weighty subjects of goals, and maybe one a quarter to do a deep dive and see how the line of equity and inclusion is page out. and also engagement, that has through lines to all the other goals. i wanted to add that. food for thought, and one place where i think i might have a different perspective, because i do regional work. i think on the evolution, i think commissioner woo ho's comment is spot on, how the city is envisioning itself coming out of the next chapter but i would actually say where it's appropriate, also looking at it from a regional perspective, whether it's water transportation, is a regional entity with weta and what it is doing, you know, just announced a new ferry service, new schedules, lowering of fares this summer, affects the region and who can access the waterfront in ways they could

not access it before. so i hope we also look at how the region is moving towards a more equitable framework for the region and how the region is tackling many of the sustainability and resiliency issues we, i think it's important to look regular oolly and very comprehensive and thank you and the senior staff for everything to put this together to pivot, to really elevate the economic recovery in our equity framework. thank you so much. >> thank you, commissioner gilman. commissioner burton. >> well, first of all, thank you very much for the report and i want to go back to a comment prior to you, but i think the slide show that was given that would be the commissioners is something that in going along

with what commissioner adams said, that goes along with being edited but then by the chair and the director, provide that like to the supervisor, provide that as some p.r. slides that can be shown to our congressional members, to our state delegation to what the port is doing and what is contributing to the economy. you know, of this city and actually of the whole bay area because i think most of the people, including the elected officials, which would put me in it a few years ago, have no concept of the things that the port is doing and specifically encouraged that in my judgment

the port is showing more imagination in dealing with the homeless population than the homeless department of the city, which is long been a disappointment to me and the director's report itself, i agree with my fellow commissioners that it is a great broad brush with things going on and i think as it gets kind of down to some of the, i was going to say something cutting but kind of finalized but i think it's a very broad brush report that shows a lot of thought and a lot of direction that it's going to send this i think into a fairly successful future and just openly near future and not too far away.

so, thank you very much. >> thank you, commissioner burton. vice president adams. >> madam president, my remarks are very short. director forbes gave an excellent presentation. my fellow commissioners have all said what needs to be said, nothing needs to be said for me. thank you very much, president brandon. >> thank you. director forbes, thank you so much for this very detailed report and help in preparing the report for you. i think myself, commissioners have made a lot of comments and i think that -- i think it's great that we are updating this strategic plan because so much has changed over the last couple years. i think economic recovery, equity and resilience are some of the top priorities for the

next few years. and i also think that in this strategic plan i'm happy that we added an equity portion, but as commissioner gilman said it needs to run throughout the strategic. there needs to be the component to each and every goal that we have. for instance, under the sustainability, climate justice and racial justice are inseparable. it's wonderful to do the climate justice and make sure we are protecting it, we have to look at protecting the communities that have historically been impacted by hazardous environmental activity. and so it would be great if we could maybe prepare guidelines for environmental hazardous uses

in the communities where systemic environmental and justice have historically occurred. under evolution, we are looking at transportation coordination, and we don't mention the southern waterfront where we are creating two new communities that are going to be hugely impacted by transportation. so i agree with commissioner woo ho that what the specifics of the categories are the meat of the plan. so i don't know how you want to move forward, but i do think that we need to think a little more about what exactly we are trying to accomplish in our plan, in the next 2 to 5 years. >> thank you. >> thank you, president brandon. i think it would be -- i think it was a great suggestion to come back every quarter and discuss 1 or 2 of the goals to

really dig in. because it is -- it's hard to -- it's a big plan, so it's hard to cover it in one presentation, so i think that would be excellent. and i will say that we struggled, i struggled with equity and whether it should be its own section or something that flowed through the strategic plan like water, in the words of tony, through the organization like water and i think resiliency can be like that, and definitely engagement is like that, so there are values that need to throw out, and diversity lens put toward them, so that we can do. and this is a work program, so it can be updated at any time. next month if we come back on equity, for example and find new suggestions and advice, we can update the program as an

internal facing document. we do publish it but always updating our goals and objectives, and the framework of continuing review and iteration and i love coming back every quarter and possibly more, good way to handle this going forward. >> great. thank you. commissioners, any other comments or questions regarding this item? >> i guess i just want to say one thing of encouragement, you know, you all have incredible opinions. i want to commend you and the staff and goes back to something that commissioner burton did, and any other city department, we have during this crisis from food distribution to medical testing to continuing our commitment because we have two other navigation centers on our property, commitment to solving the homeless crisis we really stepped up and i hope we can provide a leadership role to

some other departments in the city who seem to be struggling on a day-to-day basis to execute on their goals and i think we are executing well. i wanted to thank the staff for everything we do and a great framework, just refinement. >> thank you. you are absolutely right, commissioner gilman. this is incredible work and i know that a lot of time and effort has gone into creating this document, and we really appreciate the presentation. and look forward to you coming back in the future. thank you. karl, next item, please. >> all right. that would be item 10a, informational presentation on a second incremental mission rock community facilities district bond financing to fund phase i horizontal improvements at

seawall lot 337. >> i'm the project manager for the mission rock project. today i'll provide a general project overview and a quick update. then introduce raven anderson from port staff to continue the detailed financial presentation and the planned bond issuance proposal for you. [please stand by] -- 1200 housing units, 40% affordable, from 45 to 150% a.m.i., up to

1.4 million gross feet of office space, retail and production space, primarily on the ground floor of the buildings to activist the site and a sense of neighborhood. and the rehabilitation of pier 48 at a future base. next slide, please. and to quickly 0 in and zoom in on phase i, four buildings in it, two residential buildings in parcels a and f, and two commercial office buildings in parcels b and g. and also ground floor retail in these buildings of approximately 65,000, and park on the north side of the phase, fronting china basin at about 5.5 acres. horizontal work, the structures, utilities, are now being installed for phase i and about 25% complete, well on the way

there. and phase i buildings a and g are now under construction, and you've been by the site, you have seen the pile driving activity underway, soon be replaced and surplanted by the buildings going in and the buildings rising vertically in the next few months. next slide, please. important component of the project is a strong workforce plan. mission rock team is committed to achieving goals to this area and provides regular detailed reports to the port. the project has goals for local business enterprises of 10% and the preconstruction era of the project, now passed, and 20% in the construction phase of the project which we are now in. to date, the project is achieving a 19% participation rate for these firms, and firmly committed to exceeding the 20%

goal and believing going forward as the project matures and more trades and skills become needed to build out the project that we will achieve these goals and hopefully surpass them. i would now like to introduce raven anderson from port staff, and the budget and the financing actions. raven. >> thank you, phil. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is raven anderson, project manager with the port's development team. there are three sources the project uses to fund eligible product costs, the cost of infrastructure at the site, including roads, sidewalks, sewer and other utilities. you can see these three sources at the bottom of the graphic on the screen. the first source is developer

equity, subject to an 18% return when they are reimbursed for that contribution. the second funding source is the land value of the parcels themselves as reflected in prepaid leases, and the last source which is what we are focussing on today, consists of two special tax mechanisms, c.f.d. and i.f.d., and of course the ability to bond against those revenue streams. the port strategy to limit the compounding accrual of the 18% return and use public financing and c.f.d./i.f.d. sources whenever possible and as early as possible in the project. next slide, please. the phase i budget which you approved in september of 2019 consists of costs and then the sources used to cover them. the cost in phase i, include

hard costs, which is the cost of the actual infrastructure on-site. soft costs like management, planning, legal, and other fees, and of course, that 18% developer return on equity. revenues or sources consist of the prepaid lease value of the four phase i parcels, public financing sources, the c.f.d. bond proceeds, as well as pay go taxes, just c.f.d. and i.f.d. taxes not capitalized into a bond issuance. next slide, please. this is a high level overview of the phase i budget as it stood when it was approved by the port commission in september 2019. total cost 265.5 million, of that, 145.4 million is in

reimbursable development costs and the rest entitlement sum and the 18% developer return. i'll note these are the figures from september 2019 when it was approved and since there have been some delays on permitting and construction, that developer return figure may have increased, and will bring full detailed update to the port commission in the coming months there. on the sources side, we have the land value, the development rights proceeds, and public financing sources. so the project team has taken a number of financing steps to get us to this point. the first was in february 2018, when the port formed infrastructure financing district project area i, covers mission rock. i.f.d. district along the entire

waterfront allows us to capture the growth in property tax increment to fund infrastructure needed for our development projects and project area i is the project area specific to mission rock. the second action was in september 2019, when the port made amendments to the city special tax law in order to pay for seismic improvements and waterfront resilience projects using special taxes. in may 2020, we formed a community facility district or c.f.d., additional tax improvement for fund on-site and bonding against here, and then finally in december of 2020, the board of supervisors approved the first issuance of c.f.d. special tax bonds in an amount not to exceed $43.3 million following the port commission's recommended approval of the same item in september 2020.

since then, port staff, the city's office of public finance and the controllers office, underwriter, bond counsel and looking at what's necessary to close and deliver the funds. we expect the price close and first round of bond funding in april of 2021, so next month. next slide, please. this bond issuance, like the previously approved issuance, uses the c.f.d. as the primary source, specifically the development special tax. there are four types of c.f.d. special taxes at mission rock. the development tax, which is what we are talking about for this issuance, funds infrastructure and parks. office tax, which as its name implies, special tax levied, slightly more flexible and the

development tax. in general, office pace more than the residential parcels. finally we have shoreline tax for shoreline protection and sea level rise mitigation and the services tax, which is to fund ongoing operations and maintenance at the site. next slide, please. the amount of bonds that can be sold is limited by two factors. the first factor is the ongoing special tax revenues, paid by the building owners. and the second limiting factor is the appraised value of the c.f.d. itself, because the c.f.d. land is the security for the bonds. so for the first approved bond sale, which the port commission approved in september 2020, the first four parcels will far exceed the debt service coverage needed to cover the initial bond

issuance. the expected max special tax sums to $14 million a year, the debt service to support that $43.3 million issuance is 1.8 million for the year. so there is capacity in development special taxes. which means the limiting factor is really the appraised value of the c.f.d. itself. the c.f.d. is the security of the bonds and the city has the policy of only issuing c.f.d. debt, at least 3 to 1 lean value ratio. established via appraise al, must be three times the outstanding amount of bonds and any other type of special tax debt. next slide, please. so the value of the c.f.d. as established by appraise, not to

exceed the amount approved last year, 43.3 million, that appraisal there a date of value of october 2020, and the appraised value at that time was $130 million. 130 million divided by three, with the 3 to 1 value to lean ratio gets us to the $43.3 million amount of that issuance. since october, a number of exciting things have happened with the project. the project team and the developer closed on the remaining three phase i parcel leases, developer received the horizontal and vertical permits and notice to proceed and began the construction on-site, making significant investments on the horizontal and vertical

improvements. this includes paying some pretty significant impact fees for the two vertical parcels that are under construction. so based largely on this investment on the developer's part, the latest draft appraisal of the c.f.d. leasehold estimates value at 334 million, which is obviously a very significant increase from that prior $130 million value. 334 million divided by three gives us a maximum amount of 111.3 million in phase i bonding capacity. so at this point we are recommending a second issuance up to $68 million to get to that 111.3 million, 68 plus 43.3 million gets us to the 111.3 million in total phase i unimproved land bonds. i should note that we are

proposing that high amount now, but the 68 million value could come down if we get feedback from the city's office of public finance or our underwriter on marketability and risk associated with that amount. so this 68 million would obviously have significant benefits to the project, it would help us get that 18% developer return replaced with relatively low interest rate public financing, preserving the port's land value and ability to benefit in later phases. so, that is very good news for the project. it is partially offset by a couple of issues we have had since the phase i budget was approved. the project has faced some delays. the key horizontal permit, which is the street improvement permit was issued in october 2020, which is a full year after phase

i budget approval rather than three months as was anticipated in the budget. and the first issuance of c.f.d. bonds, i have mentioned is now scheduled for april 2021, that is occurring 12 months later than was anticipated in our model of record. so while we are thrilled the project is moving forward, that our residential building with over 100 affordable units and office building which is the future site of the visa headquarters are under construction, there are also some delays and increased costs that we have run into. phase i horizontal about 25% complete and the project team and the developer are focussing closely on the cost and scope management issues and we will be providing the

>> um, just like the first approved bondish issuance we're working on the public finance. these bonds will be sold without a rating because this transaction is for a new real estate development and it would likely not receive an investment rating. the bonds are limited obligations of the city. so they're secured and payable solely by the pledge of the special taxes in the mission rock cfd. the general fund and harbor fund are not liable to pay the principal or interest on these bonds. but, of course, there is reputational risk because the issue name still says city and county of san francisco and the office of public finances. understandably concerned with managing that risk. so we'll be following their advice and the advice of our

underwriter about the size of these bonds and the market for them. this will be a large issuance for undeveloped land and we'll be following that relatively conservative three to one lien policy. the ultimate security of these bonds is the land itself. and, since this is a lease property, the city and port have coveted in the cfd documents that as a final recourse, the city can foreclose on the property in the unlikely event that the tenant stops paying their special taxes needed to cover the debt service on these bonds. next slide, please. for next steps, we'll be coming back to the commission shortly with an action item to request approval of the second issuance. in the meantime, project staff -- staff from the project finance and bond council as

well as the developers will be working to finalize all the documents and agreements including this appraisal needed to price close and deliver the $43.3 million in the first issuance of mission rock special tax bonds. and, that same group will also be refining the size and use of proceeds as well as those documents for this second proposed issuance of mission rock special tax bonds. you can see in the calendar on the slide that we're hoping to work through these legislative approvals throughout the spring so that we're able to close on the second issuance this summer . that concludes the presentation the project team is happy to answer any questions. we have rebecca benisini. and annettete jackson our city

attorney on this project and have been instrumental in getting us to this stage in the public financing progress as well. thank you. >> president brandon: thank you for the presentation. i'm sorry. we will now open the phone line to take public comment on item 10a for members of the public on the phone. jennifer will be our operator and provide instructions now for anyone on the phone who would like to provide public comment. >> thank you, president brandon. we will provide anybody on the phone who would like to make comments. please dial star 3 if you wish to make public comment. the system will let you know when your line is open. others will wait on mute until their line is open.

comments will be limited to three minutes per person. the queue is now open. please dial star 3 if you wish to make public comment. >> president brandon: thank you jennifer. do we have anyone on the line? >> president brandon , at this time, there are no callers on the line wishing to make public comment on this item. >> president brandon: see no callers on the phone. public comment is closed. phil, can i just ask you real quick, was the presentation finished? >> we are finished. thank you, commissioner. >> president brandon: okay. commissioner gilman. >> commissioner gilman: thank you for this report. i don't have any substantial questions. it seems like you've mitigated your risk in case for some reason that service can't be paid or there's issues with the bond. i always want to take every opportunity to [inaudible] mission rock for setting in my

opinion somewhat of a historically using isd public funding and 30% affordable housing. and, on their land, they're the first ones that came up with that. so i want to thank feminine for that. public financing and it's important that there's public benefit. thank you so much. i have no more questions. >> president brandon: thank you. i think this project has 40% affordable. >> you're right. >> sorry. i apologize. you know what it is, it's been a long day. so that's even better and should be the precedence i would argue for anyone else using isd financing. >> and, president brandon, may i make one small correction. thank you for noting the 40%. and commissioner gilman, you have a great memory. pier 70 is using irsd. mission rock is using their

impact fees from office. so you have -- you have all the constellation of financing sources in your brain. but, in this case, we're not using the isd and affordable housing. >> commissioner gilman: thank you so much and i apologize to the public if i caused any confusion. >> thank you for the comment. >> president brandon: thank you. commissioner woo ho. >> commissioner woo ho: yeah. thank you and this report's very straight forward. i do have a couple of technical questions. so i understand revenue sources from the taxes also have different tenures. so when this bond goes to the market, what's the term of the bond? if you can answer that question. >> yes. it's 30 years , commissioner. >> commissioner woo ho: 30 years. okay. so my other question, i looked at the timetable and i just want to understand the impact.

okay. because we are now sitting in a potentially rising rate environment. i think if you follow some of the capital markets, you know a lot of attention's being paid to the fact that the long end of the yield curve is up and tenure treasury is up and there's a lot of concern and gyrations in the stock market for the last few days and so we're not going to be actually selling closing until the summer of 2021. so assuming there is some right rate gyrations between now and the summer of 2021, what is the impact and what are the assumptions going in terms of the pricing of the bond and what would that impact your model in terms -- i don't know. i don't see any financial impact here. can you just talk to that so that if we understand, what if rates continue to increase on the long end. people are concerned about inflation at this point and there is a long time between now and then before this long issue is closed.

so let us understand the full ramifications here. >> thank you, commissioner woo ho. i'd be happy if phil, raven or nate are able to respond as well. hope you can hear me okay. so the bond underwriters had started the process of pricing the first bond issuance and they haven't provided pricing on the second. your assessment is spot on. they're stating we would anticipate something potential a little bit less favorable in terms of the second bond issuance. so on the first issuance, they've given us a high mark of 7%. hopefully we can get something better than that. there are also projects that it could be in the high 3% rate. as we move throughout the summer, they haven't tried to assess, but each month that we move on they add 10 basic points or so to the assessment

what they think when we go to market. and we will be paying the bonds back or the cfd service tax or the cfd facility tax will pay it back and they have a variable pricing in terms of how -- in terms of the debt service that will be made each year. and, if anyone has any other technical items to add or if that answers the question, commissioner. >> i might just add -- >> commissioner woo ho: so i'm not concerned -- go ahead. >> i mean, ultimately, any rate fluctuations between now and the summertime would likely be dwarfed by the 18% that we're trying to replace. you know, the amount of investment by the developer earns an interest rate of 18% so we're replacing that with a debt interest rate of 4% maybe 5%. but all of it is positive to the port. so the economic ramifications

of the long end of the yield going up is still we should be issuing debt as often as possible. >> commissioner woo ho: okay. i absolutely agree with you and you're right to point that out, nate. but i'm just wondering and, of course, nobody can project, but it seems to me that you all so have a sensitivity analysis of where rates would be versus today and versus whether it would be 100 basis points between now and when this issue closes and what does that mean. it does change if you have to pay more. [inaudible] -- if you do the bond. 18%. but there will be some ramifications, i guess. there's no free lunch here. so, at the end of the day, there is some ramifications on the impacts of the port as a result of having to pay a higher interest rate. so i just think we need to know what that is and that's

something you can report back to us. obviously, the lower the rate the better. there will be a ramification and i guess we just have to watch the market accordingly and be aware of it. i just want to be sure that -- i know that the debt service coverage is not an issue. you mentioned that in terms of this. it's not a question of the ability to repay, but there's a cost and we're going to bear that cost one way or the other. that's all i want to say. >> thank you, commissioner. >> president brandon: thank you commissioner woo ho . commissioner burton. >> commissioner burton: well, i have no questions. my only comment is i'm very happy about two things. one is that the giants included units for [inaudible] kids below market and also i was in the room when jane kim pushed very hard and got the

percentage of below market units more than originally. the giants, even some of the advocates were pushing for us in the room when jane came in late and everybody was kind of mad because they'd thought they cut a deal and she pushed and got a better deal. i was there. [inaudible] >> president brandon: thank you very much for your very vital input on this. vice president adams. >> vice president adams: i'm good, madam chairman. all my questions have been answered by my fellow commissioners. thank you. >> president brandon: thank you. thank you raven and rebecca and phil for jumping in. this project is so exciting. we are just so happy that the shovel is in the ground and the project is moving forward. my only question was going to be besides the instances that

have been mentioned, has 2020 affected the project other than the two issues mentioned and the increase in the appraisal? is there anything that we should be aware of? >> really excellent question. the one -- and i hope i'm not speaking out of turn for the folks from mission rock who are on the line. but i would interject that i'm presuming they anticipated they would have more leasing in the second office building at this point, and that that might have -- two buildings are under construction. the other two are starting construction later this year. and that might be the primary effect would be they might have been able to start construction a little bit earlier had they had building g more preleasing. and i hope mission rock folks, that's my impression of the time line. if there are other items of note. but i think that's the primary impact of 2020 on the

development thus far. >> president brandon: thank you. i think most of my questions have been answered regarding interest rates and it's phenomenal that this project has 40% affordable. who is the underwriter on this project? >> nate. [inaudible] is the primary. nate, i don't recall whether or not bear is a sub. please chime in otherwise we'll include that in the next staff report when we come back for the action item. >> stacy steeple. they're the underwriter. >> there are no other subs? >> we can find out and get back to you. >> we'll report back. >> president brandon: okay. thank you. we all really appreciate the report. thank you so much. >> thank you, commissioner.

>> thank you. >> president brandon: carl. next item please. >> clerk: all right. that was would be item 11a the water front resilience program. >> good afternoon, president brandon, vice president adams, commissioners, director forbes and members of the public. my name is brad benson i'm the port's waterfront resilience director. here to talk about our development strategy and planning framework. next slide please. so i just want to go over our presentation today. this is a follow on presentation to a presentation that we made in fall of last year. we will give a brief overview of the water front resilience program and the activities

going on in it. really talk today about the adapt plan including adapt plan alternatives to reduce seismic and flood risk that the team is in the process of developing right now. the intention of today is really to receive feedback from the port commission on key elements of our planning framework. we have a draft vision statement and principles, evaluation criteria, opposition and funding guidelines and adaptation guidelines that will be part of the adapts plan. president brandon, i'll note that the way this presentation is structured is that there are questions along the way. i know it's the commission's preference to take public comment first before engaging in back and forthwith staff,

but we're flexible if the commission wants to respond to questions as we go, that's an option or we can save the answers to the end. >> president brandon: what do you think will work best for you? >> i think it might flow better to get initial feedback from the commission as we pose the questions. so during the presentation, while the material is fresh on the slide, you know. so we'll go that way. thank you. next slide, please. i want to start the presentation today with just a brief update about some of the incredible engagement work that is going on in the program. we have just such a talented communications team. we want to play today a new video produced by bay cat with the help of san francisco low income youth and young people of color. and this is part of a broader youth engagement effort that

includes outreach to 15 youth serving organizations across the city. we've got communications leading the youth engagement effort. and so carl or tedman, can i ask that we play the short video now. >> we are some of san francisco's young people and today we need to talk about the water front. >> the waterfront is the area of san francisco. >> i can't wait to dine in again. >> and where many san francisco ans work. >> the water front needs us. >> from a sleepy out post, the port of san francisco has always served as the city's gateway to the bay area, the nation, and the world. >> the port's water front effort ensure that the city wide assets are resilient in

the face of hazard such as earthquakes, flooding, shoreline erosion and others. >> so how did we get here? >> the united states geological survey estimates there's a 72% chance of a major earthquake between now and 2043. with the potential to shake san francisco sea levels -- >> also sea levels rise primarily caused by two factors related to global warming. the added water, and the expansion of sea water as it warms. >> if either happens, the water front would be destroyed. >> through the waterfront resilience program the port is looking to support the program today. >> public participation is vital l sglp there many ways to get involved at sfportresilience.com.

>> so thank you for playing that. it's just such clear communication about what we're doing in the program and i can't thank the comm s team enough. next slide, please. so this is a brief overview of the work that is ongoing in the waterfront resilience program. there are some efforts that are waterfront wide like the adapt plan that we'll be discussing today as well as the army corps of engineers flood resiliency study across the seven and a half miles. other efforts are geographically focused like our work on the embarcadero sea waul.

port engineering is leading so we can advance our understanding of seismic risk exposure in that part of the waterfront. we're also working with the planning department, the san francisco municipal transportation agency and other city departments on the isthmus creek adaptation strategy. that work will give us a jump start in terms of the flood study work that will be ongoing after the strategy is complete. other port divisions are also incorporating resilience in their work. notably the historic pier rehabilitation program. next slide, please. so just a lot of the focus of the presentation today is on these key elements that will guide program development particularly over the next year.