Out of working group with a twotrack request for interest to invite ideas for public oriented uses that could fit within our bulkheads and pier facilities. But because we anticipated that the revenue capability of many of those types of businesses would be insufficient to be able to cover the improvement costs of the piers, we also realized there was a need to be some Development Capability also. So we came up with the idea ofc having a second track for requests for qualifications from qualified developers with experience with historic rehabilitation projects like this. And this proposal is really an experiment. Weve tried it with pier 70 as rfi exercise to invite ideas. It led to us being able to find work and development inc. To be able to save the pier 70 buildings and we thought this might be a good methodology for the district where you could find out what our types of uses that could adapt and what are developers that have anc intert in being considered potentially for improvements on leases and development. So, this sort of gives a bullet of what we think that the twoprong approach offers to the port and for the Community Also to start getting, you no, realtime sense of what their recommendations could yield. Were looking broadly. These are the piers that we had suggested in a briefing that we made to the working group a few weeks ago as to the facilities that we would extend this invitation for ideas and interest to. And i understand that now pier 48 will have to take that into account on the base basis of the previous items. There are Capital Repair niedz and conditions that wed like to test the market to really understand kind of partnering opportunities there are. c i should just note that with respect to, for example, pier 35 and pier 40 where we have certain types ever uses there that must stay or that we want to retain and grow in the case of water recreation activities at pier 40. We wanted to make clear to everyone that that was our intention. Similarly for piers 33, 31 and 29. Were talking about the pier sheds only as a complement to the publicoriented uses that were currently in lease negotiations on for the bulkheads of those facilities. So, again, a textheavy slide, but its trying to highlight what are the opportunities that we think are available through this twoprong approach. You really need both pieces, the publicoriented pieces and the financing capability side to meet the needs what have it takes to improve and manage and develop our piers. We may find that the marketplace gives us good ideas, partnering opportunities, understandings about how they can be compatible with our on going maritime and Public Access objectives. We may also find that there might be some hitches in the recommendations that are being developed. Maybe weve got some challenges that we didnt anticipate and its a good time for us to get that feedback from the market before we move forward on making any updates to the waterfront plan. Our proposed process for moving forward because today is just an informational presentation. Were not seeking your authorization today, to take your comments, questions, and then for us to do a little more Due Diligence to look to see if there are other models of rfis done elsewhere that might be employed in this process to go back to the community and report back this presentation and the comments were getting so that we can incorporate further incut into a proposed set of objectives for this twins tw tws then come back to the Port Commission next year to seek authorization to move forward. We expect that we would also have suggestions and proposals for a review panel on what the review process would be of evaluating the responses on both the rfq side and rfi. And then to media and Outreach Campaign but also further public discussions about what those opportunities a available to us and direction from the commission before whether there is one or more pier leasing and Development Opportunities that could go forth and what kinds of conditions for partners that we might want to consider. Thats sort of a quick read and preview that gistles you a flavor for the work that the waterfront Plan Working Groups s that been spending its im on. Were bringing this preview to you today because we provided it to the working group a fewc . M ago. The working group is finishing trying to wrap up part two of the process which willt produce portwide recommendations on a whole array of issues that theyve been reviewing. When theyre done with their work, well be back before the commission to report out the rest of the work and issues that theyve been reporting on. If its timely, then maybe we and rfq as well. I want to thank the working group members. Theyve been incredible. Mike martin and becca have been instrumental in a lot of the financialc Feasibility Analysis and Market Assessment that have supported the public discussions to date. Were here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Ive got one card, corrine. Anyone else wants to speak, go ahead and speak speek after corrine gets done. We have the Corps Working Group right here. It has been an absolutely fascinating process going through this. And i cant wait until we give you the report. All of the meetings are actually on line. Theyve been recording the main meetings. Theyre all the notes from our subcommittees are on line and the ports website. We think this is a good idea to test reality. As you heard at the last meeting, its a very expensive proposition to do substructure work on the piers. If you have high occupancy uses, which is where youre going to get your money, you have to do more work. So we know the costs are high and struggled over what is appropriate, what is going to work. One thing about this process that we have to be careful of is we want ideas and inspiration andc think outside the boxes bt dont want to create an expectation for developers who think i have that one we dont i think the transparency of a request for proposals and getting to a choice of a developer is going to be a separate process. Because we dont want well, wed like to minimize the political bullshit that goes into selecting developers for projects. We want things that are consistent with the waterfront use plan. We want things that are trust consistent. We dont necessarily want a arena or whatever going in on waterfront if it doesnt fit. We dont want the political process to overtake the thoughtful idea much coming up with things that are good for the port. And that are consistent with the ports mission. And i think im going to recommend that you read our report when it comes out. I think its amazing the number of different people and different viewpoints that we have in the room yet in most cases weve been able to reach consensus, were getting there, thank you. Thanks corrine, ellen. Ellen jock cochair of the Advisory Committee maritime Advisory Committee. Dianne, youve done a great job and i want to thank for the work that weve done together over the past year and a half at the land use committee. The maritime folks are really pleased with what weve come up with thus far at the last meeting, there was some initial concern and im glad elaine was there that somehow the rfi was going to come occupant and not take into account the work done at the waterfront land committee. Elaine did a great job of saying, of course, this is very much integrated with the work that weve done. I think the themes that are coming out, we have to keep the port standing up. The reality check is its going to cost money and we need ideas and developers to come in and give you some ideas. The linkage, the strong linkage between maritime historic and resiliency is clear and strong. I wanted to add one other thing, there is a group of us and the waterfront Land Use Planning group that is talking about how to be aspirational. In terms of historic and the cultural story of this port. And its the public trust, but its more than the public trust. Its the social. You hear heard that in the giand mission rock. We need businesses and folks to come in with that kind of attitude for what were rieg weg do with the port and tell the ports story. Im sure were going to do fine with the rfi because were doing a great job so far. Thank you. Veronica. Thank you mr. President. Commissioners, veronica sanchez, i speak for myself on this one as a veteran of some political fights on this waterfront. And having been on the receiving end of it during my tenure here, when i was here at the port, i think corrine said something a2i important about we dont want the political process to take over the waterfront land use process and become one political mess. Ive seen a lot of political mess os then waterfront. Certainly commissioner brandon, you can attest to that too. My concern is about timing. And about the importance that this port is going to ask the voters of San Francisco for their support on a geeio bond measure in november to improve the seawall. I feel like the focus of the ports effort needs to be on getting voter confidence for the bond measure and putting and asking the voters. What i worry about if the developer Selection Process gets muckied up or if they dont like the ideas suggest, youre going to be in a defensive campaign billion the, you know, uses that these folks dont like like what happened with 8washington and pier 24 rapid 26 many, many years ago when it was a reasonable Hotel Proposal that got blown completely out of proportion. I would suggest that we look at these timing issues and you certainly have Public Affairs consultants on board to look at that. But i would hote to be in the defensive mode where we argue about hotels at piers 35 for example and this takes over a greater discussion that the port needs about saving the seawall and the structures. There is always, i think, a time for this and this is needed. But looking at the timing of this, in connection with the geobond is very important. Thank you very much. Thank you, alice. Good evening already. Im alice rogers im on the working group and had the pleasure of srving as chair for the land use subcommittee. The flip side of the 14 meetings and the year that we put in is all work that the staff did to educate us. They spent more than a year fitting into the weeds on level that you people operate. Especially relative to the financial aspects of the Historic District challenges. So i want to thank them for that and thank you for enabling them to do that. And i want to say i know when you were discussing the plan update process generally, you were concerned about having broad participation. And im here to tell you that weve had strong Public Participation especially at the land use meetings. As the previous speakers have said, we came up with a lot of common values. I think that it has helped us build that consensus so that the deliberations were not contentious generally. But we all are sort of pulling in the same direction. That said, i do want to really support what veronica just said. Eyebrows were raised when this rfi came up. And i think that director forbes did an excellent job of dissipating concern at the last meeting. Nevertheless, we need to ask you to be very, very careful about how this proceeds as veronica said more eloquently than i. This cant be seen to override the years plus that the public has spent really pouring out their wishes and desires through this public process. And certainly not in an election year. So please just be careful with how this goes forward. And i also cant say strongly enough that will we really cant divorce the Public Access and the public opportunity and the real vitality and diversity on the waterfront. You guys are possibly victims of your own successes. Youve done fabulous developments,hthe exploretorium and at t park. People love those and want moren we want this process to bring more of that vitality. Thank you. Thank you, alice. Is there more on 13b . No more comments on 13b . Public comment is closed. Commissioner. I want to commend dianne in terms of all the hard work she put in along with everyone else on the staff that worked on this. I know its been a labor of love and all of the members of the land use working committee. I think that this process of having the dual track is interesting and innovative. I am sensitive to the timing questions that i think have been raised by the speakers. , and i think its something to duly note. We koant dont want to ignore what happened on land use committee. But i want to give an example katie might remember this, the museum of fine arts, the rec and Park Commission decided to put tout for development. I happen ton to be on review panel. Weapon we went through the process of picking something and there were five different performing arts hotels and only to have it rejected because it didnt fit into not making any architectural changes on the building. I dont know where the park and recs is with this point but that was a process that took a long time and unfortunately it was a waste of time because it didnt end up anywhere. I think one has to be mindful when we do this that you get interesting ideas that come back. The only thing i would say Lesson Learned is that you will the constraints that need to be known, need to be put out there in either the rfi or rfq so that you dont come back with ideas that eventually when you try to decide whether it works and we as a review panel did come up with suggestions. We had dean, the former held of the panel. Then it turn out when it got into more detail account staff, they couldnt make it work. So we need to do more homework before we put these things out there to make sure the constraints are understood. In our case, its the substructure and any other constraints. I think that is important that we dont mislead either developers or in this public rfi that people come up with these. Its a little bit of initially and the newspaper article seemed toindicate its like a thousand flowers bloom. We want to be realistic that it has to be the process has to be managed very carefully and with adequate disclosure of what can or cannot be done. That is not is to stifle creativity or imagination. We want ideas from the public. Weve exhausted our own brain cells here. I think thats important to maintain. And i think we need to that out. I think the other thing is, im not sure why pier 30, 32 is not on the list but thats one were scratching our heads in what to do. There is a lot of information we know in terms of substructure costs and things like that. Im not quite sure. It seems like its a big list. For each one of the piers, youre going to have to come up with maybe you have to phase, you cant do all of them all at once. You have to phase them into different phases. You lump a few and whatever in the timing works out because its a lot to dump on market. I think id be extremely careful about that in addition to the timing comments made by the various speakers. I think the idea of getting ideas from the public as well as consultants is a good idea. Are there any other cities that came up with ideas that we havent thought about. I think the path and process has to be carefully mapped out and to make sure you dont end up on a wild goose chase or it becomes unproductive and incompetent greated with the fact there is a committee quorking on if for a year and a half and understands the ins and outs. The last thing i want to say, is that i did not see i think it could be with the presentation, i think we should say long with whatever were trying to do, in our mission, we talked about the vitality for the waterfront. What was the exact phrase we used in the Mission Statement . Im trying to remember the exact wording. Diverse and vibrant waterfront. I think that is something we should put out there. A vibrant an diverse waterfront. When youre in vibrant and diverse waterfront. Vitality is what causing peoples interests right now. All the projects weve done have increased the vitality of the waterfront. Were loosening up the interpretation of trust and it sounds like when we heard earlier there are ways for that interpretation to be a little bit broader rather than narrower, i think thats a great step forward. Those will be my comments. I think that think it through carefully. If its all right, id like to share some answers to some of the questions. With respect to pier 3032. The reason thats not included in, number one, its not a contributing resource for the embarcadero hisser t historic d. It lost a lot of the historic value. We learned through thec warrios project, stens associated with the pier is particularly extraordinary and so it does take a special look. With respect to the menu of piec facilities that were shown, i dont think that the intention necessarily is that were going to find some developer or operator for each one of those, but its a means by which we can test the market to see, are there areas of waterfront that are more tuned for particular types of public attractions and business operators that maybe they want to be closer to Fishermans Wharf orc closer to the ballpark. We want to see where location criteria might play a role. Then with respect to the rfi itself, i wanted to make it clear because i dont think i did in my presentation that in would be an invitation to publicoriented use, businesses and operators and tenants. Its not necessarily the general public, but there would be business motdals, different types of products that have been tried in other locales that perhaps might well situated for the waterfront as well and to find out if what else is out there besides what we think we know. I understand that and i think i want to say going back to the rec and parkc situation, they were all qualified. It did not work at all in the end, even though the panel had some selections because they there were things that what people needed to do with the building. Historically, you could not make the changes. I guess probably at least a year and a half or more was lost. Quelcwell taken. Thank you very much. I want to first thank everyone who has spoken out and all the participants on the working groups. It is i labor of love for those it is a i labor o a lae for those on committee. Dianne, thank you for bringing this forward. Id like to make a comment. I lo