Assistance in broadcasting this committee meeting. Madam clerk, do you have any announcement s please silence all cell phones and electron devices. Thank you. Madam clerk, could you call item 1 please. Item 1 resolution endorsing the conceptual term sheets wen of between the port and jppf op acquisitions, llc. Well begin with our presentation. Were going to let supervisor peskin make a few remarks. Thank you chair cohen and colleagues and pier 29 and much of the northeast waterfront is in the supervisorial district i have the honor of representing, district 3. By way of background in 1990, a little while ago, the voters of San Francisco passed proposition h, requiring the acquisition of waterfront plan and put an interim moratorium on waterfront property, and the plan was finished in 1997 after a collaborative process. And that waterfront Land Use Plan is now in the process of being updated. You may all recall that about 15, 16 years ago, there was a proposal for about 500,000 square feet of destination retail, proposed by the Mills Corporation at piers 27, 29 and 31. That project went down to defeat in the early 2000s and today we have our cruise ship terminal at pier 27. This is a proposal next door at pier 29. I wanted to remind my colleagues and members of the public that there is a long, unmet promise of recreation on the northern waterfront and that actually harkens back to the days of mills project that was going to be a recreation project by chelsea. Many of my constituents, who lived through those battles remember that and remember that unfulfilled propose and before us is say term sheet for 20,000 square feet in the bulkhead building at pier 29 and still the potential for that recreational facility in the rest of the pier 29 shed, or at nearby piers. So in consultation with the port, and the ports executive director ms. Forbes i would like to offer a few additional resolves at page 3 starting line 5 and specifically let me read them into the record. I have passed them out to members of the committee. Did supervisor tang get one . Did i give you one . First is insofar as this proposal has been represented as being reserve for San Franciscobased makers i wanted to add that a minimum of onethird of all goods in the retail leasing space will be reserved for San Franciscobased makers in San Francisco and initially i wanted to actually be a third of the space. But as i understand it from the project sponsor, they are not going to lease out stalls in that area. So i have revised it to say onethird of all goods. In addition a further resolve that the Port Commission shall clarify in the lease that the agreement applies only to the pier 29 bulkhead building and does not include any optional use of the pier 29 shed, or beyond minimal exterior uses outside of the pier 29 bulkhead building for short or longterm uses. A third further resolve that future longterm uses of the pier 29 bulkhead building beyond the term of the lease and future longterm uses of pier 29 shed will be informed by the waterfront Land Use Plan update process currently underway. And any future development of pier 29 will be subject to a competitive solicitation process, with any interim leases of pier 29 shed in the meantime limited to no more than 5year lease time and final further resolve the Port Commission shall direct staff to report to the board of supervisors by february 5th, 2018 on recommendations for active recreational uses of pier 29. And other Port Properties that result from the waterfront Land Use Plan update process and provide a plan to achieve those recommendations. I believe i dont want to put words in the ports mouth, but i believe the port supports these, and i want to thank ms. Forbes for working with me and my office on formulating those, and at 10 30 i have to gavel down the government audit committee. Lets go on to our presentation. We have got mr. Boris della pine and i think also do we have dianna she is also going to be presenting this morning. Welcome. These are the port representatives. Thank you the floor is yours. Good morning, supervisors. We would like to give you a quick presentation to review the steps that led us to the term sheet before you today. Im the ports Contract Administration and donned by our assistant Deputy Director of planning, mark our Deputy Director of real estate and our executive director elaine forbes. Pier 29 is located where chest nut meets embarcadero within the Historic District litigationed in the National Register of Historic Places and it was reconstructed after the fire in 2013 and the site of the waikiki restaurant during the americas cup in the summer of 2013. The building is currently vacant. In december of 2015, after authorization from the Port Commission, we issued a request for proposals to retenant the bulkhead portion of the pier shed. The rfp had several strategic objectives that we had in mind and included that we wanted to reopen the building and return to economic use. We wanted a use that would support the cruise ship terminal at pier 27. We sought to provide amenitis for both locals and visitors, and finally we wanted to use the space to highlight and showcase San Francisco manufacturing goods. The lease opportunity was limited to the bulkhead building only. The proposed lease area is approximately 23,000 square feet. The pier 29 shed, which is shaded in pink on this slide is about 100,000 square feet and its excluded from this lease opportunity. Future uses of the pier shed as supervisor peskin mentioned will be addressed in the public process now underway to update the ports Land Use Plan and any future leases or Development Opportunities for the facility will be subject to separate competitive bid processes. We issued the rfp in december of 2015. However, prior to that with Port Commission direction, we confered with the northeast Waterfront Advisory Group or newag and rfp was widely advertised and three separate site tours ensure consideration of Community Value and perspective. A Community Member from the newag served on our fourmember Evaluation Panel and do not normally include members on the solicitation panel, but thought it was important for this project this. Was a full, complete solicitation process and received three proposals in advance of the rfp deadline. Jamestown llp received the highest overall score and outscored their opponents in each of the rfp proposal sections, both written and oral phases. [skwraeuls ]towns previous project experience include Chelsea Market in manhattans meatpacking district a food reality and in atlantic which is say mixeduse Rehabilitation Project that includes a food and Retail Market as well. Their team is familiar with our waterfront, having worked on projects at Ghirardelli Square and exploratorium and the rendering on the slide was part of the proposal and these are conceptual designs that are subject to architectal and historical Design Review and to understand what the current vacant space might look like in future. Jamestown proposes a retail and Craft Beveragebrasion onsite production component. The proposed retail space will feature displays selling goods, made and manufactured in San Francisco, through partnership with sf made, that were very excited about. They also proposed a Craft Beverage operation for the site that may include urban winery, brewery and coffee rotisserie. At this pointly turn i will turn it over it to my colleague, diana oshima. Good morning, supervisors, diana oshima with the ports planning and development division. In terms of this proposed lease, it is as supervisor peskin mentioned, its limited just to the bulkhead building and its considered a small lease by ports standards. Budget that jamestown has for the entitlements and the improvements is relatively limited. Jamestown has been a very collaborative partner. They have met willingly with the neighborhood and in so doing as generated a lot of good support and understanding about the project. When the Port Commission met we have an overwhelming showing of support, but we also have some concerns and opposition that have been expressed on the waterfront opposition. Because of the concerns that have been expressed, jamestown itself is really looking for a bit more certainty before expending more funds to go through the entitlement process, and improvements to the facility. For that reason were here not because its a requirement to appear before the committee today, but were looking for an earlyread to give some clarity and demonstration of support that people understand and support the concept. So that would help us to work with jamestown to encourage them to pursue this project. Its a great opportunity from the ports perspective, because we do seek to have more of a public orientation along the embarcadero rather than replacing the bulkhead building with parking and other prior uses. In terms of policy consideration, supervisor peskin gave a good history on the waterfront plan process. The waterfront plan identifis a menu of acceptable longterm uses for the pier 29 facility, including the bulkhead building, and retail and restaurants are listed as an allowable, acceptable use under the waterfront plan and are also public trust uses. Whether for shortterm or longterm those are the types of uses that bcdc or state lands commissions look to. As with many other projects we had along the waterfront, rehabilitation of our embarcadero historic piers and resources is say high priority and we think that is the jamestown proposal has the ability to showcase that well thank you. Got to get that story down to two minutes. [laughter ]sounds interesting, but you have to shorten it down. [laughter ]. Next speaker. Michael phillips the president of jamestown, and i wanted to thank everyone for hearing this today. Were very excited about this project. Throughout jamestowns history we have focused on largely on inclusionary projects, locally made products in this retail space. If you look at our projects that were cited at Chelsea Market and pond city market, the majority of the retailers, food providers and makers are local. I think our track record and our reputation in San Francisco is very important, being that we most all of the people here from our company today including myself, are locally from the bay area, and San Francisco. So i think as we endeavor to follow this process with the port and the city, we want to deliver on the things that are important to you all, as well as to the community atlarge. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on item . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed [ gavel ] i want to ask ms. Diane oshima to come up. And maybe you can give a little bit of clarity on the permissible uses . Okay. It seems to be some discrepancy. I just placed sfgov overhead projector, please. Thank you. So i realized that you cannot read the details of this, but for every property in the waterfront plan document, there is a list of acceptable longterm uses that are listed for the properties. The port is broken up into different geographic subareas and pier 29 in the northeast waterfront subarea. The facilitis are located along named along here, but pier 29 is this line. And all of those as indicate acceptable uses in the categories that unfortunately you cant read, but Recreational Enterprises is an acceptable use listed there and the first block is maritime uses and this block is open space and Public Access uses and these are basically commercial and industry uses. So we allow for a menu of activities for consideration for future development of pier 29 Recreational Enterprises is definitely one of those along with restaurants and retail. Assembly and entertainment type of activities and narrative that describes mixeduse opportunity zones and pier 29 was included within a pier 27, 29 and 31 mixeduse opportunities zone and the narrative there definitely did acknowledge that active Recreation Development is a good opportunity. But its not the only opportunity that waterfront plan does not prescribe or dictate that, because we recognize that any development would have to go through a Community Process before you would arrive at what that rfp should be for that longterm development. The mills project and chelsea pier projects referenced earlier went through a prior indepth Community Process that led to that rfp. When those projects were unsuccessful, and the port then turned its eye to looking at pier 27 for a cruise terminal, we basically dedicated pier 29 to cruise terminal and the future of pier 29 shed or pier 31 are really topics that are going to be addressed in the waterfront plan update public process. So even if we were going to be looking to active recreation use development of this property, we would have to take a look at it in a different context, because we have the cruise terminal there. The other thing that i guess i would add is by going with the lease that is dedicated only to the bulkhead building, that does not preclude active recreation as a possible future use in the shed, because the triangular shape of pier 27 29 is unique and allows access to the length of the shed in ways that no other finger pier can enjoy. So if you were at the americas cup events at all and the americas cup village, i think that was a good illustration of how easy it was to be able to access that facility. Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. Supervisor tang, i think you had some remarks. Thank you. I am really thrilled to see this proposal before us, especially with the Strong Partnership with sf made and i think that it doesnt preclude the ability for us to in the future, again, to adapt the rest of the pier to recreational uses. So one of the things that our office is working on is trying to partner with sf made, and have a popup here in city hall. Again, recognizing that there really isnt a place for them to just collectively in one area display all of the goods, the wonderful goods that have been made and manufactured here in San Francisco from local individuals. So i am thrilled for this partnership, but well look forward to your future rfps for what to do with rest of the pier . So with the amendments that supervisor peskin proposed and in addition to supervisor yees additional amendment, i would be happy to move this forward. At this time i will make the motion then to adopt supervisor peskins amendments as he stated in the record and change that in the further resolve clause that was proposed that the lease would contain a minimum of a guess onehalf of all goods in the retail leasing space reserved for San Franciscobased makers in San Francisco. All right. Deputy City Attorney jon givner. Deputy City Attorney jon givner and to clarify as i said in this committee and other committees in past, the board by reso when you adopt a resolution like this, sometimes the board amends to add language about what departments shall do. Those shall clauses are not actually binding directives on the department. In this case, the amendments that the committee is making basically indicate to the department what you expect to see when this lease comes back to you for approval under 9 ~. 11 8. And what the department and jamestown have indicate what intend to do, but the use shall doesnt mean its binding on the department. Thank you for the clarification. Supervisor tang. It is a conceptual term sheet and i think for the purposes of this public hearing, our indication to jamestown to the port this is our intention and we hope that the department will certainly abide by this. So im still comfortable with moving forward this item with the amendments. Any lastminute comments . Supervisor yee . I agree with supervisor tang and the shall is a very strong shall, if it comes back to you. Well deal with it accordingly. A motion has been made and take the resolution as amended. We can do that without objection. [ gavel ] thank you. And then i guess a motion as amended send forth to the full board with positive recommendation. Without objection, [ gavel ] thank you. All right. Madam clerk, please call item 2. Item no. 2 hearing to consider the release of reserved funds to the department of elections in the amount of approximately 2 million to fund Capital Project expenses related to the relocation of the departments warehouse operations to pier 31. Thank you. Welcome. Good to see you, mr. Ernst, representative from department of elections will be presenting for us today. Thank you. Good morning. Chair cohen, john ernst, director of elections and the department is in search of a new warehouse leaving pier 38 and the port agreed and entered into an Mou Department to use pier 31. The original amount on reserve was 2. 5 million to