Transcripts For SFGTV Transbay Joint Powers Authority 20240712

Mr. Secretary, please call the roll. [laughter]. Thank you, madame chair. Prior to calling roll, i would like to note that julie chang is sitting in as director. With that i will now proceed to call roll. Directors, please respond when i call your name. Chang present. E. Forbes present. M. Hursh present. B. Lipkin present. J. Tumlin present. Vice chair gee present. Chair sesay present. Secretary directors, we have a quorum. Chair sesay and secretary, if i may just a point of clarification, this is a regular meeting, not a special meeting, just a point of clarification for the record. Chair sesay thank you, i appreciate that. Secretary thank you. Directors, the next item, item 3, is communications. Wed like to provide further instructions for the Public Comment process. To provide Public Comment, callers should dial into the published number, 18552826330, and enter access code, 126 729 5295. Then pound and pound again and listen to the meeting. As they wait for Public Comment to be announced, members of the public have up to three minutes to provide comments on each agenda item. I will announce when Public Comment is open on each item, or for the general Public Comment at which time callers should dial star 3 to raise their hand and be added to the queue. This callin number and access code will also stream on the screen during the entire board meeting. When callers dial star 3, they will be added to the queue to speak in the order that they are entered. All callers will remain on mute until their line is open. An automated voice will let callers know when it is their turn to speak. Everyone must account for their time delays and speaking discrepancies between live coverage and streaming. It is best to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly, and turn down your television or radio. If there are any other communications from the Board Members, please let me know. If none, i will move on to the next item. Hearing none, ill proceed. Directors, item 4, is board of directors new and old business. Chair sesay we have none. Secretary if there are none, i will proceed to call the next item, chair sesay . Chair sesay thank you, mr. Secretary. Secretary directors, item 5 is the executive directors report. Thank you. Good morning, directors. First, i would like to thank you for the opportunity to serve as interim executive director. As we all continue our work to mitigate the impacts of the covid19 pandemic, and as we look to the future envisioning a state interconnected by rail, stable leadership and a Firm Commitment to the vision of the agency is critical. And im honored and excited to temporarily fill that role. My focus will be on advancing the Transbay Program by operating the Salesforce Transit Center in a world class Cost Effective manner, with transit agencies, neighborhood stakeholders. Advancing by collaborating with the San Francisco peninsula rail Program Executive Steering Committee and ensuring all aspects of the tjpa are met. In regards to the covid19 health crisis, were pleased to see that the city and county of San Francisco is moving forward with more activities. Our anchor tenant, has been conducting one of on one tt exercise sessions which is in compliance with the allowable outdoor activities. Were monitoring and adhering to all guidance from the citys Health Officer and were working closely with our transit agencies and tenants to reduce the Community Spread of covid19. Commuters and visitors to the Transit Center are provided the most up to date information about maskwearing and social distancing through multilingual signage, displays, throughout the Transit Center including the park and routine announcements. Enhanced cleaning protocol remain in place. On august 19, we were glad to support the bay area transit agencys press conference and john updike will speak about that more. Our role under the facility. And not to steal too much of his thunder, but im excited to announce weve had positive progress for lease negotiations which contributes to our health for the second floor of the Transit Center. As youre aware, christines tenure as director of communications has come to an end. With her departure back to the city fulltime, were looking to fill the position of communications which is posted on the website. Regarding phase 2. As you know, we are working with the executive Steering Committee to keep the public and our stakeholders updated and educated about phase 2. In order to accomplish this, we are taking a branding and outreach campaign. A communications and Outreach Services was released in july and we received seven proposals under review. Were pleased that the director of communications as well as our prior director of communications will serve on the evaluation panel. We anticipate returning to the board in october or november to recommend a contract for your consideration. Regarding the general Engineering Consultant r. F. P. Released in july, we unfortunately received only one proposal. We will evaluate the proposal and return to the board with the recommendation on whether to proceed or reprocure. It is important to note that there was extensive outreach and virtual proposal meeting held on july 8 was attended by 85 participants. Our research regarding participation confirmed that more than 90 firms exchanged contact information. Most firms were seeking subcontracting opportunities and the majority of consultants expressed interest in the future. We have had Good Progress with the Steering Committee. The review candidates, the Interview Time line and the process. That concludes my report, directors. Be happy to take any questions before having john updike provide his report. Thank you. Chair sesay i dont hear any Board Members. Can you have john proceed, please. Nila sure. Lets have john provide his report. Good morning, all. Thank you, jason. We can move to the next slide. So as mentioned, we were happy to host the press conference providing security, custodial and Logistics Support which i thought was an excellent message across many social media platforms. Then to our operator partners on that effort. Since our last meeting, were continuing our efforts with our contractors and subcontractors. It is very busy within our future tenant space with lots of tenant improvements being done by multiple contractors. So were working hard on logistics. And distancing between the groups and ensuring covid19 health order compliance by everyone to limit the exposure and potential transmission while theyre doing their important work bringing us these improvements. Also keeping our open dialogue with our tenants as they are moving forward with their efforts and also pleased to announce we have a new tenant up on the ac transit bus deck. Pharma box and they bring us to a variety of personal protective equipment as well as General Health goods available for sale to our patrons. So were happy to have them aboard. A sleeklooking vending machines theyve brought forward for us. Well give you a report when we have information back from them. So as mentioned, were continuing our oneonone training sessions. Theyve had some reductions in classes, of course, due to the air quality. But were doing everything we can to help our tenant who otherwise is not able to operate, at least keep some of their contractors and trainers active and keep those Client Communications going that will foster success when they do return to indoor fitness. Were also prepared to move forward with activation and programming as soon as shelterinplace restrictions allow. To date, we have not seen a relaxation of those restrictions to allow us to do anything beyond what were doing currently in the park. As you see here, were working on our exploratory work. Modest program. Important in that it has discovered clear paths to utility connections. We have some concerns that perhaps they would not be as accessible. This will bring dividends, bringing in a food and vendor kiosk on the plaza level, that will reduce risks and create certainties of the utility paths. Well see a return on that investment, i can assure you going forward. More on that once the report is in from nova construction, which we should have in the next meeting. Lastly, talking about the park in general. Were beginning to prepare for this transition. Well talk about that when we come up to the item for Landscape Maintenance. As you can see here, several cubic yards of mulch were brought in to approve the ground cover, improve the health of the plants. Weve also done trimming activity to address issues that security was having and overgrowth issues. So were pleased to see that. Were also working closely with our various contractors to ensure we have a plan forward once the ash stops falling, to properly remove that from the plants and ensure their health through this latest crisis were facing. Hopefully, we will not have the locusts appear next month. Lets hope ash is the last crisis we have. So now lets move to retail leasing. So this is a little deeper dive, if you will, into the exploratory work going on in the pad site. Its a very confined space, so it is taking us a while. Operating carefully and following osha regulations and ensure were finding variances from asbuilt, so this has been a fruitful venture. As mentioned, stealing my thunder, suite 232, we have a letter of intent, were negotiating a Lease Agreement. When we have that lease ready, well be able to divulge that tenant that fits in very nicely with the health scene of the second level of our facility and were excited to be welcoming the board. Lease negotiations going fairly well, so im feeling pretty good in the next meeting or two, we should have a Lease Agreement to announce to you. And heres a little more detailed look at our occupancy status. This is something that, if this format works, well probably use this as a base for future discussions so you can see particularly where we stand today. This also reflects changes in Square Footage following more accurate measurements, updating things from a few years ago when it was a food court concept. We may have more dividing walls. So these base numbers will be what you will see consistently going forward. So we did apologies, it took me three months to get the details straight and every square foot accounted for accurately. Now we have it. Were at 83. 4 current occupancy. Thats slightly different than the number last week, not because there is a change, but because the math is corrected and is more accurate. These numbers will change as we see tenancy change and well provide suite by suite updates as we secure new tenants. You can see the available spaces we have there. Now to the work of the individual suites. Making really Good Progress. First one up here is verizons space. You can see the sign is up. Finishes are happening inside the space. Theyre still on track for a late october or early november opening. Precise date has not yet been set, but were very close. Were making very Good Progress. Were looking over final signage on windows for approval. Love to be at that detail level. Its very encouraging. Another one that is moving along nicely is Kaiser Permanente space. They are still setting the public opening date as november 17th. Thats consistent with what you saw last time. These pictures, ill show you how we moved from framing to drywall and working on finishes within the space, so this, too, is moving along quite nicely. Looking at the other spaces, a little better defined scheduling now for you so you can see the beginning of what we would anticipate for opening. This is also reflective of our ongoing conversations with particularly the restaurant and cafe operators concerned about opening a little too early. So we have tried to finetune the delivers of the spaces to match the economy and the foot traffic will be returning to this area. So, therefore, you can see these q12021 opening slates. Happy lemon, pokey, spring fertility which is across the hall from our offices. And the second which is delivered later, but opening occurs for charlies and dim baos and tycoon kitchen. Then we have the openings in q2. If youve been by the facility, particularly on that end of the space, you may see the site that eddie ricks has out front. Were moving forward with the potential opening of that before the Permanent Location opens. So were discussing those logistics to make Good Progress with abc for Liquor License approvals. We have other things to button up with the department of Public Health and other regulatory agencies, but were very encouraged that could be open sooner than later. And then the precursor to many of these locations is having the gender neutral project completed. I think the last picture you might have seen was framing. As you can see, were looking like its moving along nicely. It is good work, remaining on schedule. That concludes my report. Happy to answer any questions you might have. Chair sesay thank you. For the presentation. Any comments or questions from fellow Board Members for the director . If there are no other questions or no questions or comments on the update, you do have the Quarterly Financial reports provided to you by our chief Financial Officer and shes available to answer any questions should there be any. Now we can see the screen. I couldnt see. It doesnt appear that anyone does. That concludes items under my report. Chair sesay thank you. Secretary are there any members of the public that wish to provide a comment on this item . Seeing none, i will move on to the next item. Directors oh, we have sorry i thought i saw a hand raised. Directors, item 6 is construction closeout update and we have dennis to present this item. Good morning, directors. Dennis truchon. Im going to provide todays brief phase one construction update for you today. Normally, you would see our director of all phase one construction activities, but hes been pulled away on other duties, because as a public works employee, he still has the San Francisco general project to wrap up and hes in arbitration today. So ill be providing the update for phase one. A few slides familiar to you. The first one here is the pie chart that we refer to show as our closeout of the trade packages of our 49. We have 37 closed out as of today. One is right on the fringe. May even be a final change order signed in the next day or two. Leaving the 11 that we have referenced for a while now. A couple of those are working their way through dispute resolution hearings. We do have a hearing next week with our r. S. C. , johnson controls, which is a low voltage scope that will have a hearing a couple days next week. So some of those are working through various disputes, but there are claims and lawsuit elements part of those 11 that will be discussed later today in the closed session. And also our contractor does have still two items left on his field condition reports, or punch list. So he has not achieved final acceptance yet. Theyre still pushing to get the last two which are lowvoltage type items and then ultimately d. B. I. Inspection required to closeout. So theyre still on the clock as of today to close out the contract. So as we track our construction, cont contingesi contingesies. This is our new budget, to reflect the new balances to the contingencies where the construction now shows the 17. 6 with 5 million in the cng contingency and 47. 5 now showing in the Program Reserve. With some anticipated continued use, the forecasted use of a couple of million on various construction in cmgc will be continuing to whittle away as we continue to work through about 70 change order requests. That were working through that are not in dispute as we finalize those out of the thousands that we have filtered through, so were in a very good spot. Almost near the end as we get to focus on really just those disputes, claims and lawsuits in the very near future. And then to complete it, the budget status, there is no changes to the bottom line number for the phase one package at 2. 259. No anticipated changes at this point at all either. This new slide does reflect some of the budget changes that were reflected a couple of months ago where improvements are their own bucket and the Program Reserve funding at 47. 5 million. That gives you a snapshot of where phase one construction is at this point and that completes my report for today. And wonder if there is any questions from the board . Thank you very much. Chair sesay Board Members, any questions for dennis . Thank you so much, dennis. Hearing none, mr. Secretary, do we have members of the public wishing to comment on this item . I think youre on mute. Secretary sorry about that. There are no members of the public that wish to provide a comment at this time. I will now proceed to call your next item. Directors, item 7 is the citizens advisory update and we have our Citizens Advisory Committee chair who will address you on that item. Good morning, directors. Can everybody hear me . Chair sesay yes. Great. We had a productive Citizens Advisory Committee tuesday evening. There was all around supportive comments for the interim director Nila Gonzales. We appreciate the level of consistency and familiarity with comprehensive issues that she brings. The cac members appreciate the staff report from john updike, as well as the closeout update by dennis. Looks like things are wrapping up nicely and well under control. There were positive supportive comments of the facility plans that identified areas of the park that may be showing preliminary signs of wear from the visitor usage. Sounds like that is under control. A number of the members are regular visitors to the Transit Center rooftop park and we appreciate updates on final facility projects such as the restroom facilities. The cac acknowledging the plans in progress while working with current tenants, given these Unusual Health and safety issues. Its great that weve got progress with a few merchants, especially in the health care field. Johns team put Significant Research and problemsolving analysis into updating the wayfinding resources. And cac members shared International Personal observations that john acknowledged when it comes to wayfinding topics. There were a number of questions about the phase 2 plans that steve addressed after his comments. The cac comments involved around understanding the clear path forward, including Steering Committee, topics, time lines, contractors and subcontractors, costs, political champions and General Program manager, project director topics. We just want to be in the loop to understand the path forward. There was also a restatement of the need to continue nurturing political and regional champion support. We want to avoid this project becoming bogged down as time goes by. We still are excited about the significant support and movement of this summer. Thanks again to all of you Board Members for your support and things you did behind the scenes to keep this moving forward. We want to make sure that the project continues and we want to look forward to key updates on the dtx dynamics, similar to what we received for phase one. Lastly, because there are significant connections with Regional Transit authorities that tie into the Transit Center, we invite communications and presentations at our upcoming meetings from regional transportation authorities such as caltrain. Were aware these times are having an effect on ridership and revenues throughout the state. And wed love to have updates on those dynamics as it affects our partners, so to speak. And this actually concludes my cac report. Chair sesay thank you for that presentation. Do we have comments or questions . My fellow Board Members . If we dont, hearing none, mr. Secretary, do we have members of the public wishing to speak on this item . Secretary yes. It looks as if we have one member of the public. I will have our moderator add that person to the queue and let him know he has three minutes to speak to this item. Moderator, can you let the member of the public into the queue, please . Theyre unmuted now. Good morning, directors. This is roland, very briefly. I think it is unfortunate that the significance of the dtx being moved to plan barrier 2050 period one was not communicated. Its almighty. It took effort by the entire region to get it there and i think this needs to be communicated to the cac in a strong manner because its moving forward, thank you. Secretary i think that concludes Public Comment. I will go ahead and call the next item, directors. Directors, item 8 is Public Comment. An opportunity for members of the public to address the authority on matters that are not on todays calendar. Members of the public that wish to provide Public Comment under this item, please dial 18552826330 and access code, 126 729 5295. Then pound and pound again. And then star 3 to be added to the queue to speak under this item. The system will prompt you when it is your turn to speak to draw your question, press to withdraw your question, press star 3 again. Seeing none, i will proceed to call the next item, directors. Directors, item 9 is approving the minutes of the august 18, 2020 meeting. Chair sesay thank you, mr. Secretary. Do we have questions, comments or edits . Ill move approval. Hursh. Chair sesay thank you. I have a motion and a second. Secretary i will now take roll call vote. Chair sesay thank you. Sorry, are there any members of the public that wish to provide a comment on this item . If not, i will then take a roll call vote. Director chang aye. E. Forbes aye. M. Hursh aye. B. Lipkin yes. J. Tumlin aye. Vice chair gee aye. Chair sesay aye. Secretary the ayes have it. Thank you. I will now proceed to call your next item, directors. Chair sesay thank you. Secretary directors, item 10 is approving an amendment to the employment agreement with Nila Gonzales for the position of interim executive director effective september 1, 2020. Good morning, deborah miller. You have before you this morning a proposed amendment to Nila Gonzaless Employment Contract to reflect her appointment from chief of staff and board secretary to the position of interim executive director. It reflects a change in the description of her civil responsibilities as well as a change in her compensation. The form of agreement is in front of you, both her existing contract as well as the proposed amendment and includes all of the details, but as required by government code 54953c3 i will note for the record that the proposed compensation this local Agency Executive would be revised to 124. 88 per hour, which would translate to annual salary of 259,743 over the course of a full year. The form and approach of the amendment to the employment agreement is consistent with both the form and approach that the board took in 2016 when it elevated an existing employee then Program Manager to the position of interim executive director. The form has also been approved by the tjpa employment council. As to the amount of compensation, its less than the outgoing executive director and its within the scope of the tjpas current budget. Happy to answer any questions if you have any. Chair sesay thank you. Any questions, comments from my fellow Board Members on this item . Just thank nila for taking on this difficult assignment. Im happy to move the item. Second, gee. Chair sesay thank you. We have a motion and a second. And do we have members from the public wishing to speak on this item before we do roll call . Mr. Secretary . Secretary seeing none, i will take a roll call vote. Director chang . Aye. E. Forbes aye. M. Hursh aye. B. Lipkin aye. J. Tumlin aye. Vice chair gee aye. Chair sesay aye. Secretary the ayes have it. I will now proceed to call your next item, directors. Item 11, authorizing the interim executive director to execute a General Service agreement for Landscape Maintenance services for salesforce park with gachina Landscape Management for an amount not to exceed 911,297 for a threeyear term. John will present the item. Thank you, donald. This item seeks your approval of a General Services agreement for Landscape Maintenance services with gachina Landscape Management to maintain salesforce park. As stated, the initial threeyear term has not to exceed amount of 911,297 and the contract has two oneyear options for renewal at fixed pricing. Following the issuance of the request for proposals in april of this year, tjpa received six proposals prior to the published june 22nd due date. A Selection Committee was then formed, composed of myself, a representative of the east cut cbd and the chief sustainability officer at the city of San Francisco. We were facilitated by ed sung of the staff. I want to give a shoutout to ed for his assistance helping the newbie through the process. The committee scored the written proposals and invited the top three scoring firms to the interview phase. Attachment c in the Package Details the scoring of each phase. Based on the reviews, the Committee Recommended the award of the contract to gachina Landscape Management. Gachina Landscape Managements experienced resources, their environmentally sustained approach, competitive pricing and green roof certification were all determining factors in the recommendation. Fiscally, the contract before you would have a fiscal year 2021 impact of 116,989 less than budgeted. Per the l. O. U. , cbd will be responsible for 79. 81 of the contracted amount. To actively engage the salesforce Park Committee in the process, beyond the appointment of a representative to the reviewing panel, we discussed some of the key terms of the landscaping specifications with the committee before negotiating the contract with gachina and then advised them of the recommendations, which was well received by the committee. So award of the contract at this time will facilitate a proper handoff from our current Maintenance Services provider and the original installer of the landscaping with wire and hester, whose obligations terminate in mid october of this year. Happy to address any questions you may have. Chair sesay thank you, mr. Updike for the presentation. Do i have any questions from my fellow Board Members for mr. Updike . Thank for the presentation. I just want to better understand. From the memo, when i was reading it, there one divergence in the proposal of the number of hours that we were seeing for the contracted amount. I dont have that page up, but i think it was somewhere in the 1500 or so to over 4,000. I know the winning the proposal that youre recommending is in the higher end of the range, not the highest. What is driving the difference in terms of in my simple world there is a certain amount of landscaping to do, so why were the proposals so different in terms of the hours involved . Its a really good question because it was a wide range of hours allocated to the task. The tasks were clearly outlined. I think what some of the vendors did not recognize is the diversity of the species. And as a result, those proposals that were closer to that 1500hour mark, we felt, the Committee Review felt it missed the mark on the detail that is needed, again, because weve got so many different zones within this five acres. And so what we did look at to ensure that this particular proposal was the most competitive, was balancing in a chart between the hours allocated and costs. And when we looked at the gachina proposal, we got a bigger bang for the buck in terms of the number of hours, the actual costs per hour was more competitive than other proposals. So we felt it was in the sweet spot between that almost 5,000hour proposal, which was over a half Million Dollars in cost to the tjpa and the lesser amount of hours which is still on an hourly basis fairly expensive for us. Hopefully, that addresses your question. Yes, thank you. Chair sesay thank you. Any additional questions . Hearing none, mr. Secretary, can you see if we have any members of the public wishing to speak on this item . And then well entertain a motion. Secretary seeing no members of the public that wish to provide a comment, moderator, can you confirm . That is correct. I do not see any. Secretary you may proceed, sara sesay. Move for approval. Chair sesay i have a motion. B. Lipkin second. Secretary i will now proceed to take a roll call vote. Director chang . Aye. E. Forbes aye. M. Hursh aye. B. Lipkin aye. J. Tumlin aye. Vice chair gee aye. Chair sesay aye. Secretary the ayes have it. Chair sesay thank you. Secretary i will now proceed to call your next item. Directors, item 12 is presentation by the lower case productions and applied wayfinding on the wayfinding gap analysis and Improvement Plan for the Salesforce Transit Center. Ill do a brief introduction. So first i want to thank our team for making the transition easy for me. I inherited this project when it was well along. Pleased to provide this final report and thank you to the board of directors and the mtc for the funding that was made made this venture possible. At this point the implementation, this really is a template that is shovel ready to move forward. Happy to ask wayfinding to take you through the program. Gentlemen . Take it away. This is dan ryder. Can you hear me . Secretary yes. Im the owner of lower case productions. Joining me is agent bell, as john mentioned, representing applied wayfinding. After this brief introduction, i will turn the show over to adrian to walk through the physical signage portion of the report. And then i will return to discuss the kioskbased digital wayfinding application. And then we will, together, complete our presentation with cost estimates and a time line for implementation. So if we could move to the next slide, please. Thank you. There are two main focus areas in this study to improve signage in wayfinding at the Transit Center. One was physical wayfinding signage and two was the digital application found on the kioskbased monitors primarily situated in the grand hall. And in order to research and discover what we did about these two areas, we went to a number of key steps, including conducting an initial assessment, which involved site audit, user and operator interviews, surveys that we track users while they tried their hand at the digital application. We followed them as they made way through the center, going from point a to point b. We then recorded our findings in the gap analysis report, which is the title of this project. After that we developed an Improvement Plan that recommended appropriate responses to the findings, as well as class 3 estimates on fixes. And finally, we brought everything together in a signage plan proposal that further details our recommendations along with the signage inventory and offered a set of estimates. Im going to turn the presentation over to adrian at this point and ill return in a while to discuss digital wayfinding. Adrian, take it away. Thank you, dan. Thank you, everybody, for giving us the time today to present this to you. As mentioned, im going to run you through the Information Planning and the physical sign element of both the analysis we did. So slide 3, please. So the background as dan explained was a variety of could you move that one slide as i mentioned, were going to run through really Design Concepts for the physical signage improvement were looking at proposals for the digital system including the kiosk and management system, and the preliminary plans and budget estimates for program improvements. We were focused on transit customer journeys and the reason for that is that is the core function of the building. And also because these people are often unfamiliar with the city and time limited, which makes them highly susceptible to any wayfinding system. We acknowledge the fact as we all recover from covid, improving the Customer Experience of transit customers will be all the more important in the future. Key findings from our review, which as i mentioned included a lot of engagement work concluded that the [inaudible] creates physical challenges to people, for instance, mistaking the bus deck for the plaza, can mean several minutes of confusion. This service as complexity and process steps. The design of the existing wayfinding overemphasizes esthetics and expense and the feature pilot elements are injectable to change. And that the digital which is an essential element of the design intent of the building have not been really successful. Theyre effectively unseen in our observation and the user interface is poorly designed and lacks accessibility. So, the key point of the way we approach this was to look really at three areas. One was the underlying logic of the wayfinding system. The Concept Design for adapted or new physical signs. Then proposals for Digital Systems including software, hardware and associated applications. Next slide, please. Im going to start with the information plan. The underlying logic of any wayfinding information plan. The plan describes the objectives, structures and rules. Assigns screens and other wayfinding tools. An example is found in the wayfinding standard, and describes the system of transit information to the whole bay area. There is limited evidence of a plan at the Transit Center and it does not use the m. T. C. Standard. This creates the problems experienced by visitors and limits the potential for the existing system to be expanded to future trains like caltrain. As seen here, different stages of the transfer journey. This zoning provides the framework for what types of information are required where. This is just an enlargement of that analysis process, which shows how a sequence of zones can be connected together to provide better information better idea about what information should be required where. For instance, the building is the first point to be on the outside of the building. Then to highly specific information like locating a particular service in that zone. The information plan also considers points to locate into motion intuitively. This shows design, so people typically take, mapped [inaudible] street, additional cross lines, and wayfinding decisions are made and information may be needed. In combination with the decisions that allows them to so its progressively disclosed to the user. Its the way that the information for the decision is provided to any point. This simplifies information design and ensures a logical sequence of systems. The current wayfinding point results in pylons that is complex attracts and other points where the visitor is left unsupported. Next slide, please. Again, a detail of that process here that shows how design lines and resulting decision points dont necessarily align with where i expect your experience would tell you that existing signs are located. In some instances, this only creates a minor inconvenience, but other instances, visitors have expressed they missed a direction that was important to them and they were unable to successfully continue their journey or faced significant delay. The information plan itself suggests fundamental problems to the existing wayfinding system that cannot be fixed by design changes to the sign contents or limited editions alone. Adaptation and use of infrastructure is possible and in some instances provides a wayfinding system that addresses current problems and scaleable for caltrain will, in our view require investment. We have suggested a phased plan. The intention is that the plan will create investment that will provide value to the each accepted phase. For the first phase, a Rapid Response and complaints right now, using materials, the existing signs. And phase one would develop the longer term plan as well. Phase 2 is a more substantive upgrade of existing signs. This would involve upgrades that would replace some signs, reengineer. Phase 3, is a new wayfinding system from phase 2 and allow you to scaleup for the use of caltrain without reworking the system yet again. Were going to show you a few consents, from the design process we undertook. The first example is the sort of iconic pylons used around the site. We found these are difficult to understand. That was supported by visitors and operators we spoke to. Very difficult for visitors and quite difficult for you to maintain and update. That represents an immediate opportunity for improvement. Our suggestion is that in phase 1, we would remove the embossed lettering and reclad those with a structural board and vinyl, so you have a clearer information system. That would be a temporary improvement. In phase 2, the top section of the existing signs would be removed and would be replaced with the permanent construction as illustrated here. This is a construction much more direct and easy to understand and more clearly follows the m. T. C. s regional direction. The next example im showing you here is exit signage above the doors. This is important because of the footprint of the building that covers several streets and the need to connect essentially between different transit modes. The current arrangement has been temporary addressed, but the overall impact is quite confusing and rather messy. Our proposal then is to cover those holes with vinyl panels and in phase 2, replace them entirely with illuminated sign boxes. Next slide. The third and final example im going to show you is just transit planning information. This is at the bus deck. Currently its a little difficult to find. We experienced. And that information is very critical to the information plan. Next slide, please. We proposed to much greater interest in those areas to create information hub similar to the transit information displayed at m. T. A. Across the region. That would be done using graphics and in phase 2, we would [inaudible] for that. Next slide. We also created an information plan of the preliminary locations of all of these. Where possible in phase one weve attempted to reuse or make compromise to limit the addition of the new signs or new infrastructure, but in phase 2, we have opted for an information plan place that would replace existing signs. Also, the proper place for the Digital Information in the transit information environment for customers. Next slide, please. Im going to hand it back to dan who is going to talk you through the wayfinding application, the digital element. Thank you, adrian. So beyond the fact that most users arent even aware there is an app living behind the ad placement on the kiosk monitors, our initial onsite assessment of the tool revealed two things. One, that there are so many fundamental flaws in the interactive experience. In the information architecture which is how the application is built. And the way the data is visualized and repurposed. That making incremental updates to the current is not going to fix the problem. The application needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up. The second thing we found, even after you rebuilt the application from the ground up, that in itself would not adequately solve the problem. The am caig is part of a application is a part of a larger ecosystem of hardware, software and work flow elements that all requires attention in parallel with development of the application. Next slide, please. So in summary im sorry. In summary, there are two things. One, we need to rebuild the application from scratch. And, two, we need to redesign research rather, design and develop solutions for these other supportive associated needs and elements. Im going to give you an illustration of what im talking about to help put this in better context. Over on the left is a picture of one of our kiosks in the main floor. On it, is the monitor and inside that monitor is the application that weve been tasked with reviewing. On the right, we see this grey area showing these five areas that we feel are really important to get a handle on in order to make the full package successful. So lets take a quick look at each of these areas, starting with the first one, content management network. So content and transit data coming into the center and also frankly on the main departure arrival big screen is all managed by a third party, that also manages placements appearing on the kiosks screens. Our recommendation is to consider options for bringing Data Management inhouse for quicker response to user issues with the tool to achieve better Response Time on communication alerts. And really to respond quicker to need for fixes in the software glitches. If we move up to the top of this graphic, the monitors and Digital Media players, monitors is a big issue as well. The current problem with the monitors are low pixel resolution devices. These were optimized for placement for large illustrations. They work great at a distance. The problem is when you look at them when you look at data that is put on the monitors up close, its really hard to see. You dont get the fine detail that you need to see maps, to look at small transit information, to look at floor plan graphics. Its just not there. So consider replacing these devices with very High Resolution and very bright i say bright because these monitors need to are used external to the grand hall. Right paired with the monitors are Digital Media players, small boxes, that feed the content directly to the monitors. That content comes from a third party. These Media Players have to work with monitors and if we replace the monitors, which we need to do, were going to have to replace half of those Media Players as well. So consider the status quo and upgrading both monitors and Media Players accordingly. Third category to the right is transit data dashboard. So the interactive wayfinding application is going to require regularly updated data from transit operators. Its going to be requiring live map data, including traffic conditions and things of that sort. And also up to date internal Transit Center floor plans, because we want to make sure that users, if they need to get from point a and point b and there is a retail chain, they need to know what is happening on the floor. So a facility of this sort of a public facility utilizing and sharing information of this sort typically has a backup house control system that is plugged into the cms, the application, that aggregates information and filters it and redeploys it smartly to the application. And this tool is recommended for this project as well. The fourth category is mobile. Why mobile . Well, viewers of public Space Software systems increasingly expect that they should be able to download these apps to their mobile device. You know, you dont necessarily want to have to go to an interactive tool on site in order to get from point a to point b when you can get the information on your way there, because youre going to be rushing when you get there. Another thing to keep in mind, due to the pandemic, people are going to be much more reluctant to touch screens and interact with touch. So we need to do everything to protect our users and give them the best experience and quickest access to the information they need. One last point about the mobile app, it brings up a template as an option to consider what a regional trip planner might be like, because it will be utilizing this type of information. So that becomes an added concept to consider for the future. The last item is digital wayfinding and Navigation Services for people with disabilities. The current tool has an option where you can click a button and the control interface moves down toward the floor for people who are confined to wheelchairs. Not only is it incompletely implemented, but there is much more to the disabled community than those with wheelchairs, including those with hearing and vision loss and cognitive impairment. Our final recommendation is have a research study, what is the full extent of what we can do to bring this tool to the use of more people in the disabled community . Unless there are any questions. Im going to turn over to adrian and hell discuss cost estimates. Thank you, dan. If we could just move to it slide 23, please. Thank you very much. So, we provide an outline estimate of mentioned based on the preliminary plan and visual designs. So this is sort of a plusminus 25 assessment of costs at this stage. Weve looked at physical signage. Digital information as well as the potential contingency associated with developing those to the next stage. I think its important to remember that phase one were anticipating something that could be introduced in a year. So a rapid turnaround. Phase 2 may take longer, obviously, its a larger investment. And we understand of course that may take more than two years to budget, but it is it is in our estimation possible physically within about two years. The costs are laid out there for you. I wont go through them in detail. But just to comment that phase 1 includes Detailed Design of all physical elements we have shown as visual concepts. The physical adjustments. Addition of static, temporary transit information display to replace diagrams on digital kiosks while theyre upgraded. Phase 2 proposals would be the physical elements for replacement of the signs as permanent items. Reengineering replacement of signs. Identity signage on the exterior of the facility. And also the potential of a mobile app development. I think at that point ill leave it. And back to you, john, to manage questions. Happy to take any. Thank you. Thank you so much. So all of us are available for questions if you have them, members. Chair sesay thank you for the presentation. Do i have any questions from my fellow Board Members . And thank you. That was very thorough and detailed. Question. M. Hursh jeff, did you have a question . J. Tumlin i do. Yeah, let me dive in. So thank you, adrian and daniel for the presentation. This is a topic near and dear to my heart. In my global practice i use the transbay Transit Center as the best example in the world of failed interagency coordination and deeply anticustomer wayfinding. We do not have a wayfinding system at the transit centre, we have a facility inventory of agency terms. If im a customer and i know that i need to get to alameda or sunol, there is nothing there to help me find my destination. So i have a couple of questions. Ill go through all of them because theyre related. One question is, can we please eliminate or at least diminish the use of agency logos as our primary wayfinding structure . I love the walter lan dow worm, but nobody knows what that means. And instead of having there be a worm and a little green circle with fog in the middle of it, can the sign simply say buses to San Francisco and buses to north bay . Secondly, the k1 panels are really useless. And yet theyre very expensive investment and seem to offer a lot of flexibility. I would love thoughts on how to make them useful in the shortterm, instead of counterproductive. Even putting up just some static maps of how the system works and explanation how the system works would be very helpful in the short run. And then most of my questions are about wayfinding details, like a standard for numbering exists so that the entire journey train can be explained with google maps. And you know thoughtfully integrated. Ill stop there and hear your response. Thanks. Ill take this first. I know there was a question about the sure. So if i may, through you, chair, thank you for the question. Yeah, i would agree, we have ourselves used the problems as an example of design over in other instances. Our view generally on Transit System wayfinding is that they are often driven by operator identity for historical reasons. And thats not in line with the clientele. The new riders we need to draw into the system dont understand any of that jargon. So i think you see from the Concept Design i went through quickly, we are suggesting simple messaging to buses to explain the difference between the bus deck and the bus which is incredibly important. And we did encounter people who would spend 20 minutes lost in the building, which is a remarkable amount of time. So i would totally agree with the comments. They are in line with what we suggested. I will mention as well we have also suggested reinstating some static system maps and building facility maps in the building because thats the sort of thing that people look for, its reliable and visual and increasing online information. Dan, any other thoughts . Before you reply, the idea of bus deck versus bus plaza is nonintuitive. There is a place where buses to the east bay depart from. And there is a different place where buses to San Francisco and the north bay depart from. And then there is a street where buses to the peninsula depart from. And then there is a block away, regional rail, that is not mentioned in any of the wayfinding. Yep. J. Tumlin so, again, rather than focusing on the facility and arbitrary agency terms, to focus on the information that the customer needs. I would agree. Sorry. When i say differentiate, i dont mean repeat the name. I mean in a way that the customer appreciates. So thank you for that clarification. Yeah, i would just add to your comments, jeffrey, in the shortterm to rebuild to do something with the kiosks at this point while development is under way, lets say within the first year, what i can say is besides putting physical maps or digital static maps in place with the current application that is broken is one option at this point. It will take approximately a year to develop something that is consistent with the needs of the station right now. So a series of static images that we could replace the current application with. Other than that, im not sure im concerned about advertising and how that is incorporated into this mix, which is something that as well. My turn now. First, im glad i yielded to jeff, because he was much more articulate than i will be. Thank you for the report. Thank you to staff for getting it here. It validates what weve been saying before the grand opening. Couple of questions. Well, a comment first. I appreciate the focus, but i also [inaudible] the use of the facility. The more we can drive business through our [inaudible] what are included with it. The wayfinding for transit makes great points about the buses in the city, to north bay versus the east bay. Is this work in the scope . Can we just say go . Or does this need to be bid out . Who is paying for it . And last, probably least important and probably not possible, i dont want to start a witch hunt, but we got it so wrong, is there somebody we can go after for errors and omissions . It seems like such a world class facility with so much attention paid to it. I dont want to start an investigation, but if there is someone we should hold responsible, we should at least try to thank you. Maybe i can talk to one part of that, because i think a little of that is out of my scope. Just to say as partners, our discussion with staff and operators, we certainly acknowledge that this isnt just a transit facility, that its a mixed use development. And the idea of building directories and maps to explain the other authority in the building is certainly part of what we considered and recommended. John, perhaps you can talk to the other . I may defer the last question to my executive director. But with respect to implementation, as we noted, there is no identified funding source, but were excited about the scope and completion of this project. We do have specifications here that allow us to move pretty smoothly to an implementation of that phase one work. Given the scope of the project, yes, it would probably require a procurement process. But funding first. We will be as ready as we can be when eget the green we get the green light to go in terms of initiating a procurement process. So readiness is what we get from this. I think maybe to add to that, john, in terms of readiness, we also have a partnership established with m. T. C. , who is very invested in helping us get this funded and implemented. We realize this is a time where no one has any extra money and it also says we need to have done, because when the economy comes back and the people come back, they can navigate easily. So we will have it ready and continue to work with m. T. C. And anyone else we might be able to coordinate or partner with to get funds for that. I actually had an idea ill run by john after as we were going to a presentation on who we might seek for additional sponsorship on in implementing more wayfinding. And again, my last question. I mentioned this was designed 10 years ago, but is there anybody we can hold accountable . Want to get back to us on that . I can tell you what i know from being here. Well, i can tell you what i can tell you is, i am familiar with the staff or i should say the Program Management staff that worked. From what i understand, worked with m. T. C. , but obviously not to m. T. C. Satisfaction, not the staff that is working with us now, to implement the signage that was there which obviously needs improvement. Ill be frank and share that i, myself, who have been here since before and saw the plans, and sometimes wonder where im at and im a native san franciscan that knows the city all the way around. Its a huge facility that needs additional signage. We will definitely take a look if there is anyone to hold accountable and if we can draw on some other monies to help support the effort. Perhaps if that is possible, thank you. A couple of questions. I dont know if i can follow jeff and mike on this, but just in terms of mtcs involvement. Have we shared the product that adrian has put together with them at this point . And did they have any reaction to and desire to continue their partnership with us in moving it forward . Yes, director. M. T. C. Has been a valuable partner with me on this project. Worked closely on the product that you have now reviewed. We find it in alignment with the overall bay Areawide Program at m. T. C. Is promoting. And ive been engaged with those discussions with a larger group. I think we have 88 on the last zoom call that was hosted. So lots of involvement from sacramento and bay area. So, yes, its in sync with their plans. And were continuing that conversation. I guess my second question was, almost the question for jeff and maybe i just missed it between the presentation and your comments, but i like what you were saying about helping passengers navigate to their destinations. And i know that some of the signs for the mockups that adrian presented, still was very agency focused. To me, that feels like there is still work to reconcile in terms of like, we cant because i agree, jeff, with what youre saying. If were going to move in that direction the details if you will. So i guess leave it to put you on the spot, but if you have a couple extra hours in your day to help with figuring some of that out or having a staff member figure out, your team perhaps that youve been working on this kind of stuff, but maybe thats another avenue to making sure we get it right. Because i want to go down the implementation route with things that we see as probably not quite up to what were actually looking for and getting too far ahead of ourselves with it. Im certainly happy to help on the next steps. Im sure that director hursh would be as well. Between the two of us if we can corral the other general managers and use our staffs to think about how do we focus on our customers and not just protect our turf . I would like to say, can we abolish the use of agency logos in the wayfinding system and instead pretend like we have one regional seamless Mobility System that happens to be operated by 20odd different operators. That the customer doesnt need to know about. They need to know where theyre going. How to get a ticket. They dont necessarily care which one of us is the operator and what our 1974 logo is. One point on that, if i may. I think just to explain why we retained operator logo, because we have in other instances lobbied for exactly the same thing as consultant. You go to user focused approach. What we had been aware of and wanted to emphasize was the value of regional consistency and the m. T. C. Standard which obviously this is a strategic [inaudible] still use operator logos and while there isnt yet a sort of Regional Transit identity agreed, that is something that we were aware that to fit in with the regional standard, that is something that perhaps is a concession that may need to be made to m. T. C. Standards, but certainly from a wayfinding consultant perspective, i agree that operator logos are somewhat acis inistic at best, well constrained. I would suggest going straight to a dutch or japanese standard and bypassing the standard which i think is a good effort rather than a global standard effort. This comment about us helping. Transit trivia for 400. Ac transit manages the regional sign program for mtc. Before my time, i wouldnt have done it, but we hired a contractor. We have staff that are very knowledgeable of the m. T. C. Process and were happy to collaborate and move this as fast as possible. Sorry to interrupt. Chair sesay i see director chang. Thank you. I really appreciate the whole item and all of the fantastic comments from the other directors. I wanted to suggest that we do continue to engage, if weve been doing so, the Disability Community and the c. A. C. , and just continue to keep public involvement and engagement in line as far as the user perspective. And to be able to budget for that as well, so we can go together to seek funding. So in our capacity as a transportation authority, i also wanted to offer our help to seek grants or other opportunities to help fund this very, very important, really critical work, ultimately. So im glad were discussing this today. Thank you. Chair sesay thank you. So it looks like any of my fellow Board Members have questions, but it looks like director gonzalez, you have offers on the table and at some point would it looks like there is enough interest it may make sense to come back and keep us all informed about this, because it is a Customer Experience. I know we get all wonky on that side of the house, but we definitely want passengers to be able to navigate to their destinations. So thank you for that. Do we have if there are no additional comments from my fellow Board Members, do we have members of the public wishing to comment on this item . There are no members of the public that wish to provide any comment on this item at this point. Chair sesay and an update, its not an action item. So can we call the next item . Item 13 is the San Francisco peninsula rail program e. S. C. Update. Executive Steering Committee chair will present the item. Thank you, mr. Secretary. Good morning, directors. Pleased to help present on the update for the e. S. C. This month. Since our last presentation before you in august, weve made steady progress on a number of items. As director gonzalez mentioned, procurement are making their way forward. The outreach and branding consultants as well as the general engineering contractor which is a really critical Consulting Service that we are going to need on a timely basis. So just wanted to underscore that as you consider. We have also been making recruitment of the permanent project director position. Appreciate being included in on that. In terms of our critical path, as youll recall from the last month update, it does remain, the rail operations as it will feed into the major focus of our work in this first period. And the good news there is that we have found a way as a team to provide the funding in the early stages of this work to caltrain, which is procuring the consulting for us. Theyre doing the work in conjunction with the highspeed Rail Authority and that the whole team is going to rely on. It is to help this work will help evaluate the different impacts of phasing options on caltrain and highspeed rails through input, capacity, reliability, safety, et cetera, among all the other factors that well be considering. Well be able to move that along using existing sfmta funds. And we may come back to you at the end of the year, depending on how the other pieces of work shake out, and that relates to the next item ill provide the update on, which is the joint board plan, the interagency schedule, and deliverables that the team has been producing. Supported by aecon and our director. The team hass developed this initial work plan. Well be reviewing it in a couple of weeks. That lays out all the interrelated tasks to get to a milestone next summer, which we hope to bring to you, the phasing results, phrasing Study Results operational analysis, funding and planning to support decisionmaking about whether and how to identify our initial operating segment that could be lower cost than the whole project that we see before us. So thats our goal. And we dont have that update for you yet today, but well bring that to you at your next meeting in october. Other tools that the team has developed include the phasing analysis sort of cost estimation tools to identify the impact of project features that may be deferred. And to escalate those appropriately. Its also been great to see them updating the projects risk register, which we talked about last time we met. Director gee commented on that as well, expressed a lot of interest. So we are using the f. T. A. Methodology to assure applicability of this work as we head into future grant requests for f. T. A. So that is really Good Progress on that front. Finally in terms of planning and funding, it did come up in Public Comment, following the good outcome of the placement of d. T. X. And the first period of the planned bay area, as was noted before, the team has participated in coordination meetings with related projects including the transbay the new transbay rail crossing with bart and capital corridor. And tjpa sent comments to the high speed Rail Authority, the draft environmental document. That just happened in the past week. So i appreciate that level of engagement and participation and really a form of championship since that did come up. I think its really great to see all of the related projects being a focus here at tjpa. With that, im happy to take sorry, one thing i did fail to mention. Our next meeting will be coming up september 18 at 11 00. As usual, the agenda is posted on the tjpa website and any callers who require additional assistance, we can provide that for the callin process through tjpa and director gonzalez. We did have folks experiencing difficulty at our prior meeting. I wanted to acknowledge that and offer that assistance. Chair sesay thank you for that update. Do i have any comments, questions from my fellow Board Members . I see vice chair gee. Vice chair gee thank you, chair sesay. Director chang, i wanted to say thank you for the update. This is exactly what not just this board needs, but the public needs to see where this is headed and where they can engage in the process. So i appreciate it. Look forward to the more detailed work plan as well as all the other items that you shared in your report. So thank you very much for that. Youre welcome. Chair sesay thank you. Anyone else . I dont see anyone else, at least my fellow Board Members. Mr. Secretary, do we have members of the public wishing to comment . Secretary yes. You have one member of the public that would like to comment on the item. Jason, can you put that caller in the queue . They are unmuted. Fellow caller, please state your name. Your three minutes begins now. Thank you, directors. This is roland from san jose. So, to start with i think that director chang is asking for the modelling on behalf of caltrain is critical. And in my mind, this is a very best 200,000 you will have spent on this project so far. Moving forward, i expect that the analysis will finally expose the Second Street alignment. That will ultimately make it impossible for caltrain to vacate the 4th and king rail yard until the new transbay tube opens. I would like to close with a couple of recommendations. First of all, when youre doing the modelling, limit the model to the section between breeze bane and the sfdtc. Any issues caused by to eliminate any issues caused by the rider way in san matteo county. I would like to share with you track work in the vicinity of the tank form that makes it possible to turn around 12 trains an hour per direction between the Transit Center and brisbane. The other thing i would like to address is to consider, is to expand the scope of the contract to study the 7th street alignment in parallel with the Second Street alignment, because this ultimately will inform the board the 7th street alignment is indeed the only alignment that will enable six fulllength true platforms in translink. And im pleased to inform you that one of the seven Design Builders who responded to the r. F. I. Gave me a verbal quote to construct both the d. T. X. And p. A. X. As a combined project for less than 1 billion. Which means that you currently have a funding envelope of 1. 3 billion, all this project needs is environmental to proceed. And we have two bills, one that passed, senate bill, i think it was from senator wiener. And the one that make in the session, which is 7965 which is extension of 8900. That bill is critical and i need you all legislators to basically join with the mayor in san jose and to convene an emergency session to pass that bill. Thank you very much. Secretary thank you. It seems there are no other members of the public that would like to provide a comment. I will proceed along with the agenda. Chair sesay thank you, mr. Secretary. Secretary at this time the board is scheduled to go into closed session. If there are any members of the public that would like to provide comment on the items listed for discussion in closed session, this is your time to do so now. Seeing none, i will now put us in closed session. Moderator, can you please put us into closed session . Yes. I can hear you. Thank you, jason. You may report out. As to item 16, conference with legal counsel, existing litigation in the matter as specified on the published agenda, there is no action to report. As to item 17, for the spaces in the Transit Center as noticed, there is no action to report. Chair sesay thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much for that. So i take it were adjourned. Secretary it looks as if you have a member of the public who wants to provide a comment at this time. Chair sesay okay. Jason, can you please pass the person the caller through the queue, please . Hello, caller, please state your name. I dont need to state my name. Im pretty well known. You know, you need to know something about the brown act. So i was listening to the meeting and we are at home because of the covid19 situation. Those of us who Pay Attention to the various deliberations are getting piecemeal information on what is happening with the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. You know, some of us are very interested in the highspeed rail system with all the millions of dollars that have been spent at the transbay. And the last meeting i saw the one of the directors, i think the main director retired. And i know theyre going to get some new people in. I know your chair person pretty well. And all i say is, that san franciscans are very astute and stellar. Dont hood wink us in broad daylight. Keep us informed with goals that have time lines. And i know you have your c. A. C. And some others, but lets not have people that rubberstamp issues. We need sound deliberation. We need people who understand what this process is, including the brown act. And, hopefully, if you do things the right way, well go to a better place. If not, i think that Transbay Joint Powers Authority will also be involved in some sort of subpoenatype of situation, which we do not want to be. Or happen. Thank you very much. Chair sesay thank you. Mr. Secretary, do you have any more . Secretary no. There are no more members of the public that wish to provide comment at this time. Chair sesay, that concludes your items for todays agenda, you may adjourn the meeting. Chair sesay thank you, everyone. Goodbye. Congrats to you, director gonzalez. Everyone be well, take care. Thank you, take care, everyone. Good afternoon. This is a meeting of the San Francisco Port Commission for tuesday, september 22, 2020. Item thunder bay one is roll call. [roll call] madame president , all members of the commission are present. Item number two is the pledge of allegiance. I pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Item number three is approval of minutes for the september 8, 2020 Port Commission meeting. So moved. Second. Could we please have a roll call vote. President brandon . [roll call] commissioner gilman . I think youre on muy. Apologies. Yes. Thank you. [continuing roll call] [inaudible] the minutes of the august 11, 2020 meeting are adopted. All right. That brings us to item number four, announcements. Please be advised that a member of the public has up to thee minutes to make pertinent Public Comments on each agenda item, unless the Port Commission adopts a shorter period on any item. Please note that during the Public Comment period, the moderator will enstrict dialin participants to use a touchtone phone to register their desire for Public Comment. Audio prompts will signal to dialin participants when their audio input has been enabled for commenting. Please dial in when the item you wish to comment on is announce. Please note if you are watching this meeting on sfgov tv streaming on the internet, there is a broadcasting delay so when the item you want to comment on is announced, dial 14156550001. And then enter access code 1461274442. Please then mute the volume on your computer and listen only through your telephone because of that broadcasting delay and when the item you want to make Public Comment on is announced, dial star 3 to raise your hand to comment and then listen for the audio prompt to signal your turn to comment. And a reminder for our meeting presenters and participants to please mute your microphone and turn off your cameras when you are not presenting. [inaudible]. For member of the public who are joining us on the phone. Jennifer will be our operator and [inaudible] instructions now for anyone on the phone whod like to provide Public Comment. Operator thank you, president brandon. At this time, we will open the queue for anyone on the phone who would yoik to make Public Comment on items not listed ton agenda. Please dial star 3 if you wish to make Public Comment. Others will wait on mute until their lines are open. Comments will be limited to three minutes per person t. Queue is now open. Please dial star 3 if you wish to make Public Comment. Thank you, jennifer. Do we have anyone on the phone . Operator president brandon, that the time there are no members of public on the phone wishing to make Public Comment on this item. Thank you. Seeing no comments on the phone, public sxhenl closed. Call next item, please. That would be item number 6air force basesinger, the executive directors report. Gfn, brandon, Vice President adam, members of the commission, members of public and port staff. Im the executive director. This last friday, we lost United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. Justice ginsberg had a monumental impact on advancing gender equality in this country and was really the lion of the court in terms of justice and equity for many decades. She was able to see things as they should be, not just as they are, and bravely and methodically taught others to see, too. She was a giant in her intellect, she had relentless commitment to excellence and she had complete humanity. Were naurnl she walked among us. So many women have opportunities to make the most of their lives and talents because of justice ginsburg. If her hp, i would [inaudible] with an equity update. The port has begun the internal work to build, support and reinforce an antiracist workplace. We are engaging our staff in reviewing our workplace demographics, really to identify areas where we can be more racially diverse and inclusive. Were looking at hiring and recruitment, training and promotions as well as discipline and separations. Reviewing the data is seeing where we can make interventions to change things. Im excited that were laufrming this tour internally. Itselfs an opportunity for staff at every level to engage in this work that is so important and to have their input reflected in our Racial Equity action plan. While it has been a long journey to get to this point, as an organization, many, many staff have put an important time lay the groundwork and were ready to take this important step at cae ago more equitable portful as an organization, were facing the problem of racism head on and recognizing that doing so is a core part of everyones work at the port of San Francisco. Id like to thank president brandon and all members of the commission for guiding us in this important wok and we will need your continued leadership and support and i look forward to bringing future up dates as we continue this work. To economic reopening. Last week t mayor announced that San Franciscos plan for reopening indoor dining, the city will move forward with 25 capacity with a maximum of 100 people. If the state is classified on the states list in orange, for whats possible to reopen. This reopen hg occur no sooner than the end of september. If locale covid cases and hospitalizations do not remain stable, we may not meet the states criteria and intoo dine willing not proceed. So please stay tuned. At this point, the plan is end of this month. The department of health is developing health and safety guidelines in close coordination with the Restaurant Industry to prepare for safe, limited, indoor dining. This opportunity may help many restaurant tenants who are using pickup, takeout and Outdoor Dining. Additional dining may be a difference in keeping restaurants going during covid, but has to be implemented carefully and in strict accordance with health and safety protocols. There are ferry eke kurtions. On monday, september 14 and the Health Officers amended order that was for the next phase of reopening, that order included a change to open air about excursion restrictions. Now charter boats including fishing boats with up to 12 people are allowed and the prior 12person cap on ferry excursions has been removed. The 12person now multiple groups in pods of 12 passengers can be on a vessel at one time. So long as the operator can ensure that the groups will remain separate as guided by the safety protocols outlined in that order. This is very welcoming news for Maritime Partners tan port is meezed that more activities can occur safely on the bay. I wanted to get a budget update. The budget is actually before the board of supervisors today. We went forward with the approved budget from Port Commission and it really didnt change dramatically through the mayors process or the board review. Our overall budget did decrease by less than 1 million so were now at 124. 8 million and it decreased by 1. 1 million for the second year for 111. 3 million. The expenditures changed changed due to citywide adjustments and technical revisions. Our citywide Cost Allocation expenses went up from 5 to 1. 7 p l and we had a 2. 5 increase in higher insurance eke pences. All of these increases were offset by cuts through the mayor and budget analyst phase. Notably they cut the pors bum by 240,000. We were the beneficiary of a 100,000 addback and that is for Youth Employment programmes to support port participating in a City Development programme. So, well eager to see the intersectionalty for our work and how to best participate in that opportunity. Our 10 million economic Recovery Project went through the process and actually received some positive feedback from members of the board. However, we do have a Budget Finance Committee reserved. So, once were ready to spend on economic recovery after coming and getting Port Commissioners review and recommendation, well be on our way to the board of supervisors to release that reserve. Finance staff expect turnaround and began the next budget process which will be much harder to perform as we go through our Covid Response for fiscal years 2223 in november and back with a new budget for consideration in february and that brings me to my last item, which is very welcomed news. Craneco spark set to open to the public next week on september 30. This is a wonderful sevenacre park and it is years in the making and reflects deep the deep value of Community Engagement and Port Commission oversight and leadership. Numerous port staff across many divisions made this park happen, but i nao ed to mention two staffers and commend them. David and erica, both have really worked tirelessly to pull off the vision for the park and it shows. Crane co park has several important goals. It closes the gap in the greenway. An important toefrt bring the nature to the southern part of the waterfront and incorporates the National Historic district for future generations. It is a very important it has a very important history and will be told to the public and future generations. It also addresses environmental contamination and prepares for Sea Level Rise. But im especially proud that this park is in district 10 and opening at a time when open space is vital to everyones wellbeing. This is the first park on the east side of San Francisco to provide direct access to the bay. The next clip is beach opportunities or aquatic park in christy field. The park includes a multipurpose lawn a plaza to activate Historic Resources and accommodate special events. It has a family barbecue area and engaged for kayak and canoes and pathways for pedestrian and bike access. A beautiful garden that includes storm water improvements and great interpretive history. It is a special place and we cant wait for the dmounlt start enjoying i. Thank you, commissioners, for your tenacious leadership of this project through its twists and turns and that concludes my report. Report staff does ask that you close the maoing in honour of justice ginsburg. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the report, elaine. Well now open the phone lines for several comments on the executive directors report for members of the public who are joining in on the phone. Jennifer will be our operator who will provide instructions now for anyone on the phone. Operator thank you. At this time, well open the queue for anyone on the phone who would like to make comment on the executive directors report. Please dial star 3 if you wish to make Public Comment. The slm 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. Thank you, jennifer. Do you have anyone on the phone . Operator president brandon, at this time, there are no members of the public on the phone wishes to make Public Comment on the executive directors report. Thank you. See nothing callers on the phone, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner gilman . Thank you, director forbes, so much for your report. I am so excited about the park opening. I know that well not all be able to gather there for the grand opening, but im excited on my own time to visit the park and im so pleased that we are closing our meeting and dedication to Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a commission that historically has been a majority of women sitting on the commission and having president brandon who served as president so often in the past 20 years, i think it is quite fiting that we honour the work that she did for gender equality. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner woo ho . I just also want to congratulate the staff and bore for crane co park. I just also want to congratulate the staff and bore for crane co park. Weve been working on this the whole time ive been on this commission, since 2011. It is great to see it come to fruition, even in this difficult time. And while we cant all be out there, ive been out there several times just to look at the area. Not just at craneco park itself. I think it is another, i guess, piece of the jewel of the bluegreenway. So i think it is great that we have that and Everything Else that is slowly coming up around it. And it is going to be a great area. And it is dmraet that we celebrate r. B. G. Today. She was an iconic model. And in terms of her battle for women equality and the facta she became a rock star in the last decade of her life. So, there hope for all of us. There is hope for all of us. Thank you. Vice president . Director forbes, thank you for your report. I agree with commissioner woo ho. Craneco park has been a long time coming. It has been a lot of twists and turns and so good to see it come to fraoufmtion and david dupres and others have been with this from the start and they havent lived to see the day but i appreciate the port continuing its efforts. Theres only one left of the original eight of the committee. And they definitely had a big smile down from heaven knowing that craneco park will open. And it goes without saying about justice ginsburg. The young women out there dressing like her and emulating what she stands for. Definitely she is one of the last of the giants. Thank you. Thank you. I also want to say how happy i am that we are celebrating r. B. G. And that were [inaudible]. She was a giant for justice and equity in womens rights and in all rights. So it is fitting that we honour her and celebrate her for thank you shes done for all the women before us. Im the executive director for the [inaudible] and for taking it on because it is not easy. So there is no [inaudible] behind the [inaudible] to continue our work and support. I really have to [inaudible]. Im sure even is not going to want to sit outside with heat lamp and hopefully we can make our numbers and continue to do well and open up a little more. Im also happy that ford included a Youth Employment programme. I think that is absolutely wonderful. We definitely have to help the younger generations. Hopefully you can share the update with us. [no audio] [applause] [inaudible]. And i have the opportunity last week last week to tour crane cove park with director forbes and the mayor [no audio] [inaudible] and a shoutout to david [inaudible] best efforts to day one. He engaged the community. He worked with various budgets and erica came if and did the finishing touches and we have an absolutely beautiful park out there. We were able to [inaudible] so it is a true, dedicated park so i really want to thank david and erica for all the work that they have put in to making that happen. Thank you. Next item, please. That would be item 6b, the commissioners report. Commissioners, anything to report . Commissioner woo ho . No, i just i was just waving to say no, im on mute. Ok. Commissioner gilman . I dont have anythinging to report. Thank you. No, i dont. Thank you. Ok. Well, since there is nothing reported on the commissioners report, i dont think we have to do Public Comment. Next item, please. Item number 7 is the consent calendar. There is one item on the consent calendar, item 7a, which requests authorization to advertise a request for qualifications for two micro l. B. E. Setaside contracts for asneeded public relations, communications and media real estates services. This is resolution number 2043. Thank you, carl. Commissioners, can i have a motion to approve the consent calendar . So moved. Second. We will open the phone lines to take Public Comment on consent calendar for members of the bhoubl. The public who are joining us on the phone. Operator thank you, president brandon. At this time, well open the queue for nip on the phone who would like to make Public Comment on the consent calendar. Please dial star 3 if you wish to make Public Comment. The system will het 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 t. Queue is now open. Please dial star 3 if you wish to make Public Comment. Thank you, jennifer. Do we have anyone on the phone . Operator yes. We have one caller on the line. Thank you. Please open the line to the first caller. Operator thank you. Unmuting that line now. Hello . Hello . Operator the caller is there, but maybe well give them some time to call back. Are there any other caller on the line . Operator president brandon, there no caller on the line wishing to make Public Comment on this item. Ok. Has anyone called back . Operator caller, if you would like to make public xenl on this item, can you raise your hand again by pressing star 3. President brandon, it look like there are no hands raised at this time. Thank you, jennifer. Seeing no caller on the phone, public sxhenl closed. Comment is closed. Could we please have a roll call vote . [roll call] thank you, carl. The motion passes family. Resolution 2043. Next item, please. That would be item 8a an informational presentation on mission rock communitys facility district financing including the bond documents and preliminary official statement to partially fund phase one of horizontal improvements at seawall lot 337. Gfn, commissioners. This is Phil Williamson, senior project manager for the real estate and asset department. Here to present an item that we are very pleased to bring before you, an informational item. Next slide, please. Federal election slide, please. Thank you. So, today im going to be joined by Wyatt Donnelly landolt from port staff and presenting a project overview and an update on the project financing, leading up in our next meeting with you an action item meeting to the issue for your approval to issue bonds to the project. Very exciting time for the project. Let me start with a project overview. Youre very familiar with this project by now. We appreciate all of your support and encouragment and advice to date. Next slide, please. So just by way of quick summary, to refresh memories, at full buildout, the project will be 2. 7 to 2. 8 million square feet of retail ground floor retail, i should say, office and residential uses. Approximately 1200 howing units, 40 of which will be affordable at a wide range of area median incomes from 45 to 150 . So addressing a large need from all parts of the housing spectrum. 970 to . 4 million square feet of office space. 240,000 square feet of retail production space, primarily on the ground floor of the buildings on the sigh. And at some point down the road, pier 48 rehabilitation of approximately 240,000 square feet as well. Next slide, please. So, phase one, which were on the cusp of starting and todays an important milestone towards that happening, phase one is four buildings in total and you can see on the diagram here, phase one is shaded in blue and includes four buildings and includes china basin park on the north side of the project, new streets, sidewalk and utility infrastructure to serve the four phase one buildings. There are two housing buildings, residenceabler buildings totaling 537 units total. Almost 200 affordable. The commercial buildings in this die sgram hard to tell, but partial a and partial f excuse me, b and g, excuse me, i switched those around will be Office Buildings totaling 550,000 square feet. Retail in phase one is approximately 65,000 square feet. The park, again, is 5. 5 acre on the north side of the project. Lots of new utilities, street lights. Everything you would expect in a new neighbour will be put in phase one to make it productive and feasible and attractive to tenants and visitors alike. Were targeting completion for phase one in 2022. Next slide, please. An important aspect of this project and all port projects is our effort to reach out to l. B. E. Firms in San Francisco and to utilize them as much as possible. This project had a preconstruction goal of utilizing 10 l. B. Participation and were very happy and proud that we have accomplished that and then some. To date, we are at 18. 5 of l. B. Participation in the preconstruction work. Were looking ahead to construction starting in the next couple of week, hopefully. Definitely in the next couple of months. And the goal increases to 20 l. B. E. Participation and we feel very confident well meet or exceed that goal going to ward and i want to mention that i know next week, the project team will be meeting with commissioner brandon and adams to give a more detailed update on the efforts to date and just how productive weve been in meeting these goals. Now i would like to con clues my project overview and update and i want to introduce wyatt. Before doing so, just want to remind the commissioners that earlier this year, you approved the phase budget and today youll be hearing how it will be implemented and how important the bonds are to making that budget a reality and the four leases for phase one will be signed today or tomorrow. We signed one a few months ago. We signed the other three last week and we expect them to close this week. So, very exciting times for the project of four leases for four buildings with construction just around the corner and with that id like to introduce wyatt. Hello, commissioners. Wyatt donnelly. I work on the finance aspects of the Development Project at mission rock and pier 70. Ill go over the bond itself in just a general financing structure. If you cant hear me ok, please let me know. Sox just a reminder on the funding structure, there are three sources to fund the project. The early stages and just looking at this graphic, starting at the bottom left, are developer and port equity. Those are the early investments to get started. In the middle termings those are replaced with the pors land value on the site. The prepaid leases for the vertical parcels and the final source are the c. F. D. And i. F. D. , Community Facilities distribution and infrastructure financing districts. Ill talk about those a little later in more detail. But there are two tax mechanisms we use to fund the horizontal infrastructure on the project. So those go in to fund the roads, packs, sewers, electricity. So we can start vertical development and the developer earns 18 return on their investments. So, the port aims to limit this return and the c. F. D. I. F. D. Sources are the primary way that theyre earning their return. Next slide, please. So, just a reminder on the phase one sbunl structured into costs and revenues and ill go into the details of those line items in a second. But the costs are really three items. Hard costs which are the actual infrastructure itself, soft costs including the management, planning, Environmental Review and then the final cost is the return on the developer equity for those improvements. The revenue side, which is what were talking about here today, the first source is the four phase prepaid leases and well be closing on three of those this week and the second major source is public fingerprintsing sources so well have Community Facilities district bond proceeds and then pay as you go taxes, which is really just the regular taxes collected each year and now leveraged in a bond. And well get those from the communitys facilities district and the infrastructure financing district. Next slide, please. So just the high level overview of the phase one budget approval from last year. It was 265 million total for both uses and sources. The. This bond will fund approximately 35 million. Because it is an early sour, t really key for reducing the return on a project and making sure that the project is on budget. This is one of really the two early mechanisms for funding the project with those prepaid early leases. Next slide, please. So, to date, weve taken several Public Financing actions. The first was in february 2018, which was the creation of an infrastructure financing district. Project area i. , the port has an i. S. D. Along the entire waterfront. It captures the tax increment which is the increase in property taxes on the site. And allows us to use those for infrastructure on site. Sox we actually use the taxes to pay for the roads and parks and sewers on site. The second key action was in september 2019. The port made amendments to the citys special tax law for by the board of supervisors to include certain items for pier 70 and mission rock. Some of the key things were being able to pay for seismic improvements, waterfront projects, those items. And then the final one in may 2020 was the formation of the Community Facilities district, which is an additional tax assessment to fund the improvements on site. So, the c. F. D. And i. F. D. Combined to provide the key sources for funding the horizontal infrastructure improvements. Next slide, please. This bond specifically uses the c. F. D. As its main source and there are four taxes in the c. F. D. , the Development Tax which funds infrastructure and parks office tax, which funds infrastructure and parks as well. Theyre a similar uses there. But the office tax has more flexibility. The shoreline tax, which is for shoreline protection and then the services tax funds ongoing maintenance for the site. This is the earliest tax to kick in. It kicks in the fiscal year after the 24month anniversary of the lease close. So, we will get those tacks in two years. However, there are early payments that the c. F. D. Requires to fund this bond. Next slide, please. The bond issuance itself is limited by two thing. I mentioned earlier that the size of the bond and the amount of money they expect to get is 35 million. That is limited by the appraised value of the c. F. D. So, the c. F. Sd. Limited because that is the security for the bond and the city has a policy of only issuing c. F. D. Debt with a 3to1 ratio. This is a citywide policy put out by the controllers office, a conservative approach to make sure that we can always cover our dead service for these bonds and we anticipate 125 million valuation resulting in 40 million of bonds for the projects. The difference is thing of cost of issuance and reserve requirements for the bonds. And the second limiting factor is ongoing tax revenues. We have to have 110 debt service coverage. We have to have an extra 10 in taxes. If our annual payments are 1 million, we have to have 1. 1 million to have a little buffer. The bond issuance here is in phase one which are foreign access of the 40 million bond issuance because this is not the limiting factor here. The c. F. D. Is. However, once the project is complete in twoyear, we will issue additional bonds using that extra value thats been completed through the horizontal improvements in the buildings. Next slide, please. So the next step will be coming back next month with a future action item to approve the c. F. D. Ens ifing including the bond documents and preliminary official statement for the p. O. F. And authorizing and directing the executive director to cause the package to be submitted to the board of supervisor and to work with the director of the office of public finance, caused and distribution of the initial statement. This means that the Port Commission will be moving the port issuance forward. The board of supervisors is the body that approves the bond issuance. And just a timeline the Port Commission action item will come in october. Well have a Capital Planning Committee Meeting after that. And were looking to introduce legislation with the board of supervisors in october or november, depending on the timing. Though hearings will be in november and december and well sell the bonds probably in early 2020. Hoping for january, maybe february. That is all and i believe jack bear from the giants is on the line to give some quick comments from our partners. Thank you. I dont know if everybody can hear me. But i just wanted to say a few things. The coronavirus has had a major impact on all of us. This is certainly true of the port and the giants but also true like the Real Estate Industry itself. Were very pleased that our project is strong and compelling enough to meet the challenges posed by covid. They were able to proceed despite strong headwinds that have stopped other projects. For the last several months, weve been very busy on the construction site. Weve installed stone columns throughout the site. We expect to commence construction of the vertical buildings as early as late october or early november. And as phil has indicated, we also made Good Progress in identifying, rekrug and involving local Business Enterprises in the project, including those businesss that are women and minorityowned. We look forward to giving regular updates on our progress for the port axising and the southern Advisory Committee and soon having to visit the site to see things for yourself. In closing, i would like to acknowledge the leadership of the port. Your executive director Elaine Forbes and [inaudible] Phil Williamson and the entire team in helping us stay on track in a very challenging time. Thank you. Thank you, jack. Thank you, phil and wyatt. Now lets open i up to Public Comment. We will open the phone lines to take Public Comments on item 8a for members of the public who are joining us on the phone. Jennifer will be our operator and well provide instructions now for anyone on the phone who would like to make Public Comment. Operator thank you, president. At this time, well open the quayle for anyone on the phone who would like to make Public Comment on item 8a. 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. Thank you, jennifer. Do we have anyone on the phone . Operator president brandon, at this time we do not have any caller on the line wishing to make Public Comment on this item. Thank you. Seeing no callers on the phone, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner woo ho . Sorry. I was just unmuting myself. First of all, it is great to hear from jack, the progress that is made on the project before a comment particularly on any of the financing. But that is wonderful news to hear that you are proceeding forward and i, unfortunately, have not been in the city for much because i have been sheltering in place in napa so i havent gone by the site. But i will try to come down some time and look at the site and see the progress that youre making and im sure it will be wonderful to see that this is moving forward. And given that it is a very difficult Real Estate Market because of so many Different Things at the moment. Covid, everything, the wildfires, everything is a little bit up in the air and uncertainty this year. Anyway, congratulations on that. I just wanted to make the comment and thank you for the assistance to staff for also keeping this objective. It is a long haul, but were getting there. As i relates to the presentation on the c. F. D. Financing, i just had some general questions because, i guess given that we i know we used this kind of structure before and we used it on some of our other core projects, but i guess i want to know just because were going back into asking to even put a fairly modest bond together, but just the overall structure, how many c. F. D. Financings are there now, or i. F. D. S in the city at this point . Im just wondering how many we had to use and im always worried that at some point we would be the window wont be as hope open open as it has been. Id like to get a better context. Sure. Excellent question, commissioner. I can give some background and talk about the statewide market as well. There are c. F. D. Financing at transday, the Hunters Point Shipyard Development and one coming up soon for treasure island. Weve discussed, you know, multiple having multiple issuances with our unwriter and theyre very confident. Statewide, the market is very robust. Were seeing very low spreads for the Interest Rates and they are having extreme demand still. I think because of the guaranteed return on these and investors feel are pretty safe. There is Strong Demand and we have not had any indication from our underwriter that theyre concerned about having too much in the market. At this point. [please stand by] [please stand by] subtract, what are the costs of those buildings, but also what is the cost of all the infrastructure and the work that needs to get done just to make the site developable. So there is a difference in approach there. Obviously some of the assumptions will be similar when you get into the nitty gritty details, but the top line figures will be different because youre not looking at the whole the whole site. And the appraisal is of the whole site, all 11 parcels on the site, whereas individual is one building. So that also reconciles why you have 3 to 1 value approach if there is a delinquency, you have to look at the delinquency and foreclosure on the site. I understand that. Yep. And the only reason i ask that question, given in this Real Estate Market, just to understand that when you have this Public Financing structure in place, it does make it seem versus a private development, which does not use Public Financing and in our discussion which were going to talk later today in terms of it is not its also using a similar structure, but one of the proposals for pier 332 and seawall lot 330 was to use private financing. So im curious how to compare when you use different financing vehicles from a developer point of view. Of course, using Public Financing is to their advantage, but it also makes it a little more perhaps more expensive too in the long run. Does that make sense . Yes. Because youre asking youre assessing more taxes. Yes. And part of the structure here is the offset that reduces the cfd tax and that reduces the land value. That is one of the considerations that happened early on in the formation to increase the land value. And raises and that raises both appraisals value, both the value of the individual building and the cfd itself. There have been no cfd delinquencies that were aware of . I hate to look at the negative scenarios, but i want to know the full picture. I cant speak to the state, but not in San Francisco. I just wanted to be we have to go in eyes wide open knowing the advantages and the disadvantages and worrying about anything we havent thought about. I dont have any doubt or lack of confidence, and i hope that the market is not overflooded. The only issue is when the market is overflooded with issues. Yep, all very important concerns and things well keep an eye on and work with our underwriter who has a good understanding of the state market. Thats my comments, thank you. Commissioner gilman i just wanted to thank the staff fort update. Its exciting to see the project moving forward. I dont have any technical questions, dr. Woo ho provided a great lens. Im looking forward to a site with 40 affordable on site. Its the Gold Standard we should be accepting. This concludes my remarks. Commissioner adams i agree with my fellow commissioners. I enjoyed the presentation from the staff and from everybody. It looks like things are tight and im looking forward to sustained support. Thank you, president brandon. President brandon thank you so much for the presentation. And that concludes that. Four leases, thats incredible. That is so wonderful. Congratulations. And thank you for all of the equity work that the team is involved in and as we said, were going to meet next week. I appreciate you guys taking the lead and really leading the way in this important work on this project. So thank you. Next item, please. That would be item number 9a, informational presentation regarding the embarcadero seawall multihazard Risk Assessment, Public Engagement and seismic and flood measures for the embarcadero seawall. Good afternoon, president brandon, Vice President adams, commissioners, director forbes and members of the public. The waterfront Resilience Team is pleased to be before the commission today at a major milestone in the Resilience Program which is the completion of the embarcadero seawall multihazard Risk Assessment. Today were going to share the findings of that work and some of the work that the team started on to develop seismic and flood measures to mitigate those risks. Moving towards proposition a projects. Next slide, please. So we just want to give a brief overview of all the work that is happening portwide in the Resilience Program. So we have a number of initiatives that are portwide. The army corps resiliency study is from aquatic park. As part of the planning efforts, well be producing an adapt plan that is also portwide. Staff has been looking at how to floodproof the piers. In the embarcadero area, were focused on the embarcadero seawall program, primary Funding Sources, proposition a for that work. In the southern waterfront, were also pursuing with the help of engineering division, the southern waterfront seismic vulnerability assessment. And in coordination with the Planning Department and the San Francisco municipal transportation agency, were studying adaptation around is muss creek which is heavily congratulated in the congregated in the area. There are projects we provide support to. Foremost among them, the waterfront plan and the historic pier rehabilitation program. Next slide. So, initially when the program was founded, it was focused on the embarcadero seawall. We heard from the public and president brandon a need to expand efforts portwide and were grateful to have the resiliency study to help fund that work. We have a need to pursue even more dollars beyond the bonds and the army corps federal funding if we qualify for that. Klamath. Next slide, please. Today, were focused on the embarcadero seawall, the multihazard Risk Assessment. I mentioned the measures to reduce risk. Weve been out during this process of performing the Risk Assessment, understanding key priorities from community and stakeholder engagement. And we want to describe to the commission and the public next steps to develop proposition a projects. So as a brief overview of the embarcadero seawall program, its from fishermens wharf to mission creek. Were in the planning phase of the work through the end of 2021. Our focus is seismic and flood risk associated with the seawall and proposition a is the funding source. Along with proposition a, we submitted a Seawall Earthquake Safety Program bond report to the Capital Planning committee and the board of supervisors, which outlined the need for the bond, mentioned the need to perform the multihazard Risk Assessment and really set forth these critical criteria for the program life, safety and Disaster Response which are going to guide our thinking as we develop proposition a projects. So these are the Funding Sources under that bond report. Planning work like the multihazard Risk Assessment, earthquake improvement, mitigation measures and enhancement measures for doing Major Projects that provide an opportunity to provide public enhancement, those are eligible expenses. So this is a highlevel schedule for the program. The dotted line is today. We have completed our existing conditions analysis of all of the port assets. Weve looked at city assets and services primarily along the embarcadero. Transit services, transportation, utility infrastructure. Weve already started work developing the seismic and flood measures. Well talk a little bit about the bulkhead wharf today. That is current flood protection for the city. Weve been looking as the Sea Level Rises, is there an opportunity to elevate the wharfs, but the main focus is on getting to proposition a project selection. So the work this fall will be taking everything weve learned and these measures weve developed to come up with a range of alternatives for the commission to consider as we move towards project selection. With a goal of being in construction by 2023 or 2024 and complete by 2027, well revisit the schedule when weve selected projects to make sure that it matches the projects that the commission selects. Next slide, please. So we just wanted to represent fort commission the work going into developing this program. And youll see here that the seismic hazard assessment work, all of them look at our infrastructure, city infrastructure, Disaster Response, the public realm. Thats really foundational for the program and this mhra is going to support for the decades to come as we build out this program over time. And it also leads through this alternatives process to Environmental Review and actual construction of proposition a projects. The first projects in the program. And so next slide, please. Now id like to hand it off to stephen wheel, embarcadero seawall Program Manager to talk about the mrha. Thank you, brad. Good afternoon, president brandon, commissioners, executive director forbes, staff and members of the public. My name is stephen riel. Im the Program Manager and im super excited to be here this pivotal step and to present the multihazard Risk Assessment today. The multihazard Risk Assessment, mhra, is a detailed earthquake and flood assessment for the embarcadero seawall area from fishermens wharf to mission creek. The study provides the knowledge for the Overall Program and supports evaluation of improvements, including the proposition a projects. The mhra uses a probable approach to define earthquake and flood hazards from frequent to very rare. And assesses the likely damage and consequences expected to occur over time if we do not act. The key component of the mhra is an extensive technical booring program. What is under the ground matters. Both fort assessment and the alternatives and this subsurface knowledge is a big first investment. Key findings from the mhra. It projects we can expect up to 30 billion in damages and disruption from combined seismic and flood risk by 2100 if we do not act. Earthquake risk is the near term problem. However, Sea Level Rise will increase in the decades, resulting in flood damages and disruption to the port and adjacent neighborhoods in the next 3050 years. Focusing on the earthquake risk, earthquake instability of the seawall and lateral spreading is low to moderate south of the bay bridge, which is a good finding from the study. But its high north of the bay bridge. In the former year, yerba buena cove, deep mudz up to 100 feet thick caused this instability. Moving north, we find its caused by the sand under the seawall that causes a lower scape condition. The piles bulk head wharfs or marginal wharfs. These structures provide flood protection for the port and city as brad mentioned. Of note is that the aging timber pile bulk head wharf and Fishermans Wharf due to ground shaking and liquefaction in that area. The other key finding is that the fill throughout the embarcadero is susceptible to liquefaction. The studies say it will occur in earthquakes in loma preeta. Wed expect to see the embarcadero liquify under this type of earthquake. So this slide shows the typical existing shoreline condition along the embarcadero. The seawall itself consists of a large rock dike up to 100 feet wide and 40 feet tall. Its capped by a pile supported bulkhead wall and the wharf. These elements containing the embarcadero and utilities and provide coastal flood and erosion protection fort waterfront and city. Earthquakes cause ground shaking, which liquifies the fills in the embarcadero and causes the rock to slide bay ward on the weaker. When this happens, the piles are pushed out and the ground behind can spread and crack called lateral spreading. It has occurred in many earthquakes. The bottom right photo shows lateral spreading during the 1906 earthquake near todays cruise terminal. The ground conditions out there are still the same today. Next slide. A mixture of bulkhead wharfs also serve as protection. This was built 100 years ago and has served the city well, however, we have little flood free board left as areas have settled over time and sea levels have begun to rise. The right photo is king side, which is a foot higher than a normal tide. Sea level rise science is evolving and the port and city are using the latest projections from the Ocean Protection Council updated in 2018. These projections include a likely scenario of 3. 4 feet by 2100 and possibly 7 feet by 2100. The spread makes it a challenge to plan for investments on the waterfront, but thats the environment were in. The graphic on the right shows the Sea Level Rise impacts on our waterfront. As Sea Level Rise increases, it increases all tides. So two feet of Sea Level Rise will increase the low tide by two feet, the daily high tide by two feet, the 100year extreme tide by two feet and the ground water two feet because the existing seawall is porous. How does this advance our understanding . First, the sitewide investigation testing of soils provides a very good understand offing the engineering properties. This information was used to develop or define earthquake models of the seawall, predict behavior. The mhra includes estimates of earthquake and flood damage and loss to seawall dependent marine structures, buildings and infrastructure. These damage estimates were used to determine the likely economic, social and environmental consequences. Finally, extremely importantly, we collaborated closely with the stakeholders during the process. We heard what is important to them and included this in the process. And lindy will expand on this later in the presentation. Next slide. The mhra is fundamental knowledge for the Resilience Program and advances our approach to the projects in the following ways. Earthquake instability of the seawall is high between rincon park and Fishermans Wharf. The pier 14 to pier 9 area is the most challenging due to deep young bay mud and solutions here may be different and more costly than areas to the north. Bullhead wall and wharfs are high risk. Improvements need to consider mid and longterm strategies. Embarcadero is also at risk from seawall instability. And from liquefaction of the fill. Improvement to both may be needed tore the embarcadero to serve as a resilient lifeline corridor. Finally, the embarcadero waterfront is very sensitive to flood thresholds with major consequences by two feet of Sea Level Rise. The area of fulsome to broadway is the highest risk zone. In addition to completing the mhra, weve been hard at work developing measures to reduce seismic and flood risk. Next ill go over the seismic measure concepts developed. Top row of measures are primarily to address instability of the seawall. On left is a nearshore buttress. This measure replaces the current bulkhead wharf with a bay ward seawall that buttresses the land behind. Next is a landside buttress which improves the soil in embarcadero using techniques to create a stable zone. This requires reconstruction of the roadway and utilities as new techniques are extremely disruptive, but it provides a Stable Foundation for raising the area in the future if needed. Next is the stabilization measure using large drilled shaft 8 to 12 feet in diameter, drilled down to rock and installed just behind the bulkhead wall in the promenade area. These can stabilize the rock in a smaller footprint than the buttress, but theyre not as effective in deep bay mud areas. Existing bulkhead wall is replaced which has large diameter piles and is robust enough to stabilize the shoreline. This is similarly effective where the ground conditions are better and less effective where we have very deep mud. On the bottom, we have targeted measures. It includes liquefaction mitigation of the fill, using grouting techniques that minimize disruption of the utilities and roadway. This technique are less proven and were investigating the effectability. And finally, the retrofit of the wharfs, these are improve the assets. Where we have high seawall instability, we would expect considerable damage, but these are more effective where we have lower instability. As we develop these measures were determining the feasibility by. The embarcadero waterfront is vibrant and we will rebound from covid and were going to need to find ways to remain vibrant during construction. Its important to consider these as we move through the process. Were also determining the aeffectability along the waterfront. We expect a range of tools will be needed and compatibility with flood measures will be an important consideration. Next, id like to introduce lindsey who will go over the stakeholder input. Longterm considerations. Thank you, stephen. Good afternoon, president brandon, commissioners, executive director forbes and the public. While the seismic measures team was developing the seismic measures that stephen just presented to you, the flood team was identifying measures to address flood risk. Flood measures include structural, which are also known as physical measures is levies, raised red raise or flood walls. Ecological measures include ecological seawalls. Nonstructural measures include policies and sitespecific approaches such as flood proving. Once the measures were defined, for example, one of the measures that we looked at raised marine structures, are applicable from Fishermans Wharf. The next step was to identify compatible seismic and flood measures to address both risks. We have here an example of both a super bulkhead wharf and raised marine structure to address both the seismic and flood risk and the location where these measures could apply together. Next slide. While we have been working on developing actions and alternatives fort near and midterm seismic and flood risks, we also have been engaged in a longterm planning process to better understand those 2100 conditions that stephen was talking about, where we have a range of Sea Level Rise scenarios that are included in those state and city guidance. The 3. 4 likely curve and the 1 in 2 hundred medium to 100. Envision examines the ways we can adapt the San Francisco waterfront to be resilient to those 2100 conditions, including that range of flood scenarios i just described. The envision process is Building Three concepts from Technical Analysis being conducted as well as the identification of Public Priorities that through our Engagement Process that weve been engaged in since 2017. The three concepts will inform our near, mid and longterm projects and planning processes, including those funded by proposition a, our Army Corps Flood study alternatives and key findings for port adaptation overall. Throughout the work, the team has been engaged in the opportunity and stakeholders at communities and Advisory Groups and at the waterfront Resilience Program Community Meeting series held in three locations. Embarcadero, mission creek, mission bay, bayview. In the embarcadero area, Community Feedback affirmed the priorities of life, safety and Emergency Response and identified critical assets and services that the community cared about, such as the ferry building, Fishermans Wharf, including the jobs and fisheries and other marine infrastructure there. Transportation and mobility along the embarcadero promenade. And the muni tunnel and portal. As the assets and services to preserve and enhance while we increase resilience along the waterfront. Ill now turn back to brad. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. So, director forbes, opened the meeting with a discussion about equity and the works that the port is doing to advance equity throughout the organization. Equity is just as much as an integral part of the waterfront Resilience Programs, Mission Goals and principles. And were working closely to align Program Progress with strategic goals and planning for Racial Equity at the port and across city departments. Today ill share three updates. We have an update on participation on the c h2m planning Environmental Engineering contracts. And overview of the new Workforce Development and lbe support services effort, which is just getting started. And an update on lbe participation on the civic Edge Communications contract. Next slide, please. We track progress toward more equitable outcomes for small businesses. We were pleased over the past year to see that c h2m increased its participation for lbes since 2019. The rate over that last year was 27. 2 of contract payments. When we were at the Port Commission in september of 2019, we were at 12 . So this additional participation has increased our total rate to 17. 1 . We have a ways to go to reach our goal of 22. 9 . Weve started working with other key port staff, including the ports new diversity, equity and opportunity manager, tony autry, to discuss opportunities for increasing participation by minorities on businesses. Were consulting with stefani tang. So as i mentioned, weve initiated a new task under the c h2m contract focused on Workforce Development and lbe support services. This is to ensure and enhance Economic Opportunities in future Resilience Program contracting opportunities. And then i on the civic edge contract, contract participation is currently at 35. 4 lbe participation as of july 20 with a goal of 36 . So, diving a little more into the c h2m contract, youll see year one, year two lbe participation. This is part of the geo Engineering Work and there were fewer lbes qualified to do the streams of work. In year 3, we have been doing robust Public Engagement up until the start of covid. Also conducting planning work where there are more engagements. This specific is expended to take the time between now and when we issue new contracting opportunities to work with underserved San Francisco residents and businesses and make sure theyre well positioned for the work that is upcoming in the program. This is the time to start this task because were just moving into alternatives development. And we really need to have a handle on what we are likely going to be building with proposition a projects in order to position people for those opportunities. Weve added a number of subcontractors, all minority owned subkrattecontractors to task. The island group is the task lead. We added Davison Associates and arty j. Enterprises was already in the base contract to support the work. The first part of the work is a Baseline Assessment of existing conditions and developing the overall strategy which will happen between now and february of 2021. And then well pursue a Program Development with integrated strategies so we maximize opportunities for lbe bidders and for San Francisco residents who are trained in entry level and other positions and this program will continue throughout the Resilience Program. I want to end the lbe and equity update with a focus on the civic edge contract. Weve spent approximately 1. 3 million to date. That is 76 of contract funds. In this case, it does not count toward lbe participation when the prime has 51 . 35 of the other payments have gone to lbe subcontractors. Next slide, please. So to close the presentation with next steps for the embarcadero seawall program. Next slide, please. So youve heard from lindy and steve, all of the work that weve done understanding the risks, the assets and services, what they mean for people along the waterfront and some of the measures to address seismic and flood risk. We know Public Priorities. Weve been engaging with our city partners. Thats the information that were going to use is this fall to develop a range of alternatives to address seismic and flood risk for consideration by the commission. And we want to come up with a range of project alternatives to assure you and the public that we, at the end of the day, will recommend the most efficient alternative for proposition a spending. As we move through the fall, we want to be back in front of the Port Commission to talk about the framework of proposition a spending to make sure that were aligned with the commissions goals in terms of the evaluation criteria, Design Guidelines and funding guidelines that we are recommending for proposition a project selection. And this is our expected high level schedule for commission engagement. We hope to be back in october to talk about the army corps focus. We want to present draft alternatives from the alternatives process i just mentioned, including that decisionmaking framework. Our target is to be in front of the commission by january, 2021, with recommendations for proposition a projects. And we hope to get an endorsement of those projects or Commission Priorities by the end of march 2021 so that we can start design and Environmental Review. Next slide, please. That concludes our presentation today. We thank you so much. Were available to answer any questions. Thank you, brad, stephen and lindsay for a wonderful report. A lot of work. Lets open it up to the [inaudible] members of the public who are joining us on the phone. Jennifer will be the operator and will provide instructions now for anyone on the phone who would like to provide Public Comment. Thank you, president brandon. At this time, well open the queue for anyone on the phone who would like to make Public Comment on item 9a. Please dial star 3 if you wish to make Public Comment. The system will let you know when the line is open. Comments are 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. Anyone on the phone . Yes, president brandon. We have three callers on the line. Good afternoon. This is the presidency of pier 39. I just wanted to comment and congratulate you on this important milestone for this great work and actually acknowledge, brad, stephen and lindsay for their excellent work on the Resilience Program and being so proactive in working with tenants and their outreach and helping tenants understand the project, communication during the project and post work after sort of understanding what the risks are in ways that the tenants can approach those risks. Its a significant milestone and really important work. Again, congratulations. President brandon thank you. Okay, opening the next line now. Hi. This is susan. San francisco resident. Thank you so much for presenting this work about the current status of resiliency for the waterfront. I very much appreciate the fact that you have an office that is looking at overall resiliency for issues as varied as earthquake and flooding, because we can get those at the same time. We can get them during a pandemic, hey, all kinds of bad things can happen at once. It would be wonderful if you could also include biodiversity as one of the things that is important to the overall resilience of the resiliency of the city. Both the city of San Francisco and the state of california have a biodiversity resolution and it would be wonderful if every plant the city put in the ground, including everything at the port, were a local native San Francisco plant. I appreciate the fact that you have ecological measures, including structures and features, if all of those could be local native plants, that would be wonderful. This will help increase our biodiversity resilience and the plants that evolved here are already resilient to Sea Level Rise, fall and climate change. Thank you very much. That concludes my comments. President brandon thank you. Opening the next line now. Thank you. Good afternoon, president brandon, Vice President adams, commissioners gilman and woo ho. Im senior Vice President with the San Francisco giants and chair over the San Francisco spur and think tank. I want to applaud the port director and staff for your leadership on the embarcadero seawall and Resilience Program. Its my perspective that you all are quite frankly, leading the region and the state in this work. I particularly would like to commend the team fort inclusive nature of your approach. Youve designed an interagency cross sector team of stakeholders to address this challenge together. And these certainly are sobering results, especially when you see them all at once. It will take all of us working together to address these challenges, but im optimistic in our future with the ports steady leadership at the helm. Thank you for your commitment to doing that work that will protect the entire city. Thank you. President brandon thank you. Any other callers . President brandon, it looks like one other caller on the line. Unmuting that line now. Am i on now . Hello . Yes. Hi, this is pier 23 cafe. Good afternoon. Can you hear me . Yes, we can hear you. Oh, good. I just wanted to say that ive written a letter to the commissioners, which i didnt realize amy had retired. So Don Kavanaugh has it and he can share it with all of you. I want to say thank you for the Extensive Research on the problems that we look forward to with the possible Sea Level Rise and the earthquake that could come at any time. I was here in the 1989 earthquake at pier 23 cafe, so im aware of the power of these events. But i just wanted to mention that i care that the color that is part of pier 23 cafe as well as Fishermans Wharf and pier 39 is not compromised too much by the necessary construction that will have to be done. And that is my main concern. And i hope that the letter gets to all of you. Thank you so much. And thank you, brad. Thats it. President brandon thank you. Any other comments . President brandon, at this time there are no other members of the public on the phone wishing to make Public Comment on this item. President brandon thank you. Public comment is closed. Commissioner gilman . Commissioner gilman i first want to thank the staff brad and lindsay for the report, it was incredibly extensive. I have a couple of reflections and then i have just one question. My reflection is, i want to commend you. It was stated by the Public Comment, for all of the Community Outreach. This is very complex environmental issues, Risk Mitigation issues, but i think sometimes can seem incredibly theoretical. I think now that were all living through a pandemic, a once in a hundred year event, our public and stakeholder will realize these events can happen. I want to commend you on the Community Outreach and the diligence for the work and creating and identifying what stakeholders feel are the most important assets for them on the waterfront. I appreciate this support and the extensiveness of it. And also moving forward, ensuring that our prop a funds are used to the best of their ability. They are just a drop in the bucket of what the overall cost will be in the long haul. I appreciate that and who is participating with us in the work. Thank you. The one question i had, doing all this work leading up to the study and analysis, have we come up with any mitigation efforts in the event we do have a major earthquake before we actually get to commence any of these projects or work . Have we learned any lessons that will help mitigate risk or have us respond in a more timely fashion to a catastrophic event before we complete this work . Commissioner gilman, that is a great question. I think where weve focused most on that question is in thinking about Disaster Response. The embarcadero is a key corridor for Disaster Response for the city, access to the weta downtown ferry terminals is key to moving people in and out of the city. We dont have recommendations yet for preproject, moves that the port could take. One of the things were hoping to do but it has been complicated a little bit by covid is to do a tabletop exercise with Emergency Managers in the city with the result of the multihazard ri Risk Assessment. So that the citys response is better positioned if we havent built improvements in an area. Of course, all of the Emergency Managers have their hands full right now in terms of the citys oec and the eoc and the like. So were looking for the first opportunity to have that engagement and thats where i see the most opportunity for learning things that we could recommend preevent. Commissioner gilman thank you so much. I think that we should be aware, i think if we all asked 24 months ago we would be living through a worldwide pandemic, thats absurd, that will never happen. That has shown us these events do happen and are possible. And to be as resilient and plan as much as possible is important. Thank you so much. That concludes my question and reflections. President brandon thank you. Commissioner woo ho can you hear me . Yes. Commissioner woo ho first i want to commend them. This is like an encyclopedia that i read. First i felt like it was too much to digest, but your presentation today pulls it all together and i think presenting it in one full sweep is idea, rather than parsing it out. It was very comprehensive as i guess has been mentioned already. I think that it is a Building Block approach. Its like touching the elephant in the room from difference angles. You have the seismic, the Sea Level Rise. You could have just flooding which is not related to either, its just the tide as weve experienced. So i think that my question is to understand and i think we need to approach this and its more a suggestion as how we communicate. As i recall, when we positioned proposition a we talked about it was to protect the city and the waterfront and downtown, but in this report, we sort of narrow it i understand why, because the port is responsible for 7. 5 miles of waterfront, but we sort of narrow the focus very much to that part of the city whereas you know, if we did have such a catastrophic event, it would certainly spill over way beyond the embarcadero. So i think we need to widen our lens in terms of when we communicate what the impact of such events are, as much as were trying to mitigate the part we manage and control. So that is a little bit of that is the way you communicate and position this. This also raises questions for me as far as what i read in this, the seawall today, if it was hit by an earthquake would collapse quickly. I think you probably know technically what level earthquake. I want to know from the other end of the spectrum, commissioner gilman said what happens if something happens in between before this is shored up . What were doing with all these different measures you pointed out. You have choices to make. You have not made a final decision on a lot of those things. But there will be choices to make in terms of shoring up the seawall and what will it with stand . What level of catastrophe or earthquake will it be projected to withstand . I think we should get a better sense of what the 5 billion that we currently say is the price tag to really shore it up, so that right now, im not sure. I see that were building the blocks. Each one is very important as we keep going. Its going to get better and better, but its looking at it from the other way, in terms of understanding what were going to be able to withstand. There may be difficult choices to be made that we cannot afford to have a perfect resilience. Well have to have some perfection because we cant predict exactly what the event might be, but we can perhaps mitigate it up to a certain sense. Im not sure i understand that given the information, even though what you presented is excellent. Im not criticizing it, its just more of a learning. The other question i have, maybe watching too many of these movies, what if we are hit by a tsunami, which is an earthquake somewhere else in the world and its not an earthquake off the shore of california. And so that kind of impact. What happens to us . And how would we be i guess the seawall is important in that sense because it would supposedly help to block to a certain extent im assuming, but i dont know the technical answer. I think there are things, since were presenting to the public that we are shoring up this to ensure any major damage to the city and how far the damage would go, i think we need to widen how we discuss this and not say what were addressing what were addressing is along the embarcadero, i understand that, but the impact is actually probably wider. And i dont think that comes across in this report to understand. And perhaps part of that is also because we need to link i know youre talking to them, but it hasnt been included here what the other city agencies are doing in their preparation for an earthquake. As i recall, you know, in 1989 because my husband was in the mayors office, deputy mayor dealing with the earthquake at that time, and there were lots of different areas of the city that were impacted. So i think we need to tie them together. I remember the concerns in the marina. I remember the concerns in chinatown. It was all over in terms of the impacts and it wasnt just the waterfront. So we need to think about holistically and make sure were linking into the resiliency of the whole city because it will require the whole city to be resilient against such an effort. Who would have thought the pandemic would hit so much of the world . Not just one city, one country, but the whole world. I think we have to have that i think you laid out a great landscape. You picked the forest and the trees and even branches were going to work on and that is great. Thats absolutely necessary. I applaud you for the approach, but i think we need to look back the other side and flipping it over to see whether we see on the bigger scale how this all links together. So its just a question of filling in more of those over time. And i think so we can understand and also help to communicate that better as we will go back to ask for more financing or whatever. And i say this because we just earlier in this meeting approved in our consent calendar money allocated for communications and marketing to explain what it is that the port needs to communicate in our messaging in what we need to do and how we need the Public Engagement and the community support. So i think these messages have to come through a little bit broadly. As i said, dont take it as a criticism. Its to build on it, but its taking a wider lens. Does that make sense to all of you, brad, any reaction . I think that is very good feedback. Its very important to put it in the broader context of what the city is responding to in some of these larger events. The city administrator office, the citys chief resilience officer, is certainly taking that view and were sharing our results with him and other departments. All of your other points. Very good things to consider. I would like to know if were going to spend 5 billion for a seawall, what earthquake is that going to protect us against. I think its important to know. Just so that we also dont mislead people and we just know what kind of risk were trying to mitigate. As i said, we will not be perfect, but at least were addressing the bulk of it. Elaine, do you have any comments . Yes. Thank you for the comments. Its very important as we go through the process to identify the overall risk and as you said, describe where were intervening to reduce the risk and be transparent about the risk that still stands. As you appropriately pointed out, these are really the Building Blocks. They provide all the Building Blocks to understand those risks from a utility perspective, from a Emergency Response perspective, from the Public Values and put them together. So the comments youre making will be what the team will be coming forward to you to discuss and discuss it in ongoing ways with the public. Also internally to the team, there has been conversation and longterm development, concept of as we move through improvements to prop a that exactly show what risk the program is mitigating and this would be a risk to look at portwide risk as well and what other efforts are mitigating and resolving risk over time. So we keep our eye on the ball getting to the most urgent things next. Youre right. We have to be prepared to assume some level of risk because we do not have an entire program funded nor do we anticipate having an entire program funded. So there will be ongoing risk as we move through efforts to make the waterfront more resilient. Commissioner woo ho i think part of it, i will just end with this, saying, were the gateway for an earthquake or the Sea Level Rise or tsunami, but it is going beyond the waterfront, so we want people to understand we are the guardians of the gate, but it is going to pass through us. Were going to do your best. Were worried about the tenants and everybody facing it most directly, but its not like its going to stop in the even x number of feet away from the embarcadero. That will not happen. Thats not how nature works. So i think we have to be prepared to explain we feel the burden perhaps more than any other i guess agency in the city, but what were responsible for. And we should be. And were accountable for it. But it is going to spill over. We just need to be were the ones on i guess on guard here to do what we think is best and to help the city and obviously all the residents of San Francisco accordingly. Thank you. If i can just one aspect of the comments. One of the staff study is that the tsunami risk is low. So we can follow up and share more information with the commission about that from the mhra. Commissioner woo ho that would be good to know. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner adams stellar report. The one question i have and i want to thank my fellow commissioners for their thoughts. I want to know about contracting. It does sustain as far as contracting there is an equal playing field. I would hope that this is a port not of two tales, not of exclusion, but one of inclusion. Can you tell me, brad, how many africanamerican firms and what is it looking like . Because there needs to be balance. Sure. I also wanted to invite carlos cologne to help me out with a response on this. If you go to the Staff Reports for this item, the Commission Report on page 18 includes the ethnicity of our various contractors and youre asking specifically about the africanamerican contractors. There are three africanamerican subcontractors. The island group that is leading this new Workforce Development and lbe support Services Task which is so critical to this work going forward. Hollands consulting which provides Scheduling Services to the Program Vital to keep the whole program on track and rdj enterprises supporting the Public Outreach and engagement. Weve had a pause in that due to covid19. Were starting up online. And then on the next page, page 19 goes over the civic edge firms, lbe firms, including ethnicity. And there are four africanamerican firms that are on that contract as lbe subcontractors. Three of whom were recently added on our communications, rdj enterprises was on the original contract. Commissioner adams can you tell me how much money theyre getting compared to the other vendors and contractors . So we would have to add that up and report back. Were reporting here on a lineitem basis. So if youre open to it, we could report back to the commission the percent of the total contract going to africanamerican firms and the other ethnicity, where we have it. Commissioner adams all right. I will president brandon, i yield to you and i might have more questions. Go ahead. President brandon thank you. Brad, stephen, lindsay, director forbes, thank you for such a wonderful report. A lot of great work has gone into this. A lot of Community Input. And commissioner woo ho and gilman asked great questions. I really want to thank you for having that third slide of the diagram of the overall project so it focuses on what were talking about. Because this is a lot. And i think, like commissioner woo ho said, its like an encyclopedia reading this. Reading this and the other report is a lot. So for us as a commission to keep it top of mind, i really think that we need to have more on this as we go. Because were getting to a critical piece where were going to have to start making decisions on how do you how to use them to get the best bang for our buck. So hopefully, we can maybe quarterly start briefing just to keep us top of mind and up to date. Because coming back every six months to a year, its like we have to start from the beginning and come forward, where if were consistent, we can move this along because its an urgent need. Thank you so much for this and for the report. I really appreciate it. Regarding the contracting and where we are and how we are really trying to look at everything from an equity lens, i think its hard to talk about contracting if we dont talk about minority contracting. As i [ ] [music playing] president brandon thank you. As i started looking at the contracting and looking because you know this is near and dear to my heart. Ive been involved from the very beginning. From the very beginning i said this is a huge project. This project is for all of San Francisco and we have to make sure that we engage the entire city, every Community Within the city, to make sure that everybody is aware of what were doing. And that we start putting our workforce, our training programs, everything together now, three years ago, so that we are prepared for everyone to participate in this 5 billion project. So when i start looking at our contracting knowledge and how theyve gone out, i went back to conversations weve had in the past and said, wait a minute, we should be working with these firms because we made commitments to work with these firms. I went back and found an informational presentation. We have a list of minority firms that we committed to working with. And then i look at these dollars going out now and i dont see those firms listed. So then it gave me cause for concern. When i started looking at what dollars have actually been spent, when i look at our minority contractors, they are getting paid far less than our lbe partners. So its really cause for concern to me that when i look at this, the firms that we originally said would be a part of this, who are not on this list and some who are on the list have gotten paid more. Or theyve got 150,000 contract and been paid 7,000. So before i say i think there is any bias going on here, i would like for us to have a hearing, a presentation, on where we started, where we are and where were going. I really appreciate you saying that those firms, r. B. J. , allen group, were going to look at using them going forward. But we had that conversation over a year ago and they should have been part of this existing contract. So i really need to feel comfortable that we are really looking at these contract dollars through an equity lens. I really forward to you guys coming back and reporting. Also when i was going through the mhr assessment report from c h2m and the picture that were put under environment of the space and land use. I did not see one minority. We have to let san franciscans know theyre welcome. Director forbes, i would just like to make sure that maybe our next meeting or one of the meetings in october, we can really delve into what were doing with our contracting dollars and if they are equitable or if we need to make changes. And also keep us up to date on what were doing with this overall project because there is so much to it and its so critical. Thank you, brad. Thank you so much. This is carlos cologne. I was having technical difficulties, but i can answer commissioner adams questions regarding how the breakdown of spending. So to date this is through july 2020, which is the last invoice received. We have spent out of the 3. 5 million to lebs, 2 million has gone to minority businesses, with 1. 5 going to nonminority businesses. Of the tasks weve authorized to date for the lbe, we authorized 4. 4 million with 2. 5 going to minorityowned lbes. Thank you. You may have missed were going to do a report coming up. Well look at some of these issues and prepare for a presentation. President brandon i would like each portion broken out. Yes. Absolutely. President brandon commissioners, any other questions or comments . Thank you. Thank you for all the hard work. Thank you for the great report. This is great. And i cant wait to see what were actually going to do. As we put this plan into action. Thank you. Next item. Item 10a, informational presentation regarding a proposed lease with Bay Area Council for the mooring of the historic fer boat klamath to be located at pier 9 south at embarcadero and broadway for a term of 15 years with two fiveyear options. Hi, good afternoon, president brandon, commissioners, director forbes, members of the public. Im with the ports maritime division. For todays presentation im joined virtually by the maritime director andray coleman and john grub, keith and alan are representing bac. Today i bring before the commission for your consideration and direction, a proposal that would return the klamath back to the San Francisco waterfront. The bac has been a driving force since 1945 and this year celebrate their 75th anniversary. Area Council Mission is to engage business and civic minded leaders to solve the regional issues to ensure the bay area is the most inclusive area in the world. The work includes informing and mobilizing business, civic and political leaders on the most Critical Issues and opportunities facing the region. Bca is an association that include many maritime stakeholders as members. The proposal is preparing the ferry boat klamath and moore in pier 9. It will allow the klamath to become an important historic Meeting Place and regional destination for leaders, and the broader community. Office space would be available to rent to priority to maritime tenants. This shows the facility as it is today. As you can see, the gate is locked. The b. A. C. Would open significant Public Access to close pier and all levels of the vessel, including to the roof deck, which would provide spectacular views of the bay and the San Francisco skyline. The plan includes a Museum Exhibition space, likely dedicated to the klamath and the history of Ferry Service on the bay. The council would provide vent tours with maritime education with historic points of interest on the vessel. This slide shows an illustration of the same facility with the klamath at berth. The project would require dredging for the moore alongside pier 9. Electrical, water and other connections to landside utilities will be improved as part of the proposal. This project react evacuates evacuates reactivates the waterfront. Between 1850 and 1939, there were 120 ferry boats in operation on San Francisco bay at one time or another. As George Harland wrote, cherished vessels profoundly influence the bay area and affected the daily lives of the people who worked in the community. They marked a glorious period in our history as they carried cars, trains, livestock, agricultural and all manner of other items. The completion of the Golden Gate Bridge and oakland bay bridge was the eventual end of the era. One by one, these stately boats were scrapped, destroyed or lost to time. By 1979, only 14 could be accounted for in various locations in the United States. Since then, nine more have been lost leaving just five historic ferry boats left. Since retiring from Ferry Service, the klamath has housed great local companies. B. A. C. Has purchased the klamath and plans to overhaul the vessel to share and extend the incredible history of the klamath and the old ferry boats of the bay. In 2005, the Port Commission adopted a historic vessel policy which recognizes historic vessels as an important part of the San Francisco maritime legacy and guidelines in considering the berthing of historic ships at the port. The klamath satisfies all the eligibility criteria. Given the unique nature of the opportunity, port staff has determined that a competitive solicitation is not necessary. The Bay Area Council proposes to rehabilitate the exterior of the klamath to an appearance similar to the appearance in 1924 and to moor and maintain the klamath an pier 9 under lease with the port. A key public trust objective as per our waterfront update is to foster activities that draw public to the waterfront for recreation and enjoyment and to experience San Franciscos maritime history in architecture, especially in the embarcadero pier facilities. The klamath would sit 500 yards from one of her former ferry slips. We feel she would visually balance the broadway open water basin which features the historic ferry body santa rosa as pier 3. Council is seeking a longtime maritime lease with the port. The proposed lease is space for nonexclusive use. To be included in addition to tenant monthly based rent and annual cpi, tenants shall pay on a monthly basis a percentage of rent and all special event revenues. On august 27, 2020, the San Francisco Planning Department issued ceqa addendum 3. The addendum concluded that mooring the klamath at pier 9 no new mitigation measures would be necessary. The work within the embarcadero district is consistent with the secretary of the interior standards or the treatment of historic properties. This Commission Adopted resolution 8904 in 2006 requiring all work in the embarcadero Historic District comply with the secretary standards and supports the ports stewardship of the Historic District. A permit authorizing new bay fill and army corpse of engineering will be required. All Regulatory Agency approvals are the responsible of b. A. C. They have sought and anticipate the approval of aemendment to te special area plan. It includes a balance of revised Public Benefit and revised development entitlement with strict consideration of health, safety and welfare of the entire bay area. Key benefits of the proposed improvements are, one, providing ada compliance and enhancement to the pier 9 in the heart of the embarcadero corridor and the water basin. Two, the klamath will provide a visitor destination bringing more foot terrific to the pier 9 and the associated businesses in the vicinity of the improvements. And number 3, the utilities infrastructure upgraded to improve longevity, vibrant and marketability of the future. Thank you. The proposed maritime lease is expected to contribute in a substantial way to meeting multiobjectives of the Strategic Plan, including evolution by transforming the waterfront to changing port needs. Productivity by attracting and retaining tenants that build an economically viable port. Equity, by ensuring ports activities advance equity and Public Benefits and attract diversity of people to the waterfront. And engagement by increasing the publics awareness of the ports function and activities. Port staff has determined that the proposed lease with Bay Area Council, the proposed Capital Improvements and associated lease term meet the criteria and the historic vessel policy. The port staff has evaluated the proposed use and revenue projections as viable and answered that the Capital Improvements will generate a longterm gain that the port would not otherwise receive. In summary, port staff concludes the proposed location would activate a maritime berth facility that has long stood vacant, create Public Access, infrastructure improvements, Financial Stability and favorable conditions for recovery in a post covid economic climate. The return of the historic ferry boat for use as the headquarters of the Bay Area Council brings focus and attention to our gateway of our city and port, providing increased Revenue Generating opportunities, securing a location that can be used for Public Education and inspiration while improving views and enhanced public experience along the embarcadero. Finally the proposed new lease term is reasonable in relation to the size of the operation and the need amortize the investment over a manageable period. Its been written the evolution of the water front from the beginning to the present reflects San Franciscos col color colorful and colorful and wonderful and beneficial. So i think ill leave it at that. Im happy to take any questions or, you know, my team is here as well. Thank you, jim. Thank you dominic for the wonderful report. Now lets open up for Public Comment. We will open the phone lines to take Public Comment on items 10a for members of the public who are joining us on the phone. Dennis will be the operator and will provide instructions now for anyone on the phone who would like this provide Public Comment. Thank you, president brandon. At this time, we will open the queue for anyone on the phone who would like to make Public Comment on item 10a. Please dial star 3 if you wish to make Public Comment. The system will let you know when the line is open. Others will wait on you 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 phone . Yes, president brandon, we have one caller on the line at the moment. Thank you. I am unmuting their line now. Good afternoon. This is alice rogers. I live in the area and i served on the waterfront land use update plan group. And i would very much like to see you support this proposal. As the proponent said, its really a winwin for the waterfront to have this ferry boat come back. Its been here before. And the iteration as i understand it was its going to be even more spectacular in terms of offering new ways for people to engage on the waterfront. So, please, support this plan. Thank you. President brandon any more callers . Thank you, president brandon. It looks like there are no further callers on the phone wishing to make Public Comment on this item. President brandon thank you. Seeing no more callers on the phone, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner woo ho yes. I had some trouble trying to open up the staff report, so i would just like to ask, since i think weve had this item before, can you summarize any changes since the last time the commission discussed this item or had information on the terms . I just would like to know if there were updates or changes. Thank you, commissioners. This is dominic. At this time i dont believe there was any changes to the terms agreed upon by commissions recommendation. Commissioner woo ho okay. Im sorry, i can clarify for you. That was a closed session last time we were in closed session. There is no changes to the terms as discussed at that point. Commissioner woo ho okay. I have no further questions then. I am supportive. President brandon thank you. Commissioner gilman thank you so much for the staff report. I, too, have no questions. Im very excited this is moving forward. Its going to be a great asset to the waterfront. Im looking forward to being on the klamath. This is great fort waterfront. Thank you. Commissioner adams at first i was kind of lukewarm to the idea. And the more that i keep hearing about it, the more i like it. And i appreciate the presentation made by dominic. And it sounds like its going to be a great thing. So i know alice from the community and alices voice goes a long way with me. So im good, thank you. President brandon thank you. Thank you, commissioner. President brandon thank you, dominic, for the presentation and thank you, jim, for your work. I have the same question as commissioner woo ho, if there has been any changes, because i think we heard it a couple of times in the fall session. I want to thank the Bay Area Council for really stepping up and bringing klamath back to the waterfront. Its going to be great. We look forward so seeing this item for approval at the next meeting. Thank you, president brandon. President brandon next item. 11a, request approval of lease number 416698 for a lease with andrey boudin bakery for the chowder hut located at seawall lot 301 at the embarcadero and Taylor Street for a term of 10 years with a fiveyear option. Good afternoon. Its real estate and development. Just wanted to provide a moment of introduction before jay edwards launches into the great work and details on this approval item. You might remember or maybe you dont, because february feels like a lifetime ago. You saw this lease in an informational item back in february. Since that time, of course, weve all been experiencing this incredible economic and health disruption, so just as a little bit of introduction, since february, we took a pause. Then we reengaged with boudin bakeries regarding the chowder hut lease. Were gratified that the terms have held out. What is before you today is a approval of 15year lease with the tenants and youll also recall that in august we took you through the rent forgiveness program. Were now bringing that forward to the board and that is up for approval with the board. This tenant, chowder hut, should you go forward with the lease, will be allowed to participate in that program. You might recall that the way restaurants participate in the program, theyre able to have their bay front forgiven as they operate for a number of days and provide the port percentage of rent. I want to state that context. I want to thank jay edwards, rona sandler and mark bird for putting this lease in for execution and consideration by the commission. Jay . Thank you, becca. Good afternoon, commissioners. Jay edwards, Senior Property manager. Id also like to acknowledge vicki lee. She is a real estate staff member and she is available for questions later on in the presentation. This is an overview of what were going to present today. Boudin has operated the chowder hut as its known for the octagon building, due to its unusual shape, since 2011. Lease expired in 2019 and he operated on a month to month basis since then under the Leasing Terms and conditions. They are a productive partner for the port, generating 4 million sales revenue. In 2019, and the restaurant provides a few casual Outdoor Dining and Beverage Services we have available on the wharf. The chowder hut is the forefront. The flagship is on the right. This is a view from Taylor Street. Okay. [laughter] thinks the premises map. It didnt quite come out exactly as i thought, but in any event, what youre looking at is the existing premises that the chowder hut has now. Proposes the same premises in the light grey area surrounding the building is the Outdoor Dining area and the public rest rooms are in the white area in the middle. Port adopted the retail leasing policy for existing retail tenants who may qualify for lease extension based on the criteria described in the staff report and shown on the slide. Port staff with the assistance of the consultant believes the proposed Capital Improvements and lease terms meet the criteria as outlined in the retail leasing policy and, therefore, justify exemption that is allowed under the policy. This is the terms remain consistent with the february 11 staff report and we have now finalized the lease for execution. As you can see, its a 10year lease an 5year option. Base rent is going up substantially. Percentage rent remains at 9 which is on the high end. Weve increased our transportation fee. And the lease contains all current City Ordinances and requirements and will require the Port Commission to approve. There are mutual obligations regarding the public rest rooms shown on the premises map. This is a highly unusual situation which boudin has agreed to take on some of the take on the janitorial for the public rest rooms as well as reimburse the port up to 25,000 for fixtures and repairs, replacements and hire a city approved plumber if emergency repairs are required. So its an obligation that most of our tenants dont take on and they have done so. Port return will provide all the utilities for the public and they serve the wharf visitors. They receive a credit against the rentnd this month was determined as a minimum, the port would extend for similar Janitorial Services. All the obligations are agreed upon specifications. So boudin will construct a glass atrium that will have a retractable roof. The improvement will cost 800,000 and must be performed within the initial three years of the lease. Based on projection from boudin and the analysis, it will generate revenue especially during the nonpeak season. In the staff report there is analysis showing tables how this is all projected. Thats our opinion that its really going to drive revenue during those rainy months. Or even when the conditions are not ideal for sitting outdoors. Providing more comfortable Dining Experience for the public. Thats the existing exterior. The bar around the corner. That is the atrium. So to put a little bit of financial analysis. The top table represents the annual sales on per square foot basis of the chowder hub compared to restaurants on the port. They are number one in receipt and sales per square foot. The second table is the chowder hut extension as compared to a competitive bid scenario. This analysis was completed precovid and we have a section coming up next where we updated for covid, but under the circumstance, we believe this gap between the lease extension and the proposed bid could exceed the 2 million in added value that we perceive by stepping the lease. Extending the lease. Heres the update that we prepared. Basically, we reviewed all our projections, Capital Improvements, the terms. Really everything. And reconfirmed that the improvements and lease terms are competitive and do deliver numerous benefits to the port and the public. You can see some of those up in the slide. Becca talked about the rent relief. Next slide, please. So our recommendation is were really pleased were able to craft a new lease and add value added improvements to the restaurant, improve the Dining Experience, improve the rest rooms, and contribute toward the ports objective and hopefully Fishermans Wharfs economic recovery. Kindly request your approval for resolution 2044 and lease number l16697. Thank you, that concludes my presentation. President brandon thank you. Commissioners, can i have a motion . So moved. Second. President brandon thank you. Now lets open up for Public Comment. Well open the phone lines to take Public Comment on item 11a. So members of the public who are joining us on the phone. We will provide 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 queue for anyone on the phone who would like to make Public Comment on item 11a. 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. Please dial star 3 if you wish to make Public Comment. President brandon thank you. Can i ask that everyone mute, please . Thank you. Do we have anyone on the line . President brandon, at this time there are no members of the public on the phone wishing to make Public Comment on this item. President brandon thank you. Seeing no callers on the phone, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner gilman thank you for the report. Im reading through the staff report and your presentation, i concur with staff that extending this lease and doing a no bid that we show that we met our criteria for moving forward in a nobid situation and thats a benefit to the port. Its substantial and to the public. And particularly in this time where Outdoor Dining is sort of where were going to see a lot of our restaurants need to go despite if they could open later in the month, i think its a huge benefit driving foot traffic and tourism to the wharf. This kind of venue is what tourists come to do. Im very supportive of the item and excited to see the improvements and hope its possible they could be speeded up. Do not take two years. I know they have two years in the lease to get the improvement up and running, but i hope theyre able to expedite them and make that venue more attr t attractive on the waterfront and drive business toward it. Im supportive of the item. Commissioner woo ho yes, im supportive of the item. I think theyve been a good tenant and i have actually been out there with jay. I guess when we went to the main boudin facility. I think he pointed out to me the possibilities for chowder hut and this would be a good idea and given the circumstances right now, they have a good chance to obviously get themselves back on the you know, back on their feet and i think this lease can help them and help us in the long run and help that whole area. There is a little activity somewhere, it will helping the neighboring the whole area. I hope thats the case. With the boudins when they open up their main facility, or open today with limitations, i think its a good idea. This lease will help to reactivate the area and im supportive. Thank you. President brandon thank you. Commissioner adams im supportive of the items. Jay, a good report. Thank you. President brandon thank you so much for the report. Can you refresh my mind and tell me what the obligation is now . Its similar, president brandon, in that they do provide Janitorial Services. They do get a monthly rent credit. We maintain the rest rooms, meaning repair them. We do make repairs. Clogged drains. So it really is a carryover of what weve had with some refinements and improvements, i think. If that answers the question. Was it the same, 4,000 . No, it was 2,000 and that was set in 2011. So we went back and got a quote from Janitorial Services on what it would cost for us for minimum services and thats where the 4,000 came from. President brandon and the rent covid, is that offered to the rent before covid, is that offered to all of our new tenants . All of our percentage rent tenants, including the tenants that would renew leases. Theyre an existing tenant. Theyre renewing their lease under these dire times. Were extending them the same program because its really a renewal of an existing lease. Thats the way were viewing it, commissioner, hopefully thats the way youre viewing it. President brandon okay. So, this is for renewing tenants. I guess im just asking, is this option open to all retail tenants or just existing . No, this would be just yes, existing tenants only. President brandon okay. Thank you. President brandon and how has their business been over the summer during covid . Thank you for asking. Theyve been struggling as everybody has, but fortunately, because of their Outdoor Dining, theyve been able to attract a higher percentage we get percentage for the reports. Theyre on the high end. Its still 60 off, but its on the high end of what is reported for Outdoor Dining establishments and double in some cases. So i think theyre doing Good Business under the circumstances, commissioner. President brandon thats great to hear. Thank you. Youre welcome. Roll call vote . On resolution 2045, president brandon. President brandon yes. Commissioner adams yes. Commissioner gilman yes. Commissioner woo ho yes. President brandon motion passes unanimously, resolution 2044 is adopted. Thank you. Next item. That would be 11b, which request authorization for port staff to enter into negotiations for an exclusive negotiating agreement, e. N. A. , with strada Trammell Crow company partners, the highest scoring respondent for the piers 3032 and seawall lot 330 request for proposal located generally on the embarcadero between bryant and beale street. Resolution number 2045. President brandon, so im i need to recuse myself and make a statement before we launch into this item. So thank you, president brandon. In december of 2019, i consulted with Strada Investment Group on a nonport related project and must recuse myself from the discussion or acting as a Port Commission action involving Strada Investment Group through the remaining calendar year of 2020. So as this being the last agenda item on our agenda for the evening, im going to be leaving the meeting. I look forward to seeing all of my colleagues at our next commission meeting. Thank you, president brandon. President brandon thank you, commissioner gilman. Okay. Hello, commissioners. Rebecca from real estate and development. I hope you can hear me. Before peter launches into his excellent presentation, i wanted to give a note as introduction on the item. First i wanted to just say thank you to so many of the respondents and members of our Advisory Groups. We were gratified to receive such great responses. SupPort Commission heard the responses in the last meeting, but peter and others, david and others from the team have presented to the northern Advisory Committee. Youll hear about their comments today as well as the maritime and commerce Advisory Committee. So well be integrating their comments into the report. I also wanted to mention that is what is before you is an action item which would essentially affirm the r. F. P. Scoring panel score. The scoring panel scored strada tcc as the highest respondent. If you take action today, you would be directing staff to work with strada to write and develop the negotiating agreement and then we would come back to the commission to execute. And youll remember from the other Development Projects, that the ena is the multiyear governing government, the contract between the port and developer to work on the proposal and to work on the design. So what were looking at today are proposals that were responsive to the r. F. P. Theyre not in any way shape or form a done proposal. There is a lot of work to be done in terms of refining the proposal. Just a little time line to put in your brains. I looked back at a couple of our recent projects that have gone from developer selection all the way through approval just to give you a sense of how long these things take. The historic core at pier 70 from selection to approval was about two years. Square footage wise it was half the size of this project. 88 broadway, the Affordable Housing site from Port Commission approval took about three years. That was just one building. The pier 70 site and the mission rock took between 68 years. Were hoping this project is in the middle, not the 68 year period. I wanted to put a fine point on the action and the fact this is the beginning of the process and we have a lot of work to do in terms of Community Outreach. And what we have before us are from the developer, they said they were done with their team in the vacuum. If we move forward with the ena, that starts the process of opening things up and doing a lot of Community Work to make sure the proposal works for all of the stakeholders. Wanted to put that in your brains as youre considering this action. Now i turn it over to peter albert for the excellent information he can provide on what weve been doing in the last two weeks. Thank you, rebecca. Commissioners, i hope you can hear me. President brandon, commissioners, executive director forbes, peter albert. When i talk today, youre going to see the same slides we saw september 8. But its helpful to take those steps again, because i know were being joined by a lot of people for the first time. Its a good chance to check in on the Strategic Plan and how it appliances with the develop aligns with the development. The r. F. P. Process, a little bit on strada ttc partners. Theyre here on the call as well just as resource for you, commissioners. If youd like to ask questions of the strada team. We have the Financial Consultant who helped with the scoring panel. And now the next steps. For how redevelop the r. F. P. , we wanted to make sure that the this is an opportunity to develop vacant parcels on one side of the embarcadero and the next in a way that is consistent with the strategic goals of the waterfront plan and support. We want to have a sustainable development. Meaning not only the impact on the bay, but the development itself, the transportation serving the development. Resiliency is a criteria here and part of what we did in the rfp, meaning we emphasize the seismic strength of the piers. Whether thats a rebuild or rehabilitation. And looking at flood protection and Sea Level Rise. Then engagement was always a big part of shaping the r. F. P. Youll hear how we worked with different communities groups, Advisory Committees, but that helped shape it down to the paint of the famous Community Values well reference through this. Equity emerged more importantly this year as ever as a quality. It was always important to the r. F. P. Development, something that resonated with the community as well. A real interest in making sure were looking at activities open to all san franciscans and that whether there is a residential component, a commercial component, institutional component, there are no barriers for the city or region to enjoy this. There is financial strength coming out of this proposal. It addresses the deferred maintenance needs at the port. Supports the public activities we want to see and we want a productive waterfront. The piers are limited in what theyre able to do. The same with the seawall. This is helping to restore full utility to the assets and support the embarcadero Historic District with the improvements to come out of this and the revenue. Real quick overview of the offering. These are huge pieces of property. We dont get the opportunity to develop property of this size on a pier and across the street. But weve got pier 3032, its zoned m2 which is an industrial zoning. But the structure conditions are in such compromised shape, it can only be used partially as pa parking facility. But it still functions as a deep water berth with a very limited access plan to that berth. It does not include the as it was designated, this is something youll see in the strada proposal. Its zoned for south beach downtown residential. Half of the site is used for the temporary Navigation Center. The remaining part of the site is used as a parking lot for 289 spaces. So in shaping the r. F. P. , we wanted to start with the waterfront plan. It was helpful that the plan was going on at the same time, because it helped us update the plan to focus on diversity and equity for the users and the beneficiaries of this development. And real clear understanding that we need a mix of public oriented uses and Revenue Generating uses to help sustain those public uses. The r. F. P. Was sharped by the goals of the waterfront plan, but it was also shaped by the south beach subarea goals and the acceptable land uses proposed on the waterfront plan, because this is both a regional resource, a citywide resource and a neighbor to the south beach reconpoint area. The Resilience Programs of the seawall shaped the r. F. P. Those are the criteria you see we evaluated the proposals with. With the meetings we had with then known as sea wag, these c wag, these meetings shaped about 29 Community Values, emphasizing priorities on Financial Stability, equity access, values, as a cultural asset. The deep water berth an important priority. And real questions about the residential character of the seawall. As a result of the meetings and the meetings with the written conbay and mission communities, we did develop the values. Those are part and parcel of the r. F. P. And every respondent responded to those values. Before covid, we had the r. F. P. Issued on february 3rd. We had the february 18th, we had the prebid meeting and then we had shelter in place in march. So we extended the deadline for the submittal out to june 26. By that time, we got five proposals. Three of them were deemed responsive, meaning they met the qualifications and supplied all the requirements. Those advanced to the scoring panel. Scoring panel was convened from july 21 to august 13. Five members of the community with various skill sets and facets of the community along the lines of you, the Port Commissioners. The panel convened to score the submittals and the scoring was done ill talk about that later but they did it written and oral and theyve gave the scores based on that. You heard on september 8, the scoring results. You also heard the scoring by the proposal overviews of the three top storing proposals. Well talk about that later, but in the meantime, between the 8th and today, we did meet with the northern Advisory Committee and the maritime commerce visually Committee Just on the 16th and 17th of september. Which have feedback for you on the slide. But the options that we have today are to either authorize port staff to enter into ena with the topscorer. These are the options spelled out in the r. F. P. Or terminate the r. F. P. Process and direct staff to pursue other actions. The scoring criteria were broken into two elements. The 100 point for the written and 30 point for the oral. You see the breakdown here. The emphasis on quality, design, development and the strength of the financial proposal, the Financial Capacity of the respondent and their economic viability, the experience, organization and representation of the team. That totalled 100 points. To help with that, we did prepare the technical memos, the memo that is done by the kaiser marsen and we also had port engineering do the engineering review proposals as well. Following the scoring of the written submittal, the panel has heard the interviews. There were 30 points possible. It was important for them to hear the team, each individual team as an entity and how they handled describing the quality of the design and the development, the experience and the organization of the team. Out of those efforts, we have the scoring as such. The strada tcc led with 39 points. 75 points out of 130. All three of the proposals have strengths that the panel has recognized. All of them were impressive and some panels were excited we got the response in the very constrained circumstances were in. The highest and low scores of the criteria were eliminated, so this is more of a moderated assessment of the scores without the extremes on either end. So we have an image here. On the image on the left is a fairly recent photograph. Its presales force, but what you see is how limited the deck of the piers is used right now. There is only a fraction of the space used for parking. There is access for heavy vehicles. Across the street, the watermark tower and the parking lot. The image to the right is stradas proposal showing the rebuild. This is not berehabilitation of the piers. Its a rebuild to a 45 smaller footprint. The Development Across the street of mixed, affordable and market rate housing, seawall lot 30. Its not for you to have to read the points, but the highlights are on the left is the residential component. 850 units, 25 affordable, there is open Spaces Available to the public. Its sort of in the court area. Through the pedestrian pathways through the site. Allowing there to be transparency to the waterfront. There is a Community Room offered in the proposal fort community. Across the street, you have two piers that resemble the historic format. The twostory structures. What is notable is the water room, which is the floating pool plus the basin that has room for personal watercraft, floating wetlands and access to the bay on south side. On the eastern edge, the deep water berth included access diagram how to get to the deep water berth in the embarcadero is part of the proposal. And loading an unloading and provisioning of the boats. The program here is what strada tcc proposed. The 13acre site on the piers, they proposed 376,000 square feet of rentable office. The retail, restaurant component is 331,000 scare feet. And then of the 2. 3 acres on the seawall lot, there are 610,000 square feet of residential. If you skip below the square foot met risk ricks metrics, you see other ways. The deep water berth. 643 market rate units on the seawall lot. 57 inclusionary affordable units mixed in with the development. And then a separate building that is 100 affordable bringing the total to 850 units. I told you that we met with the northern Advisory Committee and the maritime Advisory Committee last week. It was a real hustle to get the recommendations on september 8, turned around and wrapped up for presentation on the 16 and 17. Another bit of good work to get this to you, but we think its really important to keep the conversation warm and highlight the points at these meetings, because we know you have a very important decision to make today. We summarized the comments from the committees. Ill read them quickly. In general, there was an appreciation from both groups that the Community Values were reflected in the response. There was an appreciation of the strategy of making both the piers and seawall lot a Community Asset and revenue generator, especially given the condition of the properties the way they are today. There was a strong concern and desire for a strong plan to manage parking and traffic at both sites. Not just the residential part, but also considering the development on the piers. And a very, very strong interest in an ongoing dialogue with the community that rebecca mentioned. This is the very beginning of the process, but i wanted to make sure that we hear loud and clear this is a conversation that has a lot of stakeholders who have a lot to say and hopefully find this opportunity to work with the proposer. On the piers, there was a real appreciation for the overall engineering approach. This is not a rehabilitation of a compromised structure. This is a demolition and rebuild of the structure and rebuild of a smaller footprint. That helped bring the cost down. They appreciate there is a deep water berth and berth access accommodated. That came up during the advisory meeting last week. There was some acknowledgment of the design strength on the piers. The similarity to the historic piers is appreciated. The low profile of the buildings on the pier impressed people. Its less cover of the water by opening up more for the water. Appreciation fort Public Access areas. There was a better understanding of the proposal of what the water meant with the help of strada walking the community through the process. Im sure the strada would appreciate the opportunity to talk to the community about that if this negotiation continues after today. But there was also concern about the market demand for office in this postcovid world. Office is part of all three proposals. Its just a healthy thing to put on the chart, but are we in such a different world that the office would be used the way it was used prior to covid. But the timeline would be well past the full recovery of the experience with covid. But the seawall 330, there was a appreciation for the sculpted design, but there was concern about the height and massing of the residential being. And there was generally seen as better longterm use on the site than the Navigation Center or parking lot. And there was an appreciation of the proposed Community Stage in lot 330. So here we are then. At this point where today you may take the action that would direct staff to negotiation with exclusive negotiating agreement with strada ttc. The e. N. A. Would be a contract between the parties until a lease disposition and Development Agreement is signed, but the terms will require collaboration with regulation regulatory agencies. So bcdc, state lands commission, the army corpse of engineers are all important stakeholders in moving forward with the development on the bay. We recognize that and are making sure thats reflected in the next diagram as well. Well include the parties responsibilities in the ena, that includes a partner engagement. It will conduct site due diligence, including a Community Benefit package. Completing the financing plan and the Land Use Plans and completing the california equality act provisions to secure the entitlements. Thats what the ena would fundamentally include. We have the resources on hand. Clark miller and in case you have questions, but where we are today, the fact that seeking the commissions approval to begin ena with strada ttc and then once that is signalled, we start the collaboration in a much more intensive way with the community and bcdc, the state Land Commission and the army corpse and engineers and then we would come back to you seek approval after we have these Community Conversations and dialogue. With that, then, i would like to leave it to you for questions. I appreciate you sitting with me through this presentation. Thank you, peter. Can i have a motion . So moved. Second. President brandon thank you. Lets open it up for Public Comment. We will open the phone lines to take Public Comment on 11b so members of the public who are joining us on the phone, will provide instructions now for anyone on the phone who wishes to provide Public Comment. Thank you. Well open the queue for anybody on the phone who would like to make Public Comment on item 11b. Please dial star 3 if you wish to make Public Comment. The system will let you know when the line is open. The others will wait on mute until the line is opened. 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. Thank you. Do we have anyone on the line . Yes, president brandon, it looks like we have about seven callers on the line. Thank you. Please open the lines for the first caller. Hello . There is a caller on the line . Okay, im going to move to the next caller in the queue. It looks like this person has left. Thank you. Hello. I have a question about the time line, what is the typical time line for a project like this . President brandon is that your comment . That was a question that i had. President brandon okay. Can you state your name, please . My name is president brandon thank you for your call. Well answer the question, okay . Thank you. Opening the next line now. Good afternoon, commissioners. This is alice rogers again. I am here as once again a member of your waterfront land use update working group. And also a neighbor. And i would encourage you to please go ahead and authorize this exclusive negotiation. I think the process that you set up was very regulatory. The responses were robust. The reviewing panel, i know, having served on another panel, was exceedingly well managed and was supported by very good professional support staff. So i think its very, very important to get these properties into more productive views during our discussions over the years with the Navigation Center, our community is often divided, but during that discussion, i think to a person, every person said, port, please put these properties into productive use. This is the first step. Please do it. Thank you very much. President brandon thank you, alice. Thank you. Unmuting the next line. Hello, can you hear me . My name is john grath. Im a resident of south beach. First of all, i would like to thank the staff for their thorough work on this project, but as a resident, id like this point out a few like to point out a few things that concern me personally. One is the traffic. Even before the buildout of the mission bay and several new condominiums, the traffic in our area has been horrible leading up to the bay bridge. And then on top of it, theyve now eliminated a number of lanes for bikes, which by the way, i support, but its not going to add to the problem. You fly in the throw in the chase center, the ballpark. I wanted to make sure that the team does a thorough study, because it feels like we have a disaster happening for traffic in the neighborhood. It wont get any better. So thats point number one. Point number two, just a question of do we actually need more highend apartments, condos in this neighborhood . It seems like were a bit saturated right now. We have projects that arent selling very well in the neighborhood. We have a whole bunch of residences coming on in mission bay. At the same time, i think there are the of 0 questions about the there are a lot of questions about the future of the Property Value in that area. Its something i think is very serious. At the same time, were seeing the Office Market really soften. We saw pinterest pull out of one of their projects. When we think of this space, is it better used for something that is more open to the public . Something more in the lines of what york has done, building open fields and ball parks, et cetera, as opposed to adding Additional Office space to this area that frankly, i dont think any of us can say whether or not we know will be needed or not. I think that this coronavirus has been eye opening to us. And also i think there is one last topic ill bring up. You know, the neighborhood spent a lot of time and the port discussing the Navigation Center. And the serious need for housing for the homeless, and now were throwing up highend luxury apartments. It seems like the commission is actually speaking out of both sides of its mouth. I see that there is a lowincome housing component, but when you look at it in totality, it feels as if its [bell ringing] its really not meeting the goals. President brandon thank you, john. We appreciate your comments. Hi, good afternoon, commissioners. My name is barbara. Im a port side resident across the street on bryant street since 1994. So i commend the port and the staff in getting to this point in the Development Plan that theyve been trying to do for 30 years. And i do echo the previous comments, i echo everything he said and i agree totally with him. I want to say other things. The massing of the seawall, those two towers, the report that mr. Albert presented talks about massing on brannan street. Its the corner of bryant. Portside is a 38 bryant. We have a small seawall right in front of us, the green grass area, so we dont abut embarcadero. But these two towers that are 160 feet on the corner of embarcadero and bryant, they abut the sidewalk, its totally massive. Its almost twice the height were nine stories this is 160 stories and this one is also obstructing the views, our value, creating shadow. The development looks really pretty. It might seem to meet all of the criteria, the waterfront plan, the port goals, the r. F. P. , the port Community Values, but this inherently all these things, really big problems, the tower height, the massing. I dont think the waterfront port, in echoing the previous speaker, there is too much commercial space. Who is going to use a big public pool . I belong to the bay club. Its not conducive to the ada, the kids, the family. How do you get into the pool . Berthing four yachts and what not. There is no social equity there. Its only for the wealthy. It doesnt meet everyones needs. Its only for people who can afford to bring the the condition is incredible. This is covid time. I was actually coming hope from an appointment and i had to during midday by 1 00 in the afternoon, coming on the embarcadero to turn left on bryant, actually the two were going through the other two through lanes. I ended up driving on embarcadero on the pier side so i wouldnt have to wait and block the traffic. Its already congested. The other thing, San Francisco is doing a congestion study and they havent included embarcadero as part of it. [bell ringing] thank you. Thank you. Moving on to the next caller. Hi, i guess im live. My name is mark dragon. Im a 15year resident of south beach. I live in a condominium complex where im the president of the board and 336 units. And im a member of the northern Advisory Committee, so i have seen this proposal. First, a shoutout to peter albert. He has done a phenomenally good job of responding to emails at midnight, working around the clock. Terrific job. Im opposed to this proposal for two principle reasons. The first is it obliterates the waterfront plan. Its not at all consistent. Its seeking for a twox height variance. That is massive. There is a reason we have the plan and this proposal ignores it. Its frustrating when the other two proposals actually complied with it. They were being good neighbors. So this proposal is just inappropriatelysized for this location. Additionally, the washington project, if it told us nothing else, its that the citizens of San Francisco do not want walls on the waterfront which is what the two towers here would create. If we move forward with this, were signing up for years of contentious public hearings over the massing of these two towers. And i dont think anybody wants to go through those public hearings again, especially after having gone through the Navigation Center process. So first point was, its inappropriately sized. It doesnt comply with the waterfront plan. Number two, its an economically bad deal fort port. Under this proposal, the port sees 1. 5 million land lease for one year and then doesnt see a dime until the developer reaches an 18 rate of return. In a world where there is zero federal funds rate, 18 is incredibly high. It means the port is likely not to see anything. Even if they do, it wont be more than 13. 5 million for a 75year ground lease. Alternative proposal im just reading from the kma study, pays not only the land lease of 1. 5 million but 135 million in participatory rent. 10x what this proposal does. This proposal is capturing all of the economic gain for the developer and none for the port. As Port Commissioners, you have to be fiscally prudent when you enter into a 75year land lease and this does not generate enough revenue from the port relative to the other proposals. Its inappropriately sized. It doesnt comply with the waterfront plan. And its not a very good financial deal fort port. Thank you. Thats all. President brandon thank you, mark. Youre welcome. Next caller, please. Opening the next line now. Hello commissioners thank you so much for taking the time to hear from us. My name is carole hart. Im actually a resident of the watermark. Ive owned a place at the watermark since the time it was built. Im very concerned about the proposal. I think just terms of overview, the way i see it, there is this beautiful dramatic proposal for the piers and its just so appealing and to me its beautiful. Its better than looking at a flat concrete parking lot that we have right now, but i think and this is normal with the seawall lots, the proposal for the seawall lots is sort of devastating in every way to the neighborhood. I would incorporate the comments from the three people who spoke previously. Traffic. Traffic alone it was discussed when the warriors proposal came forward, that area is already just walltowall. Right now its somewhat down because of covid, but basically many times of the day you cant move through that area. Now the idea is to put a huge increase in number of residents in the area which means much more need for emergency services, ambulance, potentially fire. How are they going to get there if the traffic increases the way it would inevitably with this proposal . Also, i would agree completely that when voters voted for proposition b, what they were saying is, we do not want the port approving walls on the water. That are not consistent with Community Character or the view of San Francisco as a stepdown city with the highest buildings on the hills and then coming down, so there is this clear open view and experience of the waterfront. And thats what i think your job is as commissioners. I have to say, you know, just as a resident of the watermark, it may not be that we have the absolute right, but we definitely depend on what were told at the time we spend millions of dollars when we buy these apartments and condominiums, which is 105 feet. Now the proposal is to obliterate that view. So along with Everything Else, its hard to say how that is fair to the landowners, although i understand an argument could be made. So i think that, again, incorporating everything that has been said, i think this project, its made to look appealing. It has appeal, but i think it is completely violating the Community Experience of that neighborhood. Thank you. President brandon thank you. Next caller. Unmuting the next line now. My name is david, im a resident of brandon street. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Quickly, id like to commend the developer on thinking about recreation and open space on the piers, although i have to agree with previous callers that some of that recreation space is limited and kind of high end. We need ball fields and playgrounds in this area. But the seawall plan really, i feel very strongly is too dense and too tall for the reason that previous callers mentioned. Reasons exist for the height limits along the embarcadero and this plan far exceeds the limits. So the detriment of the neighborhood, residents who have vested in views, as well as Area Visitors who use the area to get to oracle park, chase center and the other waterfront amenities we have. Theyll have to deal with new crowds and new traffic. That were not expected and that the area has not been built for on an infrastructure basis. My recommendation is respectfully, that the Port Commission terminate the r. F. P. Process and pursue other actions. Thank you very much for your time. President brandon thank you. We have six additional callers remaining on the line. Hi, i live along the San Francisco water park. Actually im caroles neighbor. My comments are similar. I have something i want to read. In 2014, the citizens of this great city overwhelmingly approved proposition b which required new construction adhere to long established height limits or require approval bit citizens via a subsequent citywide proposition. The voters of San Francisco strongly communicated their values that the development along the waterfront not create a wall. Instead, a stepdown in height from taller buildings behind them. The other two proposals for this property appear to have listened to the community and fit within those requirements while the strada proposal mentions it adheres to height limits on pier 3032, the seawall lot does not meet the limits and creates 180foot wall along beale. Community values was mentioned over a dozen times in the presentation we just listened to. I ask that the Port Commission not ignore the voice of the people of our city, not ignore the values that the community legislatively established and require any project to meet these proposition b height limits. Thank you. President brandon thank you. Let me try to mute them and unmute them again. Good evening. Hi, everyone. Members of the commission, i want to thank everybody for the hard work theyve put into assessing this project. I am a resident of the south beach area and i wanted to echo my neighbors who spoke before me on very similar issues, but i wanted to bring up something that is very important to this city. Which is our homeless crisis which the city has tried to address by putting in the Navigation Center. Unlike many, i was a supporter of it and happy to see it there. And its a step forward to address homeless issues and now were thinking, why dont we just put in two high rise luxury towers to replace what we have fought very hard to try to fix. Knowing this area having lived here through regular days and gang days, trying to get home from bryant on beale street. Its been about 25 minutes just trying to turn from bryant street to beale street. There is not a way to get on that. Covid has dampedened things down, a little bit, traffic has gotten better, but im pretty sure that when things are back to normal, traffic will pick up and adding 850 residents doesnt seem look the sensible thing to do. As much as i would love to see a park and something beautiful on the pier, i dont agree on breaching the height restrictions and adding this many units. Im also an advocate for the Homeless Population and trying to make our less fortunate folks lives better. On that, i would like to hope and advise that you take into consideration such a large impact project and perhaps pursue other opportunities. Thank you for your time. I wanted to mention south beach is an inclusive community. Im proud we have a foundation that Pacific Heights rejected, but unfortunately, i believe its a farce that well create a luxury Swimming Pool in a city with homelessness. I hope they investigate realistic parking solutions. Rental households in San Francisco usually have more than one cohabitating adult. Therefore 850 rental units has realistic potential to add hundreds of cars in south beach. South beach proper does not have parking structures akin to mission bay. Longterm, it will be become scarce if 850 rental units are constructed. We in south beach have not seen the consequences of the stadiums at full capacity. Im also afraid south beach real estate is oversaturated precovid, 274 brandon, 300 brand brandon. That is four empty store fronts outside my home. 2 bryant street across from seawall lot 330 is commercial developed by strada. Its advertised for lease. Im not bullish about the future of just the immediate future of commercial real estate. I hope the commission considers longterm solutions. Im not keen on what i perceive is an unrealistic being proposal on our public lands. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Hello . My name is earl. Im a resident and Business Owner directly across the street from the proposed development, seawall lot 330 and piers 3032. We are important stakeholders who must live with the consequences of this decision on a daily basis. The majority of our concerns with the proposed Development Including its improper height and mapping, disregard for the waterfront plan recommendations, exacerbation of untenable Traffic Congestion and increased exposure to care pollution are a direct result of the proposed developments unacceptable scale and density. I understand and support the need for housing, but to destroy a neighborhood by imposing mega density upon an already densely populated and congestion compromised neighborhood is simply wrong. When i and my fellow residents need to sit in bay bridge rush hour traffic on the embarcadero, harrison street, bryant street, main street and spear streets surrounding our complex for an hour or more, its to get back into our homes, this is not progress. This is the price of poor planning. I understand the need for housing around transit corridors, but when it is applied to an area that is already a major choke point for vehicle traffic feeding to the bay bridge, highway 280, highway 101, and renders its surrounding streets impassable and neighborhoods unlivable, it is problematic on the policy. I urge the Port Commission to deny the authorization of an ena with strada ttc for piers 3032 and seawall lot r. F. P. We sincerely hope the port will not only hear the community most impacted by their decisions, but address their legitimate concerns. Thank you. Looks like we have two callers remaining. Hi, commissioners. This is rick dickerson. Im chair of the embarcadero safe navigation Advisory Group. And a long time severaldecade resident and person who works in the south beach area. Used to also be chair of the rincon point c. A. C. First off, i would like to say thank you on behalf of the Navigation Center Advisory Group for continuing on with the r. F. P. Process for, as was promised for this site in the pier, seawall lot and the piers. And continuing on through the whole covid19 pandemic. I note it hasnt been easy and once again, thank you for everyone submitting proposals. I think that you got three interesting proposals. Unfortunately, i have to echo a lot of the things that other people from the area have brought up with with regards to how the seawall lot is laid out in this particular proposal. The piers itself, the plans for the piers itself, are kept lowprofile which is brought up in the proposal, but the problem is, unless youre driving along the embarcadero youre not going see it, because the proposal is building a wall along the seawall lot. And there was a great deal of time and effort over a couple of decades through lots of negotiating and discussions about how to keep the embarcadero open and the waterfront open. And as theyve cited, b was passed by the voters of the city to try to do such a thing. By doubling the density and massing on the seawall lot, its going contrary to everything that they tried to put together and the voters of the city said they would like to see. If this is going to move forward, i would hope there is going to be significant change to the design and the massing on the seawall lot by the developer and i hope that the port would mandate there be a lot more outreach to the community. Because i think as youre hearing tonight, there is a lot of displeasure in the opportunity with the way this has been put together. Thank you. Appreciate it. President brandon thank you. Unmuting the last line now. Thank you, commissioners and staff. This is john cornwell. Im a 26year resident in port st. The street from the project site and president of the foundation. Ive been involved in development attempts on the pier going all the way back to the early 90s. Warriors, et cetera. And all those projects in all that time, even prior to the passing of proposition b never proposed more than 300 units. They were 250, 330. 850 units just to put this in perspective, this project is taller and larger than the hyatt regency. It pushing the massing onto the streets and embarcadero. Its a really ridiculous design. I dont want to repeat myself or what everyone has said, but this is the most diametrically opposed plan to proposition b that anyone could come up with. In terms of traffic, the only egress to this thing, its not on embarcadero, its going to be on beale, a culdesac, which leads on to the bay bridge approach, which will completely mess up that. We paid and had prep modelling done during the warriors proposal and we already know were beyond capacity. I mean, some of my neighbors and myself, we have to park at rush hour a block away in a metered, walk home and come get our cars after 9 00. Even now with covid, i was stuck in traffic. So this is not a very serviceable area. You know, also there was not a lot of outreach to the community. I know the urban waterfront group, but that is not necessarily reflective of people immediately impacted. Were really, really unhappy with the idea that someone is going with a 220foot elevation on these things when proposition b limits them to, i think its 105 and 160 or Something Like that. This is really kind of an affront. I think its very arrogant, of strada to think theyre going to blow through those. They might. Theyre very well connected. They might trump all this. You guys have responsibility to make sure that the legacy of the import works with the community and the community intent and this is the exact opposite. I find it disturbing that one of your commissioners has recused herself im glad she did, but the fact she was connected to one of the proposals is kind of leaves me a little bit concerned. And then lastly [bell ringing] this service but who is going to use a 55 foot pool . I think its an insincere offering. Anyway, i hope you guys do the right thing and go and look at something that is more Community Serving and in line with prop b. President brandon thank you so much for your comments. At this time, there are no other members of the public on the phone wishing to make Public Comment on this item. Okay. Seeing no more callers on the phone, Public Comment is closed. Do you want to address any of those questions . I was asking peter im sorry, i didnt hear the question. President brandon do you want to address any of the concerns, talk about the time line, the traffic study, the finances. Well, thank you, commissioner. I think what i do want to say is that i heard a lot of these concerns and i think that its really clear to everyone who has been involved in this, this is the beginning point of the conversation. This is not this is not as rebecca said, the final step toward its not even entitlement. So what i would like to do is allow, the commission to check in with the team strada is still here. When they were representing the project to the community and to us, they kept saying they were looking forward to these kinds of conversations about the height, about the density, about the configuration. So i dont want to speak for them, but i do want to make sure they have that opportunity to explain their rationale at this point. President brandon strada team can speak . Sure. Im happy to respond. This is jessie, principal of strada. By the way, i would like to thank staff, peter especially, for all the great work in moving through a very effective and fair and transparent process here. And president brandon, commissioners, director forbes, were thrilled to have been recommended for this process. But as peter said, you know, this process of submitting to an r. F. P. Is an unusual one for strada because as folks involved in other projects of ours know, we often spend months in the Community Working through these kinds of issues before we submit anything to the Planning Department for example. If you look at for example our most recent project in bayview Hunters Point where we got unanimous approval from the planning commission, no opposition. Part of that was a testament to how we engaged in the community. Within r. F. P. Process, its not possible to do that same kind of process. You kind of go off into your shuttered room and come up with an idea and hope it meets the expectations of the policymakers and the community. As it relates to the seawall lot, you know, we have been trying to balance a series of policy objectives articulated in the r. F. P. That includes first and foremost paying for a considerable amount of Public Infrastructure by our math, 370 million worth of pier and seawall strengthening, Sea Level Rise, east berth, public amenities. So those cost have to be born in some fashion by the project. We took the view it was important to address on the water side of the project and develop a footprint for the pier side that was consistent with past, thats why we ended up with office and addressed the goals of the maritime and Public Access. And really the seawall lot becomes the economic engine to deliver that as well as Community Benefits like the 25 Affordable Housing that were proposing. You know, to be fully financed by the project itself. That said, this is a starting point as peter said. And were very interested in having a deep and authentic conversation with all of the stakeholders that have articulated their concerns. We said that at the northern Advisory Committee. This is the beginning of the beginning. And you know im hopeful we can come to a shared approach that addresses the desires of the port to pay to have the project pay for all the improvements, but still meet some of the concerns that the community has addressed. I will say on the design, that we took a very intentional approach to take a set of zoning constraints as currently envisioned that creates really a very long linear wall along the waterfront. You maxed out the current zoning, you can end up with a very long street wall, lower than what we proposed, but a very long street wall. Instead what we did was say push the density of the housing up to the edges of the farthest corner of the site and prep the middle of the site in the middle of the embarcadero. We walked through at the last presentation, you know, the visuals of that. The idea was to create a valley in the middle of the site to preserve views. Obviously there are people not happy with that approach. There is a million ways to approach the mapping of the site. And were happy to engage with the neighbors in those kinds of discussions. We said as much at the northern Advisory Committee meeting last week. President brandon thank you. Someone had a question about the time line, the time line for these type of projects. Ill start with that. This is peter again from the port. If we could go back to the next step slide. Its very generic because the point would be that were not actually entering into the ena. Today, what were talking about is the approval to begin the ena negotiations, but the ena would be in the fall and winter of the collaboration of the regulatory agencies and the dialogue with the community. Its important, as you heard today, the community is not just one entity. There are a whole bunch of different stakeholders that care about what comes out of this. At the conclusion of the series of the meetings, with the stakeholders, the community, the regulatory agencies, we would come back to the port to see if were ready to enter into an ena. That would be the conclusion of this request that we have a Community Dialogue, that the community has told us they want to hear and jessie has offered to provide. Its maybe helpful for me to state what weve seen in past projects. I mentioned earlier, i looked at our four last developer solicitations to led to project approval. I mentioned the shortest duration we had was on the historic core at pier 70 which is about a 300,000 square foot project. That took us two years from developer selection to approval. Longer time frame that weve taken are on the 28acre site. Those took six and eight years from selection to approval. I imagine this sort of project is between 2 and 6 years are the sort of time frames we typically take. Of course, strada, im sure would like to go as fast as possible, but thats what we do and thats how long weve seen these processes take. So multiple years between selection of the developer to the project approval. President brandon thank you, peter. Commissioner woo ho thank you. I want to open my comments to say i feel a little deja vu here, but different deja vu. When we first proposed the Navigation Center for the homeless and the initial reaction as you know was just horror by the neighborhood. And its interesting now to hear somebody say, well lets keep the Navigation Center. So all the terrible things they envisioned as a result of having a Navigation Center did not materialize. And i think what im trying to say is sometimes you have to have a little vision, look over the horizon before you react to everything in front of you. And i do think that because the community, perhaps the neighbors have not had a chance yet to engage as fully and im glad to hear jessie say he will have a discussion with them that we could come up with something that i think can meet it will not be perfect. You cannot satisfy everybodys individual objective. There is a little envy. People realize their views may be affected. I recall many discusses on seawall lot 330 that the units behind them were told, something could be built in front of you. So theyve had the luxury of not having that happen. So im not saying that justifies to have a huge massive building, but on the other hand, thats something theyve gotten used to, so its very hard to obviously say, well, what we told you a long time ago is now starting to happen. I think we want a balance. And its going to be up to, i think, our staff and jessie, as we move forward, and strada to find a way that does find some balance here, because i think to say were just i dont think were going to find any project that is going to meet everybodys demands. I felt the massing on the piers on the other two proposals was too much. Its interesting my first reaction was the piers did not have tremendous amount of massing. Of course, if you have finger piers you cant. Thats just the nature of the way the preservation of the piers is supposed to be. You cant have two towers out there any way. I understand the economics that have to be balanced by trying to figure out how to make the economic engine on the seawall lot. There is lot still to be worked out here. To me, i dont believe the r. F. P. Is the correct path forward. I think we need to find a way to take this input and go forward. But number one, i want to just verify all the comments that we did hear that the current design absolutely does not conform to proposition b, is that correct, peter, what all the speakers said . So the height limit, i thought we couldnt do that. After 8 washington, i thought that was an issue then and i thought of course, prop b, so im surprised. Can you comment on that. Sure, id be happy to comment and let my colleagues. What is happening with this proposal, theyre working over the zoning which is 105, towers up to 65 feet. That would be the bay [inaudible] theyre using the state density law to have the state provide exemptions to a limited extent up to that 35 above the floor area. Theyre going higher by virtue of the state bonus. Its something the attorneys are still looking at, if this is the base zoning or new base zoning. I dont know if anyone wants to elaborate on that. Its rebecca. I can provide just a little bit more detail. The key point, commissioners, is under prop b, a vote of the San Francisco residents would be required if it exceeds the height limit. What peter is alluding to, whether or not increasing the height for the state density bonus would require a vote of the people. We will have that definitely nailed down as we move forward, but we understood that was what the developers approach was. To take the base zoning, add the density bonus and whether or not you would require to get a vote for the residents under prop b. Commissioner woo ho my one comment, you can always anticipate there is reaction to height. And i think you should have anticipated to have explained it in your presentation and not to have them tell us this is an issue. Because it sound like were ignoring it, yet you understand the issue. There is a possible way to interpret it. We dont know the answer. But it seems like this has gone viral with the neighborhood. So i think its unfortunate that were in a defensive position about it. So thats my response on that. I mean, i think that probably in the r. F. P. , we did ask for housing because that is the mayors number one issue and we have Affordable Housing here. And im not quite sure how the tag luxury all of a sudden has appeared on this project. Im not sure, because i even just asked last time to understand the mixture of housing. I didnt we didnt talk about what the rental rates were going to, but somehow this is already out there as luxury. I dont know if thats an accurate depiction . Because there is a certain amount of affordable. Because its other housing, it means its luxury. I think we have to be clear on how we communicate, where did that label come from . Thats something were also having to deal with. The other part which the perception, cosmetics. The other part was not being in conformance with the Land Use Plan, which was, i want to point out, an advisory plan. It doesnt mean that were bound by it. We want to live by it, but what are the issues related to the waterfront plan . The comments we received. The height would be the issue that the people are talking about. It was flagged in the last presentation. The density and the height issue not being resolved. But the land uses in the proposed plan, there is no inconsistency between what is proposed on the seawall in terms of residential or what is being proposed on the pier in terms of mix of commercial and retail. The land uses are consistent with the proposed draft update of the waterfront plan. Commissioner woo ho okay. Im sorry im not doing this in order. I just wrote notes down. I felt that the presentation that we heard last time, that there was a fair amount of obviously community access, open space on the pier side. And i was also a proponent even of the floating Swimming Pool which mentioned and the recreational access, which we have heard not today, but in other forums where communities said we want more water recreation, access. Well this was an opportunity to provide that and im not sure the label its only going to be for luxury Swimming Pool. It seemed to me it was going to be open to the public. I dont think we made any decisions about that and i think it should be made to the public. So i dont know how that got twisted. Because i thought it was a Public Benefit. A Community Benefit and i think we need to thats what i understood and i would expect. That would be part of the plan if this design moves forward in that regard. That would be another comment to say i think there was a lot of discussion of open access and somehow that is not coming across in presenting it and in talking with the community they should understand it. There may not be people who care about water sport, but we have heard that from other people saying that is an important part of what we should provide. People want soccer courts on pier 3032. I think i am empathetic to the issue raised and its been raised every time we talk about pier 3032 when we looked at the warriors and Everything Else. That is traffic and that is right up your alley, peter. But one of the things that was not included yet. One speaker was again having concern about parking. So i guess i would ask, just in general, because some buildings if San Francisco are not actually building any Parking Spaces and so i would say that the trend today in urban living is not to own a car. That is certainly not the millennial negotiation and i would say this project with one, two bedrooms is probably going to be more millennials or seniors who dont want to have cars. But thats just my own interpretation of what the audience could be in terms of who is living here. Is there any comment in terms of yes, thank you. Is there going to be parking . That might address the issue of people being concerned about hundreds of cars going to appear. Thank you, commissioner. The parking and traffic, one of the challenges in the r. F. P. Process and you heard frit the strada team, there is a phase in the negotiation that includes developing a strong transportation. When i worked with you in the past, we were defining what we would have in terms of use. We would use a program to tweak the mode split, because there are opportunities there are unique opportunities in this location to have stronger you heard the members of the Community Talk about the bike lane. Weve never known the benefit of a real integral bike lane on the embarcadero. That is part of what is happening now. There is the transit investment within a short walk, but what i would expect out of a Good Transportation management demand program in the location, theyre maximizing the resources that are available to affect the reduction in congestion. I know that came up in one of the presentations from strada to the community past. They dont even have the Transportation Management team on board because the r. F. P. Process is only conceptual. Jessie, you did tell me that one of the buildouts of your team was an aggressive t. D. M. Manager. Did you want to talk about . Obviously, were at the early stages, conceptual is the right way to describe it. We have probably 20 different technical disciplines that we would add to our team before we move on to the next stage. Obviously, were i want to at some point hopefully talk about our plans for equity and inclusion. But were planning on augmenting our team in many ways, including transportation expertise and particularly looking at a specific role from what our team members on developing a stateoftheart t. D. M. Program to manage the traffic flows. I think we also mentioned one of the things we were focused on is making sure to eliminate traffic going across the embarcadero, onto the pier 3032 site from the embarcadero. So we did not put parking for the Office Building on 3032. We have have some across the street proposed for the seawall lot, but we really felt like it was important not to have parking on the 3032 side to avoid the conflict with pedestrians and bikes along that side of the embarcadero. Commissioner woo ho obviously, people are jumping in with very specific issues and comments. And i think what were trying to decide here is given that you have on the high side whether to go forward, but its good to have this input, because i think we will obviously as a commission remember that this is some of the concerns of the community and i dont know that were going to be able to meet all of the demands. I do not think that we should stop. I think we have to move forward because weve been looking at making sure we do have productive use for prepare 3032. If we dont do anything with it, its going to cost us money to get rid of it anyway. I would love to have something iconic, that we can say, between 3032, we have some that is iconic of San Francisco. Weve made the waterfront better, vibrant, attractive. And thats what my wish would be. So i dont want to stop this process. I think there is a little bit of a kneejerk reaction from the community. Im not saying we should ignore it, but digest it and figure out as you go forward how to come back and maybe there will be changes in the design. So i think my expectation is that there probably will be tweaks and changes in design, so that we can all land in a happier place. But thats where my head is at. President brandon thank you, commissioner woo hoo. Vice president adams . Commissioner adams peter, thank you fort presentation. You know, i heard the public. I think rebecca laid it out. Were in for a fight. This is going to be a fight. I remember when i moved to San Francisco, we looked at a lot of uses for pier 3032. First it was the cruise ship, then the warriors. This is going to be a fight. It is really clear that strada has to do more work in the community to get the community engaged. If they can learn that was the giants who did their home work to reach out to the community and draw the community in as partners. If we didnt learn anything from the 8 washington, clearly there is that feeling out there. I was just going to say to commissioner woo hoo, the Navigation Center was going to be a temporary center. Commissioner woo ho last time, i made it clear, we have fulfilled our commitment to the neighborhood to say this was only going to be temporary and a lot of people didnt believe it. I feel i also should say i feel that the public listening in, i think we are trying to be as responsible to all the constituents that we serve. And we will do our best to make sure that the designs here meet the community, but you know, youre never going to meet everybodys wish 100 . I think were trying to vote for the greater good here. I do agree there could be a fight, but people need to be reasonable and balanced. Would they rather just continue to have what we have . And force us to tear down a pier . Thats would happen. For the commission, this is elaine stepping in on the process here. One of the things jessie said, this is the beginning of the beginning and i just want to reiterate for everyone and the public, that what weve done at this point is done a competitive solicitation process. We followed along Community Dialogue and the Land Use Plan to collect the values and the r. F. P. That the respondents came back to us with and had a professional panel review all aspects of the r. F. P. And score them for the most qualified respondent and approach. Thinks before the community this is before the Community Engagement. So it really is the beginning of the beginning. And this part is so important for the value of the competitive, fair and equitable Selection Process so that when strada goes out with staff and has this robust Community Engagement to vet some of these issues, the public can be assur assured we had a fair process. I want to assure everyone, thinks the starting point this is the starting point. These are reactions and responses to the proposal that have not had the benefit of robust dialogue and engagement. That is in the next phase of the project. Just to be clear, port staff will be working hard to bring back in ena to commission promptly. Well engage regulatory partners et cetera, but the big Community Engagement process that occurs and makes the project everything we want it to be is to follow. So i just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of that. Commissioner adams youre saying this could be like a five, sixyear process . And thank you for that question. We need to come back with a time line. Rebecca did a good job of explaining our history of how long it takes from this moment in time to the permit. And shovel hitting the ground and ground breaking. We are going to be looking internally and working with our regulatory partners to really vet what we believe a schedule will look like. And also to inform the public of what that schedule is. And what the Access Points are for input and engagement. But its possible that is the time frame as rebecca said. Were sure strada would like to see it shorter. The key critical element is we have stakeholder Community Engagement that we vet all of the issues, that the developer has really good opportunities to collaborate and respond. And that the project is ultimately the point of all of this effort, is that the project best balances competing priorities. Because you know the economics to the port, visavis, maritime improvement, all of these things need to be packaged together in a way that all the values are balanced. That is the process with community. Commissioner adams thank you. Ive learned a lot today and it sound like we did things different. We went ahead and got someone we had picked and they hadnt done the Community Involvement. So will be interesting to see this go on. Clearly, i agree with you, commissioner, there is going to be opposition for it. I dont know how much this fits into the waterfront plan and how are they going to talk about the 800 apartments, condominiums on the waterfront. How is that going to work . Commissioners, if i may, i really appreciate director forbes illuminating. When its coming to the Port Commission, weve been in the phase of the project where weve had the Community Conversations and shaping the development. What is unusual about the r. F. P. Process, my role wasnt to have an opinion about the development, but support the review panel so they had all the information for scoring. So what i can tell, there is a lot of frustration because people wish they had the opportunity to that correspondence with me or other sport staff, but the support staff, but the r. F. P. Restricts that. You have to keep the r. F. P. Process strict on the transparency and objectivity. And its just getting to that second part where we can have the Community Dialogue. I want to help the community understand how frustrating it was for me as well not to have a free conversation because we just had to get to this point of this authorization point to start. I hope i made sense with that. Im not sure i did. But thats been my experience. Once we have the green light, we have the sessions with the community. Then we come back to you when we think the ena is ready to be authorized and that is an important part of the time line that director forbes was talking about. Commissioner adams thank you Vice President adams. Thank you, peter. Thank you, rebecca. Thank you, jessie. And all the callers and all the communities who called regarding your input. And i just have to reiterate, this r. F. P. Process was done differently than weve ever done in the past, where it was just limited to the Panel Members until this point. So now is the time for all of us to look at the proposal. What is going to be in it and its going to be a minimum of a year before it comes back for an ena. So there is going to be plenty of time for all the Community Stakeholders all the community Advisory Groups, all the policy advisors, to take a look at this project to see if it is viable to move forward. But at this point, were not making a decision on what actually is in the proposal. Were just saying that we want to talk a little further and see if we can make something work here. Right, rebecca . Thank you for letting me key in. It typically only takes us 23 months to write an ena. To be really clear, im sorry if there has been confusion. It takes us 23 months to write the ena. The ena says strada, were going to spend a year or two working on this project, strada will have to do x, y, z, theyll have to meet with the communities ten times, theyll have to make sure they have these kinds of consultants and plans. We expect in six months well do design work. Another six months well almost be ready for a term sheet on the deal point. And the ena just sets out what are we going to work on together with our stakeholders, with the community until we can get this project approved if were fortunate enough to get the project approved. The time line is 23 months while we work on the milestones. Unfortunately, we wont be able to do Community Work. So i want to be clear with the community, we will start that engagement. The key things well want to hear from the community while drafting the ena are things like, should we be working through the yes, for sure. Which neighborhood groups should we be working on . I think we have a good idea on that. Do we want to set up a subcommittee . How do we want to integrate other r. F. P. S, weve done the 38 and 40 and well be working on that project at the same time. We dont want to step on one anothers toes. The time line would be 23 months working on the ena. Then come back fort ena approval and thats just setting forth the next couple of years get to the final project approval. Does that clarify things a bit . President brandon it does. So when you come back with the ena, youre going to have benchmarks of what should be completed before you come back with a project. Exactly. President brandon so there will be lots of time for Community Input and involvement . Thats right. And that would be a good slide to show. Rebeccas steps were spot on. Flip back to what happens with the ena. The one before that. All these bullet points that becca was talking about. Ena is structuring the relationships with the community and partner engagement, the due diligence. Thats where the bulk of the work happen and thats what we structure in the ena. President brandon right. Okay. Okay. Well, as i said at the last meeting, this is going to take a lot of Community Engagement to make this project successful. So i look forward to the ena to spell out the terms of that Community Involvement and engagement. Thank you, everyone, for your time. So carl, can i have a roll call vote . Yes, on resolution 2045, president brandon. President brandon yes. Commissioner adams yes. Commissioner woo ho yes. President brandon okay, motion passes unanimously. Resolution 2045 is adopted. Next item. Item 12 is new business. President brandon okay. I have two items and then ill turn it over. I have we will add equity and contract support for the Resiliency Program where well cover where we started, where we are, where were going with the contractors and subcontractors and well be adding a regular briefing and commission items as it relates to the Resiliency Program in the runup to the prop a project so everyone is prepared and performed. Any other new business . Its been a while and with covid and everything im not quite sure what the time lines have changed, but can we get an update tetro . Yes. Please work it out in the schedule. Commissioner adams director forbes, my understanding is that cruise ships may be starting back up maybe the end of the year, first of next year. Have you heard anything . We have been watching carefully and weve seen various closures extended and some bookings, though not in the u. S. But we will look again and get back to you on what were hearing. Commissioner adams okay. President brandon any other new business . Can i have a motion to adjourn . Commissioner adams ill make a motion to adjourn in the memory of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg, may she rest in power. Amen. A second . Second. Roll call vote. President brandon aye. Commissioner adams aye. Commissioner woo ho aye. President brandon the meet when will we be adding another commissioner member . President brandon very, very soon. Within the next month. Okay. President brandon the meeting is adjourned at 7 26 p. M. Thank you. You. What do you think about working at an airport and i love it is busy all the time. We want it to be an those away was this is a venture if i didnt love it ill be an accountant. We want the experience that is a nonairport experience the negative stigma were trying to erase that. Everything is in a bad food to excite them about the food and they have time to learn about us. People are imitated by traveling and the last thing to do is come to a place fill of chaos. Telling me how the extent of napa a farms came about. It was a vision of the airport director he had a suspicion of a really cool gourmet speciality market locally friendly products this market local flavors this is the best. Can we get a little tour. Absolutely laughter so first on our tour. We have the clock we like to call it. This is coordinating it is made in San Francisco. What about the customer presence. We like to get the permanent farther i love the cappuccino and you have to go to multiple places for the cupcakes the cup a cakes from karis people want to live here theyre longing phone call for one thing in one spot in you know anything about San Francisco the cheese the most popular cheesy think a lot of the people from the west coast say so this the real San Francisco sour dough and theyre curious. You find people respond to the idea of organic and absolutely. This is autumn. Thank you, thank you and theres a lot of personal touch. I see San Francisco. Its very hands on. Whats the most popular items. This is quite surprising our fresh jotting this is the chronicle special a bowl of warm oats and coconut thats mites farther. And speaking of drinks tell me again the cocktail scenes is that one, the things your known for. The cocktails are fantastic. Really. Fresh ingredients we dont have a mixture it to order this is our marcus bloody mayor. Farmers market bloody mary the bloody marys in the airport are great shikz it up. And then were going to garnish it with olives. And some lime and a fresh stalk of selly. Right on. We like i am vivian coe. Carman chu cofounded the challenge along in 2018, along with the department on the status of women, as well as the league of women voters in San Francisco. Our mission is to raise womens voices and their voting power. You can learn more about our initiative on our website wchallenge. Org. Before we start, i would like to thank our w challenge partners and supports and occur cohosts and our cohosts listed in the