we have been working with bcdc staff on this project for about nine months. i would say that we are at the midpoint in this project. i want to start my presentation by giving you some history. we're here to talk about the special area plan for the san francisco waterfront. most people are not aware, but the special area plan is really the companion document to the waterfront land use plan. without the special area plan, much of the great adoptive reuse we're seeing on the waterfront could not go forward. i do not know how well you can see this slide, but as you all know, the waterfront land use plan was adopted in 1997 unanimously by the port commission, and conforming amendments to the waterfront land use for the nets were adopted unanimously by the board of supervisors. but the special area plan lagged adoption of the waterfront land use plan and specifically the problems that the port problemsbc portan -- and bcdc grappled with. that basically meant in shorthand that if you wanted to do a peer rehabilitation project, that you either had to remove half of t

respectfully, we view bcdc as being fair but firm when they issue permits. we do not exactly see eye to eye with such stakeholders on that issue. with respect to the pier 27 cruise terminal, that site was really plan for a major plaza, an adjacent open water area, and major public access connection. there are some who view the cruise terminal as providing a major consulates -- major conflict to the planned park and open water basin, and that came out in the interviews. some other things came out in the interviews. we have been worried about the inherent policy conflict between the maritime access. you need to, for homeland security purposes, close the apron to protect these

we need to consult more with bcdc and the stakeholders themselves. we are not sure that the workshop setting is the right way to approach this, but we hope to use the time between now and over the course of the summer to build more consensus about the actual form of the final amendment. so, that is my presentation. i will open it up to the commission for an questions. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? commissioners? comments? questions? >> one question in terms of the floating docks. is there any reason it could not be located along pier 1 as opposed to horizontal leave bursas vertically? blacks are you talking about the area that should go between 14th and 22 m behalf? that structure is pier 14, the public what way to the south of the ferry building the. my understanding is that that appear does not have enough strength to be able to support more than the breakwater function is conducting right now. that if you been tempted to hook up to it, docs or other facilities, for the morning of these super-vessels, that you would run in

the feeling is that the port thatbcdc should work to find replacement public access -- the port and bcdc should work to find replacement public access. one of the issues has to do with the embarcadero. there is a broad feeling that we have done a good job, but that the west side is an important potential way for the public to appreciate the they, and that it does not match the standard of hurricane way and this side of the street. i think it is something that we all know and have seen in our own planning processes. with regard to historic rehabilitation and public benefits, i touched on this a little bit before. i think people appreciated the fact that the special area plan prompted the port to nominate the embarcadero historic district to the register of historic places. that was one of the requirements of the special area plan. they do not always view the

barriers, port staff have reviewed the design and layout and also accepted the ceqa determination, and bcdc's approval has been required. when bart submit their request for the barriers, they will be required to provide similar approvals. port and bart have agreed on the various and to establish conditions under which these proposed barriers will be addressed in respect to the review procedures, construction, design, access, relocation, maintenance, and indemnification. the cooperative agreement is 66 years along with bart's right to request an extension before the 64th year. on october 26, 2010, the port commission by resolution 1071 approved the cooperative agreement subject to the approval of the board of supervisors. bart's barrier project will benefit the harbor trust and the city by protecting bart's public transit system and the general public while assuring transit to the waterfront and to the city. the project will be fully funded and constructed by bart, whereas no harbor trust funds or city revenues will be used or spent on this project. for this reason, no fees other than the buil

supervisor mirkarimi: this comports with bcdc's standards as well? >> absolutely. they have held us up as a model in the bay area for how you address potential future sea level rise. supervisor mirkarimi: i am aware that they are grappling with trying to have a regional definition of sea level rise right now, trying to get input from both public and private sector on that particular definition. ok, very good. i appreciate the answer to the question. just curious, what is the sinkage rate of treasure island right now? >> that is a technical answer that i do not have in front of me. i know that when we are done with the key technical improvements, we are designing it for zero subsidence, long- term subsidence, that we are going in doing be dynamic combatants to consolidate the uppermost crest, and surcharging the bay mud underneath, so you will get zero long-term settlement over the life of the project. supervisor mirkarimi: this might be the first to credence of when people refer to as as the amsterdam, they did not mean just -- anyway. [laughter] >> i will reserve