Test test test i pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of america. To the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [reading items] we do have speaker card. Aaron thorton and then kevin carol. Hello my name is aaron thorton. I am from stacy architects. Im speaking on behalf of of the project today which has been continued. Im here to speak anyway. Ive been to the groundbreaking of the ground project that came before the Court Commission about a year ago. Really excited to see that project started on a really look forward to the groundbreaking. They have been great partners as we have been developing the project area im excited to see that freeway site developed. I just wanted to add our support to the project. Thank you very much. Thank you. Kevin carol and then bill hannon good afternoon commissioners. I am the president and ceo of the Hotel Council of San Francisco. Im here to speak in support of the project and the Kenwood Hotel project to get we believe and have believe that this is an incredible project that will bring a new entertainment venue as well as a place for our visitors to stay when they come here to San Francisco. Its been very well planned out. Theres been a lot of Community Meetings on it. The project is something that will help activate an area that can use activation as well. Hotels obviously bring good job to an area. They bring activation and it is something our board of directors and our members support as well. Im just here to wholeheartedly support the project that is before you. Thank you. Bill hannon and then laurel fish. Good afternoon. Im bill hannon with the gateway tenants association. Our members that live in the gateway residual complex located two blocks south of the site. Im here to repeat our wholehearted and enthusiastic support for the project. It will be Good Business it will be good for the court cultural life of the city. We needed the beach like it babylon is folding up its tent. We enthusiastically support this and hope you will support the lease and the meetings to come. Good afternoon. My name is laurel fish with unite here local 2. The hotel and Restaurant Workers Union in San Francisco. We are here to audit support to those who support the proposed hotel, as a Union Representing hospitality employees it is our utmost concern that new jobs created in the industry will serve to lift up the community by providing leading wages and working additions for the hardworking people who work in our cities hotel. Hotel developers have historically supported the creation of job by agreeing to remain neutral. These agreements represent a double win for our community. They ensure that jobs created are good quality job and they also guarantee that Hotel Developments are free from costly labor disputes. Local two has had a longstanding collaborative relationship with the developer of this object who has worked proactively with our union to sign such an agreement. The developers have also agreed to build the hotel with union labor. As such they are setting an example for the developer of the future hotels in the city and for these reasons we are pleased to support the project. Good afternoon commissioners. Im representing the Barbary Coast association in full support of the project. We certainly want to complement the developers because they have been very accommodating as far as outreach to the community and listening to any concerns that we may have and resolving those. Secondly, i think the theater itself is a unique architectural item that will bring some variety to the area, and of course obviously is going to bring some entertainment to which we believe this wholesome entertainment will be a real benefit to the neighborhood. With full support, thank you. Any other Public Comment on items not listed on the agenda . Public comment is closed. Good afternoon members of the commission, members of the public and port staff. Im the executive director and i have one item to report today. That is just this afternoon, port staff and i come and commissioner gelman attended the groundbreaking 488 broadway as well as 735 davis street. The port staff is especially proud of 88 broadway because it is our land and that will be home to 125 units of Affordable Housing for families earning 30 percent to 120 percent ami. They will be projectbased section 8 housing vouchers in the project. Senior housing and units for formerly Homeless Individuals we had i know the commission and i are very proud, mayor breed was out the groundbreaking along with supervisor aaron peskin and the developer jon stewart and company. We are just very proud that we can be part of solving the Affordable Housing crisis in the city. It was really the community who came to us many years ago now to say that they felt that our under lot underutilized seawall lots would be a Good Opportunity for housing. And then we began to t which in the tradition of delancey street allowed us to provide our surplus poverty for housing. We are very proud of the groundbreaking today and congratulations to everyone who was involved in that project. That concludes my report. Any Public Comment on the executive directors report. I would just like to add june 18 through twentieth, the American Association of Port Authority have their seminar for port governing boards. I attended. I was happy that San Francisco could host the repair. There were probably 85 commissioners on their significant others. Most of them came to San Francisco days before the event and stayed days after. They help the economy here in San Francisco. They hosted a reception for everyone, which was really nice and then director forbes did a panel on infrastructure on steroids and Lessons Learned along with the present ceo of the port of san diego. They did a phenomenal job. Everyone was happy and wants to come back to San Francisco. Thank you, elaine. Item 10 a, request approval of fiscal year 2019 through 2020 monthly rental rate schedule, monthly parking stall rates and special events. Do i have a motion . Second. Any Public Comment on this item . All lives matter one favor . Resolution 1924 has been appropriate request approval of lease number lone six five four seven 515 year term with two five year options to extend with golden gate scenic Steamship Corporation located at pier 43 and a half in fresheners wharf area good afternoon commissioners. Mike martin, real estate and development. Joined today by j edwards, our Senior Property manager who has led this negotiation. As well as our deputy City Attorney who has given us a ton of assistance on the way. This is a followup to your may 28 meeting where we heard information item on this lease renewal. We went into depth at that meeting regarding the appraisal by art blom and associate and how we incorporated those financial metrics into the lease. At that meeting you directed us to go negotiate a final lease which we have done. We are back here today to seek your approval. Rather than going through all of those financial metrics again i think i will give you some background on the lease again for the publics benefit. Give you a bit of the background for our recommendation. Im obviously happy to respond to any questions as we did obviously put the Financial Information in the staff report and obviously if you have questions i can respond to those yet moving forward as we talked about in may. Families have continuously with maritime businesses in the location since 1974. 400,000 passengers a year getting out to go and enjoy the bay. They keep port of the Maritime Mission to bring visitors to this unique waterfront. Red white fleet operates a fleet of five vessels some of the most recent is pictured here. A hybrid electric drive vehicle that greatly reduces emissions and obviously is a great step forward in terms of the ports excursion fleet in terms of its sustainability. The project includes a significant Capital Investment in the facility on the shore site. The project, approving the lease would authorize subject to regulatory permitting the tenant to perform improvements to the shoreside to replace the current ticket booth facility with a new birth booth as well as improving the staff facilities as well as the customer cueing in relation to the nearby Public Access. This would rationalize the site greatly along the highly trafficked corner of the waterfront in this area. The estimated cost of the shoreside improvements is 1,600,000 and they would proceed immediately after approval of the lease renewal. Phase 2 of the project would follow on the water side. As we have discussed with you the may 20 eighth item as well as the prior information item. Pg e is performing some Environmental Remediation in the water in this area and on the land. That is proceeding in the near term. What we have structured the lease to allow is when that remediation is done, the tenant can move in and perform the water site improvements. These improvements are critical to our expectations of improvement in these operations. They will expand the number of births from three up to four. Which would greatly improve the efficiency of passion or loading on the overall operation. Eventually resulting in further revenues to the port. In addition, the estimated cost of these improvements is 3,000,000 dollars. The next two slides give a pretty good depiction of what they are doing. Basically here is the existing facility, somewhat cramped next to pier 45 to the left of the overhead here. This is a depiction of what the proposal would have, sort of tilting both of the floats outward so that it can be used productively and effectively. We would also ask and the lease area on the water side to allow for exclusive use of this area for the passenger boarding. Wanted to take a moment to discuss the maritime excursion lease renewal policy which was described in the staff report. I think it formed the basis of port staffs negotiations of this opposed transaction. August 2010 the Port Commission adopted the policy to establish internal guidelines for excursion leases the policy sought to ensure that maritime excursion leases are fairly valued, generating revenues to the poor serving residents and visitors to get there are seven pacific additions that we laid out in the staff report we actually attach the policy as well. The proposed lease renewal satisfies all of those criteria. The policy also calls out to what needs to be in the lease in terms of lease obligations. Using the appraisal a restaurant earlier we ensure that the business terms matched up with the fair market value of what can be expected at this point because for a lease such as this one. We look at operations on only here in severances but elsewhere in california as well as in new york city, and other concessions as well. Not just maritime excursion to find the best comparables. There was one i want to highlight that the policy doesnt require the commission to say yes once youve checked all of these boxes. Theres a specific part of the policy that says if there is a proposed project or landuse consideration that would affect the operation of an excursion operation in this location the Commission Reserve the right to say we do not want to renew the lease in this location. Based on what i described earlier about managing these improvements around the remediation. We dont feel like any of these circumstances are present here. We dont see any landuse consideration that would get in the way of a continuation of an excursion operation at this location area with all of that in mind, i think we recommend approval because it complies with the policy. It doesnt bind the Port Commission to approve the item. It is to ensure that there is protection of the maritime excursion business for clarity about how the port would evaluate a lease renewal like this one. We feel like we have achieved that. We also see, you know, we are hoping for opportunities to grow our excursion businesses. We talked about relation to what people want to see. We think if there are new investors that want to come in and access this market, that might be a great way to not only further their businesses but save these historic. We think this renewal support the ports maritime position. We recommend your approval. Without im happy to answer any questions. Thank you. May i have a motion . Do we have Public Comment . Good afternoon commissioners, i am cochair of maritime Commerce Advisory Committee. We spoke in support of this resolution at the informational hearing. This warrants another appearance to, again, reiterate our endorsement for the resolution and the lease renewal. We are thrilled to see successful culmination of what has been a really long process. I want to thank the staff, and the commission for your wisdom, your thoughtfulness, your conscientiousness, your dell diligence in getting to this proposal where it is today. You know, red and white fleet has been an absolutely terrific member. They have helped to contribute to all of our recommendations on environmental improvements, Public Access improvements and Maritime Operations related to historical peers and the work that we did on the waterfront landuse planning process. I think you are really proud, and we are proud to have red and white fleet as a tenant. We are so excited about what is forthcoming with the shoreside waterfront, when the remediation process is completed. Again, thank you for your support of this resolution and a longterm lease. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Good afternoon commissioners, i am a historian and creator of the california africanamerican freedom trail. One of the things about supporting such a business in the community is its awareness of the unique cultural experience of San Francisco. We are in the process of completing an audio tour of africanamerican maritime experience that will be part of the red and white experience and pacific black culture maritime tours. For those reasons and many others that have been cited, we support the approval of this lease. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Seeing on. Public comment is close. Commissioner makras . I will be voting against the motion. I do believe they do have the policy of maritime and the boundaries of that. I also believe that an operation that has not been put out since 1974, should go out to bid. Particularly when we know there is operators out there that would like to bid and compete for this business. If we renew leases after 40 years and add another 40, we are really saying no one else can bid on it, and its going to be the same group of people having all of these fantastic leases for longterm forever. I believe it is in the publics best interest to lease it out that will have competition and there are more than two operators that we know that will bid on these. I think the port should benefit the competitive nature to maximize the return on the ms once. Therefore, i will not be supporting the item. I am supporting the item. I think we have had a tenant in longstanding, red and white fleet. They are actually leading in some of the maritime efforts that we have going forward. I dont have any further questions for the lease area i believe, you know, we are about to resiliency and ability. That is part of our strategic values are yet i believe this lease qualifies im not aware of the other operators that mr. Makras has referred to . I believe we do have other operators so we have not given it exclusively to one operator. They do have the opportunity to participate with us. I am not sure that i see that as a reason to object to this lease. I think it has been done fairly equitably with transparency and i think staff is done a great job and trying to make sure that this lease is being recommended on the best terms possible. I will associate myself with commissioner woo hos remarks. I will be voting in favor of this lease on the ocean. I want to point out this fleet is one of the first to do a hybrid theory. Someone who rides varies often i think it is important that we recognize when operators are doing the best to help the environment which is also part of our strategic plans and values around environmental measures and being as green as we can as an economy here on the port area i am very supportive of moving this forward. A lot of times think that Port Commission is a rubberstamp. I can deftly tell you this commission is not, as you can definitely see, everybody has their own mind its thought process. I will also be voting in favor of it, and, red and white have represented good union jobs, good for the community. But tom rusher has been a man that comes to this Port Commission when there are things on the agenda that has nothing to do with red and white. When we had to deal with the Navigation Center down here, tom was here for the whole time. He is engaged, he is a part and a fixture, not only to this part ports but this community. As i said, i will be voting for it. It the right thing to do i hope that my other commissioners will vote and youll hear from them. But i am supportive. Thank you so much for this report. Thank you for all of your work on this area i think we should be honored to have a tenant like tom here, and want to continue to do business yet he has grown red and white fleet from a small Ferry Service to a blooming business. The fact that they are a tenant in good standing, that they are bringing their market rate up to market, and its increasing the revenues to the port. I also forgot to mention that tom donated his hybrid ferry for our commissioners from out of town to do a tour of the port. They loved it. They raved about it. He is always there for the community, it not just about his bottom line, but its about the poor. I, too, support this lease. All lives matter one favor . Any opposed the motion has passed resolution 1925 has passed yet [reading items] good afternoon commissioners area michael martin, Real Estate Development again. This is the second of three items i get to present today. I hope you dont get bored with me. This item is a continuation of a set of dialogues have had with you stemming from the water flint Land Use Plan and the proposed rp for the historic peers. [inaudible] weve actually brought on board peter albert, City Employee, a longtime City Employee having worked on the waterfront transportation assessment as well as project at pier 30 and 32. We are happy to have him working for the port and helping out on this as we try to move this forward. Today, as i mentioned, this is a continuation of conversations we have had before. What i would like to do today is summarize the rotation and the meetings on the direction we got from you broadly looking i think a desire to see a project move forward to reuse these underutilized lights along the embarcadero. I will review sort of how we got here today, and then choose the civic questions that came out of the last discussion. The engineering considerations at pier 30 and 32. Also this affects about how we would try to maintain and improve, and enhance the value of the maritime birth, which is important at the far east end of the pier, its a self scouring deepwater birth that has been used many times during the course of the year. I will also mention another initiative that we thought would be useful to engage with the community about in terms of potential popups at the location and then talk about next steps. To begin to review our Previous Commission presentation. Last august, diane walked you through the waterfront Land Use Plan and one of the civic topics that came up both of in the working Group Dialogue that brought us to that day so, we describe how there was a real consensus that the working group level about reusing the historic peers bringing public oriented uses and find ways to restore those sites. Pier 30 and 32, is not part of the historic district. We were not sure, we had a different vision for that. I think, from the commission, you wanted to hear from us what we could do to move forward there. We brought back an item on february 26 that reviewed the recent history of Development Proposals at pier 30, 32 and seawall lot 330. This was back in 2005. Americas cup in 2012 at the golden gate Warriors Arena project which was proposed for this area about three years ago. None of those projects were successful. They made it to varying degrees to the entitlement process yet the challenge of the site was such that they did not move ahead into can action. Based on that history, we reviewed the potential options for moving forward. The feedback from the commission was an interest in pursuing an rfp for developing out the two sites. Staff recommended it, and the commission at that time agreed with the notion of proceeding with an rfp but having Financial Proposal proposals at each site so you can understand the cost and benefits but you could also seek one project that had the synergies of the two sites being in close proximity. At that time commissioners asked for the two items i just described in the substructure conditioning cost and the maritime birth. On may 28, we presented an item regarding the historic care. I note that here, not because this was a topic then. But because we talked about the schedule and also the intertwined Community Engagement that is needed for this initiative are the historic initiatives to succeed. Part of that was seeing how we could go out to the community and the affected Advisory Groups on the historic peers which we are hoping to do this month and then subject to your direction we would like to follow that up with the pier 3032 discussion in august or september. And then come back to you for further detail. I just wanted to highlight that that is a key relationship that we want to keep our eyes on as we talk further about this opportunity. Moving to the substructure condition. These are some photos of the pier deck and substructure of pier 30 and 32. Years of the saltwater and elements, the environment with a concrete structure, you know, different pieces of it have deteriorated to different degrees youd our Engineering Group tries to say abreast of the loading condition. Obviously i think this presents one of the largest challenges to a project at this location. As you saw in the staff report, we asked our Engineering Division, to sort of look at the information we have on file from those prior projects area and look at what those costs would be to retrofit the entire deck. Escalated based on the unit cost at that time, based on what we are seeing in the market now and then taking, i think an updated look at what Development Costs would be and what project contingencies would look like. These are large planning level estimates as you can imagine as you get more dialed in on the design details and value engineering, you can bring these cost down. This is an order of magnitude based on what we saw primarily in the 2012 range with americas cup because we do have more data on that. Large amounts of total project cost ranging between 185 and 290 for the substructure. That would include both repairing the capacity to hold things up of the substructure but also a size neck retrofit to allow for Public Assembly uses that would not be allowed there at this point. We also ask engineering to look at the cost of retrofitting the seawall, as you know our own Seawall Program is engaged in a Detailed Analysis of geotech and multihazard risk such that as part of the port zone project. That analysis is ongoing. Our Engineering Division took representative cost per linear foot of other similar wall projects to come up with the estimate that is here. Which is about one 20,000 dollars per linear foot for 655 feet. Around 78 point million dollars. I want to highlight on the seawall cost i think similarly, if there was a project here i dont know that we would expect the project to bear all of this cost. I think we would look for a way to have the project contribute to a solution either through design, or other revenues, we wouldnt necessarily put this on the project ledger, the way we with the actual substructure what they are building. Again another set of dollars that significantly increase the cost of putting in a durable project that will be resilient and have the longterm benefits that we hope. We also did an updated look at demolition cost estimate area the preference for the commission to reuse the site. This is here for mostly contacts. As you can see, there is not a donothing scenario. Eventually as these pier are no longer safe we will need to remove them. There is a significant cost to doing that, as well. We took a look at Sea Level Rise, protection is designed for civic specific. I dont think there is a dollar amount to address this. We have more qualitative thought. This pier would regularly flood with 77 inches of Sea Level Rise which is in the range of potential outcomes by the end of the century. The Golden State Warriors and acknowledgment of this risk their plan was to raise the peer by three. Its been wrapped by fema as having possible but undetermined flood hazard and Flood Insurance rates are higher in the sun. As you know the port is commissioning a flood study to address flood protection along the ports waterfront. That may have Additional Guidance for any potential rfp on how to protect whatever is built here. I think we are looking out the current environment and thinking are there ways to start out at a higher level and adapt over time to keep the project watertight and safe for the people using it. I think that will add a cost. But i think thats also a design challenge that i think get pulled into the other structural cost. Turning to the maritime birth. We presented our informational presentation at the Maritime Commerce Committee and got some good feedback from the ongoing value of that birth and what it needed for. We also work with the Ports Maritime Division and appreciated their birth on the specifics for what we would ask to make sure that this earth still retains its value to the port maritime division. The specifics that we got from those dialogues were wanting to incorporate strategies so the birth is protected and still usable at the end of the century. We want to coordinate maritime access, so access to the east birth with what is likely going to be Public Access around whatever is built on the peer if there is a successful project. There has to be a way to safely clear the area for access to bring out supplies and other things that are needed for the birth, but to use that for productively for other things when there is not a vessel at birth. That is something that we presented a design challenge to the proposers. We like the project to improve piles and thundering. Bring utility infrastructure out to the birth, i dont think were talking about shore power. Simply what is needed for those operations. And then making sure that the entire pier deck is rated for the right level of loading so we can get large vehicles and large things out there. Right now that is a challenge based on the condition of the peer deck. The other thing i think came forward for us on the stems against our discussions as we see an opportunity for potential popup or interim leasing for public entertainment as the other potential site for public special events are taken up over time as the city builds out. Places like pier 30 and 32 could give us more opportunities than just parking cars. This picture was from a sound volleyball professional tournament two years ago. We definitely host events at this location and are very good at doing that. Instead of just forwarding people to come to us we think there might be an opportunity to invite this opportunity. Since were going out to the community to talk about the longterm project we thought it might make sense to talk to the community about what kind of criteria would work for interim leasing popup to have people to be able to enjoy the waterfront at this location. Schedule and next steps based on the recommendations you adopt, our next step, if you would direct us to do so would be to go out to the affected Advisor Group to talk about appropriate selection criteria for an rfp. The same next step we are taking on the historic pier. We would obviously be trying to make sure the community knew the separation of these two projects but how they will move Forward Together hopefully in the same timeframe. We want to make sure those Community Dialogue managed effectively and people have that opportunity to give their input. We try to do that Group Meeting in the next couple of months, depending on schedules. We try to invite and also touch base and invite other members of port Advisory Groups and also touch base back with the maritime Commerce Advisory Committee all with the goal of coming back to you for hearing on seeking your direction to develop and issue an rfp this fall. Our goal would be to do that by the end of this year. I think it depends on timing of getting back to you and timing of the other rfp going out so we dont have too many documents hitting the market at the same time. With that, i think that is the presentation and im happy to answer question can i have a motion of information . Im sorry. We do have Public Comment. Alice rogers . Good afternoon commissioners, i am alice rogers i am affiliated with the [inaudible], but i am here as a neighbor and i think my comments are actually premature, since we havent been visited yet on this proposal and we appreciate that we will be seeing the port in september. I do want to say, in advance, that i am strongly hoping that as you look at this and structure this, i think the community generally is very supportive of finding much more productive uses for both of these properties. In the past we had hoped that they would be developed together. I think, at this point, the pier are so problematic, that i am very anxious that the pier and not down any development that might happen for seawall lot 330. I very much and in support of the neighborhood that support your Navigation Center support. I am thrilled that you prioritize needy people over cars. But, i do think that there is a very strong will in the community to see seawall lot 30 put into a much better, more productive use in the longterm. Weatherby in two years or four years. That it not be way down by 3032. Thank you. Any other Public Comment regarding this item . Public comment is closed. Commissioner woo ho . Thank you. Very timely to have this presentation. I think something you had followed up, i just wanted to say that the time schedule, i think is a very good one to have in the middle, obviously by the end of this year and follow through with our commitment to the community that we would be addressing seawall lot 332 and 330. I think we are open to not necessarily having these tied together. My only question really, since we want to see what happened in the rfp process is it occurs to me, and it was mentioned in the staff reports, it was seemed not to go into detail, given the cost of retrofit, including the Sea Level Rise, seismic upgrade and everything else, its obviously high number. The demolition cost. What if we did consider, and allow that in the rfp to actually demolish the pier and replace them and maybe not with the same square footage. Maybe we can be open to see what that would be, so that would reduce the burden of the cost of retrofit . I know it was discussed in the staff report to. It seemed like it was set aside very quickly. I think i would like to see something a little bit more, i guess, scientific in terms of replacing the pier totally rather than trying to retrofit it. It might be in a different configuration. We figure out an answer to the maritime question as well so the this would be, lets really think out of the box a little bit more to save that space. Maybe theres another solution. It is definitely a worthwhile consideration. My question back to you would be, are you looking for us to draft an rfp that would invite a response like that . Or are you looking for a feasible approach . Both. Maybe let whoever response to the rfp because i think its going to be fairly flexible in the way i understand it. That would allow someone to respond that way as well. In addition if they want to combine the two, thats an option we have always considered in the past. Separate them, which we also would accept. Just leaving it open to see. In the meantime i think we should have some idea ourselves in terms of whether this is feasible or not. That makes a lot of sense. We will try to draw the picture a little better. It will be sort of hypothetical. We are not the proposers get at least we can show what those costs may be. Just a quick map on terms of the retrofits on the demolition. Could someone replace this pier, a brandnew pier, including the demolition cost as you presented between 217, and 311,000,000. It seems like a fair amount of money that is available and it could come in lower. We will come back with more thoughts on that. Commissioner transeven . Thank you for this overview. Im really excited to have us this forward. Again, i just want to reiterate, i think if we can be as flexible as possible as creativity on all of the possible uses and i think that would be really important. While ideally it would be great to have a project on both pier 30, 32 and seawall three and a 30. I think its going to be really important for us to get the best project moving forward. I would like to support the staff in the interim pop up use. Particularly on the pier. It is heartbreaking to drive i am walk by and to see it. Parking is right, generates revenue. I think theres so many more possibilities. We should be much more proactive in positioning those pier for pop up use. Particularly for the community. Thank you for the report you and im looking forward to us in this forward. I support to my colleagues comments. I get the general question. If we separate them, whats the practicality of the pier of getting a bid that would pay celebrant with the rebuilding with the figures we are looking at . So, each of the projects we talked about that have failed, all of them basically use the land value at 332 subsidize 30 and 32. To not have the sub the, you have to have a use that either generated an amazing amount of money to be able to pay back that invest. If its the far end of the outbound that any use of that location will be able to do that. That number represents more of the horizontal cost. That is just out of scale. Thats a lot of money. That is my prayer impression. I just wanted out there. Im not sure there is an economic reality to splitting them up. Could i go to your chart where it says the Sea Level Rise . To maybe answer a question. They prepared for basically 36 inches rise, but yet you are saying maybe a 77 inch. Is there just different chart people are looking at . Are they taking a risk . Are they saying [inaudible] it just doesnt jive with me mathematically. I think there are several answers to your question. First of all the range of potential outcomes for Sea Level Rise over the course of the last five years has increased greatly. The raising of the pier deck was not the limits of the resilient of that proposal. I wasnt directly involved. You could also effectively firm up the side to create i dont know that there werent adaptation measures to take them past. Its not currently at sea level. So, i think it wouldve gotten more than three feet if that makes sense. I think that is something that any design, for any project that is going out for the length of time that this one would have to do pits outback. I think its going to have to go handinhand with the flood study on the seawall, because obviously there has to be a protective line, over time, as the sea levels rise. The only thing, i think i would like to see some direction. I like the idea of an open map so i can do what i want. If they take down the pier, and they are going to rebuild it and they can rebuild it at a different shape do we want to ship to be able to come up to it . I think we need to make that policy decision and not leave it up to the private sector to tell us that youre just not going to have it in our proposal. Id like to carve that in and i think that should be a policy decision. I think we need to bring that back from our selection criteria. We will definitely come back without recommendation. In the pig your you have the maritime birth at the end of the pier. If you have a set of horizontal vertical is the water deep enough or is not a whole another set of issues . As you come towards the shore on the way the pier is now it gets progressively shower. Shallower. Im just saying if you were to try to, if you want to change the shape. If we were open to that it might be that you would be able to do it horizontally. I dont know. There would be grudging cost. I did want to point out there will be permitting challenges to demolishing and rebuilding the facility. One is the army corps of engineers and their standard is that if youre building new, overwater, need to be for an essential maritime facility. We would need to work through with the potential issue. The other would be, dc dc, they would require removal for any new construction. Those are two challenging issues. This is a very complex issue. Its long overdue, and i want to thank commission woo ho. Shes like a pitbull. She doesnt let go of this great im glad she keeps bringing it to the forefront we have to discuss this. When i moved here 16 years ago, i was on a cruise ship committee, they would be talking about using that to build a cruise ship down there at peer 30, 32. One part, i thought the museum i go there. I think its going to take a visionary. This is like a bold tooth project grade i dont know how we get it all together, but this is so complex because the warriors were going to put 100,000,000 dollars into it. We need somebody with some deep pocket that is willing to take this issue on. Im glad alice got up and talked about, you know, getting feedback from the community. If the Community Comes out against, i learned that in San Francisco, you need the Community Behind it. If the Community Goes against you you may have a hard time moving forward. They kinda went out there after the warriors a little bit. Mike, in saying that, what do you think it would take . Definitely some private partnerships, right . What else do you think it would take in the political wheel to get it done, especially here in San Francisco . How do we get through all of these agent these . Agencies . Lets use the giants, they were the one that showed this community how to reach out to the community and get all the partners together, the politicians together. Im just throwing that out there. That is just what it looks like to me. I agree. It is definitely a years process my no doubt. What i would say is, the last two effort were solesource deals where they were brought to the location foz on the community and said we are doing this and then we had to convene with the folks that were here. Whats the path . Here, i think, i really like that we are getting, you know, the horse ahead of the car. Going out to the community and saying what are we asking for . We have a really good dialogue with bcdc and state land, its only going to get more intertwined as we work with our regulators area we are working directly with the army corps on the flood that he. We have the relationships, and i think if we come into those relationships in the right way i would be optimistic we would do better foz on the past but its going to take time. Its a very challenging thing that everyone has to think through and understand really well. Wears mayor breed on this issue, definitely we have to have the support of city hall and our supervisors to get anything done in the city. Besides public, we have to have that will to get this done. The mayor is very supportive of us putting out this development opportunity. She wants to see something done on these facilities if all possible. I think commissioner woo ho when you mentioned the developer making the site smaller, if you think every square foot of the 13 acres is negative land value, the smaller against the march start to pencil. That is a great recommendation to see if there is a taller footprint that will work for this outofthebox idea to develop the pier area the mayor is supportive of what were doing here. Thank you. Thank you, mike, for this report. Can we demolish part of the pier . [laughter] [inaudible] that is a great option, maybe. I agree with my fellow commissioners, they asked great questions, and this is a great conversation. I think we all want to see something down there. Its been way too long. I remember when we tried to put the cruise terminal there. I remember all of this. Yes, its been way too long, we would really like to see something happen out there. Looking forward to the community feedback. Regarding the interim leasing. When you come back at the end of the year, theyre going to come back with recommendations for both, possibly doing an rfp for interim leasing. How does the pop up interim leasing fit into all of this . I dont want to get these things completed. I guess i would like to do the Community Outreach at least. We do the development, so that is something you have been looking for for a long time. We would go out and talk about the material for what interim leasing would look like you that we will come back to you and seek transfer that. We would issue an invitation, im not sure there is competing, not sure how it will work. That is something we would like to think through and with the feedback of the Community Figure out what is the right way to target that. I dont think i would like to do it together, just because am just trying to find out what the timeline is for the interim leasing . I know there is interest and people are ready to go out there tomorrow. Im trying to figure out what the timeline is for the interim leasing. I think the timeline is we will go to the same Advisory Group and come back to you with criteria. Not of the same time, different times . Different time. We have two meeting i think in september, and october. My hope would be in quick succession i want to make sure we have two conversations. Thank you. I had a question about our process. Ive seen us do rfps have we ever done where we could get a nullified offender list for the pop up so maybe for a couple of weeks we can work off the vendor list and have all of the proposals at once. Im wondering if youve ever use that for interim leasing or popups. It might be a way to get a group of provi,